A Critical Teaching Incidence - Case Study Example

Critical incidents in teaching affiliation Critical incidents in teaching The teaching practice is an important inclusionin the society. Teaching is a practice that equips students with the required knowledge and skills to be significant members the society. The significance of educational institutions in the society cannot be undermined as they educational institutions are basic requirements of the society. However, the teaching practice is faced with numerous challenges. The practice depends on the indulgence of tutors to effectively educate scholars. Tutors are trained to handle the student population regardless of the high demands in the field (Tripp, 2012). Over the years, theories and case studies have been created to understand the challenges faced by tutors in the field. Some cases and incidences have been regarded as critical depending on the seriousness of the case. A critical teaching incidence is referred to incidences that significantly affect the teaching practice and influences a large population of the teaching practice (Oatey, 2002). This paper will analyze three different critical incidences. The paper will first include a case study that would explain each of the three critical incidences. The case study will include the reaction of both the tutors and the students. Additionally, the paper will analyze each case study with theories relating to the particular incidence. Critical incidence I: Trust between a teacher and a student based on student behaviour I have a student, student J, who constantly lies about what other children are doing. She spies on them all the time, almost most of the time I can tell she is bending the truth. I know brush of what she is saying and if other children complain about her lying, I usually just expect her to be telling a lie, I don’t usually take her word for anything without a witness. In this particular case, the tutor has a judgmental personality toward the student. In a normal scenario a tutor is not supposed to create an assumption on a student based on their past behaviour. In this case, the student has a weakness where they have to tell a lie about other students. This is a normal student weakness in an institution setting. In an argument by Gremler (2004) a student in an academic institution has at least a 5% probability of lying. This is a normal occurrence and characteristic in students that a teacher should focus on eliminating rather than creating judgment based on the behaviour. In this case, student J has a weakness of creating negative perceptions on other students. This can be perceived as a negative approach on competition. Earlier in the case, student J is highlighted to have been spying on other children. This negative behaviour can be connected to the psychological influences in their environment (Franklin, 2007). The behaviour of the child can also be attributed to the fact that the tutor pays little or no attention to them. For this reason, the student creates a desirable character after which they expect to be significant in regards to their perception by their tutor. The student perceives all other students as their competitors and they are willing to do anything to be recognized by the tutor. This is unhealthy competition and it becomes a critical issue since it influences the behaviour of the students, other students as well as the tutor. In analyzing the effects on the tutor, the tutor perception on the student has changed significantly. At first the tutor believed the allegations of the student regardless on their knowledge on their situation. With time the tutor realized that the student lied about their personality and created false personalities about other students. The negative perception embraced by the tutor was inappropriate for the teaching practice as it undermined the practice in the classroom setting. The tutor displayed inappropriate behaviour. However, Rost-Roth (2007) points out that the negative perceptions embraced by tutors are influenced by the negative behaviour displayed by students. The relationship between tutor behaviour and student behaviour is directly proportional to the approach of the student to behaviour. Negative mannerisms and behaviour negatively affect the perception towards them. Generally, a tutor has the same on all students prior to their interaction. From the first interaction between the tutor and student the perception is then created regarding on the way a student behaves. Additionally, a student’s performance may influence the way in which a tutor interacts with a students. In an argument by Tripp (2012) a bright student tends to be friendlier to tutors as compared to dull students. However, the author points that behaviour of a student dictates most of the perception they are held by their tutor. In relating this analysis to student J, the situation is similar. At first, the tutor had a positive perception about the student and they clearly listened to what the student had to say. However, later the tutor realized the motive and the truth behind the student’s claim. After this point, the tutor limited the level of trust on the student. The previous relationship between the student and the tutor was destroyed at the preference of the tutor. At this point, one may argue that the tutor disregarded the opinion of the student regardless of the truth of the information provided. This negative perception may also negatively affect the way in which the tutor provides education to the student. In an argument by Arthur (2001) the psychology perception of a tutor to a student dictates the way in which the tutor relates to them in the classroom. Human psychology in taking up responsibility is based on the assumption that is requires maximum corporation from the recipient of the responsibility. Additionally, the intelligence difference between the tutor and the student creates a negative characteristic in a teacher in case of any form of disrespect. Webster &Mertova (2007) support this argument by pointing out that the student should at all time respect the