Theory vs. Practice - How I See the Field Experience

I've said it before, and I will keep saying it.  It starts and ends with the mentor teacher.

Unless excellent mentor teachers are selected for observation, student teachers will not have the opportunity to grow into master teachers.

The University of Alberta's Faculty of Education explains that "The field experience is designed to give student teachers their first opportunity to merge theory with practice in a school setting."

Here's how I see the Field Experience.

Experience 1.

I believe the "field experience" should happen at the university first where student teachers observe a visiting master teacher, currently employed with a school district,  teach the student teachers a lesson that would be delivered to a high school class.  The process of this experience would be as follows:

1.  Student teachers watch and participate as a master teacher delivers a senior high lesson in a university classroom.
2.  Student teachers engage in the process as a high school student would.
3.  Student teachers observe the teaching strategies and processes ( the "theory") as it unfolds in practice.
4.  The master teacher stops the lesson periodically to debrief what strategy and process was used and why.

Experience 2 and 3.

Student teachers, in pairs, are assigned to excellent mentor teachers that have been recommended by principals. Mentor teachers should engage in a rigorous interview process to determine if they meet the requirements. During this experience student teachers should have the opportunity to:
1.  Observe excellent mentor teachers
2.  Co-teach with the mentor teacher
3.  Co-teach with each other

So here's the ENORMOUS CONUNDRUM

Where do you find EXCELLENT MENTOR TEACHERS?

PowerPoint has killed the secondary teacher. Try to find a teacher at the high school level that engages students on a daily basis and thoughtfully uses the "theory" that is to be merged with "practice" in a school setting.  Hmmmm.......

Results in the way of Engagement!

Results are important. Absolutely.

The school district I work for has spent a lot of time and money ensuring that we assess students fairly, provide students with a clear target, and assess only those outcomes found in the provincial program of studies.  Makes total sense.

At my school particularly, many science teachers love looking at results, tweaking common exams, experimenting with new marks programs and test creation software.  Its become a bit of an epidemic of all new learning and professional development geared around testing.

Sigh. How about student engagement and learning?

I, personally, would love to see more professional learning around creative methods of teaching and learning. So, what's holding teachers back?

Is it the level of confidence teachers have around creating engaging activities for the students?

Is it the feeling that they won't "finish teaching the material" if they move outside of their comfort zone and allow the students some responsibility to learn?

My Chemistry 20 students were reviewing for the Gases Unit Exam and instead of working through endless problems, I asked students to create a presentation on one of many review topics.  It had to be less than two minutes, creative, engaging and fun to watch (there was specific criteria).  Here is one of the amazing presentations, this one was reviewing "properties of gases".  Certainly, students will remember the types of motion gases have and the Combined Gas Law after this two minute video - way better than if it was a PowerPoint presentation.