Peer Clinical Supervision:Theory vs. Reality

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP4

eaw educational models have rc-ccisecd more acclaim in recentyears than the clinical supervision

model developed at tlarvard (Goldham-mer, 1969; Cogan. 1973). According toWeller (1971), clinical supervision is"operationally defined. well-exempli-fied in practice, and considered bymany educators to fit the criterion of'best existing practice.''" Cogan (1973)claims that it offers the psychosocialsupport necessary for optimal teachergrowth.

One a'ould imagine that a model sohighly acclaimed might ha've a soundresearch base. Not so. 'Ihe lack ofquali-ty and quantity in clinical supervisionresearch has beenl called "'minlisculc"(Newman, 1980), "thin" (Alfonso,1977), and "absent" (I)cnlham, 1977).Sullivan (1980) notes that "tilhe researchrelated to clinical supervision is sparseand that \shich does cxist reflects a lackof rigor often associated u-ith a new fieldof inquir."

Given tlhe lack of a sound rcsearchbase, why has this model been theoreti-call'. so well recei-ed? 'vo major as-pects of clinical super ision that en-hance its acccptabilit relate to its spiritand form.

Democratic Spirit and StructuredMethodologyFirst, the spirit of the clinical supenrvisionmodel reflects the democratic humanresources perspective of supervision (Scr-giovanni, 1978). I)cveloped in the late1950s, the model incorporates the con-cepts of collegiality, collaboration,skilled service, and ethical conduct(Garman, 1982). It respects the integrityand individualith of teachers, and itspsychological tone echoes McGregor's(1960) T1'heorv Y. 'I'he supcrvisor's roleis not to coerce, demand, or evaluate.

APRIL 1984

but rather to encourage, cxplorc. andcollaborate. Clinical supen-ision pre-sumes the professionalism of teachers.This democratic human resources ethosis still generally accepted in most circlesas the best supenrision approach.

Second, its form incorporates a specif-ic, staged-cvcle methodology that offers aconcrete strategy for collecting data onreal and personal classroom patterns.The model is termed "clinical" becauseit deals with the realiht of dail' schoollife, not 'with simulated settings; it illu-minates practices in the real 'world.Further, techniques for data collection.obsenration, and confcrcncing haxcbeen wsell developed (Achesoml and Gall.1980). TIhe "tool skills" of clinical su-pcnision (Goldhammner. 1969) enableteachers and supcn-isors to deal w'ithdescriptive information in an anal-ticalformat. IFor example, Sirois (1978)found that "the conditions imposed onboth teachers and supernisors b! themodel of clinical supen'ision encouragegreater verbal participation on the partof the teacher" (p. 232).

Thus, the spirit of clinical supen-isiolnaffirnms the teacher's individualih- andnecessanr collaboration in analj zingteaching. a'hilc its form suggests amethod for such collaborativc beha-iorsand becomes a vehicle for uncoveringteaching patterns. Active teacher in-volvement in pedagogical analysis is im-portant becausc researchers have docu-mented that teachers are often una'warcof manll of their own teaching behaviors(see Good and Broph!', 1978; Nled'vid.

The idealsof clinicalsupervisionare out of tunewith the waythings reallyare in someschools.

Shirley A. NlcFaul is Assistant Princi-pal. Friends School. Baltimore. Mar'-land; and lames M4. Cooper is Professorof Education, University' of Htouston,University Park, Texas.

5

-

I

"The clinical supervision model, with itsemphasis on collegial analysis ofobservational data, seems to have facevalidity in teachers' eyes and offers thepotential of raising teachers' awarenesslevels."

1980). This finding is not surprisinggiven the rapid pace of classroom teach-ing and the fact that teachers are rarelytrained to analyze their own classroompedagogy. The clinical supervisionmodel, with its emphasis on collegialanalysis of observational data, seems tohave face validity in teachers' eves andoffers the potential of raising teachers'awareness levels. As Good and Brophyobserve (1978): "Teachers are often un-aware of much of what they do, and thislack of perception sometimes results inunwise, self-defeating behavior."

