|
|
|
|
|
|
EDAL 570 - Principles of Educational Supervision
Spring, 2003
(Click on buttons below to go to the specific section)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Designed for principals, superintendents and instructional supervisors concerned with the improvements of teaching and learning by professional supervision: the role, aims and principles of instructional supervision; introductory study of supervisory techniques. (Course description as found in the 2000-2001 AU Bulletin). In addition, the use of computer technology for supervision will be emphasized
The purpose of this course is to enable students to:
The mission of the School of Education (SED) at Andrews University is to serve an international clientele, preparing educators for excellence in thinking, teaching, service and research. As companions in learning, students and faculty are committed to global Christian service. The mission is succinctly captured in the phrase "Educar es Redimir" (to educate is to redeem) through harmonious development of students for service. The mission is expressed through six Knowledge Bases (KB’s) that reflect the ideal development for all graduates of the School of Education. They are:
1. Worldview - addresses appreciation of the perspective of others and development of a personal philosophy from which action and service arise; (WV)
2. Human Growth and Change - addresses principles of growth, development, and learning, and the use of these principles to effect positive change; (HGC)
3. Groups, Leadership and Change - addresses principles of group behavior and the use of these principles to effect positive change for individuals and organizations; (GLC)
4. Communication and Technology - addresses oral, written, intrapersonal and interpersonal communication as the essence of human behavior and technology as it enables, supports, and enhances human interaction and learning; (CT)
5. Research and Evaluation - addresses valuing and conducting disciplined inquiry for decision-making; (RE)
6. Personal and Professional Growth - addresses commitment to holistic personal and professional growth. (PPG)
The mission of the Educational Administration and Leadership (EDAL) program is based on the overall mission of the School of Education and is stated as follows:
We serve an international clientele by preparing professionals for leadership and administration from the perspective of Christian service in a global setting. This is put into practice through the cooperative effort between students and professors in the exchange of information in research, and participation in field-based experiences.
This unique EDAL (Educational Administration and Leadership) conceptual framework is based on the following Knowledge Bases:
Contextualism - graduates of EDAL will relate current knowledge and practices with past experiences in the appropriate contexts (cultural, political, economic, etc.);
Collaboration - graduates of EDAL will value the strength derived from cross-fertilization of ideas and experiences from different disciplines, and the establishment of working relationships among individuals and groups within and without and organization;
Visionary - graduates of EDAL will possess the knowledge and skill to articulate a vision and engage in strategic planning activities;
Developmental - graduates of EDAL will acquire knowledge that will enable them to process inputs of an organization (material and human resources) in order to maximize their potentials using the latest available means.
1. Attendance and Participation (15%).
Students are expected to attend all classes (if taking the course face-to-face) and to participate in all class discussions and activities. Both face-to-face and online students are expected to participate in the 3 scheduled online class sessions. See the class schdule for the dates.
For both face-to-face students and those taking the course online through WebCT, each chapter will have a Response Form which will be submitted to the Main Discussion Area for Feedback in WebCT. This response will summarize your reading for the particular week and chapter.
Unscheduled absences must be discussed with the teachers. More than two absences, whether planned or unplanned, will result in a lower final grade.
Required: A computer account at AU or with another ISP (Internet Service Provider); proficiency in working in a Windows environment; ready access to a computer with Microsoft Internet Explorer ( the recommended browser to use ) and an adventurous spirit.
2. Reading Critique - Assignment #1 (10%)
Students will be required to critique 1 article chosen from the 3 listed below. These readings are selected to provide valuable insights into the challenges of supervising instruction.
A Personal Vision of a Good School by Roland S. Barth
Teacher Supervision Moving Towards an Interactive Approach by Fredricka L. Stoller
Getting rid of poor teachers can be a matter of years by Thomas B. Pfankuch
Reports should provide a very brief (1 page) synopsis of the content of the article. The 2nd page of the report should be the students analysis of the ideas in the article and a discussion of how relevant those ideas are to the role of the supervisor of instruction.
3. Student Led Discussions of Case Studies- Assignment #2 (20%)
Each student will lead out in a class discussion (20-30 minutes) on a selected case study related to a current issue that may confront an educational administrator. Your in-class presentation will also include a Powerpoint presentation of at least 20 slides which will serve to demonstrate your competency with technology. For those taking this class online, the powerpoint presentation together with written notes of the case study must be submitted to the instructor.
