HEIS Newsletter - October 2015 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS: ANNOUNCED OR UNANNOUNCED?
As a long-standing tradition in education, classroom observations seem a fairly straightforward proposition. This semester marks the beginning of my second year as the director at a midsized, university-based intensive English program (IEP). My first year was one of watching and learning, seeking to understand and appreciate the existing organizational culture. Now, at the onset of a new academic year, it is appropriate to thoughtfully review the task of teacher observations. This article examines arguments for and against announced vs. unannounced classroom observations, superimposing them on two theoretical models of leadership—situational leadership and the three levels of leadership—and encourages the reader to reflect on his or her faculty context when weighing approaches. The outcomes associated with announced (formal) and unannounced (informal) classroom observations are well known and valid. Announced observations afford an evaluation of planning, sequencing, task development, and optimal learner engagement. They give teachers an opportunity to fully demonstrate their skills, to put their best foot forward. A formal observation, when paired with pre- and postobservation meetings, allows for the teacher and supervisor to engage in extended dialogue about teaching practices and related goals. However, formal observations may also yield an inauthentic demonstration of typical classroom behaviors and outcomes, thus undermining one of the primary purposes in conducting the observation, which is to assist and target any needed professional development. Correspondingly, informal observations are often utilized to minimize the possibility of the staged effect. As with any statistical sampling, frequent and unannounced observations may offer the supervisor a better overall vision of a teacher’s regular practice. That said, unannounced observations may reinforce or even foster negative attitudes toward leadership, thus undermining trust in the supervisor and diminishing the supervisor’s ability to lead the faculty as a cohesive group. Conducting supervisory classroom observations emerges as a delicate dance between management and leadership. Matching Classroom Observation Approach to Individuals and Context Language programs are complex systems. Teachers must work together in a relatively aligned fashion in order to carry out a curriculum that builds upon itself, while supporting learners at various proficiency levels. What happens within the classroom is critical for both student and program success. Over the past year, whenever the topic of classroom observations came up, our IEP teachers were of varying opinions as to the approach. These can be categorized as follows:
Interestingly, faculty never expressed that classroom observations were unnecessary. While teachers might question the package, the product was a given. Therefore, the supervisor’s dilemma is: Which option(s) is best for the success of the students, teachers, and program? Assuming that the purpose of the observation is not merely administrative in nature (i.e., solely to check a box that a supervisory observation occurred), and that some form of ongoing professional or program development will stem from the observation, then the observation takes on a more substantive role. The relationship between the two parties becomes the nexus of the issue on which a leadership construct can be overlain. As noted above, there are two distinct theoretical models that offer practical leadership frameworks for this discussion: a) situational leadership, and b) the three levels of leadership. Situational Leadership and the Three Levels of Leadership Leadership models have evolved. The current trend emphasizes a tailored approach, which varies according to the particular individual and context. Situational leadership, first appearing in the 1980s, is likely a familiar reader term. This theory highlights the leader's role in adapting one's leadership style to the individual or group. Bailey (2006) transferred the situational leadership model to language teacher supervision, defining the task (e.g., an observation) and relationship as the two elements that the leader must balance when adjusting his or her approach. Supervision adapted to the individual in each situation through joint conversation will lead to meaningful and tailored professional development for that individual. Certainly, supervisory classroom observations and the follow-on conversations, be it through a postobservation meeting or a performance appraisal, demand careful consideration. This leadership model plausibly argues for a range of approaches to classroom observations suited to the individual needs of the teacher being observed. There are two challenges with situational leadership. First, within an organizational system, the supervisor/administrator needs some degree of consistency and uniformity, especially when dealing with teacher evaluations or performance appraisals, which are often linked back to observations and likewise a host of other institutional human resources issues. Second, and more theoretically, it is debatable whether supervisors who adopt this style of leadership can effectively change the performance of individual faculty members (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997). This model does, however, highlight the need for both ongoing dialogue between the supervisor and the teacher and building a positive professional relationship. With the three levels of leadership theory, Scouller (2011) attempted to reconcile the shortcomings of earlier leadership models by addressing a) public leadership, b) private leadership, and c) personal leadership. Private leadership should be the primary focus in all classroom observations. This entails a convergence of knowing and understanding the teacher as an individual, agreeing upon goals which are tailored to the person yet support the group, and reviewing performance to assist the teacher to maintain or improve. Understandably, these leadership behaviors are private in that they best occur behind closed doors. These private considerations are to be coupled with the supervisor’s own efforts (personal leadership) toward understanding how his or her actions affect the teacher as an individual, and by extension the faculty as a collective unit. Scouller’s (2011) model, similar to Bailey’s (2006) earlier task-relationship orientation, underscores the importance of individual relationships. Observations as Opportunities to Build Professional Relationships Bringing the theoretical leadership models back to the practical question of announced and/or unannounced classroom observations, the obvious conclusion is that better outcomes can occur when the approach is situational, flexible, and reflective of the dynamics within the program. Programs with fully established professional relationships may successfully mix formal and informal observations, especially when all parties are clear as to the form, format, and purpose. However, those programs that may not yet be well established, or where there exist individual or institutional strains, might better benefit from announced observations with pre- and postdiscussions. This allows for extended private dialogue and the opportunity for the development of professional working relationships. The goal in these situations is always a healthy workgroup and constructive relationships between a) the supervisor and the group, and b) the supervisor and the individual. In working toward these goals, consider the following six questions:
In reviewing these questions, it is clear that our program is still in its infancy and requires continued reassessment to establish constructive supervisor-teacher dynamics. This is evidenced by the various perspectives teachers hold about the scope and role of classroom observations. For this coming year, our classroom observations will be announced, with both pre- and postobservation meetings. The overarching purpose will be to reinforce the foundations of a nascent supervisory relationship with each teacher. Further, I expect to foster an ongoing and considered dialogue with the faculty on how to approach future observations, recognizing that individual and team dynamics will continue to evolve. References Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1): 67–84. Scouller, J. (2011). The three levels of leadership: How to develop your leadership presence, knowhow and skill. Cirencester, England:Management Books 2000. Erin N. O'Reilly is director of the Intensive English Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Champaign, Illinois, USA. |
|