varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences

VARIETIES OF DISCOURSE IN SUPERVISORY CONFERENCES

KENNETH M. ZEICHNER and DAN LISTON

University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A.

Abstract-The logic and substance of discourse between university supervisors and student teachers during post-observation supervisory conferences were studied in an elementary student teaching program in the United States. The findings describe these aspects of the discourse in relation to the program’s goals and (a) the conceptual levels of supervisors and student teachers, (b) the content area of the lesson under analysis, and (c) the structure of the supervisor’s role. Implica- tions of the findings for research, program development, and for the preparation and training of supervisors are discussed.

_ _

This paper reports the findings from a study of the character of rational discourse during supervisory post-observation conferences in an elementary student teaching program at a large midwestern university in the United States. More specifically, this study sought to document and describe the quality of thinking elicited and expressed during supervisory conferences in a student teaching program with an expressed emphasis on promoting particular forms of reflection about teaching. It also sought to assess the degree of congruence between the expressed goals of the program and the quality of discourse between university supervisors and student teachers.

A second interest was to attempt to explain how the nature of rational discourse during supervisory conferences was related to selected individual and contextual factors. At an individual level, this study investigated how the conceptual levels (Hunt, 1977-78) of student teachers and supervisors were related to the quality of thinking exhibited during the conferences. In recent years many developmental psychologists (e.g., Sprinthall & Thies-Sprint- hall, 1983) have argued that the quality of how people function in teacher education settings is strongly influenced by the complexity of their

cognitive structures. Along these lines specific claims have been made that individuals at higher and more complex stages of ego, moral, and conceptual development will function at more complex and abstract levels in supervisory contexts (e.g., Sprinthall & Thies-Sprinthall, 1983). Our analysis of conceptual levels in relation to different forms of rational discourse during supervisory conferences is an attempt to provide further empirical testing of the general claims that have been made in the literature of “Developmental Supervision” (Glickman, 1981) and represents a further exploration of the heuristic potential of the construct of conceptual level for understanding the supervision process.

At a contextual level, this study considered how the content area of the lesson under analysis and the conditions of the university supervisor’s role as defined in the particular program under study were related to the character of supervisory discourse. Much of the recent empirical literature on teaching (e.g., Good, 1983) has emphasized the content- and context- specific nature of teaching effectiveness in K-12 settings. While we did not seek to identify supervisory “effectiveness” in any sense in the present study, we did examine the relationships

155

between lesson content and supervisory discourse in areas where student teachers were assumed to have greater autonomy (science and social studies) and lesser autonomy (reading) in the determination of goals, methods and materials. We also considered how several contextual factors that were part of the supervisor’s role (e.g., time for supervision, extent of contact with schools, extent of supervisory authority) may have affected the nature of rational discourse during conferences.

Studying Teacher Education

Zeichner and Tabachnick (1982) have argued that teacher educators should not take it for granted that, because a practice or procedure is described in a particular way by program planners, its implementation takes the form and has the social meaning that its originators intended. They argued that research designs for the study of teacher education programs must be able to examine how occupational life is interpreted and acted upon as people participate in its ongoing affairs. According to Zeichner and Tabachnick (1982, p. 50), the essential charac- teristics of teacher education programs are not to be found in public statements of intention, but through examinations of the experiences themselves.

Teacher education programs, whatever their focus, will inevitably undergo changes from the point of formally stating goals and purposes to the enactment of the program in university and school classrooms, and there will always be unanticipated consequences associated with any programmatic effort. *

Much empirical evidence within the literature of teacher education supports this point of view and underlines the inappropriateness of deriv- ing an understanding of a teacher education program solely from analysis of the relationships between statements of goals, instructional plans, and program “outcomes” (see Zeichner, 1984). For example, Goodman (1983) and Grif- fin et al. (1983) have shown that even when the

156 KENNETH M. ZEICHNER and DAN LISTON

designers of a field-based teacher education program have articulated a specific emphasis, the actual implementation of a program reflects a diversity of orientations as the perspectives of specific individuals are brought to bear on the coherent instructional plans in field settings which present a variety of constraints and opportunities. Each of these studies differed in the degree to which various program goals and procedures were implemented by different participants and in different settings. These argu- ments about the necessity of examining the actual implementation of a teacher education program are especially relevant to the study of supervisory encounters during field-based experiences.

Research on Supervisory Conferences

For many years research on the supervision of student teachers and teachers was not concerned at all with interactions during the supervisory process, and few investigators attempted to examine what actually happened when supervisors and supervisees interacted within the context of supervisory relationships. The quality of this early research led Weller (1971, p. 1) to conclude that

Volumes have been written on the subject, but research on the effects and on the processes of supervision is vir- tually nonexistent. Supervision is rarely observed except by those who are actually involved in the process In reality, very little is known about what actually happens in instructional supervision The need for research on supervision is obvious.

Since Weller’s (1971) widely cited call for more research on what actually happens during supervision, a call which has been frequently repeated by others (e.g., Mosher & Purpel. 1972; Blumberg, 1980), numerous studies have sought to describe the nature and quality of interactions in supervision. The segment of this literature most relevant to the present investigation is that concerned with documenting and describing the verbal behaviors of supervisors and supervisees during the most significant

* See Tabachnick (1981) for a detailed discussion of teacher education as “a dynamic social event.”

Varieties of Discourse in Supervisory Conferences I.57

teaching and learning context in supervision - the supervisory conference.

Since the initiation of a series of studies by Lindsey and her students at Teachers College- Columbia University in the 1960s (Lindsey et al.. 1969), there has been a growing interest in studying the form and substance of supervisory conferences either in a laboratory setting (e.g., Perlberg & Theodor, 1975) or in the naturalistic setting of the school (e.g., McFaul & Cooper, 1983). Within this line of research there have been several attempts to examine the verbal behaviors of supervisors and supervisees within sets of predefined categories. Generally the categories employed have been similar to those contained in the observational systems employed in the study of classroom interaction (e.g., Simon & Boyer, 1970). Along these lines there have been attempts to employ classroom observation systems in the study of supervisory conferences (e.g., Barbour, 1970); attempts to adapt classroom observation systems to the supervisory context (e.g., Blumberg, 1970; Weller, 1971); and attempts to develop new category systems specific to the supervisory context from either an analysis of the literature in supervision (e.g., Brown & Hoffman, 1969) or from immersion in data from supervisory conferences (e.g., Heidelbach, 1969).

Because of our interest in analyzing the quality of thinking in supervisory conferences in a manner responsive to the specific program context under investigation, we chose to develop our own set of categories for analyzing supervisory discourse instead of adopting one of the existing conceptual frameworks. Despite this departure from employing any of the more com- monly utilized conceptual frameworks, the findings from the present study can be related to other studies of levels of thinking during supervisory conferences (e.g., Barbour, 1970), and the study itself falls clearly within the research tradition initiated by Lindsey and her students at Columbia University.

Rationality and Clinical Supervision

Because all of the supervisors who partici-

pated in the present investigation received preparation for their work which emphasized the concepts and methods of Clinical Supervision (e.g., Goldhammer, Anderson, & Krajewski, 1980), a discussion of this approach to supervision in relation to the problem under study (i.e., rational analysis of teaching) is necessary. As the initial studies of supervisory behavior were taking place, Clinical Supervision (e.g., Cogan, 1973) was emerging as one of the most widely advocated models of supervisory practice. Today there are many who claim that this model of supervision represents “the best available practice” in the field (e.g., Reavis, 1978). Because of the widespread use of this model in supervision courses and in the actual supervision of student teachers (including supervision in the program under study), we feel that the elements of this model warrant scrutiny and analysis. Although a handful of studies have sought to document and describe how this model is actually implemented in practice (e.g., Weller, 1971; Reavis, 1977), for the most part studies of Clinical Supervision have not accounted for the numerous disagreements over concepts and methods which exist among various advocates of the model (e.g., Cogan, 1973); nor have they investigated how the “model” is shaped and given meaning by those who use it (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982).

