Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders in Education
Carrie Fritz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN email@example.com
Greg Miller, Ph.D. Associate Professor Iowa State University Ames, IA firstname.lastname@example.org
The principal purpose of this article was to identify supervisory approaches available to instructional leaders in education. Selected supervisory approaches served as the basis for creating the Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders (SOIL) Model. Instructional leaders in a variety of educational settings could use this model. The SOIL Model is divided into three levels of supervision. The supervisory approaches included in each level are placed along a continuum of reward and risk. Reward is defined as “something given or offered for some service or attainment” (Mish, 1989, p. 628). Risk is defined by Mish (1989) as “the exposure to possible loss or injury” (p. 632).
As the instructional leader and teacher develop in the supervisory process, it is proposed that the approach of supervision used should change. As professional readiness increases and as the circumstances dictate, the instructional leader should progress in an upward direction on the continuum and facilitate more teacher-directed approaches of supervision. With teacher-directed approaches of supervision, instructional leaders and teachers may experience greater reward from the supervisory process.
“Instructional supervision is the function in educational systems that draws together the discrete elements of instructional effectiveness into a whole educational action” (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 1995, p. 15).
Supervision, teaching, and learning are major components of this educational system (Montgomery, 1999). Without these components the educational system may not be effective.
Each student who applies constructive, cumulative, self-organized, goal oriented, situated, and individually different (Montgomery, 1999) knowledge achieves effective learning, which should be the teacher’s primary focus in education.
Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001) suggest that blame for lack of student learning could be placed on teachers and their teaching techniques. Because the teacher cannot learn for the student, learning essentially becomes the responsibility of the learner (student). Therefore, the teacher’s role is to facilitate and promote learning.
Montgomery (1999) noted, “Effective teaching is occurring where the majority, preferably all the pupils, learn most of what the teacher intended. The pupils want to learn and do not have to be made to” (p. 126). This goal is very difficult to accomplish, and for some teachers it may take several years, if it happens at all.
In previous research, Cogan’s (1973) argument was “the difficulties teachers face in learning how to teach and in improving their teaching on the job is at the root of the major problems in the preservice and inservice education of teachers” (p.
15). Current research by Montgomery (1999) has also publicized that most teachers lack grounding in relevant teaching theory and become susceptible to fashions and fads in teaching. Therefore, many teachers are unable to develop an effective system for teaching. Effective leadership by the instructional leader, however, may provide a platform for improving the teaching process.
Situational leadership, developed by Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2001), has been a platform used for leadership development in several educational organizations. Hersey et al.’s (2001) Situational Leadership Model has three major components: 1) the relationship behavior of the leader, 2) the task behavior of the leader, and 3) the readiness level of the follower(s). Task behavior is defined by Hersey et al. (2001) as “the extent to which a leader engages in spelling out the duties and responsibilities for the group” (p. 173); relationship behavior defined as “the extent to which the leader engages in two-way or multiway communication” (p. 173); and readiness is defined as “the extent to which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task” (p. 175).
In the Situational Leadership Model, the task and relationship leadership behaviors are matched with the readiness of the follower to form four main categories. Those categories are 1) telling, 2) selling, 3) participating, and 4) delegating. During the telling phase of the model, the leader must give specific instructions and closely supervise followers. The followers at this level do not display the necessary knowledge or skill to perform a particular task and therefore are not confident in their abilities. As the model progresses into the selling phase, followers still do not display complete knowledge or skill for a particular task, but they have become more confident or committed toward the work environment.
The leader must still provide guidance but must also include the opportunity for dialogue with followers. The participation phase for the leader shifts from a directive role to an encouraging and communicating role. The followers at this
level understand the tasks to be achieved but now may lack motivation and/or commitment. The final phase, delegating, allows the leader to observe/monitor followers. In addition, the leader provides opportunities for followers to take responsibility and to implement tasks. The followers in this phase have the required knowledge and skill to perform a particular task. Additionally, they are confident and motivated.
Leadership, in addition to being situational, should be a developmental process. Human development, accredited to the cognitive scientist Piaget, changes as individuals encounter new and different situations (Wlodkowski, 1985). This developmental process progresses through four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operations, and formal operations (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979). The latter two stages are more applicable to adults. Adults at the concrete operations stage can perform logical functions (Glickman et al., 2001). Adults at the formal operations stage can rationalize and formulae abstract concepts (Glickman et al., 2001). In addition to the formal operations stage, a fifth stage, postformal operations, has been added (Kitchener, Lynch, Fischer, & Woord, 1993). The postformal operations stage describes adults that are engaged in scholarly thought. Instructional leaders that understand this type of developmental process may establish a better professional relationship with teachers (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998).
