Clinical Supervision A Case S

CLINICAL SUPERVISION: A CASE STUDY OF CLINICAL SUPERVISION AS IT
RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NOVICE TEACHERS
A Thesis Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Education
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Education
by
Wendy L. Hampton
May, 2009
UMI Number: 1466122
Copyright 2009 by
Hampton, Wendy L.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 1466122
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright
By
Wendy L. Hampton
May 2009
A Master's Thesis for the Degree
Master of Education
by
Wendy L. Hampton
Approved by Thesis Committ
Dr. Patricia Holland, Chairperson
Dr. Angus Macneil, Committee

Commi Member
• — • — * • • ' ^ ^ » ^ ^
Wayne Emerson, CommitteeMember
Dr. Robert Wimpelberg, Dean

College of Education
May, 2009
Acknowledgement
First, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Patricia Holland, Dr.
Wayne Emerson, and Dr. Angus Macneil for their time, guidance, and suggestions in the
successful completion of this project. I extend a special thank you to Dr. Patricia Holland
for encouraging me to pursue this research project, and continuing to encourage and
support me throughout the process.
I would also like to thank my parents, Bonnie and Lynn Hampton who have
always believed in me and at a young age taught me to believe that I could do anything
that I set my mind to.
Many personal sacrifices go into a project such as this, so I would also like to
acknowledge the Burrell and Booth family for being there to listen, understand, and offer
support during times of frustration. Additionally, thank you for sharing in the excitement
of the project's completion.
Finally, to Brenda, my best friend, biggest cheerleader, and biggest supporter,
thank you. Without your patience, understanding, encouragement, and support, I never
could have finished this research project. You give me inspiration and a determination to
succeed, and be the best that I can be.
An Abstract
of
A Thesis Presented to the
Faculty of the College of Education
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Education
by
Wendy L. Hampton
May, 2009
Hampton, Wendy L. "Clinical Supervision: A Case Study of Clinical Supervision as it
Relates to the Improvement of Novice Teachers." Unpublished Thesis,
University of Houston, May, 2009.
Abstract
This study explores the potential for Clinical Supervision (Cogan, 1973) to
provide support and improve the instructional processes of novice teachers.
A qualitative single case study design consisting of a teacher and supervisor (the
researcher) engaging in five cycles of the Clinical Supervision process was conducted.
Data from each observation and conference were collected and analyzed using the
constant comparative analysis method.
The results of this study indicate that using Clinical Supervision with a novice
teacher can impact the teacher's instructional practice. Instructional practices that
showed improvement specific to this study included questioning strategies and lesson
design. Leithwood (1992) proposes that there are six stages in the development of
professional expertise for teachers. The results of this study indicate that Clinical
Supervision helped the novice teacher advance from Stage 1 "survival skills" to Stage 2
"basic competence in instruction" according to Leithwood's six stages.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Need for the Study 2

Definition of Terms 4
Research Topic 5
Research Question 5
Purpose of Research 6
Significance of the Study 6
Limitations 7
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9
Introduction 9
Clinical Supervision Overview 9
Supervision as an Instructional Practice 14
Clinical Supervision in the Development of Novice Teachers 16
Empirical Studies Using Clinical Supervision 20
Summary 23
III. METHODOLOGY 25
Introduction 25
Qualitative Case Study 25
Research Design and Procedures 27
Summary 31
IV. CLINICAL SUPERVISION CYCLES 32
Introduction 32
Pre-Conference #1 32
Observation #1 35
Feedback Conference #1/Planning Conference #2 36
Observation #2 38
Observation #3 43
Planning Conference #4 Continued 46
Observation #4 48
vi
Planning Conference #5 Continued 53
Observation #5 57
Feedback Conference #5 59
Summary Interview 60
V. CONCLUSIONS 63
Introduction 63
Summary and Discussion 63
Implications for Professional Practice 67
Implications for Teacher Development 69
Summary 76
References 78
VII
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Student Off Task Behavior 58
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Parallel Lines Intersected By a Transversal 51
2 Pythagorean Theorem Model 53
ix
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction
The current trend in educational reform is the development of Professional Learning
Communities, particularly in large schools (DuFour, 2004). One of the driving principles
of the Professional Learning Community is the shift from ensuring that students are
taught to ensuring that students learn. In Professional Learning Communities, as teachers
collaborate, there are three questions used to define what should take place in the
classroom:
• What do we want each student to learn?
• How will we know when each student has learned it?
• How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?
The last question, according to DuFour (2004, p. 8), is what separates Professional
Learning Communities from traditional schools. It brings to focus the concept of early
intervention, as opposed to remediation. Teachers must balance, more than ever before,
the increasing demand to meet the needs of every student regardless of how diverse those
needs might be. So, while the focus might now be on student learning, we must not
forget that a key element that ensures learning takes place is still in fact the teacher, and,
in order to ensure that students learn, we must still ensure that students are taught and
taught effectively. We must have schools that are filled with professional teachers. Wise
and Darling-Hammond (1985) define the professional teacher as follows:
one who has sufficient knowledge of subject matter and techniques to make
appropriate decisions about instructional content and delivery for different

students and classes. In other words, professional teachers are able to ascertain
their clients' needs and determine how to meet them (p. 31).
There are teachers that most of us have encountered that seem to make this look
easy. These qualities seem to come naturally to them. The question then is what do we
do with the teachers that walk into a classroom and are not yet professional teachers?
Not only do we need to intervene early with students when they fall behind, but we also
must intervene early with teachers that may not have effective strategies that ensure
student learning. Unfortunately, often times, we do no realize there is a problem until it
is too late. Thus, the purpose of this research study: how to intervene early with novice
teachers in order to expedite their transition from novices to professional teachers.
Clinical Supervision is a well established model designed to offer a support system to
facilitate instructional behavioral changes (Sullivan, 1980). According to Goldhammer
(1969), Clinical Supervision has greater potential that any other supervisory process used
in education to remedy instructional weakness.
Need for the Study
According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE) an estimated 157,000
teachers leave the field of education each year and more that 232,000 others change
schools (2008). Together these numbers account for 12% of the total teacher workforce.
Additionally, one third of all new teachers leave the profession after three years and the
number increases to almostfiftypercent after five years (Baldacci, 2006). This is
significant to the study because 37.2% of teachers that either left the profession or
changed schools cited lack of support as one of the motivating factors in their decision.
2
The problem is not merely that of teacher turnover and attrition, but the impact that it has
on the students in our schools. According to Hanushek (2004), research consistently
shows that first year teachers are much less effective than their more experienced
counterparts.
This problem is exacerbated in urban school settings. According to a 2005
MetLife Survey, teachers hired who were already "at risk" for leaving the profession
were also more likely to be teaching in urban schools with high populations of students
from poverty and minority students. The teacher turnover rate in high poverty schools is
20% compared to 12.9% in low poverty schools (NCTAF 2003). According to AEE
(2008), "There is a general consensus that the single most important factor in improving
any student's performance is the quality of the teacher, but researchers have found that
the impact of a higher quality teacher is particularly significant for low-performing,
minority students." Darling-Hammond confirms this idea stating that a quality teacher
correlates strongly with student success even when considering factors such as limited
English proficiency and low-income status of students (1999). Unfortunately, a large
number of new teachers have a negative impact on student achievement (Ingersol, 1999;
Portner 2003). This revolving door of teachers causes urban schools to continue in an
unstable state and adversely affects student achievement; in addition to placing increasing
demands on remaining school staff, it also strains budgets with continuous teacher
recruitment and hiring (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003).
In the 1980s mentor programs sprang onto the scene to help address many of the
problems new teachers face. However, according to Feiman-Nemser (1996) there has
been no data to validate the process and few programs can be sited for success.
3
According to Perez, Swain, and Hartsough (1997), effective new teacher programs should
provide an integrated, systematic approach to prepare confident teachers who will remain
in the profession. These authors add that mentoring alone does not accomplish such a
goal. Additionally, current trends in teacher evaluation practices are not used as the
opportunity to give teachers feedback on their instructional practices and do little to
change a teacher's practice or their effectiveness (Goldrick, 2002).
In the second half of the 20th century, the field of supervision became closely
identified with various forms of Clinical Supervision, initially developed by Harvard
professors Morris Cogan and Robert Anderson (Cogan, 1973). Since that time, numerous
studies have been done in the broad area of Clinical Supervision regarding teacher and
supervisor attitudes towards the process of Clinical Supervision (Weller, 1969; Putnal,
1981;Nsien 1984; Benjamin, 1987; Langmuir, 1998). Few researchers, according to
Gibson (1986), have studied the effects of Clinical Supervision as it relates to behavior
changes of the classroom teacher. However, Clinical Supervision remains a viable
resource for providing novice teachers with individualized instructional support (Pajak,
2003).
Definition of Terms
• "When supervision is direct, centered in the classroom, focused on teachers'
issues, aimed primarily to helping teachers understand and improve their
teaching, and collaborative the term Clinical Supervision is often used"
(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002, p. 221). A more elaborate explanation of the
process of Clinical Supervision will be discussed in Chapter Two. The
4
methodology for which this procedure is employed for the purpose of this case
study will be explained in Chapter Three.
• In the context of Clinical Supervision the roll of the supervisor is to help teachers
develop, "skills for analyzing the instructional process based on systematic data;
skills for experimentation, adaptation, and modification of the curriculum; and a
broader repertoire of teaching skills and techniques" (Acheson & Gall, 1997,
p.12)
Research Topic
During my course on Supervision at the University of Houston, I became
interested in the practice of Clinical Supervision and how it could help me work with
teachers in my roll as a math curriculum specialist. Over the course of the year, I acted as
a novice supervisor working with two first year teachers and one second year teacher.
While this was not a formal research project, I found that this practice could impact the
way teachers provide instruction, which could also impact student achievement.
Therefore, I wanted to further explore, in this study, what the implications are for
employing the process of Clinical Supervision with a novice teacher. The current study
will be conducted as a case study in a different school setting with a different novice
teacher, than the original informal study.
Research Question
The research topic is framed into the following research question:
How can Clinical Supervision be used to improve and support the instructional practices
of a novice teacher?
5
Purpose of the Research
"A case study is an empirical inquiry that: investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used"
(Yin, 1984, p.23). The purpose of this research is to conduct a case study in order
investigate the following questions:
1. Do a novice teacher's instructional practices change when he/she works
with a supervisor in the Clinical Supervision process?
2. Can the conferences during the cycles of Clinical Supervision begin to
uncover instructional issues that the teacher may not have originally been aware
of?
3. If so, how can these issues be addressed in the Clinical Supervision process?
Significance of the Study
Because teacher effectiveness has a direct impact on student achievement, and,
because research shows that novice teachers often are not as effective as those with more
experience, the results of this study may give investigators a better understanding of how
to move the novice teacher along the continuum from novice teacher to professional
teacher, as defined earlier, at a faster rate. This progress, in turn, has the potential to raise
student achievement. According to Johnson (2006), when teachers feel that they have the
opportunity to become even slightly more effective with their students, they are more
likely to remain not only in the teaching profession, but also at their same location.
6
Limitations
As with any case study involving human subjects, there are foreseeable
limitations to the research.
• Case study participant: The participating teacher in this case study is a
volunteer. Because the participant is a volunteer, there can be no guarantee that
the participant is fully vested into the process of the research study.
• Time constraints: Clinical Supervision is a time consuming process for both the
supervisor and the supervisee. Because of the huge learning curve that novice
teachers face, it could be difficult for them to share the time that it takes to have
an open discussion during the pre and post conference in the supervision cycle.
• Trust: In order for Clinical Supervision to really be successful, a strong rapport
must exist between the supervisor and the supervisee. Because a first year teacher
might be scared or embarrassed to admit the things they are really struggling with,
the research could be skewed. Additionally, at the time I will be conducting this
study, I will be working as a full time principal intern. This position carries no
administrative or evaluative authority, nor am I certified to conduct evaluations by
the Texas Education Agency. Nonetheless, my position could result in the
participating teacher viewing me with more authority on campus than I actually
have. It might also make it more difficult to establish trust with the participant.
• Supervisory skills: While I have acted in the role of the clinical supervisor in my
previous position and research, I have had no formal training in the practice, and I
am still a novice supervisor.
7
• Knowledge of student learning: While this study is designed to determine the
effects of the Clinical Supervision process in relation to a novice teacher's
instructional practice, there is no direct way to link those changes to a difference
in student learning.
• Attitudes, beliefs, and values: While Clinical Supervision is to be collegial and
free of judgment, the supervisor will still have values, beliefs, and ideas about
what the teacher is doing in the classroom that go beyond the scope of data the
supervisor is to collect during the observation.
8
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to explore how Clinical Supervision can be used to
improve and support the instructional practices of a novice teacher, if indeed it can be
used at all for such a purpose. In the first section of this literature review, I will examine
the basic purpose and tenets of the Clinical Supervision process. In the second section, I
will explain how Clinical Supervision can be used as an effective instructional practice.
Next, I will examine why this process should be used as an instructional practice to aid in
the development of novice teachers. Finally, I will examine other empirical studies
conducted to determine if Clinical Supervision can be used to effect changes in the
classroom behaviors of teachers.
Clinical Supervision Overview
Clinical Supervision has as its primary goal the professional development of
teachers with its main focus on improving teachers' classroom performance (Acheson &
Gall, 1997). Acheson and Gall (1997) outline more specific purposes for Clinical
Supervision such as: providing teachers with objective feedback on their instructions,
diagnosing and solving instructional problems, helping teachers develop skill in using
instructional strategies, evaluating teachers for promotion, tenure, and other decisions,
and helping teachers develop a positive attitude about continuous professional
development. This leads to the questions of what is Clinical Supervision and how can it
accomplish these goals where other methods of supervision have failed.

