Clinical Supervision: The Heartbeat Of Teacher Evaluation

 C H van der Linde

University of South Africa

---

 INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of individuals by their supervisors is of ancient origin. According to Megel (1962: 3) a Chinese philosopher, Sin Yu, of the Wai dynasty in the year 200 AD complained: 'The Imperial rater of nine grades seldom rates man accordlng to their merit, but always to his likes and dislikes.'

 

Supervision of teachers is used tor a variety of reasons and in different educational contexts, such as personnel development and evaluation of teachers for merit rating and promotion. There are three components in the teacher evaluation system:

• formative evaluation
• summative evaluation
• clinica! supervision.

Formative evaluation involves assessment of the teacher by an instructor for the purpose of improving instruction. Summative evaluation is done for the purpose of making decisions about retention, tenure and merit increments (Oliva, 1993: 474).

The term clinical supervision met with a great deal of resistance because it invokes images of doctors and laboratory technicians who analyse and diagnose patients ailments (Oliva, 1993: 475). The concepts of analysis, diagnosls and remedy can, however, apply to medicine, dentistry, athletlcs, as well as education.

Cogan (1973: 3) defines clinical supervision as follows: '... the rationale and practice designed to improve the teacher's classroom performance. It takes itS principal data from the events of the classroom. The analysis of these data and the relaionship between teacher and supervisor form the basis of the program, procedures and strategies designed to improve the students learning by improving the teacher's classroom behavior.'

The following questions arise:

• How can clinical supervision improve education?
• What role does communication between the evaluator and the teacher play?
• What are the managerial requirements for effective observation and evaluation?

CLINICAL SUPERVISION

Introductory remarks

According to Oliva (1993: 478), the supervisor can be seen as 'a teacher of teachers'. The supporters of clinical supervision emphasise the analysis of teaching for the purpose of improving instruction.

The literature offers a number of models of clinical supervision that recommend certain steps or stages to be followed (cf Kyte, 1930: 138, and Bollington, Hopkins & West, 1990: 38).

Bollington, Hopkins and West (1990: 38) outline a three-phase process.

• Planning conference with the teacher;
• Classroom observation; and
• Feedback conference.
• Planning conference

Various authors, inter alia, De Roche (1987: 76 - 77), Harris (1975: 172~, Grossnlckle & Thiele (1981 2-3) and De Wet (1977: 388) recommend that the evaluator (usually the principal or the superintendent of education, therefore the terms evaluator, observer, principal and superintendent will be used as synonyms in this paper) make an appointment with the teacher. and suggest the following guidelines:

• The evaluator should explain the procedure of the visit, the aims and criteria to the teacher.
• The evaluator must determine whether the teacher has a particular interest or concern he wishes to follow up.
• A suitable time must be agreed upon. The teacher should be the one to decide on the most suitable time for a classroom visit.
• The teacher should be encouraged to behave as naturally as possible. Harris (1975: 173) suggests that the teacher be warned against a '... canned review of a researched lesson', as spontaneity, in both the teacher and the pupil, may be inhibited.
• The teacher should be put at ease, motivated to do his best and rapport should be established with the teacher.
• The aim and nature of the follow-up discussion should be clearly outlined.
• Questions must be answered to prevent any uncertainty. The evaluator should adopt an attitude of helpfulness.
• In order to plan the classroom visit properly, the evaluator should be informed about:

- The teaching/learning situation (the types of learners, viz primary, secondary or handicapped learners; personal problems of the teacher, the theory and modes of teaching

- learning being applied in that specific teacher's classroom is important);

- student culture;

- school culture;

- school climate; and

- group dynamics.

The role of the evaluator during a tormal classroom visit (the observation period)

The most suitable time to enter the classroom is at the beginning of a school period. The evaluator must be punctual. The evaluator should enter the classroom as unobtrusively as possible after he has cordially greeted everyone. His seating position should be as unobtrusive as possible, yet enabling him to observe everything. Harris (1975: 173) recommends that it is better to sit on the side rather than in front or right at the back of the classroom.

The evaluator must be friendly and allow the teacher and the pupils to feel that it is his pleasure to be there (De Wet, 1977: 400) and that he is merely a visitor.

