I have no regrets enrolling in this course: EDH 7326-Supervised Teaching II for Spring 2015. It is through this course that I understood the real meaning of supervision (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2014; Nolan & Hoover, 2011) especially Preservice teacher (PST) supervision and its importance to the provision of quality teacher preparation (Burns & Badiali [in press]; Burns, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey [in press]; Garman, 1982). From our weekly readings and class discussions, it was evidenced that quality PST supervision is one of the means for education to have or creates its signature pedagogy (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Shulman 2005a & 2005b) that will make the teaching profession distinct from other professions and this is what NCATE (2010) advocates (uniformity in teacher preparation).
I have also learned the difference between supervision [promoting teacher growth that leads to improvement in practice and enhancing student learning] and evaluation [making comprehensive judgments concerning teacher performance and competence to ensure students’ success which sometimes lead to retention of quality/best teachers] (McGreal & Nolan, 1997; Nolan & Hoover, 2011). Even though one person can perform both functions (Tschannen-Moran & Tschannen-Moran, 2011), the person who intends to perform this dual functions must understand the roles of each and the appropriate time to perform each in order not to conflict roles (Burns & Badiali in press).
Another take away from this course is learning about the supervision/coaching skills: technical, interpersonal and pedagogical skills (Burns & Badiali, 2013; Glanz & Sullivan, 2000; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2014; Nolan & Hoover, 2011). From this course I have learned that engaging in supervision especially PST supervision without these supervisory skills is like working without using the appropriate/required tools. It is the knowledge of these skills that equip supervisors to combat the complexities of PST supervision in that they expose the supervisor to the technical-know-how in supervision (assessing, planning, observing and evaluating), how to effectively relate with people concerned in supervision (interns, CTs etc.) as well as effective strategies to be used during observation and supervision conferences. This spans from effective assessment of the starting point of both the supervisor and supervisee and where they want to be, being well organized through planning especially your time, knowing the observational data collection tools and your ability to select appropriately and interpret data at hand, giving appropriate scaffolding to the interns (providing appropriate challenge and support) to fostering relationships built on trust.
Using inquiry or self-study as a means to understand ones work and improve practice (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009; Dinkelman, 2003) is something I will also remember about this course because we were made to have a practical aspect of it. The scaffolding we had from the instructor (starting from the choice of topic, through annotated bibliography and proposal writing to ‘peer/ critical friends- peer observation and consultancy protocol) was so insightful. These exercises enabled me get the real meaning of the ‘Individual Support Task’ (Burns, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey [in press]), one of the tasks recommended for effective PST supervision. The instructor lived her beliefs in this concept in that there were challenges in the reading of the course, the instructor gave each of us the needed support to help us forge ahead. Personally, some of her comments and teaching strategies changed my philosophy of teaching especially in supervision: to let my interns have a voice in supervision conferences because there is potentials in everyone. Also, it was through the conduct of inquiry/self-study (which forms part of the requirement for completion of this course) that I learned some aspects about myself (negative communication mannerisms) which I have never known throughout my 22 years of teaching experience. This revelation is my target for my next self-study.
I have really learned a lot from this and I am glad to say that, when I go back to my home country-Ghana, I will be useful to my department as well as my university (University of Cape Coast) and the education system in Ghana because I am going to be part of the positive educational reforms.
References
Burns, R. W., & Badiali, B. (2013). Identifying pedagogical skills of supervisors: Unearthing
the intricacies and complexities of learning to supervise. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the council of Professors of Instructional Supervision in State College, PA:
The Penn State University.
Burns, R. & Badiali, B. (in press). When Supervision is Conflated with Evaluation: Teacher
Candidates’ Perceptions of Their Novice Supervisor.
Dana, N. F. & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The Reflective Educator’s Guide to Classroom
Research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practioner inquiry (3rded.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance Schools, (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-Study In Teacher Education: A Means And Ends Tool For Promoting
Reflective Teaching.Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18.
Garman, N. B. (1982). The Clinical Approach to Supervision. In Supervision of Teaching (pp. 35-52). ASCD.
Glanz, J., & Sullivan, S. (2000). Supervision in practice: 3 steps to improving teaching and learning. (63-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership. A Developmental Approach (9th ed). Pearson Education, Inc.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: Report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Washington, DC: Author.