Clinical Supervision was first introduced by Cogan and Anderson in the 1950s
(Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer et. al. 1980). Cogan viewed Clinical Supervision as the
vehicle for developing professionally responsible teachers who were capable of analyzing
their own performance, who were open to change and assistance from others, and who
were above all, self directing (Pajak, 2003). Cogan's goal was to use classroom events in
a collegial environment to improve teacher performance (Cogan, 1973). Though
numerous authors have expanded upon and reinvented Cogan's original theory, the
practice of Clinical Supervision remains a viable source to improve teacher performance
(Pajak 2003).
Clinical Supervision is a continuous series of cycles in which the supervisor
assists the teacher in developing ever more successful instructional strategies. The three
phases of Clinical Supervision, as explained by Acheson and Gall (1997), are: the
planning conference, the classroom observation, and the feedback conference. In all
three phases, the supervisor and supervisee work together in a collaborative effort to plan
for what teacher or student behaviors may need to be analyzed, how those behaviors will
be observed and recorded, and finally how to address those behaviors in a way that
promotes student achievement and teacher effectiveness (Stoller, 1996). This establishes
a more teacher-centered form of supervision. The teacher and supervisor share a "power
with" relationship instead of a "power over" relationship, which according to Holland
and Garman (2001), is one of the first steps in redefining the evaluation of teachers.
According to Stoller (1996), it is the planning conference that sets the stage for
effective Clinical Supervision. "The goal of the planning conference is to identify and
define an area of genuine concern that the teacher would like to understand better or
10
improve" (Stoller, 1996, |2). Stoller explains that, when a specific area of concern is
defined for observation, the teacher is more likely to explore solutions or alternatives to
those practices later in the feedback conferences (1996). During the planning conference,
the supervisor and teacher also set the date and time for the observation and determine
how data will be collected during the observation, so that both the teacher and supervisor
have the same set of expectations (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2007).
The second phase of the Clinical Supervision process is the classroom
observation. During the observation, the supervisor focuses only on the agreed upon
behaviors or actions discussed in the planning conference using the data collection
method discussed in the conference. Another key to effective Clinical Supervision
(Stoller, 1996) is selecting the right data collection method. Acheson and Gall (1997) list
twenty -four different data collection techniques to elicit data for numerous classroom
happenings. Cogan maintains that inadequate classroom records defeat the entire process
of the Clinical Supervision approach. "Supervisors and teachers find themselves mired
down in fruitless arguments about what did and did not actually occur in the course of
instruction" (Cogan, 1973, p 136). Recording "hard" data during the observation can
alleviate defensiveness that teachers may feel in the post-conference if they sense the
observation as evaluative (Acheson & Gall, 1997).
The analysis of data takes place in the third phase of Clinical Supervision called
the feedback or post-conference. With proper data collection, teachers are able to note
the differences in what they believe to be occurring in their classrooms and what is
actually occurring (Bennan, n.d). It is this feedback, if given in a timely manner, that can
lead to improved teacher effectiveness. According to Acheson and Gall, important
11
information to discuss in the feedback conference should be, "information that is
objective (unbiased), accurate, clear (to both parties), relevant to the agreed upon
concerns, and interpretable in respect to what changes are feasible and reasonable" (1997,
p. 150). In addition, the data presented must be understood and immediately useful to the
teacher. The feedback conference is used to analyze and interpret the data collected for
the basis of deciding what instructional changes may need to be made in the future.
Acheson and Gall (1997) and Crane (2002) agree that the teacher should take the lead in
the majority of this discussion as the supervisor listens, facilitates, and asks questions.
Depending upon the skill level of the teacher, however, Glickman and other authors
(2007) explain that the supervisor might use several different approaches during the
feedback conference: directive control, directive informational, collaborative, and
nondirective.
When a supervisor takes directive control approach, he/she basically takes
ownership of the teacher's problem, decides how best to solve it, and tells the teacher the
solution and the appropriate actions to take (Glickman et.al., 2007). Glickman explains
that this is not a type of supervision to use with all teachers all of the time. When used in
conjunction with Clinical Supervision, direct control approaches should only be used
when teachers are functioning at low developmental levels (Glickman et.al., 2007). In
addition, Glickman explains that when you are working with a teacher that necessitates a
directive control approach, the goal should be to move toward a directive informational
approach.
Using the directive informational approach during the post conference, the
supervisor is the main source of information, but does solicit and consider teacher
12
feedback. Instead of telling the teacher exactly what to do and how to do it, the
supervisor will provide several alternatives for the teacher to choose from, and then help
put an action plan in place to address the issues at hand (Glickman et.al., 2007) As with
directive control, there is a time and a place for the directive informational approach. It
can still be used with teachers functioning at relatively low levels of development, but
also when the teacher is confused, inexperienced, or at a loss for what to do, and the
supervisor has knowledge of effective practices (Glickman etal. 2007).
The final two approaches that Glickman suggests are for teachers functioning at
higher developmental levels who have moved beyond the directive control and directive
informational stages. The collaborative approach is best used when the teacher and
supervisor share equal expertise on an issue, are both involved in carrying out the
decisions, and are both committed to solving the problem (Glickitnan et.al. 2007). The
non-directive approach is based on the idea that the teacher has the knowledge and skills
to know what instructional changes should be made and how to make them. Decisions
rest with the teacher, and the supervisor acts as a facilitator to assist the teacher in
reflecting on their behaviors and planning for change (Glickman et.al. 2007).
The goals of the feedback conference are to provide teachers with actual data
observed; analyze the impacts of the data on instructional practices and student learning;
and discuss strategies teachers can use to implement more effective instructional practice.
Once these goals have been accomplished, it is often the case that the feedback
conference turns into the planning conference for the next classroom observation as the
cycle of supervision continues.
13
Clinical Supervision as an Instructional Practice
After understanding the process of Clinical Supervision we are still left with the question
of what benefits this method employs when other methods of supervision fall short.
Cogan states,
Clinical Supervision takes its principal data from the events of the classroom.
The analysis of these data and the relationship been the teacher and supervisor
form the basis of the program, procedures, and strategies designed to improve the
students' learning by improving the teacher's classroom behavior (1973, p. 9).
The important distinction to be made when considering the practice of Clinical
Supervision is, that at its very core, it is designed to improve student learning by
improving on the methodologies of the teacher. It is not designed as a check list to
ensure that an objective is written on the board, classroom rules are posted, lesson plans
are complete, and curriculum is aligned. When done effectively, Clinical Supervision
gives the teacher a lens through which they can examine their own instructional practices
in order to identify which have the greatest impact on student achievement and to alter
the practices as needed. An exemplary supervision model according to Goldsberry
(1998) that promotes teacher development would include the following:
• Teachers and supervisors hold a pre-observation conference during which
the teacher gives the supervisor important information concerning the
lesson to be observed and the focus for the lesson's success.
• The pre-conference is followed by an observation or multiple observations
during which the supervisor collects data to answer questions concerning
the lesson's success.
14
• The supervisor and teacher have a period of time to review and interpret
the recorded data.
• A post-observation conference is held during which the teacher and
supervisor share in an exchange of ideas and interpretations concerning
the data with suggestions for future educational activities.
• A time for reflection during which the information from the supervisory
practice is reviewed and followed by changes in the teaching practice if
changes are deemed appropriate.
"Teacher involvement in an exemplary supervisory practice such as in the supervisory
structure outlined above, optimizes teacher professional growth and facilitates the growth
of teacher leadership" (Williams, 2007, p. 13). Clinical Supervision offers teachers just
such an opportunity.
Williams (2007) conducted a study of one school's pilot of the Clinical
Supervision model in lieu of standard teacher evaluation practices. His study was an
attempt to determine whether there were benefits and professional gains to the teachers
that participated in the study. His findings support the idea that Clinical Supervision does
lead teachers to more closely examine their own practice and reflect more on what
transpired in their classrooms. One teacher reported, "I could see myself as a teacher, a
facilitator and not doing the work for them (the students). Allowing them to come up with
their thoughts about the math process" (p. 177). Another teacher explained, "I was
successful using some of the things I learned in the training and I learned that I don't
always need to tell them (the students) what to do - 1 began reflecting on my own
practice and learned I needed to change some things" (p. 177).
15
Houk (1999) found similar outcomes in her qualitative study on supervision of
beginning teachers. All five teachers in the study reported changing their behavior to
varying degrees, during the process of Clinical Supervision. Houk found that the
teachers who experienced the more "textbook" example of Clinical Supervision made the
most significant behavior changes. Houk reports that one of the participants, Kevin, took
the outcomes of the post conference "into my repertoire of knowledge.. .The rest of my
lessons for that term.. .1 really worked on gaining their attention before I started.. .1 used
eye contact" (p. 87). Kevin's supervisor had worked with him on how to develop a
concept at a pace appropriate for his students. This proved to have a direct impact on his
instructional practices. During the supervision process, Jaime, another participant, began
to consider different learning styles and methods to keep his students focused. The other
participants in the study did not report significant changes in behavior. However, it is
important to note that these participants had supervisors that did follow through on post
conference and deviated from the true cycle of the Clinical Supervision experience
(Houk, 1999).
Clinical Supervision in the Development of Novice Teachers
Before we consider the development of new teachers, let us first take a moment to
consider training programs such as those for aspiring doctors. Those seeking a medical
degree spend a great deal of time learning the theory behind their practice in the
traditional classroom setting. However, this only accounts for a small portion of their
development. They also spend a great deal of time "in the field" through clinical
rotations in a hospital, culminating their "schooling" with a one year internship where
16
they develop their skills for practicing medicine under the watchful eye and guidance of
licensed medical doctors. Upon completion of their degree, once fully licensed and ready
to practice medicine, they still aren't handed the scalpel to perform the difficult practices
of their more experienced counterparts. As residents, they continue to learn and perfect
their practice under the guidance of experienced practitioners. Compare that to the
novice teacher.
First year teachers have often spent little time on an actual school campus
learning the proper techniques and skills required to teach. There are different levels of
experience that novice teachers enter our classrooms with. Some have spent 12 weeks in
a classroom student teaching with a supervising experienced teacher, some have only
done a few classroom observations, and with the emergence of different alternative
certification programs, some of our novice teachers enter the classroom on the first day of
school for the first time since they themselves were students. On day one, these novice
teachers (delete are) often have the same classroom responsibilities as those of a 20 year
veteran. We need them to deliver high quality lessons, engage students at all levels, and
have a positive impact on student achievement by raising test scores. It is no wonder
that first year teachers report feeling overwhelmed. Each of the live participants in Brian
Coffee's study on mentoring reported feeling overwhelmed in the first months of school.
According to Portner, many new teachers, "must merely cope rather than focusing on
teaching well" (2003, p.4).
Because of this, according to Portner, far too many teachers leave the profession
before they have the opportunity to develop the "art" of teaching, because they had no
initial or ongoing support (2003). As explained in the introduction, teachers leave the
17
profession at alarmingly high rates in their first five years of teaching. New teachers are
even more likely to leave in their first year if they do not receive proper support and
preparation to teach in challenging situations (Portner 2003; AEE, 2008). This problem
is exacerbated when we consider that urban schools serve more minority students and
students of poverty than their suburban and rural counterparts. It is the students in these
schools that are often exposed to the less trained and experienced teachers (Darling-
Hammond, 1988, Ingersol 2004). Because new teachers are often left to "fend for
themselves," they do not become continuous learners, and instead of changing or
modifying instructional practices when they are ineffective, these teachers often become
mired in bad habits and teaching practices that span the length of their careers, if indeed
they continue their careers past the first year (Haberman, 1987). Therefore, it is
imperative that we consider and address the needs of novice teachers, especially those in
urban schools. Teachers who are shown how to increase the achievement levels of their
students are likely to continue teaching longer and are less likely to leave lower-
performing, poorer schools (AEE, 2008).
Teachers need an environment of support. According to Millinger (2004), nearly
one fourth of teachers that left the profession is 2000 did so due to inadequate
administrative support. Millinger explains that by establishing relationships of working
"with one another" instead of "for one another", teachers are more likely to ask questions,
seek assistance, and obtain information that they require.
In many situations the term supervision has a negative connotation. As Holland
and Garman explain, "scholars and practitioners express a desire to redefine their work
by the use of words other than 'supervision,' a term that many believe has become
18
debased and offensive" (2001, p. 97). Acheson and Gall substantiate this by explaining
that most teachers do no like to be supervised. They are often defensive and do not find
the supervision helpful.
Supervision of new teachers is often linked to evaluation. According to McCann
(2005), new teachers have a strong desire to meet the expectations of their supervisors.
"Teachers are best severed by a supportive evaluation plan that focuses on professional
development and discourages punitive approaches to teacher evaluation" (2005, p. 33).
He goes on to explain that supervisors should engage in professional conversations with
teachers about their observations. The spirit of the supervision should be one of coaching
and support with planned observations and reflective conversations.
According to Stoller (1996), one of the greatest challenges supervisors face is
changing the negative attitude accompanying supervision so that it can, in fact, serve as
professional development for improved instruction. She explains that, in order to change
these attitudes, we must use an approach that is interactive, teacher-centered, concrete,
objective, and focused, rather than approaches that are directive, supervisor-centered,
vague, subjective, and unsystematic. "Honest dialogue and constructive feedback will
lead to professional growth," (Stoller, 1996, Tf2).
19
She concludes that,
Clinical Supervision is one-traditional approach that meets the criteria specified
above. An examination of this approach (see Acheson and Gall 1992) reveals that
the use of Clinical Supervision techniques can radically change
supervisor/supervisee relationships, resulting in less stress and anxiety-on the part
of both the supervisor and teacher-and a more positive teacher response to
supervision. (f3)?
One of the most significant impacts of Clinical Supervision is the direct role it can
play in changing new teachers' behavior and improving their classroom instruction
(Cogan, 1973; Acheson & Gall, 1997; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002). Addressing the
needs of new teachers early in their career can have a lasting impact on teacher retention
and teacher effectiveness (Kaplan and Owings, 2002).
Empirical Studies Using Clinical Supervision with Novice Teachers
In 1985, Thomas Gibson conducted a study entitled "The Effectiveness of
Clinical Supervision in Modifying Teacher Instructional Behavior". Five untenured
teachers participated in Gibson's study. This study was designed to answer the questions
1. Do teacher classroom behaviors change after using the techniques of teacher
self-guided training via multimedia packets and self-analysis of instructional
performance?
2. Do teacher classroom behaviors change after using the techniques of
supervisor-guided training along with supervisor analysis of instructional
performance (Clinical Supervision)?
20
3. Which of the above training procedures lead(s) to the greater improvement in
teacher performance? (Gibson, 1985, p. 3)
Important to this research study is Gibson's answer to question two. Gibson claims that,
"the answer to this question based solely on statistical significance is no" (1985, p. 70).
However, one must consider how the study was conducted. In Gibson's study there were
no pre-conferences for the supervisor and teacher to determine together what teacher
practices would be observed. Instead, Gibson pre-determined three teacher behaviors
upon which data would be collected during the observation. These behaviors included
questioning techniques, teacher praise, and teacher/student contact during seatwork.
Because these behaviors were predetermined, it violates one of the basic tenants
of Clinical Supervision. As Acheson and Gall explain, it is the planning conference that
sets the stage for effective Clinical Supervision. "A basic purpose of the planning
conference is to provide an opportunity for the teacher to communicate with a fellow
educator about a unique classroom situation and style of teaching" (1997, p. 61).
Because there was no preconference, making a determination about the effectiveness of
Clinical Supervision in the behavior change of teachers is flawed from the outset.
Initial observations of teachers were conducted to determine to what level each of
the targeted behaviors was occurring. Based on the need, teachers were then given a
multimedia packet which was designed as a self-study guide for the teacher, which was
explained and discussed in a conference with the principal, who acted as the supervisor in
this study. The teacher was asked to implement the new behaviors, and after seven days,
the principal again began to observe the teachers every day for a period of three weeks.
After each observation, the findings were given to the teacher to review, and at the end of
21
each week, the principal and teacher had a conference in which the principal "provided
suggestions and methods for improvement, as well as encouragement" (Gibson, 1985, p.
21).
Clearly Gibson's study was not a true study on the effectiveness of Clinical
Supervision to change teacher behavior. Granted, based on his results, the techniques
used in his study did not effect significant change in teacher behavior. However, these
techniques do not follow the true protocol designed by Cogan in the use of Clinical
Supervision. The misuse of the terms and given outcomes of the study provide further
reasons why we need to continue to research the effectiveness of Clinical Supervision to
change the instructional practices of teachers.
Rauch and Whittaker (1999) conducted a study in which a variation of Clinical
Supervision was used for peer supervision with pre-service teachers. In this study, pairs
of student teachers observed each other in action, provided written feedback, and
conducted conferences with each other regarding the feedback. In this study, teachers
reported that they were given insight into their teaching practices, learned instructional
approaches that worked with different groups of students, and were provided insight that
caused reflection about their own teaching practices. It does not sight specific examples
of behavioral change. Like Gibson's study, this design also omits the preconference in its
design. Rauch and Whittaker's study also differs from the current study proposed in that
student teachers were being observed by other student teachers. The observers did not
have a great deal more skill or experience in dealing with students, curriculum or other
teaching experiences than did those whom they observed.
22
One other study related to the Clinical Supervision of novice teachers was
discussed in a previous section of Chapter Two: a 1999 study by Houk. Houk's
qualitative study included five second year teachers who had participated in Clinical
Supervision during their first year of teaching. Those teachers were interviewed and
surveyed in order to determine what themes arose. Houk reported in her study that,
"professional impact was minimal as the teaching behavior of each teacher was not
significantly altered by the Clinical Supervision experience" (1999, p. ii). Possible
reasons for the lack of professional impact, as Houk reports, are that there were
inconsistencies with the purpose and the implementation of the Clinical Supervision
practice. She also reports that each supervision experience had an evaluation tone to it
and different teachers experienced different levels of intensity of the supervision process.
It is important to note, however, that those teachers that did report instructional behavior
changes were those that had supervisors that most closely followed Cogan's traditional
model of Clinical Supervision (Houk, 1999).
Summary
Clinical Supervision has long been a practice that can serve to improve the
instructional practices of teachers. This type of supervision is non-evaluative and gives
teachers and supervisors the opportunity to communicate about instructional concerns
and provides for a collegial relationship. The Clinical Supervision model involves three
phases: planning conference, observation, and feedback conference. When the process is
followed correctly, it offers teachers a way to look at and reflect upon their own practice
in a non-threatening, non-evaluative, collegial environment.
23
A large number of teachers leave the profession in their first five years, and new
teachers are more likely to leave after one year if they have no initial or sustained support
systems. The problem is even worse in urban schools. Teacher attrition has a direct
impact on student achievement. Therefore, it is imperative that we meet the needs of
beginning teachers and offer professional development to improve their instructional
practices. The Clinical Supervision model is a vehicle through which we can accomplish
such goals.
24
Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to explore how Clinical Supervision can be used to
improve and support the instructional practices of a novice teacher. In this chapter, I will
begin by explaining how the question to be studied lends itself to a qualitative case study
using continuous comparative analysis. I will then outline the design for this study,
including how the participant was selected, as well as provide information about the
school environment in which the study takes place. Finally I will explain how data was
collected and analyzed over the course of this study.
Qualitative Case Study
"Qualitative research is an umbrella concept covering several forms of inquiry
that help us understand and explain the meaning of social phenomena with as little
disruption of the natural setting as possible" (Merriam, 1998 p. 5). There are several
different forms that qualitative research can take; however, Merriam explains five
commonalities found across all forms of qualitative research.
• Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people
have constructed, that is, how they make sense of their world and the
experiences they have in the world (p. 6).
• In all forms of qualitative research, the researcher is the primary
instrument for data collection and analysis (p. 7).
• Qualitative research usually involves field work (p. 7).
• Qualitative research primarily employs an inductive research strategy.

