_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sciences sociales et humaines
Motcho Prosper A TCHADE
Université d'Abomey-Calavi (FLASH)
Cet article a examiné les possibilités d'application et de gestion de la fonnation clinique en général et
de la fonnation participative en particulier.
L'examen de ces possibilités a fait apparaître la distinction qui existe entre l'approche autoritaire et
l'approche participative, deux approches qui sous-tendent la fonnation clinique.
Pour l'approche autoritaire, le fonnateur se comporte comme le seul détenteur du savoir et comme le
contrôleur autoritaire de la fonnation, alors que pour l'approche participative, le fonnateur éprouve beaucoup
d'égards pour l'enseignant qu'il est en train de fonner. Pour l'approche participative, le fonnateur ne joue pas
le rôle de quelqu'un qui évalue et qui note mais iljoue plutôt le rôle de quelqu'un qui comprend, qui établit un
rapport de confiance réciproque et qui est soucieux de contribuer efficacement à l'amélioration des pratiques
didactiques de l'enseignant dont il a la charge.
Mots clés: Formation clinique, formation participative en clinique axée sur la didactique,
approche autoritaire, approche participative.
Key word~ : Clinical supervision, collaborative clinical supervision, prescriptive approach,
collahora/il'e approach.
This article deals with a review of sorne
literatllre ol1èringpossibilities for the implementation and
Good (1959) defines supervision as «ail efforts
management of cIinical supervision in general and
of designated school officiaIs directed toward
collaborative cIinical supervision in particular. Indeed,
providing leadership /0 teachers and other
the article draws a distinction betwecn prescriptive and
educa/ional workers in the improvement of
collaborative approaches to clinical supervision by
instruction; il involves the stimulation of
depicting the prescriptive clinical supervisor as an
projèssional growth and development ofteachers,
authority figure, an only source ofexpertise, an assessor
the selection and revision ofeducation objectives.
in contrast with the collaborative cIinical supervisor who
ma/erials of instruction, and methods ofteaching
acts as a colleague, a co-sharer ofexpertise with the
and the evalua/ion ofinstructiom) (p 539).
supervisee, a helper, a facilitator; and through such a
Instructional supervision is a subject of
collaborative approach, the supervisor might hope to
supervision. As supervision has varied interpretations,
foster the conditions for reflective practice and the long
the role ofthe supervisor is not consistent between and
tenn professional development of the supervisee.
sometimes within school systems and in the same way.
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série H, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2'- Semestre)

instructional supervision and the role ofthe insttuctional
supervisor vary. It may be appropriate to seek more
current views related to the definitions of supervision
which vary in bath content and specificity. Harris (1975)
defines supervision of instruction as: «what school
personnel do with adult and things to maintain or change
the school operation in ways that directly influence the
teaching processes employed to promote leaming» (pp
In the words of Sergiovanni and Starralt
10-11 ).
(1979), «clinical supervision refers to face-to face
The principle underlying this definition is that
encounters with teachers about teaching, usually in
instructional supervision is bath a concept and a process
classrooms, with the double-barrelled intent of
to improve the instruction given to the pupil.
professional development and improvement of
Eye, Netzer, and Krey (1971) define
instruction» (p. 305).
supervision of instruction as «that phase of school
Flanders (1976) sees c1inical supervision as,
administration which focuses primarily upon the
«a special case of teaching in which at least two
achievement of the appropriate instructional
persons are concerned wilh the improvement of
expectations ofeducational systems «(p 30).
teaching and at least one of the individuals is a
This definition may remind us of general
teacher whose performance is to he studied ... /t
supervision which refers to what might be called the
seeks to stimulate sorne change in teaching, to show
«administrative» aspects ofsupervision or «out ofc1ass»
that a change did, infact, take place, and to compare
supervision. General supervision is therefore concemed
the old and new pat/ems ofinstruction in ways that
\\vith sllch issues as cuniculum, syllabus, and the overall
will give a teacher useful insights into the
management structure ofeducation both outside and
instructional proce.\\'s» (pp. 47-48).
within the.school. So, General supervision efforts are
Ali these definitions have several elements in
focused on out-of-class operations that are intended
common. The definition provided by Goldhammer,
to improve and develop in-c1ass-instruction.