One central characteristic of the Clinical Supervision model (despite all of the disagreements over concepts and methods) is its emphasis on the rational analysis of instruction and on helping supervisees to become more analytic of their practice. At one level, this emphasis on the rational analysis of instructional behavior stands in sharp contrast to the historically dominant emphasis in supervision on authoritarian modes of teacher evaluation and inspection (Karier, 1981). However, to say that supervisors should help student teachers and teachers to become more analytic of their practice does not identify which aspects of teaching practice are to be analyzed (i.e., the substance of the supervision); at which levels the analysis is to take place (i.e., the criteria which should be employed in the analysis); or the ends to which the analysis is to be directed


(e.g., the meaning of “improved instruction” as a goal for supervision). Rationality is not a uni- tary concept (as is implied in many descriptions of Clinical Supervision) but is instead a concept that can be and has been defined in various ways. Studies such as those conducted by Barbour (1970) and Hill (1969) have clearly documented different levels of rational analysis within a supervisory context and underline the inadequacy of the conception of rational analysis set forth in the literature of clinical supervision.

In a previous study (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982) one of us raised several specific questions about the adequacy of the definition of rational analysis in the literature of clinical supervision and demonstrated how a group of university supervisors, all of whom were using a form of clinical supervision, gave very different meanings to the concept of rational analysis. The analysis at that time was concerned only with the beliefs of university supervisors regarding their roles and did not address supervisory behaviors. In the present study we have attempted to expand upon this earlier study to illuminate the different forms of rational analysis evi- dent in the conference behaviors of a group of student teachers and supervisors. Because the conceptual framework used to describe different forms of rational analysis was developed by starting with an analysis of the goals of the program, a description of the program under study is in order.

The Program Context

In addition to the usual focus on the acquisi- tion of teaching skills and on the expectation that student teachers will be capable by the end of the semester of assuming total responsibility for an entire classroom program, the particular program under study places an explicit emphasis on encouraging students to reflect about the purposes and consequences of their classroom practice and about the classroom, school, and community contexts in which they work. The program literature draws upon Dewey (1933) and makes a distinction between

reflective action and routine action. Reflective action is the active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it and the further consequences to which it leads. Routine action is action guided by tradition and authority.

Utilizing Dewey’s (1933) concept of reflective action as the organizing principle for its curriculum, the program literature expresses a desire to develop in student teachers those orientations (e.g., openmindedness) and skills (e.g., keen observation) that constitute reflective action. The continuing development of technical skill in teaching is also addressed within the program literature, but only within this broader context of reflective action. Since the actions with which the program is concerned are largely classroom based, the term reflective teaching is used to identify this central goal of the curriculum. In addition to the expressed emphasis on encouraging reflective teaching, the program literature distinguishes between different forms of reflection by drawing upon the work of van Manen (1977) and his conception of “levels of reflectivity.” van Manen (1977) identified three levels of reflection, each of which embraces different criteria for choos- ing among alternative courses of action. At the first level (technical rationality), the dominant concern is with the efficient and effective application of educational knowledge for the purposes of attaining ends accepted as given. At this level, neither the ends nor the institutional contexts of the classroom, school, and community are treated as problematic.

A second level of reflectivity, according to van Manen (1977), is based upon a conception of practical action where the problem is one of explicating and clarifying the assumptions and predispositions underlying practical affairs and in assessing the educational consequences to which an action leads. At this level, every action is seen as linked to particular value commitments, and the actor considers the worth of competing educational goals or ends.

The third and final level of reflection (critical rationality) incorporates consideration of moral and ethical criteria into the discourse about

Varieties of Discourse in Supervisory Conferences 159

practical action. At this level, the central ques- tion becomes which educational goals, experiences, and activities lead toward just and equi- table forms of life. Here both the teaching (ends and means) and the contexts of the teaching are viewed as problematic.

The curricular plan for the student teaching program as expressed in the program literature indicates a desire to stimulate reflection about teaching at all three levels. Although a “reflective teacher” is defined in this literature as one who assesses the origins and consequences of his or her work at all three levels, a particular emphasis is placed on promoting reflection at the level of “critical rationality” because it is felt that this level is frequently overlooked within the context of student teaching.

In addition to acquiring an acquaintance with the goals of the program, through the program literature, all of the supervisors participated in-a course on supervision. This course places a particular emphasis on the version of clinical supervision of Goldhammer et al. (1980) and seeks to help supervisors implement this model in a manner consistent with the goals of the program. For example, supervisors are encouraged in various ways to help student teachers examine such things as: (a) their pedagogical intentions (in addition to observable classroom behaviors) and relationships between intentions and commitments which can be inferred from classroom actions; (b) the content of what is taught (in addition to teaching processes) and various justifications (educational and moral) for both methods and content (e.g., why they do what they do); (c) unanticipated outcomes associated with both the form and content of instruction (the “hidden curriculum”); and (d) the institutional form and social context of teaching as value-governed selections from a much larger universe of possibilities. Super- visors are encouraged through the program literature, the supervision course. and continued staff development seminars to emphasize this theme of “reflective teaching” in all five of the program’s curricular components (classroom teaching. seminars. student teacher journals, action research projects. and supervisory conferences). The present paper examines the

implementation of this theme within the context of supervisory conferences.

Method

The subjects for this study were seven university supervisors and 14 student teachers. All were participants in a 15week elementary student teaching program at a large midwestern university during the spring semester of 1983. This program is typical of preservice preparation programs leading to elementary teacher certification in terms of the distribution of credits among general education courses (46%) and courses in professional education (54%) and in terms of the degree of emphasis placed on practical work in classrooms. Student teaching and a weekly campus seminar preempt a full university semester and occur during the final semester of a four-semester sequence of professional education courses. Prior to this semester, student teachers have completed two early field experiences (of 80 clock hours each), 27 credits in methods work in nine content areas, as well as various courses in educational foundations.

Two student teachers from among the 9-11 students who were supervised by each of the seven graduate student supervisors were chosen for participation in the study. The selection of these 14 students was made from among those students agreeing to participate in the study, utilizing information from placement interviews held with student teachers and data related to the school placement sites chosen by student teachers. This selection process gave us a group of student teachers that was representative of the various teaching perspectives and classroom contexts existent in the program. As mentioned above, all of the supervisors received training in the Goldhammer et al. (1980) version of clinical supervision in relation to the program goals and saw themselves as generally employing the model of clinical supervision in their work with student teachers. Each university supervisor was responsible for completing a minimum of six classroom visits for each student teacher (each visit including a pre-observation confer-


ence, observation, and post-observation conference) and for the teaching of a weekly campus seminar to the same students that they supervised in the schools.

Two supervisory post-observation conferences (those following an observation by a university supervisor) were audiotaped for the purposes of this study. One of these conferences was held at least one month prior to the student teacher’s “lead teaching” (a period where students assume total responsibility for the classroom), and the other conference was held during the lead teaching period. None of the conferences were conducted during the first six weeks of the semester. Furthermore, one of the conferences with each student teacher was concerned with a lesson in reading and the other with a lesson in social studies or science.

