Supervision forIntelligentTeaching

Supervision canhelp teachers makebetter instructionaldecisions byenhancing theircognitive abilities.

deal of educational researchand staff development effort

has been devoted to identifying thebehaviors of teaching. The teaching acthas been dissected into various cornm-ponents, each of which has been cor-related with student achievement testscores. Those behaviors that have cor-related highly with achievement havebecome the basis for teacher preparation, evaluati(n, supervision, and staffdevelopment Supervisors have beentrained to observe. record, and posi-tively reinforce teachers use of thesebehaviors

While behaviorial training is helpfulfor some teachers. it has shortcom-ings One is the fallacy that the act ofteaching can be reduced to scientific,quantifiable. scalar values; for in-stance. counting the number of high-er-level questions a teacher asks andthen correlating that number with stu-dent achievement. This approachoverloxks the teacher's decisionsabout when to ask which level of ques-tion under uwhat circumstances It alsofails to consider what experiences orknowledge the teacher relies on indeciding which particular behavior touse and the intended effect of thatbehavior on student learning Teach-ing has been described as a constant

Arthur L Costa is P'rofessor of Education,Califcrnia State Init ersift, SacramentoRobert (armston is Associate Professor ofEducation, California State nitersitv,Sacramento

II

-··i ..

im 1. The fI Teaches' Attitudes, Tinking,and Behavirs.

f the godal of teaching is to enhancestudem learning

And we know that certain teacher be-haviors affect student learning,

And those teacher behaviors are influ-enced by the teacher's thinking and de-cision-making processes,

And teachers' thinking and decisionmaking are influenced by their beliefs,values, styles, culture,

Then supervision needs to account for more than just teacher behaviors. Altering be-havors without affecting the inner thought processes is meaningless.

Figure 2. Information Processing.

INPUT PROCESSING OUTPUT

Intake of data Applying and>through | ' hl and .

th sensesI evaluatingth s enMaking sense i eI (meaning) out

of the dataRecaling from both tcs

short-term and I Autocriticism/log-term memory X Cf ' 1metacognition--

I -T :a

specific teaching acts from their reper-toire of behaviors based on what theyknow about their learners, the teach-ing task, and the instructional situa-tion. The-, know how a particular actfits into a larger strategy and can pre-dict the effects of that act on studentlearning The aim of supervision andstaff development, therefore, shouldbe to help teachers make better deci-sions about instruction In otherwords. it should appeal to, capitalizeon, and enhance teachers' cognitiveprocesses (Sprinthall and Theis-Sprinthall, 1983 )

Figure 1 illustrates how studentlearning is related to teacher attitudes,thinking, and behaviors Supervisionshould strive to enhance those intel-lectual skills that ultimatelV serve toincrease learning

Enhancing Teachers'Thinking SkillsFigure 2, which oimits such importantconcepts as affect. motivation, and per-ceptual abilities, nevertheless attemptsto summarize manv psychological andpsychobiological concepts of humaninformation processing, which canserve as a basis for supervisory Ceci-sion making

According to this model, the indi-vidual constantly interprets informa-tion in terms of what is already knownIf a teacher can easil\ understand newinformation based on existing knowl-edge (assimilation), then there is noproblem or challenge If. however, theteacher cannot assimilate the new in-formation, that informatiton must heprocessed. more information collect-ed. and the ultimate resolution testedfor its fit with the teacher's realitr(accommockation). Thus, a problemmay be defined as a stimulus or chal-lenge to( which the response ma! notbe readily apparent

The supervisor, then, is a crucialmediator of teachers' intelligent hehavior To stimulate the teacher's intellectual skills, the supervisor callsattention to discrepancies between in-tended and actual learning outcomesand poses problems intended to invitemore than a memorv'-type response(Fishler, 19'1 ) The supervisor's ques-tions and statements can be designedto elicit specific cognitive functions

EI)i (\ (". I t .oli\i I1 \ I I IT I'

