3. Underlying Propositions:
1.Teachers operate at different levels of
professional development since they have
varied personal backgrounds and
experiences.
2.Teachers operate at differing levels of
thought, ability and effectiveness thus they
need to be supervised in different ways.
3.The long – range goal of supervision should
be to increase every teacher’s ability to
grow toward higher stages of thought.
4. SUPERVISOR’S TASK:
Phase One: DIAGNOSTIC
Supervisor makes diagnoses
through:
1.Talking with and observing
teachers in action and asking
questions.
2.Observing classroom teaching
behaviors.
5. Phase Two: TACTICAL
Focuses on the immediate concern of helping
teachers solve current instructional problems.
Supervisory Approaches:
1. DIRECTIVE APPROACH
- Supervisor provides teachers with a great deal of
information and advice. This calls for high
supervisor responsibility.
- The supervisor does not attempt to force teachers
to use a specific action but instead suggests
alternatives for the teacher to consider and
choose.
6. 2. COLLABORATIVE APPROACH
- Supervisor works with teachers to share perceptions of a
problem, propose alternatives, and negotiate a mutually
designed plan of action.
- The supervisor and teachers share responsibility for the final
decision.
3. NONDIRECTIVE APPROACH
- The supervisor invites teachers to define instructional
problems themselves, generate actions, think through
consequences and create their own action plans. This calls
for low supervisor responsibility and high teacher
responsibility for the final decision.
- Supervisor encourages teachers make critical decisions and
follow through on those decisions, and by being an involved
facilitator, helping teachers clarify their perceptions and
plans.
7. Phase Three: STRATEGIC
Aimed at accelerating the development of teacher
abstraction, helping teachers to think harder and
smarter, and stimulating their problem – solving
abilities.
Strategies:
1.Gradually expose teachers to new ideas, ways of
viewing students and instruction, problem – solving
techniques and teaching methods.
2.Gradually lessen teachers dependence on the
supervisor during decision – making conferences.
3.Involve teachers exhibiting lower levels of
abstraction with teachers exhibiting slightly higher
levels in problem – solving sessions.
8. References:
Burgess, Jeff. Reflective Paper (2002).
EAD 6053 School Supervision.
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals
/ed_lead/el_198705_glickman.pdf