Encouraging teacher development can be challenging; however, the school system hinges on the effectiveness, knowledge, and openness of an instructional leader (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998). As noted by Glickman et al. (2001), effective supervision is the glue that holds together individual teachers’ needs and school goals. Glickman et al. (2001) also noted, “Glue, if functioning properly, cannot be seen” (p. 9). Likewise, when supervision functions properly, it also goes unnoticed; but when glue quits sticking, as in the case of inadequate supervision, the object (the school system) will collapse.
Supervision provides an opportunity to promote teacher efficiency, abstract thought, and a reflection on the teacher’s own instructional methods (Glickman et al., 1995). If the instructional leader lacks adequate knowledge of supervision and does not know how to meet the needs of the teacher, then an unproductive working relationship may be established (Acheson & Gall, 1980). The teacher could spend time being upset with the instructional leader and might not devote sufficient effort toward teaching students. More importantly, students’ desire, ability, and levels of learning may be affected (Beach & Reinhartz, 2000). When the instructional leader cannot meet the teacher’s needs, the entire teaching experience may not be as effective as it could have been (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1988).
Purpose and Objectives of Study
The principal purpose of this article was to identify supervisory approaches available to instructional leaders in education. The specific objectives were to:
- Identify and explain approaches to instructional supervision.
- Present a model for instructional leaders to use when selecting a supervisory approach appropriate for a particular context.
A library search was performed to obtain information on a variety of approaches and techniques of supervision. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Psychological Abstracts (PsychLit) were the databases used to identify articles focusing on instructional supervision. Articles were gathered from the following sources: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook, Journal of Agricultural Education, Educational Researcher, Educational Leadership, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Journal of Teacher Education, The Journal of Higher Education, Journal of Staff Development, Viewpoints, and Principal. A Midwestern land grant university library catalog was also searched for holdings related to instructional supervision to locate books and other sources of information not indexed in ERIC and PsychLit.
The analysis of information progressed in two phases. The initial phase involved selecting supervision approaches and focusing on how they could be used by instructional leaders. The approaches chosen 1) fit along a continuum of potential growth for instructional leaders and teachers, 2) provided specific explanations of the models’ utility, and 3) had a record of successful application. The second phase of analysis focused on how the supervisory approaches could be used by instructional leaders.
Findings and Conclusions
Although several instructional supervision models and approaches were mentioned in the literature, this article is based on five supervisory models (clinical, conceptual, developmental, contextual, and differentiated), which acknowledged a developmental process for both the instructional leader and the teacher. Instructional leaders, in this context, are defined as any individual who is responsible for the supervision of teaching performance. Examples of instructional leaders are peer coaching leaders, master teachers, principals, superintendents, and university teacher educators.
Clinical supervision is a form of inquiry designed to encourage reflection and analysis of supervisory methods and to develop and test hypotheses about what is effective and why (Cook, 1996). Goldhammer, Anderson, and Krajewski (1993) and Cogan (1973) identified five major steps in clinical supervision: 1) planning conference, 2) classroom observation/data collection, 3) analysis/strategy, 4) postobservation conference, and 5) postconference analysis. There are several procedures to follow within the five major steps that can help direct the instructional leader.
The planning conference is designed to inform the instructional leader of the objectives for the lesson. The teacher prepares a detailed lesson plan for the instructional leader to critique and provide a basis for suggestions (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer et al., 1993).
During the classroom observation/data collection step, the instructional leader observes the teacher teaching the lesson outlined in the lesson plan. The instructional leader should use an observation instrument to collect data on the lesson being taught (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer et al., 1993). This procedure provides written information for the teacher in the postobservation conference. The analysis/strategy stage is the core of clinical supervision; the instructional leader conceptualizes what was observed in the classroom and converts the analysis into readable data for the teacher (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer et al., 1993). The teacher then has a representation of how the instructional leader perceived the lesson.
The post-observation conference allows the instructional leader to dialogue with the teacher on the observed lesson (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer et al., 1993) and allows the teacher to give input on the lesson. In addition, the instructional leader and teacher work together to establish goals to be met at the next observation date.
The post-conference analysis is primarily for the instructional leader, who must analyze if the best supervisory practices were used with the teacher. This analysis provides a reflection exercise to help the instructional leader to improve the next supervisory conference (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer et al., 1993).
