UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A case study of principal-teacher interaction in the supervisory post-conference Bader, Ellen D'Arcy 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_bader_ellen.pdf [ 5.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054947.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054947-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054947-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054947-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054947-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054947-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054947-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054947-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054947.ris

Full Text

A CASE STUDY OF PRINCIPAL-TEACHER INTERACTION INTHE SUPERVISORY POST-CONFERENCEBYELLEN D'ARCY BADERB.ED, THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1977A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THEREQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSINTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required_tandardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJANUARY 1992© ELLEN D'ARCY BADERIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of ^Cirriculum and InstructionThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate  March 9, 1992DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThis research was a case study of the post-conferenceinteractions between two principal-teacher dyads. Thepurpose of the study was to address three questionssuggested to be important by the literature. The researchquestions posed were:1. Do principals relate differently to beginningteachers than to experienced teachers?2. If differences do exist, what reasons do principalsgive to explain why they are relating differently?3. How do teachers perceive the principals' behaviorsin the conferences?The main sources^of data were video-recordings andtranscriptions of four teacher-principal post-observationconferences, transcriptions of each of the eight stimulated-recall interviews, and follow-up interviews with eachparticipant. The post-observation conference verbalbehaviors were analyzed using Blumberg's System forAnalyzing Supervisor-Teacher Interaction (Blumberg, 1980).The data were also considered in terms of Glickman's (1990)concept of Developmental Supervision.The following are the findings regarding principal-teacher interaction in the post-observation conference.First, the principals did not appear to consider level ofteacher experience when formulating a supervisory approach.They based their supervisory approach mainly on their ownphilosophy of supervision and on their perceptions of theiiteachers' needs at the time. Second, the principals did notseem to assume that teachers of varying levels ofexperience needed to be treated differently in thesupervisory post-conference. Third, the teachers perceivedprincipals' behaviors with varying degrees of accuracy.Their perceptions appeared to be influenced by previoussupervisory experiences and by the present relationship theyenjoyed with their current supervisor.Four conclusions were derived from the findings. Theywere: (1) a developmentally appropriate supervisory approachshould be based on more than the level of teacherexperience, taking into account such factors as the teacher-supervisor relationship, the teacher's previous supervisoryexperiences, and current teaching assignment; (2) an open,trusting relationship between supervisor and teacher iscrucial to the effectiveness of the supervisory process; (3)formal evaluation is counterproductive in the supervisoryprocess if the goal of the supervision is professionalgrowth; (4) the teacher's perception of the supervisor'sbehavior is critical to the effectiveness of the supervisoryprocess and to the professional relationship between thesupervisor and the teacher.The main implication for theory is that, although levelof teacher experience could make a difference in howteachers are treated in the post-conference, there appearsto be other factors of equal, if not greater importance.It may be that the need for a directive approach withiiexperienced teachers is more common than the developmentaltheory articulated by Glickman (1990) suggests.Several important^implications for practice arisefrom the findings of this study. First, supervisors needto consider such factors as curriculum and teaching demandson teachers when formulating a supervisory approach, anddevelop a repertoire of approaches, rather than dependingon any particular one. Second, supervisors need the timeand opportunity to properly build and maintain the open,trusting relationship conducive to a successful supervisoryexperience.^Third, a professional growth program whichincludes^collegial supervision should be seriouslyconsidered as a replacement for^formal, evaluativesupervision.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT^LIST OF TABLES^ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION^ 1Background^ 1Rationale 2Purpose 3Limitations and Delimitations^ 4Thesis Overview^ 4CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6ORIGINS OF CLINICAL SUPERVISION^ 6RESEARCH ON CLINICAL SUPERVISION 9Teacher Responses to Perceived SupervisoryConference Behavior^ 9Nature of supervisory conferencebehavior^ 10Access to self 12Collegial and democratic supervisoryconference behaviors^ 13Student Teacher Responses to PerceivedSupervisory Behaviors 15Supervisory Conference Behaviors^ 17Actual supervisory behaviors 17Perceived effective supervisor behaviors^ 18Role Conflict in Supervision 19Building trust^ 19Perceptions of role conflict^ 19Supervisor authenticity 20DEVELOPMENTAL SUPERVISION^ 21CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY^ 26TEACHER DEVELOPMENT STUDY^ 26Districts Involved 26Population and Sample 27Procedure^ 28RESEARCH DESIGN 30Sample Selection Procedure^ 30Study Design^ 31viProcedure^ 33Data Collection^ 33Supervisor behaviors^ 34Teacher behaviors 35Category 15 36Reliability^ 38Validity 39Data Analysis 40SUMMARY^ 41CHAPTER FOUR: DYAD ONE: COLIN AND LISA^ 42THE SETTING^ 42District Context^ 43Evaluation Policy 43Dyadic Context 44Participants 44Principal's supervisory philosophy^ 45Teacher's supervisory experience 45Relationship^ 46FIRST OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTIONANALYSIS^ 47Post-Conference Description^ 47Data Analysis Procedure 49Total Behaviors^ 50Principal Behaviors 50Teacher Behaviors 52Extended Behaviors 52Area C^ 53Area E 54Area G 55Reaction Behaviors^ 54Silences^ 55STIMULATED-RECALL INTERVIEWS: FIRST CYCLE^ 56SECOND OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTIONANALYSIS^ 57Post-Conference Description^ 57Total Behaviors^ 60Principal Behaviors 60Teacher Behaviors 61Extended Behaviors 61Reactions^ 62Silences 62Stimulated-recall Interviews^ 63Lisa 63Colin^ 64Follow-up Interviews^ 64vi iSUMMARY OF FINDINGS^ 67CHAPTER FIVE: DYAD TWO: HENRY AND BARBARA^ 69THE SETTING^ 69District Context^ 69Evaluation Context 70Dyadic Context 71Participants 71Principal's supervisory experience^ 71Principal's supervisory philosophy 72Teacher's supervisory experience 72Teacher's supervisory philosophy^ 73Relationship^ 73FIRST OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTIONANALYSIS^ 75Post-Conference Description^ 75Data Analysis Procedure 76Total Behaviors^ 77Principal Behaviors 77Teacher Behaviors 79Extended Behaviors 79Area C^ 80Area E 80Area G 80Reaction Behaviors^ 81Stimulated-recall Interviews^ 81Henry^ 81Barbara 82SECOND OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTIONANALYSIS^ 83Post-Conference Description^ 83Total Behaviors^ 84Principal Behaviors 84Teacher Behaviors 85Extended Behaviors 86Reaction Behaviors^ 87Stimulated-recall Interviews^ 88Barbara^ 88Henry 90Follow-up Interviews^ 91Barbara 91Henry^ 94SUMMARY OF FINDINGS^ 95CHAPTER SIX: COMPARISON OF THE DYADS^ 97viiiPARTICIPANTS' VERBAL BEHAVIORS^ 97Principals' Behaviors^ 97Principal directiveness 97Extended behaviors 98Questioning 99Teachers' Behaviors^ 100Teacher reaction 100Extended talk 100Silences^ 101GOALS AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALS^ 102Principals' Goals^ 102Principals' Perceptions^ 102Colin^ 102Barbara 104TEACHER NEEDS AND PERCEPTIONS^ 105Teacher Needs^ 105Relationship 105Supervisory process^ 105Feedback 106Direct vs indirect 106Teacher Perceptions 107Hierarchical authority^ 107Insecurity^ 108Suggestions 109EMERGENT THEMES 110Principal Directiveness^ 110Questioning^ 111Teacher Needs 112Relationship^ 112Conference content^ 113SUMMARY^ 114CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,AND IMPLICATIONS ^ 115FINDINGS^ 115Research Question One^ 115Research Question Two 116Research Question Three 117Henry^ 118Lisa 118CONCLUSIONS  119Conclusion One: Supervisory Approach^ 119Conclusion Two: Nature of SupervisoryRelationship^ 120Conclusion Three: Formal Evaluation^ 122Conclusion Four: Teacher Perception 123IMPLICATIONS^ 124Implications for Theory^ 124Blumberg Scale 124Developmental Supervision^ 126Implications for Practice 127Supervisory behaviors 127Supervisor-teacher relationship^ 128Formal evaluation^ 129REFERENCES^ 131APPENDIX A 135APPENDIX B^ 139APPENDIX C 148ixLIST OF TABLESTable 4.1^ 51Table 4.2 52Table 4.3^ 53Table 4.4 60Table 4.5^ 61Table 4.6 62Table 5.1^ 78Table 5.2 79Table 5.3^ 79Table 5.4 85Table 5.5^ 86Table 5.6 86xACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMany people contributed to the writing of this thesis.I would like to express my gratitude for their efforts.First, I wish to thank the four participants in the study,whose cooperation and openness eased the data gatheringprocess. Second, I would like to thank Dr. E. P. Crehan,Dr. J. Barman, and Dr. P. P. Grimmett, whose pointedquestions and helpful suggestions enabled me to develop myideas. I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Crehanfor her guidance and advice throughout the writing process.Third, I want to acknowledge the support and encouragementof the members of the Teacher Development Research Team.I especially would like to thank team member CarolynVarah, whose insights, friendship, and support wereinvaluable. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, KenSmith, for his faith and patience. Without the assistanceof these people, this thesis would not have been completed.xiCHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTIONBackgroundThe supervision^of teachers is a timely issue inBritish Columbia.^The new School Act (Ministry ofEducation, 1989)^is silent on the issue of teachersupervision, and the matter is now open for negotiationbetween teachers and school boards.Historically, teacher supervision has been tied toevaluation. Smyth (1984) describes traditional supervisionas a way of controlling the "behavior of teachers throughelaborate systems of prescription, inspection, andevaluation" (p.429). Clinical supervision was designed asan alternative to the inspectorial model of traditionalsupervision, with the goal of improving instructionalpractice (Cogan, 1973). However, it is not clear thatclinical supervision is effective in achieving instructionalimprovement (Grimmett and Crehan, 1990). Although Cogan(1973) envisioned clinical supervision as a collegial anddemocratic process, Smyth (1984) suggests that itscollegial and democratic nature has been contaminated byhierarchical and evaluative methods of supervision. He saysof supervision that "we need to totally rethink ourperspective, including the social, cultural, and pedagogical1relationships we believe are important and whatever webelieve is indispensable about the nature of teaching andlearning" (Smyth 1989, p.165). The issues aroundsupervision are further complicated by Glickman's (1990)suggestion that beginning and experienced teachers preferdifferent supervisory behaviors, and that this preferencehas implications for the effectiveness of clinicalsupervision. The teaching profession, under currentlegislation, has the opportunity to create an innovativeand effective supervisory system for promoting teachergrowth and development.Rationale The research into post-observation supervisoryconferences includes experiments, surveys, andquestionnaires investigating the perceptions and reactionsof teachers and supervisors to the conference interactions.Some researchers, such as Lortie (1975), have studied thesociology of school life, providing a description of thecontext in which supervision occurs. However, the studydescribed in this thesis differs from others in that itexamines in depth the interactions of two principal-teacherdyads engaged in a supervisory post-conference. One teacheris experienced, the other in her first year of teaching.This research seeks to add to the body of knowledge about2supervision by providing a deeper understanding of thedynamics of the principal-teacher interactions. Thisresearch addresses the role that principals might play inencouraging instructional improvement, and teacher growthand development through the use of appropriate supervisorybehaviors. The findings could be useful in determiningmore effective and productive exemplars of supervision forboth beginning and experienced teachers.Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine theinteractions between principals and teachers in the post-observation supervisory conference in an attempt to addressthree specific research questions suggested to be importantby the literature.1.^Do principals relate differently to beginningteachers than to experienced teachers?It may be that no deliberate differences exist. Theliterature reviewed in^Chapter Two emphasizes theimportance of an appropriate^supervisory approach andseems to suggest that differences should exist.2.^If differences do exist, what reasons doprincipals give to explain why they are relatingdifferently?It may be that, while differences exist, principals are not3able to articulate^reasons for the differences. Thisresearch seeks to discover and explain the reasons for theexistence or non-existence of differences from theprincipal's perspective.3.^How do teachers perceive the principals' behaviorsin the conferences?Research findings indicate that teachers' perceptions ofsupervisory behaviors are accurate reflections of thatbehavior (Blumberg, 1980; Link, 1974), and that theeffectiveness of the supervisory process is related to theteachers' perceptions of the appropriateness of theprincipal's supervisory behaviors.Limitations and Delimitations The research described in this thesis is not a studyof the post-supervisory conference in general, and^theresults are^not necessarily^generalizable to a largerpopulation. Instead, the research focuses on twoprincipal-teacher dyads and the nature of the interactionswithin those dyads. The role of gender in the interactionswas beyond the scope of this study and therefore was notexamined.Thesis Overview4This section presents an overview of the rest of thethesis. Chapter Two reviews the literature on clinicalsupervision, with special emphasis on the research relatedto the post-observation conference.Chapter Three describes the research method andincludes a description of the larger study in which this oneis embedded. This chapter also provides a rationale for thechoice of methodology.Chapters Four and Five present the case studydescriptions of the two dyads under investigation. Includedin the, case study are descriptions and analyses of theinteractions of the participants, their perceptions of theinteractions, and their reactions to the events of the post-observation conferences. Chapter Six presents a comparisonof the two dyads. It looks at similarities and differencesbetween and among the interactions of the two dyads.Chapter Seven presents the conclusions andrecommendations resulting from this investigation. Thischapter relates the research findings to the literature andconsiders the relevance of the findings to the field ofstudy in clinical supervision.5CHAPTER TWOREVIEW OF THE LITERATUREThe literature^reviewed in this chapter relates tothe topic of clinical supervision in general andsupervisory conferences in particular. The reviewdiscusses the origins of, and research into, clinicalsupervision, which is the supervisory model employed by theparticipants in this study. The research section examinesthe topics of teacher and student teacher responses tosupervisory behaviors, actual supervisory behaviors, andconflict for principals in their roles as helpers andevaluators. The final part of the review describesGlickman's (1990) concept of developmental supervision.ORIGINS OF CLINICAL SUPERVISIONClinical supervision was developed as an alternative tothe hierarchical and authoritarian model of traditionalsupervision. Cogan (1973) and Goldhammer, Anderson, andKrajewski (1980) state that the purpose of clinicalsupervision is to improve teaching practices. Cogan goesfurther to suggest that clinical supervision should foster"the development of the professionally responsible teacherwho is analytical of his [sic] own performance" (p.12).6Cogan believes that a sustained program of supervisionwhich consists of in-class observation is necessary toachieve those ends. He outlines eight phases or steps inthe supervisory process. In actual practice those stepstypically have been reduced to three: pre-observationconference, observation, and post-observation conference.The key to successful clinical supervision is theteacher-supervisor relationship. Cogan (1973) states thatteachers distrust "direct supervisory intervention" (p.16)and need to have control over the supervisory practice as itapplies to them. He suggests that the typical isolation ofteaching makes teachers anxious about having other adultsin their classrooms. Cogan believes that the success ofthe supervisory process is dependent on the relationshipbetween the supervisor and the teacher both outside andwithin the supervisory context. Cogan states that thesupervisory relationship^should^be person-oriented andshould^not^threaten^teachers'^professional orpsychological security^or self-esteem.Cogan suggests that an important aspect of thesupervisory relationship is its degree of democracy orequality.^He envisions a relationship in which teachersshare equal responsibility for change.^Cogan states thatthe^"superior-subordinate^relationship^is^consideredcounter-productive in clinical supervision" (p.59).Supervisors should treat teachers as colleagues, not asstudent-teachers. Cogan suggests that a supervisor who acts78in a directive way can cause a teacher to^depend on,resist, or withdraw from, the supervisory process.For Goldhammer et al. (1980),^clinical supervisionmeans a "face-to-face" relationship between the teacher andthe supervisor, and they agree that the supervisor mustreduce the teacher's apprehension about the supervisoryexperience. They point out the importance of mutual trustin the supervisory relationship. They state that mutualtrust is developedthrough the setting of mutual goals and objectives;through professionalism and harmonious interaction; andthrough a certain human autonomy which enhances freedomfor both the teacher and the supervisor to expressideas and opinions about how the method of supervisionshould be implemented to best improve teaching (p.4).Cogan and^Goldhammer et al. refer to clinicalsupervision as an essentially democratic model based onequality and mutual trust,^the purpose of which is toimprove teaching practices. Subsequent writings onclinical supervision have emphasized the development ofteachers as thoughtful practitioners. Indeed, Smyth (1989)suggests that the whole concept of supervision needs to bereconsidered. He believes that the emphasis on thetechnical aspects of teaching practice is misplaced, andthat supervision should be concerned with creating teacherswho question the very foundations of schools asinstitutions,^who are engaged in making sense of theirteaching practice, and who understand the forces that press9upon them in the course of their working lives.^Smythdescribes his view as an "educative agenda for supervision"(p.162).RESEARCH ON CLINICAL SUPERVISIONThis section of the literature review examines theresearch on clinical supervision. The research is dividedinto five main themes: (1) teacher responses to perceivedsupervisory conference behavior, (2) student teacherresponses to perceived supervisory conference behaviors,(3) supervisory effectiveness, (4) actual supervisoryconference behaviors, and (5) the conflict principalsexperience in their roles as helpers and evaluators. Withineach theme, sub-themes are identified by integrating, whenappropriate, the ideas of several authors.Teacher Responses to Perceived Supervisory Conference BehaviorIf one accepts that the ultimate purpose of supervisionis to increase student learning by improving teachers'instructional practices (Holland 1988), then it isimportant that supervisors use the supervision process toachieve that end. Some studies in the area of teachersupervision have examined teacher responses to perceivedsupervisory behaviors. The following sections discuss thenature of supervisory conference behavior and the sub-themesof: (1) supervisors' use of indirect and direct behaviors,(2) teachers' granting of access to self, and (3) collegialand democratic supervisory conference behaviors.Nature of supervisory conference behavior. Blumbergand Weber (1968) and Pajak and Glickman (1989) concludedthat experienced teachers responded more positively to lessdirecting supervisory behaviors. Blumberg and Weber studiedteachers who perceived their supervisors to be behaving indirecting and non-directing ways and compared theirperceptions of the degree of directedness with their levelof morale. The results indicated that teachers' moraleincreased in response to the amount of indirect supervisorybehavior. They suggest that "a high morale situation existswhere a relatively competent person has reasonable freedomof action, has a sense of being involved in problem-solving"and is "relatively free from external evaluation" (p.112).They conclude that the behavioral style of the supervisor iscrucial to the interpersonal environment that develops inthe supervisory process. Although they do not make anexplicit connection between teacher morale and improvedinstructional practices, one is implied.Link's (1974) study included a "re-investigation" ofBlumberg's work. His results concerning the relationshipbetween teachers' perceptions of supervisory behaviors andteacher reactions to the supervisory conferences were almostidentical to those of Blumberg.101 1Link^found that teachers who perceived supervisorybehaviors as non-directive also rated more highly theproductivity of the conference and the amount they hadlearned about themselves and their practice. Teachers whoperceived the supervisory behaviors as directive alsoperceived the supervisors as controlling and evaluative.They felt constrained from initiating discussion aboutinstructional problems.In contrast to Blumberg and Weber^who studiedteachers' reactions to a range of directing and non-directing behaviors,^Pajak and Glickman examined teacherresponses to three sub-groups of directing behaviors.