clarifying developmental supervision - semantic scholar · clarifying developmental ... centering...

6
CARL D. GICKMAN AND STEPHEN P. GORDON Clarifying Developmental Supervision Supervisors should match their assistance to teachers' conceptual levels, but with the ultimate goal- of teachers taking charge of their own improvement. he theorv of developmental su- pervision (Glickman 1981, 1985) has generated a great deal of interest, application, and research, as well as some misinterpretation Our purposes here are to clarify proposi- tions underlying the process, discuss the three phases necessary to put the theory into practice, and illustrate the process as applied to two task areas of instructional supervision Finally, we discuss the purpose of the theory. Underlying Propositions Developmental supervision is based on three general propositions. First, because of varied personal back- grounds and experiences, teachers op- erate at different levels of professional development. They vary in the way they view and relate to themselves, students, and others. Teachers also differ in their ability to analyze instruc- tional problems, to use a repertoire of problem-solving strategies, and to match appropriate strategies to partic- ular situations. Furthermore, there are variations within the same teacher de- pending on the particular instructional topic or timing of life and work events. Second, because teachers operate at differing levels of thought, ability, and effectiveness, they need to be super- vised in different ways Teachers at lower developmental levels need more structure and direction; teachers at higher developmental levels need less structure and a more active role in decision making. The third proposition is that the long-range goal of supervision should be to increase every teacher's and every faculty's ability to grow toward higher stages of thought. More reflec- tive, self-directed teachers will be bet- ter able to solve their own instruction- al problems and meet their students' educational needs (Murphy and Brown 1970, Parkay 1979). Further, if the goal of education in a democratic society is to produce responsible learners and decision makers, then teachers who are themselves autono- mous and independent will be better able to facilitate students' growth to- ward such ideals (Calhoun 1985). Put simply, thoughtful teachers promote thoughtful students. Phase One: Diagnostic The developmental supervisor's first task is to diagnose the level at which a teacher or group of teachers is tunc- tioning in regard to a particular in- structional or curricular cown. The central determinant in the supervisor's diagnosis is the level of abstraction exhibited by the teacher or group. The concept of teacher abstraction is de- rived from conceptual systems theory (Harvey et al. 1961). Abstraction is the ability to form "more orientations to- ward the environment and the inter- personal world" (Sullivan et al. 1970). Abstraction is not an innate character- istic of an individual but rather a variable. Teachers exhibiting low abstraction have difficulty identifying instructional problems and generating alternative solutions; they seek concrete advice from an expert or authority on how to complete a complex task. Teachers exhibiting moderate abstraction can define instructional problems (usually centering on a single dimension of the problem) and can generate one or two possible solutions. They strive for in- dependence but need help in select- ing and prioritizing solutions, thinking through consequences, and imple- menting an improvement plan. Teach- ers exhibiting high abstraction can identify problems from disparate sources of information. They can visu- alize various strategies, anticipate the consequences of each action, and se- lect the most appropriate response. Highly abstract teachers follow the problem-solving task through to com- pletion, taking full responsibility for its results. The supervisor makes this diagnosis by talking with and observing teachers in action and asking them questions, such as, "What do you see as areas for classroom instructional improve- ment?" "How do you know this is an area of concern?" 'What could you do about it?" Another part of diagnosis is observing classroom teaching behav- 64 4EDOucA NA. L sADERSHIIP

Upload: duongdat

Post on 05-Jun-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Clarifying Developmental Supervision - Semantic Scholar · Clarifying Developmental ... centering on a single dimension of the problem) and can generate one or two ... aren't learning

CARL D. GICKMAN AND STEPHEN P. GORDON

Clarifying DevelopmentalSupervision

Supervisors should match their assistance toteachers' conceptual levels, but with the

ultimate goal- of teachers taking charge of theirown improvement.

he theorv of developmental su-pervision (Glickman 1981, 1985)has generated a great deal of

interest, application, and research, aswell as some misinterpretation Ourpurposes here are to clarify proposi-tions underlying the process, discussthe three phases necessary to put thetheory into practice, and illustrate theprocess as applied to two task areas ofinstructional supervision Finally, wediscuss the purpose of the theory.

