EDUCATIONAL SUPERVISION

(EdPM 4091)

Overview of Educational Supervision

Meaning of Educational Supervision
Strategically, supervision requires the leader to oversee, assess, evaluate, and direct employees to
ensure an organization is meeting its goals. Successful supervision promotes a vision to implement
change in organizations that facilitate improvement. In line with that, this session is intended to
introduce the concept of supervision in general and instructional supervision in particular.

What is educational supervision?

Various writers define educational supervision differently. For instance, Alfonso, Firth, and
Neville (1981), defined instructional supervision as behaviors designated by the organization that
affects teacher behavior to facilitate pupil learning and achieve the goals of an organization. For
others, supervision is the cycle of activities between a supervisor and a teacher with the objective
of improving classroom performance (Patrick & Dawson, 1985). The intent of educational
supervision is to assist teachers in improving instruction. Individual goals of school districts may
vary; however, improvement of teacher performance is a common goal of instructional supervisors
(Zepeda, 2003).

Supervision is the link between teacher needs and organizational goals so individuals can improve
and work together toward the vision of the school (Glickman, 1990). Supervising staff involves
achieving local goals and many schools utilize checklists, rating scales and narrative forms as a
component of observing and evaluating teacher performance as a component of supervision
(Glickman et al., 2001). Supervision is a multifaceted process that focuses on instruction to
provide teachers with information about their teaching to improve performance (Beach &
Reinhartz, 1989). The complex task of supervising teachers incorporates many different functions
and tasks to achieve the goal of improvement (Glickman, 1990).

Comprehensively, supervision can be conceptualized as instructional leadership that relates

perspectives to behavior, clarifies purpose, contributes to and supports organizational actions,
coordinates interactions, provides for maintenance and improvement of the instructional program,
and assesses goal achievement (Robert & Peter, 1989). Sullivan and Glanz (2000) also defined
supervision as a school-based or school-college-based activity, practice, or process that engages
teachers in meaningful, non-judgmental and ongoing instructional dialogue and reflection for the
purpose of improving the process of teaching and learning. Supervision involves the assessment of
1
proper implementation of policy, correction of identified weaknesses, direction and redirection of
defects attainment of stated aims, objectives, and goals of an education system at a given level.
The ultimate goal of supervision is to improve the quality of teaching and learning by playing the
roles of a planner, organizer, leader, helper, evaluator, motivator, communicator, and decision-
maker (Beach & Reinhartz, 1998).

In summary, the definitions of supervision highlighted above imply that the focus of supervision in
school is mainly related to providing professional assistance for teachers, the improvement of
instruction, and increasing students’ learning performance. Supervision is a complex process that
involves working with teachers and other educators in a collegial, collaborative relationship to
enhance the quality of teaching and learning within the schools and that promotes the career-long
development of teachers (Beach & Reinhartz, 2000). Similarly, Glickman et al. (2004) shared the
above idea as supervision denotes a common vision of what teaching and learning can and should
be, developed collaboratively by formally designated supervisors, teachers, and other members of
the school community.
Inspection could be described as the critical examination and evaluation of a school as a place of
learning. Through inspection, necessary and relevant advice may be given for the improvement of
the school. Such advice is usually registered in a report. On the other hand, supervision is distinct
from inspection since it can be described as a constant and continuous process of personal
guidance based on frequent to a school to give concrete and constructive advice and
encouragement to teachers so as to improve the learning and teaching situation in the school. On
such visits, attention is paid to one or more aspects of the school and its organization. Therefore, it
is normal to refer to both at the same time.
Domains of Supervision
The three major domains of supervision are instructional, curricular, and staff development. The
supervisor is expected to exercise various roles in each of these domains. That is, the supervisor
acts as coordinator, consultant, group leader, and evaluator to assist teachers in the improvement of
instruction, curriculum planning, and personal and professional growth and development. In doing
so, the supervisor must bring to bear a wide repertoire of knowledge and skills. In this regard, the
skills needed by a supervisor can be referred to as a “skill mix,” consisting of technical,
managerial, and human relations skills. By reviewing the literature on supervision and surveying
instructional leaders, Pajak affirmed twelve focus areas, with relevant knowledge, attitudes, and
skills in each domain. These domains and their definitions are as follows:
1. Community Relations: establishing and maintaining open and productive relations
between the school and its community;

2
 2. Staff Development: Developing and facilitating meaningful opportunities for professional
growth;
3. Planning and Change: Initiating and implementing collaboratively developed strategies
for continuous improvement;
4. Communication: Ensuring open and clear communication among individuals and groups
throughout the organization;
5. Curriculum: Coordinating and integrating the process of curriculum development and
implementation
6. Instructional Program: Supporting and coordinating efforts to improve the instructional
program;
7. Service to Teachers: Providing materials, resources, and assistance to support teaching
and learning;
8. Observation and Conferencing: Providing feedback to teachers based on classroom
observation;
9. Problem Solving and Decision Making: Using a variety of strategies to clarify and
analyse problems and to make decisions;
10. Research and Program Evaluation: Encouraging experimentation and assessing
outcomes;
11. Motivating and Organizing: Helping people to develop a shared vision and achieve
collective aims;
12. Personal Development: Recognizing and reflecting upon one’s personal and professional
beliefs, abilities, and actions.
The external aspect of the supervisor’s job is, community relations, which is certainly an important
domain not only for supervisors but also for administrators, teachers, and other school personnel.
Building positive community relations is extremely important for every school person. However,
the designated administrator should assume the primary task of leadership in community relations
and allow the instructional supervisor to concentrate on the task for which he or she is uniquely
equipped: service to teachers.
The roles that supervisors are expected to play vary from locality to locality and from state to state.
They are defined by the superintendents or principals to whom the supervisors are responsible and,
as happens in most positions of leadership, by the supervisors themselves. Although some
variation will be found in the roles supervisors may fulfill, more than likely the service-oriented
supervisor will perform at varying times each of the four roles shown in the model.
Coordinator: The supervisor serves as a coordinator of programs, groups, materials, and reports. It
is the supervisor who acts as a link between programs and people. He or she knows the disparate