This approach emphasizes the need for instructional leaders to familiarize themselves with influences affecting the teaching process. The conceptual approach is supported by the organizational theory which emphasizes that individuals are unified by a common set of ethics and that they work together within a system of structure to accomplish specific goals and objectives (Beach & Reinhartz, 1989). The key to the conceptual approach is for instructional leaders
to understand the system of structure which they are leaders for. The components of the school structure (environment, fellow colleagues, administrators, etc.) influence the performance of the teacher.
The conceptual approach is based on the supervisory steps of clinical supervision and the collaboration established by the instructional leader and teacher. In addition, the instructional leader considers other factors that may affect teaching. Edmeirer and Nicklaus’s (1999) conceptual approach outlines organizational factors (e.g., work load, classroom climate, support of colleagues, decision making, role conflict, and support from instructional leader via supervision) and personal factors (e.g., life stage, teaching assignment, interpersonal, intrapersonal, conceptual level, experience in education, and knowledge of subject) that can affect a teacher. These factors influence teacher commitment and trust in the teaching system as well as the performance quality of the teacher. An instructional leader should understand how factors a teacher can and cannot control might affect teaching effectiveness.
The instructional leader and teacher set certain benchmarks based on personal and organizational factors influencing the teacher’s performance. Changes in organizational and personal factors should be made when possible, and improvements toward the benchmarks evaluated in each supervisory visit. For example, if the teacher is preoccupied with the notion that other teachers do not like him or her, the teacher’s teaching effectiveness may suffer. The instructional leader should help the teacher with these feelings, whether they are warranted or not, because in the teacher’s mind they are reality. This type of approach builds on a relationship between the instructional leader and the teacher and is initially used to develop trust.
Glickman et al. (2001) define developmental supervision as “the match of initial supervisory approach with the teacher or group’s developmental levels, expertise, and commitment” (p. 197). The instructional leader operating in developmental supervision gives three types of assistance: 1) directive, 2) collaborative, and 3) nondirective. Teachers who have low conceptual thinking, expertise, and commitment to their teaching will be matched with directive assistance. Teachers at earlier stages of development often have problems making decisions and defining problems, and they have learned few ways of responding to problems.
Directive supervision places the instructional leader as the expert in charge of writing goals for the teacher. Teachers at moderate levels of abstract thinking, expertise, and commitment are best matched with collaborative assistance (Glickman et al., 2001). With this type of assistance, the instructional leader and teacher establish goals, identify how they will be achieved, and as a team note when the achievement should be noticed. The teachers who think abstractly and demonstrate high expertise and commitment to teaching are best matched with nondirective assistance (Glickman et al., 2001). Nondirective assistance allows
the teacher to be in control of how and when the goals will be achieved. The instructional leader is still involved, but takes a more passive role in the supervisory process. Glickman et al. (2001) identify the behaviors of the instructional leader in this role as listening, reflecting, clarifying, encouraging, and problem solving.
Contextual supervision matches supervisory styles with the teacher’s development or readiness level to perform a particular teaching task (Ralph, 1998). Readiness levels are a function of the teacher’s confidence and competence. Competence is the extent of the teacher’s knowledge, skill, and ability to perform a certain task while confidence is the degree of self-assurance, willingness, motivation, interest, or enthusiasm to become engaged in the task (Ralph, 1998). Contextual supervision requires that the instructional leader have the ability to provide different leadership styles to match the teacher’s developmental level of teaching. The contextual approach provides four quadrants for the instructional leader to use in determining the readiness level and confidence of the teacher (Ralph, 1998). The first quadrant is labeled high confidence and low competence. The teacher is energetic toward teaching but is not completely proficient with the material taught. The instructional leader establishes low support and high task for the teacher. Ralph (1998) refers to support as the amount of encouragement/ motivation given to the teacher and task is the amount of guidance provided in subject matter areas. The second quadrant of contextual supervision is labeled low confidence and low competence. The teacher is not energetic about teaching and not proficient in a particular subject area. The instructional leader provides the teacher with high support and high task. The third quadrant of contextual supervision is labeled low confidence and high competence. In this quadrant, the teacher is not confident in his/her teaching abilities but is knowledgeable about the subject taught. The instructional leader would provide high support and low task to the teacher. The final quadrant of contextual supervision is labeled high confidence and high competence. The teacher is enthusiastic about teaching and is proficient in the subject area. The instructional leader merely provides feedback to the teacher if there were any immediate concerns.