Underlying PropositionsDevelopmental supervision is basedon three general propositions. First,because of varied personal back-grounds and experiences, teachers op-erate at different levels of professionaldevelopment. They vary in the waythey view and relate to themselves,students, and others. Teachers alsodiffer in their ability to analyze instruc-tional problems, to use a repertoire ofproblem-solving strategies, and tomatch appropriate strategies to partic-ular situations. Furthermore, there arevariations within the same teacher de-pending on the particular instructionaltopic or timing of life and work events.

Second, because teachers operate atdiffering levels of thought, ability, andeffectiveness, they need to be super-vised in different ways Teachers atlower developmental levels needmore structure and direction; teachersat higher developmental levels need

less structure and a more active role indecision making.

The third proposition is that thelong-range goal of supervision shouldbe to increase every teacher's andevery faculty's ability to grow towardhigher stages of thought. More reflec-tive, self-directed teachers will be bet-ter able to solve their own instruction-al problems and meet their students'educational needs (Murphy andBrown 1970, Parkay 1979). Further, ifthe goal of education in a democraticsociety is to produce responsiblelearners and decision makers, thenteachers who are themselves autono-mous and independent will be betterable to facilitate students' growth to-ward such ideals (Calhoun 1985). Putsimply, thoughtful teachers promotethoughtful students.

Phase One: DiagnosticThe developmental supervisor's firsttask is to diagnose the level at which ateacher or group of teachers is tunc-tioning in regard to a particular in-structional or curricular cown. Thecentral determinant in the supervisor'sdiagnosis is the level of abstractionexhibited by the teacher or group. Theconcept of teacher abstraction is de-rived from conceptual systems theory(Harvey et al. 1961). Abstraction is theability to form "more orientations to-ward the environment and the inter-personal world" (Sullivan et al. 1970).

Abstraction is not an innate character-istic of an individual but rather avariable.

Teachers exhibiting low abstractionhave difficulty identifying instructionalproblems and generating alternativesolutions; they seek concrete advicefrom an expert or authority on how tocomplete a complex task. Teachersexhibiting moderate abstraction candefine instructional problems (usuallycentering on a single dimension of theproblem) and can generate one or twopossible solutions. They strive for in-dependence but need help in select-ing and prioritizing solutions, thinkingthrough consequences, and imple-menting an improvement plan. Teach-ers exhibiting high abstraction canidentify problems from disparatesources of information. They can visu-alize various strategies, anticipate theconsequences of each action, and se-lect the most appropriate response.Highly abstract teachers follow theproblem-solving task through to com-pletion, taking full responsibility for itsresults.

The supervisor makes this diagnosisby talking with and observing teachersin action and asking them questions,such as, "What do you see as areas forclassroom instructional improve-ment?" "How do you know this is anarea of concern?" 'What could you doabout it?" Another part of diagnosis isobserving classroom teaching behav-

64 4EDOucA NA. L sADERSHIIP

Page 2: Clarifying Developmental Supervision - Semantic Scholar · Clarifying Developmental ... centering on a single dimension of the problem) and can generate one or two ... aren't learning

ior, especially with students whoaren't learning. The supervisor looksfor the degree of flexibility and adapt-ability the teacher exhibits when han-dling a learning or behavioral prob-lem. Do teachers use habitual,routinized sets of behaviors whenlearning problems continue' Can theychange in midstream by abandoningactions that aren't working in favor ofother actions? Is there a rationale fornew actions, or are actions randomand erratic? Talking with and observ-ing teachers at work can help thesupervisor to determine teachers'varying levels of abstraction

Phase Two: TacticalThe supervisor's next step is tactical,focusing on the immediate concern ofhelping teachers solve current instruc-tional problems The tactical phaseinitially involves matching supervisoryapproach to the level of teacher ab-straction. The supervisor matches adirect/ie approach with teachers ex-hibiting low abstraction, a collabora-tie approach with teachers exhibitingmoderate abstraction, and a nondirec-tive approach with teachers exhibitinghigh abstraction.