• Since qualitative research focuses on process, meaning, and
understanding, the product of a qualitative study is richly descriptive (p.
8).
The procedures for this study, which will be outlined later in this chapter, meet all five
criteria for a qualitative study. Additionally, what often differentiates a qualitative study
from a quantitative study is that the researcher often spends a great deal of time in the
natural setting of the study and is often very closely involved with the participant(s) of
the study (Yin, 1984; Merriman, 1998). This adds another criterion which the current
study meets.
One specific form of qualitative research is the case study. According to Yin
(1984), case studies should be considered as the most appropriate form of study when
dealing with exploratory questions that ask "how" or "why". He further explains the
validity of the case study to be used in research when contemporary events are examined
and relevant behaviors cannot be manipulated and direct observation and systematic
interviewing takes place.
Merriman explains that while case studies can be quantitative, in the field of
education they are more likely to be qualitative. Yin gives three applications that give
case studies a distinctive place in evaluative research.
• The most important is to explain the causal links in real-life interventions
that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies (1984, p.
25).
• A second application is to describe the real-life context in which an
intervention has occurred (1984, p. 25).
26
• Finally, the case study strategy may be used to explore those situations in
which the intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes
(1984, p. 25).
Additionally, in the classic case study, it is an individual that is the primary focus of the
study and primary unit of analysis. It is the researcher that gathers and analyzes the data
relevant to the case. The current study meets the criteria for a case study as outlined by
Yin.
Data gathered in the study was analyzed using the constant comparative analysis
method which will be further explained later in this chapter.
Research Design and Procedures
Initial Protocols
Prior to beginning the proposal for this study, several protocols had to be
completed. First and foremost, an application was submitted to the Department for the
Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Houston. Permission to proceed with
the research was granted. In addition to approval from Human Subjects, I also had to
submit a proposal to the research department for the school district the study was to be
conducted in, which also required approval from the campus principal. Approval to
proceed with the study was granted by all parties.
27
Selection of Participant
Since the focus of this study is on the use of Clinical Supervision with novice
teachers, the participant needed be a first year teacher. According to Sergiovanni and
Starratt (2002), the supervisor must "build a relationship based on mutual trust and
support" (p. 227) before every walking into a teacher's classroom in order to set the stage
for effective Clinical Supervision. Because I have eleven years of instructional
experience in the math classroom, I believed that I would have more credibility
supervising a math teacher and that would help in building a sense of trust with the
participant. Therefore, participation was limited to mathematics teachers. There were
five possible candidates for participation in the study. I met with the candidates as a
group and explained the study I would be conducting and the purpose of the study. Each
candidate was also given a letter explaining in detail the requirements for participation,
the format of the techniques to be used and the time commitment involved. Candidates
were invited to participate on a voluntary basis and were asked to visit with me further if
they were interested in participating. One candidate contacted me via email to let me
know she would like to participate. I met with her and she signed the consent form as
required by the Department for the Protection of Human Subjects. Ms. Cruz (name
changed to protect identity), the participant in the study, is an eighth grade math teacher.
She received her certification through a traditional certification program in the state of
Texas. However, the requirement for student teaching was waived because she spent
four years working on a school campus, two of which she was employed as a teacher's
aide.
28
Background of School
Baker Middle School (name changed) is a Title I school with a population of
approximately 1,000 students. The school demographics are as follows: 97% Hispanic
48% Limited English Proficient (LEP); 65% At Risk; 20% Mobility; 93% Economically
Disadvantaged. The school employs approximately 55 teachers and four administrators.
Baker Middle School has maintained a state rating of Academically Acceptable;
however, the school failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the 2007 - 2008
school year based on the performance of LEP students in mathematics on the Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills (TAKS) test and Special Education students'
performance on the TAKS test in mathematics and reading.
Procedures for Data Collection
In this study, I conducted five cycles of the Clinical Supervision process. In the
initial planning conference, I asked questions to help Ms. Cruz determine which areas in
the instructional process she felt most comfortable with. From there we moved to
discussions of other areas to determine what behavior would be observed in the initial
observation. Each observation lasted for a period of twenty minutes. The date and time
of the observation were be determined by Ms. Cruz during the conferences.
During the observation, I recorded data on the relevant behaviors. After the
observation, I transcribed the data into an appropriate form to be stored on the computer.
I also keep a reflection journal that was not shared with Ms. Cruz. This allowed me to
make notes of other events that may have occurred during the observation that weren't
relevant to the agreed upon observable behaviors, but that might aid in data analysis for
the purpose of this study. After the initial observation, I scheduled a time to meet with
29
Ms. Cruz for the post conference during which I shared the data. At this point, we
discussed the data and what theories and best practice research say about the data
observed. Our conclusions set the stage for the next observation.
During each subsequent observation, I collected data and used the constant
comparative analysis method to interpret the data. This method, developed by Glasser
and Straus in 1967, is a means for developing a grounded theory (Merriman, 1998).
A grounded theory consists of categories, properties, and hypotheses that are the
conceptual links between and among the categories and properties. Because the
basic strategy of the constant comparative method is compatible with the
inductive, concept-building orientation of all qualitative research, the constant
comparative method of data analysis has been adopted by many researchers who
are not seeking to build substantive theory. (Merriman, 1998, p. 159)
Since the purpose behind this research is to explore how Clinical Supervision can be used
to support and improve the instructional processes of a novice teacher, it calls for this
type of analysis. The data gathered on the behaviors observed were continuously
compared to data recorded in previous observations to see if the interventions (as
referenced by Yin previously in Chapter 3) put in place are indeed changing the
instructional practice of Ms. Cruz.
30
Summary
This qualitative single case study uses Cogan's (1973) model of Clinical
Supervision. I acted as the supervisor and conducted five cycles of Clinical Supervision
with a first year mathematics teacher. Data were collected and analyzed using the
constant comparative analysis method in order to determine if this process does support
and improve the instructional practices of a novice teacher, as well as provide suggestions
and alternatives for future research.
31
Chapter 4: Clinical Supervision Cycles
Introduction
In this single case study, I conducted five cycles of the Clinical Supervision
process. Chapter Four summarizes each conference and observation. Each observation
summary contains information regarding the data that were collected during the
observation. The chapter ends with a summary interview conducted with the teacher
regarding her experiences during this process.
Pre-Conference#l: November 3,2008
I began the first pre-conference with a reminder of the purpose and what our roles
would be. I explained that I was here to offer insight into instructional classroom
practices. I reminded Ms. Cruz that all of our conversations were confidential and that
the purpose of this conference was to decide what she would like me to observe during
the first classroom observation. I explained that I would only record data on information
that we agreed upon in the conference.
Without hesitation, Ms. Cruz told me that she wanted me to visit her fourth period
class. She stated, "This is my absolute worst class. I have six level-one students and
seven special education students. I have a very hard time trying to get through the lesson.
I just have a hard time figuring out what to do. I just have bad classroom management.
The kids are horrible." She reiterated that she felt like she could not control the class. In
order to better understand what the classroom dynamics looked like, I asked Ms. Cruz,
Level-one refers to a Limited English Proficient (LEP) student's acquisition of the English language.
"When you say that the students are horrible and that you can't control them, what does
that look like? What specifically happens in class that makes you feel like they are
horrible?"
Ms. Cruz explained that she could not get the students to do their work. She said
that she felt like the students liked her, but they were very behind. She said that she
wastes a lot of time redirecting their behavior. She also explained that she has a co-
teacher33 in that class every other day. This teacher follows the same group of students to
each of their classes. Ms. Cruz told me that she had discussed the behavior of the class
with the co-teacher and he said that when they were in her class, they were actually on
their best behavior.
At this point, I was a little surprised because I had not heard anything from other
administrators, the campus math content specialist, or other teachers or students that
would have indicated to me that Ms. Cruz had any issues with classroom management.
Actually, I had heard quite the opposite. As we talked in the pre-conference, I was
having a hard time figuring out exactly what I would need to observe and give Ms. Cruz
feedback on. In order to assist me in getting a better idea of observable practices, I asked
Ms. Cruz what methods she had tried with the students and what her lesson delivery
usually looked like. She explained that she tried to keep the lesson and the language
simple. She tried to model examples with the students, and she sometimes used videos
from the internet to try and get them engaged. "The students just aren't interested in
learning. The class is so disruptive that one student even told me one day that she
Co-teachers are teachers certified in Special Education. These teachers work with regular education
teachers to assist special education students mainstreamed into the regular education classroom.
33
couldn't write in her journal because she couldn't think because of all the distractions,"
explained Ms. Cruz.
The class is a ninety minute class, so I asked Ms. Cruz which part of the class she
thought that most of the disruptions occurred: the first 30 minutes, the second 30 minutes
or the last 30 minutes. She said that the students were most disruptive during their
independent practice time. She also explained that she sits with the most disruptive
students during their independent practice. I asked her at what point during the class the
students generally work on independent practice, so that I could observe during that time.
She explained how her class was structured time-wise. During this explanation, she also
told me that when students begin working on their independent practice they move into
groups. This requires movement throughout the classroom. I suggested that sometimes it
is in the transition between activities that disruptions begin to occur, and that I would like
to see the transition from her instruction to the independent practice time. We agreed that
I would do the observation on the following Wednesday from 2:35 to 3:05. However,
after much discussion we still had not agreed on what I would observe.
I asked Ms. Cruz exactly what she would like for me to record so that we could
discuss it after the observation. She said, "Just tell me what I am doing wrong, and how
to fix it." I explained that I understood her frustration, but that I really needed data that
we could look at together because to tell her what she was doing wrong would be a
judgment on my part, and that was not our purpose. She had a difficult time giving me
anything specific to observe. I made the suggestion of recording any verbal student
disruptions along with her responses to the students during the transition from whole
class instruction to independent practice and during independent practice. I explained
34
that we could look at that to see if there were two or three students that were always
causing the disruptions or if it was a problem throughout the class and that we could see
exactly how many disruptions were taking place, Ms. Cruz agreed that this information
might give her insight into the true nature of the problems.
Observation #1: November 5,2008
Just as I entered the classroom and took a seat in the back, the teacher was
finishing up her instruction. One student asked a question, and the teacher did not
respond. The student turned around to another student and asked the question again. The
other student responded. The teacher then asked the students to move into their groups. I
observed the students as they moved to different areas of the room to work with their pre-
assigned groups. During this time, only one student called out verbally with a question to
the teacher. The teacher responded to his question. The class moved into their groups
without need for any redirection from the teacher. During the independent practice, one
student left his seat, crawled over his desk, picked something up, crawled back over the
desk and sat down. The same student was later laughing and talking to the student beside
him. While this student did not appear to be on task, his talking and laughter was not
loud enough that I could hear what he was saying and students around him continued to
work. During this observation, I could hear quiet talking around the room, but from my
observations everyone was working on their worksheet and discussion appeared to be
about the work. Some students were speaking in Spanish, so I do not know exactly what
they were speaking about, but they were working and no one was causing loud classroom
35
disturbances, as the teacher discussed in the planning conference. This behavior
continued for the length of the observation.
Feedback Conference #1/Planning Conference #2: November 10,2008
As soon as I sat down, the teacher said, "Oh, it went so much better!" I asked the
teacher if they were behaving differently just while I was present in the classroom. She
explained that the class had continuously been going better. She said that she had called
a couple of parents of the students that previously had been the most disruptive. She
explained that she had re-formed the groups and tried to put behavior students with
quieter students, low achieving students with higher achieving students, and the level one
students with bilingual students that could help interpret for them. I explained that for
group activities those were all research based strategies for cooperative groups. I
explained to her that my responsibility during the previous observation was to record
verbal disruptions during the transition and independent work, and I shared the
information that I had, though there was not much to share or discuss. I asked what else
she might like feedback on. She thought for a moment and said, "Students don't read.
They know how to do it, but they don't do it. They don't read the problems or the
directions." What I realized at this point was that in both conferences, in which I had
asked what her instructional concerns were or what she would like feedback on, she gave
me student behaviors. I explained to the teacher that a student reading or not reading was
not really something that I could observe or that we could discuss and plan for
improvements on. To which she replied, "They have a lot of trouble still with fractions."
As the supervisor, I had to determine how I could get Ms. Cruz to focus on a behavior
36
that was more teacher centered. I explained again, that she was really describing a
student behavior and what I really wanted to do was look at something regarding her
practice as a teacher. She thought for a moment, and said "I don't know." I then
suggested we think about it another way.
I said "Think about your end of the year observation that one of the principals
will do. The process that we are doing is something that can help ensure that you get a
really good evaluation. When any of the administrators on campus have done walk-
through evaluations of your class, have they given you any feedback that was either good
or bad that you aren't sure about?" At this point, the teacher's eyebrows lifted and she
said, "Yes, apparently I ask good questions." I told her that was a great starting point,
and asked her why she thought she asked good questions. She said that when Ms.
Maldanado came to her class that she had written on the check off sheet, "great
questioning strategies." Then she said, "But, I don't really know why she said that." At
that point I suggested that I record the questions that she asks in class which would give
us real data to look at so that she could examine if she thought heir questioning strategies
were good and why. She agreed that she would like to do that. The observation was
scheduled for December 2,2008.
37
Observation #2 and Data Analysis: January 7,2009
The second observation was originally scheduled for December 2, 2008,
following the planning conference that occurred on November 11, 2008. However, over
the Thanksgiving holiday, Ms. Cruz had knee surgery and consequently was out on sick
leave on December 2. The observation was rescheduled on two other occasions prior to
the winter break, but each was subsequently cancelled due to either an unforeseen
conflict in schedule with complications from Ms. Cruz's surgery or a conflict with the
supervisor's schedule. Upon returning to school on January 5, 2009, the observation was
scheduled for Wednesday, January 7, 2009 during third period from 11:55 to 12:15.
During a brief visit with Ms. Cruz on Monday, January 5,2009,1 checked with Ms. Cruz
to make sure she was still comfortable with me observing the class and recording the
questions that she asked students. She agreed that this was okay.
When I entered the room, Ms. Cruz was in the middle of a review to prepare
students for an upcoming benchmark exam. She was reviewing material related to
converting between decimals, fractions, and percents, reducing ratios, ordering numbers,
and operations with integers. I remained in the room for twenty minutes and recorded the
questions that she asked.
38
Upon analyzing the data, I found the Ms. Cruz asked a total of 109 questions in a
span of twenty minutes. Of those questions, 59 questions were at the knowledge level of
Bloom's Taxonomy and basically asked students for the next step in solving a math
problem. Samples of the questions include:
Do I move the decimal to the left or to the right?
What do I do next?
How many spaces?
Forty one questions were for purposes of clarification such as "Do you understand?" Of
the nine questions remaining, five were used for student redirection and four could be
considered to be at the level of comprehension on Bloom's Taxonomy. This alone was
concerning to me as the supervisor because this teacher had been told by an administrator
on campus that she asked good questions during her classroom instruction. She did in
fact ask a lot of questions to keep most students' attention. However, when compared to
questions that students will face on the Stanford Test and the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test, the questions are on a very low level. As I observed