^Thedirecting behaviors were information only, information withsuggestions, and information with directives. These verbalbehaviors were recorded by supervisors on video-tape andviewed by teachers. Pajak and Glickman found thatteachers preferred the least directing behaviors ofinformation with suggestions and information only and thatthis preference resulted in positive feelings toward thesupervisor and toward instructional change. They cite atheory by Deci and Ryan which suggests that greater controlover one's work activities results in increasedproductivity and satisfaction. Both Blumberg and Weber, andPajak and Glickman note that, although teachers rejectcontrolling behaviors, they respond positively tosuggestions^about^instructional^improvement^if thesuggestions are accompanied by non-directing behavior andcontrol remains with the teacher. Pajak and Glickman alsorefer to other studies which indicate that teachers prefercollaborative discussions with supervisors. They concludethat "a climate that encourages freedom of choice appearsmore likely to improve teachers' receptivity to suggestionsfor improvement" (p.102). Desrochers (1982) concludedthat, to be effective, non-directing behaviors should beaccompanied by justification, which she defines as "rules orgeneralizations that constitute reasons for evaluativestatements in a conference. (p.64).The studies by Blumberg and Weber, and Pajak andGlickman relied on teachers' perceptions of thesupervisors' behaviors. On the one hand, a person'sperception is his or her reality, but on the other hand,there are other realities in a given situation. There was noindependent check of the teachers' perceptions in theBlumberg and Weber study. By contrast, in the Pajak andGlickman study the degree of directing language was theindependent variable. However, they studied a simulatedsituation and its generalizability to real situations wasnot established. In real situations, a teacher's ability toperceive and respond to different supervisory behaviors isvery context-dependent. The authors noted some effect dueto the order in which the subjects viewed the tapes.Access to self. The importance of appropriatebehaviors in the supervisory process is emphasized in arecent study by Blumberg and Jonas (1987). They suggest1213that teachers control the supervisory conference bychoosing whether or not to grant "access to self".Consistent with the evidence discussed above, Blumberg andJonas found that teachers responded positively to behaviorssuch as non-punitive feedback, a collaborative approach toproblem-solving, and a sense of being listened to. They gofurther to suggest that these behaviors caused teachers togrant supervisors "access to self" which resulted in aconference that teachers perceived as productive in termsof either instructional growth or increased personalinsight. The subjects for this study were chosen becausethey were able to recall a productive supervisoryconference. The evidence for the conclusion was thereforebased on the subjective, personal views of thesubjects. Nonetheless, this conclusion is importantbecause it confirms the view that teachers' cooperation isnecessary for a successful supervisory process.Collegial and democratic supervisory conference behaviors. The findings of Blumberg and Weber, Blumbergand Jonas, and Pajak and Glickman are supported by Reavis'(1977) study. Reavis describes a project that wasdesigned to see whether clinical supervision was moreeffective than traditional supervision. The two modes ofsupervision were differentiated by the amount of democraticverbal behavior. The supervisors were trained in bothmethods. The teachers were unaware that they were part of astudy. The raters who analyzed the taped interviews were14not aware of the focus of the study.^This study providessupport for an emphasis on collegial and democraticbehaviors in supervision. The results show that teachersreacted more positively to clinical supervision than totraditional supervision on all the dependent measures and toa significant degree on some dependent measures.According to Reavis, clinical supervision, in practice,tends to have an "authoritarian orientation", although itwas designed to facilitate a "democratic, supportivesupervisor-teacher relationship" (p.314). Nonetheless, heconcludes that, relative to traditional methods, clinicalsupervision "tends to build more positive communicationbetween supervisors and teachers, and that this is soperceived by teachers" (p.315).Young and Heichberger (1975) surveyed elementaryteachers in rural and suburban schools and graduatestudents in a course on supervision to determine their"perceptions of an effective school supervision andevaluation program" (p.10). Most respondents (82%) feltthat supervision and evaluation programs were necessary, butat the same time, 72% felt that the supervisory situationwas "potentially dangerous". Most (87%) felt thatevaluation and supervision should be used mainly to improveinstructional practices. Virtually all of the respondentswanted a helping or collegial relationship with thesupervisor as distinct from an evaluative relationship. Theyindicated that effective communication was crucial to therelationship between themselves and their supervisors. Itshould be noted that the respondents were reacting tochoices presented in the questionnaire, not giving theirunrestricted personal view. In the questionnaire, the mostcollegial option that the respondents could choose wasoperationalized as the supervisor and the teacher agreeingon instructional objectives and working together to evaluatethe teacher performance in relation to the objectives,based on data from the observation. One can not concludethat this degree of collegiality is an optimum one forteachers.Student Teacher Responses to Perceived Supervisory Behaviors Blumberg (1968) and others studied the responses ofexperienced teachers. Two investigations into studentteacher responses to supervisory conference behaviors arediscussed in this section. Each reaches a differentconclusion regarding the most effective supervisoryconference behaviors to use with student teachers.Copeland and Atkinson (1978) conducted a study ofstudent teachers to determine their responses to directiveand non-directive supervisory behaviors. Their study soughtto eliminate contextual factors and reliance on subjectmemory by conducting a controlled supervisory experience.The subjects were elementary student teachers who respondedto audio-tapes of directive or non-directive supervisory15scripts. The subjects then rated the supervisors accordingto eight concepts such as expertness, trustworthiness, andutility. The subjects preferred the directive behaviorsover the non-directive behaviors. The authors offer severalpossible explanations for their findings. They suggest thatstudent teachers want concrete solutions from those whomthey consider experts, that they are anxious to please thesupervisor because of the latter's evaluation function, andthat they lack the experience necessary to benefit from theindirect method. The findings may also reflect the context-free nature of the study. Copeland and Atkinson concludethat supervisors should choose an appropriate supervisoryapproach based on the teachers' needs. If the authors'speculations regarding the reasons for their findings arecorrect, this study indicates a likelihood that beginningteachers might respond much as do student teachers.Martin, Isherwood, and Rapagna (1978) also investigatedstudent teacher responses to direct and indirect supervisoryconference behaviors. They concluded that there was "nosignificant difference between the effects of direct andindirect supervisor style" (p.85). The authors suggest thatthe controlled setting^may have had an impact on theresults since the element of judgement or evaluation^waseliminated.^This offers a possible explanation for thediscrepancy between their findings and those of Blumberg andothers regarding teacher responses to direct and indirect16supervisory styles. It may be that the lack of theevaluative aspect made the supervisory style unimportant.In addition to analyzing student teachers' responses,Martin, Isherwood, and Rapagna (1978) also investigatedwhether supervisory behaviors actually changed studentteachers' practices. They concluded that supervisors"can effect change in a given direction" (p.85).Supervisory Conference Behaviors The studies reviewed above, although not unanimous,suggest that collegial, non-directing behaviors areassociated with experienced teachers' positive responses tothe supervisory process, and, by implication, are mosteffective in fostering instructional improvement inexperienced teachers. These findings can be compared withstudies examining the actual behaviors employed bysupervisors and those behaviors perceived by them aseffective.Actual supervisor conference behaviors. Blumberg(1970) examined the verbal behaviors of a non-random sampleof teachers and supervisors in the supervisory conference.In his analysis of the taped conferences, he noted thatsupervisors were mostly directive in their behaviors.They tended to be evaluative and did not encourage thedevelopment of an understanding of the instructional problemthat would lead to a plan of action. Blumberg and Cusick17(1970), reporting on the same study, note that the leastused teacher behavior was that of asking the supervisorquestions and the least used supervisor behavior was that ofasking teachers for suggestions. Blumberg concludes thatsuch supervisory behaviors would not lead to teacher growth,and would not result in a collaborative relationship with ateacher.Perceived effective supervisor behaviors. Gordon's(1973) report indicates a potential explanation for thesupervisory behaviors noted by Blumberg. Gordon describesa study that was conducted to discover which behaviors werethought by supervisors to be most effective when workingwith teachers in a supervisory conference. The informationwas gathered from supervisors in a questionnaire that askedthem to judge which of their behaviors contributed to aneffective supervisory conference. The survey revealed thatsupervisors perceived directing behaviors to be the mosteffective. This study relied on supervisors' perceptions ofboth the effectiveness of the conference and their ownbehaviors.Gordon's results are contested by those of Isherwood(1983), who found that "supervisors who are "indirect" morethan "direct" in working with teachers are perceived to bemore effective by school principals" (p. 17). In referenceto Gordon's findings, Isherwood speculates that whileprincipals think that indirect behaviors such as informing18and advising are effective, they do not actually use them intheir own practice.Role Conflict in SupervisionSeveral authors suggest that the dual role ofevaluator and helper presents problems for supervisors.This section considers some viewpoints on the role conflictin supervision.Building trust. Salek (1975) considers theproblems caused by the dual supervisory roles of evaluationand helping. He maintains that the evaluation aspectimpedes the growth of the trusting relationship which mustexist for effective supervision. He suggests a non-directive supervisory approach, which eliminates thejudgmental aspect and creates a reciprocal trust situation.Salek describes the principal as a potential tool bywhich teachers are able to change their own behaviors.Perceptions of role conflict. Kelly and Taylor(1990) investigated supervisors' and teachers' perceptionsof the supervisors' dual roles and how supervisors resolvedthe potential role conflict. They distributedquestionnaires to administrators, who in turn selectedteacher respondents with whom they felt they had a goodsupervisory relationship. Almost half of the administratorsperceived a potential role conflict and 70% felt that theirperceptions of the role conflict differed from the teachers'19perceptions. Of the teacher respondents, almost half alsoagreed that there was a potential role conflict between thesupervision and evaluation of instruction. In responding toquestions about how administrators reduce role conflict,administrators and teachers disagreed. Administratorsbelieve that they practice behaviors designed to reduceconflict more than was perceived to be case by teachers.The authors state that both teachers and administratorsthink that supervision and evaluation should be separateprocesses, and that both agreed "that communication was keyto the elimination of the role conflict" (p.106).Supervisor authenticity. Pajak and Seyforth (1983)suggest that supervisors are successful when they areauthentic, that is, when they practice supervisory behaviorswhich have been assimilated into their belief and valuesystems, rather than practice in a way they feel is expectedof them. The problem of inauthenticity is rooted in theconflicting role demands of being both helper and evaluator.Pajak and Seyforth say that both the teacher and thesupervisor need to establish contact, that is, "eachindividual must establish and maintain contact with his orher personal feelings, needs, and wants, and be willing tomake these known" (p.22). In an effort to be supportive,supervisors may avoid difficult issues and thereby sendconflicting messages to teachers, resulting inconfusion for the teacher and an unproductiveconference.^Pajak and Seyforth indicate that it may be20appropriate for the supervisor to use directive behavior,since the meaning and intentions of the supervisor are madeclearer to the teacher.Cogan (1973) also addresses supervisor authenticitywhen he suggests that supervisors must be aware of their ownbeliefs, values, and attitudes and how their ownperceptions influence their judgements. On the onehand, Cogan says that supervisors must understand their ownbehavior and modify it appropriately. On the other hand,Cogan agrees that supervisors' behaviors should beconsistent with their character and personality.The literature reviewed thus far suggests that forsupervision to be effective in fostering instructionalgrowth, teachers must perceive the process to bedemocratic and collaborative, not controlling andevaluative. However, there is evidence that supervisorsthink that teachers want directing behaviors. Clearly, itis important to the effectiveness of the supervisory processthat supervisors understand and practice appropriatesupervisory behaviors.DEVELOPMENTAL SUPERVISIONAll of the studies reviewed above involve interactionsbetween supervisors and either experienced teachers orstudent teachers. However, Glickman (1990) cites studiessuch as that of Copeland and Atkinson (1978), and Lorch2122(1981), which support his conclusion that beginningteachers prefer a more directive approach. He cites onestudy (Humphrey, 1983) that suggests that student teachersprefer a collaborative approach. Glickman states that, tobe most effective in fostering instructional change,supervisors should treat experienced teachers differentlyfrom beginning teachers. He says that some experiencedteachers prefer a non-directive approach, but most prefer acollaborative approach. Beginning teachers "...initiallyprefer a directive-informational approach or collaborativeapproach by their supervisors" (1990, p. 176).Glickman suggests that one of four supervisoryapproaches, directive-informational, directive-controlling,collaborative, or non-directive, is appropriate for a giventeacher. According to Glickman, directive-controllingbehaviors are appropriate when teachers do not have theinclination, awareness, knowledge, or skills to improve asituation that the supervisor perceives as a problem to thestudents, other teachers, or the community. A directive-controlling approach is characterized by the belief that thesupervisor knows best. In a directive-controllingsupervisory situation, the supervisor states the problem andprovides the solution by giving the teacher concreteinstructions and ensuring that the teacher has theresources to follow through. The teacher is given theopportunity to state his or her point of view on both theproblem and the solution, but is expected to agree to thesolution plan.Glickman's directive-informational supervisory approachviews the supervisor as the source of information andexpertise, but solicits teacher feedback, and allows theteacher some contol in choosing which practices toimplement. In a directive-informational supervisoryconference, the supervisor gains understanding of theproblem from the teacher's perspective and suggests severalalternatives. The supervisor asks for teacher input intothe suggested solutions, and asks the teacher to choose oneor more for implementation. According to Glickman, thisapproach is particularly helpful to inexperienced teachersor those who are "confused, unaware, or simply at a loss"(P.158) about how to solve a classroom or school problem.For Glickman, a non-directive supervisory approach isbased on the assumption that an individual teacherknows best what instructional changes need to be madeand has the ability to think and act on his or heractions (p.122).The supervisor's role is to help the teacher^identifyproblems^and to encourage the teacher in developingsolutions. In a non-directive supervisory conference, thesupervisor withholds his or her own opinions andsuggestions, and maintains a non-judgemental, neutralposition. The supervisor uses questioning, paraphrasing,23and probing, to facilitate the teacher's understanding ofthe problem, and the development of possible solutions.A collaborative supervisory approach is appropriatewhen the teacher and the supervisor are equallyknowledgeable and competent or when both are accountable forthe outcome. This approach involves a "frank exchange ofideas" (Glickman, 1990, p.137) between the supervisor andthe teacher. In a collaborative conference, thesupervisor, through questioning and encouraging behaviors,helps the teacher to clarify the problem and verifies theteacher's perception, but also provides his or her ownperceptions of the problem. The supervisor offers thoughtsand suggestions, but only after the teacher has tendered hisor hers. Essential to a collaborative approach is trueequality between the participants. Collaborativesupervision (which may involve disagreement andnegotiation) leads to the development of solutions whichare agreeable to both.There are several implications which arise fromGlickman's concept of "developmental supervision" and theliterature reviewed thus far. First, if supervisors do nottreat experienced teachers differently from beginningteachers, then it is less likely that the supervisoryprocess will be effective. Assuming the validity ofGlickman's concept, it is possible that an inappropriateapproach to the supervisory process might leadexperienced teachers to avoid full participation. Second,2425Glickman suggests that^teachers'^preferences forsupervisory approach^vary within a given level ofexperience, and that^underlines the importance ofsupervisors' having a good relationship with their teachers,and being alert to their supervisory preferences.This chapter has reviewed the literature related to thetopic of clinical supervision in general and supervisoryconferences in particular. Chapter Three will discuss thedesign of this study and the larger research project ofwhich it is a part.CHAPTER THREERESEARCH METHODOLOGYChapter Three outlines the research method of thepresent study. Since the present study is embedded in alarger study, the larger study is described first, followedby a description of the research design for thisresearcher's study.TEACHER DEVELOPMENT STUDYThe purpose of the larger study (Grimmett and Crehan,1990) is to shed light on the consultation processfollowing a classroom observation, and to compare therelative effects of hierarchical and peer supervision onteacher professional growth and development.Districts InvolvedThe participants in the larger study are teachers andadministrators from two lower-mainland school districts ofsimilar size. The two districts vary in at least onesignificant way for the purposes of this study. In DistrictA, teacher supervision is tied to evaluation (CollectiveAgreement, 1988), and is done by principals or vice-principals operating in a hierarchical mode. In26District B, there is no routine evaluative supervision forteachers as of September, 1989. Instead, the teachers'collective agreement (1988) provides for teachers todevelop, in consultation with principals, their owninstructional improvement plan. The collective agreementmakes it clear that the responsibility and the freedom ofchoice in formulating the plan lies with the teachers:The areas of instructional^improvement chosen foremphasis will be those identified by the teacher, andthe plan of action will make provision for thoughtfulself-assessment and professional feedback from thosestaff involved in whichever supervisory modelhas been chosen (p. 52).1Population and Sample In both districts, a series of meetings, to which allteachers and principals were invited, was held to explainthe project.^This researcher attended two of the threeintroductory meetings held in District B.^At bothmeetings, the new collective agreement provisions, alongwith their genesis and philosophical underpinnings,^wereexplained.^The teacher development project was describedand volunteers were requested. In District B, this studywas promoted as a way for teachers to fulfill therequirements of the collective agreement. Research team1 The agreement does not preclude a formal evaluative reportif requested by a teacher, or if deemed necessary by theprincipal because of a perceived deficiency not beingresolved by the instructional improvement plan.27members working in pairs made school visits to speak withthe potential participants to answer their questions,address their concerns, and determine if they met theresearch criteria. To be included in the project,volunteers filled in and/or signed the following:a) a subject consent form which emphasized their rightto withdraw at any time,b) a teacher efficacy scale,c) a paragraph completion test to determine their levelof conceptual functioning, andd) a demographic questionnaire.The study subjects are volunteers.^They constitute apurposive sample. This sample^"is not intended to berepresentative or typical" (Guba, 1981, p.86),^butrather consists of subjects who are involved in the activityunder study. A purposive sample is based on the beliefthat people construct their own realities as they ascribemeaning to, and make sense of, their life experiences. Guba(1981) states that there are as many realities as there arepeople. A purposive sample seeks to discover theserealities. Because a purposive sample is notrepresentative or typical, it is "more likely to uncovermultiple realities" and therefore increase the "range ofdata exposed" (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p.40). Peopleconstruct their realities within contexts. The subjects arein many school sites within the two districts. This28suggests that many different contexts, and therefore manydifferent realities, will be encountered.Procedure The teacher development project consists of a series offour observation cycles between January, 1990 and May, 1991.Beginning after the first observation cycle, a series ofworkshops was conducted after each round of observations.The workshops, which constitute the treatment, wereinterspersed throughout the period of the study. Theworkshop topics focused on supervisory skills andstrategies, and classroom management techniques.The participants are in either teacher-teacher oradministrator-teacher dyads. At any given lesson there isthe teacher, an observer (either administrator or anotherteacher), and two members of the research team. Theresearch team members function as non-participant observersduring the lesson, recording field notes of classroomevents, including student and teacher dialogue,interactions, and behaviors. The teacher and the observerfunction separately from the research team members. Theyparticipate in a normal supervisory cycle of pre-observationconference, observation (with the observer's focus chosen bythe teacher), and post-observation conference.The post-conference is video-taped with only the dyadmembers present. After the post-conference, one research29team member views the video-tape of the conference with eachof the dyad members separately, listening to, and eliciting,reactions, thoughts, observations, and explanations relatedto the conference. These stimulated-recall interviews areaudio-taped and later transcribed with the dialogue fromboth the post-conference and the stimulated-recallinterviews included on one transcript. The present studyfocused on the relationship of the members of two dyads fromthe larger study.RESEARCH DESIGNThe following section presents the study design ofthis research. It describes the sample selection procedure,the basis of the study design, and the study and datacollection procedures. The final part of this sectiondiscusses the reliability and validity of the study, and theprocedure for data analysis.Sample Selection Procedure This^study^focused on two principal-teacher dyadsselected from the larger study, one dyad containing abeginning teacher in her first year of teaching, and onedyad containing an experienced teacher. This researcherworked with only one dyad containing a beginning teacher(female), so that dyad was included automatically. Of the30dyads with experienced teachers with whom this researcherworked, all but one were deemed unsuitable for the followingreasons:-this researcher's friendship with one teacher,-illness of another teacher, and-the friendship between the participants in thethird dyad.Both principals are experienced, one with 5 yearsexperience, and the other with 10. The female principal ispaired with the experienced male teacher and the maleprincipal is paired with the beginning female teacher. 