Interview with Anne: A Case Study

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interpretation of Supervision Approach

​

The qualitative analysis was used to extract the most salient aspects of the interview in the form of main themes. The main themes of the interview are used to interpret Anne’s approach to supervision. In addition, an experienced shared in the interview process that was deemed a critical incident is used to highlight a turning point in Anne’s approach to supervision.

​

Experience shapes supervision approach. Anne’s past experiences, practical knowledge, values and beliefs shaped her agency as a supervisor. The sociocultural approach to supervision acknowledges the importance of self-reflexive processes and agency, as well as the influence of values and beliefs, practical knowledge and past experience in a teacher’s practice (Kanakri, 2017). Arguably, the same could be true for supervisors. Anne used her knowledge of the teaching context in which the STs were working and her insight gained from twenty-seven years of teaching in a variety of contexts to discuss the STs teaching and to navigate assessing and evaluating them. According to Chamberlin (2000) and Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, and Tomlinson (2009) mentoring strategies that result in “good” mentoring do not always come naturally to mentors, and in most cases need to be learned. Although Anne did not receive explicit training, she engaged in reflective supervision as recommended by Chamberlin (2000) in using her previous teaching and working experience to inform her supervision approach. Thus, Anne’s experience was her training ground and informed her approach to supervision.

 

Consideration of teaching context complexity in assessment. Anne was aware of the importance of considering the context within which the ST was working in the process of assessment and evaluation. Her approach had some similarities with the first two phases of Bowers (1987)’s suggested approach to supervision. She followed steps that mirror HORACE (diagnosis through hearing, observing, recording, analyzing, considering and evaluating the context of the teacher and the teaching) in her detailed running commentary during observation, and in her discussions pre-and post observation with the ST and CT. She also acknowledged what could not be changed, and discussed the things that the ST could improve upon. Anne acknowledged the demands placed on the ST by the Concordia and their CTs and the educational institution.  Thus, Anne was conscious of the complexities of the teaching contexts and gave feedback in consideration of that fact (Zepeda & Ponticelli, 1998).

 

Establishment of affiliative discourse. Anne was respectful of the ST during feedback and was careful not to engage in face threatening acts (Copland, 2011). Anne’s approach is in accordance with Zepeda and Ponticelli (1998)’ successful supervision guidelines in that she made STs feel their abilities were acknowledged and valued, and gave them a voice by asking them to talk about their decision-making process and approach. In doing so, she facilitated a space for the ST to engage in a self-reflexive practice (Randall & Thornton, 2003b). Anne also established the “Rules of the Game” (Copland, 2011: 3835) in meeting with the STs at the beginning of the semester, thus familiarizing them with the conventions and expectations of the feedback sessions. Overall, Anne established a space for feedback for which the ST had been previously prepared, and within which they were able to express their thoughts. Arguably this helped establish a trust between Anne and the STs. Trust is an antecedent of self-disclosure (Chamberlin, 2000), which is crucial for teachers to engage in reflection, exploration and change – the hallmarks of self-reflexive practices. Thus, in establishing a respectful and friendly discourse with clear guidelines to follow in the exchange Anne fostered opportunities for self-reflection.

 

Authoritative stance. Anne used a running commentary as the observation tool. These notes helped Anne recall the observed teaching practice into the present to be sure that she covered all the points that she wanted to discuss. According to Engin (2015b) written artifacts such as detailed notes taken during observation (running commentary) are important in post-observation feedback to structure the discussion and create opportunities for reflection and learning.  However, written artifacts may also restrict the scope of the discussion, and therefore the learning (Engin, 2015b). Anne selected the points to discuss in the feedback, giving her the ultimate power in the feedback dynamic, adhering to the power dynamic afforded to her by the institution. Thus, Anne reproduced the power relations of her context (Hawkins & Norton, 2009). It is important to note that Anne mentioned did not provide her notes because her hand-writing was hard to follow. Additionally, Anne allowed student-teachers the opportunity to bring up questions and concerns during the feedback session. In comparison to other supervisors in the same context, she did not evaluate the student-teachers during or immediately after observation, but used the written narrative to guide the feedback session to understand the STs perspective. Thus, the written narrative and feedback session both belonged to an assessment stage. The evaluation stage followed and was based on the feedback session notes. In other words, she did not make the STs powerless in the evaluation process even though she did not share the written artifact.

