_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'--_ Sciences sociales et hUnfaines
1
1
TEACHER SUPERVISION AND THE
CONCEPT OF CLINICAL SUPERVISION
Motclw Prosper A TCHADE
Maître-Assistant
Université d'Abomey-Calavi
Facilité des Lettres, Arts et Sciences Humaines
;;;;;;;;;;lii.4~bio~m~e~y~-;C;a;la;v:i:-B:él:":.n
RÉSUMÉ
Cet article a examiné les possibi 1ités d'application et de gestion de la foonation clinique en général et de la
fOimation 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 formateur se comporte conune le seul détenteur du savoir et conune 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 traiI~ de fonner. Pour l'approche participative, le fonnateur ne joue pas le rôle de
quelqu'un qui évalue et qui note mais il joue 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 words:
Clinicat supervision: collaborative clinicul supervision; preseriptive
approach; collaborative approach.
INTRODUCTION
acts as a colleague, a co-sharer of expertise with the
supervisee, a helper, a facilitator; and through such a
This article deals with a review of some
collaborative approach, the supervisor might hope to
literature offering possibilities for the implementation and
foster the conditions for ref1ective practice and the long .
management of clinical supervision in general and
tenn professional development ofthe supervisee.
collaborative clinical supervision in particular. Indeed,
the article draws a distinction between prescriptive and
I.
DEFINING
THE
TERM
collaborative approaches to clinical supervision by
SUPERVISION
depicting the prescriptive clinical supervisor as an
authority figure, an oruy source ofexpertise, an assessor
Good (1959) defines supervision as
in contras! \\'<ith the collaborative clinical supervisor who
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B. Vol. 008 N° 1-2007 (1" Semestre)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sciences sociales et humaines
«al! efforts ofdesignated school officiais directed
General supervision has something to do with
towardproviding leadership to teachers and other
«out-of-class» operations, with «administrative» aspects
educational workers in the improvement of
while, on the contraIy, clinical supervision is something
instruction; if in volves the stimulation of
much more specific, an in-class support system, the
professional growth and development ofteachers,
crucial objective of which is to deliver assistance,
the selection and revis ion ofeducation objectives,
counselling and guidance by a competent and skilful
materials of instruction, and methods ofteaching
observer, all ofthe efforts tending to improve instruction,
and the evaluation ofinstruction»
a teacher's performance and professional growth, the
(p 539).
fmal impact being the improvement ofstudent leaming.
Morris Cogan (1973) defines clinical
Instructional supervision is a subject of
supervision as
supervision. As supervision has varied interpretations,
«The rationale and practice designed to
the role of the supervisor is not consistent between
improve the teacher s classroom performance. lt
and sometimes within school systems and in the same
takes ifs principal data from the events of the
way, instructional supervision and the role of the
c!assroom. The analysis of these data and the
instructional supervisor vaIy. It may be appropriate to
leadership between teacher and s,upervisionfor the
seek more current views related to the definitions of
basis ofthe programme, procedures, and strategies
supervision which vaIy in bath content and specificity.
designed to improve the students' learning hy
Harris (1975) defines supervision of instruction as:
improving the teacher s classroom behaviourJ> (p.
«what school personnel do with adult and things to
9).
maintain or change the school operation in ways that
directly influence the teaching processes employed to
In the words of Sergiovanni and Starratt
promote learning» (pp 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
c1assrooms, with the double-barrelled intent of
to improve the instruction given to the pupil.
profeSSfQnal development and improvement of
Eye, N etzer, 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 ofteaching in which at least
achievement of the appropriate instructional
two persons are concerned wilh the improvement
expectations ofeducational systems «(p 30).
'
ofteaching and at least one ofthe individuals is a
This definition may remind us of general
teacher whose performance is to be studied ... lt
supervision which refers to what might be called the
seeks to stimulate sorne change in teaching, to show
«administrati ve» aspects of supervision or «out of
that a change did, infact, take place, and to compare
class» supervision. General supervisio~stherefore
the old and new patterns ofinstruction in ways that
concerned with such issues as curriculum, syllabus,
will give a teacher useful insights into the
and the overall management structure ofeducation bath
instructional process» (pp. 47-48).
outside and within the school. So, General supervision
efforts are focused on out-of-class operations that are
All these definitions have several elements in
intended to improve and develop in-class-instruction.
common. The definition provided by Goldhammer,
The discussion ofthe definitions ofthe term
Anderson and Krajewski (1980) expresses our view
supervision might be misleading because ofthe wide
ofc1inical supervision and is consist~nt with the others
variety ofterms used to describe those engaged in
and enhances those common elements. Clinical
superVision, and the wide range ofdefinitions ofthe
supervision as they see it, is:
word itself. The consideration of such issues as
curriculum, syllabus, education .management and
«That phase of instructional supervision
administration would take us well beyond the scope
which draws ils data .from first-hand observation
ofthe present article. At this p6int, it may be helpful to
ofactual teaching events, and in volves face-tojace
draw a useful distinction betw~en general supervision
(and other supervision associated) interaction
and clinical supervision since we are concemed almost
between the supervisor and teacher in the analysis
exc1usively with the issue ofclihical supervision.
of teaching behaviours and activities for
instructional improvement» (p. 19).