A total of 26 tapes, four from each of five supervisors and three from each of two supervisors, was used as the data base for this study. Two conferences (one from each of two supervisors) were dropped from the analysis because of participation by cooperating teachers. The 26 tapes ranged in length from 15 to 45 minutes. Ten-minute segments (either the first or the last 10 minutes) were abstracted from each of the 26 tapes for the purposes of analysis. These lo- minute segments were systematically selected (with the exception of the two tapes which were dropped) to ensure that the data base from each supervisor included first and last lo-minute samples for each of their students and from each of the two content areas. The 260 minutes of discourse used for the analysis represent 39% of the interaction time on the 26 tapes, 12% of the interaction time with the 14 student teachers during the semester, and approximately 2.5% of the total post-observation supervisory conference interactions in the program that semester.

To permit the direct coding of the data from the tape recordings and to avoid the expensive process of producing typescripts, this study adopted a procedure used in several other studies of this type (e.g., Brown & Hoffman, 1969; Weller, 1971) and employed the “thought unit” as the basic unit of analysis. Bales (1951, p. 37) defines the “thought unit” as:

the smallest discriminable segment of verbal behavior to which the observer. using the present bet of

categories after appropriate training. can assign &I classification under conditions of serial scoring.

The number of thought units in the coded segments of the tapes ranged from 45 to 128. and the total number of coded thought units per supervisor ranged from 243 to 361. After an acceptable level of interrater reliability was reached on a random sample of three of the 26 tapes, the following coding procedures were followed: (a) Each of the two researchers coded approximately one-half of the remaining protocols (11 and 12, respectively). Apart from the two tapes which were dropped from the analysis each researcher coded two tapes from each supervisor (one from each of the supervisor‘s students and one each from reading and social studies/science lessons). (b) These initial cod- ings were reviewed by the researcher who had not coded the tapes originally, and ali disagreements were noted on the original analysis. (c) All of the disagreements were then arbitrated by the two coders.

Conceptual levels of supervisors and student teachers were assessed using the Paragraph Completion Method (Hunt et al., 1978) and were scored by trained personnel at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

The Development of the Category System

We began by reviewing all of the existing instruments for the analysis of verbal behavior during supervisory conferences, including those such as the Aschner-Gallagher system which had been developed for classroom use but which had been subsequently applied to the analysis of supervisory discourse (e.g.. Bar- bour, 1970). Our major concern was to employ a system of analysis which would enable us to assess the quality of thinking exhibited during supervisory conferences in a manner that was responsive to both the expressed goals of the program and to the existential reality of the conferences themselves.

For a variety of reasons we found all of the


existing instruments for the analysis of verbal behavior during supervisory conferences to be inadequate for our purposes. Weller’s (1971) MOSAIC category system came closest among the existing instruments to meeting our needs. This system, which is based in part on the framework of Bellack et al. (1966) for the analysis of classroom interactions, contains a set of substantive-logical categories (Diagnostic, Prescriptive, Analytical, and Evaluative) and addresses different levels of rational discourse. This instrument was also designed specifically for use with the model of Clinical Supervision. Despite these advantages, Weller’s system contained too many extraneous categories for the purposes of our analysis and did not in our view enable us to address the category of “critical reflection” which was contained in the program’s goals.

After rejecting the adoption of one of the existing category systems, we then turned to a deeper analysis of the conceptual framework which guided the articulation of the program’s goals and attempted to construct a method of analysis directly from this framework. One problem in attempting to develop a method of analysis which was responsive to the expressed goals of the program and which also captured the reality of discourse during conferences is related to the important distinction between theoretic and practical rationality.

As described above, the expressed goals of the program - related to promoting different levels of reflection about teaching and about the contexts in which teaching is carried out-draw heavily upon the work of van Manen (1977) and his notion of “levels of reflectivity.” In propos- ing his framework for the delineation of different levels of rationality, van Manen reaffirmed the distinction also drawn by others (e.g., Hog- ben. 1982; Schon, 1983; Elbaz, 1983; Feiman- Nemser & Floden, in press) between theoretical reasoning, oriented toward the discovery of truth. and practical reasoning, oriented toward action. van Manen begins his analysis by turning to the work of Schwab (1969). Although van Manen (1977) accepts the heuristic value of Schwab’s (1969) attempt to propose a language of discourse for understanding practical affairs,

he goes on to criticize Schwab for his exclusive reliance on an empirical-analytic conception of knowledge. van Manen (1977) then attempts to broaden Schwab’s (1969) conception of practical reasoning by drawing upon the work of Habermas (1971).

In the final analysis van Manen’s (1977) notion of “levels of reflectivity” entails the adoption of Habermas’s (1971) tripartite division of rational analysis into the empirical- analytic, hermeneutic, and critical modes of reasoning. While this strategy results in a conception of practical reasoning broader than Schwab’s by drawing upon different philoso- phies of knowledge and differentiates between different levels of rationality, we were faced with a fundamental obstacle as we tried to apply a category system based on this tripartite division of rationality to the analysis of a sample of the tapes. Specifically, the application of this analysis system, while responsive to the expressed goals of the program, did not adequately cap- ture the existential reality of the supervisory discourse.

Thus we faced problems in attempting to apply a system of analysis drawn directly from the tripartite division of rationality. These problems stemmed from van Manen’s (1977) attempt to broaden Schwab’s (1969) definition of the realm of practical discourse. That attempt proceeded by drawing upon a set of categories which were formulated within the realm of the theoretic. We were primarily concerned in our analysis with understanding and distinguishing types of reasoning used by supervisors and student teachers in deciding how to handle practical problems. These practical problems are concerned with past, present, and future pedagogical actions and focus on what has occurred and on what can be accomplished (e.g., with what to do; with how, why, and when to take certain actions). Theoretical reasoning is also employed during conferences, but its concern is with knowledge claims connected to educational actions, and it is employed as a basis for judgments of past and future actions. That is, epis- temological claims within supervisory conferences are always framed within an overall practical orientation, and supervisory discourse be-


tween supervisors and student teachers lies clearly within the realm of practical reasoning. van Manen’s (1977) attempt to “squeeze” a set of categories formulated with a concern for theoretical understanding into a practical framework left us in the end with a set of theoretic categories that were not responsive to the practical reasoning of supervisors and student teachers. Dissatisfied with this general approach, we then turned to the philosophical literature on practical reasoning.

In Gauthier (1963) we found a firm base for distinguishing between practical and theoretical reasoning _ and further elaboration of the domain of practical discourse. * In differentiat- ing practical from theoretical reasoning, Gauth- ier (1963, p. 1) stated that

A practical problem is a problem about what to do . whose final solution is found only in doing something, in acting. Practical problems may be contrasted with theoretical problems whose solutions is found in knowing something, in understanding.

Within the realm of practical reasoning, Gauthier (1963) makes several distinctions not found in van Manen’s (1977) analysis. These distinctions enabled us to distinguish various kinds of analysis exemplified in the tapes. A case in point is Gauthier’s (1963, p. 20) distinction between judgments which have prudential force and those which have a moral force.

A practical judgment which has a moral force is based on considerations independent of the will (purposes, aims, desires) of the prospective agent and is dependent solely upon the nature of the act itself; whereas a practical judgment which has prudenrial force is based upon considerations dependent upon his will.

Gauthier’s (1963) Aristotelian distinction between practical and theoretical reasoning and his distinctions within the realm of practical

reasoning, such as the one between prudential and moral discourse, enabled us to begin to construct a set of categories responsive to both the program’s goals and to the existential reality of the conferences. The practical-theoretical distinction provided the overall framework for our analysis, and the prudential-moral classification enabled us to distinguish between prudential discourse and what ultimately turned out to be justificatory discourse. In the end, our framework for analysis was based upon a syn- thesis of Gauthier’s (1963) notions of practical reasoning, the program’s goals related to reflective teaching, and the existential reality of the conferences themselves. The final set of categories was constructed by applying Gauth- ier’s (1963) and van Manen’s (1977) categories to the analysis of a sample of the tapes and by developing new categories where neither framework could adequately differentiate the quality of thought exhibited by supervisors and student teachers.