STUDENT LEARNING

AttitudesSkillsConceptsValuesSelf-worth

TEACHER BEHAVIORS

QuestioningStructuringRespondingModeling

TEACHER THINKING

PlanningSelecting from a repertoireLocus of controlDetecting subtle cuesEgocentrismAnalysisIntrospection

TEACHER ATTITUDES

Belief systemCultureModality performanceCognitive styleEmotional stateLevel of concern

stream of decisions (Hunter, 1979) ers use intelligent processes to guideJackson (1968) estimates that teachers their teaching behaviors (Blumberg,make as many as 1,300 decisions each 1974; Ryan, 1979; Glickman, 1980)day. In making these decisions, teach- Superior teachers know how to select

I- . . . -·

72

that produce data, relationships. andgeneralizations to help resolve theproblem.

Teaching decisions fall into four cat-egories: planning (the preactivestage ), teaching (the interactive stage),analzing and etaluating ( the reflec-tive stage), and app/llng (the projec-tive stage )

Planning: The Preactive StagePlanning consists of those intellectualfunctions performed prior to instruc-tion Psychologists have found that ca-pable adults can handle and ctoordi-nate an average of onl- seven (plus orminus two) different variables, deci-sions, or disparate pieces of informa-tion at anm one time (Miller, 1956).When they approach the limits of theircapacity, they begin to feel tension andloss of control Mluch intellectual ener-gy i invs iested in techniques and svs-tems to simplify. reduce, and select thenumber of v.ariables with which theintellect has to deal. Planning helps toreduce the stress ( larvey, 1966).

Yinger (19--) identified five framesof planning: long range, term, month-Iv. weekly, dailh I)uring planning ateacher canl:

* Evoke thought experiments ormental rehearsals of activities in antici-pation of possible events and conse-quences.

* Describe cues-definitions of ac-ceptable student performance-forlearning. and thus simplify judgmentsabout appropriate and inappropriatestudent behaviors.

* Select potential solutions, back-upprocedures, and alternative strategiesfor those times when a learning activi-tn needs to be redirected, changed, orterminated (Newell and Simon, 19'2).

Since planning is the design phaseupon which the other three phasesrest, it includes some of the mostimportant decisions teachers makePlanning basically involves four com-ponents (Shavelson. 19-6. p 383: Sha-velson and Stern, 1981):

I De eloping descriptions of stu-dent learning Ihat are to result frominstnuction. These are predicted in ex-plicit or observable student behaviors.Zahorik ( 195 ) found this a low priori-tn for teachers. however.

2 ldentzfiing tie student5s presentcapabilities or entrl' knowledge Infor-mation about students is drawn fromsuch sources as previous teaching/

learning experiences, data fromschool records and test scores, andclues from parents. previous teachers.and counselors (Shavelson. 1977;Borko. Cone. Russo, and Shavelson,1979). To handle this informationoverload, teachers probably srnthe-size much of this information intohypotheses, or best guesses, about stu-dent readiness for learning. They esti-mate the probability of successful stu-dent behavior as a result of instruction(Coladarchi, 1959). Planning a lessonusing information about students re-quires a teacher to overcome egocen-trism and to view the learning fromthe student's point of view--hove thelesson will be perceived and receivedby the student.

3 En isioning the dcaracterinsts ofan itnstructional sequence or strategy,that 'ill most likel, mote studertsfi-om their present capabilities touardimmediate and long-range instruc-tional outcomes. Planning a teachingstrategy requires task analysis-bothstructural and operational. Structuralanal-sis is the process of breakingdown the content into its componentparts, while operational analysis in-volves arranging events into a logicalsequence of learning activities (Clarkand Yinger. 19-9). This sequence isderived from whatever theories ormodels of teaching, learning. or moti-vation the teacher has adopted

4 Anticipating a metld of et aluat-ilg outcomes This evaluation pro-vides a basis for making decisionsabout the design of the next cycle ofinstruction

