locating supervision—a reflective framework for negotiating tensions within conceptual and...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Tel.: +1 20

E-mail addr

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1502–1515

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Locating supervision—A reflective framework fornegotiating tensions within conceptual and procedural

foci for teacher development

Jennifer L. Snow-Gerono�

Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1745, USA

Received 22 February 2007; received in revised form 15 January 2008; accepted 5 February 2008

Abstract

This manuscript presents a theoretical construct for analyzing procedural and conceptual tensions within instructional

leadership for teacher development. The dynamic, multi-dimensional framework demonstrates possibilities for locating

supervision as having procedural and conceptual bases. By employing the questions identified, educators may place

themselves within the framework focused on specific areas and located along a procedural to conceptual continuum.

Identifying tensions in practice guides educators to be more reflective when engaging in professional growth. Ultimately,

teachers need to become empowered to engage in reflective supervision in order to guide professional development,

teaching and learning.

r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher development; School supervision; Professional development; Collaborative supervision

‘‘A person becomes a clinical supervisor when he/

she begins to think and act as if the ‘cycle of

supervision’ were a metaphor as well as a method;

when observation and analysis are not only

procedural phases for actions in classrooms, but

also represent the empirical approach inherent in a

skilled service; when the notion of conference not

only means two people meeting before and after

classroom visits, but also suggests dynamic forms

of collaboration in educational alliancesy .’’

(Garman, 1982, p. 52)

ee front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2008.02.002

8 426 2260; fax: +1 208 426 4006.

ess: [email protected]

1. Introduction: reflective supervision for teacher

development in an era of accountability

In the current context of high stakes account-ability for teachers, teacher educators, and, mostimportantly, K-12 students, instructional leadersneed to be able to guide reflective growth ineducators at all levels. But, what does it mean tobe an instructional leader? Teacher leadership mayserve as a powerful means for professional andinstitutional growth in education (Crowther, Kaa-gan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002; Lieberman & Miller,2004). Likewise, teachers as instructional leaderscan engage in supervisory processes akin to peercoaching (Gottesman, 2000) in order to engage theirown and their peers’ professional development.

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.002

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Leadership

Purpose

Data

Basis

CollaborativeSupervisor -

DirectedTeacher -Directed

Evaluative

IdentifiableObservable

Prescriptive

Experiential

Open-ended

DIMENSION

Dynamic Interplay of Multiple Dimensionswithin Tensions of Supervision

Strict

CONCEPTUAL

PROCEDUR

TENSIONS

Guided

Combination Growth

J.L. Snow-Gerono / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1502–1515 1503

Clinical, or reflective, supervision has emphasizedthe simultaneous growth of teacher and supervisorin its brief history (Garman, 1982; Nolan & Huber,1989). Looking through supervision history andidentifying a theoretical construct for analyzingpractice according to varied contexts, constraints,and goals for teacher development should empowereducators on all levels to determine what is bestpractice for themselves and for student growth.

The literature on school supervision unveils severaldistinctive models (Tracy, 1998) and a rich history(Glanz, 1998) indicative of the position in whichcontemporary supervisors may find themselves.School supervisors should be able to recognize theimpact of scientific management in their work as theyencounter national standards as well as competencytests and educational language like quality manage-ment and excellence. However, more collaborativeand postmodern approaches are available withinWaite’s (1995) dialogic supervision, Costa andGarmston’s (2002) cognitive coaching, Starratt andHowells (1998) moral agency, and Sergiovanni’s(1997) calls for community and collaboration.Postmodern supervision (Holland & Obermiller,2000), developing professional learning communities(Dufour & Eaker, 1998) or the National SchoolReform Faculty’s ‘‘critical friends groups’’ (Bambi-no, 2002), and practitioner inquiry (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003), for example, provide avenues forteacher development within different frameworksfor instructional leadership or supervision. However,the multitude of supervisory approaches and modelsleaves educators in a place in which they may beunsure of specific roles and responsibilities or super-vision’s place as a field and as a profession, not tomention professional ethics and responsibility in thecurrent age of accountability.

In an effort to be increasingly analytical aboutsupervisory practice(s) geared more toward teacherdevelopment than evaluation, educators could learnfrom Flinders’ (1998) questions aimed at bringingsupervision as a field of study to a more reflectiveprocess:

Progression Adherence

FluidConnectedAL
(1) How is this activity framed?
Motivation Research Compromise Values
(2) What do others expect of a supervisor, and why? (3)
Time "End-in-sight" Contextual Ongoing
How do I go about describing supervision,either as what I do or as a field, especially tothose outside of education?
(4)

Fig. 1. An analytical framework for locating supervisory

practice: procedural–conceptual.

In other words, how do I account for myself as asupervisor, and what does that account say aboutmy underlying theories of practice? (p. 1124).

In responding to these questions, educators mayalso benefit from the construct proposed here,designed as an analytical tool for locating super-visory practice. This analytical framework is basedon a continuum of conceptual and procedural fociand should be able to be used with all teachers,prospective and practicing, and all supervisors,whether serving primarily as teachers themselvesor administrators. These foci are based on under-standings of reflective supervision (Garman, 1982;Nolan & Huber, 1989). For the purpose of thismanuscript and the included analytical framework,a procedural understanding would be akin tochecking duties off a list as one goes through the‘‘cycle of supervision:’’ establishing readiness, devel-oping the relationship, preconference, data collec-tion, analysis and strategy, postconference, cycleevaluation. A conceptual understanding wouldindicate an appreciation for individual differencesand contextual forces on the process of reflectivesupervision. A more conceptual understandingembraces the dynamic interplay of teacher develop-ment aspects like leadership, purpose, data, basis,progression, motivation and time (see Fig. 1). I amnot suggesting that all procedures should be seen ina negative light; rather, the understanding of super-vision for teacher development in light of proce-dures only may limit the potential of a conceptual

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.L. Snow-Gerono / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1502–15151504

framework’s possibilities for growth. Of course, it ismuch more complex than falling into place some-where along this continuum.

