Week 10: Towards A Differentiated Supervisory Approach ..
The varied approaches of supervision have been part of our discussions since the beginning if the semester. When we talk about how and when to follow each approach, the underpinning concepts seemed very abstract, to me, as I wasn’t involved in many interactions with my interns at that time. However, at this point, reading Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2014) and Arredondo and Rucinski (1998) found to be very meaningful and relevant to my current practice.
The continuum of supervisory interpersonal behaviors created by Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2014) addresses the varied developmental levels of teachers, both pre-service and in-service teachers. I totally agree with our authors that varying our behaviors according to teachers’ expertise, skills, and so on is very essential to promote teachers’ development along the way. Their notions also coincide with Arredondo and Rucinski (1998) regarding the end goal of the continuum where it’s desired that teachers take more control over the supervisory approach and be “self directed” in the process. While reading both resources, I was very focused on my interns as I was reflecting on my own behaviors with them so far. Indeed, this reflection evoked some new wonderings around things that need attention such as my interns’ awareness of my varied approaches with each of them.
Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2014) suggested that when a supervisor is not sure about what supervisory approach to follow, “a good rule of thumb … is to prepare to use a collaborative approach, but be ready to shift to a nondirective or directive approach if necessary.” (p. 165). I was pleased to read this because it describes how I actually started with my interns. It was very hard to identify their developmental level at the beginning and I didn’t want to rely solely on their previous evaluation forms because I don’t believe that these would be accurate in providing me with such information about each individual. As we moved forward in the semester together, things started to unfold and I started to know them better. This has helped me to differentiate my behaviors as well as the level of assistance provided to each of them. So you may ask where’s the problem then? Ops, I was about to forget my point, it’s so hidden and there could be no problem, but it’s just a new area of concern to me.
Let me describe what happened and follow that with my wondering. I have two interns who teach third grade at a title one elementary school. Each one of them is very unique and at a different developmental level, and I tried my best to work uniquely with each one, considering providing equitable support opportunities. Everything was great until two weeks ago, when we had a group video-based reflection based on their suggestion. We viewed short segments of each video and had some conversations around what was viewed. I found myself using different behaviors with each one as usual and things went fine. I used a collaborative approach with one and a more directive informational approach with the other. Now, after this week’s readings, I started to wonder about the impact of that experience on them: have they noticed my different behaviors? How did they feel about it? And how would it impact them? I am just afraid that I have unconsciously sent “wrong” messages to my interns, which might impact their self-esteem, confidence, and ultimately our mutual trust. I feel so bad at the moment of writing this reflection but so glad at the same time that the light was shed on this issue so I can be more intentional with my behaviors when we get together again as a group.
Another thing that pulled my attention this week is the idea of having conversations between supervisors and teachers around the approaches being selected and followed. According to Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2014), this is a great way to avoid wrong messages and to also increase the mutual trust between a supervisor and a teacher. Further, as I was reading about the four supervisory approaches, I realized how language matters. In fact, our words need to carefully be selected to precisely represent what we want to say as they have the potential of impacting the whole attitude of teachers and this in turn would impact the whole supervisory process. One last thing the Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2014) have emphasized as an essential part and component of all their four approaches is “listening”. This reminded me of the cognitive coaching notions of Costa & Garmston (2002) and how powerful listening could be.
Finally, when I think about my inquiry, I find that my reflections on the weekly readings are helping me to better understand myself and thus explore my professional identity. In deed, the things I address in my reflection are actually the things I value in terms of supervision. Who am I, and what do I truly value, are the questions I hope to answer by the end of my journey with this inquiry.
References
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools, (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers
Glickman, C., Gordon, S.P., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2013). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach, (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Arredondo, D., Rucinski, T. (1998). Using structured interactions in conference and journals to promote cognitive development among mentors and mentees. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(4), 300-327.