Our conceptual framework for analyzing practical reasoning during supervisory conferences distinguishes among four types of practical discourse: (a) Factual Discourse is concerned with what has occurred in a teaching situation or with what will occur in the future; (b) Prudential Discourse revolves around suggestions about what to do or around evaluations of what has been accomplished; (c) Jus- tificatory Discourse focuses on the reasons employed when answering questions of the form, “Why do this rather than that?“; (d) Crit- ical Discourse examines and assesses the adequacy of the reasons offered for the justification of pedagogical actions or assesses the values and assumptions embedded in the form and content of curriculum and instructional practices (e.g., the “hidden curriculum”). Each of these primary categories is further divided into several subcategories.

* In the philosophical literature, the topic of practical reasoning is nearly synonymous with moral reasonine. Theoretical reasoning concerns knowledge about “what is the case,” and practical reasoning concerns “what action ought to be taken.” Besides Gauthier (1963), additional pertinent works include Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ekes, Edgley (1969), Koerner (1974). Milo (1966), Murphy (1964), Paton (1943). and Rawls (1971). Among all of these Gauthier (1963) was most helpful in guiding the construction of our coding system. Edgley (1969) and Paton (1943) lend philosophical justification to the exis- tence of practical reason. Murphy (1964) typifies the philosophical approach to practical reason as an examination of ethical reason.


Factual Discourse

Factual Discourse has been defined as analysis oriented toward describing what is, what was, or what will be. We found it helpful to distinguish among four types of Factual Dis- course: (a) Descriptive Discourse represents an account of factors related to the specific observation prior to the conference, an account which is verifiable in terms of experience or observational tests; (b) Informational Dis- course is concerned with the identification bf information pertinent to the conference but not verifiable by observational tests applied to the specific lesson under analysis; (c) Hermeneutic Discourse focuses on the meanings created by any of the participants in the setting of classroom or supervisory conference (e.g., pupils, student teacher, supervisor, cooperating teacher); (d) Explanatory/Hypothetical Dis- course is characterized by attempts to identify causal relationships operating in the educational setting (e.g., why pupils behaved in a particular way).

Prudential Discourse

Prudential Discourse is concerned with suggestions and advice regarding pedagogical actions and with evaluations of the worth and quality of such actions. In Gauthier’s (1963) terminology, prudential assessments concern actions dependent upon actors’ reasons. As Reid (1979, p. 191) implies, the boundary between the prudential and moral aspects of practical reasoning is a fuzzy one. Actions dependent on the aims, purposes, and desires of individuals are bound to have moral repercussions. That is, prudential actions affect other people. How- ever, a pertinent distinction remains. Pruden- tial actions refer to the aims and purposes of the actor involved and not to some generalizable moral principle. Instructions, advice/opinion, evaluation, and support (the four subcategories of prudential discourse) are instances of practical reasoning where statements are made which accept the aims and purposes of the actor (e.g., student teacher). The reasoning is roughly as follows: given that you (i.e., student teacher)

wanted to do this, you should try this particular procedure (instruction); should think about using one of these possible procedures (advice/ opinion); did a good job (evaluation); did the best you could (support).

Consideration of the moral basis for pedagogical actions is the focus of another category, Justificatory Discourse. Prudential Discourse is subdivided into four secondary categories: (a) Instruction - where one of the participants identifies and proposes a solution to a particular pedagogical problem; (b) Advice/Opinion - when one of the participants identifies and proposes two or more alternative solutions to one problem of instruction; (c) Evaluation - when one of the participants renders a positive or negative judgment (or requests such a judgment) about the value, worth, or quality of an action or factor related to an action (past, present, or future); (d) Support - when an em- pathetic response or emotive encouragement is given by one of the participants in relation to past, present, or future action.

Justificatory Discourse

Justificatory Discourse entails the identification of various types of reasons and rationales underlying past, present, or future pedagogical actions and factors related to such actions (e.g., the use of particular curriculum materials). This type of discourse is primarily concerned with consideration of the questions of why do this, in this way, with these particular students. Jus- tificatory Discourse has been subdivided into three secondary categories based on the types of rationales offered as the reason for actions: (a) Pragmatic Rationale employs criteria which point to what is effective or efficient in a situation. Here an action is justified because “it works”; (b) Intrinsic Rationale justifies an action on the basis of claims about universal knowledge, universal values (e.g., fairness, honesty), and student needs (e.g., level of mat- uration). An action which is intrinsically justified is an action valued in and of itself; (c) Extrinsic Rationale is applied to criteria external to the situation and present actions. These criteria include such things as the potential util-


ity to society (e.g., the need for an enlightened .a the lesson under analysis and those not citizenry) and the vocational needs of students. specific to these lessons.

Critical Discourse

Critical Discourse assesses the adequacy of rationales offered within the realm of Justifica- tory Discourse or assesses the values embedded in the form and content of curriculum materials and instructional practices (the hidden curriculum). Four types of critical discourse are identified according to the substance of that which is being assessed: (a) pragmatic, (b) intrinsic, (c) extrinsic, and (d) hidden curriculum .

4. Lesson, General. - Discourse pertaining to past, present, or future lessons where distinctions are not made between procedures, goals, and curriculum materials (e.g., general statements about the lesson as a whole).

5. Students. - Discourse concerning the actions, thoughts, and products of pupils.

The four primary categories (Factual, Pru- dential, Justificatory, and Critical), and the various subcategories within each primary category, address the logical dimensions of supervisory discourse (e.g., how thinking occurs). In addition, a set of substantive categories was developed from an analysis of the tapes themselves. Thinking within a supervisory context always includes thinking about something. We wanted to understand the substantive dimension of supervisory discourse

( i.e., what is talked about) and eventually to examine relationships between the logical and substantive dimensions. Accordingly, six major substantive categories were formulated, each of which contains several subcategories:

6. Context. - Discourse concerning various factors not covered under the previous categories: (a) classroom context, (b) school context, (c) community context, (d) pupils’ homes, (e) supervisor’s or student teacher’s biography, (f) student teaching seminars, (g) educational research, (h) cooperating teachers, and (i) the supervisory process itself (e.g., procedures for conducting the conferences).

1. Goals. - Discourse pertaining to the goals for past, present, and future actions. Discus- sions of goals specific to the lessons under analysis were distinguished from discussions about goals not specific to the lessons.

Each “thought unit” was coded a!ong the following dimensions: (a) the speaker (student teacher or supervisor); (b) primary logical category (e.g., Factual Discourse); (c) secondary logical category (e.g., Descriptive); (d) major substantive category (e.g., curriculum materials), and where appropriate (e) secondary substantive category (e.g., planning procedures). Table 1 illustrates the conceptual framework, and the Appendix provides exam- ples of each of the primary and secondary logical categories which were taken from the data. The present paper reports findings related to the primary logical and substantive categories and examines relationships between these major categories of discourse and the individual and contextual factors discussed earlier (e.g., conceptual level).

2. Curriculum and Materials. - Discourse pertaining to the content of lessons (past. present, or future) and materials used or to be used. Discussions of curricular content and materials specific to the lesson under analysis were distinguished from discussions about curriculum materials beyond the frame of these lessons.

