A year and three months later, in a pre-assessment performance interview, Rob raised the question whether his view on education, based on Stevens’ relation-competency-autonomy model, matches that of the school.
It remains hard for me to establish a relationship with the pupils. (…) My workplace supervisor pointed me out that I should not make the same mistake again like the year before: maintain clear rules and punish when not following those. That’s where I went wrong. I am Rob and nobody else. I believe there are no annoying children, but only environments that creates them.
What has happened in between and what was my role as a teacher and that of the thematic developmental curriculum? If there is a relation between the programme and Rob’s development, how can we (re)create that opportunity for all students, if we can?
What I see in Rob’s case is a development from a intuitive, practical and insecure student teacher to a teacher with a view on education, that is at least partly based on theory. Rob seems almost ready to take a stand against his supervisor and he realizes that the mismatch between his view and the school’s might have consequences.
I’d like to think that the opportunity for Rob to ask me and his peers for feedback on his teaching problems might have influenced this development. Especially, since by the peer students the question was raised whether Rob really agreed with his supervisor (otherwise the intended intervention would not work). Moreover, in another block of the PD-line that year the theme “The pupil in the school” developed under students’ influence from classroom management to pedagogical views based on Kan (2013).