the class, while I did not record specific data, I also noticed that the teacher answered a
lot of her own questions and rarely allowed enough time between asking the first
question, and either answering the question herself, or asking the question in a different
manner. Additionally, all of the questions, except for two, were group response
questions. Since questioning strategies were initially something that the teacher felt good
about, I did not want to bombard her with a great deal of data that might be interpreted as
negative in the feedback conference. I decided to simply give Ms. Cruz the lists of
questions and let the conversation flow from there.
39
Feedback Conference #2/Planning Conference #3: January 13,2009
I began this conference by asking the teacher how many questions she thinks she
asked the students in a twenty minute time span. She responded with maybe thirty or
forty. When I told her that she had asked 109, she was very surprised, and her immediate
response was to ask, "Is that bad?" I explained that it was not about it being good or bad,
it was just information. I showed her a list of the questions that were asked during the
observation, and I asked her to look them over. Her response was, "I think they are very
low." When she spoke of them as low, she was referring to them being low level or
simple questions. She continued to explain that she thinks in another class, they might be
higher. I asked her if she had a copy of the question stems that indicate what category
questions fall in regard to knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis or
evaluation. She said she did not and had never heard of it. I told her that I had a copy I
could share with her, and she indicated that she would like a copy.
I then asked her to think back to her teaching methods class in college and tell me
what she remembered concerning what research and best practice said about questioning
strategies. She replied, "Don't ask yes or no questions. Always ask why. Show them
how you do it." I asked her what she remembered about whole group response questions
and individual student response questions. She said that she didn't really remember
much about that topic, but responded, "I think when you want one student to answer, you
call on that student and then ask the question." I responded, "When you do that, when
you call on the student first and then ask the question, what does it do for all of the other
students in the class?" She was quiet for a moment, and then said, "Well, I guess they
know you aren't going to call on them."
40
"Right," I said, "so at that point do they really have to listen and pay attention and
think about the question?" "No, I guess they really don't. So, if you want to call on an
individual student, you should ask the question and then call on the student?" she asked.
I suggested that this would be a good strategy to try because it would give more students
a chance to think about the question and think of an answer. However, I also wanted Ms.
Cruz to think about how much time she gives students to answer the questions before she
either answers the question herself or asks another question. I asked her, "Do you
remember what your class said about wait time?" She answered, "I think like ten seconds
or something like that." That answer really surprised me. I answered by explaining that
generally research says three to five seconds, but longer would be better for students that
had learning difficulties, such as her special education students or her English language
learners (ELL). I asked her if she thought she gave students that much wait time between
questions, and she said, "I don't know. Maybe. Probably." While I did not record wait
time during the observation, I knew that she was not allowing that much time, so I
suggested that we time ten seconds. I asked a question and waited for ten seconds to go
by. When it was over, Ms. Cruz immediately said, "Oh, no, I don't give them that much
time." I explained that it was okay, and that maybe she could make a conscious effort in
future lessons to wait three to five seconds before rephrasing the question or answering
the question herself. When I mentioned this, she said, "I answer the questions myself?
Do I do that a lot? That's bad." I responded, "I don't know how often that you do it
because I did not record that data. I did notice a couple of times throughout the last
lesson that you answered yourself."
41
I asked her to look at her lists of questions again and decide if she thought they
were mostly group response, individual student response, or whole group response. She
looked over the list and said that she believed they were mostly whole group questions.
She saw only two questions that looked like individual student questions. I summarized
by saying that we had talked a lot about questioning strategies. I asked Ms. Cruz what
she would like to work on so that I could come back and do a follow up observation to
see if there were changes. She said that she would like for me to look at her wait time,
the levels of questions that she asks (referring to Bloom's Taxonomy) and varying how
she asks the questions. She also said she would like to make sure that students are
answering the questions and that she doesn't answer her own questions. I suggested that
the next time I come in, I again record the questions that she asks during the lesson. This
time I would add how much wait time she gives, count how many questions were group
response versus individual response, and that I would make a notation if she answered
her own question. During the next conference, we would look at the data to see if she
was asking a greater percentage of higher order thinking questions throughout the lesson
in addition to the knowledge and comprehension questions, if she was allowing for three
to five seconds of wait time, and if she was varying the questions between group response
and individual response. I also explained that this was a lot to try to incorporate at one
time, so I suggested that we wait a week between this conference and the next
observation to give her time to consciously incorporate the things we had discussed into
her instruction.
42
Observation #3 and Data Analysis: January 28,2009
While this is the third observation of this teacher's instruction, it is only the
second observation regarding specific instructional practices. The teacher and I decided
that I would continue to observe during third period to get a consistent picture of the
classroom dynamics and teacher-student interactions. As I walked into the teacher's
classroom, the teacher was standing at the front teaching a lesson involving measures of
central tendency. The teacher used a Power Point slide in which she gave the students
the definition of a term, such as mean, had them copy the definition, and then worked a
sample problem with the students. This lesson structure was similar to the lesson
structure the teacher used when reviewing with the students during the previous
observation. During the conference, I recorded questions asked by the teacher, calculated
wait time after teacher questions, tallied whether questions were group response or
individual response, and tallied the number of times the teacher answered her own
questions.
Upon analyzing the data collected, I found the teacher asked a total of 51
questions: 21 questions at the knowledge level, 10 questions at the comprehension level,
and 20 clarifying questions. While this does represent an increase in the percentage of
questions that are at the comprehension level, there are still no questions that ask students
to apply the knowledge they have gained or extend their thinking to higher levels.
Examples given in class gave students a set of numbers and asked them to either find the
mean, the median, or the mode. Of the questions asked, two questions were directed to
individual students while the rest solicited a class response. There were approximately
ten instances in which the teacher waited less than two seconds and then either answered
43
her own question or asked a different question. Most concerning to me, however, was the
fact that between one observation and the next, there was no significant changes in the
level of questioning. For the previous feedback conference, I gave the teacher a list of all
questions asked with no other information. For the next conference, I prepared a list of
all the questions asked and categorized them according to knowledge, comprehension,
and clarification. I also recorded the amount of wait time the teacher gave after each
question. Additionally, I marked which questions the teacher answered or followed
immediately with another question.
Feedback Conference #3/Planning Conference #4
At the beginning of the conference, the teacher immediately asked about her wait
time. I gave her the data and asked her to look it over. As she looked at it, she asked me,
"Is it good or bad?" I explained to her what the symbols meant on the data to be sure that
she could interpret it correctly. Instead of answering her question, I asked what she
thought about it. She said that it looked like most of the time she waited between three
and five seconds and that a lot of time the students answered immediately. She didn't
really comment on the number of times she answered her own question or gave no wait
time at all. When she commented that a lot of times the students answered the questions
immediately, I asked her what she thought that could tell her about the question itself.
She thought for a moment and said, "I guess maybe the question is pretty easy." At that
point, I asked the teacher to look at the types of questions she was asking. As she looked
at them, she asked me, "What kind of questions should I be asking?" I asked her to think
about what TAKS questions look like and asked her if they were knowledge questions.
44
She responded with, "No, they are high. They are hard." I replied, "If that is what you
are trying to get students ready for, what kind of questions should you be asking?" She
responded that her questions should be high level questions.
I explained at that point to Ms. Cruz that the questions she asks in class at the
knowledge and comprehension level are not bad questions. As she is teaching them a
skill, she needs to check to ensure that they can answer the questions at the procedural
level; do they know what step comes next? At this point we talked about how the levels
in Blooms Taxonomy relate to mathematics. I explained that if I give a student a set of
numbers and ask them for the steps to find the median, they are demonstrating knowledge
of the steps. I explained to Ms. Cruz that often times in math we think that when students
can work a problem by themselves that they are at the application stage. However, this is
really more of the comprehension phase. This is where students have the knowledge and
remember the steps to comprehend how to work a problem. However, to take the
knowledge and skills they have acquired and know to use those skills in a problem
situation demonstrates application.
Afterwards, I asked her how she could take the process even further up the ladder
past application. She said, "Maybe give them a more real life problem?" At that point, I
felt like she was really unsure as to how to develop higher level questions, so we looked
at the questioning stems I gave her prior to our last observation. I gave her an example,
"Compare and contrast the uses for the mean and median when analyzing data? Why
would the mean be a better measure of central tendency for this problem than the
median? What would happen if I have outliers in my data?" She said that really helped
her see how to reword questions so that students would have to think more. I reiterated to
45
the teacher that we have to teach them skills at the knowledge and comprehension level,
but then we must ensure that they can function using those skills at the analysis and
evaluation level too.
I suggested to Ms. Cruz that we sit down and design a lesson together. I told her
that I wanted her to design the lesson and then I wanted us to sit down and look at how
we can raise the level of questioning throughout the lesson. She agreed to do this. She
said that she would like to do this for geometry and that she was teaching geometry next
week. After looking at our calendars, we planned to work together the following
Monday, February 2, 2009 after school. She said that she would put together a rough
draft for the lesson she would be presenting on Tuesday, February 3, and then we could
look at it together and make changes. We scheduled the next observation for February 3,
2009 during third period.
Planning Conference #4 Continued: February 2, 2009
When I arrived on Monday, Ms. Cruz had her lesson ready. The lesson she
planned to teach the following day was on line and angle relationships. Specific topics
that she had included were complementary angles, supplementary angles, vertical angles,
corresponding angles, alternate interior angles, and alternate exterior angles. Ms. Cruz
had designed a Power Point presentation in which she first gave the students the
definition of all six terms which she planned for students to copy into their notes.
Following that, she had an example drawn, from which students had to list each type or
pair of angles defined. It was very similar in format to the two previous lessons I had
observed, and the questioning levels where still at the knowledge and comprehension
46
level. After reviewing the lesson, I asked Ms. Cruz who was doing most of the work in
the lesson she designed. She did not understand what I was asking her. So I explained,
"In this lesson you are giving the students a lot of information. Basically you are doing
the work. You are supplying the definitions and walking them through the practice
problems. The students themselves are not really doing anything." She responded with,
"Oh, I see what you are saying. I've never really thought about it like that."
I asked her what she thought about designing a lesson in which the students came
up with the definitions themselves that explained each of the concepts she wanted them to
learn. She looked at me with one eyebrow raised and said, "Okay, how do I do that?" I
drew a picture of intersecting lines and labeled the angles a, b, c, and d. I drew a second
set of intersecting lines and labeled the angles in the same manner ensuring that angles a
and c were vertical angles in each example. "What if," I explained, "we give the students
a protractor and have them measure and record the angle measurements for each of the
angles. Then we ask them to look at the relationship between a and c in both examples
and write a description of what they notice about them. Then we ask them to write a
description of what the relationship they see between b and d in each picture. Then we
can tell them that angles a and c along with angles b and d in each picture are called
vertical angles because they share certain characteristics. Then we ask them to decide
what those characteristics are and write a definition. Afterwards have each group share
out with feedback from the rest of the class. When you are done, you should have a
working definition of vertical angles, and you really didn't tell the students anything."
She smiled and said, "I like this way a lot better!" We worked through how to do the
same thing for supplementary and complementary angles. Because the students would be
47
using the protractor to measure the angles themselves, we decided that it might be too
rushed if she tried to teach all of the concepts originally planned, so she planned to do the
rest on Wednesday.
Once we finished with the designing the lesson, I talked her through some of the
strategies that she might want to employ since this would be her first time teaching a
lesson in this manner. We discussed that the students might initially have trouble using
the protractor, so in order to help students use and read it properly, she might want to go
through measuring all four angles in the first picture together, and then have students
measure the angles in the second picture individually or as a small group. After our
discussion, the teacher said she felt very confident and excited about teaching the lesson
the following day. We agreed that I would continue to record the same questioning
patterns as I had done previously.
Observation #4 February 3,2009
When I walked in to begin this observation, the teacher was standing at the front
of the room using the Power Point that she had designed previously for the lesson. The
Power Point had a definition for vertical angles that the teacher asked a student to read.
This was followed by a definition of complementary and supplementary angles. At this
point, I was a bit confused. The lesson we had created together was designed to have the
students define these terms themselves using a guided discovery process. Ms. Cruz then
asked the students what should be the first thing that should come to mind when they
think of complimentary and supplementary angles and told them that complementary
angles were 90 degrees and supplementary angles were 180 degrees.
48
Next, she explained to the students that they would be doing the lesson a little
differently today. She explained that they would be using the protractor to help them
answer some questions and that they would have to think a little bit harder today. Ms.
Cruz modeled for the students how to properly use the protractor and worked with the
students to measure one angle. She then told the students to measure the remaining
angles so that they could answer the questions together. As the students worked to
measure the remaining angles, Ms. Cruz walked around the class helping students that
were having difficulties. As I listened to the questions, many students had the same
problems associated with using a protractor correctly. As some groups began finishing
with their measurements, she told them to go ahead and answer the questions (which she
had previously told students they would answer together).
As in previous observations, I recorded the questions the teacher asked students in
order to see if the teacher was moving up the level of Bloom's Taxonomy and including
more application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation questions. In the lesson's
introduction and the explanation for using a protractor, the questions the teacher asked
were all knowledge or procedural based questions. However, these questions were
appropriate for the scenario. Because the teacher spent the largest part of her time
helping students measure their angles, she was not actually involved in asking or guiding
them through the more difficult questions on their discovery activity. This lesson did not
proceed as I would have taught it. However, what I had to remember, as I prepared to go
to the feedback conference, was that the lesson was not about me. It was about assisting
this teacher with her own practice, and I had to make sure to withhold my judgments
regarding what I thought should have happened.
49
Feedback Conference #4/Planning Conference #5
I began the conference by asking the teacher how she felt about the lesson. She
said, "I think it went pretty good. I think I like that way better because the kids had more
of a way to discover it for themselves, but you know I had to teach them how to use the
protractors. It took a little bit of time to explain to them how to use the protractor and
then I had to go to the groups and explain it to each group, but I think I did like that one
and it went much better.. .especially that they came out with it. I didn't have to give it to
them. The only thing is that it didn't go over corresponding angles and alternate interior
angles. I tried to come up with work similar to that, but I had a hard time coming up with
something. I couldn't come up with it. It was so hard."
I thought at this point that Ms. Cruz was talking about inserting pictures drawn in
Microsoft Word into the text document, so I asked, "you had a hard time drawing the
pictures?" She replied, "No not the pictures, it was hard to come up with the questions to
challenge them so that they could come up with the definitions themselves.. .like the
questions you helped me come up with for the one that I did." Ms. Cruz was referring to
guiding questions that would help students draw conclusions from work that they had
done in order to come up with definitions or characteristics on their own of corresponding
angles and alternate interior angles. She said, "I didn't want to actually tell them. I
wanted them to learn by themselves, and I had such a hard time." She said, "I kind of
know what to do, but I can't put it on paper." I asked her why she thought she could not
put it on paper. She explained that she really didn't know. At that point, I suggested that