In the quest to make supervision for teacherdevelopment a more reflective process, schoolsupervision’s history is reviewed in this manuscriptas well as varied models, methods and perspectivesin the field. This article then presents a theoreticalconstruct as a dynamic, multi-dimensional tool anddemonstrates its possibilities for locating super-vision as having procedural and conceptual bases.The construct is intended to be cubed in order tocreate space for the constant interplay of thetensions between conceptual and procedural under-standings. By employing the questions identified(see Table 1), educators may be able to place

Table 1

Guiding questions for analytical framework

Dimension Analytical framework tensions An

Leadership Supervisor; collaborative; teacher directed Wh

Purpose Evaluative; combination; growth focus Wh

Data Observable; identifiable; experiential Wh

Basis Prescriptive; guided; open ended Ho

to

Progression Strict adherence; connected; fluid Wh

Motivation Research; compromise; values based Fro

ori

Time ‘‘End-in-sight’’; contextual; ongoing Wh

Table 2

Examples of placing supervision models with/in space(s) on framework

Dimension Tensions

Leadership Supervisor-directed Collaborative

Clinical (technical) Clinical, cogn

Purpose Evaluative Combination

Clinical (means-oriented) Community, r

Data Observable Identifiable

Clinical (means-oriented), reflective Community, m

Basis Prescriptive Guided

Clinical (means-oriented) Cognitive coac

Progression Strict Adherence Connected

Clinical (means-oriented) Community, c

Motivation Research Compromise

Clinical (means-oriented), scientific Clinical, devel

Time ‘‘End-in-sight’’ Contextual

Clinical, scientific Community, m

themselves within this construct focused on specificareas and located as primarily procedural andconceptual depending on the circumstances oridentified area for growth. In turn, this shouldenhance personal growth for professional develop-ment (Tomlinson, 2004) and enhanced professionalpractice. Examining supervision as a field from botha historical lens and through this proposed con-struct next includes investigating other supervisorymodels and approaches and describing them in lightof the framework (see Table 2 for potentialplacements).

It should be stated up front that this construct isintended as multi-dimensional due to the contextualforces that influence responses to the guidingquestions. I discuss tensions between procedural

alytical framework guiding question

o is leading the supervisory experience?

at is the purpose of the supervisory experience?

at data do you use to describe the supervisory experience?

w does one engage in this supervisory experience? Are there rules

follow?

at does the progression of the supervisory experience look like?

m where does the motivation for this supervisory experience

ginate?

at kind of time frame surrounds this supervisory experience?

Teacher-directed

itive coaching Developmental, teacher concern model

Growth

eflective Clinical (learning-centered), moral

Experiential

eans-oriented Artistic, reflective, critical

Open-ended

hing, community Reflective, dialogic, artistic

Fluid

linical, reflective Reflective, artistic, postmodern

Values

opmental, reflective Dialogic, educative, community, moral

Ongoing

oral, reflective Dialogic, postmodern, critical, community

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.L. Snow-Gerono / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1502–1515 1505

and conceptual foci, but there are also multipleaspects of the framework that may outweigh othersat various times. For example, the purpose ofsupervision may be strictly evaluative, placing theexperience solely in the procedural realm. However,the supervisor may allow the experience to beteacher-directed or even evaluated upon experientialdata like in esthetic supervision (Barone, 1998). Atdifferent times, certain questions may outweigh allothers—purpose being a dominant dimension of theframework along the continuum. This complexitymakes the interpretation of this analytical constructextremely context-specific and potentially variableamong different parties who may be using it. Hence,it was difficult to create such a construct andidentify questions for universal use. This frameworkdoes come with the caveat that it is a guide forgrowth more than an answer to supervision.Another complexity in the analysis lies within theresponses to the questions. Is a supervisor followingan espoused platform? More importantly, is that theplatform the teacher perceives to be the case. Theplatform-in-use is more applicable to the constructfor educator growth. This could, in turn, cause morereflection on the part of the supervisor as well. Thedivision of experiences along the continuum is notnecessarily the point as much as embracing thetensions and complexity for better understandingsand eventually professional growth.

2. Historical antecedents of supervision

Looking into the history of school supervisionprovides insight into roots of more reflective super-vision, instructional leadership and teacher devel-opment. Although supervision is often consideredan evaluative aspect of the role of administration, ithas also evolved into means for teacher develop-ment (Glanz, 2000) ‘‘across the professional lifespan’’ (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2001, p. 49). Thehistory of school supervision, not surprisingly, isconnected to the social and intellectual movementswithin American society. In his historical analysis ofschool supervision, Glanz (1998) identifies sevendominant conceptions of supervision: inspection,efficiency, democratic, scientific, leadership, clinical,and ‘‘changing concepts.’’ Supervision as inspectionprospered in the late 1800s when superintendentsrecognized a large part of their role as a visitor ofschools and an inspector of the performance ofteachers. Their supervisory role called for them toenter classrooms and tell teachers ‘‘what is accep-

table practice and what is not.’’ (Harris, 1892, ascited in Glanz, 1998, p. 49). The premise ofsupervision as inspection certainly added to schoolsas top–down bureaucracies designed to produce andcontrol American citizens. Within this ‘‘premodern’’(Glanz, 2000) environment, procedures of super-vision would be more important than the concep-tual basis of supervision for growth orimprovement. Indeed this inspection-oriented en-vironment served the purpose of managing teachers,the majority of whom were only rudimentarilyprepared for their jobs.

In a direct response to this hierarchical powerstructure, the twentieth century began with a turntoward professionalism and progressivism. How-ever, this turn toward the democratization ofschools seemed elusive to progressives in dealingwith the increasing urbanization of society. Withthis urbanization, school systems grew more com-plex and superintendents did not have the time toenter schools as inspectors anymore. Therefore,they appointed proxies or other supervisors (gen-erally expert teachers), and many quickly earned thename ‘‘snoopervisor’’ (Glanz, 1998, p. 52) Thelegacy of this negative relationship between super-visors and teachers can be recognized today inschools in which teachers are evaluated andcontrolled in a manner that does not recognizetheir autonomy or professionalism. Supervisionstruggled with changing its purpose and approachas teachers became more professionally prepared.Again, such a distrustful relationship betweensupervisors and teachers indicates that a proceduraland evaluative base for supervisory practice wasprevalent. In many cases, this procedural under-standing of a scientific approach still stifles teacherautonomy, particularly when connected to standar-dized assessments, as is often an emphasis in currentschools working toward No Child Left Behind

