Jori f OmCuum ad Subptlon362 Sumr 1969, Vol 4. Na 4,362-379

IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUTTHE SUPERVISORY CONFERENCE:

A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE

PATRICIA E. HOLLAND, University of Houston

In 1955, Burton and Breukner heralded the age of modern supervisionas "the systematic study and analysis of the entire teaching-learning situationutilizing a carefully planned program that has been cooperatively derivedfrom the situation and which is adapted to the needs of those involved in it."'Their view foreshadowed the development, little more than a decade later, ofclinical supervision. Since then, some version of clinical supervision hasinfluenced the routine practice of direct supervision. Modern supervision hasassumed a pattern reflecting the activities described by Burton and Breukner,a pattern in which a supervisor observes a teacher teach and then holds aconference with him to discuss the classroom experience observed, Theconference is assumed to provide the appropriate context for considering thedata from the classroom observation and to offer the supervisor and teacherthe best opportunity to plan how the teacher can improve instruction andlearning in the classroom.

This article reviews the literature on the supervisory conference over theroughly 20 years since the advent of clinical supervision and its recognitionof the conference as an essential phase of the supervision cycle.2 My purposeis to provide a representative basis for looking at assumptions about theconference underlying current thought and practice and to consider howthese assumptions have historically been Incorporated and interpreted in theliterature.

COMPONENTS OF THE CONFERENCE

For purposes of organization, the conference has three major compo-nents: the perceived purpose, the relationship between the teacher and the

'William H. Burton and LeoJ Breukner, Supervision. A Social Process, 3rd ed (New YorkAppleton-Century-Crofts, 1955), p. 13

I'he literature is culled primarily from generally available materials, such as texts on super-vision, journal articles, the ERIC index, and dissertation abstracts In addition, somewhat lessreadily available papers presented at annual meetings of the American Educational ResearchAssociauon, particularly at sessions sponsored by the Instructional Supervision Special InterestGroup, are mincluded

Pap~a E. Holland 363

supervisor in the conference situation, and how information and data aboutthe teacher's performance are used during the conference. Although thecomponents are common to discussions of the supervisory conference, thepermutations within each component reveal notable differences in how theconference is conceived and conducted. By examining the emergence of thesedifferences over time, we allow variations in the assumptions underlyingconferencing as an aspect of supervision to surface.

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE

There is generally agreement that the conference is an essential part ofthe supervisory process because it provides the context for the teacher andsupervisor to review the teaching observed. There is also generally agreementon the conference's purpose as part of a strategy intended to examine instruc-tion and learning in the teacher's classroom. Summarizing these views, Ser-giovanni and Starratt explain, "The conference is an opportunity and settingfor teacher and supervisor to exchange information about what was intendedin a given lesson or unit and what actually happened."3

Beyond these points of agreement, however, are sometimes clearly butmore often subtly differing views on the conference's purpose. Although wegenerally see the conference as an occasion for providing the teacher withhelp in instructional matters, much discussion surrounds the question of themost effective strategies for delivering that help. On one hand, the conferenceis an occasion for teaching. Consider, for instance, Glickman's discussion ofthe supervisory option of "directive behaviors" that the supervisor appropri-ately uses (particularly with novice teachers) when "there is an assumptionthat the supervisor has greater knowledge and expertise about the issue athand" and "knows better than the teacher what needs to be done to improveinstruction."4 While Glickman identifies directive behaviors at one end of adevelopmental continuum of supervisory strategies, Hunter sees the confer-ence's purpose as inherently pedagogical:

The principles of learning that apply to students also apply to teachers If in theconference the administrator or supervisor uses principles of learning appropriately,a teacher's learning will be increased.5

These views of the conference's teaching purpose are historically rootedin the clinical supervision model. In one of the first texts on clinical supervi-sion, Goldhammer directly refers to the model's "didactic component," which

'ThomasJ Sergiovanni and RobertJ Starratt, Supervon Human Permpeaies, 4th ed (NewYork- McGraw-Hill, 1988), p 360.

'Carl D. Ghlkman, Supentson of Instrston A Developmenal Approach (Boston Allyn &Bacon, 1985), p. 143

'Madellne Hunter, 'Six Types of Supervisory Conferences," Edua.onal Leadersbip 37(February 1980) 409.

Paticfa E. friolland 363_ ,_

364 nmptlcft Assumpotns About th upesoy Cornference

reflects its teaching analogues. 6 Mosher and Purpel, part of clinical supervi-sion's second wave, describe the supervisor using evidence from observationas an occasion for "teaching" the teacher alternative and assumedly moreeffective pedagogical strategies.7

Over the years, many studies have also supported the use of directive orteaching behavior in the conference. Kyte describes a supervisor's positiveevaluation of a conference in which the supervisor initiates discussion of twospecific observed needs of the teacher. In the absence of supporting evidence,he concludes that the discussion significantly affects the needs addressed insubsequent teaching s McNergney and Francis's comparison of pre- and post-observation conferences finds the post-observation conference characterizedby supervisors "giving information" to teachers.9 A study by McInnes makesthe case that supervisory strategies should emulate effective-teaching behav-ior.'0 Young's study of principals' post-observation conferencing also reflectsthis view and even uses the words teaching and lesson to describe the natureof the conference." In a study of supervisors' preferences, Gordon finds theteaching behaviors of "advising and informing" the highest category of super-visory behavior reported by the supervisors." Further, the supervisors viewedtheir own behavior as most effective when it was based on teaching. Studiesof the perceptions of novice teachers by Copeland, Lorsch, and Zonca supportGordon's supervisors." These studies suggest that directive conferencing isalso preferred by the novice teachers themselves.

For the most part, these studies leave wide room for determining whatexactly qualifies as teaching behavior, but such ambiguity does not carry over.in references to the conference's teaching-related purpose of providing theteacher with evaluative feedback on her teaching. This instinctive evaluative

'Robert Goldhammer, Clinical Supoerson Special Methos for bthe Supetvion of Teacbers(New York. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969), p 242

'Robert L Mosher and David E Purpel, Supervision 7The Reluctant Profession (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 105.