Nolan, J.F., & Hoover, L.A. (2011). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (3rd edition)
McGreal, T. L., & Nolan, J. F. (1997). Issue 5: Can a supervisor be a coach? In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies, pp. 91-112. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The Coach and the Evaluator. Coaching: The New Leadership Skill, pp. 10-16.
I have also learned the difference between supervision [promoting teacher growth that leads to improvement in practice and enhancing student learning] and evaluation [making comprehensive judgments concerning teacher performance and competence to ensure students’ success which sometimes lead to retention of quality/best teachers] (McGreal & Nolan, 1997; Nolan & Hoover, 2011). Even though one person can perform both functions (Tschannen-Moran & Tschannen-Moran, 2011), the person who intends to perform this dual functions must understand the roles of each and the appropriate time to perform each in order not to conflict roles (Burns & Badiali in press).
Another take away from this course is learning about the supervision/coaching skills: technical, interpersonal and pedagogical skills (Burns & Badiali, 2013; Glanz & Sullivan, 2000; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2014; Nolan & Hoover, 2011). From this course I have learned that engaging in supervision especially PST supervision without these supervisory skills is like working without using the appropriate/required tools. It is the knowledge of these skills that equip supervisors to combat the complexities of PST supervision in that they expose the supervisor to the technical-know-how in supervision (assessing, planning, observing and evaluating), how to effectively relate with people concerned in supervision (interns, CTs etc.) as well as effective strategies to be used during observation and supervision conferences. This spans from effective assessment of the starting point of both the supervisor and supervisee and where they want to be, being well organized through planning especially your time, knowing the observational data collection tools and your ability to select appropriately and interpret data at hand, giving appropriate scaffolding to the interns (providing appropriate challenge and support) to fostering relationships built on trust.
Using inquiry or self-study as a means to understand ones work and improve practice (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009; Dinkelman, 2003) is something I will also remember about this course because we were made to have a practical aspect of it. The scaffolding we had from the instructor (starting from the choice of topic, through annotated bibliography and proposal writing to ‘peer/ critical friends- peer observation and consultancy protocol) was so insightful. These exercises enabled me get the real meaning of the ‘Individual Support Task’ (Burns, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey [in press]), one of the tasks recommended for effective PST supervision. The instructor lived her beliefs in this concept in that there were challenges in the reading of the course, the instructor gave each of us the needed support to help us forge ahead. Personally, some of her comments and teaching strategies changed my philosophy of teaching especially in supervision: to let my interns have a voice in supervision conferences because there is potentials in everyone. Also, it was through the conduct of inquiry/self-study (which forms part of the requirement for completion of this course) that I learned some aspects about myself (negative communication mannerisms) which I have never known throughout my 22 years of teaching experience. This revelation is my target for my next self-study.
I have really learned a lot from this and I am glad to say that, when I go back to my home country-Ghana, I will be useful to my department as well as my university (University of Cape Coast) and the education system in Ghana because I am going to be part of the positive educational reforms.
References
Burns, R. W., & Badiali, B. (2013). Identifying pedagogical skills of supervisors: Unearthing
the intricacies and complexities of learning to supervise. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the council of Professors of Instructional Supervision in State College, PA:
The Penn State University.
Burns, R. & Badiali, B. (in press). When Supervision is Conflated with Evaluation: Teacher
Candidates’ Perceptions of Their Novice Supervisor.
Dana, N. F. & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The Reflective Educator’s Guide to Classroom
Research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practioner inquiry (3rded.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance Schools, (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-Study In Teacher Education: A Means And Ends Tool For Promoting
Reflective Teaching.Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18.
Garman, N. B. (1982). The Clinical Approach to Supervision. In Supervision of Teaching (pp. 35-52). ASCD.
Glanz, J., & Sullivan, S. (2000). Supervision in practice: 3 steps to improving teaching and learning. (63-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership. A Developmental Approach (9th ed). Pearson Education, Inc.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: Report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Washington, DC: Author.
Nolan, J.F., & Hoover, L.A. (2011). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (3rd edition)
McGreal, T. L., & Nolan, J. F. (1997). Issue 5: Can a supervisor be a coach? In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies, pp. 91-112. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The Coach and the Evaluator. Coaching: The New Leadership Skill, pp. 10-16.