Results

The Logic of Supervisory Discourse

3. Procedures. - Discourse pertaining to methods used in past, present, or future lessons. Distinctions were made between methods used in planning, conducting, and evaluating lessons and between discussions of procedures specific

One interest in the present study is in the distribution of thought units among the four major logical categories in the total data set. in the conferences conducted by each supervisor, and in the conferences for each of the 14 student teachers. Given the expressed goals of the program regarding attention to different forms of


Table 1 A conceptual framework for describing supervisory discourse

Factual Discourse

Descriptive Informational Hermeneutic

Explanatory/Hypothetical

Logical Categories

Prudential Discourse Justificatory Discourse

Instruction Pragmatic Advice/Opinion Intrinsic

Evaluation Extrinsic Support

Substantive Categories

Goals Curriculum and Materials Procedures

Lesson specific Lesson specific Lesson specific vs alternative vs alternative vs alternative

Critical Discourse

Pragmatic Intrinsic Extrinsic

Hidden Curriculum

Student Lesson, General Context

Lesson specific Classroom vs alternative School

Community Home

Supervisor’s or student teacher’s biography

rational discourse and the emphasis on giving explicit attention to several specific forms of discourse, * we have sought to describe how these program themes, related to the logic of supervisory discourse, were acted out by different individuals in different contexts. Table 2 presents the percentage of thought units in each of the four major logical categories for the total data set. As the distribution in Table 2 indicates. most of the discourse clearly falls within the realm of Factual Discourse (63.2%), with Prudential (24.9%), Justificatory (11.3%), and Critical (0.6%) discourse receiving emphasis in that order. As will be discussed below, the logical categories which seemed to be emphasized in the program literature correspond most closely to our categories of Justificatory Dis- course. Critical Discourse, and to the Explana- tory/Hypothetical subcategory within Factual Discourse. These categories are combined below into an index which seemed to us to reflect the program’s emphasis.

When we examined the distribution among the four major logical categories by supervisor

-

Student teaching seminars Educational research Cooperating teachers

The supervisory process

Table 2 Percentage of Thought Units in the Major Logical

Categories: The Total Program’

%

Factual discourse 63.2 Prudential discourse 24.9 Justificatory discourse 11.3 Critical discourse 0.6

Total 100.0

*There are 2,125 thought units in the total data set.

and for each student teacher, we found distributions which were generally similar to the distribution in the total data set. For example, with only one exception (a student teacher), the order of frequencies of the four logical categories was the same as in the total data set (Factual Discourse, Prudential Discourse, Jus- tificatory Discourse, Critical Discourse). Table 3 reports the range in the emphasis given to each of the four categories by each student teacher and by each supervisor. Thus, although there is much similarity in the order in which the four

* Factual Discourse (FD). which represents 63.2% of the total conference discourse. can be broken down as follows: Infor- mariot (56.1% of FD): Descriprion (16” ,D of FD): Hermeneutic (15.8% of FD): and Hypothesis-Explanation (12.1% of FD).


categories were emphasized, there is sufficient variation within each of the four categories in Table 3 to indicate that supervisors and student teachers differed somewhat in the degree to which they emphasized particular modes of reasoning.

Table 3 The Range Within Each of the Four Major Logical

Categories for Supervisors and for Student Teachers

Supervisors Factual discourse Prudential discourse Justificatory discourse Critical discourse

Student reachers Factual discourse Prudential discourse Justificatory discourse Critical discourse

Lowest % Highest %

56.0 71.5 14.1 31.3 6.1 16.4 0 1.6

50.3 14.2 11.6 43.8 5.8 17.8 0 3.1

In an attempt to relate the supervisory discourse to the expressed emphasis in the program on particular forms of discourse, we computed an index (the “Reflective Teaching Index,” RTI) to represent the proportion of discourse within those categories which seem to be most closely related to this expressed emphasis. This index (RTI) represents the percentage of thought units in the major logical categories of justificatory and critical discourse and in the secondary logical category of Explanatary/ Hypothetical Discourse. The RTI for the total data set is 19.6. In other words, 19.6% of the total discourse within the protocols represents attention to those forms of discourse which the program seeks to emphasize. When we examined the RTI for each supervisor and for each student teacher we found that attention to these particular forms of discourse ranged from 12.9 to 27% in the supervisory group and from 8.5 to 29.5% in the student teacher group.

The Substance of Supervisory Discourse

In addition to our interest in the logical dimensions of supervisory discourse (how

thinking occurs), we were also interested in understanding the substance of supervisory discourse (what thinking is about). Table 4 presents the distribution among the major substantive categories within the total data set. As the distribution in Table 4 indicates, the substantive category of Procedures received the most emphasis (34.1%) followed by Students (27%), Curriculum and Materials (17.9%), Context (6.7%), Lesson, General (5.8%), Supervisory Conference Procedures (4.3%), and Goals (4.2%).

Table 4 Percentage of Thought Units in the Major Substanrive

Categories: The Total Program

%

Curriculum and materials 17.9 Goals 4.2 Procedures (planning, teaching, evaluating) 34.1 Lesson, general 5.8 Students 27.0 Context 6.7 Supervisory conference procedures 4.3

Total 100.0

When we examined the distribution among the same substantive categories and the range within each category, by student teacher and by supervisor, we found, as was the case with the logical categories, that there were some differ- ences in the attention given to each substantive category. Despite this variation, however, the categories of Student and Procedures ranked among the top three for each supervisor and for each student teacher (with the exception of one student), accounting for at least 50% of the discourse in all but the one case.

The expressed goals of the program focus particular attention on two of the substantive areas: (1) curriculum and materials (C-M), and (2) goals. Here the protocols reveal that C-M ranked at least third for five of the seven supervisors and for 11 of the 14 student teachers. C- M was given the greatest amount of emphasis by six of the 14 student teachers. On the other hand, the category of Goals received the least emphasis in the total data set (4.2%), never accounting for more than 6.3% of the discourse


in conferences conducted by any supervisor or for more than 13.4% of the discourse in conferences with any student teacher.

Conceptual Level and Supervisory Discourse

Another interest in the present study was to explore the degree to which conceptual level was related to the distribution of discourse among the four major logical categories and the RTI. Table 5 presents the percentages of thought units in each major logical category by supervisor conceptual level, by student teacher conceptual level, and by conceptual level pairings. A statistically significant (p < 0.05) chi- square in each instance suggests that conceptual level is indeed related to the form of conference discourse although the order of emphasis in each instance is the same as in the total data set Factual Discourse, Prudential Discourse, Jus- tificatory Discourse, Critical Discourse.

One of the most interesting findings of this study emerges when attention is focused on the relationship between RTI and conceptual level (CL). Here one would expect that the higher the CL, the more attention would be focused on the categories within the RTI, categories which

tend to involve more complex modes of reasoning than the other categories. However, this expected pattern, as Table 6 indicates, holds up only for student teacher CL and not for supervisor CL. When the supervisors’ conceptual levels are considered, the higher the ranking (1, 2, 3), the less emphasis is given to categories within the RTI. Thus, conceptual level appears

Table 6 Reflective Teaching Index and Conceptual Level

Reflective Teaching Index

Supervisor Conceptual Level

1 (Low) 2 (Middle) 3 (High)

Student Teacher Conceptual Level

2 (Middle) 3 (High)

Conceptual Level Pairs Supervisor-3 with Student 3 Supervisor-3 with Student 2 Supervisor-2 with Student 3 Supervisor-2 with Student 2 Supervisor-l with Student 3

22.3 19.2 19.1

16.6 21.2

19.5 18.5 22.8 11.0 22.3

Table 5 Percentage of Thought Units in Each Major Logical Category by Conceptual Level

Factual Prudential Justificatory Critical

Supervisor Conceptual Level”

1 (Low) 2 (Middle) 3 (High)

71.5 14.1 12.9 1.6 62.2 26.8 10.7 0.3 61.4 26.8 11.3 0.5

Student Teacher Conceptual Levelh

2 (Middle) 60.2 30.1 8.8 0.9 3 (High) 64.7 22.7 12.7 0.4

Conceptual Level Pairs‘ Supervisor-3 with Student 3 63.4 24.1 12.5 -

Supervisor-3 with Student 2 59.1 30.0 9.8 1.1 Supervisor-2 with Student 3 61.6 25.2 12.9 0.2 Supervisor-2 with Student 2 63.4 30.4 5.8 0.5 Supervisor-l with Student 3 71.5 14.1 12.9 1.6

’ Chi square = 28.38 (6. N = 2.125):~ < 0.05 ’ Chi square = 22.63 (3. N = 2.125):~ < 0.05 L Chl square = 18.7 (12. h‘ = 2.125): p < 0.05


to be related to the expressed emphasis of the program, but the conceptual levels of student teachers and supervisors appear to be related to the logic of discourse in different ways.