'George C. Kyte, 'The Supervisor-Teacher Conference A Case Study," Education 92(November-December 1971): 17-25.

'Robert F. M McNergney and Patricia Francis, "Clinical Teacher Development Revisited,"Joual of Curriculum andSupervision 1 (Spring 1986) 197-204

"John A. Mclnnes, "The Teaching Aspects of the Supervisory Conference" (doctoral disser-tation, Columbia University, 1968).

"Betty S. Young, "Principals Can Be Promoters of Teaching Effectiveness," Thrustfor Edu-cational Leaders/p 9 (March 1980): 11-12

"Bruce G Gordon, "One-to-One Conferences," EducationalLeadersbip 30 (February 1973).459-563.

"Willis D. Copeland, "Affective Dispositions of Teachers in Training Toward Examples ofSupervisory Behavior,"Journal ofEducational Researcb 74 (September-October 1980)- 37-42,Nancy E Lorsch, The Effects of Directive and Non-Directive Supervision on University-LevelTeaching Assistants and Their Students" (doctoral dissertation, University of California, SantaBarbara, 1981), Peter H Zonca, "A Case Study Exploring the Effects on an Intern Teacher of theCondition of Openness in a Clinical Supervisory Relationship" (doctoral dissertation, Universityof Pittsburgh, 1973)

Paricia E. Holland 365

thrust of the post-observation conference has long been an aspect of clinicalsupervision and is historically well documented by Weller's MultidimensionalObservational System for the Analysis of Interactions in Clinical Supervision,which is used to study patterns of verbal communication in supervisoryinteractions.' 4 Presuming that evaluation exists against some normative viewof effective teaching, the instrument rates the teacher's performance on thestandards against which she is being judged. Hunter provides the most out-standing example of this perspective in recent literature; according to her,evaluation is a function of supervisory conferences, and in the conference "ateacher's placement on a continuum from 'unsatisfactory' to 'outstanding' willbe established and the teacher will have the opportunity to examine theevidence used."'"

While Hunter sees the conference as aih occasion for summative evalua-tion, Sergiovanni and Starratt express the more common view in the literature,that the conference serves a formative evaluation function: "The success ofthe conference depends on the extent to which the process of clinical super-vision is viewed as formative, focused evaluation intended to help in under-standing and improving professional practice."' 6 According to another per-spective, the conference is an occasion for teaching that serves the purposeof training the teacher in the process of analyzing his own teaching-in themeta-level process of self-supervision. Garman infused this notion with newvitality when she characterized the cycle of supervision as metaphor as wellas method and described the conference as an opportunity for open-endedlearning in which "the notion of the conference not only means two peoplemeeting before and after classroom visits, but also suggests dynamic forms ofcollaboration in educational alliances.""7 Garman's position draws on hertraining and work in clinical supervision with Cogan, who along with hiscolleague Goldhammer recognized the purpose of the supervisory conferenceto train teachers in self-supervision. Cogan refers to the supervisor's respon-sibility for the "didactic introduction [of the teacher] into clinical supervisionas a duel objective of clinical supervision."'8 Cogan believes that the confer-ence, while a particular phase of the supervision cycle, is "at one and thesame time a constituent and a development of everything that goes on before

"Richard H Weller, Verbal Communicaion in InsruionalSupervision (NewYorkl Teach-ers College Press, 1971).

"Madeline Hunter, "Six Types of Supervisory Conferences," Educatonal Leadersi p 37(February 1980): 408-412

'lT homasJ. Sergiovann and RobertJ. Starratt, Supenrsion Human Perspectsv, 4th ed (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1988), p 360.

"Noreen B Garman, The Clinical Approach to Supervision," in Supenvion of rTeaabnged Thomas J. Sergiovanni (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel-opment, 1982), p. 52.

'"Morris L Cogan. ClinicalSupetfsion (Boston. Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p. 216

Patricia if Holland 365

366 Implct Assumptions About Ibe Supevioy Conference

and after it... All working contacts between teacher and supervisor areconference."' 9

This notion that the conference serves a purpose of equipping teacherswith skills of self-supervision is a link between empirically limited views ofthe conference as a special case of teaching and a more phenomenologicallyexpansive view of the conference as an opportunity for the teacher andsupervisor to collaboratively analyze the data from the observation. Accordingto this view, the conference's purpose is facilitative. the supervisor works withand helps the teacher as they both seek to develop a better understanding ofhow pedagogical decisions affect the nature and quality of instruction andlearning.

Several theoretical frames of supervision reflect this view In Glickman'sdevelopmental supervision, collaborative conferences and nondirective conferences both seek to facilitate the teacher's analysis and understanding of herteaching and are distinguished only by the supervisor's degree of control inhelping the teacher identify problems in her teaching and correspondinginstructional changes she needs to make.2

Other theories describe the nature of the understanding to be sought atlevels beyond the observation data. According to Eisner's notion of artisticsupervislon, teacher and supervisor "attempt to understand the kind of experience that pupils and teachers have, and not simply describe or count thebehaviors they display."2' Sergiovanni proposes a framework for a theory ofsupervisory practice that expands supervision beyond classroom observationdata to insights into "what ought to be." These insights would come not onlyfrom analyzing the events of teaching but from reviewing social science,educational, and humanities literature and from exploring the teacher's statedand unstated goals and objectives and the educational platform they reflect 22

Garman's proposed hierarchy of collegiality at its highest levels also movesbeyond the data of classroom observation to attend to the mutual discoveryof the meanings and potential of both the supervisor's and teacher's profes-sional practice.2 3

Again, these views of the conference's purpose have evolved from earlyconceptualization and study of clinical supervision. Cogan's premise, "All

9Ibid, p. 196DCarl D. Glickman, Supervilon of nstruction A Developmental Approacb (Boston Allyn &

Bacon, 1985)"Elliot W. Eisner, 'An Artistic Approach to Supervision," m Superttison of Teaching, ed

ThomasJ. Sergiovanm (Alexandria, VA. Associauon for Supervision and Curriculum Development.1982), p. 62.