50
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 008 N° 1-2007 (1" Semestre)
Having established a working definition of
clinical supervision, we can now tum to how it can be
irnplemented.
II.
VARIETIES
OF
CLINICAL
III. THE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH
SUPERVISION
TO CLINICAL SUPERVISION
Freeman (1982) points out three approaches
By the prescriptive approach to supervision,
to observing in-service teachers: he called (1) the
we mean the evaluation of teacher effectiveness and
supervisory approach, with the observer as authority
the systematic analysis ofclassroom teaching. In this
and arbitrator; (2) the alternative approach, with the
context, the evaluation of instruction based on
observer as a provider of«alternative perspectives»;
predeterrnined assumptions and values is typical ofthe
and (3) the non-directive approach, with the observer
scientific model. The evaluator is viewed as the expert
as somebody who (<understands».
who cornes to determine the worth of what is going to
Gebhard (1984) presents an overview of
be observed in a pre-specified way. Intents, tules and
supervision in which he increases the number ofpossible
behaviours are al! predetermined and the evaluator
models to five, as follows:
basically applies rating scales otherteacher evaluation
(1) Directive Supervision where the supervisor
instruments to measure them. In this kind ofevaluation,
directs, informs model good teaching and
the evaluator or whatever you may cali him, acts in
tinallyevaluates;
Sergiovanni's words (1977) as «an authority figure, as
(2) Alternative supervision where alternatives may
an only source of expertise; he judges, applies a
be suggested either by the supervisor (as
«blueprint» ofhow lessons ought to be taught; he talks
with Freeman), but also by the trainee;
and the teacher listens». Therefore, the supervisor or
(3) Collaborative supervision, in which the
evaluator is the one who defines «good» teaching
supervisor participates with the teacher in
(p.18). Gebhard (1984) says
any decisions that are made and attempts
«people believe that they can identifj; good
to establish a sharing relationship;
teaching when they see it. However, if might not be
-(4) Non-directive supervision: the supervisor here
good teaching that these people see. It is, more likely,
does not share responsibility; he simply
their idea ofwhat good teaching should be ... Most
provides an «understanding response» in
people accept the idea that good teaching means
Curran's (1978) phrase. An «understanding
the learning has taken place but rather in identifj;ing
response» is a «recognised» version of
what specifie teaching behaviours caused the
what the speaker has said. In supervision,
students to learm) (p.S03).
the supervisor does not repeat word-for-
A second problem with this prescriptive
word what the teacher has said but rather
supervision concems humanistic consequences which
restates how he or she has understood the
are destructive to the professional development ofthe
teacher's comments;
teacher. This type ofsupervision puts the teacher in the
(S) Creative supervision, in which the supervisor
raIe ofsubordinate and as such, he may be unable to
uses any combination ofthe above.
develop the autonomy and the sense of personal
Many divisions can be applied to supervision
responsibility that characterise the behaviour ofthe true
and this explains the various attempts which are made
to categorize supervision; for example, Retallick's
professiona1. Even worse, as a subordinate, he may
(1986) three-field division is different from either ofthe
regress to docility in the face of authority, to the
ones referred to although it may overlap with them in
detriment of both his own creativity and the
several ways.
development ofhis own best style ofteaching.
Perhaps one way to simply categorize clinical
In the prescriptive supervision, the supervisor
supervision in Wallace's words (1989) is «to view it as
can be seen as a rater, charged with the responsibility
a series ofpossible supervisory behaviours in which
for rating the teachers where tating is mandated by state
- there will probably be detectable a tendency to one of
or local authorities. The role of rater appears to hold
two approaches: these we could cali the prescriptive
so much threat that it defonns the supervisor's
approach and the collaborative approach» (p. 210).
relationship with the teacher. The image of the
supervisor as a person whose main job is to suppress
c
Revue du CAMES- Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 008 N° 1-2007 (1" Semestre)
51
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sciences sociales et humaines
individual creativity, to rate, to create fear and
3- The supervisor should seek to establish
conformity seems to have remarkable emotional
a relationship calculated to deal with the
longevity in the teaching profession; and this state of
teacher s residual anxieties about
affairs according to Perlberg and Theodor (1975)
evaltlation, a relationship characterised
«enhanced by some of the prescriptive
by mI/tuaI trust and confidence (p.65).
