Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 1

Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices

Eric Kursman
October 27, 2012
George Mason University
EDLE 618
Dr. Michelle Van Lare

Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 2
INTRODUCTION
For my clinical observation project, I worked with math teacher Rhonda Boyer, a veteran
teacher with 27 years of experience who has worked at my middle school, Blue Ridge Middle
School, for the past 14 years. Over the past three years, Rhonda and I have worked across the
hall from one another, been members of the same cross-curricular team, and have served on
multiple committees together. When I mentioned that I needed to observe someone at our school
for this clinical supervision project, Rhonda asked me to observe her classroom; she sought
advice on how to better manage a few focus students in her most challenging class.
As a veteran and proven math teacher, Rhonda has developed into a dependable educator
who functions autonomously. With regard to development, Rhonda functions at the formal
cognitive stage as a teacher who can project [ideas] into time and space; works at a high
conceptual development level by working as an independent, resourceful, and flexible teacher;
operates at an autonomous level of ego development as a professional who makes decisions on
her own; works at a cross-categorical level of adult-consciousness as a teacher who reflects on
her emotionsand [is] guided by the beliefs and values that ensure loyalty to the larger
community; and performs at the teaching impact stage of the teacher concerns continuum as an
educator who meets the needs of individual students and takes high interest in the whole child
(Glickman et. al, 2007). In addition, Rhonda also performs at the Early Self-Transforming
phase because of her deep respect for others perspectives (she is one of the most culturally-
sensitive and culturally-knowledgeable teachers in the eighth grade), her preference for collegial
exchange (as evidenced by her strong inter-departmental planning projects and her willingness to
invite me into her classroom), and her heightened socio-emotional awareness (Rhonda is able to
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 3
quickly harmonize multiple points of view, especially in the face of conflict) (Drago-Severson,
2009).
I chose to observe Rhonda Boyer because I felt our professional relationship afforded me
the opportunity to meaningfully problem-solve concerns that she had about her class. For one,
we share the same students, especially her focus students, and I felt my familiarity with her
students backgrounds would aid me in my observation. Second, our personalities, especially
our classroom personalities, are similar; I felt this similarity minimized chances of
misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Third, our history working across the hall from one
another and collaborating on the same team and committees established the familiarity and trust
that would pave the way for frank dialogue and honest reflection.

PRE-OBSERVATION
Prior to observing her class, Rhonda and I engaged in a pre-observation conference to
determine the purposes and foci of the observation as well as a meeting location and time to
conduct the post-conference meeting. Before I sat down with Rhonda in our pre-observation
conference, I created notes to guide myself through our meeting (Appendix A). Not only did I
use these notes during the meeting, but I shared them with Rhonda to ensure that we were both
on the same page.
I chose to adopt a collaborative supervisory approach in my work with Rhonda because I
felt the collaborative approach best suited my work with Rhonda. First, as per her background,
experience, and teaching history, Rhonda possessed moderate to high development and
commitment levels. Second, as a fellow teacher in the same hallway with the same students
operating within the same boundaries of Blue Ridge Middle School, Rhonda and I had (close to)
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 4
the same degree of expertise about her focus students in class. Third, both Rhonda and I were
committed to solving the problem; I wanted to help her minimize concerns in her class, and, in
the process, I also hoped to gain new insight on her focus students.
Rhonda and I had our pre-observation conference at 2:15pm on Wednesday, October 24
th

in her classroom. During our conversation, I worked my way through my pre-observation
conference notes beginning with asking her about all of her classes as a whole. I then slowly
began asking questions about her seventh block class, the class of chief concern. Rhonda
laughed and expressed that her class was full of a variety of personalities, seemed to possess
attention difficulties, and struggled with confidence issues; she felt that her students
unsuccessful history in math as remedial math students contributed to their confidence issues.
She also looked concerned when she explained that some of her focus students seemed to
compensate for a lack of mathematical confidence by exhibiting distracting behaviors in class.
Pointing to different locations in the room to help me visualize, Rhonda identified five fcus
students and provided their seating locations so I could easily identify them when I walked in.
She also identified two students who typically exhibited excellent behavior; she provided me
with their seating location as well so I could compare the two groups of students.
Together, Rhonda and I leaned in toward my pre-observation conference notes and
completed the bottom portion. We agreed that the purpose of the observation was to produce
more positive interactions within the classroom to improve classroom climate. This, in turn,
would bolster instruction. The focus of the observation would be her focus students and how
Rhonda managed their behavior. I sketched a representation of my proposed observation tool
that included graphical representations for tracking teacher movement and a qualitative section
where I would capture what Rhonda said aloud, student reactions to Rhondas instructions, and
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 5
other general observations about the climate of the class. We agreed that I would observe her
class five minutes after the seventh block bell rang (12:00pm) the following day (Thursday,
October 25
th
); this would allow students to settle, work through bell-ringer routines, and mentally
prepare themselves for math class. Our post-conference date was originally set for 2:30pm the
same day, however due to scheduling conflicts, we ended up meeting at 3:45pm on Friday,
October 26
th
.