 

Critical incident analysis. Anne shared an observation experience with an ST we will call Jane. Jane had an excellent feedback activity going which she cut short for the students to fill out an evaluation. Anne said, “when you got to the end of the class, you know you were on some kind of feedback and it was great, but you stopped them and had them do an evaluation of the lesson” (...) “uhm, I was surprised to see that, why did you do that.” The ST responded surprised, “because that’s what Concordia wants.”  This incident made salient to Anne not only the fact the STs were having to meet three sets of expectations (their CT, Concordia Methodology and their supervisor), but also the fact that she had not been making clear to the STs what her expectations were.  Having a discussion before observation in which the goals of the observation are established, ideally by both parties, is considered important in observation and feedback practices (Richards & Lockhart, 1992; Sheal, 1989). Anne did not discuss the goals of observation with the STs in collaborative way, i.e., the STs didn’t get to decide what would be observed (Sheal, 1989). The program at Concordia defined what was to be observed, which was detailed in the observation grid. Although the student-teachers were familiar with the observation grid and had lesson plan templates, they didn’t necessarily know the criteria Anne would be considering in filling it out. Thus, in light of the experience with Jane, Anne explicitly told STs she was supervising that she would be looking at their response to their teaching context and their ability to acknowledge and respond to their student’s needs. Failing to do so would result in a failing grade. Therefore, this experience with Jane was a critical moment in Anne’s development as a supervisor because it afforded her the opportunity to gain a new understanding (Farrell, 2008) that resulted in adjusting her supervisory approach (Pennycook, 2004).

​

Conclusion

Anne’s approach to supervision was creative (Gebhard, 1984) in which she incorporated select components of different supervision approaches. Anne was directive in that she defined the standards of teaching. However, she was also non-directive in allowing STs the freedom to express and clarify their ideas. Anne attempted to build a trusting relationship between herself and the STs she supervised by establishing a positive rapport in the feedback sessions, thus she fostered a self-reflection (Chamberlin, 2000). She established the expectations she had of the STs and the expectations they should have of her, which made clear the outlines of the interaction (Copland, 2011). She asked STs about the reasoning behind their decision making, which allowed her to navigate face threatening speech acts (Wajnryb, 1998) without making “speech attacks” (Copland, 2011). She acknowledged the “inequitable relationships of power” (Hawkins & Norton, 2009: 31) in the dynamic between herself and the ST in establishing herself as the person of authority and defining what she would observe and evaluate, yet she allowed space for STs to situate their teaching practice within their context. In summary, Anne used her experience as a teacher and knowledge of the context to appreciate the STs and their situation, yet firmly establishing and respecting the expectations for assessment and evaluation relevant to the institution, Concordia university.

 

​

See the PDF file or the full written report 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

​

Bowers, R. (1987). Developing perceptions of the classroom: Observation and evaluation, training and

counselling. Language teacher education: An integrated programme for ELT teacher training, 138.

Chamberlin, C. R. (2000), TESL Degree Candidates' Perceptions of Trust in Supervisors. TESOL Quarterly,

34, 653–673.

Copland, F. (2011). Negotiating face in feedback conferences: A linguistic ethnographic analysis. Journal of

Pragmatics, 43, 3832–3843.

Engin, M. (2015b). Written artefacts in post-conference feedback sessions: the running commentary as a

support for teacher learning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 7476, 1–13.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. English Language Teaching Journal,

62(1), 3–10.

Gebhard, J. G. (1984). Models of supervision: Choices. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 501–514.

Hawkins, M., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The

Cambridge Guide to second language teacher education (pp.30-39). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kanakri, A. (2017). Second language Teacher education: Preparing Teachers for the Needs of Second

Language Learners. International Language Studies Journal, 11(1), 63–94.

Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical

pedagogies and language learning (pp. 327-345). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Randall, M., & Thornton, B. (2003b). 9 Ways of talking to teachers 4: towards critical selfawareness. Advising

and supporting teachers (pp. 120-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J., & Lockhart, C. (1991). Teacher development through peer observation. Tesol Journal, 1(2), 7–10.

Sheal, P. (1989). Classroom observation: training the observers. English Language Teaching Journal, 43(2),

92-104.

Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we

know and what we don't. Teaching and teacher education, 25(1), 207–216.

Wajnryb, R. (1998). Telling it like it isn't—exploring an instance of pragmatic ambivalence in supervisory

discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(5), 531-544.

Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At cross-purposes: what do teachers need, want, and get from

supervision?Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(1), 68–87.

​