Differentiated supervision is particularly teacher-driven and allows the instructional leader to become more of a mentor to the teacher. Additionally, the instructional leader can focus efforts where they are needed most (Glatthorn, 1997).
Glatthorn (1997) suggests four options for differentiated supervision: 1) intensive development (a special approach to clinical supervision), 2) cooperative professional development, 3) self-directed, and 4) administrative monitoring. The
teacher chooses one of the supervisory options; the instructional leader and teacher then focus on that area.
Glatthorn (1997) suggests that intensive development, the first option of the differentiated supervisory model, is a process which requires many instructional leader observations which focus on learning outcomes instead of teaching methods. Intensive development should be used with a small number of teachers who experience difficulty with the teaching process. Intensive development includes eight components that involve five or more cycles and multiple observations. The first component, the taking stock conference, is held any time the instructional leader and teacher want to discuss their professional relationship or to reflect on what has been accomplished. The second (pre-observation), third (diagnostic observation), fourth (analysis of diagnostic observation), and fifth (diagnostic debriefing) components of the intensive development option are equivalent to the planning conference, classroom observation, analysis/strategy, and supervision conference of the clinical supervision model. The sixth component of the intensive development option, the coaching session, provides an opportunity for the instructional leader and teacher to select one skill from the diagnostic process on which to concentrate. The seventh component, focused observation, highlights one skill, using a form intended to assemble information about the teacher’s use of that skill. The focused debriefing conference, the eighth component, allows the instructional leader and teacher to review and analyze the results of the focused observation.
The second option, cooperative professional development, is a mutually respectful process in which a small group of teachers agree to work together to facilitate their own professional growth (Glatthorn, 1997). The teacher becomes part of a two – or – three teacher teams undergoing the mentoring process together. The teachers observe each others’ classes and give feedback on each others’ teaching. This type of supervision is less time consuming for the instructional leader because the teachers conduct the supervisory process, and the instructional leader serves only as a resource. Cooperative professional development can be used with more experienced teachers who seek collegiality (Showers & Joyce, 1996) or a beneficial mentoring experience.
The third suggested option of differentiated supervision is self-directed. Beach and Reinhartz (2000) state that self-directed supervision enables the individual teacher to work independently on professional growth and allows the instructional leader to have a more relaxed supervisory role. In this case, the teacher develops and carries out individualized plans for professional growth with the instructional leader as a resource. This technique is specifically for the teacher who prefers to work alone, yet seeks the aid of the instructional leader as a mentor (Glatthorn, 1997). Glatthorn (1997) and Beach and Reinhartz (2000) state that the teacher self-evaluates his/her teaching using videotape, inventories, reflective journals, or portfolios to critique his or her teaching procedure. The instructional leader does not need to evaluate the lesson, but through individual conferences the
instructional leader could provide feedback on improving the instruction if the teacher so desires.
The final option available to teachers utilizing differentiated supervision is administrative monitoring. Glatthorn (1997) defines administrative monitoring as a process by which the instructional leader monitors the teacher’s classroom with brief, unannounced visits. This option is used to monitor activity in the classroom and enables the instructional leader to be aware of any problems the teacher might be having.
The SOIL Model (Figure 1) is a unique representation of supervisory models available to instructional leaders in education. The previous supervisory models discussed were analyzed and placed into three developmental levels (structured, moderately structured, and relatively unstructured) for the instructional leader to use when deciding which approach would be appropriate for a particular teaching situation. These developmental levels were determined by utilizing the theoretical frameworks of situational leadership (Hersey et al., 2001) and the developmental research of Piaget (Wlodkowski, 1985). The Situational Leadership Model by Hersey et al. (2001) suggests different leadership approaches to employ based on the follower’s readiness level and a particular situation. Along a similar vein, the SOIL Model encourages the instructional leader to utilize a variety of supervisory models by an instructional leader with particular teaching situations and teacher readiness levels.
Figure 1. Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders (SOIL) Model
Supervision approaches were placed along a continuum representing the level of structure required by the approach and the potential reward/risk for using the approach. The left side of the model begins with the structured level. The structure level consists of clinical and conceptual supervision; the approaches were chosen due to their step-by-step processes. In addition, the approaches were also used to familiarize the teacher with basic supervisory practices.