we go through the process of coming up with the types of questions that she was having
50
difficulty in formulating specifically relating to corresponding angles. To begin, I drew
a picture similar to Figure 1.
Figure 1
"If angle a and angle e are corresponding angles, what is it that students need to know
about them?" I asked Ms. Cruz. She said the students needed to know they had equal
measures. I explained that in order for them to understand that on their own, after
measuring all of the angles, you would ask students what they notice about angles a and c
and also about angles e and g. I explained that what we want students to see is that each
pair of angles has equal measures. "Oh, I get it," she said. "Angles a and d are equal
because they are vertical angles. Because they are equal, are they also corresponding?"
She looked for a moment, and said "No, they can't be because they are on opposite sides
of the transversal." I explained that she was right, and that in order for students not to
make that mistake, we would need to ask them some more questions about common
characteristics between each set of angles. At this point, I pulled out a textbook to show
Ms. Cruz how I would use the definition in order to help me create questions. As we
looked at the definition, Ms. Cruz said, "So you can just tell them that they have the same
51
measure and they are on the same side of the transversal." I reminded her that we would
not be telling them, we would be asking them to make their own generalization. I
explained to Ms. Cruz that I would look at the definition in order to find out what I
wanted students to know. What answers do I want students to give and from there, I
would ask a question that should solicit that response. For example, "What do you notice
about the measures of angles a and e?" I also explained that I would give them several
more examples because what I also want them to see is that they are on the same side of
the transversal. I would also ask, "What do you notice about the measures of angle c and
g? What do you notice about angles b and f?" At this point, Ms. Cruz said, "Okay, okay
now I understand. So, now that they see that we are asking them about these pairs of
angles, now we want to ask them a question about where they are. So maybe we could
ask them about which side of the transversal they are on." I told her she was right.
About that time the bell rang and we were out of time, so I suggested we do
something similar for our next observation. I asked her if she would try and design a
similar lesson on a topic that she would be covering. She explained that she would be
teaching Pythagorean Theorem after spring break, and she really wanted to do something
similar that was also hands on. I explained that she did not have to re-invent the wheel,
and that she could find prepared lessons online that were often effective. She could take
one of those lessons and tweak it to fit her needs and the needs of her students. We
agreed that she would find a lesson, and before the next observation, we would look at it
together, and I could answer any questions that she might have. What I realized after this
conference was over is that we never really looked at the data that I gathered during my
last observation. All of our time was spent discussing lesson design.
52
Planning Conference #5 Continued: March 23,2009
Upon returning from spring break, Ms. Cruz and I met to look at the lesson she
designed for the upcoming observation. In this lesson, Ms. Cruz would be introducing
the Pythagorean Theorem to students. Ms. Cruz found a lesson online that engaged the
students in active participation throughout the lesson which had them discovering the
formula for the Pythagorean Theorem. Ms. Cruz first asked me to look through the
lesson to determine if it was a good lesson. I asked her if she thought it was a good
lesson. She said that she believed it was because the students would be using tangram34
pieces to develop the Pythagorean Theorem on their own. She explained that they would
be cutting out the shapes themselves and manipulating them so that they would be more
involved than if she just told them the formula. This lesson gave the students a picture
similar to Figure 2.
c h
Figure 2
Tangrams usually consist of seven geometric shapes, usually a square, a parellelogram, and five
triangles to form different shapes, www.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861718299/tangram.html
53
In this activity, students would have two separate sets of tangram pieces exactly
alike. They would use one set to cover the area in squares a and b. The second set of
tangram pieces would be used to cover the area in square c. The purpose of this activity
is for the students to see that the total area in square a and square b is the same as the total
area in square c. This concrete activity is done in order to move the students to the more
abstract idea that a2 + b 2 = c2. From this point, the students test the theory by drawing a
right triangle with dimensions of 3 units, 4 units, and 5 units onto grid paper, determining
the area of each square, and determining if the total area of the two smaller squares is the
same as the total area of the larger square. This process will be repeated with two other
right triangles. From this point, the teacher moves into a brief explanation of the
Theorem, and students use their newly acquired knowledge (If a2 + b 2 = c2, then the
triangle in question is a right triangle) to determine abstractly if a given triangle is a right
triangle. Additionally, they will find missing side lengths of triangles using the
Pythagorean Theorem.
After we went through the lesson together, I suggested to Ms. Cruz that when
presenting this type of lesson, it is usually a good idea to anticipate any challenges the
students might face in completing the activity. She began by explaining that she did not
think she would have enough time to complete the lesson during one class period. She
said she thought she would only be able to complete the part where the students use the
tangram pieces to cover the area of the squares. It should be noted that the class period is
ninety minutes long. I explained to Ms. Cruz that part of using lessons like this was
monitoring the time for the students. I suggested that she give the students a time limit
for each activity in order to ensure that students remain committed to the task at hand,
54
and in order to maximize learning time in the class. Her concern was for the student
groups that might not finish during the allotted time. I suggested at that point, that she
have students from groups that completed the task help those groups that had not yet
finished.
She also expressed concern that once the students used the tangram pieces to fill
in the area of each square that they might not make the connection that the areas of
squares a and b are the same as the area of square c. I asked her, "How do you think you
can help them make that connection without telling them they are the same? You can tell
them, but if they are not really able to see it or visualize it, then the activity is pretty
meaningless." She thought for a moment and said, "Well, could I have them pick up the
pieces from squares a and b and lay them on top of the pieces in square c?" I asked, "Do
you think that would help the students see that the area of the two smaller squares is the
same as the area of the two larger squares?" She was quiet for a moment, and said, "Yes,
I really think that would help them see for sure that the areas are the same."
I asked if she had other questions or concerns, and she said she was very excited
about the lesson. She believed the students would really enjoy it and that it would help
them understand the concept better than just using a formula that they are given. At that
point, I shared the data from observation four which we did not have time to look at the
last time we were together. I asked her to look it over and tell me what she saw and give
me her thoughts. "Well, it still looks like I asked a lot of procedural questions," she said.
I responded, "Look at the context of the lesson you were teaching at that point. You were
showing students how to use a protractor to measure angles. In that context, would it be
55
more appropriate to ask knowledge and procedural or higher level questions?" She
paused for a moment and said, "Oh, I see. So sometimes those questions are good too."
I asked her if there was anything else that she saw in the data. She explained that
compared to the last observation, she answered fewer of her own questions, and gave
students more time to answer. I asked how she felt about that, and she answered, "I
really think it is better. It slows things down a little bit and is not so rushed. I don't
really know if the students notice, but I know those are things that I need to do." At this
point, I asked what data she would like for me to record in the upcoming observation. "I
just want you to watch and tell me how I do. If I do something wrong, I want you to tell
me." I told Ms. Cruz, that I understood that she wanted feedback on how the lesson
went, but I could not really tell her if it was good or bad. I explained again that we
needed some verifiable data to look at and draw conclusions from together. "Okay, okay,
I know. I guess you can just look at the questions again and the wait time? Is there a
way you can tell me if you think the students are doing better?" I answered, "I can record
the questions as we've done in the past. As for the students, I can scan the room and
record on and off task behavior. However, if I try to do both of those things at once, I
probably will not be able to record all of the questions." She said that was okay. The
observation was scheduled for the following day.
56
Observation #5 and Data Analysis: March 24,2009
As I entered the classroom, students were already in groups and Ms. Cruz had
passed out the packet students would be using. She was in the process of handing out the
papers that had the tangram pieces on them that students would cut out. I noticed that
one paper was pink and the other was yellow. During this lesson, Ms. Cruz structured it
into chunks of time for students to complete activities. She gave the students instructions
and then asked them to begin to cut out their tangram pieces and use them to fill in the
areas of squares a and b using the pieces they cut from the yellow paper and cover square
c with the pieces they cut from the pink paper. Each group finished in the allotted amount
of time.
At this point, instead of having the students try to answer the questions that
followed on their own, Ms. Cruz took more of a direct role in helping the students think
through the process. She asked questions such as, "Is there anything that you notice
about the area of squares a and b compared to square c?" One student answered, "They
are different colors." As several students laughed, Ms. Cruz said that was a good
observation, but there was more too it than the color. She asked, "What do you think
would happen if you took the pieces from squares a and b and laid them over the pieces
in square c?" One student stated that they would be the same. She had the students try it
and see if that was true. From this point, she helped them to develop the equation for the
Pythagorean Theorem. Throughout the lesson, she asked several questions such as
"What do you think would happen if..." and "Do think this would work for all triangles?"
She asked students to make a prediction and write it in their journal. Then she had the
57
students experiment with the triangles on the grid paper to see if their conclusions were
correct.
Throughout the lesson, I transcribed her questions, but was unable to always
accurately count the wait time as she requested. I also monitored the room approximately
every minute to record how many students were on or off task at any given time. During
this observation, I stayed a total of thirty minutes as opposed to twenty. Upon reviewing
the data, I found that Ms. Cruz asked a significant number more higher level questions.
Of the thirty questions that I recorded, fifteen of them were at the application level or
higher, seven questions were knowledge or comprehension, and eight were clarifying
questions. The following chart indicates students on task behavior during the class
period.
Minute I 2 3 4 5 6 ~~7 8 9
# of students 5 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 6
off task
Minute 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
# of students 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
off task
Minute 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
# of students 3 4 5 7 2 1 0 0 0
off task
Table 1
58
While I was noting student off task activity, I made note of what was happening
in class each time the number of students off task began increasing. Each time you see an
increase such as minute nine, and minutes nineteen through twenty two, it was at a time
an activity was nearing completion. As some groups finished more quickly than others,
they began to talk quietly at their tables. In fact some of them could have been talking
about the outcomes of the activities, but from my position, I could not hear the details of
the conversations.
Feedback Conference #5: April 6,2009
When I walked into Ms. Cruz's room, she started smiling. I asked her how she
felt about the lesson, and she said, "Oh my gosh! It was so much fun!" I asked her why
she thought it was fun. "The students seemed really into it. It was hard for them to come
up with the formula, but they did it. They really did it. I wasn't sure before. And, class
went by so quickly. The bell rang and the students and I both were surprised. They
worked the whole time. I can't believe it. I didn't have to wake any of them up or really
redirect any behavior. Some of them seemed a little reluctant at first, but when they got
the tangram pieces to fit on the first square, they seemed to get a little more excited."
I told her I was glad she was excited about the lesson, and that I was glad she
enjoyed it, but I asked, "Do you think it helped the students learning? Do you think it
will help them to remember the theorem?" She told me that she really believed that it
helped them to understand. She said, "Now any time I put up a question like that as we
have reviewed for TAKS, they say, 'Oh, that is the problem like we did with the
squares.'" At that point, I shared with her the data I collected and gave her a chart for off
59
task behavior like that in Figure 1. She was at first concerned when she saw at times
there were several students that appeared to be off task. I explained to her that these were
instances in which groups finished before other groups and that I could not hear their
conversation. However, I posed the questions, "What could you do in the future to make
sure the groups that finished before others remain committed to the lesson?" She at first
remained quiet and shrugged her shoulders. I also remained quiet. Then she said, "Oh,
maybe I could give them a journal prompt or something and ask them to summarize what
they just did." I just smiled, and I told Ms. Cruz that she had more answers than she gave
herself credit for. At this point, I asked if there was anything else she wanted to discuss
about this particular lesson, and she said no. I asked if it would be okay to shift to the
summary interview, and she agreed.
Summary Interview: April 6,2009
I began the interview with the question, "Do you think the process has been
beneficial? Do you feel like it has helped you in any way?" Ms. Cruz said "Yes, because
if I have a question I can go and ask you. And like the time I give the kids, I wait more.
I know I don't always wait the right amount of time, but I am trying very hard to be
patient with them and I am getting better, and I am much more aware of answering my
own questions, and I don't do it as much. I think the way that you explained to me to do
the lessons, it's improving. I can see that it helps them."
I followed with the questions, "Do think that if we had not done this, that any of
those things would have changed from the beginning of the year until now?" She said,
"No. I was observed, but I don't think they would have really noticed any of those
60
things. It is so general the way they observe us. They wouldn't have told me, 'You are
answering your own questions' or 'You aren't giving enough time to the kids,' or 'Why
don't you try this?'"
I asked, "What if one of the assistant principals had asked you to participate in a
process like this with them? Would you have agreed? Would you have felt as
comfortable with it?" She said, "No, because I think I would be more afraid. I mean
even if they said it wasn't going to affect you, they might think you are a bad teacher.
When anyone comes in, even you, I sweat, I stutter, my mind goes blank, I just get so
nervous. Even with you, even though I know it isn't going to affect anything and that
you are here to help, I still get nervous. If I were doing something like that with one of
the administrators it would be horrible. I couldn't tell them, I was having a hard time
with this or that. Oh no. I would lie. I'll be honest, I would lie to them. I would say,
'Oh everything is fine. I'm not having any trouble.'" I must admit, here I laughed, but I
did ask, "So were you honest with me?" She said, "Yes, I'm honest with you."
I asked her if it was just the fact that the others are in an administrative capacity
that bothers her. She said, "No, it's not just that. I feel comfortable with you because
you were like my mentor. And second of all, I didn't have anybody. I didn't have
anyone that could tell me do this or do that, There were no math teachers in my
department that I could ask; we are all new. We have cool stuff, but we needed someone
to guide us, so I just decided to try it. I decided if I messed up by opening up or being
honest, then I guess I would just learn from that, but I really had nothing to lose."
I asked her for suggestions on how the process could be improved. I asked if
there was anything I could have done differently that would have helped her more or if
61
the process could have been changed in anyway that she thought would make it better.
She said that she really liked the process. She explained that the only thing that could
have made it better were more observations. She also explained that, at the same time
that would have made it worse, because it was so difficult tofindthe time to meet for the
conferences and plan the observations.
I ended the interview by asking Ms. Cruz what she thought was most important
about this process and what she thought she would carry with her in her teaching
practices. She said, "All of it. I will continue to work on my questioning and not
answering my own questions so much. I will try to be more patient with the kids and
give them more time. I definitely want to do more lessons like the ones that we did
together. I just think they are better for the students. They like them better, and it makes
it easier for them."
62
Chapter 5: Conclusions
Introduction
The purpose of this research was to answer three specific questions: How does a
novice teacher's instructional practice change when he/she works with a supervisor in the
Clinical Supervision process? How can the conferences during the cycles of Clinical
Supervision begin to uncover instructional issues that the teacher may not have been
aware of? How can these issues be addressed in the Clinical Supervision process? In the
first section of Chapter 5, these questions will be addressed in a summary based on the
interactions with Ms. Cruz as summarized in Chapter Four.
In the second section of Chapter 5,1 will discuss implications of Clinical
Supervision on instructional practice including questioning strategies, change in lesson
designs, and implications for teacher development. I will follow that with a discussion of
Clinical Supervision as a formative rather than summative process of supervision. In this
section, I will include considerations for the supervisor to take into account as well as
limiting factors in the use of Clinical Supervision. Finally, I will offer considerations for
future research.
Summary and Discussion
The first chapter of this thesis outlines a need to find a method that could offer
novice teachers a system of support that would provide a non-judgmental, non-evaluative
environment that could help them progress from a novice teacher to a professional
teacher. Using the Clinical Supervision process with Ms. Cruz enabled us to discover
instructional concerns throughout the conferences and observations that Ms. Cruz did not
originally realize could be inhibiting her instructional practice. Through conferences,

