Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 1

Running Head: INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION IN A HIGHER ED SETTING

Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting

[name of the writer]

[name of the institution ]

[name of the Professor]

[Course]

.
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 2

Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting

The Developmental History of Supervision

Just like every other educational methodology, supervision, as an educational practice

with distinctly defined roles and responsibilities, was not fully developed from the beginning.

Rather, it has emerged and evolved gradually as a separate practice, mostly in context of the

academic, institutional, cultural and professional scenarios which have traditionally produced

the multifaceted purpose of teaching.

It all started in the colonial New England, a process of external inspection, when an

individual or a group of local citizens get appointed for the sole purpose of inspecting both

the contents of teachers’ teachings and the extent and degree of students’ learning. This

notions of inspection, even today, is the centrepiece of the practice of supervision.

This practice of supervision as a formal exercise performed by educational

administrators in an educational system begans with the start of the common school system in

the later parts of 1830s. The first half of the nineteenth century was marked by unprecidented

population growth especially in the major cities of US, which made formation of school

systems on the city level mandatory. Initially superintendents inspected these schools to

observe the teachers’ compliance with the prescribed curriculum and the students’ ability to

comprehend their lessons, but the proliferation of schools gradually made it virtually

impossible for these superintendents, hence the responsibility was delegated to the school

principal. The advent of scientific management techniques both in industrial and in public

administration, in the early years of the 20th century, had its due impacts on educational

institutions. At the same time, child-focused and experienced-based learning theories of

European educators like Friedrich Froebel, Johann Herbart, Johann Pestalozzi and the
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 3

American philosopher John Dewey, were also influencing the educational system. As a result

of this multifarous pressure educational supervisors found themselves in a state of dilemma

where they have to strike an equilibrium between the scientific evaluation of the teachers and

the synchronized need of transforming teaching from a robotic performance of protocols to

an assorted repertory of learning-based responses to students' innate sense of curiosity and

varied degrees of readiness.

In the later half of the century supervision transformed into a multitude of clinical

supervision. It was started by Robert Anderson and Morris Cogan (both Harvard professors)

and their graduate students. Clinical supervision mixed the necessary parts of "scientific" and

"objective" learning observation with feature of rational planning, collegial coaching, and

most importantly an elastic query-based concern related to student learning. Robert

Goldhammer in 1969, and Glickman et al in 2003 (p. 316), presented the following five-stage

process of clinical supervision: (1) Pre-observation conference between teacher and

supervisor; (2) Observation of classroom; (3) Analyzing and interpreting observation and

determining conference approach; (4) Post-observation conference between supervisor and

teacher; and (5) Critique of previous four steps.

This clinical supervision practice had to go through the changes brought in by Sputnik

curriculum reforms in the 1960s which had a focus on the form of the educational disciplines.

Sooner, views coming forward as a result of research on the vague notions of effective

educational institute and effective classrooms that proclaimed to have identified the primary

steps of effective teaching superceded the clinical supervision procedure. Madeline Hunter,

during the same period, took the research findings from the psychology of learning and

developed a quasi-scientific approach of effective teaching in the 1970s and 1980s. These

newer models of curriculum and teaching were often superimposed on the aforementioned
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 4

five-stage process of clinical supervision. But still in many educational circles the original

process Goldhammer has manitained its preferred status. This process of supervision was

later adopted by followers of peer supervision and also supporters of collegial-teacher

leadership. Inspite of its advantages clinical supervision is time-consuming and labor-

intensive, making it nearly impossible to use on regular basis considering the number of

teachers the supervisors are needed to supervise.

In 1998, realizing the time constraints of supervisors Robert Starratt and Thomas

Sergiovanni proposed, the formation of a supervisory system with a multitude of supervision

processes, including summative evaluation. This system would not need the direct

supervision for each and every teacher each year. This system would rotate professional

teachers through a 3-5 year period. During this time they would have to go through formal

evaluation once and a cornucopia of other evaluative processes like peer supervision, self-

evaluation, action research on new teaching strategies, curriculum development, involvement

in a school renewal project etc.

Roles and Responsibilities of Supervisors

As supervision as an activity is part of so many ditinct roles, e.g. there are may be

university-based supervisors for undergraduate students in areas of teacher education

programs who may supervise the activities of less experienced teachers. There may be a

principal or an assistant principal who conducts general supervision which is different from

the specific, usually subject-matter supervision frequently conducted by high school

department chair. Some other professional personnel in similar roles may include cluster

coordinators, mentors, lead teachers, curriculum specialists, peer coaches and peer

supervisors, project directors, program evaluators, trainers, and district office administrators.
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 5

Sadly, they often carry out their supervisory work without having any significant professional

preparation, mostly finding by trial and error the best possible way out.