2One dyad is from District A and one from District B. Thesample selection is non-random and therefore not necessarilyrepresentative of the population.Study DesignThis research is^a case study design usingethnographic methods.^Werner and Rothe (1980) defineethnography as a "description of situations". They say thatan ethnographer should interpret or report on peoples'actions according to the way the people understand them.Spradley (1979) describes ethnography as "learning frompeople" (p. 3). He says that the ethnographer seeks todiscover the meanings that places, events and actions havefor the subjects. This is also called a phenomenological2 Gender is not examined in this study.31approach, which Wiersma (1986) describes as an approach thatattempts to understand behavior from the perspective of thesubjects. A researcher using ethnographic methods shouldavoid forming preconceptions or hypotheses which mightcolour the observations and the data collection. Instead,hypotheses can be expected to emerge from the data as theyare collected and analyzed. In ethnographic methods,hypotheses are formed and reformed throughout the study, andoften indicate new areas for investigation. Anethnographic or phenomenological approach allows one toattempt to understand the participants' viewpoints incontext. The delicate and unique nature of therelationships and interactions of the participants in thisstudy should be considered in context, and each context isdifferent. The contextual factors for this study include thedistrict supervisory policy, the school setting, theprincipal-teacher relationships outside the supervisoryprocess, and the specific events of the supervisory cycle.The case study design is suitable for this researchbecause it enabled the researcher to examine how thesubjects perceive and interpret the behaviors in thesupervisory conference, how the perceived behaviors affectthe subjects, how decisions are made, and the philosophicaland practical motivations of the subjects. It also enabledthis researcher to provide the "thick description" essentialfor determining transferability to other contexts (Lincolnand Guba, 1985). Wolcott (1987) states that ethnography32attempts to determine the participants' "personal version"of how things work in their group or culture. Wilson(1977) suggests that schools "exert many powerful forces onparticipant behavior" (p.247). The principal-teacherrelationship within the culture of the school is a veryimportant aspect of the supervisory relationship.ProcedureEach of the dyads participated in two observationcycles, one in either January or February 1990, and one ineither April or May 1990. Each observation cycle consistedof the events described above: the pre-observationconference, the observation, the video-taped post-observation conference, and the two stimulated-recallinterviews. The time and focus of each lesson were decidedby the participants and the research team members wereagreeable to any arrangements provided that therequirements of the larger study were met. This researcherconducted all four stimulated-recall interviews with theparticipants. Subsequent research interviews were conductedin September, 1990.Data Collection33Six types of data were collected for the present study.They were:1. demographic questionnaire,2. two transcripts of each of the four classroomobservations completed independently by each of theresearch team members (non-participant observers),3. diagram of the classrooms,4. video-recording of the teacher-principal post-observation conferences,5. transcriptions of each of the eight stimulated-recall interviews, and6. follow-up interviews with each participant.This researcher analyzed the video-taped post-conferences and the stimulated-recall interviews conductedwith the four subjects. The video tapes were analyzedusing Blumberg's System for Analyzing Supervisor-Teacher Interaction (Blumberg, 1980). This scale is based on thepremise that communicative freedom is necessary forfostering instructional growth in the supervisoryconference.The Blumberg Scale (1980) was used to categorize theverbal behaviors of the participants during the post-observation conferences. The scale has fifteen categories,ten concerned with the supervisor's behavior, four with theteacher's behavior, and one to indicate silence or confusion(See Appendix C).Supervisor behaviors.^Category 1 contains support-inducing communications which are designed to establishrapport with the teacher. This category includes words of34encouragement and acceptance. Category 2 is for statementsof praise, defined as verbal behaviors which convey apositive value judgement toward a teacher's actions,thoughts, or feelings. Category 3 is for verbal behaviorsin which a supervisor accepts, uses, or expands upon ateacher's idea. In Category 4 are questions asking forinformation, clarification, or orientation about the topicunder discussion. Category 5 contains statements which giveinformation to the teacher, including summarizing andorienting. Category 6 is for questions which ask theteacher to give opinions, evaluate, or analyze a classroomevent. In Category 7 are statements which ask forsuggestions from the teacher with regard to how things maybe done differently. Category 8 is for behaviors in whichthe supervisor analyzes or evaluates a classroom event orthe interaction taking place between the teacher and thesupervisor. In Category 9 go behaviors in which thesupervisor gives suggestions about doing things. It "...hasan action orientation, past, present, or future" (Blumberg,1980 p.115). Category 10 is for supervisory behaviors whichgive negative value judgements about the teacher or theteacher's behavior in the classroom that might produce adefensive or aggressive attitude.Teacher behaviors. Category 11 corresponds toCategories 4, 6, and 7. In this category go statements ofthe teacher asking for information, opinions, orsuggestions. It contains "...task-oriented behavior on the35part of the teacher" (p. 116). Category 12 is for behaviorsin which the teacher gives information, opinions, orsuggestions. It corresponds to Categories 5, 8, and 9.Category 13 contains positive social-emotional teacherbehaviors which help "...build the supervisory relationship"(Blumberg, 1980 p. 116). Category 14 behaviors are negativesocial-emotional statements by the teacher which tend toproduce tension or "...disrupt the supervisory relationship"(Blumberg, 1980 p. 116).Category 15.^Category^15^indicates^silence(operationalized by this researcher as pauses of threeseconds or more). It can also be used when both people aretalking at once so that it is impossible to categorize thespecific behaviors. For the conferences in this study, italways indicates silence.The Blumberg Scale is designed to be completed bysupervisors themselves following a conference, but it wasused by this researcher to examine the interactions in thevideo-taped conferences. The scale provided quantitativedata (Blumberg 1980) about the subjects' verbal behaviors.The data were used to compare with the subjects' perceptionsof their verbal behaviors and interactions. In addition,the scale^provided some qualitative data.^Blumbergsuggests that this scale canprovide some insight into how the supervisor useshis [sic] behavior^by shifting^from^one^cate-gory to^another, how the teacher reacts to thevarious kinds of supervisor behavior, and what kinds3637of supervisor^behavior are elicited by teacherresponses (p. 122).Although the Blumberg scale provided some quantitativedata, the main intent of the research was to understand howthe participants understand the post-conference process.Blumberg's instrument was used in a non-standard way(that is, by the researcher, rather than by the principalsthemselves, to classify the behaviors). However, Blumbergand Cusick have used it in just such a manner (Blumberg andCusick, 1970), although they recorded behaviors every threeseconds and this research recorded every behavior.Furthermore, it is the only published instrument whichquantifies principal-teacher supervisory interactions andtherefore it offers a way of categorizing the behaviors forpurposes of analysis.This researcher also reviewed the video tapes forbehaviors and incidents to be pursued in further interviewswith the subjects. Interviews allow the subjects to reflecton and interpret events and experiences, and help theresearcher to discover the participants' frame of reference(Werner and Rothe, 1980). They allow the researcher to findout how the participants define their actions and what theythemselves know (Spradley, 1979). The goal of theseinterviews was to gain insight into the subjects'perceptions of the principals' behaviors, and gain knowledgeof the subjects' motivations, understandings, andfeelings about the conference behaviors and their effects.38The questions,^formulated as a result of the analysis ofthe video-tapes and stimulated-recall transcripts, were ofan open-ended, exploratory nature (see Appendix A).This researcher attempted to assume a noncommittal,neutral position in the stimulated-recall interviews. Thisposition was adopted to encourage deeper insight by theparticipants into the conference events, behaviors, andinteractions without introducing researcher bias It wasmaintained in all the research interviews, including thefollow-up ones.Reliability Reliability refers to the degree to which a study canbe replicated (Wiersma, 1986).^This study may bereplicable using^subjects^with the^same amount ofexperience.^However, the uniqueness of each relationshipand its context prevents an exact duplication andtherefore external reliability is doubtful. Internalreliability, which refers to the degree to which there isconsistency of findings and interpretations, was addressedthrough triangulation, subject confirmation, and review by afellow researcher from the larger study who is familiarwith the subjects and the context of the supervisoryexperiences to confirm agreement on interpretations.Triangulation means comparing the various sources toconfirm^the^consistency^of^the^data^and^their39interpretation.^In this case, the transcripts of theresearch interviews, the stimulated-recall interviews, andthe Blumberg scale were compared. One concern withtriangulation was that two of the sources reflected thesubjects' perceptions, but the third source was theresearcher's perception. This was remedied through theinterviews, which allowed the researcher to confirm ordisconfirm her own perceptions through the questions posedto the subjects.The researcher's versions of the follow-up interviewswere given to the^participants during a subsequentinterview.^They were asked to read them and provide anyfurther information or clarification they wished.^Thisresearcher also had the opportunity to clarify and furtherprobe information which was not clear. This procedurehelped ensure that the subject's view had been capturedaccurately by the researcher, and allowed the subject tohave control over the data (Werner and Rothe 1980).Validity Internal validity was established to the best degreepossible through a careful consideration of the factors thatcould account for the data. To determine externalvalidity, or generalizability, the data were compared tothe findings of other researchers. However, the concept ofgeneralizability is not particularly relevant to case study40methods.^Instead, the concept of transferability is moresuitable.^Transferability,^the degree to which thefindings discovered in one context apply to another, isdependent on the degree of similarity of the two contexts.This researcher cannot make statements about thetransferability of the study results, since such judgementsrequire knowledge of both the sending and the receivingcontexts (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).Data Analysis The data analysis considered evidence gathered fromstimulated-recall^transcripts,^conference^video-tapes,Blumberg's scale,^and^research interviews.^Theanalysis^included this researcher's interpretations andperceptions of the data.^The data were examined forpatterns of behavior, subjects' perceptions, understandings,motivations, and changes in behavior. The result is adescription of the interactions of the subjects within thetwo dyads, their understandings of these interactions, andsome conclusions as to the significance of theirunderstandings for teachers' work lives and principal-teacher relationships.SUMMARYThis study will examine the behaviors and interactionsof two dyads, each consisting of a principal and a teacher.One teacher is in her first year of teaching; the other isexperienced. The data will be gathered from transcripts offour post-conferences, six stimulated-recall interviews, andtwo follow-up interviews conducted by this researcherseveral months after the post-conferences were concluded.The next two chapters will present the data for each ofthe dyads. The data from the post-conferences will beanalyzed using the Blumberg Scale, and will be compared withdata from the stimulated-recall and follow-up interviews.41CHAPTER FOURDYAD 1: COLIN AND LISAThe purpose of this chapter is to describe theinteractions of Colin and Lisa in their supervisoryrelationship. The chapter is divided into three sections.The first section describes the setting of the study. Thesecond and third sections present the findings from thefirst two observation cycles of the study. The findingsinclude the quantitative information from Blumberg's Systemfor Analyzing Supervisor-Teacher Interaction (hereafterreferred to as the Blumberg Scale), and the participants'perceptions of their behaviors as gathered from thestimulated-recall interviews and the follow-up interviews bythis researcher.THE SETTINGThis section describes the district in which Colin andLisa work and its teacher evaluation policy. It alsodescribes the study participants and their relationshipoutside the specific supervisory experience of the study.42District Context Colin and Lisa work in District A, a large lower-mainland district with a student enrollment of about 18,5003 (Ministry of Education, 1989) in 48 schools (BCTF,1989). District A employs about 1100 teachers (Ministry ofEducation, 1989), 40 principals, and 46 vice-principals (Ministry of Education, 1988).Evaluation Context In District A, teachers usually^are^evaluatedsummatively a maximum of once every five years. Theevaluation process is prescribed by the collective agreement(1989). It requires that teachers be notified, ... atleast ten (10) working days prior to commencing classroomobservations, that an evaluation is to be conducted"(Collective Agreement 1988, p.47). Only one of at leastthree formal classroom observations must be at a time” ...mutually agreed upon between the teacher and theevaluator" (Collective Agreement 1988, p.48). Thus, thetiming of the supervisory experience may be controlled bythe supervisor. Pre- and post-observation conferences arerequired and their content is prescribed (See Appendix B).One purpose of the pre-conference is to discuss the criteria3 All student enrollment and teacher employment data forDistricts A and B are as of Sept. 30, 1989. Data regardingprincipals and vice-principals are as of Sept. 30, 1988.4344for evaluation. The "Criteria of Evaluation" referred toin the Collective Agreement were developed by a jointteacher-School Board committee. Staff members are to beissued a copy prior to the commencement of the supervisionprocess in the school. The purpose of the post-conference,as outlined in the collective agreement, is to review anddiscuss the data collected during the classroom observation11 ...with the objective of identifying specific strengths tobe maintained and/or areas that need improvement"(Collective Agreement 1988, p.48).Dyadic Context The information for this section comes from twosources. The data regarding length of service comes fromthe demographic questionnaire completed by each participant.Information about the participants' views of, and experiencewith, supervision comes from the follow-up interviewsconducted by this researcher.Participants. The participants in Dyad One are Colin,the principal, and Lisa, the teacher. Colin has taughtintermediate grades for nine years, was a vice-principal forfive years, and has been a principal for ten years, all ofthem in District A. The year of the observations, 1989-90,was his first year as principal of this school. Colinbelieves that the principal sets the tone of the school andshould model to both students and staff those behaviorswhich reflect his educational philosophy.Principal's supervisory philosophy.^Colin^has^aclearly articulated philosophy of teacher supervision whichis at odds with that of the district. He believes thatprincipals do not have time to conduct a formal clinicalsupervision process with teachers and that "...writingreports is a waste of time" (Follow-up Interview, P. 4). Hewrites reports only because formal teacher evaluation isrequired. He prefers to be invited into the classroom toobserve a particular lesson or event, followed by aninformal discussion with the teacher. In addition, hesometimes makes brief visits to classrooms, uninvited andunannounced.^Glatthorn (1984) refers to visits such asthese as administrative monitoring.^Colin believes thatcontrol of the supervisory process should remain with theteacher. He observes that teachers are more critical ofthemselves than he is, and that he often assumes asupportive role in the post-visit conference. If he hasconcerns about what he observed during the visit, heapproaches the teacher informally. He uses the samesupervisory methods with all teachers, and normally does nottreat beginning teachers differently from experiencedteachers.Teacher's supervisory experience.^Lisa was in herfirst year of teaching during the study observations. Priorto her teaching assignment, she was unaware that teachers45were supervised and evaluated. Her only previous experiencewith supervision and evaluation was as a student teacher.In Colin's opinion, Lisa was "at risk" (Fl, p. 5) of nothaving her contract renewed for the following school year.He thought that she lacked confidence and was so afraid ofmaking mistakes that she failed to act decisively.Relationship. From the beginning of their relationship, Colin was aware of Lisa's need for nurturingand he worked at establishing a trusting relationship withher. Colin reports feeling frustrated by Lisa's lack ofresponse to his attempts to discuss her teaching informally.He felt that their discussions "...always seem one way, asentence from me and a one word response [from Lisa]" (Fl,p. 2). He was striving for a collegial relationship withLisa, but he felt that she was maintaining a boss-employeerelationship. Lisa was formally evaluated during 1989-90,but the clinical supervision process, which culminated in asatisfactory report, was carried out by the vice-principal.This was a deliberate strategy by Colin in an attempt toremove the threat this posed to their relationship, therebyallowing Lisa to feel relaxed with him, and encouragingher to seek his help and advice.Lisa reported that, by the time of the studyobservations,^she felt comfortable approaching Colin withproblems.^She appreciated his positive responses, whichmade her feel supported. She stated^that^"...[I] can46ask him anything if I have any trouble and he's always verypositive" (Fl, p. 1).FIRST OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTION ANALYSISThis section will present the data from the firstcycle of observation, post-conference, and stimulated-recallinterviews. There will be a brief description of each post-conference, followed by the Blumberg Scale analysis of thepost-conference interactions.Post-Conference Description Lisa had asked Colin to observe the behavior of theGrade Four students when she left them to teach a lesson tothe Grade Fives. She wanted suggestions from Colin on howto encourage them to work independently when she was notavailable.Colin started the post-conference with a description ofthe general student behavior. He acknowledged that their"bouncing off the wall" behavior was due to a performancethe students had just attended in the gym. Then he said, "Isee what you mean about your Grade Fours ... they're reallyclingy" (p. 1). He continued describing the studentbehaviors, and then asked Lisa how she felt about thelesson.^When she answered, "It was typical of" (p. 1),Colin completed her sentence for her.^Lisa went on to47discuss the students' knowledge of the subject matter, butdid not comment on student behavior.This interaction was typical of the rest of the post-conference. Generally, it was characterized by longstretches of talk by Colin describing student behavior. Hestated his observations about student behavior in generaland also commented on the behavior of specific students.Lisa gave short, infrequent responses. When she did expand,Colin often interrupted or finished her sentences for her.Once, when Colin asked, "Do you have any questions ofme?" (p. 13), Lisa first responded, "No" but after a shortsilence, raised an issue of concern regarding her practice.She wondered, "Is it wise to... they already know how tomultiply, but they may not have understood what they weredoing" (p. 13). Colin said that, when he had taught Math,he found "... they [the students] don't want to know thewhy, all they want to do is they want to know the answer and... I used to find that frustrating" (p. 13). He suggestedthat Lisa needed to use her own "judgement ...how much youbelabour the point" (P.14).Colin gave Lisa several suggestions on dealing withthe Grade Four students who could not work independentlywhile she was teaching the Grade Fives. He frequentlypreceeded his suggestions with words such as "... what Iused to do was ..." (p. 6), "I guess what I would try to dowould be ..." (p. 7), ...maybe you could..." (p. 7),and "...it might be interesting to try..." (p. 17).^His48suggestions did not come with specific instructions forimplementation. Once Colin said, "I don't know what else totell you" (p.11).Although most of Colin's talk was directed to the focusof the lesson observation, several times Colin digressedinto areas of classroom management not related to the focusof the lesson observation. Once he discussed how he, as ateacher, had dealt with the issue of having pencilsavailable for students who needed them, at the same timekeeping them from being stolen. Another time he gave her asuggestion for marking Math seatwork with the whole class.Many of Colin's questions came in clusters, often beingrewordings of the same basic question. For example, heasked, "... what are you going to do with the Grade Fours?Load them down with lots of multiplication questions?" (p.16). Once Colin asked Lisa, ... how do you think youcould deal with that problem?" (p. 4) and Lisa replied, "Idon't know" ( p. 4). Colin seemed taken aback by thisresponse, but proceeded to give her some suggestions.However, few of his questions seemed designed to fosterreflection. Many questions were requests for informationabout classroom routines or about specific students.Data Analysis Procedure The data were compiled by assigning each instance ofverbal behavior or silence to a category.