3
pieces of the educational process and directs the actions of others to make the pieces blend. As a
director of staff development, the supervisor plans, arranges, evaluates, and often conducts in-
service programs with and for teachers.
Consultant: The supervisor serves in a consulting capacity as a specialist in curriculum,
instructional methodology, and staff development. In this capacity, he or she renders service to
both individual teachers and groups. At times, the supervisor may simply furnish necessary
information and suggestions. At other times, he or she may help teachers define, set, and pursue
goals. The supervisor should be a prime source of assistance to teachers wishing to improve either
their generic or specific teaching skills. Though some will disagree with us, we believe the
supervisor-consultant should be able to demonstrate a repertoire of teaching strategies.
Group Leader: The supervisor as group leader works continuously to release the potential of
groups seeking to improve the curriculum, instruction, or themselves. To perform this role the
supervisor must be knowledgeable about group dynamics and must demonstrate leadership skills.
The supervisor assists groups in consensus building, moving toward group goals, and in perfecting
the democratic process. As a group leader, the supervisor seeks, identifies, and fosters leadership
from within the group.
Evaluator: As an evaluator, the supervisor provides assistance to teachers in evaluating instruction
and curriculum. The supervisor helps teachers find answers to curricular and instructional
problems identify research studies that may have a bearing on their problems, and conduct limited
research projects. Additionally, the supervisor helps teachers evaluate their classroom
performance, assess their own strengths and weaknesses, and select means of overcoming their
deficiencies.
Principles of Educational Supervision
Supervision is concerned with the total improvement of teaching and learning situations. In line
with this, Sumaiya (2010) stated the following principles of supervision:
 There should be short-term, medium-term, and long-term planning for supervision.
 Supervision is a sub-system of school organization.
 All teachers have a right and the need for supervision.
 Supervision should be conducted regularly to meet the individual needs of the teachers and
other personnel.
 Supervision should help to clarify educational objectives and goals for the principal and the
teachers.
 Supervision should assist in the organization and implementation of curriculum programs
for the learners.
 Supervision from within and outside of the school complements each other and is
necessary.
4
In general, since supervision is a process that is worried with the improvement of instruction, it
needs to be strengthened at the school level, should provide equal opportunities to support all
teachers, and should be conducted frequently to maximize teachers' competency.

The principles are the fundamental rules refined to satisfy better achievement of goals. They are
general guides that individual members know very well and are convinced to put into practice.
Principles of supervision guide the thinking and action of supervisors toward the desired fruitful
end. All supervisory personnel should be fully aware of the basic principles of their profession.
The following are some of the guiding principles of supervision in our context:

Supervision is cooperative: The main purposes of supervision are professional and curriculum
development for creating better learning situations for students. This demands the cooperative
work of senior teachers, department heads, unit leaders, vice directors, directors, and
administrators at the school level.
Supervision is creative: This principle suggests that supervision should seek the latest talents, and
provide opportunities for the exercise of originality and for the development of unique
contributions. Supervisors should help teachers to be creative and innovative in their methodology
of teaching.
Supervision should be democratic: This implies that supervision is a cooperative and creative
work, it has to be democratic where every member has the liberty to try and express her/his ideas
with freedom. It should not be used to show superiority. In this context, the researcher agrees that
if supervision is not working democratically it never creates any change in the teaching-learning
process. So supervision should be free from unwanted oppressing that may create a challenge
between the two bodies.
Supervision is attitudinal: This suggests that supervision should create situations where a
favorable attitude prevails among participants. Supervisors should be able to give advice to
teachers when needed as well as receive comments from teachers.
Supervision is evaluative and planned activity: This principle emphasizes that supervisors should
travel and observe what is going on in the school system. They should talk to teachers, students,
parents, and school administrators to gather data. They should plan for improvement in
cooperation with school personnel.

5
Historical Development of Supervision
Everything has its foundation. In a similar vein, the issue of organizational supervision has a long
history as of the organizational history. Its practice has been in existence since people began to
work in groups.

