This ppt was designed as one of the requirements in my P.hD class.

1. LA SALLE UNIVERSITY
School of Graduate Studies
S.Y. 2016-2017
SUPINS
Presenter:
Ms. Liezl Marie N. Bajuyo
Dr. ErlitaT. Gulane

2. FIVE
SUPERVISORY MODELS
Models ground our practices and help us
with intentionality and consistency

3. Clinical
Supervision
Conceptual
Supervision
Developmental
Supervision
Contextual
Supervision
Differentiated
Supervision

4. - Contextual Definition
(Fritz, 2003)
oAn individual responsible
for the supervision of
teaching performance
Peer coaching leaders
MasterTeachers
Principals
Superintendents
University teacher educator
Instructional
Leader

5. - A form of inquiry designed
to:
oencourage reflection and
analysis
odevelop and test
hypotheses about what is
effective and why
Clinical
Supervision

6. Clinical
Supervision
Planning Conference
Classroom Observation/
Data Collection
Analysis/Strategy Stage
Post-observation
Conference
Post-conference
Analysis
Goal Setting
Teacher prepares
detailed lesson plan
Observation Proper
Collection of Data
through
Instrument
Conceptualization
Dialogue
Establishes goals to be
met next observation
(Cook, 1996)
(Goldhammer
et al., 1993)
(Cogan, 1973)
Reflection Exercise
for the Instructional
Leader

7. oencourages familiarization
of influences affecting the
teaching process.
osupported by the
OrganizationalTheory
Conceptual
Supervision
Individuals are unified by common set of
standards
They work together within a system of
structure

8. Influences Affecting the Teaching
Process
environment
life stage
work load
Conceptual
Supervision
School
Structure
Organization
factors
Personal
Factors
colleagues
administrators
classroom climate
support of colleagues
decision making
role conflict
supervision
teaching assignment
interpersonal
conceptual level
intrapersonal
experience in education
knowledge of the subject
(Beach & Reinhartz, 1989)
(Edmeirer & Nicklaus’s, 1999)

9. oFocuses on the match of
initial supervisory approach
with the teacher or group’s
developmental levels,
expertise, and commitment
Developmental
Supervision

10. Three types of Assistance
Teachers with
low conceptual
thinking,
expertise, and
commitment
Directive
Collaborative
Nondirective
Teachers with moderate
level of abstract thinking,
expertise and commitment
(Glickman et al., 2001)
Developmental
Supervision
Teachers who
think
abstractly and
demonstrate
high expertise
and
commitment
Instructional leader as the
expert
Allows the teacher to be in
control
Both instructional leader and
teacher are working as a team

11. oMatches supervisory styles
with the teacher’s readiness
level to perform a particular
task
Contextual
Supervision

12. CompetenceVs. Confidence
Contextual
Supervision
Support Vs. Task
TEACHER
Instructional.
Leader
Extent of
teacher’s
• Knowledge
• Skill
• Ability
Degree of
teacher’s
• Self-assurance
• Willingness
• Motivation
• Interest
Amount of
encouragement
given to the
teacher
Amount of
guidance
provided in the
subject matter
(Ralph, 1998)

13. Level of Competence
(Ralph, 1998)
Four Quadrants
of Leadership
Style
Contextual
Supervision
LevelofConfidence
(2nd Quadrant)
Low Confidence;
Low Competence
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
(1st Quadrant)
High Confidence;
Low Competence
( 3rd Quadrant)
Low Confidence;
High Competence
( 4th Quadrant)
High Confidence;
High Competence
Low Support;
HighTask
Low Support;
LowTask
High Support;
HighTask
High Support;
LowTask

14. oParticularly teacher-driven
oAllows instructional leader
to be more of a mentor
Differentiated
Supervision

15. Intensive Development
Cooperative Professional
Development
Self-Directed
Many instructional
leader observations
Independent
teaching
Mutually respectful
process
Focused on learning
outcomes instead of
teaching method
Work together to
facilitate
professional growth
Brief monitoring and
unannounced
classroom visit
Differentiated
Supervision
Administrative Monitoring
(Glatthom,
1997)
FOUR OPTIONS FOR DIFFERENTIATED SUPERVISON
Works with small number of
teachers having difficulty
Works with more experienced
teachers
Works with teachers who prefer
to work alone
Focuses on what classroom
problems must be addressed

16. Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders
(SOIL) Model
Instructional Leader is
more administrative and
structured
Rigidity of structure
begins to diminish
Supervision is
teacher-driven
(Hersey, 2001)

17. No model fits all. Often, some
approaches are more or less suited
to a particular situation. Hence, it is
our challenge as instructional
leaders to explore a variety of
approaches to aide in the
development of ALL types of
teachers.
Implications for
Leadership Educators
KAY MAG
DOCTOR MAN
KAHA TA???

18. THANKYOU FORYOUR
ACTIVE COOPERATION!
Prepared by:
LIEZL MARIE N. BAJUYO

19. References:
Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (1989). Supervision: Focus on
instruction. NewYork: Harper & Row.
Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin
Edmeirer, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and
principal collaborative supervision on teacher’s
trust, commitment, desire for collaboration, and
efficiency. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
14(4), 351-378.
Fritz, Carrie (2003). Supervisory Options for Instructional
Leaders in Education. Journal of Leadership
EducationVolume 2, Issue 2. Iowa State University.

20. References:
Gebhard, Jerry (1984). Models of Supervision: Choices.
TESOL Quarterly,Vol.18, No. 3. Columbia University.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated supervision (2nd ed).
Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. H., & Krajewski, R. J. (1993).
Clinical supervision: Special methods for the
supervision of teachers (3rd ed.). NewYork: Holt,
Rinehart, &Winston.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001).
Management of organizational behavior: Leading
human resources (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ralph, E. G. (1998). Developing practitioners: A handbook
of contextual supervision. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.