You are on page 1of 5

ED64H: Article Critique University of the West Indies, Mona School of Education Master of Education Programme Educational Administration

Option

This paper is presented in partial fulfilment of the course Educational Supervision (ED 63H)

Course Work Article Critique

Submitted to: Dr Desiree Bernard-Johnson Submitted by: Raymond Scott # 02063427

ED64H: Article Critique Zorga (2002) presents a model for supervisiona specific learning development

and supportive method of professional reflection and counselling used in Slovenia p. 265. The emphasis on developmental supervision is the same as advocated by thinkers and writers in the field of supervision (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2004; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2002) and reported by others like Kilminster and Jolly (2000). However, the type of developmental supervision presented by Zorga differs from that advocated by the likes of Glickman et al. (2004). Zorga incites a revolutionary form of developmental supervision. The method exposed is one in which; the supervisor hails from outside the field outside the education profession; is trained specifically trained as a supervisor; and has no hierarchical relationship with the supervisee. Emphasis is placed on how learning takes place and the roll the supervisor, the supervisory process and the supervisee can play in facilitating the learning. Zorgas model has strengths and limitations partially based on its distinctive traits. Before examining these traits for their inherent strengths and limitations however, a word on developmental supervision in particular and supervision in general. According to Sergiovanni and Starratt (2002) the overarching purpose for supervision is to help teachers improvewhat they knowteaching skillsandinquire into his or her own practice, p. 205. This, for all intents and purpose, is a definition of developmental supervision. Supervision however is vested with a more perfunctory role that of being an evaluation tool (Seyfarth, 2005). In fact Kadushin (1992) point out that there are three functions of supervision. The first is administrative; the promotion and maintenance of good standards. The secondly is educational; development of the worker to his fullest. The third is supportive; maintenance of harmonious working relationship i.e. the cultivation of esprit de corps. Only the second function of supervision, educational, is considered by Zorga. The absence of the others from the article is the first obvious limitation of the article. It can be

ED64H: Article Critique argued, and justifiably so, that to have included other function of supervision would be to

digress from the purpose of the piece. Notwithstanding this, their inclusion, even in a cursory manner, would have made the article more credible to practicing educators. How so? If educators can see how the model can be integrated in their routines then it is more likely that they would embrace it. Also Zorga places a high premium on reflection a la Dewey (1955). Kilminster and Jolly (2000) warns that conclusions based on reflection and other self reported instruments tend to be methodologically challenged particularly when deciding how supervision affects student outcome. All-in-all conclusions drawn from them are fraught with a lack of empirical certitude. This is especially troubling as the data gathered from supervision is sometimes used for bureaucratic purposes such as promotion, compensation and retention(Seyfarth, 2005). This constitutes the second limitation of the article. Although there remains limitations are yet to be ferreted out; a few of the strengths of the article will now be highlighted. There are four strengths that can be clearly seen. The first is the writer recognizes that there is flux in the economy and that new ways need to be identified and promoted for training those individuals needing new skills in new careers. This need to change careers and be fit for another is especially acute as careers for life seem to be a thing of the past even in education. Next, the writer stresses the centrality of the need to use supervision as a tool to ultimately maximising service to students. Wong (2004) stipulates that all any attempt to improve teacher competence should be done in light of the overall purpose of school; the success and achievement of its students p. 41. Thirdly, the writer speaks to the need to meet 15-20 times over the supervision process. One of the main critiques of supervision is how infrequently it occurs(Breton & Donaldson, 1991). Lastly, the writers work is well referenced as an exhaustive array of sources is used to authenticate the conclusions that are arrived at and the proposals that are made.

ED64H: Article Critique As indicated earlier however, the main features of the model are its reliance on specially trained supervisors, a non-hierarchical relationship of supervisor with supervisee

and use of supervisors from outside the teaching professions to supervise teachers. The writer makes credible and compelling arguments for each of these traits of the model and cites various authorities and experiences to back up the claims. The manner in which this is done cannot be misconstrued as name dropping or an attempt to add gravitas where none exist but rather genuine efforts, in my mind was made to authenticate the model presented. Notwithstanding this, the argument can be made that no real world application of this model is possible, say in Jamaica, because of the policies and procedures employed in the bureaucracy. The very nature of supervision in schools demand that they be done by superiors within the same school and very often these supervisors are no more qualified to supervise, due to lack of training and experience, than the person they are supervising. Zorga makes a credible case and it is worthy of further study and real world application outside of Slovenia. However, this radical departure from developmental supervision espoused elsewhere is unlikely to take root in the West as there is not the political, policy or procedural framework to support it. Perhaps schools can use supervisors from other departments or schools may exchange personnel but even this may be fruitless as it is unlikely that they will rise to the 15-20 meetings demanded of the model. The expos on learning, particularly experimental learning, was educative and insightful and the developmental model presented harkens back to Glickman et al. (2004). All-in-all a great read.

ED64H: Article Critique References Breton, W. A., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Too Little, Too Late? the Supervision of Maine Resource Room Teachers. Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 114-125. Dewey, J. (1955). Experience and Education. New York: MacMillan

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2004). Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Kadushin, A. (1992). Supervision in Social Work (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Kilminster, S. M., & Jolly, B. C. (2000). Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: a literature review. Medical Education, 34(10). Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Supervision: A Redefinition (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Seyfarth, J. T. (2005). Human Resources Management for Effective Schools (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Wong, H. (2004). Induction Programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving. NASSP Bulletin 88(638), 41-58. Zorga, S. (2002). Supervision: the process of life-long learning in social and educational professions. Jounal of Interprofessional Care, 16(3), 265-276.

You might also like