Furthermore, when cross-tabulations are constructed within each section of Table 6 by including the percentage of thought units in non-RTI categories (e.g., 78.3% for supervisor CL-3), another interesting facet of the RTI-CL relationship emerges. Specifically, a

Chi-square = 13.5 (df = 4); p < 0.05

for conceptual level pairings suggests that there is indeed a relationship between CL and RTI. When we examine the chi-square for the other two aspects of CL, student teacher CL (chi- square = 1; p < 0.05) and supervisor CL (chi- square = 1.72, df= 2; n.s.), it appears that the relationship between CL and RTI is due primarily to the relationship between student teacher CL and the percentage of thought units within RTI categories. In summary, there appears to be an inverse but non-statistically significant relationship between supervisor CL and RTI categories and a statistically significant positive relationship between student teacher CL and RTI categories. The theoretical significance of both the inverse nature of the supervisor CL/ RTI relationship and the apparent importance of student teacher CL (but not supervisor CL) in terms of an emphasis on RTI categories will be discussed shortly.

Lesson Content and Supervisory Discourse

When we examine the distribution among the four major logical categories by lesson content

(reading or social studies/science). it appears that the content of the lesson does not affect the distribution of discourse among the four categories. Table 7 presents the distribution by major logical categories for lessons in each of the two lesson-content categories. These distributions are each similar to the distribution within the total data set and are not significantly different from each other, as indicated by the chi-square of 1.34 (3, n = 2,125; n.s.). The same picture holds up when the analysis is focused on the RTI in each lesson-content category. Speci- fically, 19.6% of the discourse in each of the two lesson-content categories is focused on forms of discourse consistent with the program’s emphasis. This is the same RTI as for the total data set and indicates that lesson content appears to have little to do with the degree of emphasis placed on justificatory reasoning. critical reasoning, and hypothesis explanation.

Discussion

It should be emphasized that the findings reported above represent only the initial examination of the data generated in the present study. More subtle analyses, to be conducted in relation to both primary and secondary logical and substantive categories, should illuminate significant aspects of the supervision within this program. For example. it will be interesting to determine such things as the kinds of justifications given for lesson content, procedures, and goals; the degree to which conference discourse is limited to discussions of the specific lessons just observed; and the degree to which single or

Table 7 Major Lo_eicai Categories by Content Area of the Lesson

Logical Category of Discourse

Lesson Content Factual

Reading 63.9 Social Studies/Science 62.6

Chi square = I .3-I (3. N = 2.125); nonsignificant

Prudential Justificatory Critlcal

24.9 IO.8 0.1 73.0 11.7 0.7


multiple alternatives are considered as solutions to specific instructional problems.

A number of observations can, however, be made from the analyses conducted thus far. First, it is clearly the case that Fuctual Discourse dominates the supervisory discussions within the program. This finding is similar to those of Barbour (1970), who found at least 70% conference discourse at a similar level. A number of reasons, related to the structure of the program and to the role of supervisor, indicate that this would be the case. For example, because supervisors (unlike cooperating teachers) have only limited contact with student teachers in school settings, there is a real need for the supervisor to become informed about the curricular and school contexts so that the supervision and evaluation efforts can be linked to the student teachers’ ongoing programs.

It would be interesting to see whether the proportion of Factual Discourse is less in a program where there are more supervisory visits or where there is some structured approach designed to reduce the need for the passing back and forth of purely descriptive information. In any case, it cannot be inferred that the domi- nance of Factual Discourse is an undesirable feature of the program’s reality which should be reduced. For example, the subcategory of Ex- planatory/Hypothetical Discourse (7.6% of the total discourse) is an aspect of Factual Dis- course which is clearly consistent with the goals of the program. Also, the subcategory of Her- meneutic Discourse (10.0% of the total) represents a probing into the meanings created by participants and is consistent with the principles of Clinical Supervision.

Generally, it is difficult to judge the adequacy of goal implementation without some basis for comparison. Comparative data from other components within this program (e.g., seminars) or from other programs with similar, different, or unarticulated emphasis would assist in for- mulating such conclusions. For example, an RTI of 19.6 could be interpreted as a positive or negative sign of goal implementation depending upon one’s point of view. In the present case. given the various structural limitations related to the conduct of conferences. we were sur-

prised that these categories received as much emphasis as they did. In addition to the extent of supervisor contact with schools, mentioned above, other factors such as the supervisors’ and student teachers’ lack of authority over determining the curriculum would seem to inhibit discussions within the justificatory and critical categories. Discussions related to the reasons and rationales for using various instructional approaches and curricular content and materials, and especially those within the realm of critical discourse, could be perceived as potential threats to the routines established by cooperating teachers and be avoided in an effort to maintain smooth relationships with the cooperating teachers and schools. The discussion by Diamonti and Diamonti (1977) of the boundary-spanning role of university supervisor and the central place of “conflict manage- ment” (i.e., suppression) in university-school encounters during student teaching would support such a view.

In other areas, such as the almost total lack of attention to the issue of goals (4.2% overall), it is clearer that the program’s goals were inadequately implemented. Student teachers may have so little authority in the determination of goals (i.e., in having to accept as given those goals set by the cooperating teacher and school) that conference participants feel little need to focus discussion in this area. Whatever the reason, the lack of attention to student teacher goals is clearly contrary to the intentions of program planners and reflects an important gap between program rhetoric and reality.

When we focused on the relationships between lesson content and the logic of supervisory discourse, we found, contrary to our expectations, no relationship. Here we had suspected that there would be greater attention to RTI categories within social studies/science lesson conferences than in those related to reading lessons because of our feeling that student teachers generally have greater autonomy in determining lesson content and procedures in the areas of social studies/science. Since this relative autonomy was not systematically tested, however. it could be the case that either there is no difference in the degree of student teacher


autonomy in these content areas or that differ- ences which do exist do not affect RTI in the expected manner.

Finally, some of the most interesting findings in the present study are those concerning the relationship between conceptual level and the logic of supervisory discourse. Consistent with what would be expected from the voluminous literature on conceptual level (CL), the conceptual levels of supervisors, student teachers, and conceptual level pairings were all related to the logic of supervisory discourse (see Table 5). However, when we looked at the relationships between the RTI and conceptual level (see Table 6), some surprising results emerged. Specifically, one would expect from CL theory that the higher the CL, the more attention would be focused on the more complex modes of reasoning within the RTI categories. While this turned out to be the case for student teacher conceptual levels, an inverse relationship was found to exist between supervisors’ conceptual levels and the RTI. Also, when chi-square statistics were computed for the distributions among RTI and non-RTI categories, a statistically significant (p < 0.05) chi-square for student teacher CL together with a non-statistically significant chi-square for supervisor CL suggests that it is the student teacher and not the supervisor who sets the tone for the level of complexity in supervisory discourse.

