jeromedelisle consulting

Carl Rogers ideas are the foundation of person-centered supervision.

Noreen Garman (1982) clarified and expanded upon the construct of clinical supervision developed earlier by Cogan and Goldhammer.

1. She proposed four interrelated concepts as key to understanding clinical supervision: collegiality, collaboration, skilled service, and ethical conduct.
2. In her discussion of collegiality, Garman described four “frames of mind” along a continuum from low to high levels of supervisor collegiality: the alienated critic, the neutral observer, the connected participant, and the organic member.
3. She also discussed four levels of collaboration: nonworking involvement, working acceptance involvement, involvement with genuine participation, and involvement with organic reciprocity.

In the early model, it was argued that  teachers follow cognitive maps when they are teaching, but are only partially conscious of those maps, and that the aim of cognitive coaching is to help them become fully conscious of, analyze, and further develop their maps.

They identified four “stages of instructional thought,” including preactive, interactive, reflective, and projective stages. Four supervisory objectives, auditing, monitoring, validating, and consulting, parallel the four stages of instructional thought. In later theory they define a holonomous person - a self-directed individual who functions well both individually and as a member of a group.

Garmston & Wellman, 2016

Please Read

Read Further

Carl Glickman’s (1981) model of developmental supervision was based on the premise that teachers function at different levels of adult and professional development, and thus should be matched with different supervisory approaches.

Glickman's 1980 ASCD article

He recommended the directive approach for “teacher dropouts,” different versions of the collaborative approach for “unfocused workers” and “analytical observers,” and the nondirective approach for “true professionals.”

The current theory expands and explores the alignment of supervisory approach with the supervisee.

 Glickman supported several four different approaches (Pajak & Glickman, 1989).

1. Non-directive facilitates thinking in developing a self-plan. The instructional leader has low control and the teacher has high control. This style is very effective with master teachers that are very self-directed. Some behaviors exhibited by a leader using this style of leadership are listening, clarifying, and encouraging. The leader does not need to be directive in any way, the teacher is self-directed (Glickman, 2002a).
2. The collaborative approach shares control between the leader and the teacher. This is generally the most desired style of leadership (Glickman, 2002a). The leader and the teacher share information and possible practices as equals arriving at a mutually agreed upon plan. Some leader behaviors seen here include problem-solving and shared control. The leader and the teacher are free to share thoughts, ideas, and suggestions in the process (Glickman, 2002a).
3. In the directive informational approach the leader provides the focus and parameters (Glickman, 2002a). The leader lays out the plan and a variety of choices. The teacher can freely choose from presented choices. Some characteristics of this style of leadership include standardization and formalized timelines presented by the leader (Glickman, 2002a).
4. In directive control, the leader telling the teacher directly what to do (Glickman, 2002a). The leader pushes the teacher for change and reinforces consequences. The choices are predetermined by the leader and the teacher has little or no input on the decision. This style is used mostly with beginning teachers and incompetent teachers. The goal is to move toward less leader control and more teacher autonomy (Glickman, 2002a).