(NCLB) compliance.As supervision became more scientific, a social

efficiency movement also occurred in the areasof curriculum and supervision (Kliebard, 2004).During this time, rating scales became popular.Supervisors were attempting to assert their profes-sionalism through the use of scientific methods inthis period. However, Glanz (1998) claims that

What he [Franklin Bobbitt] called scientific andprofessional supervisory methods’ were in factscientistic and bureaucratic methods of super-vision aimed not at professionalizing but at


finding a legitimate and secure niche for control-oriented supervision within the school bureau-cracy. (p. 53)

With negative reactions from teachers and super-visors finding themselves in a vulnerable position inthe bureaucratic school hierarchy, democraticmethods began to reemerge in the 1920s. Demo-cratic supervision actually co-existed with otherefficiency and scientific trends in supervision. The‘‘history’’ of supervision is far more complex than alinear progression from scientific to social efficiencyto democratic supervision, for example. Manytrends co-existed, intimating the postmodern con-dition supervisors later found and indicating thatthere is more of a simultaneous rather than a linearhistorical progression (Holland & Obermiller, 2000;Smyth, 1991, 1997; Waite, 1995). According toGlanz, during this democratic turn of schoolsupervision in the 1920s and 1930s, supervisorscontinued to attempt to cultivate democraticpractices with teachers. Democratic supervisorymodels also led to the conception of scientificsupervision.

John Dewey endorsed scientific supervision asbeing compatible with democratic practices and asbeing considered distinct from the social efficiencymodel (Glanz, 1998). Dewey, as a philosopher ofdemocracy and education, gave some legitimizationto this movement. Supervisors understood thepressures to assert their professionalism and, inturn, began to develop the ‘‘science of instructingteachers.’’ In their attempts at scientific supervision,they returned to narrow teacher rating scales andfailed to implement democratic supervisory prac-tices. Supervision remained steeped in authoritarianmethods and found itself with the dilemma ofenforcing scientific practice while at the same timerecognizing teachers’ varied contexts. Finally,through the 1940s and 1960s strong democraticleadership slowly replaced supervisor-as-rater in theliterature. During the social period of politicalupheaval, anti-war sentiment, and concerns forjustice and equality, supervision as inspection andsocial efficiency was inappropriate. Supervision’scontinual changes and varied attempts at professio-nalizing the field resulted in ambiguous goals androles for supervisors; hence, purposes remainedunclear and confusion reigned in the field.

By the 1970s, tensions within scientific, demo-cratic and social efficiency movements stimulatedthe need for alternative notions for guiding theory

and practice of supervision in schools. Clinicalsupervision emerged. According to Glanz (1998),

The premise of clinical supervision was thatteaching could be improved by a prescribed,formal process of collaboration between teacherand supervisor. The literature of clinical super-vision has been replete with the concepts ofcollegiality, collaboration, assistance, and im-provement of instruction. (p. 63)

Garman (1982) credits Cogan (1973) and Gold-hammer (1969) with the birth of clinical supervisionand maintains in her own work that ‘‘clinicalsupervision as a construct is different from theprocedural orientation popularly described in theliterature’’ (p. 35). Nolan and Huber (1989) describeclinical supervision as ‘‘reflective supervision’’ andhold its main purpose as guiding teachers to becomemore reflective because ‘‘as teachers become morereflective, they begin to believe that they do have thepower to influence student learning significantly’’.(p. 144)

During the 1980s, other alternative methods ofsupervision were proposed and considered. Devel-opmental supervision gained attention (Glickman,1985, 1981), whereas the 1990s reintroduced peersupervision and cognitive coaching (Costa &Garmston, 2002). Sergiovanni and Starratt (2001)introduced their term of ‘‘Supervision II’’ asopposed to the inspectorial, efficiency-oriented‘‘Supervision I.’’ ‘‘Supervision II’’ is based in anincreased potential to become more collegial andeven informal as colleagues work together oninquiry-based projects in lieu of formal, authoritar-ian supervision. This shift is evident in practicetoday, and even in the changing terms accompany-ing traditional ‘‘supervisory’’ practice. Educationalleaders refer to instructional leadership, peer coach-ing, and collaborative inquiry for examining andevaluating educational practice. However, the le-gacy of bureaucratic school supervision, often witha contradictory focus on evaluation, has led to amultitude of models. Likewise, the emphasis onaccountability with NCLB implementation refo-cuses supervision into more top–down frameworksonce again. However, instructional leaders arenot all neglecting the concepts underlying ‘‘Super-vision II’’ or postmodern supervision. Teacherleadership remains an emphasis in the importanceof teacher development (Lieberman & Miller, 2004).Teacher inquiry and professional learning commu-nities are also still considered promising for teacher


development and for demonstrating connections tostudent learning and development.

2.1. A special emphasis on variations of clinical

supervision

Clinical supervision is often mentioned in models,theories, and approaches to supervision (Tracy,1998). Its ‘‘treatment ranges from that of a distinctmodel of clinical supervision to clinical supervisionas a broader concept from which numerous modelsare derived’’ (Tracy, 1998, p. 99). Clinical super-vision, in its varied definitions, can be located in theprocedural tensions of the analytical frameworkdescribed here with Hunter’s (1982) research-based,evaluative approach and/or in the middle toconceptual tensions of the construct with Garman’s(1982) metaphorical approach to the supervisoryprocess. Tracy and MacNaughton (1989) outline anemerging conflict between neo-traditionalists andneo-progressives in defining clinical supervision.

Neo-traditionalists recognize the importance of therelationship between the supervisor and teacher, butthey are more means oriented in their approach thanthe neo-progressives. Tracy and MacNaughton(1989) state, ‘‘The crucial weakness of the traditionalapproach is its inability to validate many particulartraits, techniques, or skills as synonymous withstudent achievement and effective instruction’’ (p.248). The neo-traditionalist approach is character-ized by checklists for evidence of effective teaching.Hunter’s theories of effective teaching lay the basisfor the essential elements of an effective lesson plan.If a teacher implements these elements, then thatteacher illustrates proper teaching.