OBSERVATION
Prior to observing Rhondas classroom, I created an observation tool that would allow me
to capture helpful data to use for analysis, interpretation, and a basis for conversation during our
post-observation conference. By splitting my observation tool into three regions, I designed my
tool to capture many aspects within the class (Appendix B). First, by creating a visual
representation of Rhondas classroom, I was able to track both physical teacher movement and
teacher-to-student verbal interaction. Second, by creating a qualitative box for each focus
student, I was able to track the times of specific distracting behaviors, Rhondas verbal
responses, and the effects of her responses. Third, by creating a qualitative section to record
general observations that included activities, transitions, and interruptions, I was able to track
multiple activities in the classroom that could provide rationales for certain student behaviors.
After I obtained coverage from my dean at 12:03pm on Thursday, October 25
th
, I quietly
entered Rhondas classroom and sat in the back away from her students. When I walked in,
students were reviewing their warm up activity. While students remained in their seats, Rhonda
posted answers on the board and reviewed each warm up problem for accuracy. At this point, I
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 6
began my qualitative observations of focus students and the class climate as well as my visual
tracking of teacher movement and verbal interaction.
During the first nine minutes of my observation, the classroom was very quiet and
students seemed unengaged. As noted on the tool, students were slouching in their chairs and
not looking at the board. Rhondas movement around the room was minimal; she spent the
first 15 minutes standing in front of either the Promethean Board or the dry erase board. When
students were not participating, Rhonda was noted saying, I want to see participation! I want to
see hands! This request did not create more student participation. Although the beginning of
the class did not show evidence of student engagement, Rhondas focus students hardly exhibited
distracting behaviors
During the next 18 minutes of my observation, students checked the previous nights
homework for accuracy. After students spent five minutes comparing the first few answers of
their homework with the correct answers on the board, students transitioned to the second half of
the homework. At this time, students stood up and walked over to the far corner of the room to
pick up a dry erase slate, a dry erase marker, and a cloth before returning to their seats; this
process took the class 90 seconds. For the first four minutes following, Rhonda instructed
students to record their work and their answer down on their dry erase slate so that they could
hold it up as a visual, formative check. Following the visual, formative check, Rhonda instructed
students to move to certain corners of the room (each corner correlated with one of four possible
answers) as a kinesthetic, formative check. After students returned to their seats, Rhonda
continued this process of (roughly) four minutes completing and presenting work on dry erase
slates followed by one to two minutes of kinesthetically representing their answer choices.
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 7
At this point, Rhonda began to respond to her focus students behaviors. When working
with the dry erase slates, Rhonda engaged in seven of the eight recorded instances of responding
to student behavior. Most of the responses were directed at nonverbal behavior (slouching,
facing away from the board, head down on desk) while only two responses were to verbal
behavior (talking out of turn, talking off topic). Rhondas responses to student behavior did not
have a lasting impact on changing the student behavior. In the cases of verbal behavior,
Rhondas responses (Why dont you just go sit down now and Colin - some people are not
being respectful) put an immediate end to the students behavior. In the cases of nonverbal
behavior, however, Rhondas responses (Did you get that? You cant be over here go sit
down! Wake up, Peter Might want to face forward) had little impact. Most of these
students initially stopped their behavior, but they reverted back to the same behavior just minutes
later.
For the last 13 minutes of my observation, students had completed two cycles of writing
and presenting work on dry erase slates followed by one to two minutes of kinesthetically
representing their answer choices. Throughout this time, two students entered the classroom late
and the counselor stopped by the room to talk with a student. At 12:30pm, my dean appeared at
the door and informed me that he could no longer cover my class as he needed to attend to an
unexpected conflict. After 27 minutes in the classroom, this marked the end of my observation.
The only unanticipated issues during my observation revolved around my observation
tool. Although my tool was helpful in tracking behaviors and movements, I did not anticipate
that this tool was not conducive to tracking other aspects of the classroom that could play a role