=Thonas J. Sergiovanni, Toward a Theory of Supervisory Practice Integrating Scientific,Clinical, and Artstic Views," n Supervisfon of Teaching ed Thomas J Sergiovanni (Alexandria,VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982), pp 6"-'8

'Noreen B Garman, The Clinical Approach to Supervision," in Supenwsion of Teachnged. Thomas J Sergiovann (Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982), pp. 35-52.

Patrcia E Holland 367

working contacts between teacher and supervisor are conference," and hischarge that the teacher "should understand why he does what he does, andwhy it is better or worse than other things he might do" express this view.:

Focusing on the instrumental role of the supervisor in fostering.such under-standing, Blumberg and Cusik say, "T'he supervisor's objective is to help theteacher make more functional use of his own resources and therefore performmore effectively within the dassroom." :2 While these conferences may alsocontain a teaching component, their primary focus is developing a morecomprehensive and personal understanding of the teacher's performance thanwhat is contained merely in the sum of teaching and learning behaviors.

Many studies examining actual conferencing behavior have recognizedthe importance of the conference as an occasion for more open-ended col-laborative and nondirective behavior. Kindsvatter and Wilen's analysts of con-ferencing skills emphasizes the need for supervisors to pose questions thatengage teachers in high level thinking skills as they analyze their teaching anddevelop strategies to improve classroom performance. 6 Although some stud-ies have found that novice teachers prefer direct conferencing, other studiesof both novice and experienced teachers have shown teachers' desire for acombination of directive with collaborative and nondirective conferencingbehavior 2 ' This pattern supports Blumberg and Amidon's larndmark study ofteachers' perceptions that a supervisor's indirect behaviors of asking analistening, combined with direct behaviors of telling and criticizing,best enabledthem to gain insight into themselves, both as teachers and as persons."sBecause these studies of collaborative and nondirective conferences, as wellas the earlier cited studies of directive conferences, mostly consider onlyteachers' preferences, no conclusions can be drawn as to the relauve effec-tiveness of particular types of conferences in changing teaching behavior.What the studies of teacher preference do consistently show, however, is

nMOrris L Cogan, Clinkcal Supeision (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p. 30"Arthur Blumberg and Philip Cusik, "Supervisor-Teacher Interaction: An Analysis of Verbal

Behavior," Education 91 (November-December 1970): 126-134.'Richard Ktndsvater and William W Wilen, "A Systematic Approach to Improving Confer-

ence Skills," EducionalLeadersbi 38 (April 1981): 525-529.nCynthia G. Desrochers, "Relationships Between Supervisory Directness andJustificaton in

the Teacher-Supervisor Conference and Teachers' Perceptions of Supervisor Credibility" (doc-toral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982); Neil S. Newman, "Teacher Percep-tion of Supervision, Verbal Reinforcement, and Clarity of Presentanon Under Direct and IndirectConferenctng" (doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1980); Herman A. Sirois and RobertK. Gable, "A Factor Analytic Validity Study of the Blumberg-Amtdon Teacher Perceppons ofSupervisor Teacher Confe cesInsren,ces EdIns trume caton 99 Sprmng 1979). 298-302, Hazel 5.Holton, "An Interaction Analysis of Supervisory Conferences" (doctoral dissertation, Urtiversityof Maryland, 1975), Carson W. Bryan, "Development of Selected Categonries for the Anoyss ofVerbal Behavior in a Supervisory Conference" (doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,19'0), Charles H Link, 'Teacher-Supervisor Conference Interaction. A Study of Perceptibns andTheir Relation to Selected Variables (doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1970).

'Arthur Blumberg and EdwardAmidon, "Teacher Perceptions of Supervisor-Teacher Inter-actions," Administators Notebook 14 (September 1965): 1-4.

Patricta E Holland 367--

-

- f

368 Implc ASumpttons About tbe Supesoy Conference

teachers' appreciation of conferences that serve multiple directive, collabo-rative, and nondirective purposes.

One final purpose of the supervisory conference is intertwined in theliterature with views of the conference as both a teaching and a facilitatingprocess. This purpose is to provide psychological reinforcement to the teacherDespite their generally differing views on the supervisory conference, severalwriters have struck a common chord in their assumptions about the kind ofsupport teachers need to receive in the conference From Hunter's descriptionof the '"Iype E (for 'excellent') instructional conference" that is based in praiseand specific positive reinforcement of excellent teaching behaviors, back intime to Cogan's recognition of the value of rewarding "successful elementsof performance," supporting and encouraging teachers during the conferenceIs similarly described and valued.' Thus, Kindsvatter and Wilen speak of theneed for praise and sensitivity on the supervisor's part, Blumberg of the "socio-emouonal support" that teachers need to feel satisfied with their profession,and Goldhammer of the conference as providing "adult rewards" to teachers Io

The distnction between the kind of support teachers receive when theconference is viewed from teaching and facilitative perspectives is in whetherthe support Is directed to the teacher's behavior or to the teacher as a profes-sional person. An essential difference between the assumptions underlyingteaching and facilitating purposes of supervision surfaces here. If the teachingview is self-limiting in its objectivist assumption that empirically verifiablebehaviors are the basis for assessing the effectiveness of instruction andlearning, the view then restricts itself to considering only those behaviors.The facilltatiung view casts a wider net, seeking not only to analyze the behaviorsthemselves but to interpret their meanings as choices within a repertoire ofpossible professional behaviors. Thus, the facilitative purpose of the confer-ence can be considered an example of the constructivist activity Goodmanrefers to as "world-making." 31

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUPERVISOR AND TEACHER

On the surface, the assumption is generally made that interactions duringthe conference between supervisor and teacher are pleasant for both partiesand beneficial to the teacher. On closer examination, however, distinctions

"Madeline Hunter, "Six Types of Supervisory Conferences," Educational Leadersbip 37

(February 1980). 408-412; Morris L Cogan, "'he Processes of Supervision," in SupervisoryBeavor in Education, ed. Ben M. Harris (Englewood Cliffs, NiJ Prentice Hall, 1965), p 351

3Richard Kindsvatter and William W. Wilen, "A Systematic Approach to Improving Confer-enceSkills, Educationalleadexsbp 38 (April 1981) 525-529, ArthurBlumberg,SupertisosandTeachbers A Private Cold War (Berkeley, CA. McCutchan, 1980), p 240; Robert Goldhammer,Cnical. Supervbion Special Metods for the Supertision of Teachers (New York Holt, Rinehart& Winston, 1969), p.

