teaching practice supervision: bridge between theory and practice

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 13:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Teaching Practice Supervision: bridgebetween theory and practiceEdgar StonesPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Edgar Stones (1987) Teaching Practice Supervision: bridge betweentheory and practice, European Journal of Teacher Education, 10:1, 67-79, DOI:10.1080/0261976870100109

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261976870100109

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1987 67

Teaching Practice Supervision:bridge between theory and practice

EDGAR STONES

SUMMARY Courses in teacher education commonly resemble comparable courses inhigher education. They are academic and rarely related to practical teaching. Practicalteaching rarely draws on theoretical principles but comprises information and demon-stration by experienced teachers and supervisors from training institutions. This paperargues for a reconceptualisation of supervision that unifies the teaching of psychology andstudent teaching practice in a practical psychopedagogy. It also argues that supervisorsdrawing on a practical psychopedagogy are key people to effect a rapprochement betweenpsychological theory and practical teaching in teacher training and training generallyand also to develop an investigatory pedagogy that could yield new information andinsight into human learning and teaching.

The paper describes courses of teacher and supervisor training in which practicalteaching by student teachers and supervision by experienced teachers are integratedthrough the use of principles from psychology of human learning.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Kurse im Bereich der Lehrerausbildung ähneln im allgemeinenvergleichbaren Kursen im Bereich der höheren Bildung. Sie sind theoretisch-akademis-cher Natur und haben gewöhnlich wenig mit dem praktischen Unterrichten zu tun. DieUnterrichtspraxis ihrerseits zieht selten theoretische Prinzipien heran, sondern beinhaltetInformationsvermittlung durch erfahrene Lehrer einerseits und Demonstration durchSupervisoren von Ausbildungsinstituten andererseits.

Dieser Beitrag setzt sich für ein neues Supervisionskonzept ein, das die Vermittlungpsychologischer Kenntnisse und die studienbegleitenden Unterrichtspraktika zu einerpraktischen Psychopädagogik vereint. Es wird die Behauptung aufgestellt, daß den aufder Grundlage einer praktischen Psychopädagogik arbeitenden Supervisoren eine Schlüs-selrolle bei dem Prozeß der Annäherung von psychologischer Theorie und praktischemUnterrichten im Bereich der Lehrerausbildung und der Lehre im allgemeinen zukommtsowie auch bei der Entwicklung einer forschenden Pädagogik, die zu neuen Informa-tionen und Erkenntnissen auf dem Gebiet des menschlichen Lern- und Lehrverhaltensführen könnte.

Der Beitrag stellt Ausbildungskurse für Lehrer und Supervisoren vor, in denenpraktisches Unterrichten von Lehramtsstudenten einerseits und Supervision durch er-fahrene Lehrer andererseits mit Hilfe von aus der Lernpsychologie übernommenenPrinzipien integriert werden sollen.

68 European Journal of Teacher Education

Courses in teacher education commonly include a major element based on the study offoundation disciplines such as psychology, sociology and philosophy. Typically stu-dents are lectured on the work of currently fashionable writers in the various fields andtheir work assessed by their ability to answer questions about what they have beentold, or what they have read in textbooks. In Britain this method of teaching traineeteachers is often justified by asserting that they will see the connections between thesetheoretical studies and practical teaching a few years after they have left the traininginstitution. There is rarely any effort to integrate the theoretical courses and studentteachers' practice teaching. Induction of students into practical teaching rarely drawson theoretical principles but comprises information and demonstration by experiencedteachers and supervisors from training institutions.

Current practices reflect the developmental history of teacher education. Wheninstitutions for teacher training were first established they were modelled on otherinstitutions of secondary and, later, higher education. Students took courses similar tothose in non-vocational institutions and were trained for practical teaching by acting asapprentices to experienced teachers. In essence, this is the system of training in use inmost parts of the world today. It is a system which takes a view of school learning asbeing essentially the passive reception by pupils of what teachers tell them. Education-ists in many countries, and for many years, have recognised that teaching of this typeleads very easily to rote learning but few have made the link between the unsatisfac-tory nature ofthat learning and the apprenticeship system of teacher training. I suggestthat the apprenticeship system is the cause of much unsatisfactory school learning andalso the most formidable and intractable obstacle to progress in teacher education. Ibelieve that this obstacle will not be removed and the theory-practice division endeduntil a practical, enquiry orientated course in pedagogy drawing on a body oftheoretical principles is introduced. While not overlooking the importance of otherdisciplines, I suggest that the key contribution to classroom practice, aimed atenhancing pupil learning, should come from psychological studies of human learning.A pluralistic approach is proposed that draws on those principles from any field or'school' of psychological studies that seem to afford insights into and practicalguidance about teacher action that can lead to enhanced learning by students. Thusaspects of cognitive psychology could be helpful in teaching conceptual matter whileaspects of behavioural approaches would be useful in enhancing motivation. In factmerely providing these examples may be misleading since the distinction between thevarious approaches is rarely absolute, and, in an activity as complex as teaching, theyare almost always inextricably intertwined.