Using the directive approach (withteachers of low abstraction), the su-pervisor provides teachers with a greatdeal of information and advice. Thisapproach calls for high supervisor re-sponsibility and low teacher responsi-bility for the instructional improve-ment decision. The supervisor doesnot attempt to coerce teachers to use aspecific action, but instead suggestsalternatives for the teacher to considerand choose

The supervisor using the collabora-tive approach works with teachers (ofmoderate abstraction) to share per-ceptions of a problem, propose alter-natives, and negotiate a mutually de-signed plan of action In thecollaborative approach, supervisorsand teachers share responsibility forthe final decision

Taking the nondirective approach,the supervisor invites teachers (ofhigh abstraction) to define instruction-al problems themselves, generate ac-tions, think through consequences,and create their own action plans. Thenondirective approach calls for lowsupervisor responsibility and high

teacher responsibility for the final de-cision. Nondirective supervision, how-ever, should not be confused with alaissez-faire approach.

The nondirective supervisor takesan active role by encouraging teachersto make critical decisions and followthrough on those decisions, and bybeing an involved facilitator, helpingteachers clarify their perceptions andplans.

The tactical phase of developmentalsupervision-matching supervisoryapproach to teacher level of abstrac-tion-is the functional dimension ofthe model, concerned with the approach most likely to produce a satis-factory solution.

Phase Three: StrategicThe real and more important "developmental" dimensior of the model isthe third phase The strategic phase isaimed at accelerating the developmentof teacher abstraction, helping teachers to think "harder and smarter," andstimulating their problem-solving abil-ities. The strategies intended to pro-mote growth in teacher abstraction areall long-term propositions One strategy is to gradually expose teachers tonew ideas, ways of viewing studentsand instruction, problem-solving tech-niques, and teaching methods At firstsuch new ideas should be related toconcepts that teachers already understand and value In time teachers canbe exposed to a wider range of ideasand innovations (see Hall and Loucks1978)

A second strategy is to graduallylessen teachers' dependence on thesupervisor during decision-makingconferences This can be done bygradually decreasing the structureprovided by the supervisor whilesimultaneously increasing the teach-er's decision-making role. A third strat-egy is for the supervisor to involveteachers exhibiting lower levels of ab-straction v ith teachers exhibitingslightly higher levels in problem-solv-ing sessions Such "optimal mis-matches" (Hunt 1971) can result inconceptual growth for teachers exhib-iting lower abstraction.

The three phases of developmentalsupervision make for a complex mod-el of instructional leadership. Table 1summarizes the purposes, goals, and

supervisory techniques related to eachphase.

Two Illustrations ofthe Model at WorkWe can further clarify the model byillustrating the three differenrphasesof developmental supervision as implemented in two distinct supervisorytasks: providing direct assistance tothree teachers and helping a group ofteachers work better together.'

Direct assistance In our first epam-pie, let's suppose that the develop-mental supervisor is engaged in a sep-arate clinical cycle (preobservationconference, classr(x)m observation,postobservation conference) witheach of three teachers, focusing onteacher questions and student responses In the diagnostic phase(phase 1 ) the supervisor holds preob-servation conferences and classroomobservations for each teacher The su-pervisor diagnoses Teacher A as exhibiting low abstraction, Teacher B asmoderately abstract, and Teacher C ashighly abstract in regard to questioning techniques

The tactical phase can be illustratedby discussing initial postobservationconferences held with each of threeteachers. With Teacher A (low abstrac-tion), the supervisor uses a directiveapproach, first presenting data gathered during the observation, then in-terpreting the data and asking forteacher response The supervisor nextsuggests instructional improvementgoals and enlists possible alternativesto accomplish them The teacher isasked to select from these alternatives,and the supervisor outlines an actionplan Finally, the supervisor providesTeacher A with baseline data and standards by which to evaluate the effec-tivenc.:;s of the improvement effort. -