During the planning phase. theteacher can use a wealth of informa-tion because there is enough time tocall it from memors Factors thatteadchers may take into considerationduring instructional planning are rep-resented in Figure 3 Planning may bedone in a formal setting-thinking.writing. and devoting attention to it-or informally while driving to work.swashing dishes. and so forth. Thisunpressured planning contrasts sharp-Iv with the interactive phase of teach-ing when teachers must respondquickly to the immediate demands ofthe situation w ithout time to reflectbefore acting

FHRI AnIR 1985 -3

Figure 3. A Model of Instructional Planning

Cues about 1 Estimates of studentstudents aptitude

Educational beliefs, Intructionaltheories, models of Decisions

instruction

Nature of the /| instructional task , Alternative instructional

strategies

Institutional constraints

(Shavelson and Borko, 1979, p. 184). External pressures

If

" �. : �:,� � I I � " t � - I _ ,;1I

"Superiorteachers not onlyknow how to aska range ofquestions; theyalso know whento ask them."

Teaching: The InteractiveStageThe teaching stage includes all deci-sions made during the immediacy andspontaneity of classroom interactions.These decisions are probably moreintuitive and unconscious than the ra-tional decisions of the planning phasebecause in the process of constantlyinteracting with students, teachers areoften under pressure and in a state ofuncertaintv. There may be little time toconsider alternative teaching strate-gies and the consequences of each:and insufficient data about students'readiness for learning may he ob-served or recalled (Calfee, 1981 ) Thecapacity to juggle these many factorssimultaneously is a prerequisite toeffective classroom teaching

Superior teachers have the capacityto operate under multiple classifica-tion systems simultaneously. This capacityv means that they can teach to-ward both immediate and long-rangegoals concurrently They perceive re-lationships between day-to-day stu-dent behaviors and their cumulativeprogress toward long-range educa-tional outcomes. and they can priori-tize goals and objectives so that thevknow which student behaviors to rein-

74

force and which to ignore They cansimultaneously orchestrate multiplestudent activities, teaching strategies.and learning modalities (Kounin.19't0)

A teaching strategs is a plan of ac-tion that includes a sequentially or-dered set of teacher behaviors de-signed to produce a desired studentoutcome Keeping the script orplanned strategs in memort whileteaching allows teachers to make tem-poral and comparative judgments toassess student readiness for )more ordifferent learnings: and to monitortheir own interpretations, perceptions,decisions. and behaviors This self-awareness is referred to as metacogni-tion (Berliner. 1982: Rohrkemper,1982).

Rignes ( 1980) identified the follow-ing self-monitoring skills as necessaryfor successful performance on intel-lectual tasks keeping one's place in along sequence of operations, knowingthat a subgoal has been obtained, de-tecting errors, and recovering fromthose errors bI making a quick fix orby retreating to the last known correctoperation Such monitoring involvesboth looking ahead and looking backlooking ahead includes learning thestructure of a sequence of operations,identifying areas where errors arelikely. choosing a strategv that willreduce the possibility of error andprovide easy recovers. identifying thekinds of feedback that will be availableat various points, and evaluating theusefulness of these kinds of feedback

Eii i:( )NUt LiOu)I RsIpp'

�F 77�? -- ", .-_-, -,""""', � 11 I I -]��_ , I, I _ ;., I��11 -,

W 1_1� I IIrr�arr�PsP���*:--·- · :·; ;I

Looking back includes detecting er-rors previousl! made. keeping a his-torn of what has been done to thepresent and therebh what shouldcome next. ant assessing the rationali-it of the present immediate outcomeof task performance

Thus, the teacher must make tempo-ral decisions as to when and how fastito move through the steps in a se-quence When are students properlym()tiva;ted) Hl\ I L miuch dlta; shouldl be

considered? When is there an ade-quate data base on which to predictsuccessful thinking if a higher levelquestion were to be asked? For exam-pie. at the beginning of a lesson it maybe best to structure the task and moti-vate students to become curious. in-volved. and focused Later the teachermight need to use recall questions tohave students review previouslylearned information and to gather datato be considered later Still later. the

teacher might invite higher levelthinking (Doyle. 19'9).