The structured instructional leader is more administrative and structured in the supervisory process. Moreover, the instructional leader at this level may typically focus on completion and success of the supervisory process. Although the structured level may not allow the teacher as much freedom as the moderately structured and relatively unstructured levels, it allows the teacher to develop self- confidence in his/her teaching role. The structured level should be used primarily with the teacher who is new to teaching and needs structure in the supervisory visit and assistance with teaching techniques. After conducting structured supervisory visits and assessing the teacher, the instructional leader may develop a better understanding of this type of supervisory approach and then be more prepared to utilize supervisory models from the moderately structured level.
Moderately Structured Level
As the instructional leader and teacher continue to move from the structured to the moderately structured level, they should mutually start to mature, gain more confidence, and develop more knowledge of educational practices. The
moderately structured level introduces approaches appropriate for instructional leaders and teachers who are ready for more flexible supervisory approaches. This level, made possible by previous experience, starts a self-discovery process related to different types of supervision.
Two models recommended for the moderately structured level are developmental and contextual supervision. This level still requires some guidance from the models themselves, but the rigidity of the structure begins to diminish. The instructional leader and the teacher develop a deeper understanding of supervision based on their experiences, advanced education, and reflection on their own practices. However, the instructional leader and teacher reflect and grow throughout each supervisory model used. With reflection as an ongoing process, the instructional leader and teacher should start to witness more rewards or satisfaction with a moderately structured level of supervision.
This level is recommended for instructional leaders who may be working with teachers who have taught for at least three years, are receiving advanced education, and are comfortable with their teaching abilities. This level should be accompanied by more reflection from the instructional leader who identifies results meaningful to the teacher. The moderately structured level is a stepping stone in the developmental process that leads the instructional leader and teacher to develop supervisory skills necessary for the relatively unstructured level.
Relatively Unstructured Level
The relatively unstructured level is considered the most powerful level in the model and should be the most rewarding to both the instructional leader and teacher. Since the relatively unstructured level includes the differentiated approach, which is based on the teacher’s choice of supervision, an instructional leader must be confident that he/she can guide the teacher accordingly.
Furthermore, this encourages the supervision process to be teacher-driven and enables the instructional leader to have a more flexible, supervising role.
The relatively unstructured level assumes that the instructional leader has acquired 1) experience, 2) specialized knowledge of the model, and 3) thorough academic preparation related to supervision, and that the teacher has attained a high level readiness. In addition, this level would best suit a teacher who has substantial classroom experience, exhibits high levels of leadership, and has gained professional development in his/her teaching area.
Risk is defined by Mish (1989) as “the exposure to possible loss or injury” (p. 632). Some examples of these risks for the instructional leader as a result of incorporating more teacher driven models of supervision could be: 1) colleagues criticizing work ethic, 2) losing identity of a job title, 3) teachers’ not fulfilling
their responsibilities, and 4) accountability for teaching performance. The structured level requires less risk for the instructional leader but is potentially less rewarding when compared with less-structured models found in the moderately structured or relatively unstructured levels. Hersey et al. (2001) point out that highly achievement-motivated individuals tend to take more risks that in turn can produce greater results. In contrast, a more conservative instructional leader tends to feel secure with structure and is confident that there is little danger of any mistake being made.
Reward is defined as “something given or offered for some service or attainment” (Mish, 1989, p. 628). Several rewards could be gained if instructional leaders employ more teacher-driven types of supervision. Some possible rewards are: 1) reflection opportunities for the teacher to measure growth over time, 2) flexibility for the instructional leader, 3) collaboration opportunities for the instructional leader and teacher, and 4) job satisfaction. For example, less directive instructional leaders can provide an opportunity for the teacher to gain more self- control, which could lead to teacher job satisfaction (Hersey et al., 2001).
Moreover, there are potential risks involved for the instructional leader when supervision is teacher-driven and the structure of supervision diminishes.
Therefore, rewards gained in this model may be offset by potential risks to achieving those rewards. Each instructional leader is unique and defines reward differently. Therefore, rewards may be gained prior to the relatively unstructured level as projected in the SOIL Model.
Although readiness level of the teacher is not a major component of the SOIL Model, it should be a consideration of the instructional leader when choosing to use a particular supervisory approach. Hersey et al. (2001) define readiness as “the extent to which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task” (p. 175). The instructional leader who works with a teacher new to teaching should use more structured models of supervision.