When such a practical enquiry oriented approach takes the place of academicpsychology courses in training institutions, the conditions will be provided for a majorchange in the nature of the practical teaching element in teacher training courses withimportant implications for the nature of supervision of practical teaching. I am notsuggesting that a change of this type will be sufficient, but I do suggest that it is anessential condition for progress.

Current conceptions of supervision of student teaching practice reflect the atheore-tical apprenticeship mode of training. In an apprenticeship system supervisors have avery ambiguous role. The main tensions are between their roles as specialists in theacademic subjects the student teachers are teaching, and as experienced teachers onwhom the students are supposed to model their teaching. Frequently they lackcredibility in both fields since colleagues working in the mainstream courses of studyoccupy the high ground in academic subjects and teachers 'at the chalk face' occupy a

E. Stones 69

similar position with regard to practical teaching. As long as current conceptions ofteacher training obtain, the ambiguity will remain and supervision will be in animpasse.

Thus the reconceptualisation of supervision that I call for, depends on a differentview of teaching from the one currently most prevalent. It holds that we should rejectthe view of teaching as the transmission of verbalisations that all too often convey thevery minimum of conceptual understanding, and nurture a view that sees teaching asthe maximisation of the adaptability of learners to better understand and to cope withtheir worlds and to enhance their enjoyment in learning.

Supervision and Practical Pedagogy

These aims are not new. Enlightened educationists throughout the ages have advocatedsimilar approaches. What, I suggest, is new, is the fact that we now have about acentury of study of learning in humans and other animals that has provided informa-tion earlier educationists did not have in any systematic way. (Although the Truffaultfilm on the work of Itard with the Wild Boy of Aveyron at the end of the eighteenthcentury gives a graphical illustration of how some individuals anticipated the findingsof later psychologists.) There is, indeed, a body of knowledge about the way humanslearn that could form the basis of a third element in our conception of teaching andteacher education. That is, of the teacher as a skilled person deploying an understand-ing of key principles of human learning systematically to enhance pupils' learning andenjoyment of learning. Note, I do not say 'applying' the principles. In part this isbecause of the current limited evidence of how knowledge from extra-classroomstudies of human learning relates to teaching, and in part because of the inherenttentativeness and exploratory nature of that relationship. I suggest that the develop-ment of this third element in teaching and in teacher education is the responsibility ofsupervisors of student practice teaching drawing on the knowledge of human learning Ireferred to earlier.

Unfortunately the knowledge that has been accumulated by psychologists studyinghuman learning has had little impact on the view of learning implicit in the commonview of teaching as verbal transactions aimed at transmitting information. Despite theevidence from work on human learning indicating that effective teaching is a highlycomplex phenomenon, teacher educators, in the main, have neglected the implicationsof this body of knowledge for the practical element in teacher education. By default,they have left administrators and politicians to lay down the attributes of teaching forthem. We see the result of this neglect in the current pedagogically simplistic, butpolitically and administratively tidy, teacher appraisal movement which is developingin several countries to control the teacher force.

In England, and in some parts of North America, this appraisal movement haslocked us into a view which approximates to dictionary definitions of supervision,namely: 'To direct or oversee', or: 'To watch over so as to maintain order'. Views suchas these are manifested in the conventional overseeing of practice teaching with thesupervisor observing student teachers and then talking to them about their lessonssome time later. I accept that there is not always the authoritarian flavour in thesupervisor-student relationship suggested by these definitions. But there frequently is.Whether or not the relationship is authoritarian, I suggest that current conceptions andpractices of supervision, based on a craft apprenticeship approach, to be found in manyteacher training institutions are deeply conservative, and inevitably lead to simplistic

approaches to pedagogy and paternalistic relationships between supervisor and traineeteacher.

Current trends in most English speaking countries are likely to make things worse.There is an accelerating movement to apply business management philosophy to theappraisal of experienced teachers which is bound to wash back into initial training(Smyth, 1984; Stones, 1986). This influence will inevitably reinforce the dominantpractices of supervision and exacerbate the conservatism I have referred to. Note thesubtle change in the way teaching is talked about in English speaking countries thesedays. In this newspeak education is a 'product' and teaching is a 'delivery system'. Thisnewspeak confirms and celebrates the view of teaching as transmission.