During the interactive stage, theteacher constantly questions. probes.observes, and interprets student be-haviors and decides whether to moveahead in the sequence or remain atthe present step (Figure 4)

Thus, the teacher may ask a ques-tion to elicit diagnostic informationabout a student. The teacher then ana-hvzes that information and decides

Figure 4. Interactive Teaching Decion-ang Flow Chart.

Teacher (for example) asks [Student gives Teacher interprets Terminatesa question to produce a information | | student response | e: desistdesired student behavior or praise

DECISION questions seeking

Respondse.g.: clarify,

accept,providedata

Student provides | Teacher interprets Terminatesrequested infor- student response t

mation Teacher attempts tolift level of thinking

DECISION from input level toprocessing levele.g.: reasoning

Responds

Terminates

Student provides ____ eacher interprets DTeacher asks anotherresponse requested I student response [ question

Responds

Adapted from Marland, 1982.

I . . I .

I lBRI ARN 1988

RI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

"Autonomous teachers reflectupon, conceptualize, accumulate,and apply understandings from oneclassroom experience to the next."

what to do next: should the student'sresponse be praised, extinguished,clarified. or extended'

Superior teachers not only knowhow to ask a range of questions, theyalso know uahen to ask them Theyknow how to select from a repertoireof teaching strategies and to predictoutcomes. Keeping a strategc in mindhelps in making these decisions With-out a strategy, classroom interaction isunfocused, random, and chaotic

Teaching strategies also provide ascreening mechanism by which teach-ers can select relevant and often subtlecues out of the myriad signals studentssend To manage the continual flow ofevents, teachers must constantlh moni-tor the classroom environment and bealert to student cues Cues, such as on-task behavior and student success.provide an information feedback sys-tem on which decisions are based(Rohrkemper, 1982: Berliner, 1982).

Because students constantly sendout information about themselves, theteacher's conscious processing of thisinformation can onlv he directed to aselected number of task relevant cuesWith a teaching strategy in mind, taskrelevant cues are noticed more rapid-Iv, and irrelevant cues are discarded(Berliner, 1982: Kounin, 1970). Afterseeing or hearing a particular studentbehavior. the teacher interprets thecue bv either assigning a meaning forit from memory or constructing a newmeaning The teacher can then eitherdesign or call from past experiencethe most appropriate behavior to useto respond Although teachers possessimpressive amounts of data and perceptions about students, thev seldomverify the accuracy of their interpreta-tions about students cognitive andaffective states The validity of theirinterpretations and their choices ofsubsequent behavior, therefore, mighthe questionable (Marlandc 1982)

Superior teachers appear to controltheir emotional. impulsive reactions toevenLs (D)oxle, 1979) Classroom cuesreceived through the unconscious canbuild up over time and disrupt con-scious information processing Restraining impulsive or emotional reac-tions to such cues is necessarv for theteacher to reserve capacitr for imme-

Ei)i ( Tll1oNAjI .ilj\I)ERIIi'

diate classroom decisions This re-straint also provides students with amodel of how to deal with similarproblems in and out of school, nowand in the future (Calfee. 1981: Feuer-stein, 1980)

Routines and management systemsare especially helpful in dealing withthe information processing demandsof the immediacy, spontaneity, andunpredictability of classrooms. Rou-tines reduce the need to attend to the

abundance of simultaneous cues fromstudents. Teachers who have estab-lished automatic routines can attend tocues that signal discrepancies and ab-normalities rather than dealing withall student behaviors all the time

Some Indicators of Teacher's Intellectual AutonomyPerformed autonomously Performed only when Must be pelfom