^If a verbal49behavior contained two or more thoughts, each wascategorized separately (Blumberg 1980, p. 119). Statementfragments caused by interruptions or speaker silences werealso categorized separa tely. The assigned categories, inpairs of tallies, were then entered onto a matrix (seeAppendix C) and totalled. The category totals indicate theparticipants' dominant behaviors. The matrix is dividedinto sections which indicate the supervisor's extendedbehaviors, the teacher's extended behaviors, the teacher'sreactions to the supervisor's behaviors, and thesupervisor's reactions to the teacher's behaviors.Total Behaviors For the first observation cycle, the conference betweenColin and Lisa contained 558 instances of verbal behaviors,including silences. Of the 558 instances, 335 (60%) weremade by the principal and 35% by the teacher. The remaining5% were silences. None of the verbal behaviors was inCategory 10, criticism by the supervisor, or in Category 14,negative social-emotional behavior by the teacher.Principal Behaviors As shown in Table 4.1, most of Colin's behaviors weredirective ones which gave information, suggestions, andopinions. Twenty-three percent of his behaviors were in50Category 5, giving information, which includes reporting ondata and observations. Next, at 19%, was Category 9, givingsuggestions. Category 8, giving opinions, was next, at 17%.Table 4.1: Principal BehaviorsCategory^Number of Behaviors Percent*1 54 162 9 23 32 104 39 125 78 236 3 <17 2 <18 56 179 62 1910 0 0* Percent of total principal behaviorsTwelve percent of Colin's verbal behaviors were inCategory 4, asking for information. The least usedbehaviors were praise (Category 2), and asking for opinionsor suggestions (Categories 6 and 7). The behaviors in thesecategories ranged from less than one percent to threepercent. Colin asked Lisa for suggestions (Category 7) onlytwice during the first conference. Both were actuallyreworded versions of the same question.These data clearly indicate Colin's dominance in theconference. He talked more than Lisa did, and most of hisverbal behaviors were directing ones of giving information,opinions, and suggestions. One aspect of the directivenature of his talk was that he did not just present the51data, but rather presented an interpretation of the data toLisa. The questioning behaviors that might have encouragedLisa to talk were rare.Teacher Behaviors Table 4.2 indicates that Lisa's predominant behaviorduring the first conference was that of giving information,opinions, or suggestions (Category 12), at 64%, followed, at33%, by positive social-emotional behavior (Category 13).Only 3% of her behaviors were questions. Lisa asked forhelp or advice only once. Her other questions were requestsfor information.Table 4.2: Teacher BehaviorsCategory Number of Behaviors Percent11 5 312 125 6413 65 3314 0 0Percent of total teacher behaviorExtended behaviorsThe Blumberg Scale matrix is divided into certainareas, a concentration which indicates that "...thesupervisor is making extended use of a particular kind ofbehavior" (Blumberg, 1980 p. 122). "Extended use" means thebehavior occurred ..."for more than just a brief moment"5253(Blumberg, 1980 p. 129).^Colin exhibited extended use inareas C and E.^Area C is concerned with providinginformational, non-evaluative data; Area E, with"methodology and/or control" (Blumberg, 1980 p. 122).Extended talk by the teacher is indicated by Area G.Area C.^Tallies in Area C indicate that Category 4and 5^behaviors (asking for, and giving, information)occurred in an uninterrupted, or extended manner.^As Table4.3 shows, of the 117 instances of Category 4 and 5behaviors, 41% occurred for an extended time.^This meansTable 4.3: Extended BehaviorsArea A B C D E GCategory(ies) 1,2 3 4,5 6,7 8,9 11,12,13,14Total Category Behaviors 62 32 117 5 118 195Percent of Behaviors 3 6 41 20 44 17that in asking for information, Colin usually asked severalquestions at once, or rephrased his questions in severalways. This reduced the amount of information actuallyelicited by the questions and discouraged teacher response.In addition, many were confirming questions, such as,...you're cramped for board space, aren't you?" (p. 6),which did not seemed designed to elicit new or enlighteninginformation. Some questions were about classroommanagement, such as,^...do they already have activities?"54(p. 7)^Only two questions were not information-seeking.Once Colin asked Lisa "...how do you think you could dealwith that problem?" (p. 4)^Another time he asked Lisa toevaluate by saying^...how did you feel about the wholelesson?" (p. 1)Area E.^Area E is concerned with methodology and/orcontrol of the teacher by the principal. Here the principalgives opinions or suggestions. Of the 118 instances ofColin's opinion or suggestion-giving behaviors, 44% were inArea E. Another 28% followed Category 13 behaviors by theteacher. In other words, if Lisa had not made encouragingor agreeing sounds during his talk, a further 28% of Colin'sopinion- and suggestion-giving behaviors would have beencoded in Area E, for a total of 72%. This indicates a lackof dialogue between the principal and teacher. Colin'sextensive talking did not allow for meaningful responsefrom Lisa.Area G.^This area shows the amount of extendedteacher talk. Entries in this area indicate whether or notthe teacher takes "...a good bit of time with his [sic]questions, answers, agreements, or disagreements" (Blumberg,1980 p. 123). In the first observation cycle, Lisa showedsome concentration only in Category 12, and that representedjust 27% of the total number of entries in that category.In other words, Lisa usually responded to Colin's questionswith short answers.Reaction Behaviors The Blumberg Scale^allows one to see how theparticipants react to each other's behavior. Area I of thematrix, which shows the supervisor's reactions to theteacher behaviors, contains 154 verbal behaviors by Colin.Of these reactions, 32% were support-inducing behaviors.The next largest category, at 19%, was expanding behaviors,that is, using Lisa's ideas. Clustered together at 12% areColin's reactions of information-, opinion-, and suggestion-giving. Lisa reacted to Colin mostly with information(57%), and with agreement (41%). She made no commitment totry any of Colin's suggestions, and he did not require any.Silences Area J of the matrix indicates the "nature ofsupervisor behavior which tends to produce [teacher] silenceor confusion" (Blumberg, 1980 p. 123). Of Lisa's silences,33% were a reaction to Colin's support-inducing behaviors,11% were responses to information and expansion, and 22%each were responses to opinion- and suggestion-giving.Area K of the matrix gives insight into thesupervisor's reaction to the teacher's silences. In thefirst observation cycle, Colin reacted to Lisa's silenceswith information 64% of the time, with asking behaviors 18%55of the time, and by giving opinions or suggestions ninepercent of the time.Colin was silent in response to Lisa's information-giving and agreement. Area M indicates that Lisa reacted toColin's silences once with a question, otherwise withinformation.SIMULATED-RECALL INTERVIEWS: FIRST CYCLEThe stimulated-recall tapes for the first observationcycle for Dyad One are missing. The data for this sectioncome from the participants' recall of the post-conferenceduring the follow-up interviews seven months later.Colin felt that he dominated the conference in terms ofthe amount of talk and this feeling is confirmed by thedata. Colin talked 60% of the time compared to Lisa's35%. He also stated that he allowed "pause time" (Fl p.15) as a way of encouraging Lisa to respond. The data showthat only once did Colin allow a silence to stretchafter asking a question, and that was for only five seconds.Lisa reacted to the silence by asking for advice about aninstructional matter. Another time Colin was silent forabout three seconds with the apparent intent of elicitinginformation from Lisa, after it appeared that she was aboutto say something. She didn't, and Colin resumed talking.All his other silences, which ranged from 3 to 18 seconds,either preceded his own remarks, or occurred during his56periods of extended talk, where they appeared to be times ofthinking about his next remarks.SECOND OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTION ANALYSISThis section presents the data for the second cycle ofobservation,^post-conference,^and^stimulated-recallinterview. A brief description of the second post-conference will be followed by the analysis of the data.Included in this section are data from the follow-upinterviews conducted by this researcher several months afterthe completion of the second cycle.Post-Conference Description The focus of this lesson observation was Lisa'sresponses to student answers. Lisa wanted suggestions forresponses she could use, other than "good". Colin recordedher responses during a group discussion. He started thepost-conference with a description of Lisa's behaviors atthe beginning of the lesson, and commented that he wasdistracted by the noise from an adjoining classroom. Therewas a brief discussion then about the fact that not all thestudents could see the book Lisa was displaying as she readfrom it, during which Lisa explained her rationale for herpractice. Colin commented, "... you really had theirattention" (p. 2) and continued with his description of the5758lesson.^This was interspersed with observations aboutspecific students, such as, "Jamie doesn't take over inLanguage Arts, does she?" (Colin: p. 3)Colin then stated some of Lisa's verbatim responses.He followed this by saying, "I think if you had have beentrying to come up with an alternate positive.. .you'd have tobe terribly creative...I have no problem at all with how youresponded" (p. 5). Colin continued to report her verbatimresponses, interspersed with comments about individualstudents. Lisa spoke very little. She gave a fewexplanations about the classroom situation, andoccasionally corrected Colin when he misidentified studentsor couldn't remember all the details about a lesson event.The focus of the post-conference discussion shifted to thenext lesson segment, when the students broke into groups towrite cooperative stories. Colin described Lisa's behavioras she monitored the group work and commented favourably onthe technique she used for getting their attention focussedon the board for the third lesson segment. He said, "... soyou're getting your routines down really well" (P.11).Colin then asked Lisa, "...what would you change?" (p.12) Lisa responded, "I'd change, well I'd give them moretime to come up with a story in a group or in their pairs, Ithink. But I don't know if I like them writing in pairs somuch." Colin stated, "...you want them to do it on theirown" and Lisa agreed. Colin said, "Well I think if that'swhat you want, try it."^Colin did not comment on herconcern, nor did he ask any follow-up questions or offerfurther advice or suggestions. Instead, he suggested waysfor Lisa to expand the activity and to get the students toshare their stories with the Primary students. Colin andLisa also discussed some individual students.Lisa showed evidence of reflection several times. WhenColin commented, "Now you said to them, in your groups, takeone of your morals or one of the ones that are on the boardand put it in a story." Lisa responded, "Hmm, yeah, Ithink that was a mistake now because I found they didn'twant to share their ideas.. .they were scared another personwould take their idea" (p. 8). She got no encouragement orexpansion from Colin in this exploration. Instead, he said,"Steal their idea. That was the only place that I saw, thatI saw starting to break down a little bit.. .that's the wholeprocess, what you're trying to do is to learn what will workwith them."The post-conference discussion then returned to thefocus of the the lesson observation. Colin remarked thathe thought her responses were "appropriate", but Lisa againexpressed concern by saying, "It's just that I always hearpeople say you shouldn't always say good" (p. 17). Colindid not give her any suggestions, but repeated his adviceabout getting her students to publish and share theirstories with the Primary students.59Total Behaviors In the second post-conference there were 499 instancesof verbal behaviors, including silences.^Colin had 67% ofthe behaviors and^Lisa, 29%. Four percent were silences.Principal Behaviors Again, as indicated in Table 4.4, Colin's predominantbehaviors were directive ones.Table 4.4:^Principal BehaviorsCategory Number of Behaviors Percent1 31 92 10 33 17 54 21 65 122 366 1 <17 1 <18 69 219 63 1910 0 0* Percent of total principal behaviorThirty-six percent of his total talk was information-giving, compared with 23% during the first conference.Giving opinions and suggestions were the next most frequentbehaviors at 21% and 19% respectively. The least frequentbehaviors were asking for opinions and suggestions, at lessthan 1%, and criticism, of which there was none.60Teacher Behaviors Table 4.5 shows that Lisa's predominant behaviors wereinformation-giving, at 42%, and positive social-emotionalbehavior at 46%. She did not ask Colin any questions inthis post-conference.Table 4.5: Teacher BehaviorsCategory^Number of Behaviors^Percent*11 0^ 012 69 4813^ 76 5214 0 0* Percent of total teacher behaviorExtended Behaviors As indicated in Table 4.6, Colin's extended behaviorswere concentrated in Area C, asking for, and givinginformation, and in Area E, methodology and/or control.Of all Colin's verbal behaviors which asked for or gaveinformation, 47% occurred in an extended manner. Of allColin's verbal behaviors giving opinions or suggestions, 45%occurred in an extended manner. As in the first observationcycle, the extended nature of Colin's behaviors served todiscourage dialogue. In Area G, Lisa gave information in anextended manner 31% of the time.61Table 4.6: Extended BehaviorsArea ABCDEGCategory(ies) 1,2 3 4,5 6,7 8,9 11,12,13,14Total Category Behaviors 41 17 143 2 132 145Percent of Behaviors 2 6 47 0 45 15Reactions Area I indicates that Colin reacted to Lisapredominantly by giving suggestions (26%), stating opinionsand giving information (each 18%), and with Category Onebehaviors of support-inducing communications. Thirteenpercent of his reactions were expanding on Lisa's ideas.The least used verbal reactions were praise and questioning.Data from Area H show that Lisa reacted to Colinpredominantly with agreement (62%), followed by information-giving at 38%. She did not ask any questions of Colin.Silences The supervisory behaviors that produced silences inLisa (Area J) were mainly Category One (60%), support-inducing communication. Colin reacted to Lisa's silences(Area K) mostly with Category Five behaviors of givinginformation.62Stimulated-Recall Interviews Lisa. During the second stimulated-recallinterview, Lisa reported that an important outcome of theconference was that Colin had alerted her to a differentperspective on a student through a casual remark. ...itwas good for him to point that out to me. I don't usuallysee her like that" (p. 2). However, the post-conferenceappeared to make Lisa anxious in several respects. First,Colin did not share his data notes from the observation withher, and she expressed a rather apprehensive curiosityabout them. Second, Lisa reported feeling anxious whenColin mentioned an incident. The incident occurred when,in the context of the class discussion, a student said thatteachers should be nice. Lisa was afraid that Colin wouldthink that his remark had been prompted by her own behaviortowards the student, and she stated, ...so now I'mwondering what he's thinking" (p. 15). Third, Lisa reportedfeeling unsure of Colin's message when he was describinganother incident during the lesson. She stated, "...I'mstill not sure what he was thinking then, if he thought thatI should have forced an answer or if I should have done whatI did..." (p. 6).For this observation, Lisa wanted feedback on differentways to respond to student contributions to classdiscussions, other than saying "good". She expresseddissatisfaction with Colin's statement that he had "...no6364problem at all with how you responded" (p. 5).^She said,... I still think there must be another word" (p. 20).Colin. Colin remarked that he was still doing mostof the talking, but he thought that they were beginning tohave an actual discussion. Colin believed that "...there'sa lot more two-way communication" (p. 21) in the secondconference. This perception was not borne out by the datafrom the Blumberg Scale. The data show that, during thesecond conference, Colin spoke more overall, and that hespoke more in extended periods. He also perceived that Lisawas more trusting and relaxed. This perception wasconfirmed by Lisa.Follow-up Interviews In the follow-up interview Lisa reported that she didnot feel threatened by the supervisory experience withinthe study because the vice-principal, not Colin, had doneher evaluation report. If Colin had been in charge of doingher "official evaluation", she would have felt vulnerable,and not have revealed any weaknesses. She thought the studyexperience was not^...real, it didn't seem real" (p. 2)because it did not involve evaluation.^If Colin had doneher official evaluation Lisa "...may have felt threatened"and^it "...could have ruined things" (p. 2).^For Lisa,evaluation was threatening.^Lisa had good reason forfeeling this way, since an unsatisfactory report might haveresulted in the non-renewal of her temporary contract.Lisa stated that, if she were being evaluated, shewould tend to choose an observation focus which revolvedaround things about which she felt confident. For thestudy, however, she chose as the focus classroom problemsthat she "...honestly wanted help in" (p. 4). She hopedthat the experience would contribute to her professionalgrowth. She stated that, in an evaluative situation, shewould hesitate to bring a perceived problem to thesupervisor's attention in case it hadn't been noticed.However, she also stated that, ultimately, in a supervisorysituation, trust in the supervisor was more important thanwhether or not the situation was evaluative in determiningher willingness to be open about problems.Lisa perceived a conflict in her reaction to thesupervisory experiences. One the one hand, Lisa reportedthat she had particular foci on which she wanted feedbackand she wanted very specific suggestions for improvement.She wanted Colin to be more directive than he was. On theother hand, she appreciated Colin's encouragement.Lisa was concerned that Colin might have observedother incidents during the lesson and that since theyalways stuck to the topic, she might not have received allthe feedback possible or necessary for her professionalgrowth. She had hoped to be given direction, or "onespecific thing to work on" (p. 6). Although Lisa reportedthat she had not received specific direction for65improvement, she did have a new perspective on severalstudents as a result of Colin's comments.Colin did give many suggestions to Lisa, but sheappears not to have perceived them as such. Perhaps this isdue to his tentative language or perhaps to the fact thatthe suggestions were not aimed at the foci she had chosen,but on other classroom events that Colin had observed andreported on.Lisa seemed to have an accurate perception of theinteractions between herself and Colin. She states that shetrusts him, and her actions bear that out. First, she askedfor his advice about an instructional matter during thefirst post-conference, and shared some concerns about herrelationship with a particular student. Second, shecorrected Colin's errors when he was describing classroomevents.For his part, Colin's goal was to build up Lisa's trustin him so that she would go to him to "... ask for help orask for suggestions". He is not sure that he has succeeded.He believes that Lisa is more relaxed, but her lack ofresponse frustrates him. He would prefer a more collegialand open relationship with her. He hoped that the studypost-conferences would help Lisa relax and develop sometrust in him. But when questioned about his plan of conductfor the conferences, he responded that he did not follow anyparticular approach.66Although Colin states that he wants a more openrelationship, some of his behaviors served to frustrate thatend. He kept the data sheets to himself instead of sharingthem with Lisa. He made inferences and drew conclusionsfrom the data rather than allowing Lisa to do so. He askedfew questions and allowed few silences at key times.SUMMARY OF FINDINGSColin did most of the talking and the amount of histalk increased rather than decreased in the secondconference. His talk was mostly directing. His perceptionthat Lisa's responses were longer the second time is notsupported by the data. Although more of Lisa'sinformation-giving behavior was of an extended nature in thesecond observation cycle, the total amount of her extendedbehavior decreased slightly from the first observationcycle.Lisa experienced anxiety in the post-conferences forseveral reasons. First, she was not shown the observationdata that Colin held in his lap, and she was curious aboutthem. Second, when Colin commented on her interactions withparticular students, Lisa felt unsure about his opinion.Third, Lisa wanted more direction from Colin, and althoughhe made suggestions, they appeared^not to be concreteenough to meet her needs.^Lisa's impression that Colin didnot give her suggestions for improvement is inaccurate,67since on several occasions he did indeed make suggestions.However, they tended to be vague, and usually couched intentative language, such as "...if you do [try it]...".Colin does not appear to have perceived Lisa's need forconcrete suggestions.Both Lisa and Colin agree that Lisa was more relaxedfor the second post-conference. Colin's main goal in hisrelationship with Lisa was to establish trust. Lisa seestrust as the most important element in a satisfactorysupervisory relationship, but she also wants specificdirections for improvement. Colin's positive approach,although successful in building trust, left Lisa not knowingwhat she should "work on".This chapter has described the behaviors andinteractions of Colin and Lisa during two supervisory post-conferences. It has presented the participants' perceptionsof the behaviors and interactions as revealed through theBlumberg Scale, the stimulated-recall interviews, and thefollow-up interviews conducted by this researcher. ChapterFive will present the findings for Dyad Two.68CHAPTER FIVEDYAD 2: HENRY AND BARBARAThe purpose of this chapter is to describe theinteractions of Henry and Barbara in their supervisoryrelationship. This chapter is divided into three sections.The first section describes the setting of the study. Thesecond and third sections present the findings from thefirst two observation cycles of the study. The findingsinclude the quantitative information from the BlumbergScale, and the participants' perceptions of their behaviorsas gathered from the stimulated-recall interviews and thefollow-up interviews by this researcher.THE SETTINGThis section describes the district in which Henry andBarbara work and its teacher evaluation policy. It alsodescribes the study participants and their relationshipoutside the specific supervisory experience of the study.District Context Henry and Barbara work in District B, a large lower-mainland district with a student enrollment of about 17,8006970students4^(Ministry of Education, 1989) in 50 schools(BCTF, 1990).