Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supervisionevaluation
Supervisionevaluation
Keith Williams
December 1, 2014
EDLP 335: SEAC
Phase I: Getting Acquainted Conference and Phase II: Planning Conferences
Observation and Other Data Collection and Analysis Strategies
For the Supervision and Evaluation Action Cycle (SEAC), I chose one of my
based, peer-led review system. A successful student, having earned a high grade and
demonstrated proficiency with the course content and the ability to interact with and
explain the course material, is hired as an SI leader. Leaders prepare lessons from the
material presented either in lecture or other course materials, with the objective of novel
perspectives and synthesis. SI leaders are undergraduate juniors and seniors with
or teaching pedagogy.
second year with CHEM 031, a high volume introductory course which surveys general
chemistry.
The initial meeting focused on a review of her semester so far, and my explaining
the objectives and process of the SEAC. It was at this point that the SI leader outlined
her largest concern: managing time and transitions. I used the time to highlight my goal
for SI leaders to increase the numbers of students speaking during sessions and the
amount of direct interaction in which they engage. I also used this initial meeting to
explain that a big personal objective for me was to develop clear standards which could
These came to be my largest two points of focus; her general use of time while
delivering a lesson, as well as the frequency and level of student participation. The
biggest challenge during these initial conversations were around the ignorance of the SI
leader related to teaching strategies and styles, as well as a lack of familiarity with any
structure evaluation process. She struggled with outlining and agreeing with particular
goals, or points of potential development. Because of these factors, while we did settle
on these goals, the data collection methods were essentially up to me. She knew she
wanted some information about time usage, but couldnt imagine how this would be
executed.
and form, as well as some customized forms to track activities and topics
I tracked the SI leaders efforts throughout the duration of the lesson. With
timestamps, I listed the topics she covered, with notes on how she presented them. I
included this in order to provide more information to the leader on her ability to cover
material at an adequate pace, as well as transition from one topic to the next
appropriately. This also includes a list of total attendance, and changes throughout the
I also recorded a physical map of the classroom, with the approximate location of
each student labeled. I added a tally of individual instances of speaking for each
student, as well. I added notations on individuals who left early, spoke at least once, and
never spoke during the duration of the lesson. This artifact helps to illustrate visually the
to the session. Further, I did a status check of all students at five minute intervals; I
recorded how many of the group were actively writing, as well as other relevant notes.
This can be compared to the first list, to assess whether certain topics or activities are of
leaders. That is one of my personal goals which I would like to at least address during
this process. Ideally, in combination with ideas I already have on the subject, I would
like to be able to formulate a draft of standards for which I can use in the future.
The opening of the meeting was asking the SI leader what she thought of the
session. Having shared the data I collected with her before the feedback conference,
she was able to synthesize that information with her perspective of actually leading the
lesson. Her opinion was that the lesson was adequate, but had no specifics on which to
elaborate. This reinforced for me the need to provide clearer standards and
leaders can attempt to forge their own goals and evaluate themselves accordingly.
I, myself, had three main conclusions drawn from the data which I shared: three
students never spoke to the SI leader or the group throughout the entire session; the
amount that different students speak varies (from 0 to 33 separate times over the 60
minute session); students pay less and less attention (six out of seven at 7:10 and four
Together we discussed these ideas. We exchanged our thoughts on the fact that
the three people who didnt participate sat close together in proximity; was this a factor?
Was the SI leader unconsciously ignoring the right side of the group? Were the most
apathetic students sitting closest to the door? Neither of us had any strong feelings
about any possible explanation for this. Further, was the act of writing a fair way to
assess level of interaction or interest? We agreed in that it was, albeit an imperfect one.
We ended in agreeing that these points fit with the foci on which we had agreed -
time management and student interaction. The rough conclusion was that by increasing
the pace at which she reviews material, and incorporating more pair- and group-based
activities, she could have every attendee speak, balance their contributions somewhat,
and get as much, and perhaps even more, done during each session, all without
decreasing in any significant way her over all effectiveness or the accessibility of the
session.