teacher in order to maintain a friendly relationship between the two parties. Student J in this case however, suffers from a psychology malfunction that creates the negative behaviour. Student J, spies on other students and later takes the report to their tutor. Additionally, the student twists the information they present to the teacher. They create information that best their want or agenda. From a psychological point of view, the student displays negative psychology behaviour. The interaction between a student and the tutor should be based on classroom and external activities. Additional practices other than the two may be described as a wrong approach to student tutor relationship (Franklin, 2007). The author further points out that student tutor relationship should be boundary based to ensure the level of respect between the two parties does not deteriorate. However, the boundaries should be limited to a certain extent to allow the tutor to establish a professional relationship with the students. In the case with student J, the boundaries were not clearly defined as the student goes to a point that they spy on other students in order to provide information to the student. With time the student failed to respect the authority position of the tutor to a point that they provided false information about other students to the tutor. In this case, the tutor also over-interacted with the student. The tutor also had the responsibility of creating a boundary that could have maintained professionalism. Intervention The critical incident approach to this case is based on the fact that the student-tutor relationship was breached. The situation became worse when the student realized that the tutor preferred them over other students. In this case, the situation is made worse since the psychology of the student was shaped in a way they realized the tutor regarded them as their favourite. Additionally, the tutor could not trust the student. In a classroom setting, the teacher should trust the student in order to increase their efficiency in the classroom. Lack of trust by the tutor on a student is critical incident since it hinders the communication efficiency in the classroom. Communication is the basis of all interactions both in and outside the classroom in terms of student-tutor relationship. In this case, the intervention towards correction should be directed to the tutor. As a profession, the tutor should be able to dictate the relationship they have with the student. In an argument by Tripp (1993) it is the responsibility of the tutor to ensure the relationship between them and their classroom is maintained to a certain level. This can be created through appointing student authorities to represent them in menial conversation with other students (Oatey& Davidson, 2013). Additionally, the tutor should be able to communicate to the students to make them understand the definition of their relationship. This would enable the students to view the teacher with respect and as an authoritative figure. Student J in this scenario is also in need of behavioural intervention. The student behaviour is in need of correction. The tutor involved with the student should be able to address this issue. The tutor should be able to make the student understand their mistake in a more friendly way thus addressing the issue more effectively. The correctional approach should be inclusive of parental or higher management intervention in case of persistence. This would enable all parties to be part of the change and they would play a crucial role in helping the student embrace new behaviour. From this case, the most critical situation is the fact that the tutor could not trust the student after few incidences of deceit on the side of the student. This is unprofessional and a tutor should be able to separate the between their personal affiliation to a student to their professional approach. Additionally, this would negatively affect classroom interaction between the tutor and the student. In an argument by Peterson (2007) a tutor should not judge the student in a manner that would affect their professional interaction. The author further points out that a tutor should be able to enable a student to change behaviour instead of creating negative or unprofessional perception towards them. Critical incidence II: Aggressive parents and their influence on tutor student relationship During a classroom activity, I realized student A did not posses the right classroom materials for an exercise. On this day, I had requested the students to include in their learning materials a stencil for the purpose of drawing. The instructions were provided one week prior to this class. However, on this day the student did not posses a stencil ruler as they argued that their guardian did not purchase the item for them. As a tutor, I viewed the case as ignorant as I decided to punish the student and send him out of that particular class. The day after, I got a message from the student’s father saying that they would break my arm and legs for punishing their child. The student felt relieved after this confrontation with their guardian as they felt they were protected from punishment. I reported the case to the school authority on the same day and not much was done on the misconduct of both the student and the guardian. The management argues that they had an idea on the negative behaviour by the guardian to student A and tutors are not advised to directly confront neither the student nor the guardian. The interaction between me and the student was distorted as the student felt authoritative in terms of not being legible to be punished even in case on inappropriate behaviour. I could not have a normal relationship with the student either inside or outside the classroom as I felt my authoritative figure was diminished. In this particular case, one may point out that the tutor was justified to create a negative perception against the student. This was based on the fact that the tutor could not punish the student even at a professional level. In analyzing the events leading to these