Anderson and Krajewski (1980) expresses our view
The discussion ofthe definitions of the term
ofc1inical supervision and is consistent with the others
supervision might be misleading because ofthe wide
and enhances those common elements. Clinical
variety ofterms used to describe those engaged in
supervision as they see it, is:
supervision, and the wide range ofdefinitions of the
«That phase of instructional supervision
word itself. The consideration of suèh issues as
which draws ils data from first-hand observation
curriculum, syllabus, education management and
ofactualteaching events, and involvesface-to~face
administration would take us weil beyond the scope of
(and other supervision associated) interaction
the present article. At this point, it may be helpful to
between the supervisor and teacher in the analysis
draw a useful distinction between general supervision
of teaching behaviours and aclivities for
and clinical supervision since we are concemed almost
instructional improvement» (p.19).
exc1usively with the issue ofc1inical supervision.
General supervision has something to do with
Having established a working definition of
«out-of-class» operations, with «administrative» aspects
c1inical supervision, we can now tum to how it can be
while, on the contrary, c1inical supervision is something
much more specific, an in-c1ass support system, the
crucial objective of which is to deliver assistance,
counselling and guidance by a competent and skilful
observer, all ofthe efforts tending to irnprove instruction,
a teacher's performance and professional growth, the
Freeman (1982) points out three approaches
final irn\\>act being the irnprovement ofstudent leaming.
to observing in-service teachers: he called (1) the
Morris Cogan (1973) defines clinical
supervisory approach, with the observer as authority
supervision as :
and arbitrator; (2) the alternative approach, with the
«The rationale and practice designed to
observer as a provider of«alternative perspectives»;
improve the teacher s classroom performance. It
and (3) the non-directive approach, with the observer
takes ils principal data from the events of the
as somebodywho «understands».
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2'"" Semestre)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sciences sociales et humaines
Gebhard (1984) presents an overview of
instruments to measure them. In this kind ofevaluation,
supervision in which he increases the number ofpossible
the evaluator or whatever you may cali him, acts in
models to five, as follows:
Sergiovanni 's words (1977) as «an authority figure, as
(1) Directive Supervision where the supervisor
an only source of expertise; he judges, applies a
directs, inforrns model good tcaching and finally
«blueprint» ofhow lessons ought to be taught; he talks
and the teacher fistens». Therefore, the supervisor or
(2) Alternative supervision where alternatives rnay
evaluator is the one who defines «good» teaching
be suggested either bythe supervisor(as with
(p.18). Gebhard (1984) says
Freeman), but also by the tminee;
«people believe that they can identify good
(3) Collaborative supervision, in which the
teaching when they see it. However, it might not be
supervisor participates with the teacher in any
good teaching that these people see. It is, more likely,
decisions that are made and attempts to
their idea ofwhat good teaching should be ... Most
establish a sharing relationship;
people accept the idea that good teaching means
(4) Non-directive supervision: the supervisor here
the learning has taken place but rather in identifying
does not share responsibility; he simply provides
what specifie teaching behaviours caused the
an <<understanding response» in Curran's
sll/denls to learn» (p.503).