in the focus students behavior. For example, my observation tool did not allow me to capture
how Rhondas class hardly ever volunteered answers or asked questions. This could have been
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 8
pertinent data to consider when analyzing the observation and the climate of Rhondas
classroom. Also, my observation tool did not allow me to monitor the different levels of
Rhondas questions or the different methods Rhonda used to solicit student feedback. When
analyzing the data from my observation tool, these details may have helped to explain some of
Rhondas classroom climate and potential rationales for focus students behaviors. In addition,
my observation tool did not allow me to track the structure and pacing of Rhondas lesson; if I
had this data when analyzing my observation, I may have been able to draw connections between
classroom management, pre-planned activities, and focus students behavior. Although my
observation tool helped me to make sense of my observation, creating a tool that allowed for
tracking more data could have been helpful in my analysis and interpretation.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Twenty minutes after completing my observation of Rhondas classroom, I sat down to
make sense of the observation data I collected. In order to aid myself in disaggregating the data,
I created a set of notes to organize my observations into analyses and interpretations (Appendix
C).
Using the data from my observation tool, I created a few points for analysis. First of all,
Rhonda hardly moved in the classroom; she almost seemed tethered to the boards: of the 27
minutes that I spent in her class, Rhonda spent 21 minutes standing next to either the Promethean
Board or the dry erase board. Second, her verbal responses to student behavior did not
substantially change their distracting behavior. I noted three separate instances in which students
did not change their behavior (slouching in their seat, not watching for instructions on the board,
facing the front of the room) when Rhonda verbally responded to their behavior. Third, one of
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 9
Rhondas focus students, J.P., was very quick to volunteer answers and verbally responded to
questions posed to the class. His behavior indicated that he was engaged with the subject matter
and that he felt confident in his mathematical abilities. Fourth, while it only took two verbal
reminders to keep two of Rhondas focus students on track, she did verbally respond to one
student, C.K., six different times. In the span of ten minutes, Rhonda reminded him to face
forward two times. Both times, C.K. reluctantly shifted his body to face the front of the room
only to twist his body away from the focal point of instructional delivery just minutes later.
Fifth, I noted that students were out of their seats for more than three minutes over the span of
my 27-minute observation. Students left their seat to obtain supplies (dry erase slates and
markers) and to briefly represent their answers in different corners of the classroom; otherwise,
students remained in their seats and were expected to face the front of the room.
From these analyses of my data, I was able to draw a few conclusions to discuss with
Rhonda at our post-conference meeting. First, I wondered if students attention and anticipation
fade with decreased proximity to the teacher. H.L.s body language and eye contact (slouched in
his chair, not facing Rhonda, not looking at any teaching devices like the board or his paper)
indicated that he was not on task; all of these observations took place when Rhonda was not
standing in close proximity to his seat. I wondered: what role does Rhondas movement have in
her students attentive behaviors? Second, calling on students and reminding them of proper
body posture (face front, head down) did not correct students posture. One student did not even
react when Rhonda told him to pick his head up. Perhaps these students need more of a reminder
than just a simple verbal response? The short term effect was not enough, and C.K. couldnt
retain the reminders. Third, J.P. wants to participate! He wants in! He always raised his hand
both to offer answers and ask questions; he was the only student to actively participate when the
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 10
rest of the class remained silent. I wondered if Rhonda could capitalize on his active
engagement. J.P. is the type of student who leads his peers for better or worse. If Rhonda can
convince him to use his natural leadership for good, can she give him more of a leadership role
in the class so that his peers can follow his positive example? Fourth, I wondered: what is the
effect of keeping students in their seats for two activities in a row? Do students always need to
remain seated while checking answers from the warm up activity and the homework? What kind
of movement could be purposeful in increasing participation and focus in class? I noted these
questions along with additional interpretations and planned to share these with Rhonda during
our post-observation conference.

POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE
Prior to my post-observation conference with Rhonda, I created a post-observation
planning sheet to guide our conversation (Appendix D). On this sheet, I reviewed the sequential
steps of using the collaborative supervisory approach and related these steps to Rhonda and her
classroom.
When Rhonda and I sat down, I first asked her what she noticed about the lesson that I
observed. First, she noted that many of her focus students, especially H.L., behaved much better
than normal she wondered if his behavior was influenced by my presence. Sighing, Rhonda
also hypothesized whether or not J.P.s improved behavior was influenced by his parent-teacher
conference that took place before school on the day of the observation. I made sure to listen as
much as possible and ask as many clarifying questions (Why do you think that was the case?
What was different about todays class? The same? Okay, so I hear you saying thatdo I
have this right?) before I shared my data and reflections.
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 11
After clarifying and listening to Rhondas reflection, I gave Rhonda a copy of my
observation tool and simply explained my markings and how I used the tool to observe her class
(see OBSERVATION section above). I also gave Rhonda a copy of my Analysis and
Interpretations so she could follow along with her own documents. As I walked through each of
my analyses, Rhonda leaned in and followed my finger as I pointed back to data that I collected
and graphical representations of what I observed. Before transitioning into my interpretations, I
clarified with Rhonda if she saw how my observations connected to my analyses; she
acknowledged that she understood. When I began talking about my interpretations, Rhonda
watched me intently as I presented my reading of the data from the observation. I was careful to
phrase all of my interpretations as questions because I wanted to include Rhondas responses
with my interpretations. My questions focused on how 1) teacher movement may affect student
attentiveness and distracting behavior, 2) how student movement may help to encourage
participation and, in turn, improve the class climate, and 3) how harnessing J.P.s positive
engagement may help to guide the class in the right direction instead of the wrong direction.
My collaborative supervisory approach worked well for part of the meeting. When we
discussed teacher movement, Rhonda offered her own solution by creating a plan to use her
ActivSlate (a wireless tablet that communicates with the Promethean Board from anywhere in
the classroom) to go over homework so that she was not tethered to either the Promethean
Board or the dry erase board. She agreed that her increased presence around the room during
mundane homework checks could keep students more accountable for their behavior; her
presence nearby would keep their mind from wandering.
When discussing student movement, however, Rhonda expressed that she didnt know
how she could effectively utilize student movement during homework checks. At this point, I
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 12
transitioned into a more directive approach and suggested stations for different sets of homework
problems, utilizing dry erase boards to post student answers on each wall of the classroom, and
jigsaw activities where students from a home-base group would split up into separate expert-
groups, correct and solve homework problems, and then return to the home-base group to share
their answers and expertise. Rhonda indicated that she used the dry erase boards to show student
work and that she could use stations to check different sets of homework problems in the future.
In addition, when we discussed how harnessing J.P.s engagement could strengthen the
class climate, Rhonda asked me for ideas on how to rope him in. Maintaining a more directive
supervisory approach, I explained to her that I saw J.P. as a strong leader; all students in the class
would look to him and follow his cue whether it was for better or worse. I suggested that
Rhonda could talk with J.P. privately (as I have in my class), complimenting his natural
leadership ability and inviting him to work together with her instead of against her. I also
suggested that she could provide him with some leadership roles in the class (handing out paper,
organizing stations, serving as a homework expert) to help increase his buy in and establish a
personal stake in the class.
After using both collaborative and directive supervisory approaches to explain my
interpretations, Rhonda and I agreed on a plan for action. We agreed that Rhondas objectives
were to move more around the room, utilize student movement more meaningfully, and harness
J.P.s power in the classroom. Rhonda would accomplish these objectives by using her
ActivSlate to access the Promethean Board while walking around the room during homework
checks, incorporating more student use of the dry erase boards mounted on all four walls of the
room during homework checks, and talking with J.P. and inviting him to join her in leading the
class forward. Since Rhonda already had an ActivSlate and wall-mounted dry erase boards, she
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 13
did not need any new resources for the first two objectives. Rhonda did mention that she might
want to talk with me further next week about specific strategies and plans to help incorporate
J.P.s leadership skills more effectively into the class.