Thus, I wish to suggest that teacher educators involved in supervision have aparticular responsibility to their students and colleagues to break into the evertightening closed circle of practice teaching, to make clear the complex nature ofclassroom teaching and learning and the need for a reconceptualisation of the role ofthe supervisor in teacher education. The reconceptualisation I have in mind has severaldimensions. They all spring from a view of human learning and human interactionradically different from that currently in vogue. If teaching is seen as an activity verydifferent from the delivery or transmission of verbalisations, the nature of therelationship between the teacher and the taught must inevitably change. The changeapplies with equal force to relationships between supervisor and student teacher as torelationships between teacher and pupil. The change will extend to colleagial relation-ships within the staff of the training institutions themselves, and between traininginstitutions and schools where student teachers practice. There are some formidableproblems in this prescription that might lead sceptics to discount its practicability evenif they considered it valid. However, I am encouraged by the increasing interest beingshown in such questions that indicates the beginning of changes that may wellpercolate through the system and lead to improvement in the quality of teachereducation and thereby pupils' learning.

Supervision for Pedagogical Development

I should now like to consider in more detail some of the changes in approach I amsuggesting. One of the most important changes is to conceive of teaching as thedevelopment in learners of problem solving ability and not as a process of transmis-sion. Supervision should be seen as a form of teaching with a specific focus on helpingstudent teachers to learn to solve pedagogical problems. Every piece of teachinginvolves an attempt to solve a pedagogical problem and I believe that supervision is aform of teaching to which the same applies. Supervisors have a key role in introducingstudent teachers to complex forms of learning that demand different approaches toteaching, and, in my experience, in convincing student teachers that the teaching theyhave previously experienced is not the only possible approach and that it is not veryeffective. Supervisors who adopt this approach should not just 'tell' students aboutthese different forms of teaching but exemplify them in their own practice. Supervi-sors' own teaching of student teachers should consciously and systematically make useof principles of human learning, particularly in the fields of concept learning andproblem solving and the idea of teaching as exploration should be encouraged; a pointto which I shall return later.

With a focus on general pedagogical principles the work of supervisors involvesmore than commenting on surface teaching activities relating to specific lessons and

E. Stones 71

individual subjects. Supervisors should be key agents in the development of anapproach to training for teaching that can build up teachers' competence and confi-dence to teach in more than one field and this cannot be done if their activities areconfined just to lesson observation. Thus supervision should extend beyond observingoccasional lessons and talking to students about them. It should involve theoreticalwork with students in pedagogy that illuminates their practice. Instead of takingsupervision to be a form of surveillance, perhaps we should be using words such as'advisor' or 'helper' rather than 'supervisor'.

In order to implement an approach to teaching and supervision that employsknowledge from the study of human learning, it is necessary to make a systematicpedagogical analysis of teaching problems. An interesting outcome of such an analysisis the way it can shed light on the knowledge structure of subjects being taught. Itfrequently enhances the teacher's understanding of subject knowledge and practicalteaching. This might seem paradoxical, but subject teachers rarely carry out conceptualanalyses of the theoretical principles of their subjects. The analysis, in addition to theidentification of the types of learning involved in particular learning tasks, alsoprovides guidance to the appropriate practical teaching activities.

Supervision of this type demands a very different realm of discourse from thatnormally found in supervisory interviews. Instead of focusing on cosmetic aspects ofteaching such as diction, chalkboard writing, or even dress, the discussion will be aboutsuch things as the programming of exemplars and non-exemplars of concepts, or thegrading of salience in criterial and non-criterial attributes of concepts, or the nature ofreinforcement. Clearly discourse of this nature depends on supervisor student relation-ships that extend far beyond the occasional observation of lessons and reach intotheoretical aspects of pedagogy that should be an integral part of the overall teachertraining course. Supervision is facilitated by this common realm of discourse related tothe theory and practice of teaching and provides a deeper understanding of pedagogythat enhances student, supervisor and co-operating teacher collaboration.

When the basis of the examination of student teacher activity is derived frompedagogical principles rather than supervisor advice and opinion, the supervisoryprocess changes from a mainly one-way process from supervisor to student, to a morereciprocal process to which both parties can contribute. Without the basis in theoreti-cal principles, discussion is almost inevitably confined to the cosmetic aspects of thestudent's teaching. When there is joint understanding of pedagogical principles,discussion can consider the way in which the student's practice relates to thoseprinciples so that the student's learning is of wider application than the lesson justtaught. This point is particularly important, since, even if the supervisor is deeplycommitted to a collaborative relationship with the student teacher, he or she will find itdifficult to establish that relationship unless the common realm of pedagogicaldiscourse exists. However, if the supervisor is able to develop in students by discussionand practical activities, an understanding of the pedagogical principles thought impor-tant, before they start any period of continuous practical teaching, they will startteaching practice with an understanding of theory. They will then be in a position toappraise their own teaching and suggest ways of improving it. Developing the ability todo this is one of the most important elements in a supervisor's task.