^District B employs about 1100 teachers(Ministry of Education, 1989), 47 principals, and 10 vice-principals (Ministry of Education, 1988). In District B,the elementary schools have Head Teachers instead of vice-principals. Head Teachers are not administrative officers,they belong to the local Teachers' Association. However,they do carry out some administrative tasks, such as dealingwith textbooks and supplies, and assisting the principalwith behavior problems among students. They may perform aleadership role in matters such as professional development.They have no formal supervisory or hierarchical role.Evaluation Context Teachers are not routinely evaluated summatively inDistrict B. Instead, teachers are responsible fordeveloping, in consultation with principals, their owninstructional improvement plans. Formal summativeevaluation occurs only by teacher request, or when there isa perceived deficiency in the quality of teaching that isnot being remedied by the instructional improvement plan.The instructional improvement plans may include peerobservations.4All student enrollment and teacher employment data forDistricts A and B are as of Sept. 30, 1989. Data regardingprincipals and vice-principals are as of Sept. 30, 1988.71In most years, District B sponsors a SupervisorySkills workshop for teachers and principals. The workshopteaches verbal and body language communication skills andencourages teachers to arrange classroom observations amongthemselves.Dyadic Context The information for this section comes from twosources. The data regarding length of service comes fromthe demographic questionnaire completed by each participant.Information about the participants' views of, and experiencewith, supervision comes from the follow-up interviewsconducted by this researcher.Participants. The participants in Dyad Two are Henry,the teacher, and Barbara, the principal. Barbara has taughtprimary and intermediate grades for 18 years. She was aHead Teacher for seven years, and has been an elementaryprincipal for five years. At the time of the study she hadbeen principal of her current school for three years.Henry has been teaching intermediate grades for 14years. He is currently in his third year as Head Teacherand intermediate classroom teacher at this school.Principal's supervisory experience. As a teacher,Barbara was issued summative evaluative reports withoutformal classroom observations or prior discussion with theprincipal. Later in her teaching career, she participatedin Supervisory Skills workshops as both a participant andfacilitator.Principal's supervisory philosophy. Barbara believesthat the key to successful supervisory conferences isgood, "active" (Follow-up Interview, p. 3) listening by thesupervisor. She characterizes good listening as more thanactive listening behaviors such as paraphrasing andsummarizing. The listener must be authentic in his or herinterest and responses. She believes that her strengths asa supervisor lie in the intense focus that she directstowards the teacher in the conference and her ability as agood, active listener. She believes that questions she asksas an administrator, directing the conference and elicitingconcerns, are critical to a productive conference. Barbarabelieves that questions provide the stimulus that causeteachers to reflect on their teaching. She tries to ask avariety of questions, some open-ended and some more director closed. In the supervisory conference, Barbara wants theteacher to do the talking and sees questions as the vehiclefor encouraging teacher talk. She prefers an informalapproach to supervision, but allows the teacher's comfortlevel to determine her approach. For example, Barbaraenjoys "wandering in and out of classes" Fl, p. 9), butwhether she does or not depends on the teacher's attitude.Teacher's supervisory experience. Henry has receivedthree teacher reports during his career. The first reportwas written without his participation in the process. The7273other two resulted from a clinical supervision process.Henry has participated in two Supervisory Skills workshops.He also participated in role-playing for an instructionalvideo on collegial supervision.Teacher's supervisory philosophy. Henry believes incollegial, rather than hierarchical, supervision. Hebelieves that teachers being supervised must have a "strongsense of trust and openness" (Fl, p. 14) in the supervisor,and must feel that their own goals are being met. Henrythinks that the supervisory experience should be morespontaneous and less structured than traditionalapproaches. Supervision should be casual and approached ina manner that the teacher finds comfortable. He believesthat principals bring an element of judgement to theprocess, which he finds intimidating. Teacher colleaguesare, he believes, more focussed on fostering professionalgrowth, and less concerned with how the teacher enhances theschool program and reputation. Henry thinks that teacher-observers would be more forthright and honest in theirfeedback, and that they wouldn't "beat around the bush" (Fl,p. 14).Relationship. Henry and Barbara have a long-standingprofessional relationship. They have worked on committeestogether, and are currently in their third year as principaland head teacher. They also have some mutual friends andoccasional social contact.Barbara describes their professional relationshipoutside the supervisory experience as one of "respectfuldistance" Fl, p. 1). She admires Henry's high integrity andhis concern for, and valuing of, teaching.Henry considers that he has "quite a good relationship"(Fl, p. 1) with Barbara. On the one hand, he thinks theyhave many similar qualities. They both like to laugh, aregood listeners, and are quite open, which Henrycharacterizes as a willingness to express their opinions.Henry describes Barbara as "fun to work with" (Fl, 1) andhe likes her very much. He also says he is learning a lotfrom her in their principal/head teacher relationship. Onthe other hand, he detects a major difference between themin regard to administrative style. Henry believes in anadministrative style which emphasizes collegial decision-making and "high levels of involvement" (Fl, p. 1) amongstaff members. He thinks that administrators should developa collegial environment in which people are encouraged towork together, establishing qualities of trust, honesty, andopenness.^Henry thinks that Barbara's administrativeapproach is not as team-oriented as it should be.^Hedescribes her as tending to "run along on her own a bit"(Fl, p. 1).^Through modelling, he is attempting toinfluence^Barbara toward adopting a more collegialadministrative style.74FIRST OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTION ANALYSISThis section will present the data from the first cycleof observation, post-conference, and stimulated-recallinterviews. The post-conference interactions were analyzedusing the Blumberg Scale. The analyses will be preceeded bya description of each post-conference.Post-Conference Description Barbara began the post-conference by asking, "How didyou come to the decision of using that technique?" (p. 1)Henry responded with an explanation, and a brief discussionensued. Barbara asked Henry more questions aboutinstructional matters related to the lesson and Henryanswered. For example, she wanted to know why he wasreading the novel to the students, instead of having thestudents reading it themselves. Barbara then commented onthe data she was collecting, and although she did not statewhat the focus of the lesson observation was, it seems thatshe was looking at student on-task behavior. Henry spentsome time describing the novel, particularly its appeal tothe students.Barbara then asked him, "... what was your objective?"(p. 7). Henry responded, and a discussion ensued about thelesson. Barbara, commenting on the data she had collected,remarked, "... the timing of the lesson was perfect" (p. 8).75Barbara continued by asking questions about how thecooperative group technique worked, such as "Do you do thatwith each of the lessons?" (p. 4), and Henry explained. Hedescribed how the cooperative groups worked, what he did toorganize the students, and the fact that group compositionwas determined by the students themselves. Barbara askedHenry if the students "...reflect on how they were in theirroles as checker and presenter ". Henry replied, "No, wehaven't really gotten to that because I've only been justdoing role assignment in the last ... month" (p. 10). Atone point Barbara expressed concern about the accuracy ofher data, given the difficulty of determining from adistance on task behavior in a cooperative group. Therewas also some discussion about individual student behaviorduring the lesson. She described the behavior of a student,and commented, ... throughout the period [he] had sometimes of listening" (p. 11). The discussion concluded witha discussion of the follow-up lesson for the next day.Data Analysis Procedure The data were compiled by assigning each instance of verbalbehavior to a category. If a verbal behavior contained twoor more thoughts, each was categorized separately (Blumberg1980, p. 119). Statement fragments caused by interruptionswere also categorized separately. The assigned categories,in pairs of tallies, were entered onto a matrix (see76Appendix C) and totalled. The category totals indicate theparticipants' dominant behaviors. The matrix is dividedinto sections which indicate the supervisor's extendedbehaviors, the teacher's extended behaviors, the teacher'sreactions to the supervisor's behaviors, and thesupervisor's reactions to the teacher's behaviors.Total Behaviors For the first observation cycle, the post-conferencebetween Barbara and Henry contained 500 instances of verbalbehaviors. Of the 500 instances, 263 (53%) were made bythe principal and 237 (47%) by the teacher. There were noinstances of confusion and no silences (defined by thisresearcher as pauses of three seconds or more). There wereno instances of criticism by the principal or negativesocial-emotional behavior by the teacher.Principal Behaviors As shown in Table 5.1, most of Barbara's behaviors(36%) were directive ones which gave information. Thesecond most frequent behaviors (30%) were support-inducingones. These included agreeing, encouraging, and makingemotionally responsive remarks such as "gee" (p. 10).Barbara's next most frequent behaviors (14%) were givingopinions. She made comments such as "I think it was because77you were standing right there" (p. 12), and "I was reallyimpressed..." (p. 14). She did not give Henry anysuggestions.Table 5.1: Principal BehaviorsCategory^Number of Behaviors^Percent *1 80 302 0 03 22 84 28 115 96 366 0 07 0 08 37 149 0 010 0 0* Percent of total principal behaviorsEleven percent of Barbara's verbal behaviors werequestions. Her questions fall into four main categories:questions about the novel being used in the lesson, generalquestions about the students, questions about the managementand organization of the lesson, and questions concerning thereason and planning behind the lesson. Of all thequestions, 43% were in the latter category. They includedquestions about the lesson objectives, and the reason forchoosing the particular strategy. She did not ask Henryfor his opinion.78Teacher Behaviors Table 5.2 indicates that Henry's dominant behaviorduring the first post-conference was that of givinginformation (67%). He asked only one question, to clarify aTable 5.2: Teacher BehaviorsCategory Number of Behaviors Percent *11 1 <112 159 6713 77 3214 0 0Percent of total teacher behaviorquestion that Barbara had asked him.^He and Barbaracontributed about equally to the positive social-emotionalatmosphere.Extended Behaviors The Blumberg Scale matrix is divided into areas whichTable 5.3: Extended BehaviorsArea ABCDEGCategory(ies) 1,2 3 4,5 6,7 8,9 11 - 14Total Category Behaviors 80 22 124 0 37 237Percent of Behaviors 0 5 46 0 19 267980indicate^extended use of certain behaviors.^Table 5.3indicates that Barbara exhibited significant extendedbehaviors mainly in Area C, and to a lesser degree in AreaE. Area G indicates the teacher's extended behaviors.Area C.^Tallies for Area C indicate that someCategory 4 and 5 behaviors (asking for, and giving,information) occurred in an uninterrupted manner. Of the124 behaviors in those categories, 57, or 46%, occurred foran extended time.^Most (44) of the 57 instances were inCategory 5.^This indicates that Barbara presented almosthalf of the data in a manner that did^not allow forresponses from Henry.^Of the Category 4 behaviors, 46%occurred in an extended way.^This means that, althoughBarbara asked a total of 28 questions, almost half the timeshe asked two or more questions at once, and that when thishappened, the questions were really the same one, rephrased.If the repeated questions are condensed, the number ofdifferent questions is reduced to 19. Thus, extendedbehaviors decreased Henry's opportunity for response andreduced the variety of information solicited.Area E.^Area E shows that Barbara expressed opinionsin an extended way only 19% of the time.^Opinion-givingmade up 14% of her total verbal behaviors.Area G.^This area shows the amount of extendedteacher talk. Entries in this area indicate whether or notthe teacher takes time with answers.^In the firstobservation cycle, 26% of Henry's responses were extended.His extended responses for Category 12, giving information,represented 38% of the category total. This means thatHenry often responded with full explanations.Reaction Behaviors The Blumberg Scale allows one to see how participantsreact to each other's behavior. Area I of the matrix, whichcontains the supervisor's reactions to the teacherbehaviors, shows 174 instances of verbal behavior.^Ofthese, the two largest categories were^support-inducingbehaviors at 46% and information-giving at 25%. Henryreacted to Barbara with information-giving 56% of the timeand with positive social-emotional behavior 43%. He askedonly one question, and that was a clarifying one right atthe beginning of the interview.Stimulated-recall Interviews This section will describe the participants reactionsto the first post-conference. Their feelings and thoughtsabout the post-conference are revealed in the stimulated-recall interviews.Henry.^Henry has recently begun to embrace wholelanguage instructional strategies.^He stopped using hisbasal reading program abruptly and plunged headlong into81whole language. Henry expressed amazement at the amount ofdata Barbara had recorded during the lesson. He thoughtthat the data were "appropriate" (p. 5). They confirmed hisperceptions of his students, although there were one or twosurprises.^He appreciated the positive nature of thefeedback^from Barbara, and her focus on the "positiveaspects" (p. 2) of the lesson. Her feedback made him feelgood and he "enjoyed her enthusiasm" (p. 2).^However, heexpressed discomfort^about Barbara's question concerninghis^objectives for the lesson. He described the questionas^"clinical" and said that such questions^made him"sometimes feel threatened" (p. 7). Henry commented onthe fact that the conference had strayed off topic, butthought that was a "nice comforting thing" (p. 6).Barbara. Barbara stated that during the post-conference, she had focussed on "asking questions to havehim reflect on his teaching or decisions" (p. 1). Once, inthe stimulated-recall interview, Barbara commented that shehad asked a particular question "to determine whether thatindeed was a strategy" (p. 3). She also noted that thestrategies Henry used in the lessons were directly relatedto workshops that he had recently attended. She wasimpressed with his dedication to instructional improvement.She noted that "he's obviously wanting to improve hisstrategies that are new to him" (p. 8). Although Barbarawas satisfied that Henry had talked about his teaching inthe post-conference, she wasn't convinced that reflection,82as distinct from explaining, had occurred. Barbara feltthat her questions had been successful in conveying twomessages to Henry regarding his instructional practices:"be prepared" and "be with the kids" (p. 16).SECOND OBSERVATION CYCLE: BLUMBERG'S INTERACTION ANALYSISThis section presents the data for the second cycle ofobservation, post-conference, and stimulated-recallinterview. Included in this section are a description ofthe post-conference dialogue and data from the follow-upinterviews conducted by this researcher several months afterthe completion of the second cycle.Post-Conference Description After a brief statement about the data, Barbara askedHenry why he "chose to do this style of lesson" (p. 1).Henry described previous class activities that related tothis lesson. When Barbara asked, "... what was differentabout this lesson for you?" (p. 3), Henry began discussinghis conflict between his desire to have the students puttheir hands up before responding, and the more "spontaneous"method required by his whole language strategy.The next stage of the post-conference occurred whenBarbara asked, "What did you do to prepare for this lessonthat was different then?" (p. 7) Henry responded by83describing the materials that he had prepared. Barbara wenton to ask, "Now what did you do in terms of thinking aboutthis lesson?" (p. 8) Henry said that he had thought aboutthe lesson in terms of motivating the students for readingtheir new novel. They then discussed the follow-up lessons.Barbara shifted the conversation when she said, "One of thethings I noticed is that you did most of the physical work"(P. 11). There ensued a discussion about the classroomarrangement and the degree of active student involvement.Barbara then pointed out Henry's inconsistency in asking thestudents to put up their hands, but responding to studentswho called out. This was followed by discussion aboutindividual students. The post-conference ended with a briefdiscussion of the content of follow-up lessons.Total Behaviors In the second post-conference there were 421 instancesof verbal behaviors, including instances of confusion,during which both persons were talking at once. Barbara had52% of the behaviors and Henry 47%. Just under one percentwere instances of confusion.Principal Behaviors As shown in Table 5.4, Barbara's predominant behaviorswere information- and opinion-giving, and support-inducing.84Nine percent of her verbal behaviors were questions.Barbara believes that the questions the principal asks inthe post-conference are vital to encouraging reflection inthe teacher. Of the 22 questions Barbara asked Henry, 16seemed designed to encourage reflection. For instance, sheasked Henry "why did you choose to do this style of lesson?"(p. 1) and "what did you do in terms of thinking about thislesson?" (p. 8)Table 5.4: Principal BehaviorsCategory^Number of Behaviors Percent*1 54 252 4 23 7 34 20 95 71 326 0 07 2 <18 52 249 10 510 0 0* Percent of total principal behaviorNine of her other questions were confirming types, orexpansion on his previous remark. Examples include, "butyou printed all those words?" (p. 7), and "was he heretoday?" (p. 20)Teacher Behaviors As indicated in Table 5.5, Henry's predominantbehaviors were information-giving, at 57%, and positive8586social-emotional behavior at^42%.^Henry had clearexplanations for what he was doing in the lesson, and hadTable 5.5: Teacher BehaviorsCategory^Number of Behaviors^Percent *11^ 1^ <112 113 5713 83 42Percent of total teacher behaviorjustification for his choices. He asked only one questionof Barbara, and that was just a clarifying question inresponse to one of hers.Extended Behaviors As in the first observation cycle, Barbara's extendedbehaviors were^concerned with asking for, and giving,information, and methodology and/or control.^Table 5.6Table 5.6: Extended BehaviorsArea ABCDEGCategory(ies) 1,2 3 4,5 6,7 8,9 11-14Total Category Behaviors 58 7 91 2 62 197Percent of Behaviors 2 0 37 50 23 2087indicates that of all Barbara's^verbal behaviors whichasked for, or gave, information (Area C), 37% occurred in anextended manner. Of all behaviors which gave opinions orsuggestions (Area E), 23% occurred in an extended manner.This means that Henry was able to respond to Barbara'squestions and information-giving behaviors frequently.Henry's extended behaviors represented 20% of his totalresponses.^Of all his information-giving behaviors(Category 12), 35%^were of an extended nature.^Thisconfirms the reciprocal nature of their dialogue.Reaction Behaviors Area I shows that Barbara reacted to Henrypredominantly with Category 1 behaviors of agreement (36%).The next most prevalent behavior was Category 5, givinginformation, at 24%, and Category 8, giving opinions, at22%. Barbara did not ask Henry for his opinion and askedfor a suggestion only once. Area H indicates that Henryreacted^mostly with information-giving^(47%)^andpositive social-emotional behaviors (53%). He asked onlyone question, and that was to clarify Barbara's question tohim.Stimulated-recall Interviews Barbara. Barbara's goal for the post-conference was toask questions which would encourage reflection "on thestudents' behavior and his planning, rather than hisparticular behavior in the room" (p. 26). The data col-lected during the observation was not her main focus orinterest. That is, Barbara was not using the post-conference just to address the data, but rather to advanceher more broad agenda of practicing her questioning andlistening strategies and thereby promoting reflection.Her dilemma was whether she should use questions to set atopic and a focus for the conference or she should "justlet teachers talk at random and then make a question upbased on their last comment" (p. 26). She wondered ifhaving her own agenda decreased the effectiveness of thepost-conference for Henry.During the second stimulated-recall interview,Barbara was critical of herself for expressing opinions.She also wondered about the timing of the post-conference.Barbara suggested that perhaps she shouldn't be givingsuggestions to Henry before he had had a chance to reflecton his lesson. She thought that maybe it was better forHenry "... to reflect on it as part of his next lesson thanimmediately after..." (SR 2, p. 13). Her remark followed anincident during the post-conference in which Barbara pointedout to Henry that he was doing most of the "physical work"88and suggested that having the students do the necessarymovement might "get those less active ones involved" (Pc 2,p. 12). Henry replied that he "thought it would be lessdisruptive than the kids going up and down..." (Pc 2, p.12). Barbara said, "So you wouldn't change that...?" (Pc 2,p. 13), to which Henry replied, "...I mean, if somebodysuggested that maybe it would be better to have the kids goput..." (Pc 2, p. 13). Barbara finished his sentencewith, "Or even having say one child in a location, you lookafter this group, Susan..." (Pc 2, p. 13). Henry respondedwith, "Oh, that's a good suggestion" (Pc 2, p. 14).Barbara stated that the post-conference was of valuefor Henry in two ways: (1) it gave him a chance to reflectand to affirm that "he did achieve what he wanted" in thelesson and (2) it gave her the opportunity to suggest thatthe room arrangement may have affected the students'involvement in the lesson. Barbara remarked thatopportunity for reflection is valuable and not normallyavailable to teachers.Despite the positive aspects of the post-conference andthe opportunity it provided Henry for reflection, Barbarawas not convinced that effective reflection occurred. "Idon't know where the growth is going to be for Henry" (p.25). She acknowledged Henry's risk-taking in trying newstrategies, especially within the context of the study.Barbara thought that she and Henry generated an easy8990comradeship.^Henry was not "uptight about laughing or...being silly" (p. 26).Henry.^For Henry, one area of the lesson caused himproblems. He gets "uptight" when students speak out a lot,yet student freedom to call out is part of the strategy hewas using in the lesson. He states, " I'm quite astructured person and ...you...have to ...let the kids befairly spontaneous with their suggestions. ...I have to getused to it" (Pc 2, p. 4,5). He is "having to loosen up onsome of the traditional methods and let the kids be moreexpressive..." (Pc 2, p. 4). He's not sure how far heshould go in letting the students call out. This tensionbetween his old way of teaching and his new makes him"uncomfortable". He said, "I'm not really comfortable withthe kids shouting out and yet ... it's part of that kind ofstrategy" (p. 6).Henry thought that Barbara was presenting only data.He did not perceive that she was offering her own opinions.He appreciated receiving the data from the observation andBarbara's "positive way" of giving him information. Heobserved that when Barbara gave him a message, "it's alwaysvery graciously done" (p. 24).^He thinks that the post-conference represented^"the way that kind of activityshould go" (p. 24).Henry reported that the post-conference was "reallyuseful". He reported that Barbara's feedback made him moreaware of the students' responses. He found "this part isgood because I think she was making me aware of some thingsto look out for" (p. 20).^Henry appreciated Barbara'ssuggestions, although^he thought that she was "subtle"about making them.^At one point in the post-conference,Henry misinterpreted one of Barbara's remarks.^She wassuggesting to him that he was being inconsistent in wantingthe students to put up their hands, but acknowledgingstudents who did not. When Barbara said, "Twice he calledout and you responded to him", Henry replied, "Oh, good"(Pc. 2, p. 14). Barbara stated in the stimulated-recallthat she "meant to reprimand him" and his response made herthink that "he thought it's a good thing" (p. 15). But inthe stimulated-recall Henry recognized his misinterpretationand said, "I think [Barbara] was^trying to tell me tobe more consistent with him..." (p. 15).