A Case Study in Clinical Supervision: Moving from an Evaluation to a Supervision Mode
Open Access
- Author:
- Williams, Robert L
- Graduate Program:
- Curriculum and Instruction
- Degree:
- Doctor of Philosophy
- Document Type:
- Dissertation
- Date of Defense:
- March 05, 2007
- Committee Members:
- James F Nolan Jr., Committee Chair/Co-Chair
Gerald K Letendre, Committee Member
Iris M Striedieck, Committee Member
Dr John Tippeconnic, Committee Member - Keywords:
- supervision
teacher supervision
clinical supervision - Abstract:
- Teacher supervision and evaluation are two of the most important processes that take place within the realm of education. The primary purpose of both supervision and evaluation is to promote teacher professional growth and by doing so increase student learning and achievement. This case study examined twenty-one teacher and administrator participants’, from the Mountain Valley School District, initial experience with a supervision model. The participants were participating in a clinical supervision pilot study that was an initiative of the MVSD differentiated supervision committee in attempting to move the district from a total evaluation model to a differentiated supervision model. The purpose of the study was to examine teachers’ and administrators’ initial experience with a clinical supervision model. The primary research question that guided the study asked “what facilitating factors and obstacles do teacher and administrators experience when a school district moves from a teacher evaluation mode to one of clinical supervision.” The secondary guiding questions included “in the change process, are administrators who have been in the evaluator’s role able to perform successfully the functions of the supervisor’s role, will teachers be able to assume successfully the leadership role in the clinical supervision process, and are there professional gains and benefits for both teachers and supervisors.” The primary obstacle experienced by most participants was time. This obstacle was experienced primarily in the teachers’ and administrators’ attempts to dedicate time to completion of the clinical supervision process. This obstacle was so prolific that it prevented some administrator/teacher pairs from completing any cycles of supervision. The primary facilitating factor was twofold; the development of the collaborative/collegial relationship between the teacher and supervisor pairs and the training provided by the university consultant. The participants agreed as a whole that the supervisors were able to successfully assume the facilitative supervisory role and leave their evaluative roles out of the process. However, the teachers as a whole did not feel that they had successfully assumed the leadership role in the process. All of the participants, including those who had not successfully performed any clinical supervision cycles, stated that they had experienced significant professional growth from being involved in the year-long pilot study. Given the results of this study, additional research is needed to study the movement from evaluation to supervision process in greater depth. Additionally, there is a need for research as to how administrators or principals can dedicate time for effective supervision. This could be facilitated by studying school districts where the clinical supervision process is a successful part of the supervision plan. Finally, there is a need for a study to determine if the time commitment involved in the clinical supervision process can be decreased without sacrificing the essence of the clinical supervision process.