On the other hand, the neo-progressive definitionof clinical supervision may be traced to Cogan’s(1973) and Goldhammer’s (1969) descriptions of theconcept. Neo-progressives reject a set model ofgood teaching and embrace the concept of clinicalsupervision as one geared to help educators togetherresolve classroom teaching problems. Growth, trust,teacher direction, context, and collegiality areimportant aspects of the neo-progressive approachto clinical supervision. The neo-progressives rejectevaluation or assessment as an appropriate respon-sibility for clinical supervisors. This model isinherently flexible, allowing a set of undefinedcriteria for teacher and supervisory skills. There isa process, however, to guide the steps of clinicalsupervision: preconferencing, planning lessons co-operatively, observing the classroom, examining

classroom data based on a prior agreement, andjointly reviewing the supervisory process.

The flexibility of this neo-progressive approachalso allows for the emergence of several differentversions of this model of clinical supervision. Theneo-traditional model would be more rigid with itsexternally derived criteria for effective teachingwhile the neo-progressive model has allowed forseveral versions following the clinical supervisionguidelines (cyclical process). Garman (1982) em-phasizes the process of clinical supervision. Shedenies clinical supervision as a model in order toview it as a practice with concepts to guidesupervisors. According to Garman (1982), one ofthe most important parts of this process is to view itas a metaphor as much as a method to guide thesteps of clinical, or reflective, supervision. Conse-quently, clinical supervision is a case in point of thecomplexity of locating supervision and identifyingappropriate practice toward reflective growth.

2.2. Models or schema for school supervision

Tracy (1998) identified six schema around whichshe organizes various supervisory models. Her firstschema includes the Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development’s scientific, clinical,and artistic models. Schema 2 includes clinical,cooperative professional development, self-directed,and administrative monitoring as its models.Schema 3 includes common law, goal setting,product, clinical supervision, and artistic models.Schema 4 includes original clinical models, huma-nistic/artistic, technical/didactic, and developmentreflective models. Schema 5 includes clinical super-vision, collegial, self-directed, informal, inquiry, andadvisory models. Finally, Schema 6 includes in-structional objective, performance objective, tradi-tional, neo-traditional, and teacher-concern models.These schema provide organizational tools for theirauthors to frame supervisory practices. One can seehow difficult it may be to locate supervisorypractice, even within distinct models or definitions.Therefore, I introduce this analytical framework forlocating supervision. I will then demonstrate wheredifferent models may be located along a procedural—conceptual continuum. The framework is designed asan informative tool for all supervisors (whetherconsidered teachers, coaches, instructional leaders oradministrators or whether supervising prospective orpracticing teachers) because no matter what they arecalled or how the practice is perceived, educators need


an analytical tool that will guide their reflection inorder to locate themselves and their practice withinthis multitude of models for supervision. The ultimategoal would be to guide learning for all in education.

3. Analytical framework: procedural and conceptual

tensions within supervision

As can be found in a study of the historicalantecedents of school supervision, tensions may benoted within models and approaches to supervisorypractice. It becomes evident from where an empha-sis on a procedural understanding of supervisionstems as well as calls for more collegial supervisoryrelationships and processes. The historical basis ofscientific supervision being interpreted solelythrough its procedures rather than through itsconceptual basis of best research and practicehighlights the need to address procedural andconceptual tensions within supervision. Addition-ally, blending supervisory approaches for a con-ceptual understanding of practice suggests thatlocating supervision within this proposed analyticalframework is more appropriate than naming it.Locating supervisory practice within this frame-work allows educators to reflect on personalpractice rather than match their practice to aparticular mold or model. This framework providesinstructional leaders with a tool to analyze theirpractice and enhance opportunities for their growthas well as the growth of the teachers with whomthey work.

Supervision has been defined with words likesurveillance, regulation, and administration. At thesame time, it has been associated with words likeguidance, instruction, and leadership. These see-mingly contradictory terms may add ambiguity andconfusion to defining a supervisor’s roles andresponsibilities. In many school systems, for prac-tical purposes, supervision has been closely con-nected to assessing the performance of teachers.However, some scholars note that this assessmentrole often interferes with supervision’s purposes ofspurring professional growth and development (see,for example, Goldstein & Noguera, 2006; Nolan,Hawkes, & Francis, 1993; Nolan & Hilkirk, 1991;Nolan & Huber, 1989; O’Sullivan, 2004; Poglinco &Bach, 2004).

This practical tension within supervision as a fieldcaused me to further reflect on other tensions basedin procedural and conceptual understandings ofinstructional leadership. Therefore, I created an

analytical framework (Fig. 1) and its connectedquestions to guide placement of supervisory practicewithin that framework (see Table 1). Each questionmatches a dimension of the analytical construct.Locating supervisory practice should also encou-rage consistent reflection to spur continual profes-sional growth in all educators. Designed as multi-dimensional, the framework addresses the complex-ity and interrelatedness of many of the supervisoryaspects included with context an umbrella dimen-sion of the entire construct, adding to the multi-dimensionality. For example, in my experience inpreservice education, evaluation must be a directpurpose of what my institution labels ‘‘three-wayobservations’’ because supervisor and mentor tea-cher must complete official evaluative forms. How-ever, we consider other observations, and evenevaluative observations, to focus primarily on thegrowth of the teacher, making it even more complexthan the ‘‘combination’’ answer the constructprovides. All of the construct’s aspects share thetensions of conceptual and procedural understand-ings. Therefore, procedural understanding andconceptual understanding are important sides sur-rounding the cubed framework.

This analytical framework is based on dimensionsof supervisory practice, or professional develop-ment, and how educators describe their personalpractice. The first dimension within the analyticalframework has to do with leadership of develop-ment experiences. For example, either the super-visor or the teacher may take on leadership roles.When educators answer the question ‘‘Who isleading the supervisory experience?’’ they mayidentify supervision directed by the supervisor, orcoach, through a primarily procedural understand-ing and supervision directed by the teacher througha primarily conceptual understanding. The rationalebehind this is that when a supervisor has an agendaor plan to follow, that plan is guided by procedures(i.e. observing, conferencing, evaluating). However,if a supervisor allows for teacher direction in theprocess, the supervisor is acknowledging the tea-cher’s expertise and professional capability—evenwith a prospective teacher—for decision-makingand professional development. This acknowledge-ment allows the conceptual process of supervision—as instructional leadership—to focus more on growthfor the individuals involved than on the proceduresthat should be followed to complete a ‘‘supervisoryprocess.’’ Depending on the circumstances and goalsfor development, either a supervisor- or teacher-led


experience may be appropriate. For example, oftennovice teachers prefer to have a more supervisor- ormentor-led process. They can be coached to engagethe conceptual aspects of reflective supervision whenready and then begin to lead their own professionaldevelopment.