7 031Nelson Goodman, Of Mind and Other Matters (Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press,

1984).

Patria E Holland 369

become apparent that reflect differing underlying assumptions about thenature of the relationship between supervisor and teacher, distinctions thataffect the likelihood the two will consider the conference a mutually rewardingexperience.

Perhaps most obvious are distinctions that center on the issue of whocontrols the conference. Blumberg andJonas's recent discussion of the teach-er's power to control the supervisor's access to the inner workings of class-room deciason making recognizes a latent struggle for power and control insupervisory relauonships.' Blumberg has been outspoken in acknowledgingthe conflict and dissension endemic to supervision before. His earlier char-acterization of relations between supervisors and teachers as "a private coldwar" is a dramatic expression of the undercurrent of the struggle for powerthat manifests itself most clearly in the context of the supervisory conference."

Control has long been a critical issue underlying the practice of clinicalsupervision, particularly the conduct of the conference. Examining how control has been addressed historically offers insights into assumptions about thenature of the relatonship between supervisor and teacher. Goldhammer, forexample, offers a compelling early version of how control operates in theconference. "To open his hand and to make himself deliberately vulnerableis one of [the supervisor's] principal purposes in the conference. Therein liethe possibilities for justice or at least for evening the psychological score "I,Although Goldhammer goes on to argue that in response to this vulnerability,the teacher can take control of the analysis of her teaching, she clearly can doso only at the largesse of the supervisor. Control, in Goldhammer's version,is ultimately the supervisor's to share or retain.

Such contrived vulnerability in a conferencing relationship is an exampleof a hidden agenda functioning to allow the supervisor's manipulation andpaternalistic control of the ratio of power in the conference. Mosher andPurpel's claim of relevance for the theory and method of ego-counseling tothe process of supervision also maintains for the supervisor as counselor thiskind of superior or relational position.3 ' Phipps gives another examnple of thisphenomenon in her view of the conference drawn from the same period:"[Through] the person-to-person relationship, the supervisor is better able tostimulate change because the teacher has confidence to experiment when heknows someone is being supportive."3 6

"Arthur Blumberg and R Stevan Jonas, "The Teacher's Control Over Supervision," Educa-tional Leadersbhip 44 (May 1987): 58-63.

"Arthur Blumberg, Surpenvors and Teaberds A Pvrate Cold War (Berkeley, CA. McCutchan,1980).

'Robert Goldhammer, Clntcal Supervinon Specal Methods for the Supevion of Teacders(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969), p. 69.

"Robert L Mosher and David E Purpel, Supenovon The Relucant Profession (BostonHoughton Mifflin, 1972).

"Doris G. Phipps, A Challenge to the Supervisor, in Superon Emeging Profession, edRobert R. Leeper and Fred T. Wilhelms (Washington, DC. Association for Supervision and Curric-ulum Development, 1969), p 205.

Pab*ia E. Holland 369

370 Implicit Assumptons About Ibe Supe y Conference

Although the objective of supporting changes in teaching expressed maybe appropriate, there are unsettling implications that the teacher is viewed asan unwitting subject of the supervisor's manipulation. Even more unsettlingis the existence of numerous studies promoting specific strategies that super-visors might use to function more effectively in the conference. Some studies,for instance, propose that supervisors be trained to incorporate an empathicquality into each of their actions, that supervisors emulate a pattern of begin-ning all verbal responses to teachers with a positive prefix, that supervisorsexplore using fixed and variable conferencing schedules, and that supervisorsuse a categorized-conference-analysis system to examine and improve theirconferencing behavior 3' Each of these studies assumes that greater technicalproficiency in the conference will afford the supervisor greater control overthe process of helping the teacher change his teaching behavior.

With the notable exception of Bryan, who cautions against using his owncategory system merely at the level of technique and argues that the techniquesmust be assimilated into the supervisor's own natural style, the studies onconferendng strategies ignore the Imbalance of power and control conferredon the supervisor. The studies also ignore assumptions about the nature ofthe relationship between teacher and supervisor implied by the supervisor'sknowledge and use of these strategies. The studies assume that the supervisorholds a position of authority and management in the supervisory process andhas the right to unilaterally judge what must be done to improve a teacher'sperformance. A frequently correlated assumption is that not only does theteacher have no say in what must be done to improve her performance, shehas no say in establishing the standards used to judge it Thus, the controlissue is decided with the supervisor clearly in charge of the supervisoryrelationship.

These assumptions reflect an essentially bureaucratic view of the super-visory process because a hierarchy of power and authority between supervisorand teacher is established. The supervisor is afforded possession and controlof knowledge that can-at the supervisor's discretion-be provided to theteacher. This bureaucratic view of supervision is evident in the current wave

'Audrey S Graves and John C. Croft, "ERA (Empathic Rational Action): Refinement andSpecification of Process Model and Development of Introductory Training Model for ClinicalSupervision,"Journa ofResearcb andDevelopment n Education 9 (Winter 1976): 78-84, RobertL Shrigley and Ronald A Walker, "Positive Verbal Response Patterns. A Model for SuccessfulSupervisor-Teacher Conferences," School Science and Mathematics 81 (November 1981) 560-562, NancyJ Saltzman, "The Effects of a Fixed and Variable Schedule of Supervisory Conferenceson Changing And Maintaining the Descriptive Praise Statements of Special Education Teachers"(doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1985); Kitilax A. Kridakorn, "Development of anObservational System for Recording Verbal and Nonverbal Interactions Between Teachers andSupervisors During Supervisory Conferences" (doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1983);Richard Kindsvatter and William W Wilen, "A Systematic Approach to Improving ConferenceSkills," Educational Leadersbip 38 (April 1981)- 525-529, Carson W Bryan, "Development ofSelected Categories for the Analysis of Verbal Behavior in a Supervisory Conference" (doctoraldissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1970).