observations, and informal conversations, we were able to address these issues in a
professional manner that allowed Ms. Cruz to make changes in her instructional practice.
In this section, I will explain how questioning strategies and lesson designs were
addressed.
During the second planning conference, the teacher indicated that one of the
assistant principals informed her during an observation that she had good questioning
strategies. During the second observation and third observation, I recorded the questions
that Ms. Cruz asked during her lessons and, upon analyzing the data after each
conference, found that Ms. Cruz asked very low level questions throughout both lessons.
In order to address this concern after the second observation, I gave Ms. Cruz a list of the
questions and tried to take a more collaborative approach to addressing the issue of low
level questioning. Upon reviewing the data, Ms. Cruz quickly acknowledged that she
thought the questions were "low." Because Ms. Cruz acknowledged that the questions
were low, I made the assumption that she could self-correct this behavior. However,
when the second observation yielded similar results, I found that this was not the case.
When presented with the data in the feedback conference, and Ms. Cruz asked what type
of questions she should be asking, I realized that a different approach to correcting this
problem would be needed.
As Glickman explains, a more directive informational approach can be taken with
a teacher in the supervisory process when the teacher is confused, inexperienced, or at a
loss for what to do, and the supervisor has knowledge of effective practices (Glickman
et.al. 2007). It was at this point that I suggested we design a lesson together that
incorporates questions from various cognitive levels. During this lesson design, I
64
designed most of the lesson for the teacher which might at first sound like Glickman's
directive control style of supervision. However, throughout the lesson planning, I did
solicit the teacher's feedback and input. There was never a point that I told the teacher,
"This is what you have to do."
During the feedback conference after the teacher presented the lesson that we
designed together, another important instructional issue was reveaded. As we discussed
the lesson the teacher presented, she explained that there were two concepts that were not
presented in the lesson that she had to teach the next day. She explained that she tried to
design similar questions that would help lead the students to the conclusions they needed
without her having to tell them the information. However, she expressed that it was
really difficult and that she could not write questions of that nature. At this point, I was
able to explain to Ms. Cruz how I developed such questions by looking at what I needed
students to know and using the definition of terms to work backwards to develop
questions for the students.
It is important to note, that without the use of Clinical Supervision for the
development of this novice teacher, these issues may have been left undiscovered. First
of all, Ms. Cruz felt good about her questioning ability because she had been told by a
campus administrator with thirty plus years of educational experience that she "asked
good questions." Had we not developed a lesson together in which students participated
in more of discovery type learning, Ms. Cruz would not have realized that she had
difficulty preparing a lesson of this nature with appropriate questions to lead students to
conclusions, rather than just providing them with the information.
65
During our first planning conference, she explained the format of her instruction.
She generally began with a "bell ringer," an activity the students were to begin upon
entering the class. This was followed by a lecture in which she gave students notes to
copy from a Power Point followed with examples they worked together. This was
followed by a time for independent practice, during which, students worked problems by
themselves or with a partner. During the first three observations of Ms. Cruz's class, I
found that as she explained, she used this very traditional model of instruction.
The first lesson that we designed together fostered a different approach to student
learning. This lesson followed the 5E lesson cycle approach that is advocated by the
district: Engage, Explore, Explain, Evaluate, Extend. The lesson was designed so that
students would be engaged in their own learning as they used protractors to measure
angles so that they could explore the relationship among certain angles. This would be
followed by a brief explanation by the teacher to clarify any questions or confusion the
students might have. At this point, we did not focus on the Evaluate or Extend phase of
the lesson cycle.
Upon observing Ms. Cruz's lesson during the fourth observation, I saw that Ms.
Cruz had some trouble adhering to the format of the new lesson cycle. She began the
lesson by explaining some concepts the students were to discover for themselves.
However, she did continue with the lesson and had students measure the angles and see
for themselves the relationship among different angles. As mentioned previously, Ms.
Cruz admitted during the following feedback conference, that when she tried to design a
lesson of a similar nature, she was not able to do so. After further explanation on how to
do so, I encouraged Ms. Cruz to try the process again, and recommended that we look at
66
the lesson together before she presented it. I also explained, I often searched for lessons
online and then modified them as needed to fit with my teaching style or the needs of my
students.
When Ms. Cruz and I met for the planning conference prior to observation five,
she had such a lesson ready. She did look online and found the lesson outlined in
Chapter Four for teaching the Pythagorean Theorem. I looked over the lesson with her,
and we discussed problems that students might encounter and how she might address
those problems. During the next observation, Ms. Cruz followed the lesson cycle with
much more ease than during observation four and, as noted in Chapter Four, students
were highly engaged in the lesson and demonstrated understanding, according to Ms.
Cruz, at a much deeper level than they had on previous concepts in which a more direct
style of teaching was used.
Implications for Professional Practice
One might at first think that the changes in questioning strategies and instructional
delivery do not amount to significant changes that will impact student achievement.
However, research indicates that these two implications alone are significant to student
understanding.
Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues defined the cognitive domain as objectives
which "deal with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of
intellectual abilities and skills" (1956, p. 7). Bloom's cognitive levels or taxonomy
classify educational objectives into six major categories: knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These categories are listed in a
67
hierarchical order with knowledge being the lowest level and evaluation being the
highest. According to Oliva (1988, p. 386), "A central premise of professional educators
is that the higher levels of learning should be stressed. The ability to think, for example,
is fostered not through low level recall of knowledge but through application, analysis,
syntheses, and evaluation." There has been debate over whether or not questions at the
higher cognitive level lead to increased student learning. According to Orlich, Harder,
Callahan, Trevisan, and Brown (2004, p. 233), "Merely asking questions is not causal to
student thinking. More important, you should realize that your higher-level questions do
act to invite and encourage higher levels of critical thinking in students. Furthermore, it
appears that if teachers systematically raise the level of their questioning, students raise
the level of their responses correspondingly." Acheson and Gall (1997) conclude, from
studies done, that higher cognitive questioning is necessary, but not sufficient for the
development of a student's ability to think.
Because the questions are necessary for developing a student's ability to think,
and, because they were virtually non-existent prior to Ms. Cruz participation in this study,
the mere fact that the students are now exposed to such questioning techniques can have
implications for the students' cognitive development in mathematics if these questioning
patterns continue to be developed. Second, in Texas, students must take the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Test. Students in the eighth grade must
pass this test in order to be promoted to the ninth grade. Regardless of whether or not
one accepts the importance of Bloom's Taxonomy and higher order thinking questions,
the level of questions asked at the eighth grade level on the TAKS Test are much more
difficult that the questions the students were previously exposed to in Ms. Cruz's class.
68
It is not merely the change in questioning strategy by Ms. Cruz that has the
capacity to impact student achievement, but also the change in her thoughts and actions
around lesson design. In the more traditional approach to content delivery that Ms. Cruz
used in the first three cycles of observations, students were meant to absorb and process
information. They were not called upon to be active participants in their own learning.
By implementing classroom practices that utilize a more inquiry or discovery based
teaching strategy, students are called upon to be active participants in the instruction.
According the Schlechty (2002), when students are actively engaged in classroom
activity, they are more likely to learn what we want them to learn.
Implications for Teacher Development
Chapter One references a definition of "professional teachers" as defined by Wise
and Darling-Hammond (1985):
One who has sufficient knowledge of subject matter and techniques to make
appropriate decisions about instructional content and delivery for different
students and classes. In other words, professional teachers are able to ascertain
their clients' needs and determine how to meet them (p. 31).
Chapter One also poses the question at to whether or not Clinical Supervision can help
move a teacher along the continuum from novice teacher to professional teacher at a
faster pace. This section will take a more specific look at the continuum of teacher
development and what the implications of this research are on teacher development.
Kenneth Leithwood proposes that there are six stages in the development of
professional expertise for teachers (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992). He explains that after
69
stage one, each stage includes expertise gained in previous stages. However, each stage
is not absolute. "Expertise at higher stages will begin to develop quite early given
appropriate, formative assessment" (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992, p. 87). The first stage
in this process of development is referred to as developing survival skills. According to
Leithwood, in this stage, teachers have a semblance of classroom management, limited
skill in the use of different teaching models, randomly select models, use assessments
that are mostly summative, and may not be aligned to curriculum goals. In stage two,
"becoming competent in the basic skills of instruction," the teacher's classroom
management skills and skills in the use of different teaching models are more firmly
established, there is continuous practice in the use of those models, and assessments
become more formative and are aligned with curriculum goals which are easiest to
measure. It is not necessary at this point to expound on the other four stages because Ms.
Cruz's level of expertise shifted between these two stages throughout the process.
While the focus of only one of our conferences was on classroom management
and discipline, based on conversations that we had outside of the conferences, I would
say that Ms. Cruz had a fairly well established discipline-management plan in place in
her classroom. When she had problems, she often sent me an email or called me
soliciting advice on how to handle different problematic situations. Upon entering the
classroom at the beginning of the year, I would estimate that Ms. Cruz was in stage one
bordering on the brink of stage two. As the school year nears an end, Ms. Cruz has
demonstrated stronger, more established discipline management practices, which indicate
that her expertise in this area has crossed over to stage two. I base this on the
observations that Ms. Cruz very rarely had to redirect students when I was in her class,
70
students are respectful to Ms. Cruz, both in and outside of class, and she has very few
discipline referrals. While this was not a direct result of the Clinical Supervision process,
it does deserve recognition because, as mentioned previously, as a result of this process,
Ms. Cruz considered me to be her mentor and sought out my advice when she
encountered problems she was unsure how she should handle them.
Prior to beginning this research project and throughout the first stages of this
process, I cannot say with certainty how much knowledge Ms. Cruz had of different
teaching models. However, I can say with certainty that the only model she practiced
was that of direct instruction. While I cannot declare that Ms. Cruz has well-developed
skills in the use of several teaching models, I can say that she is now aware of, and has
practiced, an additional model of instruction. She is very enthusiastic about the results
and differences she has seen in class upon implementing the new model and has
expressed interest in learning about other methods. The Clinical Supervision process has
given her a boost towards increasing expertise in instructional design, as opposed to
remaining stagnant throughout the year, which might have been the case otherwise.
While Leithwood explained other facets of expertise in these two stages, such as
conscious reflection of choice in teaching models and assessment practices, these were
not areas of focus during the Clinical Supervision practice employed with Ms. Cruz and I
cannot draw any conclusions about Ms. Cruz's professional progress in those areas.
71
Clinical Supervision as a Formative Process
With students, we use formative assessment as an assessment for learning, which
Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, and Chappius (2006) explain as an assessment that happens
while learning is still happening. "These are the assessments that we conduct throughout
teaching and learning to diagnose student needs, plan our next steps in instructions,
provide students with feedback they can use to improve the quality of their work, and
help students see and feel in control of their journey to success" (Stiggins, et.al, 2006, p.
31). For teachers, we can use formative evaluation in much the same process. Glickman
et.al. (2007, p. 288) define formative teacher evaluation as a "supervisory function
intended to assist and support teachers in professional growth and the improvement of
teaching."
These authors go on to explain that "formative evaluation" is usually based on
systematic observation, which is limited to a single aspect of classroom process (e.g.
questioning techniques, student participation, classroom movement, and so on)" (p. 288).
Consequently, formative observation instruments are agreed upon prior to the observation
relevant to what the teacher wants to learn about his/her practice (Glickman et.al., 2007).
Finally, Glickman et.al. conclude that formative assessments are focused on building
rapport, trust, and a collegial relationship between the teacher and evaluator, addressing
the teacher's specific needs, and improving the teacher's performance. This is significant