Although when acting in a leadership role,teachers may begin with processes with which theyare familiar, such as procedural checklists forsupervision, the power to direct the experience asthey desire provides the opportunity to base it in aconceptual focus. This approach is attending to thedynamic interplay of ideas rather than simply aprescribed list of procedures. Supervisors may alsolead within the conceptual base of this framework,but to do so, they must recognize the merit of theteacher’s individual values and goals. This concep-tual leadership involves a supervisory purpose ofgrowth and an appreciation for a teacher’s personalagenda for professional development, rather thanprocedural stages of data collection. Attention toteacher needs also reflects democratic supervisorypractices as described historically. Quite possibly, asupervisory experience may lie at some point in themidst of this tension. A collaborative supervisoryexperience would be positioned at a point at whichprocedures are followed (as guided by a supervisor),but the thinking and meaning behind teacheractions are also explored by both educators. Someteachers may also be on improvement plans thatdemand more supervisor direction than others.

The second dimension included within the analy-tical framework attends to the question: ‘‘What isthe purpose of the supervisory experience?’’ Whenone responds to this question with a focus onevaluation, the experience is procedurally under-stood, intended to assess performance and oftensupervisor directed. When one responds to thisquestion with a focus on growth or professionaldevelopment, there are more opportunities for theexperience to be conceptually explored. With thefocus on growth, again the conceptual basis for ateacher’s performance and daily work brings theteacher into the experience more fully and limits thedominance of procedures and checklists. Likecollaborative-directed supervision, a supervisoryexperience may also serve the purpose of bothevaluation and growth. A tenured teacher, forexample, may have an opportunity to identify anarea for growth but a supervisor would be workingto support this growth while at the same timepotentially conducting an evaluation of teacher

performance. This is by no means an ideal situationand goes against the aims of supervision as outlinedby Nolan and Huber (1989).

The third question attended to within theanalytical framework is ‘‘What data do you use todescribe the supervisory experience?’’ When dataincludes listings of observable behaviors in concreteforms, a supervisory experience may be largelyprocedure based. It can be directly connected toobservable procedures. When data are more ab-stract, it is experiential. Data can be based inteachers’ personal experiences or philosophicalorientations to teaching and learning. This datamay be difficult to observe as it is not necessarilyidentifiable. This is an example of more concep-tually based supervision. The observable proceduresmay become lost within the context of the experi-ences of the teacher. A conceptual understanding ofsupervision could accept this ambiguity. There mayalso be a point within this tension in the analyticalframework at which supervision is positioned asidentifiable but not necessarily directly observablebehavior. Examples might include a teacher’sexpressly written narrative or philosophy statementor a teacher inquiry project that is identifiable butincludes behaviors that may not all be directlyobservable.

The fourth dimension included within the analy-tical framework attends to the questions ‘‘How doesone engage in this supervisory experience? Are thererules to follow?’’ Supervision that is prescriptive hasdefinite procedures to follow. For example, Hun-ter’s (1982) model of clinical supervision is oftenperceived as prescriptive when it is based in whetheror not teachers follow a sequence of steps from theopening to the closing of their lesson. A concep-tually based response to this question would be anexperience that is completely open ended. This maybe directed by teacher interests and have no setguidelines for collecting data and/or performanceassessment. Of course, the experience would bedocumented and analyzed, but there would be noprescriptive guidelines. An example might be artisticsupervision where the supervisor writes a narrativecritique of the classroom to share with the teacher(Barone, 1998) or dialogic supervision (Waite,1995). There may also be a point at which thistension would be positioned as a guided supervisoryexperience where it was not freely open ended, butguided by a few norms such as observations anddata collection. Undoubtedly, each dimension hasits own tensions from procedural and conceptual


understandings that sometimes make it difficult toprecisely name supervisory practice.

The fifth dimension included in the analyticalframework derives from the question ‘‘What doesthe progression of the supervisory experience looklike?’’ A supervisory experience may range fromstatic to entirely fluid and dynamic. A staticexperience is strictly based in procedures likecollecting data, conferencing and making judg-ments. In this regard static refers to an experiencethat is concrete, in which data collection andanalysis provide ‘‘yes or no’’ and ‘‘black and white’’solutions. There may be little growth in thisexperience as it serves the purpose of evaluation.On the other hand, a fluid experience would be moreabstract, open ended, and guided by teacher beliefsabout teaching and learning and not necessarilyground in procedures. For example, teachers maywork together to plan and implement a lesson andthen share conversations about its strengths andweaknesses. This teaching experience may prove tobe quite reflective and growth oriented but may notfit neatly into a description of accepted schoolsupervision. If an experience is not quite static—strictly adhering to procedures—but not entirelyfluid either, it may be described as a more connectedview of supervision. This connected view would linkprocedures in an orderly fashion but may allow formore dynamics within those procedures. An exam-ple would be a supervisor supporting a teacher inguiding the progression of procedures based in herconceptual basis for teaching and learning. Onephase here might include observations without datacollection, for example.

The sixth dimension included in the analyticalframework evidences the tensions within the experi-ence being motivated by research and it beingmotivated by values. This dimension attends to thequestion ‘‘From where does the motivation for thissupervisory experience originate?’’ The word moti-vation here refers to what pushes the experience.When external research is the impetus for super-vision it may be more procedurally based. There areprescriptions for teaching and supervising. Whenparticipant values or contexts provide the impetusfor the experience, it is much more experiential andopen ended. The teacher and supervisor as peopleare much more involved in this experience. Theyvalue their professional beliefs and experiences morethan a plan developed by external or scientificresearchers. This is not to denounce externaleducation research in schools. Certainly ‘‘best

practices’’ and ‘‘scientifically-based research’’ arethe basis for much NCLB policy implementation.However, when programs are prescribed withoutconsideration for personal or contextual values,their scientific basis may be undermined by im-plementation practices. There is also a place on theanalytical framework for compromise betweenresearch and values. An example of the procedur-al–conceptual tensions within this dimension mightinclude a teacher who has values based in a socialjustice perspective. Within a conceptual under-standing, this teacher would raise social justiceissues to the forefront of the supervision experience,regardless of what research on ‘‘best practices’’ or apackaged curriculum may support. A compromisein this instance would be to employ social justiceresearch in the data, along with the teacher’spersonal social justice convictions, for the super-visory experience. For example, a teacher who isfollowing a prescribed curriculum may do so in sucha way that she also includes the personal experiencesof her diverse students, whether through examples,curriculum extensions, or projects.

