THE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION: AN HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE WRITINGS OF SIX LEADERS IN INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION, 1922-1982

摘要

Instructional supervision has historically been concerned with classroom improvement, rationalizing that what supervisors encourage in teachers is what teachers will encourage in students. This study explores scholarly writings of six leaders in instructional supervision to determine how each encouraged supervisors to help teachers think about their work, asking what language supervisors have been given as expressed in definitions of supervision, meanings underlying definitions, and proposals for improving supervision. The study asks how instructional supervision looks when viewed against the historic tendency of Western culture to think of persons in dualistic terms, questioning whether or not instructional supervision has played a role in the maintenance of the dominant paradigm for schooling in the United States which emphasizes rational, verbal thought. Underlying the study is a concern for development of rational, verbal and expressive, non-verbal forms of human consciousness. Hence, questioning the relationship between supervision and maintenance of the rational, verbal focus of schooling is seen as significant.;Leaders whose writings were studied are: Arvil S. Barr, William H. Burton, and Leo J. Brueckner (whose definition of supervision is considered basic); Alice Miel (who initiated the idea of supervision as democratic, cooperative leadership); Morris Cogan (who rationalized clinical supervision); and Thomas J. Sergiovonni (whose theory building and integration of supervisory models has generated recent interest). Each has widely influenced education of instructional supervisors.;The study concludes that (1) There may have been a better objective-subjective balance in the language offered teachers in the mid-twenties than today. Examination of definitions and meanings, however, needs to be at the metaphorical and deep structural level of language rather than on the surface if supervisors are to understand how language shapes practice; (2) Supervisors may have best served the rational, verbal paradigm for schooling by giving evaluation to the principal and asking the principal not to supervise. Symbolic power of the principal may be more powerful in determining teacher practice; and (3) A new theory of supervision is needed that will account for the experiential nature of supervision, the dynamics of the supervisory helping relationship, and the critical, evaluative nature of the teacher-supervisor relationship. It concludes that there is urgent need for visionary, inspirational educational leadership that encourages both analysis and reflection in the classroom.