History can be understood as an attempt to study the events and ideas of the past that have shaped
human experience over time; doing so informs current practice and helps us make more intelligent
decisions for the future. How are prevailing practices and advocated theories connected to the
past? How is what you currently be influenced, in any way, by previous practices and theories of
supervision? How can an understanding of the past help us practice super-vision today? The
intention here is to indicate that past supervisory theory and practice influence what we believe
about supervision and how we carry out our work with teachers and others. As we indicate, what
you believe about teaching and learning, for example, inevitably affects how you approach the
practice of supervision.
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the influence of people like Frederick W. Taylor
and Max Weber in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, scientific and bureaucratic
approaches to supervision replaced inspection. Scientific management and efficiency were
buzzwords of the new approach. The assumption of these strategies was that if organizations
followed established principles for efficiency, production would presumably be high. Supervisors
had only to ensure the rigorous application of the principles.
While Taylor was expounding on scientific management, Weber was promoting the concept of
bureaucratic management of organizations as the ideal model for achieving efficiency and
productivity. The model provided for a hierarchy of authority and responsibility from the chief
executive officer at the top of the pinnacle to the lowliest worker at the bottom. The bureaucratic
model became the pervasive organizational structure in all human institutions i.e., business,
industry, government, social organizations, church, and schools. In fact, the bureaucratic model
has become so entrenched in our lives that bureaucracy has become, under some circumstances, a
derogatory term. Thus, in the early part of the twentieth century, the bureaucratic model of
organization became firmly rooted in our school systems with the superintendent at the top and the
teacher at the bottom. Although philosophies, attitudes, and operating procedures have changed
since the early twentieth century, the bureaucratic model remains the dominant form of school
organization despite predictions of an “emerging, pluralistic, collegial” concept of administrative
organization and despite sporadic efforts by some organizations to apply principles of shared
management. Scientific supervisors look for fixed principles of teaching, drawn from research that
can be prescribed for teachers. The teachers’ performances can then be judged on how well they
follow the instructional principles in their teaching.
6
Following the research on instruction carried out through the 1960s and 1970s, many educators
still perceive teaching as a science whose component skills—generic competencies— can be
identified, learned, and mastered.
Under the influence of people like Elton Mayo, Mary Parker Follett, and Kurt Lewin, in the mid-
twentieth century, supervision turned in the direction of human relations and group dynamics.
Stress on the democratic process and the application of the behavioral sciences commanded the
attention of supervisors. No longer did supervision constitute handing down methods to teachers
and then monitoring their performances. Collaboration and partnership between supervisors and
teachers became important. Supervisors began to realize that their success was dependent more on
interpersonal skills than on technical skills and knowledge; they had to become sensitive to the
behavior of groups and individuals within groups.
They became more aware that they must respond to needs as determined by the people they served
i.e., the teachers as opposed to satisfying their own needs based on their supposedly superior
judgments. The prefix super- of supervision declined in importance. The word supervision itself
became modified by such words as collaborative, cooperative, democratic, and consultative. This
change of focus has continued and intensified into the present. What we are seeing today is an
amalgamation of practices and attitudes. It is possible to find holdovers of the inspection mentality
and still encounter the boss-employee mindset. However, we are experiencing more cases of
cooperation and collaboration between supervisors and teachers than in the past. It is possible to
find a definite acceptance of the idea that instructional supervisors are employed to help teachers
build on their strengths, improve, and remain in the profession instead of probing teachers’
deficiencies and seeking their dismissal. The principles of scientific supervision within a clinical
are contextualized to be supportive. Even within a scientific framework, supervisors place heavy
reliance on human relations.
It is also possible to note that teachers themselves are acting as instructional supervisors to their
peers. The newer focuses of supervision like human resources, artistic, interpretive, and ecological
approaches are being experienced. Before exploring the newer directions in instructional
supervision, it is helpful to note that of the three older approaches mentioned, today’s supervisors
would reject the first two and minimize the third.
 The Authoritarian-Inspectorial Approach: Professional supervisors realize that teachers,
as professionals, can be persuaded but not coerced; many times, they have better answers to
their own problems than do the supervisors.
 Laissez-faire: To some, supervision is a laissez-faire task. Supervisors who are thus
inclined agree with many teachers that in the case of supervision, less is better.
Nondirective in their approach, they may visit the teachers’ classrooms or stop by the
7
 teachers’ lounge for a cup of coffee. They tend to consider a classroom visit and an
appearance in the teachers’ lounge as equally important; some might rate the chat in the
lounge as more important. They see their task as giving the teacher a benevolent pat on the
back now and then.
 Group Dynamics: To others, supervision is a never-ending exercise in the group process.
They see the improvement of instruction as a continuing exercise in human relations.
Viewing themselves as resource persons to the group, they spend considerable time
fostering a positive group climate, using social affairs to establish a happy, cooperative
frame of mind among teachers. They hope that after a period of deliberation, groups will
reach a consensus on points under discussion.
Neither an authoritarian nor a laissez-faire approach is inadequate or not suitable for today’s
schools, nor it is an exclusively group-process approach. Supervisors may favor group processes,
but they will be called on to work with both groups and individuals. They must be mindful that
many of the innovations in schools are products of experimentation by one or two individuals
rather than groups.
Supervision vs. Inspection
Supervision has Medieval Latin origins and was defined originally as “a process of perusing or
scanning a text for errors or deviations from the original text” (Smyth, 1991, p. 30). Later recorded
instances of the word supervision established the process as entailing “general management,
direction, control, and oversight” (Grumet, 1979). An examination of early records indicates that
the term inspector is referenced frequently. The inspectors were often ministers, selectmen,
schoolmasters, and other distinguished citizens. Their methods of supervision stressed strict
control and close inspection of school facilities. As Spears (1953) explained, that the early period
of school supervision, through at least the first half of the nineteenth century, was based on the
idea of maintaining the existing standards of instruction rather than its improvement.
The tradition of lay supervision continued from the American Revolution through the middle of
the 19th century or, as commonly referred to, the end of the Common Era. With the advent of a
district system of supervision and then state-controlled supervision beginning in the late 19th
century, however, the character of supervision did, in fact, change dramatically.
Unprecedented growth precipitated by the Industrial Revolution characterized the second half of
the 19th century. The expansion of education, characterized as the “first professional supervisor,”
continued and assumed a new dimension in the latter decades of the 19th century. The schoolmen,
specifically superintendents, began shaping schools in large cities into organized networks. The
organization was the rallying cry nationally and locally. There was a firm belief that highly
organized and efficient schools would meet the demands of a newly born industrialized age.
8
The reform movement in education in the late 19th century was reflective of the larger, more
encompassing changes that were occurring in society. Although rapid economic growth
characterized the 19th century, reformers realized that there were serious problems in schools.
Supervision, during this struggle, became an important tool by which the superintendent
legitimized his or her existence in the school system (Glanz, 1991). Supervision, therefore, was a
function that superintendents performed to oversee schools more efficiently. The practice of
supervision by inspection was indeed compatible with the emerging bureaucratic school system,
with its assumption that expertise was concentrated in the upper echelons of the hierarchy. Many
teachers perceived supervision as inspectional, rather than a helping function. Because supervision
as inspection through visitation gained wide application in schools, it is the first model that
characterizes early methods of supervision. The brief examination of early methods of supervision
indicates that:
1. Amid the upheavals of the late 19th century supervision emerged as an important function
performed by superintendents and
2. Inspectional practices dominated the supervision

9
 Clinical and Developmental Supervision

Clinical supervision can be viewed as a partnership in inquiry shared by teacher and supervisor
that is intended to help teachers modify existing patterns of teaching in ways that make sense to
them. Developmental supervision provides teachers with as much initial choice as they are ready to
assume and then fosters decision-making capacity and expanded choice over time.

The Concept of Clinical Supervision

The supervisor’s function in an organization is to oversee an employee’s performance in
completing tasks required by the employer.
The term clinical supervision has come to mean different things to different people. If one goal of
teaching supervision is to enable the supervisor to work individually with teachers, then clinical
supervision is an indispensable process. This approach to supervision has been interpreted,
reinterpreted, and often misinterpreted by supervisors since its inception. It is not only a form of
direct assistance to teachers (Glickman, Gordan, & Ross-Gordon, 1995) but also an approach to
schooling that influences school culture.
Clinical supervision utilizes a collaborative approach by the supervisors and teachers to
constructively and continually improve instruction (Goldhammer et al., 1993). Acheson and Gall
(1997) explain clinical supervision to include three basic processes: pre-conference, observation,
and post or feedback conference. This direct interaction between teacher and supervisor
emphasizes an accurate understanding of practices and specifically identifies areas of
improvement. Clinical supervision provides a teacher with an action plan to meet instructional
improvement goals after conferencing with the supervisor after an observation (Goldhammer,
1969).
Practically, clinical supervision is designed to improve the teachers’ classroom performance. It takes its
principal data from the events of the classroom. The purpose of clinical supervision is to help teachers
modify the existing patterns of teaching in ways that make sense to them (Sergiovanni, 1995).
Evaluation is, therefore, responsive to the needs and services of the teacher. It is the teacher who
decides the course of a clinical supervisory cycle, the issues to be discussed, and for what purpose. The
supervisor’s job, therefore, is to help the teacher select goals to be improved and teaching issues to be
illustrated and to understand better her or his practice. This emphasis on understanding provides the
avenue by which more technical assistance can be given to the teacher; thus, clinical supervision
involves the systematic analysis of classroom events.
Clinical supervision is involved with activities in the classroom primarily while a teacher is
conducting a lesson, what is being taught, and how it is being taught. For clinical supervision to be
effective, there are some commonalities that are evident. These themes include:

10
  the development of a collegial relationship between teachers and supervisors based on trust,
respect, and reciprocity;
 teachers control over the products of supervision;
 teachers retain control over decisions that impact their teaching practices;
 there is continuity in the supervisory process over time;
 supervisors provide teachers with nonjudgmental observational data; and
 both teachers and supervisors engage in reflective practice (Nolan, Hawkes, & Francis, 1993).
Supervisors who employ clinical supervision should consider the perceptions of teachers.
According to Beach and Reinhartz (2000), teachers tend to favor individualized, close, and
supportive supervision, which addresses their individual needs. Teachers also agree on the basic
assumptions and effectiveness of clinical supervision, accepting recommendations for change, which
they believe is possible in their classroom behavior. Thus, clinical supervision is not the means of
improving supervisors’ skills. It focuses on actual classroom practices to ensure that the process is
of practical significance to the teacher. This intensive development is a way of promoting teacher
growth in self-direction and self-confidence by encouraging teachers to make instructional
decisions (Kutsyuruba, 2003).
The supervisor takes its principal data from the events of the classroom. It is the teacher who decides
the course of a clinical supervisory cycle, the issues to be discussed, and for what purpose. Therefore,
the job here is to help the teacher select goals to be improved and teaching issues to be illustrated
and to understand better her or his practice. This emphasis on understanding provides the avenue by
which more technical assistance can be given to the teacher; thus, clinical supervision involves the
systematic analysis of classroom events. Clinical supervision is a process for developing responsible
teachers who are able to evaluate their own instruction, who are willing to accept criticism and use it
for change, and who know where they are headed in their own professional growth.
The focus of clinical supervision is on formative evaluation, which is intended to increase the
effectiveness of ongoing educational programs.
Five-stages in the process of clinical supervision are identified by Glickman et al. (2009):
i. Preconference with the teacher,
ii. Observation of classroom,
iii. Analyzing and interpreting observation and then determining conference approach,
iv. Post-conference with the teacher,
v. Critique of the previous four steps
i. pre-observation conference: At the pre-conference, the supervisor sits with the teacher and
determines
 the reason and purpose for the observation,