You will summarize one or two problems about the case and you will be expected to provide one or two "solutions." for each of the problems which have arisen. You will be expected to provide a precise description of ALL the issues surrounding the problems. We will use the case studies found at the following sites:
http://www.ucea.org/html/cases/V4-Iss2/covrigcase.pdf Get Rid of Incompetent Teachers, Any Way You can!
http://www.ucea.org/html/cases/V2-Iss2/princip1.pdf Interviewing for the Principalship
http://www.ucea.org/html/cases/V2-Iss1/westlake.html Will the Lemons Continue to Dance?
http://www.ucea.org/html/cases/V2-Iss2/bayou1.pdf A Football Coach for Bayou Sara
http://www.ucea.org/html/cases/V2-Iss1/mountain.pdf Changes at Big Mountain High School
http://www.ucea.org/html/cases/V3-Iss1/liberty.pdf Out With the Old, In With the New: Principal Succession at Liberty High
http://www.ucea.org/html/cases/V4-Iss2/FosseyAngelleMcCoyCase.pdf Burnout: Steve Watson's First Year As An Inner City Teacher
4. Portfolio of Materials - Assignment #3 (20%)
5. Mid-Term Exam - Assignment #4 (15%)
6. Final Project - Assignment #5 (20%)
NB The following table outlines the standards used for evaluating the papers expected in Assignment #1
| A | B | C | D |
| Tightly focused writing relating to a narrow topic. | Generally focused on single topic. | Somewhat focused on broad topic. | Scattered random writing without focus. |
| A high degree of conceptual development | Indicates good ability to conceptualize | Concept discussed but not well developed. | Little if any conceptualization. |
| Properly documented where sources used. | Outside sources given proper credit. | Outside sources alluded to. | No credit given to sources used. |
| Excellent organization and logical progression of thought. | Good organization and logic. | Moderately well organized, but logical progression not evident. | Poorly organized with little or no logic evident.
|
| Excellent use of prose in capturing the essence of referenced material. | A good job of summarizing the material reviewed. | Much paraphrasing of other material. | Mostly paraphrased or copied; not really the authors own work. |
| Syntax and grammar excellently done. Well edited material. | Only a few errors of minor significance. | A number of errors. Not well edited. | Many errors. Poor grammar and sentence structure. |
| Complete yet concise discussion of the issue. | Concise and generally recognizes most aspects of the topic. | Topic appears to be one-sided with aspects of the topic missing. Overly verbose. | Incomplete discussion of the issue. Major points ignored. |
| Opinion based on fact, research or scholarly authority. | Generally good evidence given in support of opinion. | Evidence only somewhat supports opinion. | Opinion entirely unsupported. |
The course will feature independent readings, lectures, case studies, and student projects and presentations. Technology will also be emphasized. The following table outlines the weekly expectations for the class. It is possible that interests of students and class discussions may result in some deviation from this time table.
Final Grades are based on the following distribution of points with the calculation of the grades as illustrated below::Suggested Grade Scale: A (95-100), A- (90-94.9), B+ (85-89.9), B (80-84.9), B- (75-79.9), C+ (70-74.9), C (65-69.9)
Percent of Grade Max Possible Pts. Your Score Weighted Percent Attendance/Particip 15% 30 29 14.50% Assignment #1
Article Critique10% 20 18 9.00% Assignment #2
Case Study20% 40 40 20.0% Assignment #3
Mid-Term Quiz15% 50 50 15% Assignment #4
Portfolio of Materials20% 60 57 19.00% Assignment #5
Final Take Home Exam20% 60 57 19.00% Total 100% 260 251 96.50%
VIII. ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY
The submission of work which includes the work or ideas of another without citing or attributing them to their author possibly constitutes plagiarism. Assignments which are plagiarized will be given a failing grade and their authors treated in accordance with AU Honor Code on academic dishonesty as stated in the Andrews University Academic Calendar.
IX. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STATEMENT
The School of Education, and the University are committed to providing appropriate support for students with documented disabilities, including learning disabilities. Any student who has a documented disability may identify him/herself to the teacher at the beginning of the semester so that reasonable accommodations or arrangements can be made.
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1992). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers. (3rd ed.). New York: Longman Inc.
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1987). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice applications. (2nd ed.). New York: Longman Inc.
Acheson, K. A., & Smith, S. C. (1986). It is time for the principals to share the responsibility for instructional leadership with others. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 267510.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Beach, D.M. & Reinhartz, J. (2000). Supervisory Leadership: Focus on Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolin, F. S. (1987). Reassessment and renewal in teaching. Teacher renewal: Professional issues, personal choices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51 (2), 49-51.
Glatthorn, A. (1990). Supervisory leadership: Introduction to instructional supervision. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Glatthorn, A. (1984). Differentiated supervision. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Glickman, C. D.; Gordon, S.P. & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (1998). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach.(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Glickman, C. D. (1985). The supervisor’s challenge: Changing the teacher’s work environment. Educational Leadership, 42, 38-40.
Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for helping teachers improve instruction. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. H., & