Shodiya, Tunde Gbenga

Tel No: +2348035129903, +2348134531457

Email: shodiya86@gmail.com, shodiyatunde@yahoo.com

University of Ilorin, Ilorin Nigeria.

MODELS OF SUPERVISION IN EDUCATION

Abstract
Many scholars in the field of supervision have given different models of
supervision, but there is no evidence to support that any one model of supervision
is superior to other. Many in the field have called for various models that can
bridge the various theoretical approaches to supervision and identify the essential
elements of supervision. This study explained the existing models of supervision
by different scholars in the field and recommendation was given to schools on the
use of such models.

Introduction
The sudden explosion of pupils population coupled with the attendant increased
complexity of the school organization and the introduction of the new school basic
system of 6-3-3-4 or 9-3-4 system of education in the country has indeed necessitate a
greater attention of supervision more than ever before. This is more so because school
supervision occupies a unique place in the entire education system. If qualitative
education is a thing seriously desired in schools so that standard of education in our
schools can be highly improved, school supervision must therefore be accorded high
priority. Through inspection and supervision, the inspectors and supervisors assist in
improving classroom instructions because teachers are made more competent and

1
efficient, parent are satisfied with the performance of their children, children are
motivated to work harder in order to achieve the required standard, hence in the long
run, the goal of education is achieved.

Therefore, model of supervision helped to adequately explore different ways in

which supervision can be done in schools by supervisors, teachers being supervised or
outside observer.

Definition of Terms

Model: this refers to a set of principles and concepts that helps to understand
information.

Supervision: this refers to the act or process of overseeing the activities of a

supervisee by the supervisor.

LITERATURE REVIEW

-Meaning of Supervision in education

-Models of Supervision

Meaning of Supervision

Contemporary writers have slightly different concepts about what supervision

means. Most of them however, seem to agree that supervision is an organized,
democratic process involving the supervisor and the persons or groups of persons
supervised, for the achievement of desired objectives, Nwaogu (1980) viewed
supervision as a process of stimulating growth and a means of helping teachers to help
themselves. Ojelabi (1981) described supervision as a constant and continuous
process of personal guidance based on frequent visits to a school to give concrete and

2
constructive advice and encouragement to teachers, so as to improve the learning and
teaching situation in schools. Hence, supervision is a modern idea that should assist
student teachers in improving instruction in the classroom.

Supervision is a term that covers a wide range of teacher education processes

and activities. It begins before a teaching practice, intensifies through the practice and
continues after the practice has been completed. It includes aspects of advising,
guiding, counseling, modeling, coaching, evaluating and assessing. It is a form of
systematic, purposeful behaviour having clear aims and destructive content and
activities.

Models of Supervision

Models of supervision can be categorized into four which was given by

Bernard and Goodyear (2004). They includes:-

• Developmental model of supervision

• Integrated models of supervision
• Social role model of supervision
• System model of supervision

Developmental model
The underlying premise of developmental models of supervision is the notion
that individuals are continuously growing. In combining our experience with
hereditary predispositions we develop strengths and growth areas. The objective of
supervision from this perspective is to maximize and identify growth needed for the
future. Thus, it is typical to be continuously identifying new areas of growth in a life-
long learning process as a clinical practitioner.

3
 Studies revealed that behaviour of supervisors changed as supervisees gained
experience, and the supervisory relationship also changed. There appeared to be a
scientific basis for developmental trends and patterns in supervision. In general, the
developmental model of supervision defines progressive stages of supervisee
development from beginner to expert, with each stage consisting of discrete
characteristics and skills.

For example, supervisees at the beginner stage would be expected to have

limited skills and lack confidence as counselors, while middle stage supervisees might
have more skill and confidence and have conflicting feelings about perceived
independence/dependence on the supervisor. A supervisee at the expert end of the
developmental spectrum is likely to utilize good problem-solving skills and be deeply
reflective and intuitive about the counseling and supervisory process.

Developmental supervision is based on the following two assumptions:

1. In the process of becoming competent, the counselor will progress though a

number of stages that are qualitatively different from each other;
2. Each stage requires a qualitatively different environment for optimum growth to
occur.
Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) described a developmental model with three
levels of supervisees: beginning, intermediate, and advanced. Within each level the
authors noted a trend. The beginner supervisee would tend to function in a rigid,
shallow, imitative way and then over time move toward more competence, self-
assurance, and self-reliance.

An integrated model of supervision

Supervision is a complex activity and there is a need for an integrated model.

Integrated models of supervision are described as eclectic. This allows the clinician to
integrate several models into a working paradigm. Some supervisors may choose to
lecture, most typically, during group supervision. Others prefer the counselor

4
approach, moving into areas of the supervisees psyche to uncover unconscious
motives and desires. Other supervisors may find themselves in a co-therapist role with
the supervisee. Regardless of the role, each integrated model serves a specific
purpose. The purpose is to help identify obstacles that prevent the supervisee from
learning, growing and ultimately helping the client sitting before them.