Taking the collaborative approachwith Teacher B (moderate abstrac-tion), the supervisor asks for the teach-er's perceptions of how the observedclass went and potential areas for im-proving teacher questions and studentresponses, The supervisor then fol-lows with observation data and his orher own interpretation of improve-ment areas Comparing perceptions,the supervisor and Teacher B determine their goals for improvement.Through continued brainstorming, ne-

EnD CATuONAL LEA )ERSiiP

Page 3: Clarifying Developmental Supervision - Semantic Scholar · Clarifying Developmental ... centering on a single dimension of the problem) and can generate one or two ... aren't learning

gotiating, and problem solving, thesupervisor and teacher eventuallyagree on an action plan and follow-upactivities designed to evaluateoutcomes.

The supervisor uses a nondirectiveapproach with Teacher C (high ab-straction) by reporting observationdata, which Teacher C has requested,and then using active listening skillswhile the teacher relates personal per-ceptions. The supervisor encouragesTeacher C to set instructional im-provement goals and explore alterna-tive avenues for reaching those goals.The supervisor serves as a soundingboard, using the nondirective inter-personal behaviors of listening, clarify-ing, encouraging, and reflecting as theteacher formulates an action plan.

Despite the fact that different super-visory approaches are used in each ofthe three conferences, they are allexamples of the tactical phase of de-velopmental supervision. In each con-ference the supervisor attempts an op-timal match between supervisoryapproach and teacher level of abstrac-tion. The goal of each conference is tosolve a relatively immediate instruc-tional problem.

The strategic phase of the develop-mental model is carried out in subse-quent clinical cycles During the nextpost-observation conference withleacher A (originally of low abstrac-tion), the supervisor moves away froma purely directive approach, asking theteacher to propose some personalideas for instructional improvement.At this stage the supervisor might stillassume the bulk of decision-makingresponsibilint, but in future clinical

cycles the supervisor and Teacher Awould gradually move into a fully col-laborative relationship.

During the next clinical cycle withTeacher B (originally of moderate ab-straction), the supervisor begins agradual shift away from a collaborativeapproach toward nondirective super-vision. This is done by requesting thatthe teacher set a personal goal forinstructional improvement, then col-laborating on the remainder of thedecisions in that conference. In subse-quent postobservation conferences,the supervisor hands over more re-sponsibility to Teher B, in time as-suming an entirely nondirective ap-proach with that teacher The ultimategoal of the strategic phase of develop-mental supervision is for all experi-enced teachers to take charge of theirown instructional improvement ef-forts, with supervisors and peers serv-ing as facilitators and providingfeedback.

Group developmenr. Our secondexample illustrates how a supervisormight work with a group of teachers.The critical part of a group's function-ing is being able to make collectivedecisions in their team, grade level,department, or school. An effectivegroup must be able to reach agree-ment on when change is necessaryand what direction that change volltake.

Suppose that a supervisor is work-ing with three departments or teamson curricukmr-rTeVisions In the diag-nostic phase, the supervisor deter-mines that Group A is made up pri-marily of teachers exhibiting low

abstraction; most of the teachers inGroup B are exhibiting moderate ormixed levels of abstraction; and highlyabstract teachers predominate inGroup C. (If there is an equal distribu-tion of abstract thinkers, the supervi-sor would regard the group asmoderate.)

Greiner (1967) has identified anumber of approaches used to bringabout organizational change withgroups. The supervisor can use adaptations of three of these approachesduring the tactical phase of groupdevelopment, for instance, a decison-from-alternatives approach whenworking with Group A (low abstrac-tion). The supervisor identifies theneed for curricular change, then pre-sents the group with alt, iative waysto make the change, along -,4th advan-tages and disadvantages of each alter-native. The group then decides whichalternative it will use. This approach isessentially directive, in that the super-visor takes responsibility for collect-ing, analyzing, interpreting, and pre-senting data to the group.