11
  the focus of the observation,
 the method and form of observation to be used,
 the time of observation, and
 the time for post-conference.
These determinations are made before the actual observation so that both supervisor and teachers are
clear about what will transpire. The purposes of the observation should provide the criteria for making
the remaining decision on focus, method, and time of observation.

ii. Observation process: Observation is the time to follow-through with the understanding of the
pre-conference. The observer might use any one observation or combination of observations.
The method includes categorical frequency, performance indicators, visual diagramming, space
utilization, verbatim reports, detached open-ended narratives, participant observation-focused
questionnaires, and a tailored observation system. The observer should keep in mind the difference
between descriptions of events and interpretation. Interpretation should follow the description.

iii. Analyzing, interpreting observation, and determining conference approach

The analysis and interpretations of the observation and determination of the approach are now
possible. The supervisor leaves the classroom with his or her observation and seeks solitude
office or the corner. He or she lays out the recorded page of observation and studies the
information. The task might be counting up frequency, looking for recurring patterns, isolating a
major occurrence, or discovering which performance indicators were present and which were
not. Regarding the instrument, questionnaire, or open-ended form used, the supervisor must
make sense of a large mass of information. Then the supervisor can make an interpretation
based on the analysis of the description. The last determination for the supervisor to make in step
three of the clinical supervision is to choose the interpersonal approach to use with the teacher in
the post-conferences.

iv. Post-observation conference: With the completed observation form, completed analysis, and
interpretation form, and with the chosen interpersonal approach, the supervisor is ready to meet
with the teacher in a post-conference. The post-conference is held to discuss the analysis of the
observation and finally to produce a plan for instructional improvement. The first order of
business is to let the teacher in the observation, reflect back to the teacher what was seen. Then
the supervisor can follow the chosen approach, directive informational, collaborative, or
non-directive. The conference ends with a plan for further improvement.

v. Critique of previous four steps: This is a time for reviewing whether the format and
procedure from the preconference were satisfactory and whether revisions might be needed
12
 before repeating the sequence. Then the supervisors repeat the steps until the identified
instructional problems a r e solved. Through this clinical supervision, the supervisor makes
direct assistance to the teacher to make the teacher self-directive and provides satisfaction to
the teachers with supervision.

The five steps are now complete, and a tangible plan of future action is in the hands of the
teacher. The supervisor is prepared to review the plan in the next pre- conference and re-
establish focus and method of observation, (Glickman et al., 2009).

Characteristics of Clinical Supervision

The clinical supervision has characteristics that distinguish it from other types of supervision.
Hopkins and Moore (1995) identified that clinical supervision:

 emphasizes teacher growth instead of teacher defects,

 is essential for the teacher to achieve maximum growth;
 provides formative feedback to guide future instructional endeavors,
 is ethical, unbiased and sensitive, the steps allow teachers to be fully aware of the process
 encourages reflective thinking and teacher independence,
 encourages teachers to become independent, taking greater responsibilities by themselves
 i s founded on a trustful relationship

The Benefits of Clinical Supervision

The ultimate goal of the supervisor is to improve teachers’ classroom instruction. Clinical
supervision, therefore, allows for objective feedback, which if given in a timely manner, will lead
to improved results. Clinical supervision helps to diagnose instructional problems and provides
valuable information that can lead to solving such problems. As a result, teachers are able to
clearly see differences in what they are doing in reality, and what they think they are doing.

Where necessary, improvements in instruction are highlighted and teachers, through

clinical supervision, are able to develop new skills and strategies which will be replicated as
needed. As teacher instruction improves, students will become more motivated, classroom
management will be improved and a better atmosphere for promoting learning will exist.

Not only does clinical supervision aid the teacher in improving classroom instruction, it
also aids the teacher in improving his/her chances for promotion and/or "taking on" other
responsibilities as he/she grows professionally. One such responsibility could be to provide direct
assistance to a colleague. If clinical supervision is perceived in a positive light, then the teacher

13
will become self-motivated and will seek further professional development even when this is not a
requirement of the job per se.

2.2 Developmental Supervision

Developmental supervision is mainly stated as a theory about understanding the aim of supervision
in relation to ourselves and others (Glickman, 1987). It provides teachers with as much initial
choice as they are ready to assume and then fosters teachers' decision-making capacity and
expanded choice over time. It links the supervisory behavior to the needs and readiness level of
those you supervise.
In developmental supervision, the teachers assume responsibility for their own instructional
improvement and the instructional supervisor creates reflective and autonomous teachers through
non-directive supervision (Glickman et al., 2001). Glickman et al. (2001) continue explaining a
developmental model utilizes collaborative or in some cases directive approaches to improve
teacher performance dependent upon individual developmental levels and offers a five-step
approach to developmental supervision that includes prerequisites, function, tasks, unification, and
a final product of improved student learning.
Instructional supervision in a developmental model relies on three prerequisite skills for the
instructional supervisor. These prerequisite skills for instructional supervisors are:
1. Knowledge,
2. Interpersonal skills and
3. Technical skills.
Glickman et al. (2001) contend that these skills are necessary to affect the process of unifying
organizational goals and meeting teacher needs. Developmental supervision facilitates the goal of
teacher improvement through a reflective approach fostering consistent self-improvement
(Glickman, 1981).
In a developmental approach toward supervision, a supervisor must employ a number of tasks to
achieve a school’s goals and objectives. The idea of developmental supervision implements
supervisory behaviors based on the individual needs of a teacher. The three underlying
propositions of developmental supervision are:
i. Teachers backgrounds and experiences vary and require different levels of professional
development,
ii. Teachers at different levels of need must have varying levels of structure and directions through
supervision and
iii. Supervisory goals should be to increase teacher’s abilities to grow toward higher levels of
thought (Glickman, 1990).