Patricia E Holland 371

of state-mandated teacher-evaluation systems. The format of classroom obser-vation followed by a conference between the evaluating supervisor and teacher

traces its lineage from the view of supervision as a supervisor-controlledprocess in which the supervisor is responsible for helping teachers complywith uniform, systemwide standards and practices.

Some studies also take the other side of the control issue, promoting the

kind of collaborative problem solving that Cogan refers to as "colleagueship"and Blumberg and Weber call "engagement"s8 Through engagement, super-vision is assumed to be, as Acheson and Gall say, "a dynamic process of give-

and-take in which supervisors and teachers are colleagues in search of mutual

educational understanding."s Viewed in this way, the issue of control becomesmoot. The conference is assumed to be a joint venture with both partiesengaged in mutual problem solving and equally committed to the process.Garman champions this view of the conference as a collaborative event, urging

clinical supervisors to acknowledge the powerful undercurrents of the all-too-common ritualisuc conference and to seek its transformation into a col-laborative alliance "during which participants learn something about theirprofessional actions."

4Support for collaboration also comes from Smyth,

who argues from a critical theorist's perspective for the value of clinicalsupervision as a process of "collaboration and nonevaluative dialogue" throughwhich teachers can gain cnritical understanding that empowers them to assume

greater control of their profession."Several studies of the supervisory conference, focused primarily on

describing patterns of conferencing behavior, have implicitly endorsed the

notion of collaboration in the conference.' In these studies, desirable patterns

of interaction between supervisors and teachers are identified, and in each

'Arthur Blumberg and Wilfred A. Weber, Teacher Morale as a Function of PerceivedSupervisor Behavioral Sryle,"Jornal ofEducational Reearcm 62 (November 1968) 109-113

'Keith A Acheson and Meredith D. Gall, Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of Teachers,2nd ed (White Plains, NY Longman, 1987), p 14

'Noreen B Garman, "The Clinical Approach to Supervision," in Supevision of Teaching,ed Thomas J Sergiovanm (Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel-opment, 1982), p 45

'"John Smyth, "A 'Critical' Perspective for Clinical Supervision, Journal of C culun andSupevion 3 (Winter 1988): 136-156.

4Lee A. Tumer-Muecke, Tom Russell, andJane Bowyer, "Reflection-in-Action: Case Study ofa Clinical Supervisor," Journal of Curricdum and Sup$eson 2 (Fall 1986): 40-49, NancyJ.Sahling, "An Observational study of Clinical Supervision in Selected Elemenrary, Junior, andSenior High Schools" (doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1981), Helen K. Andrews, "AStudy of Assoclate Teachers' Conference Practices With Student Teachers" (doctoral dissertation,University of Toronto, 1980), Charles A. Reavis, "A Test of the Clinical Supervision Model,"Journalof Educational Reearb 70 (July-August 1977): 311-315; Michael 1. Berlihn, "Supervisors' andTeachers' Perceptions of a Supervisory Conference" (doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva University,1974); John P Zorich, "An Exploratory Study Reporting the Usefulness of Analyzing the Supervi-see's Speech Disturbances During a Supervisory Conference" (doctoral dissertation, Universityof Pittsburgh, 1974).

Patricia E. Holland 371

372 Implct Assumptio About the Supertsory Conference

study the patterns describe supervisory relationships characterized by genu-ineness and collaboration between the supervisor and teacher.

As Garman suggests, the precedent for seeing supervisory interactions ascollaborative comes from Cogan's original conception of clinical supervision.Cogan describes how supervisor and teacher function collaboratively in thesupervisory conference. First, the teacher actively prepares for the conference,just as the supervisor does: 'The preparation of the teacher for his role in theconference helps to transform him from an object of supervision into acolleague in It.

" 4Also, the supervisor defers to the teacher at points of impasse

over what teaching strategies to use to achieve desired outcomes. Coganexplains his position: "It is the teacher who Is ultimately responsible for theactual instrucuon, not the supervisor."*" in these instances, the supervisorshould help the teacher develop a plan for his teaching and for collectingappropriate data on the outcomes of his teaching. Foster argues a similarposition, stating that the conference represents a unique professional consuiting relationship "in which either of the two persons involved has the rightto terminate the consultation at any time.""

As the literature about the relationship between supervisor and teacherin the supervisory conference reflects differing assumptions depending onwhether the issue of control is addressed from bureaucratic or collaborativeperspectives, so similar distinctions are made about the issue of responsibilityAlthough questions about the supervisor's and the teacher's responsibilitiesfor what takes place in the conference are generally met rhetorically with anan.,'wer similar to Sergiovanni and Starratt's statement that "supervision is aprocess for which both supervisors and teachers are responsible,"' somestudies also assign major responsibility for the conference to the supervisorSeveral references, for example, are made to the supervisor's responsibilityfor establishing the socio-emotional climate of the conference.4 Acheson andGall make a related case that the supervisor must know various techniquesfor establishing a supportive conference climate." Hunter's model of super-

OMorris L Cogan, ClmicalSupennson (Boston Houghton Mifihn, 1973), p. 198"Ibid., p. 220.45

Richard L Foster, "Poise Under Pressure," in Supervision. Emerging Profension, ed. RobertR Leeper and Fred T. Wilhelms (Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, 1969), p 18.

"ThomasJ. Sergiovanni and Robertn Starran, Supervision HumanPerspeatves, 4th ed (NewYork McGraw-Hill, 1988), p 357.