This finding is particularly interesting in the light of some of the current work being done (e.g., by Thies-Sprinthall, 1984) on increasing the conceptual levels of supervisors. The results of the present study suggest that this strategy, even if successful, may not result in more complex modes of reasoning during conferences if the supervisors (as appeared to be the case in the present study) follow one of the major tenets of clinical supervision and respond to the perspectives and cognitive levels of student teachers. On the contrary, the findings in the present study suggest that attention needs to be given primarily to the conceptual levels of student teachers if there is a concern with promoting more complex modes of reasoning during conferences.

These findings related to conceptual level and

the logic of supervisory discourse need to be viewed as very tentative and as only suggestive of possible relationships because of the very limited nature of the present study. However, while the supervisor has typically been viewed as the key participant in determining the nature of discourse during conferences, the present findings suggest that the student teacher may exert a stronger influence than the supervisor in determining the level of supervisory discourse.

It needs to be re-emphasized that the RTI never exceeded 22.8% of the discourse in any instance. Structural constraints within this and similar student teaching programs will probably place outer limits on the degree to which the strategy of raising student teacher CL can influence the proportion of more complex modes of reasoning during conferences. If this is a desire to increase significantly the proportion of more complex modes of reasoning during conferences, teacher educators will need to address the institutional dimensions of the problems as well as the cognitive structures of individual participants.

Implications

This study has several implications for program development in teacher education, for research on instruction supervision, and for the preparation and training of supervisors. First, with regard to program development, the present findings-again confirm the position that program implementation is not synonymous with the articulation of a direction for a program in statements of goals and purposes. Despite an expressed emphasis within the program on particular forms of discourse (both substantive and logical), the program themes were implemented to varying degrees within the program by different supervisors and by different student teachers.

The conceptual framework used in the present study to examine the character of supervisory discourse or other similar frameworks which address either the substantive and logical (e.g., Weller, 1971) or interpersonal (e.g., Blumberg, 1970) dimensions of supervision


offer much potential as tools for assisting teacher educators to gain a greater understanding of how program goals are acted out and given meaning in various program components. Despite the plethora of research on various aspects of field-based experiences in teacher education, we still know very little about the substance and quality of these experiences as they are implemented in the field (see Zeichner, 1984).

It seems reasonable to propose that improve- ments in the quality of teacher education programs can come only after an understanding has been gained of a program’s “curriculum in use.” If discrepancies are then found between the expressed goals of a program and the program’s lived reality, those responsible for giving direction to a program can begin to gain insight into the kinds of curricular or structural changes that are needed to bring the reality of a program more in line with the goals professed. It is not being implied that good intentions and ample information about the curriculum in use will easily lead to the kinds of changes desired by teacher educators. Clearly many social, mate- rial, and ideological constraints within the context of institutions of higher education (e.g., Smith, 1980) and external to the immediate institutional settings of teacher education (e.g., Cronin, 1983) influence how programs are acted out.

However, acknowledging the warning of Whitty (1977) and others against prematurely celebrating the power of analytic activity to transform lived reality, we feel that an understanding of the quality of program implementation is a necessary precondition of program improvement. Given the ascribed importance of supervisory conferences to the processes of formal teacher education, one finds it ironic that so little attention has been given to understanding the quality of what transpires during these encounters. While the importance of supervisory conferences to the development of teachers (e.g., in terms of their influence on subsequent teacher actions) remains problematic at an empirical level. the amount of resources which are typically allocated to the conduct of supervision in field-based teacher

education programs necessitates a closer examination of the use of these resources.

References

Aristotle (1953). Ethics; the Nicomachean ethics (J. A. K. Thomson, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin.

Bales, R. (1951). Interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Barbour, C. (1970). Levels of thinking in supervisory conferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York city.

Bellack, A. A. Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T.. & Smith, F. T. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Blumberg, A. (1970). A system for analyzing supervisor- teacher interaction. In A. Simon & Cl. Boyer (Eds.), Mirrors for behavior. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors and reachers: A private cold war. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Blumberg, A., & Cusick, P. (1969). Supervisor-teacher interaction: An analysis of verbal behavior. Education, 91, 126-134.

Brown, R., 8~ Hoffman, M. (1969). A promissory model for analyzing and describing verbal interaction between college supervisors and student teachers during supervisory conferences. In M. Lindsey et al. (Eds.), Inquiry info teaching behavior of supervisors in teacher educarion laborarories~ New York: Teachers College Press.

Cogan, M. (1973). Clinicalsupervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cronin, M. (1983). State regulation of teacher preparation. In L. Shulman & G. Svkes (Eds.). Handbook ofreachine and policy. New York: Longman.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A resfutemenf of rhe relation of reflective thinking lo the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Diamonti. M., & Diamonti, W. (1977). An organizational analysis of student teacher supervision. Inferchange. 6,27-33.

Edgley, R. (1969). Renson in theory and pracfice. London: Hutchinson.

Elbay, F. (1983). Teacher rhinking: A study of practical knowledge.

Evans, J. (1960). Ohio University, In A. Ripley (Ed.). Evaluating srudent teaching: A forward look at theories and practices. Cedar Falls. 1A: Association for Student Teaching.

Feiman-Nemser. S., & Floden, R. (in press). The cultures of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), The third handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Gauthier. D. (1963). Practical reasoning. London: Oxford University Press.

Glickman. C. (1981). Developmenral supervision. Alexan- dria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.


Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. & Krajewski, R. (1980). Clinical supervision (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rine- hart & Winston.

Good, T. (1983). Research on classroom teaching. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and policy. New York: Longman.

Goodman, J. (1983). The seminar’s role in the education of student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 44-49.

Griffin, G., Barnes, S., Hughes, R., O’Neal, S., Edwards, S., & Defino. M. (1983). Clinical preservice teacher education: Final report of a descriptive study. Austin, TX: University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Heidelbach, R. (1969). The cooperating teacher as teaching tutor. In M. Lindsey et al. (Eds.), Inquiry into teaching behavior of supervisors in teacher education laboratories. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hill, J. (1969). A study of verbal interaction between master teachers and students during clinical nursing conferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Hogben, D. (1982). The clinical mind. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 10, l-8.

Hunt, D. (1977-78). Conceptual level theory and research as guides to educational practice. Interchange, 8, 78-80.

Hunt, D., Butler, L. F.,Noy, G. E. & Rosser, M. E. (1978). Assessing conceptual level by the paragraph completion method. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Karier, C. (1981). Supervision in historical perspective. In T. Sergiovanni (Ed.), Supervision of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Koerner, S. (Ed.) (1974). Practical reason. Oxford: Black- well.

Lindsey, M., and associates (1969). Inquiry into teaching behavior of supervisors in teacher education laboratories. New York: Teachers College Press.

McFaul, S., & Cooper, J. (1983). Peer clinical supervision in an urban elementary school. Journal of Teacher Education, 34. 34-38.

Melnick, S. (1978). An exploratory analysis of the Language of teacher role expectations in summary supervisory conferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Wisconsin-Madison.

Milo, R. (1966). Aristotle on practical knowledge and weakness of will. The Netherlands: Mouton.

Mosher, R.. & Puroel, D. (1972). Supervision: The reluc- tantprofession. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Murphy. A. (1964). The theory ofpractical reason. LaSalle. IL: Open Court.

O’Shea, D. (1984). Teacher education: An empirical study of problems and possibilities. Journal of Education for Teaching, IO, l-23.

Paton. H. J. (lY43). Can reason be practical’? Proceedings of the Britrsh Academy. pp. 65-105.