particular events, it is an obvious assumption that the tutor was taking part in routine punishment when the student failed to provide the required materials. In an argument by Richards (2005) it is the duty of the tutor to punish the student in case they fail to take part in a classroom activity. The author further points out that Oatey& Davidson (2013) the student on the other hand should accept punishment and take the action positively. However, in this case the situation was different as the student felt that they were wrongly punished. In such a situation, the guardian should be blamed for not providing the student with the required learning materials. However, in the classroom setting the student is held responsible for the lack of learning materials. The student is also tasked with responsibility to indulge their parents in their learning experience. The student should be able to enable their guardians realize their learning requirements. This should be done as per the instructions provided by the tutor or school management. However, on some serious and sensitive cases the school management is tasked with the duty on directly communication with the guardian. In this case the tutor was right to instruct students to provide the learning materials. The case is made more critical by the indulgence of parents in the handling of the issue. In an argument by Brookfield (1995) parents at all times should be in support of the school or recommendations provided by the school. Additionally, the parent should be able to provide the student with the required learning materials and fund school projects. It is also the duty of the parent to be in support of the school in situations where the student requires to be disciplined. Parents and guardians are also required to be part of the discipline force in students. Schwester (2012) also points that in case a tutor oversteps their mandate, they should not directly confront the tutor at the knowledge of the students. The parent or guardian should first approach the school management and report the tutor before taking up direct action against the tutor. The same sentiments are shared by Moon (2004) who points that the students should not be exposed to the confrontation between their guardian and tutor. In extreme cases, a guardian is only allowed to directly confront a tutor only in appropriate situation. In this case, the confrontation by the parent to the tutor was unnecessary and inappropriate. Additionally, the guardian conveyed the message through the student. A guardian should not convey a complaint through a student and in an informal way. Additionally, Pollard (1999) the format of conveying such a message should start from the school management who would determine the nature and the sensitivity of the case. The school management should then determine action and whether they should consider the case as inappropriate. The school management should at all times protect a tutor from direct confrontation with parents. This is done to ensure the tutor maintains a good teaching spirit and have confidence with their management. Additionally, the case can be treated as threat and violence on the side of the guardian. The guardian told the tutor they would break their arm and leg is for punishing their child. The message contains threats which may be transferred to a police case. The message was inappropriate even if the tutor had committed a wrong. Violence and threat to teachers by parents should not be tolerated in an institution setting. The teacher should be protected from any form of assault either by a parent or by a student. This would limit the level at which a tutor’s authoritative figure is disregarded. In the case where a tutor is threatened or exposed o violence, a school’s management should be able to protect the tutor. Additionally, appropriate and action should be taken against the guardian and not justify their actions (Jaruszewicz, 2000). In this case, the school management did not take the case seriously as at some point they felt the need by the guardian to under take the inappropriate behaviour. Additionally, there were no significant measures that were taken neither against the guardian nor the student. Intervention The critical situation in this case can be defined as inappropriate guardian intervention on academic practices. Additionally, the violence nature of the case also creates a negative approach to academic issues. In an education setting, the approach to issues should be handled in a formal and professional manner. Additionally, in the case where a parent is involved the situation becomes worse since it may be difficult to correct a child while their parent is protecting them from punishment (Craft, Soler & Burgess, 2001). The authors further point out that a guardian should be part of team that educates and protects a child (Craft, Soler & Burgess, 2001). If a guardian protects their child from academic authorities, then it becomes difficult for academic institution to carry out their maximum mandate of educating and correcting a child. In analyzing the situation in the perspective of the tutor, it is an obvious assumption that interaction between them and the student would be negatively affected. This is attributed to the fact that the tutor would feel disrespected by the guardian. However, in a professional approach to the situation the tutor should be able to disregard the situation and relate to the student as any other student in the classroom. However, this is only possible is the behaviour of the parent is changed or controlled by the school’s management. While handling the issue the tutor and the school management should be able to confront the guardian and enlighten them on the advantages of formal dialogue and letting the institution carry its own mandate (Ghaye, 2010). Additionally, the intervention should be based on agreement that the parent should stop interfering with appropriate institution protocol or seek alternative institutions for their educational purposes. While analyzing the way in which the situation was handled by the management, the