Instructional leaders who work with teachers with some teaching experience and have attended workshops or training courses may consider using more flexible supervisory approaches. Instructional leaders working with teachers who exhibit substantial experience in the classroom and exhibit high levels of leadership, and have gained professional development in their teaching area should consider utilizing more teacher-driven models of supervision.
Implementation of the SOIL Model
The SOIL Model is relatively simple to implement. First, the instructional leader and teacher need to discuss the teacher’s prior teaching experience, familiarity with a variety of teaching methods, and the theory of pedagogy. These factors will help determine a teacher’s style of teaching in the classroom and readiness level to take on challenging tasks. For example, a teacher who has limited experience in
the classroom (e.g., 2 years) but is grounded in learning theory (e.g., experiential learning) and accommodates her teaching to many learning styles may be ready for a moderately structured supervisory approach. The rationale would be that the teacher is demonstrating higher levels of teaching abilities but lacks classroom experience. With the lack of classroom teaching, the supervisor would need to monitor the teacher for an extended period time; however the moderately structured level of supervision would continue to accommodate the teacher’s teaching ability and readiness levels. In addition, the moderately structured level would, to a greater extent, embrace the teacher in the supervisory process.
Additionally, the instructional leader must evaluate his/her own readiness level to accommodate a particular teacher. It is the instructional leader’s duty to understand and be able to implement the supervisory models within the SOIL Model. Furthermore, the essence of the SOIL Model is to accommodate the teacher; therefore instructional leaders should have a variety approaches to select from. Utilizing the previous example, if an instructional leader utilized a more structured model of supervision with this particular teacher this may hinder the teacher’s future growth in the classroom. This teacher obviously has a clear understanding of student’s learning but only lacks classroom experience. An instructional leader must be able to recognize the teacher’s level of development and adjust the supervisory approach accordingly.
Finally, an instructional leader must be willing to take additional risks in the supervisory process with the understanding that rewards may be gained because of the risks taken. Maintaining structure may be more accommodating for the instructional leader but will not work for every teacher; therefore, allowing teachers to be involved in the supervisory process may be essential for teacher growth.
Summary and Conclusions
This article represents an exercise in theory building that should prove useful for future research and practice related to the supervision of instruction. Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1996) stated that the ultimate goal of educational research is the formulation of scientific theory. In addition, “theories summarize existing knowledge, make predictions, and explain relationships…theories represent our best efforts to explain the world we live in” (p. 17). According to Warmbrod (1986), studies involving teaching and learning should begin and end with a look at theory. Therefore, the SOIL Model is grounded in theoretical underpinnings that can aide instructional leaders in a variety of situations.
As previous explained, the SOIL Model has several supervisory models to select from. This type of selection doesn’t restrict or limit a supervisor or teacher in the supervisory process. Instead, it provides many opportunities for both parties to be actively engaged in educational development.
Implications for Leadership Educators
Instructional leaders are found in a variety of educational venues: peer coaches, principals, master teachers, principals, superintendents, and university teacher educators. All are supervising individuals and assisting with the development of humans. Often, instructional leaders will implement the identical supervisory approach for all teachers in spite of the fact that some approaches are more or less suited to a particular situation. The SOIL Model challenges instructional leaders to explore a variety of approaches to aide in the development of ALL types of teachers.
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1980). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers. New York: Longman.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (1989). Supervision: Focus on instruction. New York: Harper & Row.
Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (2000). Instructional leadership. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cook, G. E. (1996). Using clinical supervision to promote inquiry. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 46-50.
Edmeirer, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and principal collaborative supervision on teacher’s trust, commitment, desire for collaboration, and efficiency. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(4), 351-378.
Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated supervision (2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1995). Supervision of instruction (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001). SuperVision and instructional leadership (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. H., & Krajewski, R. J. (1993). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kitchener, K. S., Lynch, C. L., Fischer, K. W., & Woord, P. K. (1993). Developmental range of reflection judgement: The effect of contextual support and practice on developmental stage. Developmental Psychology, 29 (5), 893-906.
Montgomery, D. (1999). Positive teacher appraisal through classroom observation. London: David Fulton.
Mish, F. C. (Ed.). (1989). The new Merriam-Webster dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Ralph, E. G. (1998). Developing practitioners: A handbook of contextual supervision. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and supervision for teacher development. New York: Addison Wesley.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1988). Supervision: Human perspectives (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 12-16.
Warmbrod, J. R. (1986, March). Priorities for continuing progress in research in agricultural education. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Southern Region Research Conference in Agricultural Education, North Little Rock, AK.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1985). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.