Even though the evaluator evinces a friendly interest in the pupils, he should not encourage them to talk to him as it will disturb the normal teaching process and it may influence his systematic observation and recording (Harris, 1975: 175).

Montgomery & Hadfield (1989: 82) say the evaluator should not make direct eye contact with the pupils or the teacher. It is preferable that the evaluator rather makes notes immediately after the completion of the classroom visit and not during the visit (De Wet,1977: 400).

Regarding the duration of the visit, it is essential that the evaluator spends sufficient time in the classroom. It is preferable that the evaluator arrives before the lesson commences and remains until it has been concluded, and that the evaluator listens to the beginning of the lesson, rather than only to the end.

The evaluator should also pay special attention to what is happening in groups and to the personal interaction between the pupils. According to Berliner (1990: 85) the classes of the expert teacher show more student involvement and the expert teacher also seems to use more group work.

The manner in which the evaluator leaves the classroom is of extreme importance. This is not the time to discuss the lesson with the teacher, especially not in the presence of the pupils. Knoetze (1978: 160) recommends that the evaluator makes a positive comment and compliments both the pupils and the teacher before departing.

The feedback conference

This discussion 'should be a natural outgrowth' of the classroom visit. The follow-up discussion is considered to be the last step in the evaluation process. Only then can the final evaluation take place. A classroom visit is not of much value without a feedback conference. It is indispensable for a mutual understanding and for the solution of problems. The follow-up visit should take place as soon as possible after the completion of the classroom visit The teacher is usually interested and also willing to receive feedback after a classroom visit.

It is essential that the teacher is not kept in any doubt as to his own capabilities and is encouraged to reach greater heights. Like the preconference, rapport should also be established with the teacher.

Knoetze (1978: 162) suggests the following guidelines in connection with the time, duration and place of the follow-up discussion:

• A suitable time for an undisturbed discussion is during a free period or after school.
• The available time, interest and circumstances will determine the duration of the discussion.
• It should not be hurried - if it is going to continue for longer than a period or three quarters of an hour, it should be apparent that the teacher wishes the discus ion to continue as long as necessary, and
• The classroom may be the most suitable place as this is probably where the teacher feels most at home. The teaching aids, apparatus and the pupils books are also instantly on hand to facilitate the proper management of any possible problems which the teacher may be experiencing.

The follow-up discussion also provides most important information for the collection of further, data, because the teacher, is now placed in the position of being able to explain his behaviour in the classroom.

The mistake and not the person should be criticised. Criticism must be used sparingly because no one likes it. Offering corrective criticism without arousing sentiments is a fine art in human relations. Few supervisors master this art.

Recognition must be given to outstanding performance and praise must be sincere. Both the positive and the negative factors present in the lesson must be discussed. A joint decision must be made as to the necessary changes needed in order to achieve educational goals. The emphasis should be on instruction and guidance towards true educative teaching.

The following guidelines are suggested for a successful follow-up discussion:

• A teacher's work or problems should not merely become another discussion.
• Feedback should be focused on the performance of the teacher. The evaluator should be explicit and focus on specifics and not on the teacher's personality.
• The evaluator's attitude is as important as his technique. He should be friendly and positive and create a trusting atmosphere.
• The personalities of both the evaluator and the teacher will influence the discussions. Every effort should be made to differ in an agreeable fashion as both parties should realise that there is more than one way to achieve the same goals.
• Stemming from the abovementioned point, the evaluator should appreciate that resistance to some of his ideas and opinions is normal and thus to be expected.
• Feedback should be focused on the present rather than the past (situations that happened long ago should be ignored).
• Focus on recurring patterns (which should be avoided).
• The teacher must be given the opportunity to state his/her side of the matter. This requires good rapport. Encourage the teacher to consider what was good or unsuccessful.
• Prescribe remedies that are realistic. Identify steps to promote continuing professional growth.

Specific requirements with which the evaluator must comply

Benjamin Bloom (1956: 49) categorises evaluation as the highest step in the cognitive process. This is also applicable to the evaluator of teachers in the evaluation situation. According to Cangelosi (1991: 45) evaluators '... must record not what they see or hear but their evaluations of what they see or hear.'

It stands to reason that the evaluator must be very well prepared for this extremely important task. The question is: Does this really happen in practice?