14
Developmental supervision is the practice of creating reflective teachers who actively practice self-
improvement through various levels of collaborative approaches (Glickman, 1990). Other
collaborative approaches involve teachers working together under the supervision of an
administrator to help one another improve teaching performance. According to Glickman, the best
method for determining whether to use collaborative, non-directive or directive is to combine
observation of the teacher with discussions. The supervisor should ask several questions. For
example,
 what have the teachers tried on their own
 does the teacher ask questions or ask for help in the classroom
 does the teacher recognize if there is a problem in the classroom
 does the teacher rely on the same strategies and ideas
 does the teacher use several different methods of instruction
 does the teacher rely too much, or not enough on colleagues
If a teacher works well with other teachers and has good ideas and classroom strategies, but may
be hesitant to initiate ideas on their own, the collaborative approach might be most beneficial.

2.3 Models of Supervision

It is obvious that various models of supervision are currently being implemented in different
schools. Their classification varies depending on the context in which a model is intended to be
employed. One way to explain the dimensions of supervisory behavior is in the form of a
conceptual model.
The model shows three large domains or territories within which supervisors work (instructional
development, curriculum development, and staff development) and the four primary roles of the
supervisor within those domains (coordinator, consultant, group leader, and evaluator). The
domains and roles rest on a foundation; the supervisor’s knowledge and skills.
The model conveys the notion that supervision is both service-oriented and dynamic. The
supervisor serves teachers dynamically by playing all or any of the roles within all or any of the
domains. The three domains are interrelated. For example, a supervisor who works as a group
leader in curriculum development (say, in mathematics) may at the same time work in the domain
of instructional development (e.g., by helping teachers try out new techniques of presenting
geometric concepts) and/or the domain of staff development (e.g., by conducting seminars on new
techniques).
A conceptual model can clearly reveal the concepts held by the person who designs it. Thus, one
could take this basic design but follow a different set of assumptions. Some people, for example,
might take issue with the three domains, cut them into one or two, or expand them beyond three.
15
They might eliminate supervisory duties in curriculum development, leaving only instructional
development and staff development. They might restrict supervision to instructional development
and limit it to clinical supervision. They might remove instructional development as well as
curriculum development, allowing only staff development to remain (e.g., if they feel that staff
development means assistance to teachers in improving both personal and professional qualities,
then instructional development becomes a by-product or part of staff development). In restricting
the domain of supervision to staff development alone, these people might perceive the roles of the
supervisor as dual: consultant to individual teachers and consultant to groups of teachers. Some
might go even further and restrict the supervisor to one role: consultant to individual teachers, or
simply trusted colleague.
Classifications of models in supervision
Numerous models of supervision are currently implemented in school districts; however, the
majority of school districts implement a single evaluation system (Glickman et al., 2001).
Supervision models are directed by the supervisor, peers, or individuals to evaluate practice and
drive improvement (White & Daniel, 1996). These models can be classified into four basic
categories; directive control, directive informational, non-directive, and collaborative (Glickman et
al., 2001). These four categories provide a variety of supervisory options for schools and are
evident in different models of supervision.
Directive Control: This method of supervision is used to transmit supervisor expectations to
teachers clearly. Supervisors using this method enforce their ideas using a hierarchical approach.
Directive control supervision consists of behaviors of presenting, clarifying, listening, problem-
solving, directing, standardizing, and reinforcing, all with line authority. The direction is mostly
from supervisor to teacher. This is used best when teachers have little expertise, involvement, or
interest in instructional problems and time is of the essence. This is a great approach in an
emergency situation.
Using this method is necessary when a supervisor feels the need to be forthright with an employee,
overcome opposing authority issues, or has pressing time considerations. It is important and
necessary when dealing with difficult personnel situations. It is usually used when the supervisor
feels he/she has greater knowledge and expertise than the other party. It places an emphasis on the
authority and weight a supervisor carries in their role. By using this approach, leaders are
convinced they have a solution to an issue, but it also places a great deal of pressure on them to
support their decisions. The responsibility to follow through falls squarely on the supervisor if the
expectation level is not met by the employee.

16
This supervision behavior should be used in limited situations by an administrator in a school
setting. First, it should be used when teachers are functioning at low levels or lack an awareness to
act on an issue of importance to students, the school, or the community. Second, it may be used
when there is little desire for teacher involvement. These issues may include budgeting or
scheduling. Third, it can be used when the administrator will be immediately held accountable for
an action. For example, if a fire marshal orders that specific actions be taken to improve the safety
of a school, then the directive control approach is necessary. Fourth, it should be used during an
emergency situation, such as a threat of violence, when an administrator does not have the time to
meet with others.

Directive control behavior can be risky if it becomes overused. It places a great deal of
responsibility on the decisions made by the supervisor and the expertise of one person. Overuse
may also lead to the development of adversarial relationships among the administrator and staff
members. Instead, a supervisor should attempt to use this approach only when circumstances
warrant little choice.

