Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The schoolhouse is a complex system. Too often, teachers are considered the “experts”
who teach “novices” new information in a linear fashion, handing out grades that rank learners
often discouraging those who learn at a slower rate. Similarly, administrators who provide
clinical supervision often end up influencing how teachers perform when being observed with
little assurance that observed practices will have any sustaining effect in subsequent lessons.
Defining instructional supervision and developing a legitimate rationale for pursuing a shared
vision creates a basis from which to interpret and evaluate how the interactions of a stakeholder's
evaluative manner – as if there were a prescribed way of teaching whereby all students magically
benefited equally from a given class lesson. Unfortunately, learners (and teachers) are much too
especially when top-down directives are being imposed. Siemens describes complex theory
within the social sciences as, “numerous interacting elements [producing] various outcomes”
(Complexity..., 2008). In other words, the exact same teaching scenario produces very different
learning experiences depending on the learners needs, interests, and learning styles. From a
research standpoint, cause-and-effect relationships are difficult (if not impossible) to generalize
given the variety of circumstances that exist in a single scenario. Therefore, when defining
instructional supervision, principles of complex theory push the leadership paradigm to a more
distributed and connected relationship among administrators, teachers, students, and parents.
and teacher), interactions among all stakeholders ought to be aligned with a shared vision in
“Collegiality has to do with the extent to which teachers and principals share common
work values, engage in specific conversation about their work, and help each other
engage in the work of the school” (Little). [And] teachers and principals...need to be
involved in a shared practice for which all are responsible (as cited in Sergiovanni, 2005,
pp. 12-13).
Thus, instructional leadership implies interpreting the positive and negative effects of
congeniality, collegiality, and communities of practice all within the context of a school vision.
In doing so, this provides a rationale for looking at instructional supervision in a more connected
more conducive to improved efforts that lead to student achievement. Thompson, L, Aranda, E.,
Robbins, S., et al. distinguish between two types of conflict: “emotional” and “cognitive”. They
go on to say, “Emotional conflict is personal, defensive, and resentful, [and] cognitive conflict is
largely depersonalized [which] consists of argumentation about the merits of ideas, plans, and
projects” (2000, p. 218). In a traditional supervisory model, principals and administrators are less
likely to be questioned about the directives they are promoting, thus avoiding cognitive conflict
for fear that it might lead to emotional conflict. But instructional leadership that recognizes
cognitive conflict for what it is, is better positioned to take on tasks that promote “direct
development”, and “action research” (Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon, 2007, p. 10), all of
and teachers, a network metaphor provides the means for showing how participants play various
roles within a complex community. A network is made up of a series of nodes (i.e., a person, a
book, the Internet, etc.) that are linked through unidirectional and bidirectional ties. For
example, a teacher reading a book would involve two nodes connected by a unidirectional tie
(i.e., information transmitting primarily from the book to the teacher). A unidirectional tie can
down. Conversely, teachers who collaborate well together, such as being able to resolve
cognitive conflict, maintain a bidirectional tie through dialogic interaction. The quality and
frequency of a tie determines how strong or weak the relationship is and at a macro level,
provides insight as to how knowledge is distributed throughout the entire network. Instructional
supervisors, then, must understand the overall dynamic of their network (i.e., community, group,
etc.) through the interactions (i.e., congeniality, collegiality, and communities of practice) of its
As stated earlier, complex theory assumes that strong and weak ties remain in a state of
flux, and that connected knowledge contains emergent properties (i.e., the sum being greater than
the sum of its parts). Therefore, in order for instructional supervision to be most effective,
teachers, administrators, students, and parents – all nodes within the network – collectively play
various roles in how knowledge, influence, and power is distributed throughout the school (i.e.,
network). The ability and support that stakeholders have to supervise supersedes the traditional
notion of supervision based on rank or position. For those teachers, for example, that lack the
experience and ability to lead are encouraged to take on this new role, as the notions of leading
and learning come to the forefront of day-to-day practices. As roles and responsibilities change,
Educational Supervision 4
teachers and administrators begin to address change by capitalizing on the strengths of network
A successful instructional supervisor has the ability to empower teachers, students, and
parents to work more interdependently towards a collective goal or vision. Moreover, control is
preferred over power in avoiding marginalizing those participants who have opposing views.
Giving each teacher a voice provides the means for consensus building in determining how
essentialism, pragmatism, existentialism, etc.), teachers are given the chance to reflect and share
on their own philosophy in determining its appropriateness in light of a collective vision. The
instructional supervisor facilitates this process by maintaining close contact with all teachers and
by providing the ways and means of sharing ideas with the entire faculty. The Downing
students, parents, etc.) assumes that information and knowledge are a set of relationships that
promote and empower all participants to take on leadership roles at various times. The basic
premise is that a school can be “smarter” if the knowledge, influence, and power are distributed
providing equal opportunities to have a voice and act towards a collective goal is at the heart of
building a learning community that celebrates diversity and welcomes change as a continual
References
Downey, C., Steffy, B., English, F., Frase, L., and Poston, W. (2004). The three-minute classroom
walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., and Ross-Gordon, J. (2007). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Siemens, G. (October 12, 2008). Complexity, chaos, and emergence. Retrieved on December 14,
2008 from http://docs.google.com/View?docid=anw8wkk6fjc_15cfmrctf8
Thompson, L, Aranda, E., Robbins, S., et al. (2000). Tools for teams: Building effective teams in
the workplace. Boston, MA: Pearson.