tutor was presented as the offender and that they should change their approach on the management of their students. In such a situation, the tutor’s credibility is undermined. This would greatly limit their professional abilities in the classroom. Specifically, the tutor’s interaction with Student A would be negatively impacted as the tutor may limit their level of indication. This would negatively affect the way in which the student is educated and enlightened on the curriculum. In an argument by Debra & Lesley (2011) direct confrontation between a tutor and a student or a guardian is not beneficial to any of the involved parties. The authors further point out that the tutor loses their professional touch, the student has limited exposure to educational resources and the parent creates a negative impression about educational institution in their child (Debra & Lesley, 2011). This is enough to create a critical situation in terms of accessing quality education and enabling professionalism in a classroom setting. Critical incidence III: Group work, problem in understanding among students During my placement in school based training, I was placed in a mixed race school. My first class in the institution was inclusive of all races in the classroom each in almost equal number. The student seemed to understand one another as class activities were taken seriously on an individual basis. As they worked as individuals they students performed exemplary as they were comfortable with the individual working system. However, the curriculum has exercises that had to complete in groups and these were mandatory exercises. I instructed the students to place themselves in groups and complete the exercises as required. During an analysis and marking of the exercises, the performance was perfect and each group performed above average in all the exercises. However, while analyzing the group members I realized that the groups were selected I terms of racial affiliation. Students from a particular race put themselves in one group. This was inappropriate is a classroom setting. As required from any other tutor, I put the students in different groups but each group consisted of all races in the classroom. In instructed the class to take part in the same group exercises. The performance was poor as all the groups performed below average. Additionally, each task in the exercise was completed by individual students in the group. This was a bad practice in a classroom setting. My attempts to create an understanding between the students were not fulfilled as the management cited knowledge on the issues. The class was exposed to some mild cases of physical confrontations. Additionally, the school management argued that they were only concerned about the performance of the students. If the students would only record good results while working individually then I should use individual exercises in their assessment. In this case, the critical incidence is based on the fact that students could not create an understanding between them. The classroom setting should be based on friendly interactions among students rather than hostility based on racial and ethnical affiliations (Veal & Anderson, 2011). It is the duty of the tutor to create a united classroom. However, the management if the school is also tasked with responsibility of supporting tutors in the effort to diminish cultural and racial perception in the classroom setting. Apart from the professional requirement by the tutor, it is an ethical responsibility to create a sense of togetherness in a classroom setting (Tripp, 2012). In the modern society, people should be judged depending on their racial and ethnical affiliations. Discrimination should be shunned from the institution level. For instance, educational institutions are required by the society to be a tool that brings people together regardless of their race. This responsibility is then tasked to tutor to enable students in the classroom interact with each other disregarding racial affiliations. This is easily done by indulging students in classroom activities while working in groups. If this fails, a tutor would have failed their social task. However, tutors operate under the mandate of the school management who should develop mechanisms of equipping tutors with the right tools of enhancing classroom practices (Franklin, 2007). The problem in this case is the lack of unity in the classroom. The disunity in the classroom is based on racial differences in the classroom. In a classroom setting this is inappropriate and unethical. Racial discrimination in an academic institution is a negative vice that all stakeholders should put maximum efforts to eradicate. In an argument by Ghaye (2010) an academic institution should act as a uniting factor in the society rather than a dividing tool. In analyzing the depth of the problem in the institution and in this particular classroom, the problem is significant since it affects the performance of the students. One may point out that the problem has been created by how the institution handles the situation. Tripp (2007) argues that an institution creates the behaviour affiliation that students embrace. Since the enrolment of students in the institution the management could have ensured that the issue on racial discrimination in the institution. This could have been influential in changing the perception in the students. When a tutor is tasked with the responsibility of changing this perception, it becomes a difficult task since the problem goes behind the classroom setting. The vice should be addressed at the institutional level. Additionally, the institution should address the issues raised by the tutor. When the tutor addressed the issue to the management, the school management did no take the issue seriously as they cited performance as their main aim. However, the problem of racial discrimination among student is a serious issue and it should be given first priority as issues to be addressed. Another problem resulting from the issue is the fact the tutor could not function at their maximum