Page 109 - Teaching Innovation for the 21st Century

Nomthandazo: I listened to how you suggest we manage a child coming for separation anxiety and it all makes sense. But what happens if the child goes into a total emotional fit, crying and kicking, refusing to calm down? Do we postpone the session? The child might likely have the same reaction next time. And when do we know he/she is manipulating the situation?
(For many students, the practice of play therapy is daunting. This student’s critical questions (as well as Sarah’s ethics-related question below) raises aspects of practice issues that would be further explored with case examples in the next remote learning class.)
Sarah: You mention that you do allow parents into the session if the separation anxiety causes severe distress. Have you ever had to deal with a situation where the parent is present in the room and the child starts sharing very sensitive information? How do you go about containing such a situation?
Students had the opportunity to dig deep into the content presented and formulate theory and practice issue questions that would support their clinical work in the field. Since all students also saw each other’s comments and questions in the threads, the sense of collective understanding and communities of enquiry were cultivated. Where I would sometimes experience some students as non-participative in live class sessions, with the online platform of the discussion board, all students engaged, no comment went unnoticed and no question unanswered. Students also had the opportunity to mentally prepare for the content focus on the next session as they had read each other’s questions and were able to take part more effectively in the key talking points of the next session. Often, students would rank the questions and indicate which ones they would prefer to spend more time on. Using the Microsoft (MS) Teams web conferencing tool, we were able to role-play online key therapeutic skills. Much later in my remote teaching I learnt about the break- out rooms options which also proved effective for working in small groups online.
It has been a journey filled with much fear and trepidation. Yet, many months later, as a faculty, we have found ways to navigate the challenges of remote teaching, be open to possibilities, open to correction and growth. We have a long way to go but have come even further than we could have imagined possible in remote blended, and online learning. Personally, I have learnt
to use Brookfield’s (1988) critical reflection steps more astutely. I challenged my beliefs about what good teaching looked like; I have also come to realise that my historical context of the comfort of face-to-face class engagement required reflective skepticism so that I could then explore alternative ways of being a professional in the field. Such reflections have helped me
to thoughtfully explore how the traditional classroom could be replicated using web-based conferencing tools. I was particularly intrigued to learn the significant value of alternative online teaching modes for use with students who have specific impairments such as hearing loss. I
have learnt to think more deeply about what I do and how that is tied to my self-image of what effective teaching was. I am glad to have had the opportunity to do teaching differently and still see effective learning take place.
Teaching Innovation for the 21st Century | Showcasing UJ Teaching and Learning 2021
107
References
Brookfield, S. 1998. ‘Critically reflective practice’. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 18(4): 197–205.
Schon, D. 1991. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think and Act. Oxford: Avebury.
Sellars, M. 2012. ‘Teachers and change: The role of reflective practice’. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55:
461–469.
Wieringa, N. 2011. ‘Teachers’ educational design as a process of reflection-in-action: The lessons we can learn from Donald Schon’s The Reflective Practitioner when studying the professional practice of teachers as educational designers’. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(1): 167–74.