Thus, instead of supervision comprising an encounter between an expert and aneophyte, it can genuinely be seen as a continuous process of joint exploration oftheory and practice of teaching by tutor and student teacher. This joint exploration, ofnecessity, draws on subject knowledge and pedagogical principles and leads to the

erosion of divisions between practical teaching, education, curriculum/professionaland 'main' subject courses.

The crumbling of intra-institutional divisions is assisted, as suggested earlier, byconceptual analysis of the subject matter and of the type of learning necessary toachieve the teaching objectives. The analysis should also involve the identification ofthe type of teacher activity necessary to achieve the objectives. The final outcome isstudent teaching enlightened by the analyses. Teaching such as this brings togetherwork currently normally considered separately. It holds the potential for bridging thegaps between theory and practice and subject and educational studies. Since theapproach is theory-based and reflective it is more likely to produce teachers capable ofself evaluation and self development than approaches based on apprenticeshipmethods. Self propelled teachers are what we need, not savants in subject specialismsand idiots in pedagogy.

Self propelled student teachers fit uneasily into traditional role conventions; inparticular, this applies to the assessment of student teachers for certification purposes.If supervisors have been successful in their teaching, then their students will becapable of self assessment and if they are not, then the supervisors should examinetheir own performance rather than their students'. I am, of course, not suggesting thatthere is no place for comment and feedback from another person. Clearly this is animportant element in the supervisor-student relationship. But I do suggest thatassessment for certification purposes undermines student-supervisor relationships. It isalso extremely inexact, probably redundant and should probably be abolished.

The view of supervision I have been developing is one of supervisor and studentjointly exploring problems of teaching guided by principles of learning and teaching. Isuggest that the principles that merit particular attention relate to such things as theteaching of concepts, that is, substantive matter, or 'content', the teaching or problemsolving, the teaching of motor skills and motivating learners.

Formal assessment of students' practical teaching is likely to distort their learningbecause they may feel impelled into impression management rather than genuinelydeveloping a personal teaching style. There is also a very great problem of obtainingconsensus on what is a good teacher. In England and Wales there is a further veryimportant point that I suspect applies to other countries also. It is that very few peoplewho actually complete a teacher training course actually fail the teaching practiceassessment. A proportion never actually complete the course, but those who survivealmost invariably pass (Stones & Webster, 1985). Why, therefore, poison the student-supervisor relationship and waste all the time, resources and effort necessary toconduct the assessment?

There is a movement in some countries, particularly in parts of North America andEurope, to devalue formal teacher education in training institutions. There is anelevation of practical experience in school above work in training institutions. Thereare also arguments that staff from training institutions should be sent back to schoolsto keep their feet on the ground and ensure that their teaching of student teachers is upto date. My view is that co-operation among teachers, tutors, and student teachersjointly exploring methods of improving teaching will do far more to enhance theeffectiveness of teacher training than switching tutors and teachers in schools betweeninstitutions.

Training institutions must accept responsibility for their indifferent image. Theyhave been ineffectual in the past, and teacher training courses have been of limited useto beginning teachers. This is a consequence of their historical development and the

E. Stones 73

persistence of the apprenticeship view of learning to teach. The argument that teachertrainers should be sent back to school rests on this fallacy that learning to teach is bestdone by teaching. It is the atheoretical view of teaching on which the apprenticeshipsystem of training is based. Collaboration by the three partners (or four if you includethe pupils) of teachers, student teachers and supervisors in solving practical pedagogi-cal problems faced by student teachers, in the light of theoretical principles, wouldforge links between teachers and supervisors and schools and training institutions thatwould bring all much closer than the mechanical device of transferring people.

Although I have focused my remarks on the actual teaching interaction, supervisorsneed to bear in mind the wider institutional context of their classrooms. Theoreticallybased exploration of schools as institutions will provide a sounder grasp of the wideraspects of a teacher's job that affect classroom practice than merely increasing theamount of time students spend in schools as is frequently argued. Thus studentsshould be introduced to methods of studying their own working conditions in schoolsin the light of research and information about the way institutions function. This is amost important factor dealt with by social psychologists, sociologists, and somephilosophers. I do not give much detail here but refer the reader to authorities in thosefields (see Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1985). The implications for supervision are thatthere must be collaboration among supervisors to give the student teachers wellinformed support in different areas of practical teaching.

I suggest that the adoption of an approach to supervision, such as I have beendiscussing, to replace the current widely found paternalist atheoretical methods iscrucial for the development of teacher education. I am quite aware that in manyinstitutions there is a genuine colleagial relationship between individual supervisorsand students. There is a problem, however, even with such relationships if they areatheoretical, since the supervisors' advice is justified almost entirely by their greaterexperience. Colleagiality without external criteria maintains the dependent relation-ship.