Overall, the discussion was more one between colleagues than a supervisor and
supervisee. I imagine the tone would have been, and will be in future feedback
conferences, different had standards been in place. There might have been more
emphasis placed on whether the observed performance met standards, at the expense
Based on my work with this process, the standards which I would consider for
future evaluations would probably number five in total, where two relate directly to
sessions, and three would connect instead to administrate duties and larger order
concerns that may or may not have to do with the sessions. I would like to consider the
percentage of students in attendance who speak at least once (and as a sub-topic,
perhaps the percentage of session engaged in students talking versus the leader
talking); average percentage of students writing, based on multiple data points across a
tasks, such as office hours, attending lecture, or leading sessions; the percentage of the
could really only address the first two. Firstly, when only those who stayed for the
majority of the session are considered, 66.7% of students spoke at least once. For the
second point, when the first and last points of data are excluded as outliers - 100 and 0
given time.
Both of these rates would have been adequate, yet would have left plenty of
room for growth, based on my initial ideas of what should be appropriate. Before
actually going through the process of evaluating and engaging in the feedback
conference, I would have imagined for both points 50% being the minimum standard,
with 75% representing a good level, and 95-100% serving as excellent, or some other
synonym.
Entirely subjectively, however, I would have rated this session as well above
average. It was not the best session I have observed with this particular leader, but it
still included the particular behaviors I would link with a successful SI session; student
questions were answered directly and clearly, the material was relevant, the session
style was accessible, and the students were largely engaged throughout. This part of
the process has forced me to face more directly my potential biases; am I simply
baseless, ideas of what a lesson should be? It may very well be possible, and it
emphasizes one more reason about why I should have clear standards; its as much for
The reality is that these standards must be accommodating for the fact that
(immediately, at least) if a student wishes to attend, but spend the time passively
listening and eating a snack, just as one student did in the session I observed. As the
supervisor crafting standards for employees, I must have an accurate sense of what the
differences are between good and bad SI sessions. Firstly, are these two measures
going to aid in distinguishing good sessions from bad? If so, what are realistic
standards, theres little to no past data to help inform these decisions. I must take more
time to focus on these ideas, and gather more data and feedback from observing other
SI leaders.
thoughts about implementing a new practice. It was productive to hear about what
superfluous.
Supervisory Platform
Darling-Hammon, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.
McBride, M., & Skau, K. G. (1995). Trust, Empowerment, and Reflection: Essentials of
Supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(3), 262-77.
7:00: Screen displays periodic table; hybridization chart on board hybridization, bonds,
lone pairs, shape; conversation about material to be covered; introductions to Lewis dot
structure; final review session announcement
7:15: Hybridization of CS2, continued; referal to table on board; resonance; 7:18: BrF 3O
7:20: BrF3O, continued; calculation of electrons, structure; some solicitation from group,
encouragement for contributions
7:30: BrF3O, continued; hybridization, shape; put text book on doc cam; body as a see-
saw
7:55: Closing
Attendance timeline
Appendix II: Engagement tally (includes all speaking to the group, as well as amongst
each other)
A: 7 H: 0 (left early)
B: 3 I: 0 (left early)
C: 33 J: 5
D: 0 (in red) K: 1
E: 0 (in red) L: 2 (in red)
F: 0 (left early) M: 3
G: 3 (left early)
7:01: G speaks, x3
7:04: C speaks
7:05: C speaks
7:05: 6/6 students writing 100%
7:06: C speaks
7:07: C speaks
7:08: C speaks
7:09: C speaks, x2; K speaks
7:10: 6/7 students writing 86%
7:15: 4/7 students writing 57%
7:18: C speaks, C<->J
7:18: C speaks, x2; M speaks
7:20: 8/9 students writing 89%
7:21: C speaks; J speaks
7:23: A speaks
7:25: 6/9 students writing 67%
7:25: C speaks, x2
7:27: C speaks
7:29: C speaks, x3; A speaks
7:30: 5/9 students writing 56%
7:31: C speaks
7:32: J speaks
7:33: B speaks
7:34: C<->J
7:35: 4/9 writing, 1 on phone 44%
7:38: L<->M crosstalk; B speaks; C speaks
7:39: C speaks; L<->M crosstalk
7:40: 1/9 writing 11%
7:41: J speaks
7:44: C speaks, x2
7:45: 5/9 students writing, 1 on phone 56%
7:46: A speaks, x2; C speaks
7:47: A speaks, x2; C<->J
7:49: C speaks
7:50: 4/9 writing 44%
7:51: C<->J; C speaks
7:52: C speaks
7:54: C speaks
7:55: 0/9 students writing, 2 on phone 0%
7:56: C speaks, x2; A speaks
7:57: B speaks