Peer Clinical SupervisionThe common reality of teacher-super i-sor discord (Blumberg. 1980), however,coupled with substantial budget cuts ofsupervisory staff (ASCD Update, March1981) limit use of the model. So, too.does the ratio of available supervisors toteachers and the burden of the manyduties, aside from supervision, that areexpected of school principals. One alter-native approach examined by a feweducators is peer clinical supervision(Simon, 1979; Thompson, 1978; With-all and Wood, 1979; and Goldsberrv,1981). Teachers trained in the rationale

and methodology of clinical supervisionact as peer supervisors with each other,collecting data and analyzing theirmeaning in post-observation confer-ences. Such an approach ought to capi-talize on an existing support systemBlumberg (1980) and Alfonso (1977)note that teachers informally depend ontheir peers for support and instructionalhelp; and DeAngelis (1979) documentsthat beginning teachers found theirprincipals and supervisors somewhathelpful, but not as much as their col-leagues.

Additionally, peer interaction usingclinical supervision may benefit the ob-server as well as the teacher being ob-served. Goldsberry (1981) notes that"the experiences of systematically ob-serving one's colleagues, analyzingcollected data, and structuring and con-ducting conferences may well contrib-ute as much or more to the professionaldevelopment of the observer as to therefined practice of the teacher beingobserved" (p. 11). These seem to belogical arguments for exploring theworth of such an approach.

Other researchers, however, questionwhether peer clinical supervision isworkable. Blumberg (1980) notes teach-ers' approach-avoidance response to su-pervision and their lack of training for

working in a problem-solving modewith peers. Cogan (1973) wonderswhether local staffs can develop theirown data collection instruments, andSimon (1979) questions the logistics ofimplementatiol. Alfonso (1977) statesthat the typical cellular structure ofschools may inhibit peer clinical super-vision attempts, and Harris (1976) notesthat the model makes high demands interms of teacher motivation, intelli-gence, and emotional stability. Addi-tionallyv, Harris doubts whether teachershave the analytical abilities or awarenessof alternatives to plan new actions, espe-cially without new skill training. Glick-man (1981) calls for a developmentalview of supervision that is based on twoteacher-controlled factors: level of ab-straction and level of commitment. Ac-cording to his paradigm, clinical super-vision mav be most workable withteachers who have high levels of bothThe difficulty, of course, is that thoseteachers are not the only ones who needintensive supervisory help.

A Case Study of Peer ClinicalSupervisionIn 1982, 12 teachers in an urban ele-mentary school participated in a one-semester graduate-level course that in-cluded an eight-cycle process forimplementing peer clinical supervision(McFaul, 1982). In four cycles each.the teachers played both the role of peersupervisor and supervised teacher. Re-search questions focused on (1) howimplementation of the model variedamong teachers; (2) the congruence ofthe model with the school setting; and(3) a critical analysis of the utility ofclinical supervision for urban clemen-tary teachers.

Study participants received trainingin developing instrumen, for data col-lection, videotaping teaching episodes,analyzing data for pertinent patterns and

6 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

6 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

"Teachers appeared to honor anunwritten agreement that no one wouldbe made uncomfortable in the process."

issues, and conducting conferences.Numerous projects wcre completed tosatisfy the objectives of the course. Datacollection for the studs included bothethnographic infornmation and teacherintervicws as well as fuill documenltationof the eight c!cles (for example, pre-obsenration agreement forms, data col-lection instruments, tape recordings ofpost-obscrvation conferences). The casestudy approach swas necessary because ofthe importance of contextual factors inthe environment (Schiffer. 1980). A kevquestion was: "Is the form and spirit ofthe model congruent with teachers' atti-tudes and abilities as "cell as with theenvironmelti"

Analysis of the peer clinical superxi-sion cscles produced seeral findings.To varying degrees, all hut one of theteachers wcre able to execute the form ofpeer clinical supervision; that is, the!were able to participate in the stagedcycles. Close examination of those cy-cles. howcxer, revcaled that most oftenclinical superv'ision was not done thor-oughly. For example, prc-observationconferences wscrc conducted cursorily, ifat all. Teachers claimed there wsas littletime in their bussv schedules to allow forthoughtful planning. Although teacherswere trained to use a variet, of instru-ments, maniv of those developed con-tained insufficient data from which todraw meaningful generalizations. In-depth analyscs occurred only in approxi-matclh 20 percent of the confercnccs.When an issue was raised participantsoften jumped from the data to oneproposed solution, which w-as usuall!reinforced bv the colleague. In manyinstances this led to simplistic solutionsto complex problems.