(1978) phrase. An <<understanding response»
is a «recognised» version of what the spcaker
A second problem with this prescriptive
has said. In supervision, the supervisor does
supervision concerns humanistic consequences which
not repeat word-for-word what the teacher has
are destructive to the professional development ofthe
said but rather restates how he or she has
teacher. This type ofsupervision puts the teacher in the
understood the teacher's comments;
l'Ole of subordinate and as such, he may be unable to
(5) Creative supervision, in which the supervisor
develop the autonorny and the sense of personal
uses any combination ofthe above.
responsibility that characterise the behaviour ofthe true
Many divisions can be appl ied to supervision
professional. Even worse, as a subordinate, he may
and this explains the various attempts which are made
regress to doci lity in the face of authority, to the
to categorize supervision; for example, Retallick's
detriment of both his own creativity and the
(1986) three-fielddivision is ditferent from eitherofthe
development ofhis own best style ofteaching.
ones referred to although it may overlap with them in
In the prescriptive supervision, the supervisor
severa! ways.
can be seen as a rater, charged with the responsibility
Perhaps one way to simply categorize clinical
for rating the teachers where rating is rnandated by state
supervision in Wal1ace's words (1989) is «to view it as
or local authorities. The l'Ole of rater appears to hold
a series ofpossible supervisory behaviours in which
so much threat that it deforms the supervisor's
there will probably be detectable a tendency to one of
relationship with the teacher. The image of the
two approaches: these we cou Id calI the prescriptive
supervisor as a person whose main job is to suppress
approach and the collaborative approach» (p. 210).
individual creativity, to rate, to create fear and
We would like now to have a closer look at
conformity seems to have remarkable ernotional
these two Approaches.
longevity in the teaching profession; and this state of
affairs according to Perlberg and Theodor (1975)
«enhanced by some of the prescriptive
supervisor 5' patterns such as sharp or exclusive
criticism, aggressiveness, lack ofpositive rewards.
By the prescriptive approach to supervision,
imposing ofopinions and knowing everything beller
we mean the evaluation ofteacher effectiveness and
than Ihe teacher, not permitting the teacher to talk.
the systernatic analysis ofclassroom teaching. In this
rejection of leacher S action and speech. lengthy
context, the evaluation of instruction based on
monologues, etc ... and these native patterns can
predeternlined assumptions and values is typical of the
/àrce Ihe leacher into a defensive positiom> (p.208).
scientific mode\\. The evaluator is viewed as the expert
These prescriptive supervision features are in
who comes to deterrnine the worth ofwhat is going to
accordance with the assurnptions and practice
be observed in a pre-specified way. Intents, mIes and
cxpressed by McGregor (1960) in his famous Theory
behaviours are ail predetennined and the eval uator
X. Although McGregor is rnainly concerned with the
basically applies rating scales other tcacher evaluation
description ofnon- school environrnents, his ideas have
Revue du CAM ES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2''''' Semestre)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sciences sociales et humaines
wide application in schools. The assumptions behind
Theory X are:
1- The average hunllln heing hm an
inherent dislike of' work and will
avoid it if he can.
This is an Approach in contrast with the
2- Recause
prescriptive clinical supervision in the sense that
characteristic ol dislike ol work,
collaborative clinical supervision according to
most people must he coerced,
Sergiovanni (1977), gears the collaborative clinical
controlled, dire cIed, and threalened
supervisor to:
with punishmenl tn gel Ihem 10 pul
(a) aet as colleague
forth adequate ef/àr/ toward the
(b) understand /eacher
achievement of nrganisational
(c) accep/ lesson in terms of wha/ teacher is
altempting /0 do
3- The average human heing pre/ers to
(d) consider lis/ening as important as talking
be directed,
wishes /0 avoid
(e) Crea/e an atm(}.\\phere in which supervisor
responsibility, has rela/ively little
and teacher are co-sharers al expertise
ambition, wan/s securi/y above ail
These features express our vil:w of
Thus, supervisors are pushed on teachers
colJaborative clinical supervision.
because, they are resistant to change. Supervision seen
We would Iike to tum now to the concept and
under such conditions can restrict or even retard
methods oftlùs collaborative clinical supervision.
