According to Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2014), teachers tend to have different perceptions of what they consider to be useful; even when they are in the same school. That said, a plan by a supervisor may be a delight to one teacher and yet is a bore to another. In the case study three, Mike Phillips, a social studies teacher, experienced challenges in improving the quality of class discussions. He wanted to nurture high-level thinking and open dialogue amongst students, concerning important social and political issues. As a result, he sought the intervention of his immediate supervisor, George Cantinni, the department’s chairperson. As suggested by Mike, he could be hindering interactive discussions by asking to many simple recall questions, which fail to spark the students’ interest in the discussion.
Working on the suggestions, George proposed a structural change to the class discussions; asking mike to jot down a list of possible actions. Mike proposed the use of open-ended questions to drive the discussion, giving the students substantial time to think about the question before inviting their response, and randomly picking students to respond with the aim of increasing their participation. Phillips conquered with the first two ideas; however, he differed on the last idea. He argued that a random call was not viable in fostering open and interactive discussion; rather mike should consider allowing student to discuss the question in small groups before the whole class discussion, and giving individual students enough wait time before and after response. He further proposed the idea of planning lessons based on Blossom’s taxonomy. Working on these suggestions, Mike and George, advanced a collaborative action plan; outlining the responsibilities of each and the milestones that had to be accomplished. Mike closely worked with George for some weeks and made a sturdy progress toward his goal of instructional improvement.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Approach to Developmental Supervision
In this case, the approach adopted by George is developmental supervision; he and Phillips are equal when dealing with the issue of quality class discussion. They collaborate effectively in presenting, interacting and implementing the mutually planned changed. As the developmental supervisor, George’s first task involves diagnosing the level at which Mike is operating concerning the instructional concern of quality class discussion. This is the diagnostic phase of developmental supervision. George’s diagnoses the problem by talking with mike, observing him in action and asking him questions about the nature of the problem. The central determinant in the diagnosis phase is the abstraction level; the ability of a teacher to advance more orientations towards the interpersonal world and the environment (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 2014). It appears from the case study that Mike has a moderate abstraction; he is able to define the instructional issue and generate a few possible solutions.
After diagnosing the problem, George addresses the issue tactically, the tactical phase. He focuses on immediate concern of assisting Mike solve the problem. He matches a collaborative approach Mike’s moderate abstraction. George works with Mike to share insights of the problem, to brainstorm solutions and to develop a mutually agree plan of action. In this case, the supervisor, George and the teacher, Mike, share the responsibility for the eventual decision.
Lastly, the strategic phase is the real and most important dimension of developmental supervision (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 2014). At this stage, emphasis is on accelerating the advancement of the teacher’s abstraction, helping him or her to think smarter and harder and stimulating his or her problem-solving skills. George gradually exposes Mike to new ways and ideas of understanding instruction and students, teaching methods and problem-solving strategies. He begins by introducing concept that Mike can relate to; the Blossom’s taxonomy, and goes ahead to discuss how it can be used to enhance lesson planning. George also focuses on gradually lessening Mike’s dependence. In conclusion, Mike’s case study is an effective illustration of the development supervision approach at work; the supervisor seeks to have the teacher work and make decisions independently building on a collaborative approach
Reference
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach . Boston: Pearson.