because, as Leithwood explains, teachers can begin acquiring professional expertise at
higher levels early if they have the proper formative assessment. Clinical Supervision is
a form of supervision that can offer just such assessment. In this study, using Clinical
Supervision allowed me to focus on a single aspect of instruction agreed upon by Ms.
72
Cruz. We built a relationship of trust and addressed her specific needs, which did result
in a change in her performance. This change in her performance, as indicated by prior
research on questioning techniques and lesson design and delivery, as well as her
progression from stage one professional expertise to stage two professional expertise, can
be considered an improvement in teacher performance.
There are some researchers who believe that school administrators can
incorporate Clinical Supervision as a formative process into their practice without it
interfering with summative assessments of teachers done annually (Acheson and Gall,
1997). However, there are important limiting factors to such an approach that should be
considered. Cogan intended the use of Clinical Supervision to be a collegial practice to
help teachers develop in their profession (Cogan, 1973). When school administrators
take on the role of supervisor in Clinical Supervision, it has the potential to lead to what
Grimmet and Crehen (see Fullen and Hargreaves 1992) describe as administratively
imposed collegiality. "The administratively imposed type of contrived collegiality
consists of 'top-down' attempts to manipulate directly the practices and behaviors of
teachers as professional educators." Even if this is the case, there could still be some
benefit to the teacher.
However, one of the most important factors involved in the success of Clinical
Supervision is trust among the supervisor and supervisee (Acheson and Gall, 1997;
Sergiovanni, 2002). Based on the response of Ms. Cruz, when I asked if she would have
been as apt to engage in the process of Clinical Supervision if one of her campus
administrators had asked her to engage in the process, the trust necessary to sustain the
process might be limited. Ms. Cruz, in fact, said she would be dishonest with her
73
administrators because she would not want them to think she was a bad teacher and that
she could not be sure what the administrators saw in her classroom would not be used
against her on her end of the year summative assessment. Additionally, if the teacher
does feel that the process is summative or evaluative, it could actually be detrimental to
the main objective which is improving teacher performance, because the teacher would
be less willing to participate openly in the Clinical Supervision process and less willing to
change classroom practice (Glickman et.al., 2007).
Trust is not the only factor that could limit the effectiveness of this practice if
comingled with summative evaluation by campus administrators. Even more debilitating
than the trust factor, perhaps, is the time factor. The litany of things that campus
administrators must deal with on a daily basis is long. At Baker Middle School, there are
eight first year teachers. For me, it was extremely difficult to dedicate the appropriate
amount of time to the conferences, data analysis, and observations for just one teacher.
As it stands, we did five observations. The practice has implications for greater teacher
development, but only if the observations and conferences are conducted on a more
frequent basis can those implications be realized. To do so necessitates more time.
Finally, the supervisor, whether a campus administrator or other personnel, must
consider their own personal attitudes, beliefs, and values when engaged in a supervisory
role. As stated numerous times throughout this research, Clinical Supervision is meant to
serve as a non-judgmental, non-evaluative means of teacher support (Glickman, 2007;
Acheson and Gall, 1997; Sergiovanni, 2002; Cogan, 1973). However, it is in our human
nature to make judgments based on our own values, beliefs, and attitudes. As I observed
Ms. Cruz's class, I could not help but form opinions on what I thought she was doing
74
well and what I thought she might improve. When I watched her present the lesson that
we first designed together, my first thought was, "This is not how I would have done
this." As the supervisor, I had to make a conscious effort to withhold these judgments
and other evaluative thoughts from the conferences I conducted with Ms. Cruz.
However, I cannot say that my opinions in no way affected the outcome of the Clinical
Supervision experiences. The lesson we designed together was based on a format that I
had previously had success using in my own classroom instructional practices. Because I
was concerned about the level of wait time Ms. Cruz used during questioning, I was able
to bring it up in the process of the conference as a general question to her about what best
practice says about wait time. From there we were able to address the issue in the next
observation. Because I was not also responsible for doing Ms. Cruz's end of the year
summative assessment, my personal values, beliefs, and attitudes were not as big a
limitation in the Clinical Supervision process as they could have been otherwise.
Implications for Future Research
While this research does provide insight into what implications Clinical
Supervision can have when used with novice teachers, it also leads to other questions to
be considered for future research purposes. First, additional studies are needed to add to
the knowledge base on the use of Clinical Supervision with novice teachers. Some
research has been done over the years, but with the influx of alternative certification
programs, comes new circumstances that need to be studied.
While this study focused on Clinical Supervision as it relates to the improvement
of novice teachers, further research could be done in relation to veteran teachers. Texas
75
uses what is called the Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) as the
tool for summative teacher evaluation. It rates teachers as below expectations, proficient,
or exceeds expectations across eight different domains. When a teacher falls below
expectations in any domain, he/she is placed on a growth plan to improve his/her
performance. Additionally, prior to the final summative assessment, if the appraiser feels
that the teacher might fall below expectation in any domain, the teacher can be placed on
a growth plan to improve his/her skills in that domain. A question to be considered is,
"How effective Clinical Supervision might be in improving the instructional practices of
teachers that have been placed on growth plans?" Furthermore, additional research could
also add to the small number of empirical studies that have been done using peers as
clinical supervisors.
Summary
The findings in the research suggest that Clinical Supervision can be used to
effectively provide support for new teachers in order change and improve their
instructional practice. Additionally, this practice can help teachers move along the
continuum of Leithwood's stages of teacher professional expertise at a faster pace than
what might be accomplished if left on their own.
Clinical Supervision also fits the formative model of assessment that Glickman
proposes can help improve teacher development by maintaining a trusting, collegial
relationship between the teacher and supervisor and focusing on specific areas of
instructional practice agreed upon by teacher and supervisor. However, there are
76
limitations to the Clinical Supervision process which should be considered, such as trust,
time, and the supervisor's attitudes, beliefs, and values.
Finally, this study offers implications for future research which include whether
or not the process of Clinical Supervision can be used to improve the effectiveness of
teachers that have been put on growth plans. Additional research can be done to measure
the effectiveness of the Clinical Supervision model when used among teacher peers.
77
References
Acheson, K.A. & Gall, M.D. (1997). Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of teachers:
preservice and inservice applications. New York: Longman
Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE). (2008). What keeps good teachers in the
classroom? Understanding and reducing teacher turnover. Washington DC.
Retrieved on January 30, 2009 from www.all4ed.org/files/teachturn.pdf
Baldacci, L. (2006). Why new teachers leave. American Educator. Retrieved on
January 20,2009 from www.aft.org/pubs-
reports/americaneducator/issues/summer06/teacher.pdf
Bay, M., Straver, J., Bryan, T., and Hale, J. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly
handicapped: direct instruction vs. discovery teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 29(6). Retrieved on April 5,2009 from
www3 .interscience.wiley.com/journal/112759403/abstract
Benjamin, S. (1987). An investigation of the relationship among teacher perceptions of
clinical supervisory practices, principal authenticity, and supervisory outcomes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern Univeristy
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational
goals: handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman
Brennen, Annick (unknown). Clinical Supervision. Educational administration and
supervision. Retrieved on 11/16/2007 from
http://www.soencouragement.org/clinical-supervision-case-studv.ht
Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Crane, Thomas (2002). The heart of coaching. San Diego: FTA Press
78
Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Teacher quality and equality. Unpublished paper prepared
for the College Board's Project on Access to Learning.
Darling-Hammond, Linda (1999). Teaching and knowledge: policy issue posed by
alternate certification for teachers. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, University of Washington
DuFour, Richard (2004). What is a "Professional Learning Community". Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Feimen-Nemser, S. (1996) Teacher Mentoring: A Critical Review. Michigan State
University
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change.
United Kingdom: Routledge
Gibson, Robert (1985). The effectiveness of Clinical Supervision in modifying teacher
instructional behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Montana.
Glickman, C , Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2007). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach. Boston: Pearson
Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical Supervision: special methods for the supervision of
teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R.H., Krajewski, R.J. (1980). Special methods for the
supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Goldsberry, L. (1998). Teacher involvement in supervision. Handbook of Research on
School Supervision .(pp. 428 - 462). New York: MacMillan Publishers.
79
Goldrick, L & National Governor's Association, Washington DC Center for Best
Practices (2002). Improving teacher evaluation to improve teaching quality issue
brief. Retrieved January 20, 2009 from ERIC Document Retrieval Service (ED
480 159).
Haberman, M. (1987). Recruiting and selecting teachers for urban schools. New York:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban and Minority
Education
Holland, P. and Garman, N. (2001). Toward a resolution of the crisis of legitimacy in the
field of supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(2), 95 - 111
Hanushek, Eric (2004) Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources
39(2), 326 - 354
Houk, Tracy (1999). The Clinical Supervision experiences of new teachers: a qualitative
study. Unpublished master thesis, University of Regina.
Ingersol, R.M. (1999). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of
schools. University of Washington, Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Ingersoll, R. M. & Smith, T. M. (2003). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?
National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, #7(638), 28-40.
Johnson S. (2006). Why new teachers stay. American Educator. Retrieved on
January 20, 2009 from www.aft.org/pubs-
reports/americaneducator/issues/summer06/teacher.pdf
Kaplan, L. and Owings, W. (2002). Enhancing Teacher Quality. PDK Fastbacks
Publication 499. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
80
Langmuir, D. (1998). Making sense of teacher collaboration: A case study of two
teachers' engagement in Clinical Supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The University of British Columbia (Canada)
Leithwood, K. (1992). The principal's role in teacher development. In Fullan, M. &
Hargreaves, A. (Eds.) Teacher development and educational change.
(86 - 103).United Kingdom: Routledge
McCann, T.; Johannessen. L, & Ricca, B. (2005). Responding to new teachers' concerns.
Educational Leadership, 62(8), 30-34.
Merriam, Sharan. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass
Millinger, Cynthia (2004). Helping new teachers cope. Educational Leadership, 61(8),
66-69.
Nsien, E. (1984). The perceptions of Clinical Supervision by experts and instructional
personnel in a public secondary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Pennsylvania
Oliva, P. (1988). Developing the Curriculum. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Orlich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R., Trevisan, M. & Brown, A. (2004). Teaching
strategies: A guide to effective instructions. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Pajak, E. (2003). Honoring diverse teaching styles: A guide for supervisors. Alexandra,
VA; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Perez, K., Swain, C , and Hartsough, C. (1997). An analysis of practices used to support
new teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved from
http://teqiournal.Org/backvol/l997/24 2/1997v(24)n205.pdf on January 20, 2009
81
Portner, H. (2003). Mentoring new teachers: Updated edition. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press
Putnal, J. (1981). Factor's identified by selected teachers and supervisors as problems in
Clinical Supervision which might contribute to its limited acceptance.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University
Rauch, K. and Whittaker, C. (1999). Observation and feedback during student teaching:
Learning from peers. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3), 67 - 78.
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work: an action plan for teachers, principals, and
superintendents. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass
Sergiovanni T., and Starratt, R. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition. Boston:
McGraw Hill
Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J. and Chappius, S. (2006). Classroom assessment for
student learning: doing it right - using it well. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson
Stoller, Fredricka (1996). Teacher supervision: moving towards an interactive approach.
Forum, 34(2). Retrieved from
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol34/no2/p2.htm
Sullivan, C.G. (1980). Clinical Supervision: a state of the art review. Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Weller, R. (1969). An observational system for analyzing Clinical Supervision of
teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University
Williams, Robert (2007). A case study in Clinical Supervision: Moving from en
evaluation to a supervision mode. Unpublished Master Thesis, Pennsylvania
State University
82
Wise, Arthur & Darling-Hammond, Linda (1985). Teacher evaluation and teacher
professionalism. Educational Leadership, 42,28-33.
Yin, Robert. (1984). Case study research design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
83