teachers' progress in assuming the rl:sponsibilities for
their own teaching and in developing their talents as
professional teachers. Therefore. we can say with
Cogan (1973) :
1- The supervisor should clearly
It may be helpful to have an idea of the word
divorce himself fi'om the role of
«clinical» in colJaborative c1inical supervision in order
evaluator or rater. unless and until
to understand the concept ofthis type of supervision.
he and the tcc/cher agree that such
The word «clinical» has a kind of mystique
a role would he productive fi}/' both.
surrounding it (Smyth, 1985b).It frequently conjures
2- The supervisor should no/ allemp/
up images ofpathology and disease, and even worse,
/0 pieture himselj/o the teacher as
notions ofmanipulation in which something distasteful
heing withou/, ahove, or heyond
is done to somebody. Goldharnmer (1969) sees c1inical
applied to teaching as referring to something quite
3- The supervisor should seek to
establish a rela/ionship calcula/ed /0
deal with the teacher S residual
observalional da/a, face-/o-face interaction
anxieties ahou/ evalua/ion, a
be/ween supervisor and /eacher. and an intemi/y
relationship characterised by
offocus that binds the two in an in/ima/e
mutual trust and conjidence (p.65).
professional relationship» (p.54).
We would Iike to turn to another type of
Smyth (1986) states
supervision in wruch the teacher will he involved in the
«clinical had /0 do with ways of learning
process of establishingjudgement and in which the
ahout /eaching /ha/ were solidly emhedded in the
teacher will he considered as a colJeague, his ideas and
clinic of/he classroom» (p.62).
initiatives duly appreciated, an approach where
collaboration is salient.
Goldharnmer, Anderson and Krajewski (1980)
share this definition ofthe term «clinical» with Smyth.
ln exploring the nature of professional
knowledge in teaching, Doyle (1985) argues for the
Revue du CAM ES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2'·" Semestre)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sciences sociales et humaines
importance of «c1inical theories» which emerge l'rom
1) The plan of the objectives, content and
direct altempts to understand clinical practice on ils own
tenns. His comments on the characteristics ofclinical
2) The instruction proper; and
knowledge (understanding c1assroom teaching and
3) An after-the-fact analysis of the effect of
leaming). in teaching fit weIl with the underlying
the teaching.
philosophy ofclinical supervision and particularly with
Thus, an ongoing cycle ofsystematic planning,
col laborative clinicat supervision. ln Doyle's (1985)
observation and critical analysis of teaching is the
characteristic fonn ofcollaborative cl inical supervision.
«Clinical knowledKe is in/erpre/ive and
ln the process of collaborative clinical
explmw/ory and no/ simply prediC/il'c.
supervision, goals and objectives are very important
Clinical knowledKe is no/ limi/ed /0
and as such, they should create sorne relationship
in/imna/ion ahou/ valida/ed prac/ices.
between supervisor and teacher in a larger context.
includes allemp/s /0 make sense olwha/ Koes 011 in
When the teacher has developed goals for himself, the
/he classroom.
supervisor becomes freer to offer help because the help
Ils domain is wJw/ /eacher.l· l1eed /0 kl10w
is directed toward the fulfilment ofthese goals. Even
/0 do /heir 11'ol'k ra/her /han wha/ adminis/ra/ors
when the goals have been established, the schema will
need /0 kn01I' /0 con/rol/eaching» (p.p.14 -15).
not work unless both supervisor and teacher agree on
The underlying principle ofthis point is that
the nature ofthe data to be collected, when and how
collaborative clinical supervision objective is to bring
they will be collected, and how will be used. .In this
about improvements in classroom operation and
context, the supervisor, instead oftrying to make the
teacher's behaviour. But, what methods does
teacher 's style a model ofhis own, concentrates on
collaborative clinical supervision use'?