The development of theory based practice enlarges the role of the supervisor whobecomes responsible for a body of practical theory not currently employed. Myexperience suggests that many subject specialists become very enthusiastic aboutgeneral pedagogical theory as a key to developing new relationships with students andmaking their own roles more interesting and rewarding. But there are serious problemsof staff development and traditional institutional roles and conventions that preservedistinctions between subject specialists, education courses, and professional (i.e. quasipedagogical studies). The question is: is the key to development of initial teachereducation a programme of staff development of tutors in the training institutions?

Supervisor Education: a case in point

In an attempt to grapple with some of the problems of supervision discussed above, Ihave been involved for a decade or so in work with experienced teachers on INSETand with pre-service teachers in work on supervision. The aim of the work is toconstruct a practical and rigorous pedagogy rooted in principles of human learning thatoffers hope of improving teaching and the supervision of trainee and probationerteachers. Every effort is made to bring together practical teaching and theoreticalprinciples from pedagogy and psychology of learning. Field work is done in a varietyof teaching situations and comprises explorations into the teaching of concepts,problem solving, and physical skills together with investigations into maximising

motivation. The work covers a wide range of subject fields and age levels and standsthe argument for subject-specific pedagogy on its head in the belief that there are somebasic, generic skills of teaching that are subject independent.

Indeed, I take this heterogeneity of subject specialism to be an important positivefeature of the approach. The work on which the explorations were based was a formalmaster's course in which I acted as course tutor to a group of experienced teachersmaking a study of supervision. I was also tutor to a group of students taking an initialteacher training course in the humanities. Both groups comprised people from differentsubject specialisms the unifying factor in both groups being the common field of study,teaching in the case of the student teachers, teaching and supervising in the case of theexperienced teachers. We are interested in teaching not teaching this that or the other.I do not accept that profound knowledge of a subject is the key to effective pedagogyas current conventional wisdom would have it. The serious denigration of teaching andpedagogy implicit in this view undoubtedly conceives of teaching as no more thantelling.

In contrast to the delivery approach to teaching, the participants are explicitlyconcerned with the analysis and evaluation of an extensive array of examples ofteaching, including their own teaching, in the light of pedagogical principles. This ispossible because of the fact that they have made a study of those principles and theirpractical application. They thus have a shared discourse with which to discuss themore fundamental aspects of the teaching observed instead of the cosmetic featureswhich they would otherwise be obliged to focus on.

Extensive use is made of video-recordings of teaching, usually made in schools, andwith a variety of size of groups. Recordings are of the participants' own teaching andall subjects and age ranges are involved. These recordings are used by individualparticipants to analyse and evaluate their own teaching. They are used by the coursesupervisor to appraise the participants' teaching, and by the participants as a group toappraise the course tutor's counselling of the participants' teaching. The operation isfurther complicated by the supervisor training element. At this stage the teachers onINSET, work with pre-service teachers, help them in their preparatory work and thencounsel them on their teaching. The course tutor and the INSET group later counselthe trainee supervisors on their counselling. The course tutor's counselling of thesupervisor is also appraised by the group.

All aspects of the scrutiny of the various types of teaching involved, place heavyemphasis on meaningful learning and transfer, and on teaching pupils to solveproblems and to take pleasure in learning. Thus the appraisal will draw on knowledgefrom the study of human learning that sheds light on these types of teaching, ratherthan on the type of activities commonly found in schedules for the appraising ofteaching that rarely include reference to theoretical principles related to learning.

This activity is assisted by several pedagogical guides (Stones, 1984a). Theseresemble superficially the appraisal schedules frequently used in the assessment ofteaching practice. They are, however, radically different. They differ in that they areintended as guides or aides mémoires to the teacher before teaching and they draw onknowledge about different types of learning that have formed the basis for thetheoretical work connected with the course. Thus the items on the guides aresuggestions to the teacher, not questions for the appraiser or for the scoring of teacheractivity. For example: the guide to the teaching of concepts refers to such things asascertaining baseline competence, providing a graded series of exemplars of conceptsto facilitate the identification of the criterial attributes. The evaluation of the pupils'

E. Stones 75

learning suggest that they be asked to identify novel exemplars of the concepts beingtaught. The terminology used in the schedules reflects their purpose. Items inviteteachers to 'explain' terms to be used in labelling concepts and attributes, 'provide'suitable cueing, 'encourage' pupils to use their own language in explaining the natureof the concepts, 'make' a task analysis of the teaching objectives. This terminologycontrasts with schedules commonly used which include items such as: 'Skill in gainingpupils' attention. Skill in giving directions. Quality of voice and speech habits' whichare clearly intended for appraiser use and not teacher use and in the examples cited,are marked on a seven point scale. Although the aide mémoires are primarily intendedas guides to teachers, they can be used post hoc by the teacher using the guides orcolleagues or supervisors for ascertaining the extent to which the principles incorpor-ated in the items on the schedules were observed in the teaching (see Stones (1984a)for full details).