"Arthur Blumberg, "Supervisor-Teacher Relationships- A Look at the Supervisory Confer-ence," Administrator's Notebook 19 (September 1970) 1-4; Bruce G Gordon, "One-to-OneConferences," Educational Leadersbip 30 (February 1973) 459-463, Helen K Andrews, "A Studyof Associate Teachers' Conference Practices With Student Teachers" (doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Toronto, 1980); Carol J Kozisek, "A Study of the Verbal Interactions of SupervisoryConferences Using Videotape and Blumberg's 15-Category System" (doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Denver, 1975)

4'Keith A. Acheson and Meredith D. Gall, Techniques in the Clinical Supersion of Teachers,2nd ed (White Plains, NY- Longman, 1987 ), pp 171-180 Although Acheson and Gall espousesupervision to be based on a collaborative relationship, their endorsement of a battery of specifictechniques to be used by the supervisor suggests the working of more bureaucratic assumptionsabout the nature of the supervision process

Pastic E. Holland 373

vision provides another instance of responsibility assigned to the supervisor,who is to decide after observing a teacher which of five prescribed conferenceformats is most appropriate." These examples suggest the operation ofbureaucratic assumptions about the nature of the conference; they give greaterresponsibility-and therefore control over decision making-to the super-visor and assign the teacher to a role of passive compliance with the directionset by the supervisor.

Besides Sergiovanni and Starratt, Garman also claims that teachers andsupervisors share responsibility for the conference She calls for a relationshipbetween supervisor and teacher characterized by a spirit of "genuine partic-ipation" In this relationship, both parties are responsible for reaching agree-ment and common understanding through the collaborative act of languagedevelopment' Garman's view rests on the assumption that supervision is anessentially interpretive process in which meaning and understanding derivefrom collaborative effort to describe and understand the events of teaching.

Another aspect of responsibility discussed in the literature is the super-visor's self-knowledge. The supervisor is expected to be aware of the reasonsfor the choices she makes in planning and participatming in the conference andfor how her actions influence a working relationship with the teacher beingsupervised. How the supervisor's self-knowledge is described also revealsdistinctions between bureaucratic and collaborative views of the supervisoryrelationship. On one hand, the supervisor seeks to understand her actions interms of what they represent as technical strategies for helping the teacherimprove his teaching.5' This view is essentially bureaucratic because it conferson the supervisor both greater authority and greater responsibility for superiorknowledge. On the other hand, in Garman's and Smyth's views of supervisionas a collaborative process the supervisor's self-knowledge includes awarenessof her own needs and motivations and how these influence the conference.

Literature on the relationship between supervisor and teacher also focuseson particular skills that supervisors are responsible for demonstrating in theconference. Much of this discussion follows Blumberg's lead and centers on

'Madeline Hunter, "Knowing, Teaching, and Supervising," in Using What We Know AboutTeacing, ed. Philip L Hosford (Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, 1984), pp. 169-192.

"Noreen B. Garman, 'The Clinical Approach to Supervision," in Supervision of Teaching,ed. ThomasJ Sergiovanni (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel-opment, 1982), p. 45.

"Keith A. Acheson and Meredith D. Gall, Technquin the C-/ntccSa Supetmision of mTeqt/be2nd ed (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1987); Madeline Hunter, "Knowing, Teaching, and Super-vising," in Using What We KnoAbout Teadahig ed Philip L Hosford (Alexandria, VA Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1984), pp. 169-192, Bruce G. Gordon "One-to-One Conferences," EducauionalLeadersbi 30 (February 1973): 459-463; Cynthia G. Derochers,"Relationships Between Supervisory Directness and ustification in the Teacher-Supervisor Con-ference and Teachers' Perceptions of Supervisor Credibility" (doctoral dissenation, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, 1982); John A. Mcdnnes, "he Teaching Aspects of the SupervisoryConference" (doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968)

Patricia E. Holland 373

374 Implicit Assumptions About the Superisoy Conference

describing effective supervisory behavior as a balanced use of directive andnondirective behaviors. Other literature focuses on the skills required of thesupervisor in planning the conference, analyzing the observation data, anddeveloping strategies for the teacher to use to improve his teaching. Theliterature generally recognizes the supervisor's skillful direction of the con-ference as critically important to the conference's success. According to Ache-son and Gall, 'When things do not go well in a feedback conference, thedifficulties can usually be traced to failure on the part of the supervisor to usean effective clinical supervision technique."5 z

Differences of opinion exist, however, as to exactly how supervisorsshould use their skills responsibly in the conference. For instance, Hunterbelieves that supervisors must be able to "demonstrate conferencing skillsthat exemplify effective pedagogy."" The supervisor uses a directive approachthat reflects the pattern of his seven-step lesson sequence. the supervisor isresponsible for selecting the data, analyzing it, and prescribing changes in theteacher's instruction. The teacher's corresponding responsibility is to carryout the supervisor's directions. Hunter's views are consistent with those ofthe originators of clinhcal supervision. the supervisor must have skill in "defin-ing treatable issues" and be capable of "carrying out a full-fledged analysis.""These early versions of clinical supervision, however, did not advocate thatthe supervisor use the authority of his position in the conference to imposehis agenda or analysis on the teacher. Rather, as Cogan describes the process,the skills of the supervisor are in anticipating the teacher's needs and, in theactual interaction of the conference, encouraging the teacher to assume herown share of responslbihty for analyzing her teaching behavior and fur plan-ning its improvement."