In the post-observation conferences,teachers seldom pursued the kind ofthorough weighing of altcrnati-es thatwas practiced in their course work. Infact, teachers appeared to honor an

unwritten agreement that no one wouldbe made uncomfortable in the process.Not once during any of the completedpeer cycles did an! teacher dispute thecollected data; there were merely minordifferences in interpretation. Tle coln-ferencc tapes called into question,therefore, teachers' willingness or abilityto substantivelv analyze their peersclassroom behaviors. W'ithout a stronganalytical focus, clinical supervisionloses much of its potency.

Model and School ContextIncongruityWhile variations in teachers' use of themodel were instructive, a thoroughanalysis of the ethnographic data pro-duced the most important finding of thestud!: the underlying assumptions of thepeer clinical supen-ision model scereincongrucnt w ith the school context.This issue-the degree of congruenccbetweecn model and cnsironmenit-sasincluded in design of the studs becauseit was considered important, though notcritical. In retrospect, howecer. thepower of the ens ironment appearedoverwhelmingl Four overriding contcx-tual patterns were uncovered that ap-peared to have a substantial effect onimplementation of peer clinical super-i-sion in this urban setting: isolation andfragmentaton, stratification, standard-ization, and reactionism. These themeswere evident in classrooms, in teachers'encounters, and in the building anddistrict administrators' shies.

Isolation and fragmentation %sere ap-parent in the school's architecture andin the lack of interaction between teach-ers. There was little opportunity forteachers to work as teams; interactionswere infrequent, and when they didoccur they were primarily concernedwith organizational management prob-lems. Teachers spoke in temps of stafffigmentation: old-timers vs. new-tim-

ers. black teachers vs. white teachers.teachers in the main building vs. teach-ers in portables, teachers the principalliked -s. teachers she did not like. Fieldnotes corroborated the impression thatteachers at this school did not act as acohesive, coordinated staff

Stratification %was experienced pri-marily through the pnncipal's actionstoward her staff. though, in fact. districtadministrators also acted similarly to-ward their pnncipals. For example. theprincipal unintentionally established a"pecking order" among teachers by sin-gling out certain teachers to demon-strate lessons, complimenting them instaff meetings and rewarding them with

APRIL 1984

"preferred" classes: and b! dcscribingteachers as "those who care and do xwell.those who don't, and those who don'tcare." Teachers acre asware of this hier-archs, and it appeared to reinforce theirfragmentation.

Standardization was reflected pri-marily in the curriculum and pedagogy.Teachers sere expected to conform tomany standardized practices: lessonplans, approaches to teaching spelling,use of blackboards and bulletin boards,use of the newls adopted reading series.and so forth. In fact, teachers vsererequired to attend demonstration lessonson hoA to use the nevs reading series"corrTctls." Therefore, man\ of the'patterns" teachers exhihited in theirclassrooms were not the personal. sthlis-tic patterns that Goldhamrricr suggestedreflect a teacher's philosoph-. but, rath-er, ones imposed by the administration.

The reactionism theme relatecd toteachers' decision-making stances. 'ac-ulty members demonstrated little senseof initiative or long-range planning.Several district factors, such as the fluc-tuating school population aind ahruptpolicy changes, contributecl to this pos-ture. as did the principal's spontancoussthle. She interrupted ongoing instrilc-tion by "popping" into classroonis, andoften changed schedules or school rou-tines uithout advance noticc. IThesunanticipated changes and interruptionsleft teachers feeling like puppets on astring, in a rcactixc rather than an initi-ating posture.

All four factors-fragmcitatioon/isola-tion, stratification, standardization, alidreactionism-canime into direct conflictwith the model, which assumed anatmosphere of collegialits and equalits,individualized teaching shies, and asense of teacher professionalism. In re-alitv the teachers wuere unanalstical, andthe milieu muted rather than clcvatedthe potential of the peer clinical supers i-sion model.

Clinical Supervision: Preached ButNot PracticedWilses and Killion i 1982) claim that theprinciples of clinical superv ision arc imi-portant components of an effective staffdevelopment program. They rfote thatthe choice of supersisory approach de-pends on a teacher's stage of personaland professional development Hoscv-er, Causelti and Reavis' !1980) researchon teachers' perceptions of the made-quacy of instructional supervision andinsersice education demonstrates that25 percent of urban teachers rated those

8

sernices as "high" and that onls aox)ut15 percent had had any experience w ithclinical super-ision. 'This, while clini-cal supervision is highllv acclaimed, itseems not to be implemented oftenl.