I. PLANNING (The Preactive Phase) by teacher invited by supervisor by saprvi

1. States relationship between this lessonand larger, long-range goal.

2. Provides descriptions of student leamingsthat will result from this instruction.

3. Envisions, describes an instructionalstrategy:

ContentTime sequencingGroup/structuringSequence of learning activitiesRepertoire of teaching behaviors

4. Identifies data about students: previousleamings/entry/capabilities, and so on.

5. Anticipates a method of evaluatingoutcomes.

High degree-as Somewhat-as Low degeeasII. TEACHING (The Interactive Phase) evidenced by: evidenced by: evidenced by:

1. Deals with multiple activities (classificationsystems) simultaneously.

2. Uses clear and precise language.3. Remembers strategy.4. Monitors own progress along that strategy

(meta-cognition).5. Restrains impulsivity (ignoring selected

behaviors, accepting).6. Is conscious of and sensitive to behavioral

cues coming from students(monitoring).

7. Alters teaching strategy based on cuescoming from students (repertoire).

8. Routinizes classroom management tasks.

III. ANALYZING AND EVALUATING (The Performed autonomously Performed only when Must be performedReflective Phase) by teacher invited by supervisor by supervisor

1. Recalls data about student and teacherbehavior from teaching experience.

2. Makes comparison between intended andactual outcomes.

3. Makes causal relationships as to whyobjectives weretwere not achieved.

4. Self-evaluates own actions of planning,teaching phases (auto-criticism).

5. Displays internal locus of control.

IV. APPLYING (The Projective Phase)

1. Predicts or hypothesizes differences inlearning outcomes if alternativestrategies were to be used.

2. Plans future lesson strategies based uponprinciples abstracted from the analysisof previous lessons.

3. Makes a commitment to alter/experimentwith own behaviors.

FFBRI ARY 1985

SAC

..· _ '.s.__._'..._

. S

7", .

1-1111WA1,111

-I , -_ 7

(Doyle, 19'9) Superior teachers de-velop routine svstems for dealing withmany classroom management func-

tions (taking roll, distributing papers (spelling, math drills) and teachingand books, forming groups) as well as strategies (questioning sequences.having systematic lesson designs structuring) (Kounin, 1970).

Objectives of the Supervisory ConferenceSupervisor Objectives

Pre-observation.1. Elicit and clarify statements of purpose of the

lesson (unit, episode, year, individual).2. Probe for specific observable student behav-

iors.3. Probe for the specific teaching strategies/be-

haviors to be used.

4. Determine what led up to and what will followthis lesson.

5. Invite teacher concerns/hopes for the lesson.6. Elicit a description of own role in the observa-

tion.

During the lesson.1. Observe and record teacher behaviors.2. Observe and record student behaviors.

Post-observation.1. Probe for the teacher's intuition/feelings/affect.2. Ask the teacher to recall the student behavior

observed during the lesson to support thosefeelings.

3. Ask the teacher to recall the teacher behav-iors/strategies used during the lesson.

4. Present the teacher with data collected aboutstudent behaviors and seek comparison be-tween student behavior performed and stu-dent behavior desired.

5. Present the teacher with the data collectedabout teacher behaviors and seek comparisonbetween teacher behavior performed andteacher behavior planned.

6. Probe for inferences about the achievement ofthe lesson's purpose.

7. Probe for explanations as to why the studentbehaviors were/were not performed.

8. Elicit prescriptions for alternative teachingstrategies/behaviors/conditions.

9. Elicit an evaluation of the interview processand supervisor's conference skills.

3:0z-4O0zC)

Teacher Objectives

Pre-observation.1. State the purposes of the lesson.

2. Translate the purposes into descriptions ofobservable student behaviors desired.

3. Describe the teaching strategies/behaviors tobe employed to facilitate students' perform-ance of desired behaviors.

4. Describe the sequence in which this lessonoccu rs.

5. Anticipate any concerns.6. Describe the role of the observer.

During the lesson.1. Utilize the anticipated teaching behaviors/

strategies.

Post-observation.1. Express feelings about the lesson.2. Recall student behaviors observed during the

teaching to support feelings.