The final dimension included in the analyticalframework speaks to time. The question guidingthis dimension is ‘‘What kind of time framesurrounds this supervisory experience?’’ If there isan absolute ‘‘end-in-sight’’ for the supervisoryexperience, then it is primarily procedurally based.The procedures are guiding the experience so that itwill be finished by an exact date and/or time, oftenthe case when evaluation is an important aspect ofsupervision. This placement does not allow for theextenuating circumstances an open-ended experi-ence does. An open-ended experience is not guidedby time, but by growth or the values of theparticipants involved. Although this may not beentirely practical in several school systems and theirbureaucratic structures, there is a middle tensionwithin this dimension as well, allowing for con-textual factors to influence how long a supervisoryexperience lasts. These contextual factors could bethat the experience would be ongoing if it weren’tfor the end of a school year or career moves ofparticipants, and the experience would be ap-proached as such. Contextual factors could alsoinclude drawing back from the procedurally based‘‘end-in-sight’’ in order to allow for certain class-room instances or personal/societal impacts affect-ing the teaching and learning process.

An important aspect of every dimension withinthis analytical framework is the pull between a


procedural and a conceptual understanding, asevidenced by the arrows in Fig. 1. This pull makesthe procedural–conceptual tension more dominantthan simply another dimension included in theanalytical framework. As a center tension thisaspect holds the potential for pulling educators inmultiple directions, quite possibly answering the sixquestions at varied ends of the continuum. Thisdynamic also should demonstrate that depending onthe purposes and extenuating circumstances, some-times a procedural pull is the right answer andsometimes the conceptual pull is more appropriatefor professional development. The tensions hereparallel the pull between the democratic and socialefficiency movements throughout supervision’s his-tory. Perhaps it is Dewey’s conceptual understand-ing of scientific supervision that would best supportdemocratic practices and inform theoretical under-pinnings for supervision as a field.

4. Locating various models of school supervision

At this point, I will employ several of the modelsidentified in Tracy’s schema and throughout super-vision’s history as locatable within the analyticframework proposed here (see Table 2). It isimportant to note that Table 2 has multiple answersand placements according to models and contextsfor supervision. This table is included to furtherexemplify the multi-dimensional complexity oflocating supervision and to emphasize the analyticalconstruct is not intended to provide correct answersas much as guide reflective growth. For example,Table 2 could have ‘‘clinical supervision’’ in almostevery cell. According to Tracy (1998), scientificsupervision consists of ‘‘research-derived criteria’’for teaching. Therefore, this model is based in theprocedural frame of the analytical framework inanswering the question ‘‘From where does themotivation for this supervisory practice originate?’’However, Tracy also includes clinical supervision asdefined by Garman in the same schema. Garman(1982) claims

Ultimately, a person becomes a clinical super-visor when he/she can use the method, actthrough the metaphor, and thereby sort out thenontrivial from the trivial in order to bringmeaning to educational endeavors. (p. 52)

Such a definition of clinical supervision follows amore middle-of-the-road or conceptual basis in theconstruct as it may lie in compromise rather than

strictly placing research over values. Eisner’s (1982)‘‘artistic supervision’’ is found in the same schema,and it compares the supervisor to an art critic, a‘‘connoisseur of teaching’’ (p. 61). Barone (1998)discusses these esthetic dimensions of supervision asmore experiential and values based in approachtoward esthetic critique rather than scientificauthority. In an examination of one schema, then,we can see that procedural and conceptual under-standings of supervision may be organized throughsimilar schema, in this case the ‘‘derivation of themeaning of teaching’’ (Tracy, 1998, p. 88). That is tosay, Tracy’s schema organize supervisory ap-proaches in such a way that supervision withprocedural and conceptual bases are found withinthe same schemata.

Glatthorn (1984) identifies ‘‘learning-centeredclinical supervision,’’ with the purpose of helpingrather than evaluating teachers, a conceptual trendin the analytical framework. However, he followsHunter’s (1982) version of clinical supervision,which is largely based in research on effectiveteaching, a procedural characteristic in the analy-tical framework. Likewise, Pajak’s (1993) use ofclinical supervision as the over-arching umbrella forfour families of clinical models may be found atdifferent places along the continuum depending onthe focus question. Pajak’s first family is the originalmodel as described by Cogan (1973), Goldhammer(1969), and Mosher and Purpel (1972). The purposefor all three of these clinical supervision models is‘‘to provide support to teachers (to assist) andgradually to increase teachers’ abilities to be self-supervising’’ (Tracy, 1998, p. 92), a focus on teacherdevelopment rather than evaluation or assessment.A major unifying principle is collegiality and atrusting relationship. Each version also identifies adifferent number of stages and varied methodology.This indicates a conceptual basis that maintains astrong appreciation for the procedural aspects ofsupervision.

Pajak’s (1993) second family of clinical super-vision is humanistic/didactic. The humanistic side ofthis family emphasizes the human relationships andemotional dimensions of the supervisor–teacherrelationship; hence, it is more conceptual using thetensions within the outlined analytical framework.However, the third family, the technical/rational, isreminiscent of scientific supervision, indicating itsprocedural basis. Knowledge of effective practice isexternally derived, and teaching is a rationalpractice improved through training in certain


techniques. These versions include Hunter’s deci-sion-making model, Acheson and Gall’s (1997)techniques of clinical supervision and Joyce, Weil,and Showers’ (1992) coaching model. The finalfamily in Pajak’s categories of models is that ofdevelopmental/reflective. Here one finds Glickman’sdevelopmental supervision, Costa and Garmston’scognitive coaching, and reflective practice in thework of Schon (1993), Zeichner and Liston (1996),and Smyth (1991). In these approaches the super-visor must be sensitive and non-directive, locatingsupervision in the conceptual basis of the analyticalframework. Smyth (1991), as found in the reflectiveversions, calls for a critical consciousness recogniz-ing that the technical/didactic version is merely amanner of social control of teachers. He, likeZeichner and Liston (1996), proposes teachersrecognize the political dimensions of their teachingand question traditional methods that often gounquestioned. These contextual, values-based mod-els would be located in a conceptual or middle-of-the-road, rather than procedural base.