helping the teacher achieve his objectives regardless of
style, within limits.lfthe supervisor and the teacher are
concentrating on the results ofthe teacher 's work with
the students, the question of whether or not his
methodology or teaching style suits the tastes of the
l11e principalmethod ofthis type ofsupervision
supervisor fades into the background, and the
is an incisivc. detailed analysis of the teaching
supervisor and teacher can relate to each other as adults
performance whose general aim is objectivity in
who share a coml11on concem, who respect each
perccption and criticism ofthe teaching and acceptance
other's skiIls, and who can communicate openly with
of such criticism. What the teacher intends to do. as
each other in a mutually helpful way. According to
evidence in the plans he makes for the !csson, what hc
Cogan (1973), «This relationship between teacher and
actually does in the c1assroom and the outcome of the
c1inical supervisor is maintained in force as long as they
teaching (i. e .• what the pupils do and leam) are
can work together productively as colleagues» (p.63).
subjected to rational analysis by the supervisor and the
Clinical supervision as mentioned by Cogan
teacher. Analysis in this context means systematic,
means l'orus, collaborative clinical supervision and it is
disciplined, practical thinking about the wide range of
in this sense that we also use il.
factors which affect the process of Jonnal instruction
[n other words, within the collaborative clinical
and ils outcomes. Collaborative clinical supervision can
supervision, the supervisor's role is to work with
be undertaken with a number ofteachers who jointly
teachers but not to direct them. The supervisor actively
plan, observe and analyse the teaching ofone or several
participates with the teacher in any decisions that are
membcrs ofthe team. In other words. these supervision
made and attempts to establish a sharing relationship.
methods can indude group supervision between severa!
Thus, the supcrvisor sees himself primarilyas a person
supervisors and a teacher or a supervisor and several
who helps the teacher to help himselfand by doing so;
teachers. This technique is appropriate to «traditional»
he contributes to the development of the teacher as a
teaehing and one-to-one supervision or to team teaching
person and as a teacher. If handled properly, the
or team supervision within a particular school. Whether
collaborative clinical supervision is likely to improve the
the eollahorative clinical supervision is done individually
affective relationship between supervisor and teachers.
or in a group, ittends to evolve in three stages which
Thus, the supervisor can hope to foster the conditions
correspond to the stages in the process of formai
for ret1ective practice and the long-tenn professional
deve10pment ofthe teacher. How can we implement
collaborative clinical supervision?
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2·... Semestre)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ Sciences sociales et humaines
supervision conference stage «(p.89). At this stage.
predictions made in advance of the lesson about the
suitability of content, the correctness of its
An affective collaborative approach to clinical
communication, its motivational characteristics are
supervision is a demanding and time consuming process.
studied in terms of actuality. In summary then.
Indeed, in collaborative c1inical supervision, plans are
collaborative clinical supervision has both eyes tocused
considered and/or jointly developed by the supervisor
on teaching in process and on its components: content.
and the teacher before the actual instmction begins. The
pedagogy and the interpersonal effect ofthe teacher. It
feasibility ofthis approach for the practising school
aims to help the teacher capitalize on his strengths.
supervisor is often questioned on the grounds of the
compensate for his weaknesses and develop his own
availability oftime. Indeed, this point has something to
individual and «best» teaching style.
do with the most effective use ofthe supervisor's time.
Usually, collaborative clinical supervision
As they plan, the teacher and the supervisor
follows a cycle. 1would like to share one cycle with
make «hypotheses» or predictions based on their
you. It refers to Goldhannmer's cycle.
experiences about the effects on the students ofthe
subject matter and the alternative methods ofteaching
under consideration. The plan, seen in this way, is thus
a set ofpredictions as to what may or should happen in
Goldhammer, Anderson and Krajewski have
the c1ass, and the actual teaching is a practical test of
identified five stages as follows:
these working «hypotheses».