An issue that has not been adequatelyaddressed is whether the form and spiritof the model "fit" the realitv of teachingin manlv urban contexts. Inner-cityschools often cv-idence uork-lifc stressesall their own. Bell i1979) identifies fac-tors that cpitonmizc urban schools inneed of rencssal and claims that "theconditions in uhich urban school pco-pic u-ork arc extreme" ip. 65i. He citesthree obstacles to rcwcual: hopelessness,helplessness, and depersonalization.Fuchs' i 1969) stnds of ieophyte teach-ers in urban schools also indicated a lackof a supportic., professional growsthen-ironmcnt: "I eachers start their ca-reers expecting further professional de-velopmcilt and colleague relationshipsv ith their supervisors. it comes as a rudeshock to themrl to find that tliec aretreated as loss-lecel bureaucratic fuic-tionarics" (p. 79). Attempting to chargcindividual instructional approaches in asstern that is unreceptice to collegialproblem solirng and teacher initiatixemas be futile. What is needed is anen-ironiment congruenIt with sustainedprofessional developmert. The lack ofsuch an ensironimnet inl our studs ap-peared to be a strong inhlibitor of peerclinical super\ision efforts One canillotgeneralize froro one case studs, homesv-er, and it is difficult to knouw hoswwidespread are the contextual patternsexperienced in this case. But to theextent that the patterns in this schoolexist in others, clinical supervision,whether w ith peers or not, may beineffectivc.

Mutations of the ModelSnyder i 1981 i argues that clinical super-vision holds more promise as a coachingsvsteni thanl as an inspection system,and expresses concernl that it couldevolve into little more than "a refinedteacher inspection technolog. " As suchit might retain the form ushile sacrificingthe spirit of the model. Gi-ern a inmoe-ment tosuard increased standardization,one should not be surprised to see clini-cal supersision undergo such a niuta-tion. As such, however, it becomeshollow--like a song that has wuords butno music.

in our study, such a mutation wasevident. The elementary principal hadbeen trained in clinical supernisionskills by the school district (apart from

the teachers); she was expected to em-ploy those skills and at the same timeevaluate teachers Using the district'sstandardized evaluation form. Il an eraof teacher accountability, anid in thisurban setting of fragmentation, stratifi-cation, standardization, and reaction-isim, administrative use of clinical smi-persision incorporated a variation of theform and eliminated the spirit of themodel.

This inconigreiucce is particultarl inm-portant considering the crucial role ofthe urban principal regarding morale.chalge, anld perforimalice (Hall, llord,arid Griffin, 1980; Shoemaker anrd Fra-ser, 1981; Corbett. 19821 Orn steill(1982) additionally notes the special fi-narlcial hardships experienced )y urbarlschools, hardships that in nialii respectsconflict w ith ano form of timTne-cosurnl-ing snlperisiorl or collegial efforts.

ImplicationsMansy would argue that the usC of clini-cal supervision, either witlh supervisorsor peers, can be a key element in effec-tive staff developmetnt Our studv sug-gests that such ain approach, nluder cer-tain circunrrstances rnias be untenableWe clearly need to examiine the congru-ence betweenr the assuniptions of clii-cal supcrvision and the reality of someschool settings. Accountabilitx, stan-dardization, stratification, isolation, aiidunanalstical stances conflict with thlethrust of the clinical supervisionl rmodelBy definition the motdel includes a formanid spirit that embodies a sense ofprofessionalism, teacher initiative andcollegialits, and a respect for individualteaching patteris. In some instances thetone. interactions, and expectations ofthe school environnient may need tochange before attention to individualteaching patterns will reap benefits.