supervisor s patterns such as sharp or exclusive
criticism, aggressiveness, lack ofpositive rewards,
We would like to turn to another type of
imposing ofopinions and knowing everything better
supervision in which the teacher will be involved in the
than the teacher, not permitting the teacher to talk,
process of establishingjudgement and in which the
rejection of teacher s action and speech, lengthy
teacher will be cOllsidered as a colleague, his ideas and
monologues, etc ... and these native patterns can
initiatives duly appreciated, an approach where
force the teacher into a defensive position» (p.208).
collaboration is salient.
These prescriptive supervision features are in
IV.
THE
COLLABORATION
accordance with the assumptions and practice
APPROACH 1'0 CLINICAL SUPERVISION:
expressed by McGregor (1960) in his famous Theory
CONCEPT AND METHODS
X. Although McGregor is mainly concemed with the
description ofnon- school environments, his ideas have
This is an Approach in contrast with the
wide application in schools. The assumptions behind
prescriptive clinical supervision in the sense that
Theory X are:
collaborative clinical supervision according to
1- The average human being has an
Sergiovanni (1977), gears the collaborative clinical
inherent dislike of work and will avoid
supervisor to:
it ifhe can.
2- Because ofthis human characteristic of
(a) act as colleague
dislike of work, most people must be
(b) understand teacher
coerced, controlled, directed, and'
(c) accept lesson in terms of what teacher is
threatened with punishment to get them
attempting to do
to put forth adequate effort toward the
(d) consider listening as important as talking
achievement
of
organisational
(e) Create an atmosphere in which supervisor
objectives.
and teacher are co-sharers o{expertise
3- The average human heing prefers to be
(p.35)
directed, wishes to avoid responsibility,
These features express our view of
has relatively !iule ambition, wants
collaborative clinical supelvision.
security above al! (pAl).
We would like to tum now to the concept and
methods ofthis collaborative clinical supervision.
Thus, supervisors are pushed on teachers
-
because, they are resistant to change. Supervision seen
A.
THE
CONCEPT
OF
under such conditions can restrict or even retard
COLLABORATIVE CLINICAL
teachers' progress in assuming the responsibilities for
SUPERVISION
their own teaching and in developing their talents as
professional teachers. Therefore, we can say with
It may be helpful to have an idea ofthe word
Cogan (1973)
«c1inical» in collaborati ve clinical supervision in order
to understand the concept ofthis type of supervision.
1- The supervisor should clearZv divorce
The word «clinical» has a kind of mystique
himself from the role of evaluator or
surrounding it (Smyth. 1985b). It frequently conjures
rater, unless and until he and the teacher
up images of pathology and disease, and even worse,
agree that such a role would be
notions ofmanipulation in which something distasteful
productive for both.
is done to somebody. Goldharnmer (1969) sees clinical
2- The supervisor should not attempt to
applied to teaching as referring to something quite
picture himself to the teacher as being
different:
without, above, or beyond evaluation.
52
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série H, Vol. 008 N° 1-2007 (1" Semestre)
Sciences sociales et humaines
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
disciplined, practical thinking about the wide range of
«...
Close
observation,
detailed
factors which affect the process of formaI instruction
observational data, face-to-face interaction
and its outcomes. Collaborative clinical supervision can
between supervisor and teacher, and an intensity
be undertaken with a number ofteachers who jointly
of focus that binds the two in an intimate
plan, observe and analyse the teaching ofone or severa!
professional relationship» (p.54).
members ofthe team. In other words, these supervision
Smyth (1986) states
methods can include group supervision between several
«clinical had to do with ways of learning
supervisors and a teacher or a supervisor and several
about teaching that were solidly embedded in the
teachers. This teclmique is appropriate to «traditional»
clinic ofthe classroom» (p.62).
teaching and one-to-one supervision or to team teaching
or team supervision within a particular school. Whether
Golclhammer, Anderson and Krajewski (1980)
the collaborative clinical supervision is done individually
share this definition ofthe term «clinical» with Smyth.
or in a group, it tends to evolve in three stages which
ln exploring the nature of professional
correspond to the stages in the process of formaI
knowledge in teaching, Doyle (1985) argues for the
instruction:
importance of«clinical theories» which emerge from
direct attempts to understand clinical practice on its own
The plan of the objectives, content and
terrns. His comments on the characteristics ofclinical
pedagogy;
knowledge (understanding classroom teaching and
1) The instruction proper ; and
learning), in teaching fit weil with the underlying
2) An after-the-fact analysis ofthe effect of
philosophy ofclinical supervision and particularly with
the teaching.
collaborative clinical supervision. In Doyle's (1985)
Thus, an ongoing cycle ofsystematic planning,
words:
observation and critical analysis of teaching is the
«Clinical knowledge is interpretive and
characteristic form ofcollaborative clinical supervision.
explanatory and not simply predictive.
ln the process of collaborative clinical
Clinical knowledge is not limited to
supervision, goals and objectives are very important
information about validated practices.