Principals as supervisers, not only supervise teachers, but also counselors, librarians,

secretaries, health personnel, custodians, bus drivers, and similar staff directly or indirectly

related to the institute. It needs a combination of sensitivity, diplomacy and humanity.

Because in their daily contact with students, all of the support staff are teaching different

necessary lessons dealing with the integrity of different sorts of work, realted to civility and

etiquette and above all primary social behavior.

As the contacts between students is now controlled by legal constraints (like

definitions of ethnic, racial and sexual harassment, of privacy and free speech rights, of due

process) and as the occurence of physical violence, bullying, weapon carrying to school, and

sometimes the killing of students by other students has increased in recent times this aspect of

supervision has become more and more complex. Many educational administrators are now

using an sophisticated system evolved on the principles of low visibility, restrained and

security-oriented supervision which pro-active and anticipatory in nature. Unfortunately,

most of them have not felt the need to build sensitive relationships with the students based on

care, trust, support and compassion.

Supervisors normally held more than one responsibilities. Following are the major

resposibilities of supervisers arranged in ascending order of scope or reach:

1. Mentoring of new teachers for a supportive induction into the new profession.

2. Making it sure that individual teachers maintain a minimum standard of effective

teaching.
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 6

3. Polishing individual teachers' capabilities, without considering whether they need it or

not.

4. Teachers’ working in form of groups in a collaborative attempt for improvement in

student learning.

5. Teachers’ working in groups for the purpose of adapting the curriculum according to

the needs and abilities of various groups of students and also bringing the curriculum

upto the state and national standards.

6. Organizing teachers' efforts for the improvement of teaching as a part of

institutionwide improvement.

By involving state departments of education in the monitoring of institution

improvement efforts, these supervisory responsibilities have mostly covered the important

tasks. These responsibilities help supervisors build complex, collaborative, and

developmental realtionships with the teachers, instead of the strict inspectorial relationships

as opposed to the past practices.

 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 7

(Glickman, C. D.; Gordon, S. P.; Ross-Gordon, J. M. 2003. Supervision of Instruction A

Developmental Approach. 6th edition. p. 443. Allyn & Bacon)

A number of trends can be interpreted in supervision, most of which have a mutual

influence over one another in a dynamic educational environment. The most significant of

them is perhaps, a peer supervision program for development. Whatever shape supervision

acquires, its primary focus should remain on student learning. It means that the supervisory

part has its attention more on the analysis of teaching as a activity and should not be

independent of its purpose i.e. student learning.

This supervisory attention on student learning is more focused on the learning of

underserved students (students with special needs) and persistently below-par performing

students. Supervisors and teachers both are expected to take up this responsibility of high

class learning for every student.

 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 8

Many issues concerned with supervision require significant resolution and attention.

The edge of supervision at the state level over the district level, and its edge over the

institution level should not tarnish the relationship of all the involved bodies. Test-driven

policies of accountability along with the one-dimensional rhetoric which expresses them have

to consider the unusually complex natures of classrooms and also the normally resource-

stripped systems of support required to develop the institutional capability to carry out the

required agenda. Supervisors often find themselves caught in a crossfire. On one side,

teachers and parents complain of the lack of modern learning opportunities for children; on

the other side, district and state administrators tend to complain regarding the poor scores of

students in tests, generally neglecting the necessary resources to bring about the necessary

changes into the institutional policies and practices to make them comply with reform

policies.

Another attention demanding issue is the division between the supervisors believing

in a decontextualized, functionalist and generally oversimplified idealist view of knowledge

as something to be imparted, and those who believe in knowledge as something to be

constructed actively and practiced by learners in more realistic scenarios. These assumptions

regarding the nature of knowledge and its impartation significantly affect the teachers’ and

supervisors’ approach towards the student learning and, more importantly, teaching

protocols. Another concerned issue is the level of accomodation of cultural, racial, class,

gender and intellectual diversity inside the institute and classrooms. The implications of these

necessary accommodations cannot be ignored if the development of teaching and curriculum

is the prime motive of supervisers.

Supervision’s status as a professional and academic query and of comparatively

unified normative principles may persist as a differentiable area. Many scholars and
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 9

professsionals have implied that supervisory roles and responsibilities ought to be

subcategorized under different other professional and administrative roles. They also promote

the use of the word instructional leaders instead of supervision. Similarly, the use of

terminologies like coaching, mentoring, professional development and curriculum

development should also be limited.

Many professionals specialized in research and publication in supervision tend to

differ with this relinquishing of the notion of supervision, because of its developmental

history and also due to the bureaucratic and legal needs of supervision will definately remain

in place. They argue that having a clearly discernible, professional type of supervision may

prevent these bureaucratic and legal practices from becoming a ritualistic, evaluative

formality.