level. Ghaye (2010) points out that a tutor requires Maximum Corporation from both the institution management and students for maximum performance. In this case, the management ignored corporation with the tutor in regards addressing the issue once the tutor realized that they could not address the issue on their own. The school management should have handled the situation more maturely. In an argument by Jaruszewicz (2000) the management of a school is responsible for sensitive issue that surpasses the abilities of tutors. The responsibility of the tutors is limited to the classroom setting and they need support in influencing change to problems that affect the whole institution. Another problem resulting from the issue is the fact that a tutor finds it difficult to complete all the curriculum exercises. All the curriculum subjects require to be completed with group activities that are mandatory. In an argument by Franklin (2007) the curriculum provisions for group work in a class setting is as important as any other class work activity. Additionally, groups work in a classroom setting enables the student to be united and share knowledge. In highlighting the significance of group work in a class setting, Oatey& Davidson (2013) argue that apart from the requirements in the curriculum group work enables below average students get educational aid from their peers. This form of education is more productive that any other form of intervention applied by a tutor. However, this strategy is only applicable if the students in the classroom setting are united and have an understanding. In this particular classroom setting, the unity and understanding among the students limit the effectiveness of group work. This limitation may be hindrance to effective teaching and completing of the curriculum. This would be underachievement in both the tutor and the students. Intervention In creating an intervention for the above case, the institution management should be directly involved. Additionally, parents should also be involved in changing the perception of the students on each other. The issue is a sensitive issue that requires to be addressed by all stakeholders in the institution. Parents and the institution are the most significant stakeholders that need to collaborate to minimize the effects of the issue (Tripp, 2012). Additionally, the responsibility of the tutor would be to enhance understanding in the classroom. Additionally, the tutor has a duty to ensure group work is carried out regardless of the challenges that nay affect the exercise. Since the curriculum cannot be changed to fit challenges facing institutions, educational institution should put in place mechanisms that would ensure the continuity of the curriculum regardless of the shortcomings (Gremler, 2004). The curriculum requirements dictate that tutor should develop appropriate mechanisms that would enable them to carry out their mandate to complete the curriculum. Considering that time is a factor in finalizing the curriculum, a tutor should be able to generate backup exercises that would replace the ineffective group exercises. Additionally, a tutor should be able top generate grouping mechanism that would enable then to create functional groups regardless of the challenges involved. In this particular case, the only possible way the tutor could have completed group exercises is by enabling the students to be groups of their preference. Regardless of the nature of the groups would be appropriate in completing the curriculum as required (Oatey, 2002). References Arthur, N., 2001.Using critical incidents to investigate cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of intercultural Relations 25: 41-53. Brookfield, S., 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. London: Jossey- Bass. Craft, A., Soler, B. & Burgess, H., 2001. Teacher Development: Exploring Our Own Practice. New York: Open University Press. Debra, M. & Lesley, C., 2011.Developing Reflective Practice: A Guide For Beginning Teachers: A Guide for Beginning Teachers. New York: McGraw Hill International. Franklin, P., 2007.Differences and difficulties in intercultural management interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ghaye, T., 2010. Teaching and Learning through Reflective Practice: A Practical Guide for Positive Action. London: Taylor & Francis. Gremler, D., 2004.The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research 7(1): L65–89. Jaruszewicz, C., 2000. Examining Teachers Critical Incidents: "its Easy If You Can Look at It". Boston: Kent State University Press. Moon, J., 2004. A handbook of reflective and experiential learning. London: Routledge. Oatey, H. & Davidson, A., 2013.3RP Intercultural Learning Journal Template. A tool to help recording and reflection on intercultural encounters. Retrieved from :http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/interculturalskills/ Oatey, H., 2002.Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 529 – 545. Peterson, B., 2007.The Characterization of Reflection by Student Teachers Using the Critical Incident Technique. London: ProQuest. Pollard, A., 1999. Reflective teaching in Primary School. London: Cassell. Richards, J., 2005. Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning. Boston: Cambridge University Press. Rost-Roth, M., 2007. “Intercultural training”. In: H. Kotthoff and H. Spencer- Oatey (Eds.) Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schwester, R., 2012. Handbook of Critical Incident Analysis. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Tripp, D., 1993. Critical Incidents in Teaching. Developing Professional Judgement. London: Routledge. -------- 2012. Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgment. London: Routledge. Veal, M. & Anderson, W., 2011. Analysis of Teaching and Learning in Physical Education. Boston: James & Bartlett Learning. Webster, L. &Mertova, P., 2007.Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method.An Introduction to using Critical Event Narrative Analysis in Research on Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge. Read More