This week’s readings have given me a clearer understanding of supervision because they exposed me to new things I did not know about supervision especially the supervision terminologies. The systematic sequence of the readings also made the reading comprehensible. I liked the distinction Sergiovanni and Starratt (2007) made of ‘role’ and ‘function’ because I usually use them synonymously. Their discussion helped me to notice their difference.
I noticed in their discussion that, they also support the idea that one person can play the dual role as a supervisor and an evaluator (Last week’s discussion) and function effectively. Their discussion of the three leadership pathways: instructional capacity, instructional quality, and student engagement was very insightful to me because I have learned that as a supervisor, the success of my supervisee which in turn impact on students achievement is largely dependent on how effective I function. Their discussion of the four theories of supervision with scenarios made the reading of the chapter two, ‘sources of authority for supervisory leadership’ very clear for me. As I reflected on the scenarios, I saw myself in the first three. I saw that I sometimes function as one of these or combination of them at different times of my supervision work both here (USA) and Ghana. I have been using some aspects of these theories but until this week, I did not know their names as well as that of the sources of authority.
What I gathered from their discussion of the four sources of authority (Bureaucratic, Personal, Professional and Moral) was that relying on just one of the sources will not yield positive result and as they rightly discussed, effective supervisor needs to combine the good sides of these in his/her practice. As they clearly displayed in table 2-1 (Sergiovanni & Starratt’s, 2007, p. 34-35), supervisors who rely on just one of these cannot function effectively as expected. As I was reflecting on this, the question that kept popping in my mind was: How best can I combine some of these to make my supervisory work effective?
Connecting Sergiovanni & Starratt’s (2007) discussion with Nolan and Hoover (2010) discussion on building trust with supervisees, I realized that to be an effective supervisor demands commitment and proper training. From this week’s readings, I have learned that successful supervisory relationship is built upon collaboration and this can be achieved when there is trust between the supervisor and the supervisee.
References
Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. A. (2010). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into
Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (3rd edition).
Sergiovanni, T. J. &Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition, (8th Ed), (xv-53).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
I noticed in their discussion that, they also support the idea that one person can play the dual role as a supervisor and an evaluator (Last week’s discussion) and function effectively. Their discussion of the three leadership pathways: instructional capacity, instructional quality, and student engagement was very insightful to me because I have learned that as a supervisor, the success of my supervisee which in turn impact on students achievement is largely dependent on how effective I function. Their discussion of the four theories of supervision with scenarios made the reading of the chapter two, ‘sources of authority for supervisory leadership’ very clear for me. As I reflected on the scenarios, I saw myself in the first three. I saw that I sometimes function as one of these or combination of them at different times of my supervision work both here (USA) and Ghana. I have been using some aspects of these theories but until this week, I did not know their names as well as that of the sources of authority.
What I gathered from their discussion of the four sources of authority (Bureaucratic, Personal, Professional and Moral) was that relying on just one of the sources will not yield positive result and as they rightly discussed, effective supervisor needs to combine the good sides of these in his/her practice. As they clearly displayed in table 2-1 (Sergiovanni & Starratt’s, 2007, p. 34-35), supervisors who rely on just one of these cannot function effectively as expected. As I was reflecting on this, the question that kept popping in my mind was: How best can I combine some of these to make my supervisory work effective?
Connecting Sergiovanni & Starratt’s (2007) discussion with Nolan and Hoover (2010) discussion on building trust with supervisees, I realized that to be an effective supervisor demands commitment and proper training. From this week’s readings, I have learned that successful supervisory relationship is built upon collaboration and this can be achieved when there is trust between the supervisor and the supervisee.
References
Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. A. (2010). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into
Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (3rd edition).
Sergiovanni, T. J. &Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition, (8th Ed), (xv-53).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.