These issues, trends and realted controversies will tend to keep the field of

supervision in an evolutionary state of continous development. But still a dearth of attention

to the implications and repercussions of these issues may cause a withering in the concept

and its applications and may result in a wild drifting in no apparent direction.

Appendix

Literature Review
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 10

Starratt, R. J. (2008). Supervision of Instruction - The History of Supervision, Roles and

Responsibilities of Supervisors, Issues Trends and Controversies.

This article is notable for two of its qualities: a comprehensive and engorsing account

of the topic and a well documented and easily comprehensible style of writing. The author is

no novice in this field of educational supervision and the writing clearly reflects the deepest

understanding of the nature of supervision and its inherent problems the author posess and

which he is, no doubt, willing to share and impart to the others.

The author has traced the evolution and the subsequent development of educational

supervision through the mazes of history and then has dwelled upon the roles and

responsibilities of and ideal superviser, in the end the author has also discussed a few of the

important concerns and trends realted to the topic. One can safely recommend the article to

anyone who is new to the concept for easy understanding and grasping of the concept.

Ahmad, M. (2004). Instructional Behavior of Principals of Government Colleges for

Elementary Teachers. University Institute of Education and Research. University of Arid

Agriculture. Rawalpindi-Pakistan.

Coming from an underdeveloped country the article has a feeling of

underdevelopment attached with itself, but the readers found themselves pleasingly surprised

with the development of thought in the article. Although, the article has a more regional and

local focus, it still provides the reader a deep insight about the topic and its application in the

real world.

Thobega, M.; Miller, G. (2003). Realtionship of Instructional Supervision with Aagriculture

Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Their Intention to Remain in the Teaching Profession. Journal

of Agricultural Education. Volume 44, Number 4, p. 57-66.

 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 11

This article has a different flavor with itself. Unlike so many other articles, which

only focuses on the topic from students’ perspective, this article has tried to take the views of

the other party involved i.e. the teacher who is of the same importance.

The article has presented, along with some encouraging signs, the depressing findings

that most of the agricultural institutes in the state do not possess a system of supervision. In

the end the author has tried to suggest some improvements and changes in the system to

accommodate the supervision, or the lack of it, in the state agricultural educational systems.

Murtaza, A. (2005). Comparative Study of Teaching Practice in Formal and Non-Formal

Systems and Development of a Model. University Institute of Education and Research.

University of Arid Agriculture. Rawalpindi-Pakistan.

It is another refreshingly enlightening article which has its focus on the two parallel

systems of teaching in Pakistan. The author posses a clear understanding of the issues related

to the problem and he, instead of being a reporter only, has also proposed some suggestions

of his own. The most important aspect of the article is the presentation of the developed

model. The author has confessed that the model is not tailor-made for every situation and

may have few short comings which may spring up during its application and implementation

but he still has expressed a strong feeling that his model will, in log term, inspire others to

come up with better theories and ideas.

Reference
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 12

Ahmad, M. (2004). Instructional Behavior of Principals of Government Colleges for

Elementary Teachers. University Institute of Education and Research. University of

Arid Agriculture. Rawalpindi-Pakistan.

Anderson, R. H. and Snyder, K. J. (1993). Clinical Supervision: Coaching for Enhanced

Performance. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publications.

Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Garman, N.; Glickman, C.; Hunter, M.; Haggerson, N. (1987). Conflicting Conceptions of

Clinical Supervision and the Enhancement of Professional Growth and Renewal:

Point and Counterpoint. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. Volume 2, Number

2, p. 52–177.

Glickman, C. D.; Gordon, S. P.; Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2003). Supervision of Instruction A

Developmental Approach. 6th edition. p. 443. Allyn & Bacon.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical Supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Murtaza, A. (2005). Comparative Study of Teaching Practice in Formal and Non-Formal

Systems and Development of a Model. University Institute of Education and

Research. University of Arid Agriculture. Rawalpindi-Pakistan.

Sergiovanni, T. J.; Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision: A Redefinition (6th edition). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Starratt, R. J. (2008). Supervision of Instruction - The History of Supervision, Roles and

Responsibilities of Supervisors, Issues Trends and Controversies. Retrieved

December 4, 2008 from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2472/Supervision-

Instruction.html
 Instructional Supervision in a Higher Ed Setting 13

Thobega, M.; Miller, G. (2003). Realtionship of Instructional Supervision with Aagriculture

Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Their Intention to Remain in the Teaching Profession.

Journal of Agricultural Education. Volume 44, Number 4, p. 57-66.