The supervisor uses an adaptationof the data diussion approach (Huse1980) with Group B (moderate ab-straction) by seeking data from thegroup, organizing the informationgathered, and presenting the organ-ized data to the group. The group thenanalvzes the supervisor's feedback todetermine if change is necessary and,if so, the appropriate means for mak-ing the change This is basically acollaborative approach to change, withthe supervisor serving as an "informa-tion mediator" between initial datagathering and the group's final data

MAY 1987

Table 1Phases of Developmental Supervision

PHASE PURPOSE GOAL SUPERVISORY TECHNIQUES

3. STRATEGIC' Developmental Increase teacher abstraction and self- Gradual exposure to new ideas;direction. incremental decrease in structure,

increase in teacher responsibility; optimalmismatches with other teachers

2. TACTICAL Functional Meet instructional need/solve instructional Match supervisory approach (directive,problem. collaborative, or nondirective) to teacher

level of abstraction (low, moderate, orhigh).

1. DIAGNOSTIC Functional and Determine current teacher level of Observe and interact with teacher(s).Developmental abstraction (low, moderate, or high). Compare teacher behaviors to research on

teacher abstraction.

'Strategic phase, once begun, is ongoing. Diagnostic and tactical phases continuously repeat during the strategic phase.

Page 4: Clarifying Developmental Supervision - Semantic Scholar · Clarifying Developmental ... centering on a single dimension of the problem) and can generate one or two ... aren't learning

analysis and decision.The supervisor relies on the group

poblem-sovng Capproach (Greiner1967, Huse 1980) when working withGroup C (high abstraction). Here thegroup generates its own data, thenanalyzes those data to identify prob-lems and decide on appropriatechanges. The supervisor serves asgroup facilitator throughout the prob-lem-solving process. The group prob-lem-solving approach, then, is a nondi-rective one (again, not a laissez-faireapproach).

The strategic phase of group devel-opment begins with the next round ofproblem-solving sessions. The super-visor helps the less abstract groups togradually increase their share of re-sponsibility in the decision-making

-process. During Group A's next seriesof meetings, the supervisor changes tothe more collaborative data discussionapproach for identifying neededchange, but maintains the original(and more directive) decision-from-alternative approach for choosing aplan of action. Eventually the supervi-sor completes the shift toward collab-orative decision making, using thedata discussion approach throughoutthe decision-making process.

For the next session with Group B,the supervisor shifts to the nondirec-tive problem-solving approach foridentifying the group's new problem,then shifts back to the role of informa-tion mediator, using the (more collab-orative) data discussion approach forcreating an action plan. In time, thesupervisor uses the group problem-solving approach during all stages ofdecision making with Group B

The gradual movement of thegroups of lower abstraction to higherabstraction can be accelerated by opti-mal group mismatches. Group A ismatched with Group B either in aworkshop that simulates decisionmaking or in an actual decision-mak-ing session aimed at solving a problemcommon to both groups. Here, GroupB shares new ways of thinking aboutchange and change strategies withGroup A and thereby models a higherlevel of thought process and decisionmaking for the members of Group A.A separate workshop or meeting, fo-cusing on a different change-relatedproblem, involves Groups B and C Inthis session, Group B is pulled towardGroup C's level of abstraction andchange strategies.

Another way of promoting in-creased thought and collective respon-sibility of group members is by re-forming groups in which the highestlevel of abstraction is exhibited by themajority of group members. Thisplacement pulls upward the thinkingof the minority of members who ex-hibit less abstraction. Unfortunately,the reverse is also true. If the majorityof group members are less abstract,they tend to inhibit and pull down themore abstract thinkers.

The ultimate goal of developmentalsupervision is to have all groups oper-ating at the group problem-solvinglevel, with the supervisor using nondi-rective, interpersonal behaviors to fa-cilitate the group's own decisionmaking

A Human TheoryWe are aware that the model of devel-opmental supervision is complex. Lev-el of abstraction will vary not onlyamong individuals and groups butwithin the same individual or groupdepending on the particular instruc-tional concern. For example, a highschool teacher might exhibit high ab-straction when thinking about im-provements in her advanced physicsclass and exhibit low abstraction whenthinking about her general scienceclass. A science department might ex-hibit high abstraction with a laboratoryapproach to teaching and exhibit low-er levels of abstraction with studentrecord-keeping. Also, a stage of devel-opment is not reached permanentlybut can change with new teachingsituations, personal life happenings,and altered professional workconditions.