A final aspect of the relationship between teacher and supervisor that hasnot received consideration in recent years is the question of an appropriatebalance between bureaucratic and collaborative aspects of the relationshipbetween supervisor and teacher. Harris, for instance, expresses concern aboutwhether we can expect teachers to have the skills required to assume the kindof responsibility for and control over the analysis and direction of their ownteaching expected of them in Cogan and Goldhammer's version of clinicalsupervision.' Denham echoes this concern and calls for research to help

'2Keith A. Acheson and Meredith D Gall, Techniques in the Clnical Supernision of Teachers,2nd ed. (White Plains, NY- Longman, 1987), p 168

"Madeline Hunter, "Knowing, Teaching, and Supervising," in Using What We Knouw AboutTeaching, ed Philip L Hosford (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

.Development, 1984), p. 187"Robert Goldhammer, ClinicalSupervision SpecialMethodsfor the Supervson of Teachers

(New York. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969), p 69; Morris L Cogan, Clmnical Superosion (BostonHoughton Mifflin, 1973), p 206.

"Morris L Cogan, Clinical Superviion (Boston Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p 2096Ben M. Harris, "Limits and Supplements to Formal Clinical Procedures,"JournalofResearch

andDevelopment In Education 9 (Winter 1976) 85-89

__ Z

Patrica E Holland 375

determine how much teachers can and should be involved in planmng theconference." The absence of such research suggests how divergent views onthe nature of the supervisory conference have developed and become polit-icized, as well as the extent to which these views tend to be governed byunexamined assumptions.

THE USE OF DATA IN THE CONFERENCE

As might be expected, the literature on the use of observation data in theconference reflects a pattern of underlying assumptions similar to that characterizing views of the conference's purpose and the relationship betweensupervisor and teacher According to one assumption, data can be used toanalyze events of teaching and learning in the observed classroom to identifyproblems in the teacher's instructional strategies. A related assumption saysthat solutions for these problems are then developed in the course of theconference On the other hand, an alternative set of assumptions sees dataanalyzed and used in the conference to provide the supervisor and teacherwith descriptive information about the observed events. The teacher andsupervisor then use the information in a collaborative effort to explore pos-sible interpretations of the events described by the data. These interpretationsare not inherent in the data, however, but are created in thoughtful responseto the data. These interpretations, which represent a level of abstractionbeyond that of the data, provide the basis for decisions about teaching andlearning Although differing views of data are implicit in the literature, theyinfluence the nature of the discussions about using observation data in theconference.

Much of the discussion about using data in the conference comes fromthe early years of clinical supervision and focuses on the work done, particularly by the supervisor, to analyze and organize the data into some form thatwill be useful in the conference This process needs to focus, according toGoldhammer, on the "treatable issues in the teaching."s Cogan says organizing the data is based on anticipating the teacher's needs and probable behaviorin the conference" Mosher and Purpel describe the analysis process as"systematic, disciplined, practical thinking about the wide range of factorswhich affect the process of formal instruction and its outcomes."6

Throughout the history of clinical supervision, researchers have generallyagreed that supervisors need to know certain strategies for organizing the

"Ahce Denham, "Clinical Supervision: What We Need to Know About Its Potential forImproving Instruction," Contemporary Eduatton 49 (Fall 1977). 33-37

WRobert Goldhammer, Clinical Supervision Special Metbodsfor te Supenvmton of Teacders(New York Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969), p 70.

'Morris L Cogan, Clinical Supervision (Boston- Houghton Miffln, 1973), p. 206'6Ralph L Mosher and David E. Purpel, Stupe n ot e Reluctant Profession (Boston

Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p 81

Pabida E Holland 375

376 Implicit Assumptions About the Supervnlty Conference

data from classroom observations. Generally accepted strategies include selectingonly a few key elements of teaching or classroom behavior, organizing thedata to illustrate recurring patterns of teacher behavior or classroom occur-rences, and considering outstanding or critical incidents Also, the supervisormust pay attention in the conference to data that illustrate the teacher'spedagogical strengths. It is easier for the teacher and supervisor to build onthese strengths, and this strategy serves the teacher's own needs.

Distnctions about using data occur in the literature around the questionof what happens after identifying the patterns and critical incidents. Achesonand Gall, in their work stressing the techniques of data collection, imply thatmerely recognizing a pattern in teaching or classroom behavior can lead tochange. Underlying this view is an assumption that the supervisor and teacherhold in common a model of ideal teaching and classroom behavior againstwhich observed behavior can be judged. Certainly, this assumption holds withthe current state-legislated forms of teacher evaluation and with the Huntermodel of supervision from which they derive.

In contrast, another view involves the supervisor and the teacher in aninterpretive process in which they consider possible meanings of the patternsand incidents identified in the data. Garman describes the process when sherefers to supervisors and teachers discovering and inventing modes of reality. 6 'Eisner, another proponent of the interpretive nature of supervision, says thatwhat is most important in supervision is using the observation data as a meansto determining "what the situation means to the people who are in it and howthe actions withm the situation convey or create such meaning."6 Sergiovanniargues for a hermeneuttc process that considers both descriptive and normauve dimensions m the practice of supervision.' These views of supervisorydata used to inform the supervisor's and teacher's interpretation of classroomevents can be traced to Cogan; '"he conference is a shared exploration. asearch for the meaning of instruction, for choices among alternative diagnosesand for alternative strategies of improvement."4

Despite the support in the theoretical literature for viewing the supervi-sory conference as a process involving mutual interpretation, no research

'Noreen B. Garman, 'The Clhnical.Approach to Supervision," in Supervison of Teachinged. ThomasJ Sergiovanni (Alexandria, VA. Assocation for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982), p 46.

6Elliot W. Eisner, An Artisuc Approach to Supervision,' in Superinsion of Teaching edThomas J. Sergiovannm (Alexandria, VA. Assouation for Supervision and Curriculum Development,1982), p. 62

s6Thomas J. Sergiovanmi, Toward a Theory of Supervisory Practice. Integrating Scientific.Clinical, and Artistic Views," in Supervision of Teacbhng ed. Thomas J. Sergiovanni (Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982), pp. 67-78.

uMorris L Cogan, Clincal Supervision (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p 197

Paricia E Holland 377

studies explore interpretation as an aspect of the conference. The closestresearch studies advocate an indirect style of conferencing.6 ' But these studiesare related only insofar as indirect behaviors facilitate and encourage inter-pretation.