Peck. R.. &Tucker. J. (1973). Research on teacher education. In R. Travers (Ed.). The second handbook oj.rr- search on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Perlberg, A., & Theodor. E. (1975). Patterns and styles in the supervision of teachers. British Journal of Teacher Educarion, 1. 203-211.

Rawls. J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge. MA: Belknap Press.

Reavis, 6. (1977). A test of the clinical supervision model. Journal of Educational Research, 70. 31 l-315.

Reavis, C.-(1978). Clinical supervision: A review of the research. Educational Leadership. 35. 580-584.

Reid, W. (1979). Practical reasoning and curriculum theory: In search of a new paradigm. Curriculum Inquiry, 9(3x 187-207.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schwab, J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78, l-24.

Sergiovanni, T. (1976). Toward a theory of clinical supervision. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 9(2), 20-29.

Simon, A., & Boyer, G. (1970). Mirrors for behavior. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Smith, B. 0. (1980). A design for a school of pedagogy. Washington,.D.C.: Department of Education..

Smvth. W. J. (1984). Teachers as collaborative learners in clinical supervision: A state of the art review. Journal of Education for Teaching, 10, 24-38.

Sprinthall, N., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1983). The teacher as an adult learner: A cognitive developmental view. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Stuff development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Teacher education as a set of dynamic social events. In B. R. Tabachnick, T. Popkewitz, & B. Bszekely (Eds.), Studying reaching and learning: Trends in Soviet and American research. New York: Praeger.

Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1984). Promoting the developmental growth of supervising teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 53-60.

van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum blquiry. 6, 205-228.

Weller. R. (1971). Verbal communication in instructional , supervision. New York: Teachers College Press.

Whitty, G. (1977). Sociology and the problem of radical educational change. In M. Young & G. Whitty (Eds.). Society, state and schooling. Ringmer. U.K.: Falmer Press.

Wulff, J. (1971). Analysis of verbal interaction in supervts- ory conferences wtth student reachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Zeichner. K. (1984). The ecology of field experience: Toward an understanding of the role of field experiences in teacher development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators.

Zeichner. K., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1982). The belief systems of university supervisors in an elementary


student teaching program. Journal of Education for Teaching. 8. 34-54.

Appendix

Prudential Discourse

Prudential Discourse concerns suggestions about what to do or evaluations of what has been accomplished. The four minor categories are: advice/opinion, instruction, evaluation, and support. One supervisor offered advice about possible procedures for a slide-show presentation.

You need every kind of stimuli possible, umh, to get to them. Maybe the picture will work for one child, but another child will remember something about the move- ment or the sounds. [Prudential Discourse - advice/ opinion]

Another supervisor gave instructions on how to prepare students for breaking into small groups.

Maybe in the beginning if you through forethought realized that some of those things were going to happen, and since they happened. with this. then we can say umh ]then for our purposes we can assume that] maybe in the beginning just talking about why we need to listen to everybody. why we need - you’d like them to work in pairs, why they need to get in a circle. [Prudential Dis- course - instruction]

A third supervisor commended a student teacher for her organizational abilities. He gave a positive evaluation about the general lesson.

Now you obviously have very good discipline from watching your class. There aren‘t very many disruptions at all. [Prudential Discourse -evaluation]

One student teacher talked about a student not participat- ing in an activity and said

It’s too bad cause this activity. 1 think. if he wasn’t so unsure of himself, would have been a good one but

The supervisor respond with support towards the student teacher’s efforts

But you keep working on it. [Prudential Discourse - support]

Factual Discourse

Facrual Discourse is concerned with what has occurred in a teaching situation or with what will occur. In Factual Dis- course there are four minor categories: descriprion, infor- matron. h~pothesislesplanation. and hermeneuric. After a lesson on sea animals. a supervisor described the procedures used by the student teacher

You actually did the movements and you made the sound effects and you used the little card picture as you went along. [Factual Discourse -description]

A student teacher related irr.formariorr about a previous lesson.

OK. the way the unit is going to go is we started with seeds. we umh. obsened seeds. we soaked them over-

night, we cut ‘em open. we looked at them. drew pic- tures. tried to germinate them. Most of them dried over the weekend. So we decided, well, why don’t we try planting, see if they’ll grow. So now we’ve planted them. [Factual Discourse - information]

Another student teacher explained the reactions of students during a role playing lesson focused on cooperation.

No, because kids at this age are so selfish, they ya know. they don’t want to share. they don’t want to do anything -if something’s not fair they’re not gonna let anybody. you know, come in and play when they didn’t help what the heck - that’s their way of solving that kind of situation. [Factual Discourse- hypothesis/explanation]

The fourth minor category under Factual Discourse concerns meaning that inheres or is created in a situation. One supervisor asked the student teacher how she felt about the lesson.

How did you feel about them going and working on their own like that. did you feel that you were out of control of what they were doing or in control, you knew what they were doing? Were they on task - that type of thing?

And the student teacher responded: . I didn’t feel out of control and I know that’s a concern, you know well, they’ve had a free period, they could go wild. [Factual Discourse - hermeneutic]

Justificatory Discourse

Justificafory Discourse provides rationales for pedagogical actions and materials. There are three basic types of rationales: pmgmatic, intrinsic, and extrinsic. One student gave a pragmatic rationale for not using a language experience approach with a large group of students:

I don’t think I feel comfortable with it to do it right now. This group is pretty boisterous and it would be difficult to control the ah - shouting out sentences and stuff especially with something like this. [Justificatory Dis- course - pragmatic]

A supervisor offered an intrinsic rationale for the student teacher’s procedures during a slide presentation.

All of those things were real important and helpful so that the children could relate more. I mean they had the slides right in front of them and that’s wonderful, but you even gave other explantions so that it would be more meaningful to them. [Justificatory Discourse - intrinsic]

And one student teacher justified his teacher directed discussion using an exfrinsic justification.

Well anytime someone is made to raise their hand before they speak you’re suppressing something. They learn they must respect the order that’s established in the classroom. [Justificatory Discourse -extrinsic]

Critical Discourse

Critical Discourse examines the justificar0r.v rarionales or the underlying assumprions in pedagogical action or materials (the hidden curriculum). the dialogue. below. begins


with a supervisor questioning the pragmatic rationale offered by the student teacher. The student teacher’s justification for a lecture format was based on the ‘fact’ that pupils are ego centered, therefore the best way to handle a classroom was for the teacher to direct conversation. The supervisor said:

Well let me interrupt you for a second, if they are ego centered, is that type of lesson where it’s teacher-class and where it’s not a classroom discussion, where the teacher is talking and the class responding, does that move them away from the type of ego centered lesson or does that reinforce it? [Critical Discourse -pragmatic]

The student responded with a pragmatic rationale again and said:

they speak you’re suppressing something. They learn that they must respect the order that’s established in the classroom. [Justificatory Discourse -extrinsic]

The discussion continued. An example of Critical Discourse focused on the hidden curriculum is identified in this final example, where a student teacher talks about the assumptions embedded in a social studies textbook.

It controls it. [Justificatory Discourse -pragmatic] Again the supervisor questioned the pragmatic rationale:

Does it have any effect on that? Does it develop those skills at all? [Critical Discourse -pragmatic]

The student teacher then switched to an extrinsic justification.

. one social studies book was talking about how the British raided during the night the American troops or whatever and they called it a massacre. you know. the British massacre, raid on whatever. And whereas our heroes did the same thing to them but they weren’t. it was just worded so it wasn’t said that they unjustly came in the middle of the night. We did it back to them and we were heroes and they did it to us and they were brutal ‘massacreers’ or whatever, you know, little points like that, I do pick up on those. [Critical Discourse-hidden curriculum]

Well anytime someone is made to raise their hand before Received 12 September 1984 q

varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences

Documents