1t
and as such, they should create sorne relationship
includes attempts to make sense ofwhat goes on in
between supervisor and teacher in a larger context.
the classroom.
When the teacher has developed goals for himself, the
Its domain is what teachers need to know
supervisor becomes freer to offer help because the help
to do their work rather than what administrators
is directed toward the fulfilment ofthese goals. Even
need to know to control teaching» (p.p.14 -15).
when the goals have been established, the schema will
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 0 bjectives regard less of
style, within limits. Ifthe supervisor and the teacher are
B. METHOnS OF COLLABORATIVE
concentrating on the results ofthe teacher 's work with
CLINICALSUPERVISION
the students, the question of whether or not his
methodology or teaching style suits the tastes of the
The principal method ofthis type ofsupervision
supervisor fades into the background, and the
.is an incisive, 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 common concern, who' respect each
perception and criticism ofthe teaching and acceptance
other's skills, 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 lesson, what he
Cogan (1973), «This relationship between teacher and
actually does in the classroom and the outcome of the
clinical supervisor is maintained in force as long as they
teaching (i. e ., what the pupils do and learn) are
can work togetherproductively as colleagues» (p.63).
subjected to rational analysis by the supervisor and the
teacher. Analysis in this context means systematic,
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 008 N° 1-2007 (1" \\Semestre)
53
Clinical supervision as mentioned by Cogan
means for us, collaborative clinical supervision and it is
in this sense that we also use it.
Incollaborative clinical supervision, the teaching
performance is regularly observed by the supervisor
and by other teachers. Mosher (1972) says» this
observation is not casual; it has specifie purposes; the
professional objective is its study modification of its
effects. The supervisor's first job, while the actual
instruction is going on, is to make a detailed record of
what the teacher says and does and what the students
say and do in orderto analyse them objectively at the
supervision conference stage «(p.89). At this stage,
predictions made in advance ofthe lesson about the
suitability of content, the correctness of its
Besides Goldharnmer's cycle, there are other
communication, its motivational characteristics are
patterns of cycle in regard to collaborative clinical
studied in terms of actuality. In summary then,
supervision such as Cogan's (1973) eight-phase cycle,
collaborative clinical supervision bas both eyes focused
Bowers' (1987). Teaching counselling guide, etc.
on teaching in process and on its components: content,
We think that any cycle ofcollaborative clinical
pedagogy and the interpersonal effect ofthe teacher. It
supervision adopted should he systernatically followed;
aims to help the teacher capitalize on his strengths,
however, the supervisor may find it necessary to
compensate for his weaknesses and develop his own
introduce or omit sorne stages according to a particular
individual and «best» teaching style.
teacher's needs, experiences, self-growth, motivation
Usually, collaborative clinical supervision
and arnount oftime available for him.
follows a cycle. 1would like to share one cycle with
you. It refers to Goldhannmer's cycle.
CONCLUSION
This article iIIustrates that there is a wide choice
D. GOLDHAMMER'S CYCLE (1980)
of supervisory behaviours and approaches which
teacher educators can select from. There are no c1aims
Goldhammer, Anderson and Krajewski have
being made regarding the hest model of supervision or
identified five stages as follows:
the best supervisor behaviours and approaches. This
task ofdiscovering which supervisor behaviour and
Stage 1:
Pre-observation
approach work weil for the supervisor is left to the
Stage 2:
Observation
supervisor. However, it is our beliefthat collaborative
Stage 3:
Analysis and strategy
clinical supervision, understood as a training mode
Stage 4:
Supervisory conference
which involves a formative face-to-face interaction
Stage 5:
Post-conference analysis
between a supervisor and a teacher with reference to
classroom teaching, is a constructive tool for teacher
1.
The pre-observation conference: Hs
education; we suggest this tool should be handled in a
purposes are to help the teacher plan the
more colIaborative approach which ought to he a goal
lesson, define his objectives and ways of
ofc1inical supervision both for affective and for longer-
achieving them, identify a particular
term professional developmental reasons. In this
teaching problem raised by the teacher
context, the supervisor should actively participate with
and on which he needs feedback.
the teacher in any decisions that are made and should
2.