3.

< 4.

, 5.

(10In

--I

z

crZC)

Recall own behavior during the lesson.

Compare student behavior performed withstudent behavior desired.

Compare teacher behavior performed withteacher behavior planned.

6. Make inferences as to the achievement of thepurposes of the lesson.

7. Analyze why the behaviors were/were notperformed.

8. Prescribe what will/might be done differentlyin the future.

9. Express feelings about the value of the inter-view.

El) I 1. N \U I..AI P)F IIII I'

I pt., I a --·~NNb -11 -II lo

Analyzing and Evaluating-The Reflective Stage

Anlalzing and ,ealuating consists ofthe mental processes used to reflectupon, analyze, and judge teaching actsperformed in the immediate past. Ana-lyzing involves collecting and usingunderstandings derived from compar-ison between actual and intended out-comes of teaching. If there is greatsimilarity hetween behaviors predict-ed during the planning stage andthose obsenred during the interactivestage, then there is a match, and nodiscrepancy exists-asnimilation If,on the other hand, there is a mismatchbetween student behaviors observedand student behaviors intended, a dis-crepanc' exists that must he resolvedor explained--ccomm77odationl. Rea-sons are given to explain this discrep-anc', and cause-and-effect relation-ships are drawn betwveen instructionalconditions and behax ioral outcomes(Barr and Brown. 19-1: Rohrkemper.1982 )

Evaluating involves judging theworth of decisions made during theplanning and interactive phases (Sha-velson, 1976) During evaluation,some value is placed on the qualitn ofthe teacher's thinking both before andduring teaching. This uniquely humanintellectual capacity to self-evaluate iswhat Binet called auto-critictsm(Whimbev and Whimbey, 19'6). It isour ability to stand apart from, con-template. and evaluate our own ac-tions. It requires a conscious aware-ness of self-interaction with the realworld Autonomous teachers areaware of their own thinking while thenare deciding-introsection-and canreflect upon their thinking after theyhave made a decision--4etropection(Clark and Yinger, 19'9).

Autonomous teachers have an inter-nal rather than an external locus ofcontrol. It is one thing for a supenrisorto judge the learning outcomes of ateacher's lesson, but what about teach-ers' estimates of their own success?(Harootullnian and Yarger. 1981)

Teachers mav dismiss or distort infor-mation that indicates students did notlearn as a result of the teaching strate-gy. They may not be entirely rationalwhen faced with the possibility thatthe lesson did not produce desiredresults; they may be more concernedabout maintaining a consistent self-image. Teachers often give themselvescredit when there is student improve-ment but place blame elsewhere whenperformance is inadequate (Harvey.Kelly. and Shapiro. 195'). Classroomobservers. however, are much lesslikely to attribute improvement to theteacher and more likely to attributedecreases to the teacher and to stu-dent motivation (Shavelson. 19'6).

Teachers who are insecure or whohave low self-esteem mav allow biasesto enter their interpretations. Teacherswho have a positive self-image aremore likelv to hold themselves re-sponsible for the outcomes of teach-ing-whether positive or negative(Rohrkemper. 1982; Han-ev. Kelly. andShapiro. 195-)

Applying--The ProjectiveStageAppying involves learning from expe-rience As a result of the evaluationand anal!ysis phase. teachers makecommitments regarding their futureactions This stage involves abstractinggeneralizations from experiences andcarrying forth those generalizations tofuture situations. Knowing wvhen todecide is a cognitive skill that resultsfrom experience. Experience. howev-er. is not enough. Experiences mustbe compared, differentiated, catego-rized. and labeled. Such a system al-lows the teacher to recognize andinterpret classroom events. departuresfrom routines, and novel occurrences.Thus, the teacher can predict the con-sequences of possible alternatives anddirections of activities. Without theconceptual system. the classroom re-mains a mass of chaos and confusion.Since this knowledge comes throughexperience. it explains why the de-mands on inexperienced teachers areso intense: their knowledge is beingtested and constructed at the sametime (Doyle. 19'9)