The modcl demanlds extensive timecommitments (Turnrer, 1976), sustainedcollegial interaction, and long-termi ef-forts in air atmosphere of professionalrespect. T'he realith ill many clementaryschools includes little, if any, extra timein a tightly scheduled school day, isola-tion of faculhts members fronm each oth-er, changing demands from the districtand society, and an eroded sense ofprofessionalism. Improvilng instruction,the primary goal of clinical supervision,is not done quickly Raising awarenessof teaching patterns, analziing their im-plications. and planning new approach-es requires a sustained effort. Thatmeans that clinical supervision, wheth-er performed by administrators or peers,

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

needs to be thoroughly integrated intothe life of the school, a rather unlikelypossibility unless many typical schoolstructures and procedures are modified.The Meaning of MutationsDeveloped in the late 1950s during aperiod of expansion and experimentalprograms and couched in a humanisticframework, clinical supervision em-braced the belief that rational analysis ofpedagog, would facilitate the sclf-actu-alization of teachers. The model em-phasized respect for teachers' initiativesand expected them to be the primanrdecision makers regarding their teachingstyles. The idea of using clinical super-vision for evaluation purposes was un-tenable. Its purpose was to help teach-ers, not to judge them, and those twoactions were deemed incompatible.

Presently. there is little evidence tosuggest that clinical superv-ision as de-fined bv Goldhammer and Cogan isbeing used widely by either district su-pervisors or teaching peers. Times andexpectations have changed, and two hlv-brids of the model are emerging. Oneinvolves using the "tool skills" of clini-cal supernision to monitor and evaluateteachers. The other involvses the use of"colleague consultation" (see Alfonsoand Goldsbern-, 1982). which incorpo-rates the spirit and form of the modelbut does not stress the well-honed ana-lytical methodology.

Studying the nutations of clinicalsupervision may tell us more about thepresent state of the school workplacethan about the model. Goldhammer'shope was that clinical supervision wouldtransform the schools. Consonant withSarason's (1982) understanding of thepower of contextual forces in school life,it appears more likely that clinical su-pervision, where used, will be moldedand shaped to "fit" the rcality of schoollife. It will be instructive to obsenre thetransformation where it occurs and toreflect on its meaning.O

ReferencesAcheson. Keith, and Gall, Meredith.

Techniques in the Clinical Supervision ofTeachers: Preservice and Inservice Applica-tions New York: Longman, 1980)

Alfonso. Robert J and Goldsbern, Lee."Colleagueship in Supen ision" In Supervi-sion of Teaching. Edited by T. . Sergio-vanni. Alexandria. Va: Association for Su-pervision and Curricilum Dcvelopment.1982

ASCD Update, Vol 23., No. 2, March1981

Bell, Warren. "Obstacles to Urban SchoolRenewal." Theory into Practice 18 (1979):65-72.

APRIL 1984

Blumberg. Arthur. Supenrvisors andTeachers: A Private Cold 'ar. 2nid edBerkeley. Calif.: McCutchan, 1980.

Cawelti, Gordon. and Reavis. Charles."How Well Arc We Prov-iding lnstructionalImproncment Senices"' Educational Lead-ership 38 (1980)): 236-240.

Cogan. Morris. Clinical Supervision. Bos-ton: Houghton Mifflin. 1973.

Corbett. H. Dickson. "Principals' Contri-butions to Mainltainliig Chanigc." Phi DeltaKappan 64 (1982). 190-192.

DeAngelis, Mary. "An Investigation intothe Reported Needs of Neophtec Teachersand the Perceived Helpfulness of Superni-sors." Unpublished doctoral dissertation.The Ohio State Unie-rsih-. 1979.

Denham. Alice. "Clinical Superision:What We Need to Kuno About Its Potentialfor Improf-ing Ilstruction." ContemporaryEducation 49 19.77): 33-37

Eaker, Robert "An Anal-sis of the Clini-cal Supenision Process as Pereci-ed bA Se-lected Teachers and Administrators.' Un-published doctoral dissertation. Uniscrsih ofTennessee, 1972.

Fuchs. Estelle. Teachers Talk: \iewus fromInside City Schools. NeCY York: AnchorBooks, 1969.

Garman, Noreen B. "The Clinical Ap-proach to Supenrvision." In Supenision ofTeaching Edited b% T. 1. Scrgiovanni. Al-exandria, Va.: Association for Supen-isionand Curriculum Ds>eelopmcilt, 1982.

Glickman, Carl. Developmental Superni-sion: Alternative Practices for Helping Teach-ers Improve Instruction. Alexandria, \a.:Association for Supernision and CurriculumDe velopmenit, 1981.