^He showed hiswillingness to accept her implied suggestion when he said,"I guess I'll have to deal with [that]" (p. 16). Later inthe stimulated-recall he said, "But she was suggesting that...if I assign one person at the end of each row and pass itto that person and go from there. And actually that wouldhave been a good tool for keeping those kids on task, too"(p. 23).Follow-up Interviews Barbara. In the follow-up interview, Barbara reportedthat she found her relationship with Henry during the post-91conferences to be comfortable and easy. This she attributedto Henry's openness and enthusiasm. Barbara thought thatboth of them were learning to accept criticism "better thanwe have in the past" (p. 1). Since Henry did not offer anycriticism during the post-conference, it appears that theremark refers to other aspects of the relationship. Barbarareported feeling that the supervisory experience resulted inan increased professional understanding between her andHenry.Barbara's goal during these post-conferences was toimprove her questioning and to listen to Henry in order torespond with questions that would allow Henry to analyze hisown teaching practices. Barbara thought that theconferences would be successful if her questions causedHenry to continue reflecting after the post-conference andif he left with a reinforced sense of being a good teacher.She also thought that the conference was productive if Henryhad a renewed commitment to innovation and the improvementof his teaching practices.Barbara had planned "structured but informal" (p. 9)post-conferences. During the post-conferences, she feltconfident of the direction they were taking, and was awareof the need for closure at the end. She noticed differencesbetween the first and second post-conferences. Shecharacterized the first conference as exploratory, as"checking the scenery" (p. 5). The first conference raisedher awareness of her own thoughts and body moves, which she92subsequently monitored during the second conference.Furthermore, the first conference gave her an opportunity toreflect on the framing of her questions. She felt that herquestions were better in the second conference. By this shemeant that they were more effective in leading Henry toincreased reflection about his practice. The data show thatin the second conference, Barbara asked considerably morequestions about Henry's thinking and planning for the lessonand fewer questions requesting information about classroommanagement and student behavior. For example, in thesecond post-conference, Barbara asked Henry why he” ...chose to do this style of lesson" (p. 1) and "Now whatdid you do in terms of thinking about this lesson?" (p. 7).In future post-conferences, Barbara would want Henry totalk more, not just superficial conversation about thelessons, but about more substantial matters, which shecharacterized as "the stuff we should have been talkingabout" (p. 11). She was not sure that Henry's talk duringthe conferences was analytical enough. She was concernedthat she did not ask the right questions to get Henry toprobe into, reflect on, or gain new insights into histeaching practices. The conference data demonstrate thatHenry was able to justify his instructional practices inresponse to Barabara's questions. However, her questioningand suggestion about his classroom arrangement seemed togive him pause. Barbara's question, "...what was differentabout this lesson for you?" (Post-conference 2: p. 3) caused9394Henry^to verbalize his conflict between his need forcontrol and his desire for more spontaneity in the lesson.Barbara saw several positive outcomes of the post-conferences. First, she believed that, as a result of thestudy, Henry would promote the idea of having someone,either the principal or another teacher, in the classroom tocollect data and give feedback as a way of fosteringprofessional growth. Second, she thought that the post-conferences had an impact on his relationship with hisstudents by increasing his confidence about his new teachingpractices, thereby encouraging further risk-taking. Third,she believed that the post-conferences made Henry feel goodabout his teaching practice and let him know that he washeld in high regard.Henry. Henry participated in the study primarilybecause he wanted to contribute to a "better understandingof what makes effective supervisory skills" (p. 8). Asecondary consideration was the opportunity for Henry to getfeedback and improve his skills as he worked on his ownprofessional goal of improving his whole languagetechniques. He hoped to gain more confidence about his newteaching practices.Henry describes the feedback from Barbara as positiveand thorough. However, he is concerned that perhaps Barbarawas not totally honest with him and he wonders if sometimesshe was not "really saying what she wanted to" (p.16). Hefelt at times that Barbara was giving him subtle messagesand he thinks that perhaps she should have been moreforthright rather than making him "read between the lines"(p. 13).Henry found being observed by Barbara more"intimidating" (p. 4) than being observed by a colleague andhe experienced a sense of discomfort. He attributed thisdiscomfort to their differences in hierarchical status, toBarbara's administrative style, and to his perception thatshe was not totally honest. However, he felt that Barbarahad encouraged him to state his opinions and he did not feeldominated by her.Henry felt that the feedback was effective in makinghim aware of particular areas to improve. The first post-conference gave Henry confidence in using his new teachingpractices and encouraged him to continue his innovations,which he sees as beneficial for the students. The secondpost-conference raised his awareness of the conflict betweenhis "tight" classroom management style and his desire toencourage student enthusiasm. His reflection led him toconclude that he must find a comfortable balance between thetwo.SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe talk was quite evenly divided between Barbara andHenry during both post-conferences. Barbara gave twice asmany opinions during the second post-conference, and made95some suggestions. During the first post-conference, 43% ofBarbara's questions were designed to encourage Henry toreflect on his teaching. This increased to 70% during thesecond.Henry generally approved of Barbara's approach duringthe post-conferences, although he thought that she was nothonest or blunt enough sometimes. Although 14% and 24% ofher verbal behaviors during the two conferences wereopinion-giving, Henry appeared not to have noticed, and hethought that Barbara did not give her opinion.Henry and Barbara have high regard for each other.Both were committed to achieving professional growth forthemselves from this experience, and Barbara wanted to beinstrumental in promoting Henry's professional growth.This chapter has described the behaviors andinteractions of Barbara and Henry during two post-conferences. The behaviors and interactions were analyzedusing the Blumberg Scale. The participants' perceptions oftheir behaviors and interactions were revealed by theBlumberg Scale and the stimulated-recall and follow-upinterviews. The next chapter will compare the interactivebehaviors of the two dyads.96CHAPTER SIXCOMPARISON OF THE DYADSThis chapter will examine similarities and differencesin certain behaviors and interactions of the participants.Specifically, the chapter will compare and contrast: (1)certain verbal behaviors of the participants in the post-conferences, (2) the post-conference goals and perceptionsof principals Barbara and Colin, and (3) the post-conferenceneeds and perceptions of teachers Henry and Lisa. Finally,the chapter will discuss selected themes which have emerged.PARTICIPANTS' VERBAL BEHAVIORS97Principals Principal directiveness. Principal directiveness wasa feature in all four post-conferences.^Most of Colin'sand Barbara's behaviors were information-giving.^In bothdyads, the percentage of directive verbal behaviorsincreased in the second post-conferences. Barbara'sdirective talk increased from 50% to 60% from the firstpost-conference to the second. Colin's increased from 58%to 76%.In Dyad One,^the conversations were very one-sided,with Colin^talking about twice as much as Lisa. In DyadTwo, the participants contributed almost evenly to theconversations.Extended behaviors.^Both principals used extendedbehaviors^in Areas^C,^information-giving,^and E,methodology, but there were differences. In both post-conferences, almost half of all Colin's information-givingand methodology behaviors were of an extended nature.The proportion of Colin's extended behaviors increasedduring the second post-conference.Almost half of Barbara's^information-giving behaviorsduring the first post-conference were likewise of anextended nature, but that decreased to about 37% during thesecond. About 20% of her methodology behaviors in bothpost-conferences were of an extended nature, considerablyless than Colin's. This means that Henry had much moreopportunity than Lisa to respond to any suggestions, andthis may have contributed to his feeling of not beingdominated by Barbara. Colin's greater use of extendedbehaviors denied Lisa the same opportunity to respond tosuggestions and engage in dialogue.In Area B,^accepting and clarifying the teachers'ideas, there were few behaviors by either principal.^Thismeans that Barbara and Colin reacted to the teachers' ideaswith short responses, but did not respond in ways whichwould require Henry and Lisa to expand upon, or explain,their ideas.9899Questioning. Although Barbara and Colin asked asimilar number and percentage of, questions during the post-conferences, the types of questions differed. Colin'squestions were largely related to the general behavior ofthe students and to solving specific student behaviorproblems. He did not ask many questions about theparticular lessons. For the first post-conference, onlynine of 44 questions related directly to the lesson. Ofthose nine, two asked for Lisa's opinion and feeling aboutthe lesson, four asked about student behavior during thelesson, two asked for information about the subsequentlesson, and one asked for specific information about thecurrent lesson.In the second post-conference, eight out of 23questions related to the lesson. Only one, ...what wouldyou change?" (Colin: Post-conference 2, p.12) requiredLisa to think about the lesson. The rest were requests forinformation about the students or the lesson.In contrast to Colin's questions, Barbara's tended tobe about the specific lesson itself. In the first post-conference, half of her questions referred to the lesson,and most of the remaining questions referred to Henry's andthe students' routine lesson behaviors; for example, "Soyou have the children...?" (Barbara: Pc 1, p.1) Of thefourteen questions about the particular lesson, three askedHenry for objectives ("...what was your objective for thelesson?" Barbara: Pc 1, p.7), and for the rationale behindhis teaching practices, three asked about the novel beingused in the lesson, and the rest were about the managementof the lesson.Again, in the second post-conference, half of Barbara'squestions related directly to the lesson. All but one ofthe those asked Henry for the rationale behind his teachingpractices, or asked him to consider changes. Barbara askedhim questions such as "Why did you choose to do this styleof lesson?" (Barbara: Pc 2, p.1) and "Now what did you doin terms of thinking about this lesson?" (Barbara: Pc 2,p.8).Teachers' Behaviors Teacher reaction. Henry and Lisa were remarkablysimilar in their reaction behaviors. They were both ableand willing to justify their teaching decisions. Theyasked few questions during the post-conferences andreacted to the principals' behaviors almost exclusively withinformation-giving and positive social-emotional behaviors.Both Henry and Lisa responded with less information andmore agreement behaviors during the second post-conference.Extended talk. Extended teacher talk refers to thenumber of teacher verbal behaviors that occurred in anuninterrupted manner. There was more extended teacher talkin Dyad Two than in Dyad One. The proportion remainedconstant at about 16% for Dyad One for both conferences,100101but^decreased from 26% to 20% for Dyad Two during thesecond post-conference.^In other words, Henry was moreextensive in his responses than Lisa was, although hisextensive behaviors decreased during the second post-conference.Silences.^The data on silences (pauses of threeseconds or more) show major differences between the twodyads. In Dyad One, there were 28 silences in the firstpost-conference and 19 in the second. These constituted 5%and 4% respectively of the total verbal behaviors in theconferences. Almost all of the silences were Colin's.Although some were clearly deliberate "pause times" to allowLisa to respond to his questions, most preceded his ownstatements or came in the midst of them. This may be anindication of Colin's care in choosing his words, or areflection of his usual verbal style.In Dyad Two, there were no silences in the first post-conference, and only 4, or less than one percent of theverbal behaviors, in the second post-conference. Henry andBarbara engaged in an easy-flowing dialogue,^with noevidence of awkwardness.^This may be due to their easyrelationship and their self-confidence.GOALS AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSPrincipals' Goals Both Barbara and Colin had definite goals for the post-conferences. Colin wanted to boost Lisa's self-esteem andBarbara wanted to encourage Henry to reflect on histeaching. Colin had no other goal for the post-conferences.Barbara not only wanted to encourage Henry to reflect on histeaching, but she also wanted to develop her own questioningabilities.Although Colin did not have a specific plan forachieving his goal, Barbara did. She wanted her questionsto establish a "focal point" for the post-conference. Forexample, when she asked Henry what was different about thestrategy he had used in the lesson, she was deliberatelytrying to find out "what did he have in mind, how had heplanned the lesson differently so that he can really analyzehis own change of teaching strategy" (Barbara: StimulatedRecall Interview 2, p.4). She realized that her focus onframing her questions at times led her to miss details ofHenry's answers.Principals' Perceptions Colin.^Colin wanted to establish trust betweenhimself and Lisa, and he was confident that he had102succeeded. Lisa confirms the accuracy of his perception.Not all of Colin's perceptions, however, were asaccurate. First, he wanted Lisa to engage in dialoguewith him, but he seemed unaware that his behaviors did notserve that goal. His extended behaviors did not facilitatedialogue and few of his questions encouraged lengthy orthoughtful responses.Second, although Colin correctly perceived Lisa's needfor reassurance and a trusting relationship, he did notperceive her need for straightforward and specific teachingsuggestions. Colin was so engrossed in his primary purposeof encouraging trust and boosting self-esteem, that he didnot recognize that Lisa needed something more substantial.On the one hand, when she asked for a specific suggestion,he did not provide one. Lisa wanted Colin to suggestresponses to students' statements other than the word'good'. Instead, he told her that what she was doing wasfine, but she was not convinced ("...I still think theremust be another word other than 'good' that's equivalent togood" Lisa: SRI 2, p.20). On the other hand, he gave herseveral unsolicited suggestions. To these, Lisa had aconfused response. She states that "...he did make a lotof suggestions" (Lisa: Follow-up Interview, p.7),particularly with regard to specific students, but saysthat "... there was never anything for me that I thought Icould improve on" (Lisa: Fl, p.5).103Third, Colin thought that Lisa was more verbal duringthe second post-conference. He said, "...there's a lot moretwo-way communication..." (Colin: SRI 2, p.21). He thoughtshe was "..starting to respond" (Colin: SRI 2, p.21). Infact, the data show that Lisa's share of the verbalbehaviors decreased during the second post-conference.Barbara. Colin viewed himself as Lisa's mentor andsupport, although he wanted their relationship to becomemore collegial than it was. Barbara perceived that herrelationship with Henry was already collegial. Forexample, Barbara considered Henry a colleague who, with her,was learning to "accept criticism" (Barbara: Fl, p.1). Sheseized the study experience as an opportunity for her own"... growth as well as his" (Barbara: Fl, p.1). Barbaraperceived that her questions were better in the second post-conference than the first, a perception that is supported bythe data. She had correctly perceived Henry's preferencefor an informal approach to the supervisory conference, butthought that he would prefer a structured process. However,Henry prefers a "less structured and ... [a more] casual"process (Henry: Fl, p.5). At the same time, Barbara didnot seem aware of Henry's feelings toward the imbalance inhierarchical authority between them, and she treatedHenry as if there were no positional barrier. Barbara wasaware that perhaps her subtle messages to Henry had not beenunderstood.104TEACHERS' NEEDS AND PERCEPTIONSTeacher Needs Relationship.^Lisa and Henry both needed a trustingrelationship with their principal.^Henry believes that"being totally comfortable" (Henry: Fl, p.14) and feelingthat his objectives were being met are major ingredients ina successful supervisory conference. Lisa believes thattrust is the major factor in how vulnerable she will allowherself to be. Both Henry and Lisa believe that evaluationor judgement in the supervisory process undermines trust,creates a threat, and reduces its effectiveness.Supervisory process.^Both Henry and Lisa saw thesupervisory process as a way of promoting their professionalgrowth. The structure of the supervisory process itself wasimportant to Lisa. She appreciated the opportunity the pre-conference provided for her to explain her teachingpractices; knowing the focus of the lesson observation wasreassuring for her. A major attraction for Lisa of thesupervisory process was the opportunity to talk. She thinksthat time for talk is an important part of building trust.For Henry, the actual model of supervision is much lessimportant than the relationship between himself and thesupervisor. He believes that a trusting relationship ismore easily established between teachers than betweenprincipals and teachers.105106Feedback. Both Henry and Lisa wanted help.Henry, though, was more adept at recognizing suggestions andimplied criticism and could immediately relate the feedbackto future lessons. He was well aware of the changes he hadto make for his chosen strategies to work. By contrast,Lisa was not adept at recognizing suggestions and thinkingof how to use them in her practice, but she did valueColin's observations about the students, and used theinformation to think about her students in a new light.Furthermore, she gave evidence of reflection in the secondpost-conference when she stated "... I think that was amistake now" (Lisa: Pc 2, p.8).Direct vs indirect. Lisa and Henry both wantedhonest feedback about their teaching practices, but therewere differences in their needs within that similar purpose.Lisa needed very specific suggestions. Henry wantedhonest and straightforward feedback, but did not always needthe degree of specificity that Lisa required. Henrydetected subtle criticisms, but preferred a more directapproach. He thought, "Maybe it would have been just better[for Barbara] to say it" (Henry: Fl, p. 13). However, hewas able to interpret correctly some of Barbara's subtleremarks, and relate them to his teaching.There is evidence, however, that Henry might also needvery specific directions. On one occasion, Barbara tried toindicate a problem in the way he had conducted the lessonand said, "I was wondering how the room arrangement...mighthave been different so to get those less active onesinvolved" (Barbara: Pc 2, P. 12). After Henry justifiedhis current practice, Barbara asked, "So you wouldn't changethat...?" (Barbara: Pc 2, p. 13). Henry responded, "...ifsomebody suggested that maybe it would be better to ..."(Henry: Pc 2, p. 13). Barbara followed up with asuggestion, which Henry accepted without question. AlthoughHenry had changed his pedagogy, he still maintained someaspects of traditional classroom management. It seems that,although Barbara recognized that further changes werenecessary, Henry did not.Teacher Perceptions Hierarchical authority. Henry thinks that Barbarawas positive in her approach, and thought that she raisedissues that needed to be discussed. On the one hand, hewas very aware of differences in their hierarchicalauthority. Henry found the supervisory process with aprincipal more intimidating than with a teaching colleague.” ...it's pretty hard to just escape from that whole conceptof not being totally on the same level" (Henry Fl, p.4). Onthe other hand, he remarked that the post-conferences seemed"very equal" in terms of the amount of talk, and thatperception is supported by the data.Lisa appears to be more concerned with evaluation thanwith hierarchical position in her feelings about authority.107One reason she felt comfortable with Colin was because hewas not writing her official evaluative report, andtherefore did not appear to pose a threat. Because she wasa beginning teacher on a temporary contract, a negativeevaluation could have resulted in the non-renewal of hercontract for the following year.This difference in attitude may be due to severalfactors. First, Henry had more experience in the schoolsystem. He was more aware of the influence a principal hasover one's work life (Feiman-Nemser and Floden, 1986). Lisawas a beginning teacher,^with limited supervisionexperience, and possibly unaware of^Colin's power toinfluence her work life. Furthermore, Colin was her mainmentor and support from the beginning of her teachingcareer.Insecurity.^Lisa perceived that Colin was positiveand supportive. Nonetheless, she revealed much insecurity.First, she wondered about the notes he had made during thelesson observation. She stated that she "...always wantedto read them" (Lisa: SRI 2, p.3).^Second, on severaloccasions,^she wondered what he was thinking about her "Sonow I'm wondering what he's thinking..." (Lisa: SRI 2,p.15).^Third, Lisa was not convinced that she should havecontrol over the focus of the observation.^"Sometimes Iwish he would give me more input about what he wanted tosee" (Lisa: Fl, p.3).108Henry was not "totally comfortable" during the studypost-conferences because of the inherent hierarchicaldifferences between himself and Barbara. He mistakenlyunderstood when he joined the study that he and Barbarawould be observing each other, that "...it would be workingboth ways" (Fl, p. 3). Without the reciprocity, he"...found the situation limiting" (Fl, p. 3).Otherwise, he exhibited insecurity on only oneoccasion. Barbara asked him, "...what was your objective?"In response, Henry stated, "Well the objective was to getthem predicting and also using their a priori knowledge tohelp them with their predictions" (Pc 1, p. 7). But in thestimulated-recall, he commented that, "At this point youalways think, oh my God, what were my objectives. That'sthe time ... when you do sometimes feel threatened. Likewhat was your objective, like, it's getting clinical...boyyou can't blow this one or you'll look like you don't knowwhat you are doing" (Henry: SRI 1, p.7). He responded toBarbara with confidence, but clearly, her question causedhim some stress.Suggestions. Lisa has several misperceptions aboutthe feedback Colin gave her. First, she complained thatColin did not give her any specific suggestions,^yet it isclear that he did. Perhaps her perception is due to histentative language, or to the fact that the suggestions didnot apply to the chosen focus of the observation. Second,Lisa thought that "... we always stuck to the topic" (Lisa;109110Fl, p.6), but that was not the case.^In fact, Colin, inintroducing a suggestion during the post-conference, said toher,^... this is not part of what you and I [chose as thefocus ]..." (Colin: Pc 1, p.5).^Although some of Colin'ssuggestions were related to the chosen observation topic,others were aimed at more general areas of classroommanagement. Colin said that he "...didn't just stick with[what she wanted him to look at]" (Colin: SRI 2, p.3).EMERGENT THEMESThis section will examine certain themes that haveemerged from the above discussion and which haveimplications for teacher supervision. The themes are: (1)principal directiveness, (2) questioning, and (3) teacherneeds.Principal Directiveness Principal directiveness was a feature of all four post-conferences. Studies by Blumberg and Weber (1968),Pajak and Glickman (1989), and Reavis (1977), show clearlythat, at least for experienced teachers, directive behaviorsundermine the effectiveness of the supervisory process.However, the teachers in this study did not seem to noticeor resent the directiveness. Lisa, as a beginning teacher,wanted directive behaviors. This is consistent with the111findings of Copeland and Atkinson (1978).