Tracy and MacNaughton’s (1989) means-or-iented schema, including traditional and neo-tradi-tional approaches to supervision, is typically usedfor evaluation and has a set of characteristics thatdefine effective teaching. It would be located morein the procedural frame of the analytical frame-work. A teacher-concern model in this schema,however, focuses on the teacher’s expressed need forassistance. Here, the teacher determines the super-visory focus, placing it in the conceptual basis forunderstanding. Therefore, once again, there is aschema organizing conceptual and proceduralapproaches to supervision together. This analysisof the models within similar schema (Tracy, 1998)demonstrates the need for a new organizationalframework for supervisors who consider theirpractice within conceptual and procedural tensions.And, educators should become more comfortablewith the ambiguity their analysis may uncover inorder to reflect more on their contextual purposesand areas for growth by locating rather than simplynaming supervisory practice.

In examining literature in supervision, a few moremodels or approaches for supervisory practice meritdiscussion. Sergiovanni (1997) proposes a theory ofcommunity supervision. He defines community as‘‘collections of individuals who are bonded togetherby natural will and who are together bound to a setof shared ideas and ideals’’ (p. 271). Schools wouldbe restructured around this covenant of ideas and

ideals, and leaders and followers would be tiedtogether by this consensual understanding. Teachersare pedagogical leaders in the classroom whilesupervisors are pedagogical leaders in their supportof this teacher development. Educators are accoun-table, but that is due to their dedication to thecommunity more than any inspectoral sense ofevaluation. Sergiovanni’s theory would be sup-ported within a conceptual or middle-of-the-roadbasis for supervision.

Connected to Sergiovanni’s community super-vision is Starratt and Howells’ (1998) supervision asmoral agency. In order to build a covenant for aschool community, there must be a foundationalmoral leadership that emphasizes an ethic of caring(Noddings, 1984). If learning and teaching areintrinsically moral actions, then supervision mustbe restructured as moral action as well.

Supervisors need to converse with teachers abouthow students are relating their classroom learn-ing to everyday living and to the larger concernsabout the community, to their own sense ofhistory and the history of their families, and tothe growing intelligibility of the network ofrelationships that their learning illuminates.(Starratt & Howells, 1998, p. 995)

Such a theory behind supervision indeed appearsmore values based, or conceptual, than researchbased, but it also runs through the analyticalframework so that it could be located from amiddle-of-the-road to a conceptual perspective inthe procedural–conceptual analytical framework.

As schooling, teaching, and learning undergoprofound changes, other options for supervisorypractice have evolved. Waite (1995) proposesdialogic supervision where supervisors interrogatethe meaning behind their own words and the impactthey may have on the teacher and the supervisorycontext. Again, this is contextual and values-basedsupervision. Holland and Obermiller (2000) con-sider possibilities for postmodern supervision. Theystate that postmodernism ‘‘demands that theory andpractice of supervision not be viewed in isolation,but rather be seen as a part of a larger context thatincludes and gives equal emphasis to teaching andlearning’’ (p. 213). Like Waite’s views on super-vision, power should be shifted from supervisorsand administrators to teachers (teacher-directed,hence conceptually based). Teachers and super-visors recognize knowledge as socially constructedand key into that notion in their teaching and,


ultimately, student learning. Supervision is ‘‘con-strued more broadly in terms of the variety of waysthat teachers can learn and grow as professionals’’(Waite, 1995, p. 223). Coming to an understandingof educational events is an ever-evolving processthat requires educators to continually inquire intotheir meaning. This suggests an ongoing supervisoryexperience that reinforces postmodern and dialogicsupervision within a conceptual basis.

Another approach to supervision is criticalinquiry or supervision for liberation as proposedby Smyth (1991). Smyth encourages teachers andsupervisors to question current oppressive super-visory tactics and take a proactive stance inrevamping supervision for transformation. An‘‘educative’’ view of supervision would includeteachers coming to understand how the

social and institutional circumstances of theirschool lives causes them frustration and how theanxiety ultimately detracts from self-fulfillment.This educative (or ‘transformative’) perspectiverests on the assumption that by assisting teachersto understand themselves and their world, wemake it possible for them to engage in the radicalchanges necessary for them to overcome theoppressive conditions that characterize workpatterns and social relationships. (Smyth, 1991,p. 77)

Smyth suggests that when teachers adopt thispolitically informed, reflective pose, they maysupport one another in reclaiming the classroom.Indeed, this values based, critical reflection orientssupervision more conceptually than procedurally.

5. Implications for professional growth

The analytical tool for locating supervisionprovided in this manuscript is intended to providepossibilities for guiding reflection of educatorsthroughout the field. Undoubtedly, scientific man-agement remains prevalent in school supervisionand instructional leadership today. However, inorder to avoid strictly procedural understandings ofscientific arrangements where instructional leadersdo not recognize the human and/or ethical presencein teaching and learning, supervisors—and alleducators—should reflect on possibilities for a morecommunity oriented, conceptual understanding ofsupervision. Supervisors should reflect on powerrelationships and dialogic supervision in order tocreate a more collegial atmosphere for collaborative

and teacher-directed ventures to succeed. Theultimate beneficiaries of this more collaborativesupervision would be the students whose learning iskey to instruction and educational growth. By usingthis framework to locate supervision, educatorscould potentially focus on both teacher and studentgrowth without losing either in the procedures ofsupervision. Certainly, depending on contexts andpurposes, supervision may fall anywhere on theprocedural–conceptual continuum and still beeffective.

Educators may also study a variety of models andapproaches to supervision. When supervisors stickwith one model or approach they may stagnate andturn that model into a wall, especially if it isintended to spur the professional growth of allteachers with whom they work. It could be moreimportant to recognize a supervisory model as adynamic process, or a metaphor, for a journeytoward professional growth for all educators. Oneway to do this is to reflect on the tensions within theprocedural and conceptual understandings of super-vision through this multi-dimensional analyticalframework. In particular, clinical supervisorsshould critically reflect on their practice, whetherit is in the neo-traditional (procedurally oriented) orneo-progressive (conceptually oriented) tradition.Are they responding to context-bound situationswith a conceptual process as a guide or are theyreinforcing strictly procedural practice?