Goldhammer, Robert. Clinical Supervi-sion: Special Methods for the Supervision ofTeachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart. andWinston, 1969.

Goldsbern-, Lee. College Consultation:Teacher Collaboration Toward PerformanceImprovement. Paper presented at AREA,Los Angeles, April 1981.

Good. Thomas, and Broph!. Jere Look-ing in Classrooms. 2nd ed. Nes York:Harper and Row, 1978.

Hall, Gene; Hord. Shirlc-; Grffin. The-resa. "Implementation at the School Build-ing Level: The Development and Aialysis ofNine Mini-Case Studies." Paper presentedat AERA. Boston. April. 1980.

Hall, Gene, and Loucks, Susan. "Innova-tion Configurations: Analyzing the Adapta-tions of Innovations." Austin: Research alidDevelopment Center for Teacher Educa-tion, The Universiht of Texas. 1978.

Harris, Ben. "Limits and Supplements toFormal Clinical Procedures." lournal of Re-search and Development in Education 9(1976) 85-89.

McFaul. Shirle-. "A Case Stud% of theImplementation of Peer Clinical Supenri-sion in an Urban Elementary School." [In-published doctoral dissertation., The Univer-sith of Houston, 1982.

McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of

Enterprise. Nec York: MicGras Hill. 1960Mecdwid. lo Ann. "A Partcipant ben-a-

hon Studs: A Model for Instructional Super-vision. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Boston Ulnivsrsih. 19i0.

Newman. Kathenne "lmproing Teach-ing in Higher Education: A Rencs of Sc-lected Literature.- A paper for the ColklegiaulAssistance Program Task Force of the liusCorps Network. The Collcge of Educaton.The Ilniversits of Texas at Austin. larch1980.

Ornstein. Allan. "Redefining the UrbanProblem." Phi Delta Kappan 64 lq9h's:516-519

Sarason. Scvmeour The Culture of theSchool and the Problem of Change 2nd edBoston: Alh-n and Bacon. Inc. 19q2.

Schiffer, Judith. School Renewul ThmnughStaff Deevelopment. New \ork: TeachersCollege Press. 1980.

Sergiovalni. Thonus. "'he Rational IBusill Supen-isor Thought: Issues and Altrna-ti-sc." Instructional Supenrsion: Resarchand Theorv. National Conference Papers.Kent. Ohio: Kent State Utniersitc. 19-h

Shoemaker. Joanl. and Fraser. Hugh."What Principals Can Do: Some Implica-tihons from Studies of Electivr Schooling.Phi Delta Kappan 64 1991: 1 -- 1 82.

Simon. Alan. "Peer Superision: .n 1-termatie." Association for Supersison andCurriculum Development. 19'9 AnnualConference audiotape.

Sirois. Harold. "Th Effets ofa ClinicalModel of Supcnision. Teacher Types. Su-penisor Types and S-Ics on Changes inTeacher and Student Attitude and Behs-ior." iUnpublished doctoral dissertation. TheUniversih- of Connecticut. 1978.

Snider,. aromln "Clinical Supenision inthe 1980s'. Educational lademrship 31981): 521-524.

Sullivan. Chen-l "Clinical SupeniwonA State of the Art Rcxic' ." 4'kandria. Va.:Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment. 1980.

Thompson. John. '"Thc ssessment oddiEffects of Peer Superision on Attitudes.Appraisals. and Classroom Control of Stu-dent Teachers." Unpublished doctoral dis-serralion. The P'inns-lania State Innersi-th. 1978.

Tumer. Helen. "The Implementationand Critical Documentation of a Model ofClinical Supervision: A Case Studs.- Un-published doctoral dissertation. UniRersih ofCalifornia, Los Angeles. 19-6.

Weller, Richard. Verbal Communicationin Instructional Supervision: An Obirw-tional System for and Resarch Study ofClinical Supervnision in Groups. Ne YorktTeachers College Press. 1971.

Wilses, Cath., and Killion. Joellen."Making Staff Dexelopment ProgramsWork." Educational Leadeship 40 (1982):36-38.

Withall. John. and WAood. Fred. H.'Taking the Threat Out of Claroom Obser-vation and Feedback." Ioumal of TeacherEducation 3O (1979): 5-58.

9

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.