FFR AR). 1985 -9

Some Components of the Supervision Process1. AUDITING (Planning/Preactive phase)

* Clarifying goals and objectives* Describing teaching strategies* Determining evaluation measures and techniques* Clarifying the evaluation process

2. MONITORING (Teaching/lnteractive phase)* Gathering data about student performance of objectives* Gathering data about teacher performance of strategies

3. VALIDATING (Analysis and Evaluation/Reflective phase)* Sharing data collected about student and teacher performance* Comparing what actually happened with what was desired* Making inferences about student achievement of objectives* Making inferences about teacher performance* Drawing cause-and-effect relationships between teacher perform-

ance and student achievement

4. CONSULTING (Application/Projective phase)* Evaluating appropriateness of desired objectives* Prescribing alternative teaching strategies* Developing insight into the supervisory process* Evaluating the process of supervision

. .. ;~I

Calfee (1981) suggests that much ofwhat we do comes about by reflectingon alternative courses of action, isrooted in analysis of previous experi-ences, supported by language and ca-pacity for symbol use, guided by thecounsel of others, and subject to con-tinuous revision as circumstances dic-tate.

Autonomous teachers reflect upon,conceptualize, accumulate, and applyunderstandings from one classroomexperience to the next. As conceptsabout teaching accumulate, teachersbecome more routinized, particular-ized, predictable, and refined (Ryan,1979). The concepts and relationshipsderived from the analysis and evalua-tion stage are extrapolated in makinyfuture decisions in planning and inter-active teaching. During this applica-tion stage, teachers formulate hypo-thetical statements or future plans.Hypotheses might be characterized by"iffy" thinking: "If I were to do thislesson again, I would...." Future-ori-ented thinking might include suchstatements as, "From now on I'm go-ing to...." or "Next time I'll planto....

Autonomous teachers spontaneous-Iy make commitments to change theirbehaviors and strategies based on self-analysis. This step closes the instruc-tional cycle because it serves as a basisfor future planning in the first stage.

Focusing on Teachers' InnerThinkingThese are many, but certainly not all,of the cognitive processes involved inthese four components of teaching.This research supports the assertionthat supervision should emphasize notonly the overt behaviors of teachingbut the inner thinking processes aswell. Such a focus on enhancing teach-ers' cognitive abilities will, in turn,increase student learning.E]

References

Barr, R, and Brown, V L. "Evaluationand Decision Making." The Reading Teach-er 24 4 (19'1)

Berliner, David C. "The Executive Func-tions of Teaching." Paper presented at theWingspread Conference on Relating Read-ing Research to Classroom Instruction,

Wingspread, Racine, Wisconsin, March 12-14, 1982.

Blumberg, A Supervisors and Teachers:A Private Cold War. Berkeley: McCutchanPublishers, 1974.

Borko, H.; Cone, R,; Russo, D.; and Sha-velson, R. "Teachers' Decision Making." InResearch on Teaching. Edited by P. Peter-son and H. Walberg. Berkeley: McCutchanPublishers, 1979.

Calfee, R "Cognitive Psvchology andEducational Practice." In Retieu, of Re-search in Education, Chapter 1 Edited byD. Berliner. Washington, D. C: AmericanEducational Research Associaton, 1981.

Clark, C., and Yinger, R. 'Teachers'Thinking." Research on Teaching. Editedby P. Peterson and H. Walberg Berkeley:McCutchan Publishers. 1979

Coladarchi, A. P. "The Teacher as fIv-pothesis-Maker.' California Journal of In-structional Improtements 2 (March 1959):3-6.

Costa. A. The Enabling Behatiors ACourse S1llahus. San Anselmo: SearchModels Unlimited, 1982

Doyle, W "Making Managerial Decisionsin Classrooms." In the 1979 Yearbook ofthe National Societyfor the Stud y of Educa-tion, Pan II. Edited by D Duke Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Feuerstein. Reuven Instrumental En-richment. Baltimore: UIniversity Park Press,1980.

