The readings for the week helped me have a clearer picture of the meaning of supervision and evaluation. Teacher supervision according to Nolan is ‘an organizational function concerned with promoting teacher growth and leading to improvement teaching performance and greatest student learning’. He also defines teacher evaluation as ‘an organizational function designed to make comprehensive judgments concerning teacher performance and competence for the purpose of personnel decisions such as tenure and continuing employment (p. 100). What I gathered from these was that, the ultimate aim or the final destination for both supervision and evaluation is to improve teaching and learning though both have different route to get there. Simply put, supervision and evaluation are similar but have different emphasis. I say this because the comprehensive judgment that evaluation focus on is all about ensuring that teachers do effective job which will lead to enhancing student’s learning and so is supervision and the growth leads to effective work. After the readings, I connected with the authors (McGreal, n.d and Pavan, n.d) who responded ‘Yes’ to the question posed in their respective article.
From the readings, though I understood Nolan and Harris stance and their supporting reasons but my questions is: What fruit with the teacher growth and/or competence bear? If the final aim of teacher growth and competence is for enhancement of teaching and learning especially student learning, then these functions can be performed by one person and as suggested by McGreal, the said person must know the exact functions to perform when dealing with supervision and evaluation. The coaching behaviors advocated by Joyce and Showers (1983) that he (McGreal) discussed tells it all that a supervisor can coach as well. One important issue raise by advocates of this assertion is that, these roles being played by one person in turn satisfies one of the major challenges that most schools face-Cost. Through his discussion, McGreal explained how these dual role played by one person establishes trust (key tool to reduce tension that usually comes along with evaluation) between teachers and evaluators. From his discussion, it can be seen that if the person who is to perform this dual role has adequate training he/she can function effectively with additional benefits of cutting down cost as well as creating conducive working environment that promote enhanced teaching and learning.
As hinted earlier, I see similar trend between Pavan (n.d) and Harris (n.d) stance to their question. I connected with Pavan’s assertion that collegial relationship between supervisors and teachers helps to unearth the underutilized potentials in teachers. What I gathered from this is that supervision should be geared towards reconstructing a learning community model where both the supervisor and the teachers share ideas on issues that brings about positive change in classroom practice but not to spy on teachers or just as a fault finding model to practice. I found her seeing this relationship as not just possible but an essential tool to improving classroom practice very laudable (p. 136, paragraph 2). From my own personal experience, I can say that most classroom teachers see evaluators as spies and ‘fault-finders’ as Pavan claim and sometimes teachers can team up to outwit evaluators by faking what they do during the observation. I remember my Junior High School teachers including my head teacher and I doing similar thing when I was due for the first promotion evaluation in the teaching career. My head teacher and the other veteran teachers in the school advised me to prepare a lesson I have taught before for the observation and we did all we could to cover our back or leave no traces for the evaluator to track us (I will give you the details when we meet in class). With this background, I see the explanation Pavan gives as laudable and workable. Her discussion on Pajak (1990) 12 dimensions of supervision shows how teachers are affected by the neglect of the other functions of supervision. She shows in her discussion how vital each of the 12 supervisory dimensions or functions is to promoting children’s learning by improving the actual happenings in the daily classroom practice which can be done effectively through this collegial relationship between supervisor and the teacher.
I found Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran (2011) as an additional voice to McGreal and Pavan (n.d) discussions. Their discussion gave a clearer picture of what McGreal and Pavan discussed in support of their stance. I found Burns and Badliali study as a good writing to end the week’s reading as it served as a mirror to see myself as a supervisor. The questions I asked myself after reading it were: How do my interns see my work as a supervisor? Am I doing what is expected of me as a supervisor? Reflecting on their findings, I have decided to try to go extra mile in my supervision work this semesters in order to assist my students gain from the exercise. In fact, this week’s readings have helped a lot as I am about to start my observation of my pre-service teachers next week. The readings have increased my passion for the supervisory work and it even led me to change my inquiry project focus. My perception of supervision is enhancing!!!
References:
Hoover, L.A., & Nolan, J.F. (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.
Burns, R. & Badiali (in press). When Supervision is Conflated with Evaluation: Teacher
Candidates’ Perceptions of Their Novice Supervisor.
From the readings, though I understood Nolan and Harris stance and their supporting reasons but my questions is: What fruit with the teacher growth and/or competence bear? If the final aim of teacher growth and competence is for enhancement of teaching and learning especially student learning, then these functions can be performed by one person and as suggested by McGreal, the said person must know the exact functions to perform when dealing with supervision and evaluation. The coaching behaviors advocated by Joyce and Showers (1983) that he (McGreal) discussed tells it all that a supervisor can coach as well. One important issue raise by advocates of this assertion is that, these roles being played by one person in turn satisfies one of the major challenges that most schools face-Cost. Through his discussion, McGreal explained how these dual role played by one person establishes trust (key tool to reduce tension that usually comes along with evaluation) between teachers and evaluators. From his discussion, it can be seen that if the person who is to perform this dual role has adequate training he/she can function effectively with additional benefits of cutting down cost as well as creating conducive working environment that promote enhanced teaching and learning.
As hinted earlier, I see similar trend between Pavan (n.d) and Harris (n.d) stance to their question. I connected with Pavan’s assertion that collegial relationship between supervisors and teachers helps to unearth the underutilized potentials in teachers. What I gathered from this is that supervision should be geared towards reconstructing a learning community model where both the supervisor and the teachers share ideas on issues that brings about positive change in classroom practice but not to spy on teachers or just as a fault finding model to practice. I found her seeing this relationship as not just possible but an essential tool to improving classroom practice very laudable (p. 136, paragraph 2). From my own personal experience, I can say that most classroom teachers see evaluators as spies and ‘fault-finders’ as Pavan claim and sometimes teachers can team up to outwit evaluators by faking what they do during the observation. I remember my Junior High School teachers including my head teacher and I doing similar thing when I was due for the first promotion evaluation in the teaching career. My head teacher and the other veteran teachers in the school advised me to prepare a lesson I have taught before for the observation and we did all we could to cover our back or leave no traces for the evaluator to track us (I will give you the details when we meet in class). With this background, I see the explanation Pavan gives as laudable and workable. Her discussion on Pajak (1990) 12 dimensions of supervision shows how teachers are affected by the neglect of the other functions of supervision. She shows in her discussion how vital each of the 12 supervisory dimensions or functions is to promoting children’s learning by improving the actual happenings in the daily classroom practice which can be done effectively through this collegial relationship between supervisor and the teacher.
I found Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran (2011) as an additional voice to McGreal and Pavan (n.d) discussions. Their discussion gave a clearer picture of what McGreal and Pavan discussed in support of their stance. I found Burns and Badliali study as a good writing to end the week’s reading as it served as a mirror to see myself as a supervisor. The questions I asked myself after reading it were: How do my interns see my work as a supervisor? Am I doing what is expected of me as a supervisor? Reflecting on their findings, I have decided to try to go extra mile in my supervision work this semesters in order to assist my students gain from the exercise. In fact, this week’s readings have helped a lot as I am about to start my observation of my pre-service teachers next week. The readings have increased my passion for the supervisory work and it even led me to change my inquiry project focus. My perception of supervision is enhancing!!!
References:
Hoover, L.A., & Nolan, J.F. (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.
Burns, R. & Badiali (in press). When Supervision is Conflated with Evaluation: Teacher
Candidates’ Perceptions of Their Novice Supervisor.