supervisory models

LA SALLE UNIVERSITYSchool of Graduate

StudiesS.Y. 2016-2017

SUPINS

Presenter: Ms. Liezl Marie N. Bajuyo

Dr. Erlita T. Gulane

FIVE

SUPERVISORY MODELS

Models ground our practices and help us with intentionality and consistency

1Clinical Supervision

2Conceptual

Supervision

3Developmental Supervision

4Contextual Supervision

5Differentiated

Supervision

- Contextual Definition (Fritz, 2003)

oAn individual responsible for the supervision of teaching performance

Peer coaching leadersMaster TeachersPrincipalsSuperintendentsUniversity teacher

educator

1Instructional Leader

- A form of inquiry designed to:

oencourage reflection and analysis

odevelop and test hypotheses about what is effective and why



Planning

ConferenceClassroom

Observation/Data

CollectionAnalysis/Strategy Stage Post-

observation

ConferencePost-conference Analysis

Goal SettingTeacher prepares detailed lesson planObservation ProperCollection of Data through InstrumentConceptualizationDialogue

Establishes goals to be met next observation

(Cook, 1996)

(Goldhammer et al., 1993)

(Cogan, 1973)

Reflection Exercise for the Instructional Leader

oencourages familiarization of influences affecting the teaching process.

osupported by the Organizational Theory

2ConceptualSupervision

Individuals are unified by common set of standardsThey work together within a system of structure

Influences Affecting the

Teaching Process

environmentlife stage

work load

2ConceptualSupervision

School Structu

reOrganization

factors

Personal

Factorscolleaguesadministrators

classroom climatesupport of colleaguesdecision making role conflictsupervision

teaching assignmentinterpersonal

conceptual level

intrapersonal

experience in educationknowledge of the subject

(Beach & Reinhartz, 1989)

(Edmeirer & Nicklaus’s, 1999)

oFocuses on the match of initial supervisory approach with the teacher or group’s developmental levels, expertise, and commitment

3Developmental

Supervision

Three types of Assistance

Teachers with low conceptual thinking, expertise, and commitment

Directive

Collaborative

Nondirective

Teachers with moderate level of abstract thinking, expertise and commitment

(Glickman et al., 2001)

3Developmental Supervision

Teachers who thinkabstractly and demonstrate high expertise and commitment

Instructional leader as the expert

Allows the teacher to be in control

Both instructional leader and teacher are working as a team

oMatches supervisory styles with the teacher’s readiness level to perform a particular task


Competence Vs. Confidence


Support Vs. Task

TEACHER

Instructional. Leader

Extent of teacher’s• Knowled

ge• Skill• Ability

Degree of teacher’s• Self-

assurance• Willingness• Motivation• Interest Amount of

encouragement given to the teacher

Amount of guidance provided in the subject matter

(Ralph, 1998)

Level of Competence

(Ralph, 1998)

Four Quadrants of Leadership Style


Leve

l of

Confi

denc

e(2nd

Quadrant)Low

Confidence; Low

CompetenceLOW

HIG

H

HIGH

(1st Quadrant)

High Confidence;

Low Competence

( 3rd Quadrant)

Low Confidence;

High Competence

( 4th Quadrant)

High Confidence;

High Competence

Low Support; High Task

Low Support; Low Task

High Support; High Task

High Support; Low Task

oParticularly teacher-driven

oAllows instructional leader to be more of a mentor

5Differentiated

Supervision

Intensive Development

Cooperative Professional Development

Self-Directed

Many instructional leader observations

Independent teaching

Mutually respectful process

Focused on learning outcomes instead of teaching methodWork together to facilitate professional growth

Brief monitoring and unannounced classroom visit

5Differentiated

Supervision

Administrative Monitoring

(Glatthom, 1997)

FOUR OPTIONS FOR DIFFERENTIATED SUPERVISON

Works with small number of teachers having difficulty

Works with more experienced teachers

Works with teachers who prefer to work alone

Focuses on what classroom problems must be addressed

Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders (SOIL) Model

Instructional Leader is more administrative and structured

Rigidity of structure begins to diminish

Supervision is teacher-driven

(Hersey, 2001)

No model fits all. Often, some approaches are more or less suited to a particular situation. Hence, it is our challenge as instructional leaders to explore a variety of approaches to aide in the development of ALL types of teachers.

Implications for Leadership Educators

KAY MAG DOCTOR MAN KAHA TA???

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ACTIVE COOPERATION!

Prepared by:

LIEZL MARIE N. BAJUYO

References: Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (1989). Supervision: Focus on instruction. New York: Harper & Row.Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton MifflinEdmeirer, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and principal collaborative supervision on teacher’s trust, commitment, desire for collaboration, and

efficiency. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(4), 351-378.Fritz, Carrie (2003). Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders inEducation. Journal of Leadership Education Volume 2, Issue 2. Iowa State University.

References: Gebhard, Jerry (1984). Models of Supervision: Choices. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.18, No. 3. Columbia University.Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated supervision (2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. H., & Krajewski, R. J. (1993). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Ralph, E. G. (1998). Developing practitioners: A handbook of contextual supervision. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.