Clinical Supervision A Case S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Supervision A Case S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL SUPERVISION: A CASE STUDY OF CLINICAL SUPERVISION AS IT

RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NOVICE TEACHERS

A Thesis Presented to the

All rights reserved.

RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NOVICE TEACHERS

A Master's Thesis for the Degree

Approved by Thesis Committ

Dr. Patricia Holland, Chairperson

Dr. Angus Macneil, Committee

Wayne Emerson, CommitteeMember

Dr. Robert Wimpelberg, Dean

RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NOVICE TEACHERS

provide support and improve the instructional processes of novice teachers.

constant comparative analysis method.

"basic competence in instruction" according to Leithwood's six stages.

RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NOVICE TEACHERS

Need for the Study 2

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9

IV. CLINICAL SUPERVISION CYCLES 32

RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NOVICE TEACHERS

1 Student Off Task Behavior 58

RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NOVICE TEACHERS

1 Parallel Lines Intersected By a Transversal 51

2 Pythagorean Theorem Model 53

The current trend in educational reform is the development of Professional Learning

taught to ensuring that students learn. In Professional Learning Communities, as teachers

• What do we want each student to learn?

• How will we know when each student has learned it?

• How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?

and Darling-Hammond (1985) define the professional teacher as follows:

appropriate decisions about instructional content and delivery for different

student learning. Unfortunately, often times, we do no realize there is a problem until it

teachers in order to expedite their transition from novices to professional teachers.

Clinical Supervision is a well established model designed to offer a support system to

facilitate instructional behavioral changes (Sullivan, 1980). According to Goldhammer

in education to remedy instructional weakness.

Need for the Study

According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE) an estimated 157,000

number increases to almostfiftypercent after five years (Baldacci, 2006). This is

on the students in our schools. According to Hanushek (2004), research consistently

This problem is exacerbated in urban school settings. According to a 2005

the impact of a higher quality teacher is particularly significant for low-performing,

English proficiency and low-income status of students (1999). Unfortunately, a large

recruitment and hiring (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003).

opportunity to give teachers feedback on their instructional practices and do little to

change a teacher's practice or their effectiveness (Goldrick, 2002).

identified with various forms of Clinical Supervision, initially developed by Harvard

1981;Nsien 1984; Benjamin, 1987; Langmuir, 1998). Few researchers, according to

changes of the classroom teacher. However, Clinical Supervision remains a viable

• "When supervision is direct, centered in the classroom, focused on teachers'

issues, aimed primarily to helping teachers understand and improve their

teaching, and collaborative the term Clinical Supervision is often used"

(Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002, p. 221). A more elaborate explanation of the

process of Clinical Supervision will be discussed in Chapter Two. The

study will be explained in Chapter Three.

skills for experimentation, adaptation, and modification of the curriculum; and a

During my course on Supervision at the University of Houston, I became

teacher, than the original informal study.

The research topic is framed into the following research question:

"A case study is an empirical inquiry that: investigates a contemporary

investigate the following questions:

1. Do a novice teacher's instructional practices change when he/she works

with a supervisor in the Clinical Supervision process?