Social role model

The social role model specifies that the supervisor acts and performs certain
roles, tasks and functions that take into accounts behaviours, beliefs and attitudes that
the supervisee is expected to do.

System model

This model emphasizes a learning alliance between the supervisor and

supervisee. This alliance is based on the relationship between the supervisor and
supervisee.

OTHER MODELS OF SUPERVISION

According to Jerry G Gebhard (1984) at Teachers College, Columbia

University, also discussed five models of supervision in his research on supervision.
He said, “The first model is offered to illustrate the kind of supervision which has
traditionally been used by teacher educators. But since this model has some serious
limitations, the other four models are proposed in order to describe ways that we
can define the role or function of the supervisor and supervision differently—that
is, differently from how the supervisor and supervision are normally perceived”

They are:-

5
 ° Directive model
° Alternative model
° Collaborative model
° Non-directive model
° Creative model

Directive model

This model of supervision is the one which most teachers and many teacher
educators express as their idea of what supervision is. In directive supervision the
role of the supervisor is to direct and inform the teacher, model teaching behaviors,
and evaluate the teacher’s mastery of defined behaviors.

There are at least three problems with directive supervision. First, there is the
problem of how the supervisor defines “good” teaching. Second, there is the
problem of negative humanistic consequences that may arise from using a directive
model of supervision. And third, there is the problem of who is ultimately
responsible for what goes on in the classroom. The problem with directive
supervision is that a prescriptive approach forces teachers to comply with what the
supervisor thinks they should do. Blatchford (1976) and Jarvis (1976) have both
suggested that this keeps the responsibility for decision making with the teacher
educator. It does not allow the teachers to become their own experts and to rely
upon themselves, rather than on the supervisor, for the answers.

Alternative model

Copeland (1982) discovered in his research on teacher attitudes to supervision

that some teachers feel the need to be told what to do when they first begin to teach.
He attributes this to their insecurity in facing students without having the skills to
cope with that situation. Teachers from a number of countries have also pointed out

6
that if the teacher is not given direction by the supervisor, then the supervisor is not
considered qualified. The roots of directive supervision grow deep.

However, there is a way to direct teachers without prescribing what they should
do. This way is through a model that Freeman (1982) calls alternative supervision.
In this model, the supervisor’s role is to suggest a variety of alternatives to what the
teacher has done in the classroom. This limits the number of choices for teachers,
and it can reduce anxiety over not knowing what to do next. However, it still keeps
the responsibility for decision making with the teacher. There is simply less choice.
Freeman points out that alternative supervision works best when the supervisor
does not favor any one alternative and does not sound judgmental. The purpose of
offering alternatives is to widen the scope of what a teacher will consider doing.

Fanselow (in press) states that his goal is to substitute self-generated alternatives
for prescribed alternatives. Like Freeman, Fanselow might begin by suggesting
alternatives. However, Fanselow also provides ways through which teachers can
generate their own alternatives in their teaching. One way is to try the opposite of
what is usually done. For example, if students usually read silently, the teacher can
generate a lesson where they read aloud. Another way is by duplicating inside the
classroom what goes on outside of it. He also trains teachers to be aware of
“leaden” (as opposed to “golden”) moments when things consistently do not go
well (for example, when students always come to class late) and to try alternative
behaviors to resolve the problem (for example, offer coffee to those who come on
time or simply sit down and talk with the students about the importance of starting
on time).

No matter how the alternatives are generated, the aim, as Fanselow makes clear,
is for teachers to try alternative behaviors and to pay attention to the consequences.
If the supervisor provides strategies (such as those described above) which give
teachers a way to understand the consequences of what they do, teachers can
gradually become their own experts and can rely on themselves to make teaching

7
decisions.

Collaborative model

Within a collaborative model the supervisor’s role is to work with teachers

but not to direct them. The supervisor actively participates with the teacher in any
decisions that are made and attempts to establish a sharing relationship. Cogan
(1973) advocates such a model, which he calls “clinical supervision,” Cogan
believes that teaching is mostly a problem-solving process that requires a sharing of
ideas between the teacher and the supervisor. The teacher and supervisor work
together in addressing a problem in the teacher’s classroom teaching. They pose
hypothesis, experiment, and implement strategies which appear to be a reasonable
solution to the problem under consideration.