Stage 1:
Analysis in clinical supervision tends to be
Stage 2:
intellectuai and rational and to focus heavily on the
Stage 3:
Analysis and strategy
content, the teaching perfonnance and the outcome of
Stage 4:
Supervisory conference
the teaching (as evidenced in the pupils' behaviour and
Stage 5:
Post-conference analysis
learning). Content signifies the subject matter, the
documents and materials used in the teaching and the
The pre-observation conference: Hs purposes
nature ofthe problems posed to the c1ass. Analysis of
are to help the teacher plan the lesson, define
the content usually involves justifYing the objectives of
his objectives and ways of achieving them,
teaching the particular content; its suitability to the
identifY a particular teaching problem raised by
teacher's purposes or to intellectuai ability of the
the teacher and on which he needs feedback.
students; the teacher's knowledge of and factual
The observation: The objective here is to view
correctness in conv'eying the content and the
. the lesson as planned in the Pre-observation
organisation or planning of the lesson. By
«organisation», we mean the appropriateness of the
The analysis and strategy: Goldharnmer (1969)
planned sequence ofc1assroom events to the teacher's
says «the purposes of this stage are to
objectives. Collaborative c1inical supervision is
reconstmct the observed events, to assess the
predicted on specialised, expert knowledge of content
observed lesson in tenns of(a) «the teacher's
and curriculum. The supervisor is, first, a content
own intention, (b) pedagogical criteria and to
specialist, because it is not considered feasible to
develop a strategy for helping this teachem
analyse teaching effectiveness independently of the
content ofwhat is being taught. We would like now to
The supervisory conference: The objective is
turn 10 the observation ofthe teaching.
to provide feedback and basis for the
In collaborative cIinical supervision, the teaching
improvement offuture teaching.
perfonnance is regularly observed by the supervisor
and by other teachers. Mosher (1972) says» this
observation is not casuai; it has !iJlCCific purposes; the
professional objective is its stud'l modification ofits
The post-conference analysis: At this stage, the
effects. The supervisor's firstjob,while the actual
events of the conference are reconstmcted, the
instruction is going on, is to rnake a detailed record of
conference is assessed, and the supervision
what the teacher says and does and what the students
techniques are evaluated in order to enable the
say and do in order to analyse thern objectively at the
teacher to discover the importance or the
Revlle du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2'"'' Semestre)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sciences sociales et humaines
Besides Goldhammer's cycle, there are other
CURRAN, C.A., 1978. «Understanding: a
patterns of cycle in regard to collaborative clinical
necessary ingredient in hwnan belonbring». East
supervision such as Cogan's (1973) eight-phase cycle,
Dubuque Illinois: Coumelling-Learning
Bowers' (1987). Teaching counselling guide, etc.
Wethink that any cycle ofcollaborative clinical
DOYLE, W., 1985. «Teaching as a
supervision adopted should be systematically followed;
Profession: What we know and what we need
however, the supervisor may find it necessary to
to know about teaching». Austin, Texas:
introduce or omit sorne stages according to a particular
Research and Developmen/ center for
teacher's needs, experiences, self-growth, motivation
l'ew.:her Educa/ion, University of Texas at
and amount oftime avaiJabJe for hilll.
5. EYE, G. C.. Nelzer, L. A .. and Krey, R. D .. 1971.
;;"upervisio/1 olinstmc/ion. 2"'1 Ed. New York: Harper
This aI1icle illustrates that there is a wide choice
& Row.
of supervisory behaviours and approaches which
teacher educators ean select from. There arc no claims
6. FLANDERS. N. A .. 1976. «Interaction Analysis
being made regarding the best model ofsupervision or
and cJinical supervision.» Journal ofResearch and
the best supervisor behaviours and approaehes. This
Deve/opmen/ in Education. Vol 9 N° 2.1' l' 47-56
task ofdiscovering which supervisor behaviour and
approaeh work weil for the supen'isorîs Jeft to the
7. FREEMAN, D., 1982. «Observing teachers: three
supervisor. However, it is our belierthat eollaborative
approaches to in-service training and development.»
clinical supervision, understood as a training mode
l'ESOL Quar/erly Vol 16 W 1. pp. 21-29.