There is also a guide for the enhancement of supervision, which is somewhat morecomplex since it is concerned with a more complex operation, namely teaching teachers(Stones, 1984b). This guide comprises five main sections. Preactive A comprises thesupervisor's planning of a supervisory interview in the style of clinical supervision.Interactive A comprises a preparatory discussion with the student teacher about ateaching task that is to be the focus of discussion and scrutiny of the student's lessonpreparation. Preactive B involves the supervisor in preparing for the counsellingsession following the student's teaching. Interactive B is a guide to the counsellingsession itself and the final section, Evaluation, considers ways in which the success ofthe supervisor's activity might be assessed. All the guides are aimed at improvementand the key element in them concerns the assessment by the teacher of the extent towhich learning has taken place. The final item on the supervisors' guide signals anapproach to appraisal of teaching which I think is important, even if, or perhapsbecause, it is entirely different from the one that seems intended by most exponents ofappraisal. It asks the teacher being counselled if he/she would chose to be counselledagain by the same person.

The colleagial, pedagogically-based approach to supervisor training that I havedescribed has been particularly interesting for the way in which in-service and pre-service teachers have been able and prepared to open up their teaching to publiccritical evaluation. It does not happen at once but it does not take too long. It thenbecomes possible to work towards group appraisal where, instead of the individualteacher's performance being under scrutiny, the critique is objectified and the grouptalks about the teaching instead of A or B's teaching. This objectification facilitatesgroup learning from the experience of a variety of individuals, not the least, because toa great extent, it removes the threat one is likely to feel when one's own performance isclearly the focus. Since the critique is based on pedagogical principles with which thegroup is familiar, they are able to work as a group to solve problems and build onstrengths. This group experience is an enormously useful learning experience for theparticipants to help them towards building up their ability for self appraisal forimprovement, which, after all, is the ultimate aim.

Supervision and Investigative Pedagogy

I now wish to take one more step away from supervision as surveillance intosupervision for teacher intellectual independence and pedagogical exploration. I be-lieve the type of activities I have been discussing has the potential for enlarging our

understanding of how teaching is now and how it might be. Instead of a system wheresupervision is something that is done to student teachers, I am advocating one in whichstudents and supervisors jointly explore teaching analytically and experimentally. Theindividual student and group efforts will be variations on a theme, each teaching adifferent subject and/or age of pupil but all making use of a body of generalpedagogical and educational principles and reflecting on them to improve specific andconcrete teaching. These reflections on the processes and outcomes of the investiga-tions not only enable the students to develop as teachers, but also provide theircolleagues and the supervisor with novel information about the real problems andpossibilities inherent in psychopedagogical approaches to teaching.

Supervisors with responsibility for an integrated approach to theory and practice ofpedagogy would be able to absorb the results of their students' work into their ownresearch programmes. Indeed, the teaching of practical psychopedagogy is one of thefew fields in which research and teaching should be totally inextricable. Students'efforts can add to the research base developmentally as well as developing their ownskills and may be seen as a form of action research. Similarly teachers, either in schoolsassociated with the training institutions, or on inservice courses, could be involved,themselves, in investigations relating to their own fields of interest. The possibilitythus arises for the development of a network of research into teaching that spreads outfrom the training institutions and involves teachers, student teachers, and supervisorsin projects that are related in their general approach but different in their specificapplication. These efforts would constitute a cumulative action research that wascompletely open ended. They would not be experiments in the psychostatisticalempirical mode, but exploratory and incremental in orientation. A friend suggestedthat an appropriate title would be 'iterative replication' and that seems to be areasonable characterisation.

Teachers working with me in the courses I described above have explored manyinteresting pedagogical problems. The basic approach of the individual studies involvesthe following elements. A literature search of work relating to the pedagogy of thesubject being taught. A pedagogical task analysis of the teaching problem to identifysuch things as the conceptual structure of the concepts and principles being taught,methods of presenting stimuli and programming of exemplars, methods of providingfeedback and reinforcement, the identification of the type of learning involved, thetype of pupil response expected and methods of evaluating learning. Supervisors usethe same approach in their own study of teaching, but, in addition, some have madestudies of supervision itself using similar methods. All make use of recordings asmentioned earlier. A wide range of subject teaching has been explored including suchthings as the teaching of reading comprehension, the teaching of aural skills in music,the teaching of orienteering, of art concepts, of English as a foreign language, of roadcrossing skills, soldering, mathematics, biology. Some have explored the process ofsupervision in a similar way. These investigations have tested the approach in helpingprobationer teachers, pre-service teachers, and the training of supervisors.