Another aspect about using observation data discussed in literature onthe conference is how much the supervisor plans the presentation of her dataanalysis in the conference. Conferences based on views such as Hunter's usedata to assess the teacher's classroom performance against predeterminedstandards of effective teaching and would allow the supervisor to prepare anddeliver a highly structured review of the observation. The evaluation of theteacher's performance is easily incorporated into this type of conference.However, the view that the supervisor should not rigidly structure the con-ference is more widely expressed in the literature. Sergiovanni and Starrattclearly take this position as they recommend that "supervisors prepare for theconference by setting tentative objectives and planning tentative processes,but in a manner that does not program the course of the conference toomuch."66 Their statement reflects Cogan's original position: although thesupervisor should prepare for the conference, he should not preplan its coursebecause he cannot predict with enough certainty what issues and agenda theteacher will bring to the conference. Cogan cautions supervisors to keep inmind that the course of the conference is unpredictabl .6

CONCLUSION

As the literature on the supervisory conference is examined, it becomesclear that assumptions about the supervisory conference have remained quiteconsistent over the years. How these assumptions derive from an emergingmodel of clinical supervision also becomes evident Although the supervisoryconference has remained an unchallenged convention of supervisory practice

'Cynthia G Desrochers, Relationships Between Supervisory Directness andJustificaton inthe Teacher Supervisor Conference and Teachers Perceptions of Supervisor Credibility" (doc'toral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982); Helen K Andrews, "A Study ofAssociate Teachers' Conference PracticesWith StudentTeachers" (doctoral dissertation, Universityof Toronto, 1980); Neil S Newman, "reacher Perception of Supervision, Verbal Reinforcement,and Clarity of Presentation Under Direct and Indirect Conferencing" (doctoral dissertation,Syracuse University, 1980), Hazel S. Holton, "An InteractionAnalysis of Supervisory Conferences"(doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975), CarsonW Bryan, "Development of SelectedCategories for the Analysis of Verbal Behavior in a Supervisory Conference" (doctoral dissertation,University of Pittsburgh, 1970), Charles H. Link, "TeacherSupervisor Conference Interactions AStudy of Perceptions and Their Relation to Selected Variables" (doctoral dissertation, WesternMichigan University, 1970)

6ThomasJ. Sergiovanni and RobertJ. Starratt, Supenrion Human Perswts, 4th ed (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1988), p. 36

0.

6Morris L Cogan, Ctnical Superision (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p 197

PatricIa E. Holland 377

378 Inmplicit Assumptions About the Superisory Conference

throughout the history of clinical supervision, renewed interest in examiningthe conference is surfacing. In recent years, for instance, the supervisoryconference has been the subject of several papers presented at annual meet-ings of the American Educational Research Association.'t There Is reason,however, to question the availability of access-particularly for the practitioners of supervision-to these papers as opposed to the texts, published articles,and dissertations (at least in abstract form) reviewed here. What and howmuch evidence about assumptions underlying the supervisory conference dothese papers offer? Awaiting specific studies, the supervisory conference willcontinue to be based on assumptions that bear reexamination and extension.

Perhaps a more important focus than chronology for conclusions aboutthe literature on conferencing is the relative imbalance of theory versus solidresearch studies on the conference. It is both a tribute to Blumberg and hiscolleagues and an embarrassment to the field of supervision that the researchfrom the 1960s still offers the best methods for data collection on the confer-ence. Much more and varied research begs to be done. For instance, the useof qualitative methods such as discourse analysis to explore the interpretiveaspects of the supervisory conference promises a new understanding of adimension of conferencing often cited in the theoretical literature but as yetnot researched in any thorough, systematic way. These and the other assump-tions about the supervisory conference examined in this study of the literature

6John A. Smyth, '`Two for the Price of One: Staff Development Through the Utilization ofFmndngs From Research on Teaching (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981), Carl D. Glickman and KI Ginkel,Directions for Research on Supervisory Conference Approaches Appropriate to Developmental

Levels of Teachers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal,April 1983), Peter P GrimmeR, "Research Evidence Discriminating EffectiveFrom Less Than Effective Clinical Supervision Conference Interventions" (paper presented at theannual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Montreal, April 1983); EdwardF Pajak and Carl D. Glickman, "Teachers' Discrimination Between Information and Control inResponse to Videotaped Simulated Supervisory Conferences" (paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984), Peter PGrimmet, "A Study of the Relationship of Supervisor and Teacher Conceptual Level DuringClassroom Improvement Conferences" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984), Peter P GrimmeR, "A Proposal toStudy the Effects of Supervisory Intervention on the Classroom Teaching Performance of Super-visees" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago, April 1985); Gillian E. Cook, "Patterns of Verbal Interaction in Supervisory FeedbackConferences" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, April 1988), Peter P Grimmen., "Conferencing Strategies Used bySupervisors of High Conceptual Level Interacting With Teachers of Low Conceptual Level andEffects on Classroom Management" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Associauon, New Orleans, April 1988), Patricia E. Holland, "Implicit Assump-tions About the Supervisory Conference. A Reveiw and Analysis of the Literature"(paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April1988).

provide a compelling research agenda and an mteresung challenge for schol-ars and practitioners of clinical supervision.9

PATRICIA E. HOLLAND is Assistant Professor of Education, Department of Edu-cational Leadership and Cultural Studies, College of Education, Universit3 of Houston,401 Farish Hall, Houston, TX 77004.

Klein, M Frances. Curriculum Reform in the Elementary School. Creating YourOwn Agenda. New York Teachers College Press, 1989 192 pp $30.95/$17.95.

Local curriculum leaders and teachers will find down-to-earth strategies in thisbook for reforming their own school's curriculum Extensive research data fromGoodlad's A Study of Scbooling illustrate a broad range of studies that can bedone locally to foster change and school improvement Practical questions drawnfrom a comprehensive conception of curriculum form the core of this inquirybased model of curriculum reform.

Patricia E Holland 379Patricia E. Holland 379_

WAn earner version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1988.

Copyright © 1989 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.