Fishier, A. S. 'Confrontations: ChangingTeacher Behavior Through Clinical Super-vision." I n Improt ing In-Serzice EducationEdited bh L Rubin Boston: Allvn Bacon,1971

Glickman. C Detelopmental Supenision: Alternatite Approaches to HelpingTeachers Improve Instruction Alexandria,Va.: Association for Supervision and Curric-ulum Development, 1980

Harootunian, B, and Yarger, G. Teach-ers' Conceptions of Their Oun SuccessWashington, D. C: Eric Clearinghouse onTeacher Education. No SP 017 372, Febru-ary 1981

Harvey. O J. ed "System Structure,Flexibilits and Creativity' In Experience,Structure, and Adaptabilitv. New York:Springer, 1966, pp 39-65

Harvevy, O J: Kellyv, 1. If.: and Shapiro,M. "Reactions to Unfavorable Evaluationsof the Self-Made by Other Persons. "Jour-nal of Personality 25 (June 1957): 383-411.

Hunter, Madeline. "Teaching Is DecisionMaking." Educational Leadership 37 (Oc-tober 1979): 62-67

Jackson. P. Life in Classrooms. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968

Kounin, J S Discipline and Group Man-

agement in Classroom.s New York: Holt,Rinehart, and Winston, 1970

Marland, P W. "Teachers' Thinking." Pa-per presented at the Conference on Think-ing, University of the South Pacific,January1982.

Miller, G A. "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits in OurCapacity for Processing Information." Psi-chological Retieu 63 (1956): 81-97

Newell, A., and Simon, H. Htuman Probh-lem Solving. Englew(x)d Cliffs, N J.: Pren-tice Hall, 1972

Rigney, J. W. "Cognitive learning Strate-gies and Qualities in Information Process-ing." In Aptitudes, Learning, and Instruc-tion Vol 1 Edited bv R. Snow, P AFederico, and W Montague Hillsdale. NJErlbaum. 1980

Rohrkemper, M "'Teacher Self-Assessment." In tle~Oing Teachers Manage Class-rooms Edited hv D Duke Alexandria, VaAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982

Ryan, K. "Stages of Teacher Growth.'Presentation at the annual conference ofthe Associaton for Supervision and Curric-ulum Development, 1979

Shavelson, R. "Teacher Decision Mak-ing.' In Psychology of Teaching Aethods1976 Yearbook of the National Societ, forthe Study of Education, Part I ChicagoUniversits of Chicago Press, 1976

Shavelson, R. "Teacher Sensitivity to theReliabilirs of Information in Making Peda-gogical Decisions American EducationalResearch.Journal 14 (Spring 1977): 83-9 7

Shavelson, R. "What Is the Basic Teaching Skill'" Journal of Teacher Education24 (1973): 144-151

Shavelson, R. J., and Stern, P. "Researchon Teachers' Pedagogical Thoughts, Judg-ments, Decisions and Behaviors'' Reviewof Educational Research 51 (1981 ) 455-498

Sprinthall, N. and Theis-Sprinthall, L'The Teacher As An Adult Learner A Cognitive Development View.' In Staff Deieropment, Eighth-second Yearbook of the Na-tional Socient for the Studl, of Education,Part 11 Edited hb Gary Griffin Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1983

Whimbey, A.. and Whimbev, L S Intelli-gence Can Be Taught New York BantamBooks, 1976.

Yinger, R. S "A Studs of Teacher Plan-ning: Description and Theory Development Using Ethnographic and InformationProcessing Methods ' Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Utniversirt.1977

ZahorikJ "Teachers' Planning ModelsEducational Leadership 33 (1975): 134139

80 Es (ATiONSi LFAJ)i.tcsiiii�

80 El) :(ATI()NAI. LFAD)EKSIII'

Copyright © 1985 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.