which involves a formative face-tu-face interaction
between a supervisor and a teacher with referenee to
8. GEBHARD, J. G., 1984. «Models of supervision:
classroom teaching, is a constructive tool for teaeher
choices». l'ESOL Quar/er/y Vol 18 N°3 .1'.50 1.
education: we suggest this tool should be handled in a
more eollaborative approach which ought to be a goal
9. GOLDI-lAMMER, R., Anderson, R. H, and
ofclinieal supervision bath for atlective and for longer-
Krajewski, R. J., 1980. «Clinical supervision: special
term professional developmental reasons. [n this
methods for the supervision ofteachers». 2"'1 Ed. New-
eontext, the supervisor should actively pat1icipate with
York: Holt/Rinehart/Wiston
the teaeher in any decisions that arc made and should
attempt to establish a sharing rclationship and
10. GOLo! lAMMER, R., 1969. «Clinica! supervision:
responsibility. We think that the teacher and the
specialmethods for the supervision ofteacllcrs». 1st
supervisor shouJd work together in addressing a
Ed. New-York: Holt/Rinellart /Wiston
problem in the teacher's classroomtcaching. They pose
a hypothesis, expcriment. and impicment strategies
Il. GOOD. C. V, 1959. Dic/io/1ary of Educa/ion,
whieh appear to he a reasonablc solution to the problem
2,,,1 Ed. New-York: Mc Graw.
under consideration.
12. HARRIS, B. M., 1975. «Supervision bchaviour in
our Education» 2"<1 Ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice
BOWERS, R.G., 1987. «Devcloping
perceptions of the C!assroom.» ln R.
13. MCGREGOR, D., 1960. The huma/1 side
Bowers(Ed) La/1KUaKe
enterprise. New- York: McGraw-Hill.
Teoeller EducatiO/1: An i/1teKlïlted pl'Ogramll1e fàr
ELT teocher training. London: Modern English
14. MOSl-IER, R. L., 1972. 5;upervision: the
Publications. The Brutish council.
re/uctO/1t profession. Boston Houghton Mif1in
COGAN, M. L.. 1973. Clinieal supervision.
Boston: Houghton Mi1l1in.
15. PERLBERG,A., and Theodor. F .. 1975. «Patterns
and styles in the supervision ofBritisl1».ln .!oul'I7alof
TeacherEeduca/ion, Vol l, pp 203-211.
Rc\\'uc du CAMES - Nouvcllc Séric Il, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2i"~ Scmestrc)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ Sciences sociales et /llIl1wiues
16. RETALLICK, H., 1986. «Clinical supervision:
20. SMYTH, W. .1., 1985b. "An alternative and critical
technical collaborative and critical approaches», in W.
perspective for clinical supervision in schools" in K.
J. Smyth (Ed.). Learning about teaching through
Sirotnik and J. Oakes (Eds), Cri/ieul perspectives on
clinical supervision. London Croom Helm.
the organisation and improvement of' schooling.
Massachusetts: Kluwer- Nijhoff
17. SERGIOVANNI, T. J. and Starrett, R. 1. (1979).
Supervision: Human perspectives. 2'''' Ed. New-
21. SMYTH, W. J., 1986. «Learning about teaching
York. McGraw-Hill. P305.
through clinical supervision». London: Croom Helm.
Curriculum, policy and research series.
18. SERGIOVANNI, T. 1., 1977. «Refonning teacher
evaluation: naturalistic alternative educational
22. WALLACE, M . .I., 1989. «Clinical supervision and
leadership». Vol 34 N°8.
school experiencc». Mimeo Sceo Moray House
College, Edinburgh.
19. SERGIOVANNI, T. 1., and Starrett, R. 1., 2002.
Supervision and redejinition. 7'11 Ed. New York. MC
23. WALLACE, M. 1., 1989. «Classroorn observation:
rccalling and analysing the data». Mimeo Sceo Moray
House College, Edinburgh.
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 007 N° 2-2006 (2'- Semestre)