Who Matters: New Program, Old Supervisors

• In Event: Behind Closed Doors: Student Teaching, Supervision, and Curricular Goals

Abstract

Objectives/purposes: This study considers the case of the contrast between supervisors and a teacher preparation program that was dramatically changed within the last few years. The previous program was subjected to a series of vocal demonstrations for lack of responsiveness to issues of race, culture, gender and sexuality. Thus, new program leadership was given wide latitude to completely revise the structure, pedagogy and curriculum. The revised program includes an English for Speakers of Other Languages endorsement for all students (the only program in Oregon to do so), and as a result puts a strong emphasis on cultural competence. It also focuses on critical pedagogy and constructivist teaching.
The new program has been in operation for two years. However, most of the supervisors participated in the old program. It is not clear how well the retained supervisors either understand or support the vision of the new program. Anecdotal information from the field suggests that some supervisors vocally disagree with some of the program’s theoretical and practical approaches.

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to investigate the degree to which supervisors understand and support the goals of the new program in their communications with supervisees, and, further, to consider the difference between those who supervised for the previous program and those who did not.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework: The program’s coursework is centered on the value of critical pedagogy as well as constructivist teaching methods and asks teachers to see themselves as activists for social and cultural justice. Few supervisors have had explicit training in those areas and rely instead on the “wisdom of practice.” Therefore, an underlying assumption of the study is that the wisdom of practice is likely to be discontinuous with critical pedagogy and social justice teaching.

Methods/Techniques The study uses semi-structured interviews to explore what skills supervisors consider important for STs to demonstrate. Additionally we address supervisors’ understanding of the goals of the new program and a comparison of the new program versus the previous program. Interviews are audio-taped and coded using standard qualitative data analysis methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Results and/or substantive conclusions: Initial results suggest that supervisors have almost no concept of the goals of the new program, seeing it as mainly about “creativity” and “solid preparation.” Further, the priorities for teaching that supervisors offer STs are very different from, and sometimes contradictory to, the goals of the program. For example, supervisors focus heavily on behavior management, personality, and attitude rather than culture and social justice.

Significance: As noted earlier, the supervisor role has been much ignored in research and practice in teacher education. Supervisors play an important role with STs, but it is far from clear that what they communicate is consistent with what the teacher preparation program offers. More specifically, this study’s significance lies in understanding the degree to which an innovative program is being subverted or encouraged by supervisors. To the extent that supervisor communications and program intentions do indeed diverge, this work suggests the need for considerably enhanced supervisor training and monitoring.

Author

• Jeff Edmundson, University of Oregon