Directive Informational: This method of supervision is used to direct the teacher to consider and
choose from clearly delineated alternative actions. In this method, the supervisor is the main
source of information, goal articulation, and practices. However, the supervisor asks for the
teachers' input and they change their choices in the classroom. In the end, the teacher is asked to
make the decision as to which practices to use. This approach is typically used when the expertise
and confidence of the supervisor clearly outweigh the teacher’s own information and experience.
Supervisors are also careful to allow for several alternative actions for improvement to be
implemented by the teacher that fall within a set of criteria established by both parties. It is
important to understand that the establishment of alternative choices to correct actions is the
distinguishing difference between directive control and directive informational supervision. These
alternatives can be defined by both parties through interaction and feedback. The administrator is
still the source of defining the goals and suggesting the practices, but the teacher is asked to make
a final decision on which practices would derive the most benefit. It is important that the teacher is
allowed to exercise some control in this process.

As with the directive control approach, administrators establish themselves as the people with the
expertise to solve the problem. Both parties must share confidence in the knowledge being
assimilated in order to solve the issue. If the suggestions agreed to fail to make a difference in
accomplishing a goal, it may be easy for the teacher to fault the knowledge base of the supervisor.
Therefore, it is necessary for precise language to be used. While allowing for teacher feedback

17
when deciding the best course of action, an administrator must be clear on not only the plan of
action but also the necessary procedural steps that need to be taken in order to accomplish the joint
goal.

This approach can be taken when a teacher is functioning at a low level and an administrator feels
he/she has adequate knowledge to help a teacher with a lesser understanding of an issue, or when
time constraints demand concrete action is taken. Administrators must be willing to take
responsibility for what the teacher attempts. This, after all, is a problem that they helped define.
Certainly, this approach is best when the person in authority is thought to have credible knowledge
to solve the problem and has the trust of the teacher as a reasonable person to take advice from in
the situation.

Collaborative: This method of supervision is based on the participation of equals in making

instructional decisions. The outcome of this is a mutual plan of action. This method consists of
clarifying, listening, reflecting, presenting, problem-solving, negotiating, and standardizing. This is
the appropriate method to use when teachers and supervisors have the same level of experience
and concern with the problem. Collaborative approaches play an integral part in supervision.
These techniques consist of problem-solving, negotiating, and directing, and are used in
combination with the opinions of both the teachers and the administrator in order to come up with
ideas on how to solve organizational problems.

Negotiations come into play when possible solutions to a problem can be identified. By asking the
question, where we agree with each other; teachers and administrators can use negotiations to
explore the consequences of proposed actions and narrow down available options. Negotiations
take place after problem-solving. The main goal of problem-solving is to list all possible solutions
to the problem at hand. During problem-solving, the administrator takes the initiative in deciding
upon solutions.

Directing is the third approach to the collaborative process. While using the directing approach, an
administrator lets the teacher know what options are available. The administrator may also ask the
teacher which option makes the most sense before that administrator makes a decision on which
action is to be taken. These three tactics, problem-solving, negotiating, and directing, are all part of
the supervisory behavior continuum. Each is used in an attempt to tackle a problem as efficiently
as possible.

Collaborative approaches are important for dealing with both individuals and groups in classroom
and organizational settings. Behaviors with individuals should involve frank, open, exchanges of
18
ideas. During a discussion between an administrator and a teacher, disagreement is encouraged so
that a mutual concession can take place. A mutual decision is very important for a course of action
that is to be taken. As always, a collaborative approach requires a great deal of
negotiating. During the process, the administrator should clarify the problem and listen to the
teachers’ perceptions of the problem as well. The administrator should also restate what the teacher
has said so as to verify it, and then the administrator should state his or her opinion of the
situation. Next, the two individuals can discuss the options that can be negotiated to find a
solution. These are important collaborative approaches to use with individuals.

Group approaches are slightly different than individual approaches. Whereas in a situation with a
single teacher and an administrator, consensus is often easier to achieve, it is more difficult within
a group setting. Lack of consensus in a group environment can be remedied through the use of a
majority vote. The chief difference between interaction with individuals and interaction with
groups is that more time must be given to discuss everyone’s view of the problem and to discuss
everyone’s suggestions for solutions.

When collaborating, it is important that each person is treated equally, thus ensuring that people
feel more comfortable sharing opinions in front of the group. Another key to collaboration is to
make sure that ideas are weighed according to their merits and not based on the power of any
individual. The administrator must make sure that a teacher is not purposefully giving in to
administrative pressures or power. If this occurs, the administrator should make it known to the
teacher that this can harm the collaborative effort.

Nondirective: This method of supervision is used when the supervisor is helping the teacher to
figure out their own plans. This method consists of listening, reflecting, clarifying, encouraging,
and problem-solving. It can be used when teachers have a greater amount of expertise and
knowledge about the problem than the supervisor. The supervisor must be non-judgmental when
using this approach and allow the teacher to direct the meeting. The purpose is to provide an active
sounding board for thoughtful participation.

There are occasions when nondirective supervision is the option available to administrators that
best fits the scenario. In the case of supervising the teaching staff based on nondirective
supervision strategies, administrators have important decision-making tools at their disposal.

The method is based on the assumption that an individual teacher knows best what instructional
changes need to be made and has the ability to think and act accordingly. Using this strategy of
leadership, the administrator understands that in this case, the teacher knows best, and it is up to
19
the administrator to guide the teacher through the critical thinking process so that the teacher
makes the decision on his or her own. The supervisor does not interject his or her own ideas into
the discussion unless specifically asked. All verbalizations by the supervisor are intended as
feedback or to extend the teachers' thinking; they do not influence the actual design of the
decision. In this case, the administrator or supervisor is acting as a guide; asking leading
questions, probing the teacher for in-depth thought and analysis, and, ultimately, offering very
little, if any, of his own ideas or answers.