At the end of the day no one is going to claim, as is common in short-term cross-sectional psycho-statistical studies, that this approach was better than that and that isthe end of the experiment. Instead, the findings accumulate incrementally so that wegradually build up a clearer picture of what teacher action produces identifiable effectsin learners. A variation on the clinical approach to supervision is complemented by aclinical research orientation. Many interesting findings have emerged in this way. Onehas been that we have found that most classrooms are very unrewarding places for

E. Stones 77

pupils. Experienced teachers, believing that they are very encouraging to their pupils,have found that this is far from the case. A key finding in all cases, has been the powerof rigorous task analysis. The use of such findings and the body of information aboutthe way in which general principles have been worked out in the practice of otherteachers is very helpful to supervisors working with subsequent cohorts of studentteachers. So is recorded material relating to teaching along these lines and theaccompanying reports made by teachers of their investigations. But, of course, none ofthese findings or any of the materials would be of any use to a supervisor operating inan apprenticeship mode. In other words, without the context of a body of theoreticalpedagogical principles to inform teaching and supervision, every cohort of studentteachers treads the same ground and the supervisor moves round in circles returning tothe beginning with each new set of students. With a systematic body of pedagogicalprinciples the possibility opens up of escaping from this vicious circle into a mode ofsupervision that treads new ground all the time and opens up perspectives for thecumulation of knowledge about teaching and how it can be improved. I thinksupervisors have been going round in circles long enough.

I hope the current developing interest in supervision is sustained in a rigorous waythat will not just pander to educational fashion but will make a serious contribution toknowledge as well as improving teaching enormously.

Correspondence: Professor Edgar Stones, Department of Educational Psychology,University of Birmingham, PO Box 363, Birmingham B15 2TT, England.

REFERENCES

(Starred items relate to sources specifically referred to in the text. However, the authoris indebted to all the authors mentioned in varying degrees for the development of thework discussed and the arguments advanced.)

ACHESON, K.A. & GALL, M.D. (1980) Techniques in the Clinical Supervision ofTeachers (New York, Longman).

ANDERSON, H.O. (1972) The supervisor as a facilitator of self-evaluation, SchoolScience and Mathematics, 72, pp. 603-16.

BLUMBERG, A. (1974) Supervisors and Teachers: a private cold war (Berkeley, Calif.,McCutchan).

BLUMBERG, A. (1976) Supervision; some images of what it is and what it might be,Theory into Practice, November, pp. 284-92.

BLUMBERG, A. (1977) Supervision as interpersonal intervention, Journal of ClassroomInteraction, 13, pp. 23-32.

BLUMBERG, A. & CUSICK, P. (1970) Supervisor-teacher interaction: an analysis ofverbal behaviour, Education (USA), 91, pp. 126-34.

BOOTHROYD, W. (1977) Teaching practice supervision: a research report, BritishJournal of Teacher Education, 5, pp. 243-50.

BOWMAN, N. (1979) College supervision of student teachers: a time to reconsider,Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), pp. 29-30.

CARR, W. (1984) Theories of theory and practice. Paper presented to conference onEducational Theory, London, mimeo.

COHN, M. (1981) A new supervision model for linking theory with practice, Journal ofTeacher Education, 32(3), pp. 26-30.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1982) The New Teacher in School: a reportby Her Majesty's Inspectors (London, HMSO).

EVANS, H. (1983) Course extension in the B.Ed. degree: a case study, Journal ofEducation for Teaching, 9, pp. 184-94.

Git l in , A. & TEITELBAUM, K. (1983) Linking theory and practice: the use ofethnographic methodology by prospective teachers, Journal of Education forTeaching, 9, pp. 225-234.

GLEISMAN, D. (1972) The nature and use of protocol material, Task Force 82: focus oneducational reform (Washington D C , H.E.W.).

GOLDHAMMER, R., ANDERSON, R.H. & KRAJEWSKI, R.J. (1980) Clinical Supervision:special methods for the supervision of teachers (New York, Holt, Rinehart &Winston).

GRANT, D. (1976) Where theory and reality meet, British Journal of TeacherEducation, 2, pp. 259-64.

GRIFFITHS, R. (1975) The training of microteaching supervisors, British Journal ofTeacher Education, 1, pp. 191-201.

HACKNEY, H. & CORMIER, L.S. (1979) Counselling Strategies and Objectives (En-glewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall).

HOGAN, P. (1983) The central place of prejudice in the supervision of studentteachers, Journal of Education for Teaching, 9, pp. 30-45.

IVEY, A.E. (1974b) Microcounselling: teacher training as facilitation of pupil growth,British Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), pp. 16-21.

LANG, D.C., QUICK, A.F. & JOHNSON, J.A. (1975) A Partnership for the Supervision ofStudent Teachers (Michigan, Great Lakes Publishing Company).

MORRIS, J.R. (1974) The effects of the university supervisor on the performance andadjustment of student teachers, Journal of Educational Research, April, pp. 67-8.