^But Henry isan experienced teacher, and he does not appear to haveinterpreted Barbara's behaviors as directive. Furthermore,although Henry sometimes picked up on subtleties, at othertimes he indicated a need for specific direction. Thismay be due to the fact that he was learning to teach in awhole new way, and was, in some ways, like a beginningteacher.QuestioningQuestioning in the post-conference is^important inencouraging teacher talk and reflection.^Questioning isan important aspect of Glickman's developmental approach tosupervision with both directive and non-directive methods.Blumberg (1970) believes that, without questioning, teachergrowth can not be facilitated.There were marked differences in the amount and kindsof questions that Barbara and Colin asked. However, this isnot particularly surprising given the differences in theirgoals. For the most part, although Barbara's percentage ofquestioning was the same as Colin's, her questions weresuited to^furthering her goal of encouraging teacherreflection.^For Colin, difficult, challenging questionsmight have undermined his relationship with Lisa.Nonetheless, questioning might have encouraged her to engagein dialogue, since Lisa often responded to the opportunityto talk, and since she valued "the opportunity to explainwhy I do what I do" (Lisa: Fl, p.8).Neither Barbara nor Colin made much use of CategoryThree behaviors (accepting or using the teacher's ideas).By asking more probing, clarifying, and expanding questions,they might have realized their goals to a much greaterextent.Teacher Needs This section will describe two needs which surfaced asimportant for the teachers in the supervisory process. Theyare teacher-principal relationship and conference content.Relationship. Teacher-principal relationship hasemerged as an important theme in this study. Trust in theirprincipal was important for both Henry and Lisa.Goldhammmer et al. (1980) suggest that mutual trust isimportant to the success of the supervisory relationship.Young and Heichberger (1975) point out that teachersdistrust supervisory situations and feel threatened by them.Lisa viewed a trusting relationship as the key to whether ornot she would expose a perceived weakness to her principal.Henry expressed some wariness of principals because of theirhierarchical authority, although he and Barbara hadestablished a relationship which encouraged him toparticipate in the study. Building trust, then, becomes ofthe utmost importance to the supervisory process.112113Conference content.^The actual content of thesupervisory conference is the other aspect of teacher needsto emerge. It seems that awareness of professional growthneeds is not dependent on teacher experience.^Lisa knewwhat she wanted to learn.^Furthermore, she was notparticularly receptive to feedback that did not correspondto her needs.Henry presents a more complex situation. Although Lisaneeded very specific suggestions, Henry responded to subtlesuggestions and criticisms, as well as to more direct ones.He was able to adapt feedback to his teaching practices.However,^like Lisa, he showed that he could also beunreceptive to feedback.^On the occasion when Barbarasaid, "I was wondering how the room arrangement to yourmovement...might have been different" (Barbara: Pc 2, p.12), Henry appeared at first not to recognize that Barbarawanted him to consider possible instructional changes, thenstated that he would change if told to do so. Only whenBarbara actually made a direct suggestion, did Henryrecognize it as such and respond positively. However, Henrydid not always need direct suggestions. When Barbara'squestion caused him to verbalize the conflict between hisneed for control in the class and his desire to usestrategies which required more student freedom, herecognized that the conflict existed and that he had toresolve it.SUMMARYThis chapter has compared and contrasted the behaviors,interactions, and perceptions of the study participants.The important themes that emerged were discussed. ChapterSeven will review the questions that this research attemptedto address, and will present the conclusions andrecommendations arising from the data.114CHAPTER SEVENSUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONSThe previous three chapters have presented theresearch findings. This chapter will summarize thefindings which relate to each of the research questionsstated in Chapter One and present the conclusions andimplications for theory and practice suggested by thefindings.SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThis section will summarize the findings for each ofthe research questions.^The findings will be presented interms of the similarities and differences^between thedyads.Research Question One Research Question One asked if principals relatedifferently to beginning teachers than to experiencedteachers? Barbara and Colin each have preferredsupervisory approaches, which^do not appear to considerthe level of teacher experience.^Neither indicated thatteacher experience level was a factor in determining his orher supervisory approach. For this research, bothprincipals used the clinical supervision model required by115the study, and based their post-conference approaches ontheir perceptions of the teacher's needs and wishes.Although neither of them mentioned teacher experience as afactor in formulating their approach, Lisa's need forsupport, and therefore Colin's approach, resulted from herinexperience. Therefore, it seems that, in the Colin-Lisacase, teacher experience was a factor only incidentally,because of the effect it had on the individual teacher andher way of interacting with the principal.^This pointnotwithstanding,^teacher experience was not specificallyconsidered as a vital factor in determining supervisoryapproach by either of the two principals in the study.Research Question Two Research Question Two asked that, if differences didexist in the way principals treat beginning and experiencedteachers, then what reasons did they give for^relatingdifferently?^The two principals in this study did notappear be aware that^beginning and experienced teachersshould be treated^differently and^they based theirapproach on factors that had little to do with theteacher's level of experience. They each had philosophiesand preferred methods of supervision which determined theirsupervisory approach. They indicated that theirperceptions of the teachers' needs and personality^wereother factors that influenced their decisions with regard116117to supervisory approach.^It seems that the principal'sdecisions about the teacher's needs were based on suchfactors as his or her relationship with the teacher, andknowledge of what was happening in the teacher's classroom.Both Colin and Barbara perceived that they were beingsensitive to the needs and wishes of the teachers inchoosing a supervisory approach for this study, and althoughthey did display sensitivity towards their respectiveteachers, their actions were strongly influenced by whatthey believed to be the best approach to supervision ingeneral and the post-conference in particular. It seemsthen that factors other than level of teacher experienceinfluenced the way that the principals related to theteachers in the post-conference. The other factors were theprincipals' personal philosophies of supervision, their ownpersonalities, their perception of the teacher's needs, andtheir general relationship with the teacher.Research Question Three Research Question Three asked how teachers perceiveprincipals' behaviors in supervisory conferences? Thefindings show that the teachers' perceptions of theprincipals' behaviors in this study were sometimes accurateand sometimes not. The factors which seemed to haveinfluenced their perceptions were their previous supervisoryexperiences, and the present relationship with theirprincipal.Henry.^Henry^had^mixed^feelings^about^thesupervisory experience with Barbara. On the one hand, heand Barbara had a good working relationship and manypositive feelings towards each other. This may account forthe fact that Henry perceived the post-conferences to bemostly "democratic" and that he felt like her equal, eventhough Barbara was somewhat directive in her behaviors. Onthe other hand, he was mistrustful of hierarchicalsupervision in general, and preferred teacher-teachersupervision. Henry was knowledgeable about bothhierarchical and collegial models of supervision throughpersonal experience and through participation in thedistrict's Supervisory Skills workshops, and he preferred acollegial model. He perceived Barbara's indirect criticismsand suggestions to be a sign of insincerity, rather than anindication of her respect for his experience andprofessionalism. This attitude seems to stem from hispreference for directiveness and his belief that acolleague in a non-hierarchical position would be more bluntand honest. It seems that Henry's relationship withBarbara and his previous supervisory experiences with bothhierarchical and non-hierarchical supervision affected hisperceptions of the conferences.Lisa.^Lisa, as a beginning teacher, had had onlyformal evaluation, both as a student-teacher^and as^a118119beginning teacher, prior to her involvement in the study.The notion of collaboration, especially with a person in anauthority position, was probably unfamiliar to Lisa. Shedid not realize that the conferences could have been lessone-sided, and so remained positive in her perceptions ofColin and their relationship. She also wanted, needed,and expected directive behaviors from Colin. When shedid not get the concrete feedback, however, her attitudetoward authority rendered her unable to persist in askingfor the directive suggestions she needed and wanted.CONCLUSIONSThis section will present the conclusions which arisefrom the findings described above. The conclusions arepresented in relation to the relevant literature.Conclusion One: Supervisory ApproachThe first conclusion is that the appropriate approachto supervision cannot be determined solely on the basis ofthe teacher's level of experience. According to Glickman(1990) and Copeland and Atkinson (1978), level of teacherexperience should determine the supervisory approach.However, the findings of this study indicate thatsupervisors should consider other factors in addition tolevel of experience. Glickman (1990) suggests that,although most experienced teachers prefer non-directive orcollaborative supervisory approaches, a small number prefera directive approach. He states that the supervisor shouldconsider the level of teacher expertise as a factor indetermining whether or not to be directive with anexperienced teacher. The data from this study supportGlickman's position. This researcher believes thatcertain situations may create a preference for a directiveapproach among experienced teachers. These includeteachers being assigned to new subjects or grade levels,reentering the profession after time off for other pursuitssuch as child-rearing, or implementing new curriculum andteaching practices. Other factors such as the teacher'sprevious supervisory experiences, and the currentsupervisor-teacher relationship should also be considered indetermining an appropriate supervisory approach.Conclusion Two: Nature of Supervisory RelationshipThe second conclusion is that an open, trustingrelationship between supervisor and teacher is crucial tothe effectiveness of the supervisory process. Trust isimportant for several reasons. First, several researchers(e.g., Ashton and Webb, 1986; Lortie, 1975; Feiman-Nemserand Floden, 1986; Lieberman and Miller, 1984) point out theisolation in which most teachers work and the consequencesof that isolation. The lonely nature of teaching means that120most teachers are not accustomed to having other adults intheir classrooms, and may feel vulnerable teaching in frontof others. Furthermore, teacher isolation often causes anorm of non-interference to develop in schools which may beviolated by the supervisor's presence. An open, trustingrelationship outside the supervisory process may alleviateteachers' fears, and help establish an atmosphere in whichsupervisors are welcomed into classrooms as promoters ofteachers' professional growth. Isherwood (1983) suggeststhat teachers "would approach clinical supervision with lesstrepidation if an outside-of-class relationship with theprincipal was founded on more than a formal basis" (p.19).Second, trust is important in creating a deeperunderstanding between the teacher and supervisor andencouraging teachers to expose their vulnerabilities.Henry had a basic distrust of principals as supervisorsbecause of their hierarchical position, but he trustedBarbara. That trust allowed him to try new teachingpractices during her observations, and therefore getfeedback from her on the areas in which he needed help.Lisa was also willing to depart from safe practicesduring Colin's observations, and to express her concernsand doubts about her teaching to Colin at times other thanduring the supervisory process. It seems clear that thepost-conferences in this study were perceived by theparticipants to be successful to the degree that the121principal understood and cared about the teacher and theteacher trusted the principal.Conclusion Three: Formal Evaluation The third conclusion is that formal evaluation iscounterproductive in the supervisory process if the goal ofthe supervision is professional growth. The importance ofa trusting relationship between supervisor and teacher hasbeen discussed above. Supervision for formal evaluationpurposes may be destructive of the supervisory relationshipand impair the effectiveness of the supervisory experience(Salek, 1975; Young and Heichberger, 1975). Sergiovanni andStarratt (1988) state that "the heart of clinicalsupervision is an intense, continuous, mature relationshipbetween supervisors and teachers with the intent being theimprovement of professional practice" (p.357).^A maturerelationship, it could be argued,^implies an equal one.Lisa would not have demonstrated teaching practices in whichshe felt weak if Colin had been involved in her formalevaluation. Henry believes that supervision betweencolleagues is preferable to supervision by a principalbecause the principal may have "a tendency to judge ratherthan just be there to assist and help people grow" (Henry:Fl, p.6).Furthermore, it seems clear that formal evaluation isnot necessary^for^teachers to take responsibility for122123their own professional growth.^Henry was committed tolearning whole language techniques and introducing aliterature-based program into his classroom without the"threat" of evaluation. Lisa was aware of weaknesses inher teaching and viewed the study experience as a way ofimproving. The data from this study indicate clearly thatevaluation threatens the trust necessary in the supervisor-teacher relationship and may shift the emphasis ofsupervision away from improvement of professional practiceto a meaningless bureaucratic routine.Conclusion Four: Teacher Perception The fourth conclusion is that a teacher's perceptionof the supervisor's behavior is critical to theeffectiveness of the supervisory process and the generalrelationship between the supervisor and the teacher.Blumberg and Weber (1968) state that supervisory behaviorhas a major impact on the supervisory relationship. Itfollows that the teacher's perception of these behaviors isequally as important as the actual behaviors themselves.Link (1970) found that teachers who perceived indirectsupervisory behaviors regarded the conference as moreproductive and the supervisor-teacher relationship as morepositive than teachers who perceived direct supervisorybehaviors. Henry perceived his relationship with Barbara asdemocratic, and did not feel dominated by her during thepost-conferences, although her behaviors were largelydirective. In this case it was his perception of non-directiveness, although inaccurate, that affected hisfeelings toward Barbara and the supervisory process. Heseems to have realized that he could accept or rejectBarbara's suggestions. His correct perception that she wasnot always straightforward in her criticism made him feelanxious. Lisa correctly perceived and appreciated Colin'sattempts to support her. Her incorrect perception that hemade no suggestions whatsoever caused her dissatisfaction.IMPLICATIONSImplications for Theory This section will discuss the findings and conclusionsin relation to the formulations used to frame this study,namely the Blumberg Scale and Glickman's concept ofDevelopmental Supervision. It will also raise questionsabout these two frameworks.Blumberg Scale.^The Blumberg Scale was useful inproviding a framework for^quantifying^the principal-teacher interactions in the post-conferences. It clearlydemonstrated the directive behaviors of the two principals,when observations of the interactions between theprincipals and the teachers might have suggested otherwise.The scale also demonstrated the extended nature of some124125behaviors,^which exacerbated the directiveness of theprincipals' behaviors.There were, however difficulties with the BlumbergScale^which^may have affected its usefulness.^Oneproblem is the lack of^definitions for "question" and"silence".^In the post-conferences studied by thisresearcher, not all requests for information were framed asquestions, and some questions appeared to be rhetorical.This researcher made arbitrary definitions of whatconstituted a question and a silence, and applied themconsistently. A statement was deemed to be a question ifthe apparent intent was to solicit information. Forexample, the statement by Barbara, "I was wondering how theroom arrangement ... might have been different..." (Pc 2, p.12), encouraged Henry to explain his practice. Questionsthat seemed rhetorical, or support-inducing and did notyield information were categorized as statements.Barbara's question 11 • • • they're really good then, aren'tthey?" (Pc I, p. 10) was deemed an expression of opinion,rather than an attempt to solicit information. Although theissue of what constituted a question arose in thisparticular context, the problem has likely been encounteredby other users of the Blumberg Scale.The definition of silence was also developedcontextually.^Silence was defined as a pause of threeseconds or more.^In the conference transcripts, threeseconds seemed to this researcher to constitute asufficiently noticeable pause. However, a five second pausewas a significant silence and more likely to encourage aresponse. Therefore, a silence of five seconds may be amore appropriate definition.The Blumberg Scale would have been more useful if thenumber of teacher response categories were increased toparallel the supervisor's categories. For instance, whereasthe supervisors' behaviors of information-, opinion-, andsuggestion-giving are categorized separately, for teachersthey are all in one category. It might be instructive tosee if there are differences between experienced andbeginning teachers in the nature of their responses. Forexample, it seems likely that experienced teachers are moreapt to give opinions and suggestions than are beginningteachers.Developmental Supervision. The data from thisstudy clearly demonstrated that experience does make adifference in how teachers should be treated in thesupervisory post-conference. However, it may be thatthe need for a directive approach with experiencedteachers is more common than Glickman suggests. Thisimplies that more investigation is needed to understandthe contextual factors which might determine thechoice of supervisory approach for experiencedteachers. It may also be that supervisors shouldtreat experienced and beginning teachers differentlywithin a directive approach. For example, teachers126experienced in terms of years of teaching but who areimplementing new curriculum or incorporating newstrategies into their practice may react tosuggestions differently than beginning teachers. Theexperienced teachers are likely to assume immediateownership of a suggestion, but beginning teachers mayneed a plan of implementation. Furthermore, the datafrom this study clearly demonstrated that factors suchas supervisor-teacher relationship must be consideredwhen determining supervisory approach.Implications for Practice The following section will suggest implications forpractice which arise from the findings of this study. Theseimplications concern supervisory behaviors, supervisor-teacher relationship, and formal evaluation.Supervisory behaviors.^The findings and conclusionsfrom this study have some major implications for practice.First,^supervisors should^be aware of new^teachingpractices and curriculum.^If the conclusions of this studyare accepted, then^an appropriate supervisory approachshould be based, at least in part, on what the teacher isdoing in the classroom. In British Columbia, the "Year2000" program is requiring teachers to abandon old teachingmethods and practices and adopt new ones. This hasimportant implications for supervision.^Experienced127teachers who need specific direction as they implement newteaching strategies or curriculum may become frustrated by acollaborative or non-directive approach, and lapse into oldand comfortable practices. Teachers who meet with failurerather than success as they implement changes are lesslikely to try other new practices. Supervisors unfamiliarwith the new curriculum and practices should considerpromoting another method of supervision such as some form ofpeer collaboration.Second, supervisors must be aware of the teacher'sassignments. A teacher with a new grade or subject area isnot likely to feel as competent or secure as one who isteaching in his/her area of expertise. Therefore, asupervisor may, on occasion, need to treat such a teacherwith a directive approach, as if he or she wereinexperienced.Third, supervisors need a repertoire of supervisoryapproaches, rather than depending on a particular one(Glickman, 1990; Glatthorn, 1984). Different teachers,depending on factors such as career stage and previoussupervisory experience, will have different supervisorypreferences. Teachers and supervisors together shoulddiscuss and plan the supervisory approach for each teacher.Supervisor-teacher relationship. There are severalimplications for practice in the area of the supervisor-teacher relationship. If the relationship between teacherand supervisor is important to the effectiveness of the128supervisory experience, as suggested by both this study andthe literature, then supervisors need the time,willingness, and sensitivity necessary to establish trustwith teachers. They need time and opportunity to interactwith teachers outside the supervisory relationship andcome to understand the personality and needs of theteachers. This need for time has implications for changein the roles of both principals and vice-principals. Forexample, if principals spend more time fosteringsupervisor-teacher relationships, vice-principals may haveto assume more administrative duties.Formal evaluation.^The findings of this study haveimplications for the practice of formal teacher evaluation.In^District A, regular formal evaluation of teachers isdone by the principal or vice-principal.^In District B,there is no regular formal evaluation. It has been replacedby a program of professional growth that teachers areresponsible for developing for themselves. The findings ofthis study suggest that a program, such as that in DistrictB, should be considered^as a replacement for regular,bureaucratically-imposed evaluation.^Such a change alsoimplies changes in district attitude toward teachers andtheir professional growth, and a changing role forsupervisors.This thesis^has attempted to explain some of thesupervisor-teacher dynamics in the supervisory post-conference. At a time in British Columbia when teachers can129bargain the supervisory process as part of their collectiveagreements, and when massive program changes are beingimplemented, it is critical that the most effective way ofpromoting professional growth be found. This study has shedsome light on important aspects of the supervisory process,and suggested ways to make it more effective.130REFERENCESBlumberg, A.^Supervisor-teacher relationships: a look atthe supervisory conference. Administrator's Notebook,1970, 19, (1), 14-17.Blumberg, A. Supervisors and teachers: a private cold war.Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1980.Blumberg, A. & Cusick, P. Supervisor-teacher interaction:an analysis of verbal interaction. Education 91,1970, 126-134.Blumberg, A. & Jonas, R. S.