Developmental supervision is not acontingency or situational theory. It isnot a theory to label teachers intofixed categories It does not lend itselfto algorithms or prescriptive actions.Rather, it is a theory about understand-ing the aim of our work in relation toourselves and others. A democracysuch as ours aims at educating stu-dents to become thoughtful and inde-pendent citizens who ultimately willmake decisions in the best interests ofall (Kohlberg and Mayer 1972). Insofaras informed human judgment is criti-cal to education, we must strive for alleducators to become more active, au-tonomous, and thoughtful aboutinstruction. l

I For a thorough discussion and re-view of research on the application ofdevelopmental supervision, see Glickman1985

References

Calhoun, E F. "Relationship of Teachers'Conceptual Level to the Utilization ofSupervisory Services and to a Descrip-tion of the Classroom Instructional Im-provement." Presentation to the annualmeeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, April1985.

Glickman, C. D Develpmental Stpevi-sion. Alternative Approachesfor HepingTeachers Improve Instruon. Alexan-dria, Va.: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development, 1981.

Glickman, C. D. Supervision of nstructionA Developmental Approach Boston: Al-lyn & Bacon, 1985.

Greiner, L. E. "Pattems of OrganizationalChange." Harvard Business Review 45(1967): 119-130

Hall, G E, and S Loucks "Teacher Con-cerns as a Basis for Facilitating and Per-sonalizing Staff Development." TeachersCollege Record 80 (September 1978):36-53

Harvey, O J, D E Hunt, and H. MSchroder Conceptual Systems and Per-sonality Organization New York: Wiley,1961

Hunt, D E Matching Models in EducationThe Coordination of Teaching Methodswith Student Characteristics Toronto:The Ontario Institute for Studies in Edu-cation, 1971

Huse, E. F Organizational Developmentand Change 2d ed St. Paul: West Pub-lishing, 1980

Kohlberg, L, and R Mayer "Developmentas the Aim of Education." Harvard Edu-cational Review 42 (1972): 449-496

Murphy, P., and M Brown. "ConceptualSystems and Teaching Sty!es " AmericanEducational Research Journal 7 (No-vember 1970): 529-540.

Parkay, F W. "Inner-City High SchoolTeachers: The Relationship of Personal-ity Traits and Teaching Style to Environ-mental Stress" Paper presented to theSouthwest Educational Research Associ-ation, Houston, 1979

Sullivan, E. V., G McCullough, and M. A.Stager. "Developmental Study of the Re-lationship Between Conceptual, Ego,and Moral Development." cbild Devel-opment 41 (1970): 399-411

Carl D. Glcumann is Professor of Educa-tion, Department of Curriculum and Su-pervision, University of Georgia, 124 Ader-hold Hall, Athens, GA 30602. Stephen P.Gordon is Inservice Education Consultant,State of Ohio De-artment of Education,Columbus, OH 43266

EDoiJcknoNAL LEAI)ERsiIIP

Page 5: Clarifying Developmental Supervision - Semantic Scholar · Clarifying Developmental ... centering on a single dimension of the problem) and can generate one or two ... aren't learning

From Conference to Instruction

_-

I I 'inR a drectnt appT)ach. the stertsor protides the teacher tth a Rrgea deal of rnformaton and advice

2 The c4penisor linR a collahoratite appmoacb uors uith the teadcer to negotate a mrlll'l deRned plan of atyon

3 Taking a nondtrecte approach, te supenriiar iiates tIea emr to deaRn a plan of acton

MAY 198'

Page 6: Clarifying Developmental Supervision - Semantic Scholar · Clarifying Developmental ... centering on a single dimension of the problem) and can generate one or two ... aren't learning

Copyright © 1987 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.