The observation: The objective here is to
attempt to establish a sharing relationship and
view the lesson as planned in the Pre-
responsibility. We think that the teacher and the
observation phase.
supervisor should work together in addressing a
3.
The analysis and strategy: Goldhammer
problem in the teacher's c1assroom teaching. They pose
(1969) says <<the purposes ofthis stage
a hypothesis, experiment, and implement strategies
are to reconstruct the observed events,
which appear to he a reasonable solution to th~ problem
to assess the observed lesson in terrns of
under consideration.
54
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série B, Vol. 008 N° 1-2007 (1" Semestre)
Sciences sociales et humaines
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
13. MCGREGOR, D., 1960. The Human Side
Enterprise. New- York: McGraw-Hili.
1. BOWERS, R.G., 1987. «Developing perceptions
ofthe classroom.» In R. Bowers(Ed)
14. MOSHER, R. L., 1972. Supervision: the
Language Teacher Education: An integrated
Reluctant Profession. Boston Houghton Miflin
programme for ELT teacher training. London:
Company.
Modern English Publications. The British council.
15. PERLBERG, A., & THEODOR, E., 1975.
2. COGAN, M. L., 1973. Clinical supervision.
«Patterns and styles in the supervision of British»
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Journal o{teacher education, vol.!, pp 203-211.
3. CURRAN, C.A., 1978. «Understanding: a
16. RETALLICK, H., 1986. «Clinical supervision:
necessary ingredient in human belonging». East
technical collaborative and critical approaches», in W.
Dubuque minois: Counselling-Learning
1. Smyth (Ed.). Learning about teaching through
clinical supervision. London Croom Helm.
4. DOYLE, W., 1985. «Teaching as a Profession: What
we know and what we need to know about teaching».
17. SERGIOVANNI, T. 1., & STARRETT, R. 1.,1979.
Austin, Texas: Research and Development Centrefor
Supervision: Hl/man Perspectives. 2"d Ed. New-
Teacher Education, University ofTexas atAustin.
York. McGraw-Hill. p.305.
5. EYE, G. C., NELZER, L. A., & KREY, R. D.,
18. SERGIOVANNI, T. 1., 1977. «Reforming teacher
1971. Supervision ofinstruction. 2nd Ed. New York:
evaluation: naturalistic alternative educational
Harper & Row.
leadership». Vol. 34, n08.
6. FLANDERS, N. A., 1976. «Interaction Analysis
19. SERGIOVANNI, T. J., & STARRETT, R. 1., 2002.
and clinical supervision.» Journal ofResearch and
Supervision and Redefinition. 7th Ed. New York. MC
Development in Education, vol. 9, n° 2. pp. 47-56.
Graw-Hill,
7. FREEMAN, D., 1982. «Observing teachers: three
20. SMYTH, W. 1., 1985b. "An alternative and critical
approaches to in-service training and development.»
perspective for clinical supervision in schools" in K.
TESOL Quarterly, vol. 16, nO l, pp. 21-29.
Sirotnik and J Oakes (eds), Critical Perspectives
on the Organisation and Improvement ofSchooling.
8. GEBHARD, J. G., 1984. «Modelsofsupervision:
Massachusetts: Kluwer- Nijhoff
choices». TESOL Quarterly. vol.18, n03, p.501.
21. SMYTH, W. J., 1986. «Learning about Teaching
9. GOLDHAMMER, R., ANDERSON, R. H, &
through Clinical Supervision». London: Croom Helm.
KRAJEWSKI, R. J. 1980. Clinical supervision:
Curriculum, policy and research series.
special methodsfor the supervision ofteachers. 2nd
Ed. New-York: HoltlRinehartlWiston.
22. WALLACE, M. J., 1989. "Clinical Supervision and
School Experience". Mimeo Sceo Moray House
College, Edinburgh.
10.
GOLDHAMMER,
R.,
1969~ Clinical
supervision: special methods for the supervision of
23. WALLACE, M. J., 1989. «Classroom observation;,
teachers. 1st Ed. New-York: HoltlRinehart lWiston.
recalling and analysing the data». Mimeo Sceo Moray
House College, Edinburgh.
11. GOOD. C. v., 1959. Dictionary ofEducation,
2nd Ed. New- York: Mc Graw.
12. HARRIS, B. M., 1975. Supervision Behaviour
in our Education, 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. 1.
Prentice - Hall.
Revue du CAMES - Nouvelle Série D, Vol. 008 N° 1-2007 (1" Semestre)
55