PARTINGTON, J. (1982) Teachers in school as teaching practice supervisors, Journal ofEducation for Teaching, 8, pp. 263-74.

PERLBERG, A. & THEODOR, E. (1975) Patterns and styles in the supervision ofteachers, British Journal of Teacher Education, 1, pp. 203-11.

POLLINGTON, C.H. (1982) An investigation into the psychopedagogy of teachingsimple musical composition, unpublished M.Ed. dissertation (University of Liver-pool).

SIMON, B. (1981) Why no pedagogy in England?, in: W. TAYLOR (Ed.) Education forthe Eighties (London, Batsford).

SMITH, B.O. (1980) Design for a School of Pedagogy, Publication no. E-80-42000(Washington DC, US Department of Education).

*SMYTH, J. (1984) Teachers as collaborative learners in clinical supervision: a state ofthe art review, Journal of Education for Teaching, 10, pp. 29-38.

STONES, E. (1976) Teaching teaching skills, British Journal of Teacher Education, 2,pp. 59-78.

STONES, E. (1977) Meta-metateaching, a suitable case for study?, British Journal ofTeacher Education, 3, pp. 97-109.

STONES, E. (1978a) Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching, British Educa-tional Research Journal, 4(2), pp. 1-19.

STONES, E. (1978b) Self confrontation in supervisor training, paper presented to theconference for the improvement of university teaching, Aachen, Germany,mimeo.

E. Stones 79

STONES, E. (1981) Educational Psychology and Teaching: a perspective, ED198076(Washington DC, ERIC Clearing House on Teacher Education).

STONES, E. (1983) Perspectives in pedagogy, Journal of Education for Teaching, 9, pp.68-76.

*STONES, E. (1984a) Psychology of Education: a pedagogical approach (London,Methuen).

*STONES, E. (1984b) Supervision in Teacher Education: a counselling and pedagogicalapproach (London, Methuen).

STONES, E. (1984C) An INSET course in the training of student teacher supervisors,Journal of Further and Higher Education, 8(3), pp. 3-14.

STONES, E. (1986) Colleagial appraisal for the enhancement of pupil learning, in: E.STONES & B. WILCOX (Eds) Appraising Appraisal (Birmingham, British Educa-tional Research Association).

STONES, E. & MORRIS, S. (1972a) The assessment of practical teaching, EducationalResearch, 14, pp. 110-19.

STONES, E. & MORRIS, S. (1972b) Teaching Practice: problems and perspectives(London, Methuen).

*STONES, E. & WEBSTER, H. (1984) Implications for course design of failure andretrieval rates in initial teacher education, Educational Research, 26, pp. 172-177.

SULLIVAN, C.G. (1980) Clinical Supervision: a state of the art review (Virginia, USA,Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).

TABACHNIK, B.L., et al. (1982) The impact of the student teaching experience on thedevelopment of teacher perspectives, paper presented at annual meeting ofAmerican Educational Research Association, University of Wisconsin-Madison,mimeo.

THORLACIUS, J. (1980) Changes in supervisory behaviour resulting from training inclinical supervision, paper presented at the Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Alberta, University of Lethbridge, mimeo.

TURNEY, C. et al. (1982) Supervisor Development Programmes (Sydney, SydneyUniversity Press).

TURNEY, C , et al. (1985) A New Basis for Teacher Education: the practicumcurriculum (Sydney, Sydney Academic Press).

*ZEICHNER, K.M. & TABACHNICK, B.R. (1982) The belief systems of universitysupervisors in an elementary student teaching program, Journal of Education forTeaching, 8, pp. 34-54.

ZEICHNER, K.M. (1986) Content and contexts.; neglected elements in studies ofstudent teaching as an occasion for learning to teach, Journal of Education forTeaching, 12, pp. 3-24.

ZIMPHER, N.L., DEVOSS, G.C. & NOTT, D.L. (1980) A closer look at universitystudent teacher supervision, Journal of Teacher Education, 31(4), pp. 11-15.

teaching practice supervision: bridge between theory and practice

Documents

bank supervision principles and practice

supervision: evidence based, best, or promising practice...

national bridge practice

report 4 - reflective practice, supervision & self-care ·...

reflective group clinical supervision information guide...

supervision in practice

the concepts and practice of risk-based supervision

principles and practice of administration and supervision

practice note - supervision - lbp€¦ · building act or...

social work supervision practice in australia: does the...

long-span bridge design and construction supervision - a

the practice of retention focused supervision workbook 2

branch office supervision protecting your practice

professional supervision: guidelines for practice...

building a practice of reflective phd supervision

best practice standards in social work supervision

bridge deck joint replacement practice

supervision of research students best practice guide

report 4 - reflective practice, supervision & self- · pdf...

bridge watch keeping, best practice,