^The teacher's control oversupervision. Educational Leadership, 1987, 44(8), 59-62.Blumberg, A. & Weber, W.A. Teacher morale as a function ofperceived supervisor behavioral style. The Journal ofEducational Research, 1968, 62(3), 109-113.British Columbia Teachers' Federation. Statistics handbook.Vancouver. 1989.Cogan, M. Clinical supervision. New York: Houghton Mifflin,1973.Collective agreement.^Board of School Trustees, SchoolDistrict No. A and ^ Teachers' Association.1988.Collective agreement.^Board of School Trustees, SchoolDistrict No. B and ^ Teachers' Association.1988.Copeland, W. D. & Atkinson, D. R.^Student teachers'perceptions of directive and nondirective supervisorybehaviors. Journal of Educational Research, 1978, 71,123-127.Feiman-Nemser, S. & Floden, R. E. The cultures of teaching.In Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed.) NewYork: MacMillan, 1986.Desrochers,^C.^G.^Relationship between^supervisorydirectness and justification in the teacher-supervisorconference and teachers' perceptions of supervisorcredibility. (Doctoral Dissertation, University ofCalifornia) Ann Arbor, Mich: University Microfilms,1982. No. 8225576.Glatthorn, A. A. Differentiated supervision [Chapters Oneand Three]. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD, 1984.131Glickman, C. D. Supervision of instruction: a developmentalapproach. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1990.Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R., & Krajewski, R. J.^Thesupervisory conference: special methods for thesupervision of teachers. (2nd ed.) New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1980.Gordon,^B.^G.^One-to-one^conferences:^teacher andsupervisor. Educational Leadership, 1973, 30, 459-463.Grimmett, P. P. & Crehan, E. P. The nature of collegialityin teacher development:^the case of clinicalsupervision.^In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.)Teacher^development^and^educational^change.Philadelphia: Falmer Press, 1991.Guba, E. G. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness ofnaturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication andTechnology Journal, 1981, 29(2), 75-91.Holland, P. E. Implicit assumptions about the supervisoryconference: a review and analysis of the literature.Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 1989, 4(4), 362-379.Isherwood, G. B.^Clinical supervision: a principal'sperspective.^journal of Educational Administration,1983, 21(1), 14-20.Kelly, E. W. & Taylor B. L. "Administrative role conflictin the supervision and evaluation of secondaryteachers". NASSP Bulletin, 1990, 74(523), 103-106.Lieberman, A. &.^Miller L.^Teachers, their world, andtheir work:implications for school improvement.Alexandria, Va.: ASCD, 1984.Lincoln, Y. S. & Egon G. G. Naturalistic inquiry. BeverlyHills: Sage Publications, 1985.Link, C. H.^Teacher-supervisor conference interaction: astudy of perceptions and their relation to selectedvariables. Dissertation Abstracts A, 35, 3824 A - 3825A. 1974.Lortie, D.^Endemic uncertainties. In Schoolteacher.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.Martin, Y. M., Isherwood, G. B., & Rapagna S. Supervisoryeffectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly,1978, 14(3), 74-88.132Ministry of Education. Data Systems Administration, Table2062. Victoria. 1988Ministry of Education. Data Systems Administration, Table2077. Victoria. 1989.Ministry of Education. School Act. Victoria. 1989.Pajak, E. & Glickman, C. D.^Informational and controllinglanguage in simulated supervisory conferences.American Educational Research Journal, 1989, 26(1), 93-106.Pajak, E. & Seyfarth J. T. Authentic supervision reconcilesthe irreconcilables. Educational Leadership, 1983,40(8), 20-23.Reavis, C. A.^A test of the clinical supervision model.Journal of Educational Research, 1976-77, 70(6), 311-315Salek, C. J.^Helping teachers vs evaluating teachers.NASSP Bulletin, 1975, 392, 35-38.Sergiovanni, T. J. and Starratt, R. J. Supervision: humanperspectives. (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.Smyth, J. Observation: toward a critical consciousness inthe instructional supervision of experienced teachers.Curriculum Inquiry, 1984, 14(4), 425-435.Smyth, J. A research agenda: an alternative vision of an'educative' agenda for supervision as a field of study.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1989, 4(2), 162-177.Spradley, J. P.^The ethnographic interview.^New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.Werner, W. & Rothe, P.^Doing school ethnography.Curriculum Praxis (2).^The University of Alberta:Department of secondary Education, 1980.Wiersma, W. Research methods in education: an introduction.(4th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc, 1986.Wilson, S.^The use of ethnographic techniques ineducational research. Review of Educational Research,1977, 47(1), 245-265.Wolcott, H. F.^Ethnographic intent. In George and LouiseSpindler (Eds.). Interpretive ethnography ofeducation: at home and abroad. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1987.133Young, J. M. & Heichberger, R. L. Teachers' perceptions ofan effective school supervision and evaluation program.Education, 96(1), 10-19, 1975.134APPENDIX AFOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS135FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW QUESTIONSGeneral:1. Describe your professional relationship withoutside the supervisory relationship.2. Is there anything about your relationship outsidethe supervisory experience you wish were different?3. Describe your relationship with ^ within thesupervisory experience.4. Is there anything about your relationship within thesupervisory experience you wish were different?5. Describe your experience and background withsupervision.6. What were your expectations of these supervisionconferences?7. Did you have any particular objectives for theconferences?8. How do you feel about the feedback you gave/receivedin the conferences?9. What did you hope would happen as a result of theconferences?10. Were your expectations met in the conferences? Asa result of the conferences?136For the Principals:1. What do you consider to be the strengths of yourconferencing skills?2. Describe your preferred way of conductingsupervisory conferences.3. Do you use the same approach with all teachers? Ifnot how does your approach differ? On what basis doyou choose your approach?4. For ^ what approach did you intend to takein the first conference? Why? Did you follow yourplan or change? Why? In the second conference? Why?Did you follow your plan or change? Why?5. Upon reflection, is there anything you wish you'ddone differently in the first conference with ^ ?In the second conference?6. Is there anything else you can tell me to help meunderstand the conferences from your perspective?7. What dilemmas were presented by each supervisoryconference? How did you resolve them?8. Do you think the first conference had an impact on1 s teaching practices?^On yourrelationship with ?^On 'srelationship with fellow teachers? With students?Same for second conference.137For the Teachers:1. How do you want to be treated by an administratorduring a supervisory conference? What makes you feelcomfortable/uncomfortable^during^a^supervisoryconference? Should a principal treat all teachers thesame?2. How do you feel about the approach that ^took in your first conference? In the secondconference? Did you notice any changes from the firstto the second?3. What do you feel you learned from the firstconference? From the second conference?4. Is there anything you wanted to get from theconferences, but didn't? Did you have expectations asa result of the first conference that were or were notmet by the second?5. What is important about the supervisory conferencesfrom your perspective?6. Do you think the first conference had an impact onyour teaching practices? On your relationships withinthe school with the principal, the other teachers, thestudents? Same for the second?7. Is there anything else you can tell me to help meunderstand the conferences from your perspective?138APPENDIX BTEACHER EVALUATION CLAUSES FROM THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS OFDISTRICTS A AND B139DISTRICT AEVALUATION CLAUSESARTICLE 4: EVALUATION OF TEACHERS4.1 General Considerations4.1.1 All reports on the work of a continuing or temp-orary teacher shall be in writing. This clause doesnot preclude clarification or discussion of materialpresented in the report.4.1.2 A teacher shall not be evaluated more than onceevery five years unless:a. A report issued pursuant to this article is lessthan satisfactory, orb. A teacher requests that a report be written, orc. A written request is made by the superintendent,the Board of School Trustees, the Minister ofEducation, or by the College of Teachers establishedunder the Teaching Profession Act. A copy of such awritten request will be sent to the associationpresident.4.1.3 Each report shall be based on a reasonable numberof personal observations which reflect the teacher'sassignment.4.2 Evaluation ProcessWhen observations are undertaken for the purpose of anevaluative report on a teacher, the following shall apply:4.2.1 Informing the teachera. By the end of September, and at least 10 workingdays prior to the commencement of the first classroomobservations, the evaluator will call a meeting of thetotal teaching staff and describe the purposes andprocess for formal evaluation. At this time, eachteacher shall be given a copy of the "Criteria ofEvaluation".b. A teacher shall be notified at least 10 workingdays prior to commencing classroom observations, thatan evaluation is to be conducted.1404.2.2 Pre-observation Conferencea. A pre-observation conference shall be held with theteacher before classroom observations begin. Thismeeting will include a discussion of the following:i. the criteria of evaluationii. the classroom observation processiii. the data gathering/sharing processiv. the draft reportv. the presentation of the final reportvi. the expected timeline of the processb. Subsequent pre-observation conferences which focuson 4.2.2 (a) (ii) above will be held prior to eachclassroom observation if requested by the teacher.These conferences may be combined with the post-observation conferences described in clause 4.2.44.2.4 Post-Observation Conferencea. A post conference will be held at an appropriatetime as soon as practicable after each classroomobservation.b. During this conference the data should be reviewedand discussed, with the objective of identifyingspecific strengths to be maintained and/or areas thatneed improvement. This information shall be providedto the teacher in written form on or attached to adistrict "Comments on Observation" form. Thisinformation shall be provided to the teacher prior tothe meeting, upon request.c. If desired, a teacher may respond in writing to thepost-observation conference information.4.2.5 Draft Reporta. A draft report will be written, presented anddiscussed with the teacher at least three working daysprior to the preparation of the final copy.b. Specific strengths, weaknesses and/or recom-mendations for improvement should be stated anddiscussed.c. The report should reflect any differences betweenthe teacher's assignment and professional trainingand/or experience.d. When suggestions for amendments to the draft reportare not agreed upon, the teacher has the right to make141a written response which will be filed with the finalreport.4.2.6 Final Reporta. The final report shall be shown to the teacherprior to its submission to the superintendent ofschools.b. The final report shall be filed pursuant to theSchool Act and Regulations. The original copy shall besent to the superintendent of schools. One copy shallbe given to the teacher at the time of filing, one copyshall be retained by the author of the report forhis\her record, and one copy shall be sent to thesecretary-treasurer.4.3 Recognizing the voluntary nature of extra-curricularactivities, the evaluator may choose to commend theteacher's contribution to school activities if agreed to orrequested by the teacher.142DISTRICT BEVALUATION CLAUSESIX. TEACHING PERFORMANCE: SUPERVISION AND EVALUATIONA. SUPERVISION, PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND ASSESSMENTThis provision applies to all temporary contract andcontinuing contract teacher.Recognizing that continual improvement of instruction is amajor goal in   schools, the parties commit themselvesto an ongoing supervision and assessment program whichincorporates active involvement and reflective self-assessment, on the part of each teacher. This program isprimarily intended to be developmental, providing forprofessional growth within a cooperative, supportiveenvironment.In this context, the board will make available to schoolstaffs appropriate professional literature dealing witheffective teaching and its constituent elements. Inaddition the parties will establish a committee charged withoutlining and making available for the use of staffs anumber of well recognized supervisory models. Theprofessional literature and the information about thesupervisory models are intended to provide a practicalconceptual base for improvement of instruction in theschools. Additionally, the parties acknowledge that acommitment of time and will is essential to the success ofthe program. Further, success is dependent on the boardproviding appropriate financial resources.At the school level, each teaching staff will form a school-based instructional improvement team, which will include theschool principal. It will be the responsibility of thisteam to bring the literature mentioned above to theattention of the teachers, and to assist staff in the reviewand examination of both the information on effectiveinstruction and the models for improvement of instruction.Thereafter, and in consultation with the principal, eachteacher will select the supervisory model considered to bemost appropriate for his/her teaching-learning situation.Based on this model, it will then be the responsibility ofthe teacher in consultation with the principal to draft aplan of action aimed at the improvement of his/herinstruction. The areas of instructional improvement chosenfor emphasis will be those identified by the teacher, andthe plan of action will make provision for thoughtful self-assessment and professional feedback from those staffinvolved in whichever supervisory model has been chosen. A143written outline of the plan will be retained by both theteacher and the principal, and it will be in place byNovember 1, 1990 of the first year of operation and byNovember 1 of each year thereafter. This is intended toallow time for sufficient involvement of staff at both theschool and district level for skill development, theimplementation of the program, staff familiarization withthe process involved and time to allow other preparation.Periodically, the teacher and the principal will meet todiscuss progress and to examine whether modifications to theplan and/or areas of focus might be advisable. It is alsoexpected that the teacher will exercise his/her professionalresponsibility as he/she independently assesses progress,evaluates the plan of action, and makes tentative plans forfuture development on an ongoing basis.Notwithstanding the above, a teacher may request and thenreceive a formal written report for the school principal atleast once in a three-year period. It is further recognizedthat the principal will continue to be expected to fulfillthe normal responsibilities of his/her position regardingsupervision of program, staff and student.B. FORMAL EVALUATIONIn the event that a principal believes that a specific areaneeds to be addressed beyond the process outlined in theSupervision, Professional Growth and Assessment section,then he/she will commence a formal process by sending amemo on the appropriate district form to the teacherrequesting a meeting.1. Step 1a) At the meeting, the principal will identify andclarify the area(s) of concern with the teacher. Theteacher will provide his/her views in response to theprincipal.b) If any area of concern remains, then the principaland teacher will discuss, informally, joint strategiesto address the area(s) of concern.2. Step 2a) If the concern is not remedied at Step 1 or if theproblem recurs, then the principal will meet again withthe teacher to discuss the situation.b) Following the meeting, the principal will providethe teacher with a descriptive memo outlining the areasof concern, and the evaluation and observationprocesses (including a time frame) that will be used in144analyzing and evaluating the teaching situation.Further, the memo will outline the expected standardsof performance or objectives to be met by the teacherand possible means of achieving them.c) The supervisory and evaluative process referred toin this step shall include a formal written report. Ifthe formal report is "less than satisfactory" a copywill be forwarded to the superintendent's office.Further, any written response by the teacher to thewritten report will also be forwarded to thesuperintendent's office.3. Step 3a) If the teacher is evaluated as less thansatisfactory in a report pursuant to Step 2 above, thenthe principal, a representative of the superintendent'soffice, the teacher, and a representative of the[Teachers' Association], will meet to discuss thesituation. Following the meeting the principal willidentify in a descriptive memo the areas of concern,the expected standards of performance or objectives tobe met and applicable time frames.b) Possible means of addressing the concern within theestablished time frame will be discussed and theteacher, in consultation with the principal and otherappropriate district resource people mutually agreedupon, will develop a plan of remedial action.c) In pursuing this plan of remedial action, theteacher will have access to existing staff supportresources and consultative services. Further, theteacher may be given the opportunity to observeteachers in similar assignments, or the teacher may begiven the opportunity to attend workshops related tothe problem.d) The principal shall keep the superintendent'soffice advised on the progress of the plan of actionand the teacher will keep the [Teachers' Association]president similarly advised.e) The supervisory and evaluative process referred toin this step shall include a second formal writtenreport by the principal.4. Step 4a) If the teacher is evaluated as less thansatisfactory in a report pursuant to Step 3 above, thenthe principal, a representative of the superintendent'soffice, the teacher and a representative of the145[Teachers' Association] will meet to discuss theadvisability of an alternate assignment.b) If a teacher who has received a "less thansatisfactory" report in Step 3 desires a reassignment,he/she will request a reassignment in writing to thesuperintendent's office indicating the reasons.c) If a teacher receives a "less than satisfactory"report in Step 3, he/she may request within three weeksunpaid leave of absence of up to one year (effective ata mutually agreeable date) to take an approved programof professional or academic instruction. If the leaveis approved, the time between the request for leave ofabsence and the return of the teacher shall not becounted as part of the timelines governing reportwriting. The return from leave of absence willcoincide with the beginning of a school term orsemester as applicable. Observations for a subsequentformal report shall not begin earlier than two monthsafter the teacher has returned to teaching duties.d) It is noted that in the event that a personal leaveof absence could address a factor contributing to theproblem, then such teacher may request a leave ofabsence for personal reasons.e) The supervisory and evaluative process referred toin this report shall include a third formal writtenreport by a superintendent or director of instruction.The three reports shall not be written by the sameperson.C. General1. Following each observation made pursuant to the FormalEvaluation section, the evaluator shall discuss with theteacher his/her observations and impressions. Upon request,such observations and impressions will be provided to theteacher in the form of a written anecdotal statement whichshall be reviewed with the teacher prior to the next formalsupervisory visit and finalization of a formal writtenreport.2. Criteria for the evaluation shall be reasonable. Theteacher will be made aware of the areas of competence inwhich he/she must improve in order to have his/her teachingperformance found to be satisfactory. The timing and numberof observations used to support a report will be such thatthe evaluator will be able to make a well-informed andprofessional judgment on the learning situation. Further,the timing and number of observations will be reasonable forthe teacher.1463. All formal reports and responses shall be in writing.4. Involvement or non-involvement in extra-curricularactivities, or other matters not related to teaching dutiesare outside the scope of evaluating and reporting on thework of the teacher.5. Three consecutive "less than satisfactory" reports shallconstitute basis for termination of the teacher. The threereports shall fall within a period of not less than 12months and not more than 36 months unless mutually agreedotherwise by the parties. This time period is exclusive ofunpaid and paid absences from work.6. A grievance regarding the termination of a teacher shallbe decided based on the real substance at issue. No teacherwill be terminated without just cause.147APPENDIX CBLUMBERG SCALE148BLUMBERG SCALE MATRIX CATEGORIESSupervisor BehaviorsCategory 1 contains support-inducing communications whichare designed to establish rapport with the teacher.Category 2 is for statements of praise, defined as verbalbehaviors which convey a positive value judgement toward ateacher's actions, thoughts, or feelings.Category 3 is for verbal behaviors in which a supervisoraccepts, uses, or expands upon a teacher's ideas.Category^4^are^questions^asking^for^information,clarification, or orientation about the topic underdiscussion.Category 5 contains statements which give information to theteacher, including summarizing and orienting.Category 6 is for questions which ask the teacher to giveopinions, evaluate, or analyze a classroom event.Category 7 are statements which ask for suggestions from theteacher with regard to how things may be done differently.Category 8 is for behaviors in which the supervisor analyzesor evaluates a classroom event or the interaction takingplace between the teacher and the supervisor.Category 9 is for behaviors in which the supervisor givessuggestions about doing things.Category 10 is for supervisory behaviors which give negativevalue judgements about the teacher or the teacher's behaviorin the classroom that might produce a defensive oraggressive attitude.Teacher BehaviorsCategory 11 corresponds to Categories 4, 6, and 7. In thiscategory go statements of the teacher asking forinformation, opinions, or suggestions.Category 12 is for behaviors in which the teacher givesinformation, opinions, or suggestions. It corresponds toCategories 5, 8, and 9.Category 13 contains positive social-emotional teacherbehaviors.149Category 14 behaviors are negative social-emotionalstatements by the teacher which tend to produce tension.Category 15Category 15 indicates silence.^It can also be used whenboth people are talking at once so that it is impossible tocategorize the specific behaviors.Extended BehaviorsArea A is concerned with behaviors which build and maintaininterpersonal relationships.Area B indicates behaviors which make use of the teacher'sideas.Area C is concerned with providing informational, non-evaluative data.Area D shows behaviors which are concerned with evaluation.Area E is shows behaviors which are concerned withmethodology.Area F indicates behaviors which control the teacher'sbehaviorsArea G indicates the amount of extended talk by the teacher.Area H shows how the teacher reacts to the supervisor'sbehaviors.Area I shows how the supervisor reacts to the teacher'sbehaviors.Area J shows the kind of supervisory behaviors which causesilence or confusion.Area K shows how the supervisor^reacts to silence orconfusion.Area L shows which teacher behaviors cause silence orconfusion in the supervisor.Area M shows how the teacher reacts to silence or confusion.150151(Source: Supervisors and Teachers: A Private Cold War, P. 123)

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054947/manifest

Comment

Related Items