There is an observable trend in the RSA which often accepts that the teacher's experience as a classroom teacher (after basic professional training) is sufficient for persons in promotional posts (principal and inspector). Moreover, they must learn to cope with the demands of the position through trial and error and through experience.

Knoetze (1978: 129) shows that the Cape Teacher's Bureau during a survey in 1970 already found that 35 out of 48 'inspectors' (at that time) mentioned their personal need for 'improved equipment' in order to do teacher evaluations more efficiently. A good knowledge of human nature is necessary. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain whether a teacher is ineffective because he is incompetent or because his circumstances (personal or professional) are responsible for the fact that he is not considered for merit achievement awards. Further studies in the human sciences, with specific reference to teacher evaluation, are essential.

It is also important that the evaluator has professional expertise and pedagogical knowledge. To obtain greater uniformity in connection with observation and restructuring of evaluation goals, training and orientation courses for principals and teachers are necessary. The evaluator must be well aware of both the criteria and the measuring instruments. Furthermore it is essential that the evaluator be well aware of the teacher's goals.

According to Cangelosi (1991: 16) the evaluator '... has a professional responsibility to meet' The credibility of the evaluator is crucial. Therefore the evaluator of primary school teachers should also have had primary school experience. The utilization of superintendents with secondary school experience only must be avoided.

 THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

The cooperation of the teacher is essential for successful observation. This cooperation can only be obtained if there is effective communication and good rapport between the evaluator and the teacher. In this respect Malone (1970: 235) remarks: 'One can be a skilled observer, but if he fails to establish rapport easily or if he fails to open free and accessible channels of communication, which can help the teacher to improve performance, his competence as an observer may be naught.'

Comprehensiveness

It is best if a number of the teacher's classes and activities are observed. Observation must be implemented conscientiously in order to obtain a complete picture of the teacher. The reliability and usefulness of classroom visits is related to the amount and type of information the evaluator has prior to observation.

Continuity

In order to be effective, observation should be an ongoing process; thus it is a continuous collection of information and not merely a sporadic activity. Ongoing evaluation has the advantage that nervousness in the teacher should decrease as he becomes accustomed to the presence of an evaluator. Furthermore one must not lose sight of the fact that even the best of teachers have the occasional 'off day'. It might just happen that he is assessed on one of these days and that he is thereby compromised. Ongoing evaluation eliminates the problem of a single classroom visit being the final evaluation.

Discovery

Data collection leads to the discovery of the teacher's attributes and to the growth of these attributes to enable the teacher to reach his maximum competency. The capable teacher (like the capable pupil) is often neglected and can lose interest because there is no challenge. In addition, good work is difficult to improve upon. Even if the teacher is already extremely competent, it is still possible to expand upon this. A teacher does his best work when he feels his efforts are being acknowledged and appreciated.

Empathy

The evaluator should be able to place himself in the teacher position, respect the integrity of the teacher as an individual and not undermine his morale. If the latter is the case, the teacher may withhold important information, thereby discrediting himself. It should be kept in mind that evaluation may be very stressful for the teacher, therefore the evaluator must try to put him at ease. Montgomery & Haddon (1989: 110) declare that a '... relaxed tone of voice and receptive expression' will help.

THE MANAGERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION

The whole evaluation procedure must be planned carefully and properly and organised systematically. The evaluator should know what to observe and also how to observe. Good observation is necessary to pinpoint minor foibles (especially in the case of the competent teacher). The meaningless must be distinguished from the significant. The quality of observation and the collection of data and sharing these with the teacher are major factors in an effective evaluation programme.

Sight must not be lost of the fact that the whole is more than the sum of the separate parts. Objectivity is thus a prerequisite for effective observation, and therefore prejudice must be avoided. It is preferable that there is more than one evaluator so that the observation can be controlled. Furthermore, observation of the facts must be separated from the interpretation thereof. The whole process must be accurate, should be of practical use, appropriate and feasible.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Since teaching in itself is a complicated, interwoven matter, it stands to reason that evaluation is also a complicated and sensitive issue. To really evaluate objectively, it should be kept in mind that there are many 'unseen factors in a classroom. A training programme for the evaluator is indispensable. The evaluator should not be seen as a bureaucratic 'watchdog', but rather as a 'leader'. The aim of clinical supervision is improvement of instruction and student achievement. According to Oliva (1993: 504), the supervisor should possess skills in observation, diagnosis, prescription, conferencing and should 'manifest attitudes of a helping relationship and interest in the teacher.'