Additionally, cross-pollination of models is notnecessarily a bad thing. Naming a supervisorymodel is not nearly as important as living a processaimed at professional growth for all involved.Differences in supervisory practice no doubt comeabout because of instructional leaders’ variedphilosophical and perspectival bases. These valuesand beliefs should not be ignored. However, it isimportant to recognize that certain models andapproaches do share similar bases. These basesmay be identified within procedural and conceptualframeworks. Educators may engage in professionaldevelopment by engaging in the reflective processof responding to the questions addressed in loca-ting supervision within this procedural–conceptualanalytical framework and reflecting on the tensions.When educators continually reflect on who theyare and what is their purpose as an educator,they may potentially select from a variety ofsupervisory models/approaches to create whatworks best in the situated contexts of teacher andstudent lives.


Educators should consider transcending the steps,stages and procedures of their daily work. In thistranscendence they should recognize the dynamic,cyclical, and multi-dimensional processes of whatthey do and how their work impacts their profes-sional development, all for the ultimate benefit ofK-12 students. When educators come to therealization of the importance of this reflection, theycan recognize that accountability and excellenceneed not only mean standardized rating forms,competency tests and national procedures forsupervision of teachers. When aware of the con-ceptual processes underlying supervision, educatorshave space to reflect on the ethical conductnecessary for professional practice and qualityeducation for all contexts. Thus, continued reflec-tion in professional growth and supervision remainsappropriate so that educators may cultivate a moredynamic understanding of supervision when neces-sary and create space for the unlimited possibilitiesfor professional growth.

References

Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. (1997). Techniques in the clinical

supervision of teachers (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Bambino, D. (2002). Redesigning professional development.

Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25–27.

Barone, T. E. (1998). Aesthetic dimensions of supervision. In G.

R. Firth, & E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school

supervision (pp. 1104–1122). New York: Simon & Schuster

Macmillan.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty:

Taking an inquiry stance on practice. In A. Lieberman, & L.

Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional

development that matters (pp. 45–58). New York: Teachers

College Press.

Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston, MA: Hought-

on-Mifflin.

Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A

foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christo-

pher Gordon Publishers.

Crowther, F., Kaagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002).

Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances

school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator’s

guide to classroom research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning commu-

nities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achieve-

ment. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Eisner, E. W. (1982). An artistic approach to supervision. In T. J.

Sergiovanni (Ed.), Supervision of teaching. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Flinders, D. J. (1998). Industrial dimensions of supervision. In G.

R. Firth, & E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school

supervision. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Garman, N. B. (1982). The clinical approach to supervision. In T.

J. Sergiovanni (Ed.), Supervision of teaching. Alexandria, VA:


Glanz, J. (1998). Histories, antecedents, and legacies of school

supervision. In G. R. Firth, & E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of

research on school supervision (pp. 39–79). New York: Simon

& Schuster Macmillan.

Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision: Don’t discount the value of the

modern. In J. Glanz, & L. S. Behar-Horenstein (Eds.),

Paradigm debates in curriculum and supervision: Modern and

postmodern perspectives (pp. 70–92). Westport, CT: Bergin &

Garvey.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1984). Differentiated supervision. Alexandria, VA:


Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision. Washington,

DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-

ment.

Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A develop-

mental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for

the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Goldstein, J., & Noguera, P. A. (2006). A thoughtful approach to

teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 31–37.

Gottesman, B. L. (2000). Peer coaching for educators. Lanham,

MD: Scarecrow Press/Technomic Books.

Harris, W. T. (1892). City school supervision. Educational

Review, 3, 167–172.

Holland, P. E., & Obermiller, M. (2000). Possibilities of post-

modern supervision. In Paradigm debates in curriculum and

supervision (pp. 212–228). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Hunter, M. C. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP

Publications.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Showers, B. (1992). Models of teaching.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum,

1893– 1958 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mosher, R. L., & Purpel, D. E. (1972). Supervision: The reluctant

profession. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and

moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nolan, J. F., Hawkes, B., & Francis, P. (1993). Case studies:

Windows onto clinical supervision. Educational Leadership,

50, 52–56.

Nolan, J. F., & Hilkirk, K. (1991). The effects of a reflective

coaching project for veteran teachers. Journal of Curriculum

and Supervision, 7, 62–76.

Nolan, J. F., & Huber, T. (1989). Nurturing the reflective

practitioner through instructional supervision: A review of the

literature. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4, 126–145.

O’Sullivan, M. C. (2004). The usefulness of lesson observation in

a primary teachers’ INSET programme in Namibia. Journal

of Education for Teaching, 30(1), 5–25.

Pajak, E. F. (1993). Approaches to clinical supervision. Norwood,

MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Poglinco, S. M., & Bach, A. J. (2004). The heart of the matter:

Coaching as a vehicle for professional development. Phi Delta

Kappan, 85(4), 398–400.

Schon, D. A. (1993). The reflective practitioner: How professionals

think in action. New York: Basic Books.


Sergiovanni, T. J. (1997). How can we move toward a community

theory of supervision? Wrong theory/wrong practice. In J.

Glanz, & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision:

Perspectives, issues, and controversies (pp. 264–280). Massa-

chusetts: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2001). Supervision: A

redefinition. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Smyth, J. (1991). Teachers as collaborative learners. Philadelphia,

PA: Open University Press.

Smyth, J. (1997). Is supervision more than the surveillance of

instruction? In J. Glanz, & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational

supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies (pp. 286–295).

Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Starratt, R. J., & Howells, M. L. (1998). Supervision as moral

agency. In G. R. Firth, & E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of

research on school supervision (pp. 987–1005). New York:

Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Tomlinson, H. (2004). Educational leadership: Personal growth for

professional development. London: Sage Publications.

Tracy, S. J. (1998). Models and approaches. In G. R. Firth, & E.

F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision.

New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Tracy, S. J., & MacNaughton, R. (1989). Clinical supervision and

the emerging conflict between the neo-traditionalists and the

neo-progressives. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4,

246–256.

Waite, D. (1995). Rethinking instructional supervision (pp.

111–136). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An

introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

locating supervision—a reflective framework for negotiating tensions within conceptual and...

Documents