Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

The Implementation and Evaluation of a Clinical Supervision Model in Teacher Education in Turkey: Is It an Effective Method?*

Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

The Implementation and Evaluation of a Clinical Supervision Model in Teacher Education in Turkey: Is It an Effective Method?*

Article excerpt

Although the Clinical Supervision Model (CSM) has been applied in the United States since the 1960s (Pajak, 2002), it is a rather new concept in Turkey. The origin of the CSM dates back to the 1960s. Many have called for more clinical experience in teacher education (Krajewski & Anderson, 1980). Concomitant with this call for more clinical teacher preparation is the need for effective clinical supervision of teacher trainees (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). Despite its widespread global use in education, there is a dearth of research that examines the effectiveness of clinical experience in teacher education.

From its inception to its current use, the CSM has been elaborated and enriched from different perspectives. Pajak (2002) classified the development of CSM into four categories: (i) Original Models, which focus on the collegial relationships between supervisors and teacher trainees, (ii) Humanistic/Artistic Models, which emphasize idiosyncratic teaching experiences, (Hi) Technical/Didactic Models, which underline observation techniques and feedback, and (iv) Developmental/Reflective Models, which focus on context-specific practices and reflective feedback among supervisors, teacher trainers (TT) and cooperating teachers (CT).

Other Supervision Models Implemented in Teacher Education

Based on an extensive literature review, Gebhard (1984, pp. 502-509) listed five models of supervision for pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, which allow teacher educators a variety of options. The five models are: (i) Directive, where the teacher or the trainee is directed and briefed, the desired instructional behaviors are modelled, and the teacher's skills are evaluated based on the pre-defined and enacted behavior by the supervisor; (ii) Alternative, where the supervisor offers a number of alternative suggestions to the trainee for the actions to be taken without any subjective prescriptions. This way, the trainee still has the authority to make decisions; (Hi) Collaborative, where the supervisor works with the supervisee, but does not direct him, by a sharing and effective communication. First, an issue is posed in the teaching context, and the parties work together on the definition, examination and the implementation stages; (iv) Nondirective, where the supervisors' role is to offer a listening ear to the trainees and recapitulate their statements to foster more individualistic choices by the trainees; and (v) Creative, where an eclectic approach to supervision is exercised by combining supervisory behaviors and responsibilities from previous models and insights from other disciplines.

Placed in the collaborative supervision model of Gebhard (1984), the clinical supervision model developed by Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1973) has been an influential model of supervision. Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1973) postulated that the behavior of teachers could be improved; their reflectivity in and out of classroom could be increased if they had equal status with the supervisors. It was also claimed that once an enhanced interaction and democratic atmosphere could be created, the teachers' performance and, later, the students' learning performance would be improved. Although the original model was proposed for in-service teachers and school administrators, it has been used with pre-service teachers, as well (Clifford, Macy, Albi, Bricker, & Rahn, 2005). It can be argued that the original model has provided a perspective for reshaping the understanding of the individuality and the role of supervisors and supervisees, which previous models neglected. According to Symth (1991), clinical supervision is valuable because it has the potential to bring about changes in the social interactions between stakeholders in schools. The mutual collaboration and partnership between stakeholders in schools is a prerequisite to serve trainees with high-quality clinical opportunities supported by effective supervision (Krajewski & Anderson, 1980; Darling-Hammond, 1990; NCATE, 2010; NCTQ, 2011). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.