Braaksma (1992: 4) stresses that the HMI (Her Majesty's Inspectorate) in England '... still has to cope with the tension between advice and monitoring.' He says that in 1987 tensions were found between the topics of control of education versus freedom of education.

The abovementioned exposition can be summarised in the words of Bondesio and De Witt (l990: 273): 'There are various evaluation systems and new ones are constantly being designed to eliminate the gaps in the existing ones. No evaluation system can be regarded as complete while people are the subject of evaluation as people are regarded as open possibilities and cannot ever be totally assessed by any form of evaluation. Any form of evaluation which is implemented with the purpose of evaluating people should be handled carefully, and it should always be remembered that a perfect evaluation system and technique has yet to be designed.'

Although Oliva (1993: 304) states that the aim of clinical supervision is not designed for evaluating the teacher for administrative purposes, the author of this paper argues that all supervision should be aimed at the improvement of instruction. It should be kept in mind that the outcome of any teacher evaluation has far-reaching effects for both the teacher and the pupil.

The words of Johann W von Goethe is applicable to the supervisor of 1994: "Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them become what they are capabie of being." (As quoted by Valenbne, 1992: 1)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Berliner, D.C. 1990. At risk and expert teachers: Some thoughts about their evaluation. Schwab, 1990.

Bloom, B.S. (ed.) 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook one: Gognitive domain. New York: Longman .

Bollington R., Hopkins, D. & West M. 1990. An introduction to teacher appraisal. London: Cassell.

Bondesio, M.J. & De Witt, J.T. 1990. Van der Westhuizen PC. (ed.) 1990. Doeltreffende Onderwysbestuur. Pretoria: HAUM.

Braaksma, J. 1992. The positions of inspectorates between tradition and innovation in education systems. Paper delivered at the '15e Congres de la Cese', Dijon, 27 June - 2 July 1992.

Bradfield, L.E. & Kraft, L.E. (eds) 1970. The elementary school principal in action. Scranton Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company.

Cangelosi, J.S. 1991. Evaluating classroom instruction. London: Longman.

Cogan, M.L. 1973. Clinical supervision Boston: Houghton: Mifflin.

DeRoche, E. F. 1987. An administrator's guide for evaluating programmes and personnel. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

De Wet, P.R. 1977. Die leierskaps~aak van die skoolhoof in onderwysadministratiewe perspektief: 'n kritiese analitiese studie van bepaalde aspekte. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.

Grossnickle, D. & Thiele, W.B. 1981. The etiquette of evaluation: what's often forgotten but not to be ignored. NASSP Bulletin, 65, (442), i 1 - 4.

Harris, B.M. 1975. Supervisory behavior in education. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Knoetze, F.L. 1978. Die leierskaprol van die Inspekteur van Onderwys ten opsigte van Primere Onderwys in Kaaplandse Skole; 'n Onderwysadministratiewe studie van bepaalde aspekte met die klem op supervisie (kontrole en toesig) en professionele leiding. M.Ed. dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.

Kyte, G.C. 1930. How to supervise: a guide to educational principles and progressive practices of educational supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Malone, C.F. 1970. A design for productive classroom evaluation. In The elementary school principal in action. Bradfield, L.E. & Kraft, L.E. (eds). Scranton Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company.

Megel, C.J. 1962. Merit rating. American Teacher's Magazine, vol. 46, April 1962: 1 - 5.

Montgomery, D. & Hadfield, N. 1989. Practical teacher appraisal. London: Kogan Page. Oliva, P.F. 1993. Supervision for today's schools. New York: Longman.

Schwab, R.L. (ed.) 1990. flesearch-based teacher evaluation. Boston: Kluwer.

Valentine, J.W. 1992. prinGiples and practices for effective teacher evaluation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Van der Westhuizen, P.C. (ed.) 1990. Doeltreffende Onderwysbestuur. Pretoria: HAUM.

 

  Back to Top

Bulletin Index