CRITIQUE
At the end of my post-conference meeting with Rhonda, I asked her to reflect on her
interpretation of the clinical supervision process. She noted that she preferred the clinical
supervision process to the observation process currently in use in our school. Rhonda noted that
she benefited from the specific details that we laid out together in our pre-observation
conference, she appreciated being including in establishing what I was going to look during her
observation, and, most of all, she felt grateful for the opportunity to provide her own input during
our post-observation conference. Smiling, she also mentioned that receiving copies of the
directive and data-driven feedback was helpful in understanding my interpretation of her class
and in synthesizing a plan of action.
Rhonda mentioned that she would want me to use the same process to observe her
classroom again in the future to see if she was meaningfully and successfully utilizing the
activities we designed to accomplish the objectives to work on. After our meeting, I talked with
one of our assistant principals tasked with completing her summative evaluation for this school
year, and I mentioned that Rhonda and I both wanted my observations to count towards her
summative evaluation process. Although he could not submit any of my work into her file (as I
am not an administrator), he did mention that if we continued to work together, my future
observations could count as a part of our schools peer observation program. Since that
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 14
conversation, Rhonda and I have agreed to work together for two more future observations and
earn the recertification credits that come along with peer observations.

COMPARISON
Currently, Loudoun County Public Schools does not have a formalized system to provide
nonjudgmental assistance aimed at improving [a] teachers instruction (Glickman et. al, 2007).
At this point, Loudoun County supervisors are only required to complete two informal, formative
walkthroughs of each employee who is enrolled in the summative teacher evaluation process
throughout the school year. The only formalized system to provide teacher performance
feedback is Loudoun Countys teacher evaluation process.
When comparing the clinical supervision process with the evaluation process in Loudoun
County, I noticed many distinct differences. The first set of differences emerged when I
compared the steps of the clinical supervision process to the steps of Loudoun Countys
evaluation process. First, Loudoun County does not utilize pre-observation conferences to guide
future observations. Virtually no pre-observation conferences take place prior to formative
walkthroughs. Even though pre-observation conferences do take place at the beginning of a
teachers year-long evaluation process, that conference is designed to establish the teachers
strengths and weaknesses, define the teachers holistic teaching goals, and review the steps in the
evaluation process; pre-summative-evaluation conferences focus on the current status of the
teacher as opposed to the personal growth needs of [the teacher] (Glickman et. al, 2007).
Second, Loudoun County utilizes standardized, catch-all observation tools instead of unique
observation tools tailored to the focus of the observation (Appendix E). Administrators do not
alter the tool in any way but may choose to only focus on one of the seven evaluation standards
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 15
per observation. Third, Loudoun County administrators do not plan observation dates and times
with their teachers; observations are unannounced and may take place at any point in time during
the class. Although this practice may erode trust between the teacher and the supervisor,
Loudoun County administrators are not required to establish a set time for formative or
summative observations. Fourth, post-observation conferences do not take place in Loudoun
County Public Schools. Although administrators provide teachers with a copy of their analysis
and interpretations following any formative observation, Loudoun County administrators do not
schedule or establish meetings with the teacher to discuss the observation. Similarly, although
meetings between the teacher and the supervisor are required at the end of a teachers year-long
summative evaluation process, Loudoun County administrators never schedule any post-
observation meetings after the numerous required observations throughout the course of the year.
This is problematic: without these meetings after each observation, teachers receive little to no
feedback on their professional growth or their advancement throughout the summative
evaluation process. Finally, Loudoun County administrators are not required to seek input from
the teacher regarding the observation process; the current evaluation process does not allow for
teacher reflection. Without soliciting feedback, Loudoun County administrators do not convey
that they are involved in an improvement effort in the same way as the supervisee (Glickman
et. al, 2007). Furthermore, without asking the teacher to reflect on the process, Loudoun County
supervisors lose the chance to decide on what practices to continue, revise, or change when
working with the teacher in the future (Glickman et. al, 2007).
The second major difference between the clinical supervision process and Loudoun
Countys teacher evaluation system rests with the philosophical concept of inclusivity. The
foundation of clinical supervision rests upon a professional working relationship between the
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 16
teacher(s) and the supervisor(s) and a high degree of mutual trust (Glickman et. al, 2007). In
essence, clinical supervision rests on a partnership between the teacher and the supervisor to seek
areas of growth and improve the teachers craft. Furthermore, not only do supervisors provide
teachers with feedback of the observation, but in the critique phase, teachers provide supervisors
with feedback of the supervision process (Glickman et. al, 2007). In contrast, the teacher
evaluation process in Loudoun represents a subservient relationship between the supervisor and
the supervisee: feedback is given on a one-way street from the administrator to the teacher and
the teacher holds no power in guiding the process forward to the next step. I believe that if the
teacher evaluation system in Loudoun is to be viewed as a meaningful growth piece for teachers
as opposed to a gotcha assessment, Loudoun County Public Schools should allow teachers to
provide feedback and input throughout the process. Not only would this approach be symbolic
in representing that the partnership is truly a collaborative effort, but teachers would be more
intrinsically motivated to invest in their own evaluation process if they knew that their input
mattered.
The third major difference between the clinical supervision process and Loudoun
Countys evaluation process rests in its objective. As with most evaluation processes, the system
in Loudoun exists to assess teachers on their craft, effectiveness, and professionalism. This is
helpful in determining the employment status of educators in the county, however it does nothing
to meaningfully improve the quality of classroom teaching. Compare the teacher evaluation
system to students summative assessments in the classroom. Even though assessment results
determine which students were successful at mastering the material and which students have not
fully grasped the content at hand, these results (when properly analyzed) also provide classroom
teachers with meaningful feedback about how to effectively guide students through the next unit
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 17
of study. If teacher evaluations simply sort the employable from the unemployable, they do
nothing to guide supervisors through how to lead their employees through the next school year.
Teacher evaluations should provide teachers with the feedback to improve their craft and
supervisors with the feedback to more effectively lead their staff. This shortfall could be solved
if teachers had the opportunity to provide input on the evaluation process (like they do in phase
five of the clinical supervision process) and if teachers were coached throughout their evaluation
process through pre-observation conferences and post-observation conferences (like they are in
phases one and four of the clinical supervision process). Teacher evaluations should be
meaningful growth opportunities for both the supervisor and supervisee; by implementing some
of the clinical supervision steps throughout the teacher evaluation process, Loudoun County
Public Schools would provide both teachers and administrators with better opportunities to
improve their partnership and strengthen their work for kids.

Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 18
Works Cited
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P. and Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2007). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach (7th edition), Boston, Ma: Allyn and Bacon.
Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our
schools. Corwin Press.


Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 19
Appendix A
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 20
Appendix B
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 21
Appendix C
Analysis and Interpretations (A&I)
EVERYTHING HERE MUST BE SUPPPORTED IN YOUR OBSERVATION TOOL!!!
Write the major findings of your observation ONLY THINGS WRITTEN DOWN ON OBSERVATION
TOOL
1. Limited movement only spent some of the class near focus students: 21 minutes next to a board
(Promethean or white board)
2. Response to focus students did not change behavior
3. J.P. raising hand sometimes, offering comments sometimes
4. Called on H.L. twice, J.P. three times; C.K. six times
5. Students out of seats (get supplies, move to corners) for 3:20 out of 27:00
Write down what you believe is/not desirable about major findings (above):
1. Does students attention/participation fade with decreased proximity to the teacher? H.L.s body
language and eye contact (slouched in his chair, not facing Rhonda, not looking at any teaching devices
like the board or his paper) seemed as though he was not on task, and this was when Boyer was away
from him Peter
2. Calling on students and reminding them of proper body posture (face front, head down) did not correct
the issue. One student (front with head down) did not even react when told to pick his head up. Perhaps
these kids need more of a reminder than just a simple reminder? The short term effect is not enough,
and with C.K., he couldnt retain the reminders.
3. J.P. wants to participate! He wants in! Always raising his hand (multiple ?s), answering when the rest
of the class wont! Can you capitalize on him? Get him on your side?
4. How much does calling on the same focus students help encourage them to volunteer? Called on
answers from C.K. six times, however he never volunteered; H.L. called on twice for answers but did
not volunteer. J.P., on the other hand, did volunteer twice both times he was called on (but, as seen
above, he wants to participate). Calling on them may increase accountability to remind them to pay
attention, but how can you get them to want to raise their hand and ask a question/volunteer an answer
on their own?
5. What is the effect of keeping students in their seats for two activities in a row? Do students need to be
seated? What kind of movement could be purposeful in increasing participation and focus in class?

Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 22
Appendix D
Post-Conference Date: ______________________________________ Time: ____________________
Collaborative
1) Allow Rhonda to share what she saw
a. Clarifying so, what did you see today?
b. Listening (you want as much info from Rhonda as possible before you act) keep her
talking
c. Reflecting Okay, so I hear you saying thisdo I have this right?
2) Share the data and analysis I have
a. Merely tell what you saw; interpretations come later
3) Clarification Okay, do you see what Im seeing? Do you see anything differently?
4) Questioning How would you interpret this data?
5) Presenting Okay, I see the situation this way
a. Present interpretation
6) Problem solving Okay, lets both come up with ideas right now on possible solutions
7) Negotiating find common ground (or compromise) between my solutions and Rhondas
8) Standardizing Okay, when are we going to try this? What resources do you need?
9) Reflecting write down the plan together

Objective to work on:

Activities to be undertaken to achieve objectives:

Resources needed:

Time and date for another pre-observation conference:
Critique:
1) What was valuable about what we have been doing?


2) What was of little value?


3) What changes could you suggest?
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 23
Appendix E
Clinical Supervision: A Study in Effective Observation Practices Kursman, 24