In the supervisory situation I described at the beginning of this paper, instead of

telling me what I should have done, the supervisor could have asked, “What did
you think of the lesson? How did it go? Did you meet your objective?,” in a
positive, interested, and non- judgmental way. Then the supervisor could have more
easily understood my ideas, problems I saw in the lesson and the kinds of things I
was planning to do. It would have been possible for the supervisor to also have
input, to make suggestions, and to share her experience. A decision about what to
do next could have been made together.

It is worth mentioning that although the ideas of equality and sharing ideas in a
problem-solving process can be appealing, the ideal and the real are sometimes far
apart. Not all teachers are willing to share equally in a symmetrical collaborative
decision- making process. This has been pointed out clearly by a colleague from a
Middle Eastern country who remarked that if, as a supervisor, he attempted to get
teachers to share ideas with him; the teachers would think that he was not a very
good supervisor.

8
 Non-directive model

While collaborative supervision places the teacher and supervisor in a sharing

relationship, non-directive supervision does not. Nor does a non-directive
supervisor prescribe or suggest non-prescriptive alternatives. What a non-directive
supervisor does was recently expressed by a teacher when she said, “My supervisor
usually attempts to have me come up with my own solutions to teaching problems,
but she isn’t cold. She’s a giving person, and I can tell that she cares. Anyway, my
supervisor listens patiently to what I say, and she consistently gives me her
understanding of what I have just said.” The same teacher also expressed the
consequences of this type of supervision for her when she added, “I think that when
my supervisor repeats back to me my own ideas, things become clearer. I think this
makes me more aware of the way I teach—at least I am aware of my feelings about
what I do with students. ”

When the teacher talked about how the supervisor listened and provided an
understanding of what she had said, she was referring to something that Curran
(1978), who bases his ideas on the work of Carl Rogers, calls an “understanding
response.” An understanding response is a “re-cognized” version of what the
speaker has said. In supervision, the supervisor does not repeat word-for-word what
the teacher has said but rather restates how he or she has understood the teacher’s
comments.

Creative model

The creative model allows freedom to become creative not only in the use of
the models presented, but also in other behaviors we may care to generate and test
in our supervisory efforts. There are at least three ways the creative model can be
used. It can allow for 1) a combination of models or a combination of supervisory
behaviors from different models, 2) a shifting of supervisory responsibilities from

9
the supervisor to other sources, and 3) an application of insights from other fields
which are not found in any of the models. Working with only one model can be
appropriate, or it can be limiting. Sometimes a combination of different models or a
combination of supervisory behaviors from different models might be needed.
Freeman (1982), for example, selects a particular supervisory approach according
to the type of information the teacher is seeking. If new teachers are trying to find
out “what” to teach, he uses a directive approach. If they want to know “how” to
teach, he uses an alternative approach. If they want to know “why” they teach, he
uses a non-directive approach. Another way where creative supervision can also be
used is through the application of insights from other fields which are not found in
any of the models.

CONCLUSION

It has been concluded from this study that there are various models of
supervision that can be used by educators in the educational system which also
contributed in achieving educational goals and objectives and that there is no one
model that is superior to the other.

RECOMMENDATION

The following recommendations were made at the end of this study on models
of supervision to schools: -

1. Head teachers should take internal supervision serious because it goes along way
in improving the standard of the school.
2. Well and understandable model should be used in the course of supervision by
head teachers or outside observers.
3. Head teachers should be introduced to various models of supervision available
that can best suits the school needs in regards to supervision.

10
 REFERNCES

Bernard, J. M. and Goodyear, R.K. (1998). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston,

Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Bernard, J. M. and Goodyear, R.K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston,
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Third Edition.
Blatchford, Charles (1976). The silent way and teacher training. In on TESOL ’76,
Washington D.C
Cogan, Morris L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Publisher.

Curran, A Charles (1977). Counseling-learning: a whole-person model for education. East

Dubuque, Illinois: Counseling-Learning Publications.

Fanselow John (1977). conceptualizing and describing the teaching act. TESOL Quarterly
11(1): 17-41.

Fanselow John F (1983). Over and over again. Paper presented at the 34th Annual
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington
D.C March 9-12.

Freeman, Donald (1982). Observing teachers: three approaches to in-service training and
Development. TESOL Quarterly 16(1): 21:29.

Jerry G. Gebhard (1984), A Teacher self development and Methodology; Second Edition
Published at United States.
Leddick, G. R. & Bernard, J. M. (1980). The history of supervision: A critical review.
Counsellor Education and Supervision, 27, 186-196.
Nwaogu, J. I. (1980) A Guide to Effective Supervision of Instruction in Nigerian Schools
Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd.
Ojelabi, A. (1981) A Guide to School Management. Ibadan: Valuata Educational Publishers
Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987) Supervising counsellors and therapists. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stoltenberg, C., Mc Neil, B., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM Supervision: An integrated
developmental model for supervising counsellors and therapists. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

11