Similar to the strategies used between an administrator and an individual teacher, the use of the
nondirective approach can be a vital tool when used in a group setting. Again, while the
administrator’s role is to lead the group in the critical thinking and/or decision-making process, he
does not offer his own ideas or suggestions to the group unless he is asked directly to do so.

In a setting where an administrator is part of a small group of teachers, his job is to listen, keep the
group focused, clarify and reflect, and ultimately, supervise as the group solves the problem or
makes a decision on their own. As with using this strategy with individual teachers, the end result
within the group setting is to place the role of improving instruction back with the teachers.

Unfortunately, the nondirective approach does not always work as planned. In many cases,
teachers and/or groups may be perfectly capable of making sound decisions on their own, but for a
variety of reasons do not respond well to the nondirective approach. In this case, it is up to the
administrator to explain his use of such an approach, discuss its significance, and describe what is
expected. In certain cases, it may be up to the administrator to offer additional support, work on
building trust, and continue to work with the individual or group in an attempt to build the trust
and teacher self-confidence that is necessary for teacher-driven instructional improvement.

In general, with these four approaches in mind, developmental supervision can be done using any
one of the approaches. A supervisor can use each situation to determine which approach would be
best fitted with that particular teacher. According to Glickman, the best method for determining
whether to use collaborative, non-directive or directive is to combine observation of the teacher
with discussions. The supervisor should ask several questions. For example,
 what has the teacher tried on their own
 does the teacher ask questions or ask for help in the classroom
 does the teacher recognize if there is a problem in the classroom
 does the teacher rely on the same strategies and ideas
 does the teacher use several different methods of instruction

20
  does the teacher rely too much, or not enough on colleagues
If a teacher works well with other teachers and has good ideas and classroom strategies, but may
be hesitant to initiate ideas on their own, the collaborative approach might be most beneficial.
Tasks, Roles, and Foundations of Instructional Supervision
Traditional supervision services are generally homogeneous as far as human resources are
concerned. There is little specialization or differentiation between officers of the same service in
terms of the work to be done. They basically do the same things in different geographical areas or
for different types of schools. The job descriptions of supervisors vary considerably between
countries according to the specific category of supervisor being considered and the degree of
precision of the tasks being prescribed.
It is the function of supervision to stimulate, direct, guide, and encourage the teachers to apply
instructional procedures, techniques, principles, and devices. And to assist the teacher to
accomplish his purpose and to solve the problems that arise in his teaching.
3.1 Tasks of instructional supervision
The improvement of teaching and learning is the general purpose of supervision. A basic premise
of supervision is that a teacher's instructional behavior affects student learning. An examination of
instructional behaviors can lead to improvement in teaching and learning. A supervisor must
employ a number of tasks to achieve a school’s goals and objectives. According to Glickman et al.
(2001), there are five technical tasks of supervision that are directly related to improved
instruction. The five technical tasks of supervision have the potential to influence teacher growth
and development. As supervisors assume responsibility for these tasks, teachers can then take
individual and collective responsibility for instructional improvement as supervisors and teachers
strive to achieve the school's vision and goal towards improved student learning.
Direct Assistance - work one-on-one to provide or facilitate feedback for teachers to improve
instruction
Group Development - devise instructional problem-solving group meetings for teachers to
improve instruction
Professional Development - create and provide various, meaningful, and individualized
professional learning opportunities for teachers to improve instruction
Curriculum Development - revisit and provide changes in teaching content and instructional
materials to improve instruction
Action Research - work collaboratively with teachers to create methods to evaluate their teaching
to improve instruction
Action research in education is a study conducted by colleagues in a school setting of the results of
their activities to improve instruction. It engages teachers in a reflective practice regarding their
21
teaching and helps to examine factors that promote student achievement (Glanz, 2005). This
reflective process encourages teachers to examine practices in their classrooms that directly
influence student achievement (Danielson, 2002). Glanz (2005) concludes that “action research is
used by principals and teachers to discover which pedagogical processes are most effective in
raising achievement levels for particular classes or students in a given school or grade.” (p. 24).
Zepeda (2007) writes that although numerous models of action research exist, only slight
variations distinguish them from each other. Mills (2000), for example, provides basic steps for an
action research plan through 1) Selecting a focus, 2) Collecting data, 3) Analyzing and interpreting
data, and 4) Action planning. This planning provides teachers with a structured plan to address a
specific problem in the classroom.
Those who view supervision as a field distinct from administration would delegate administrative
tasks like scheduling, staffing, and public relations to the administrator rather than to the
instructional supervisor. Holding that “traditional supervisory practices of helping and evaluating
individual workers” are “no longer useful except with respect to contract decisions,” Karolyn J.
Snyder viewed the supervisor’s task in the following light: The primary supervisory task is to
develop professional learning communities, in work teams, that not only acquire new knowledge
and skills but also learn how to study and respond exceptionally well to their natural work and
learning environments. Snyder perceived “the new work of the supervisor” as “building the energy
mass, school by school and team by team.”
The responsibilities of educational supervisors are not at all clear from locality to locality and from
state to state. Even within localities, supervisory roles are often poorly delineated. To compound
the problem, the titles of supervisors are almost as varied as their roles. Ben M. Harris attributed
the variations in roles to differing theoretical perspectives: Supervision, like any complex part of
the enterprise, can be viewed in various ways and inevitably is. The diversity of perceptions stems
not only from organizational complexity but also from lack of information and absence of
perspective.

22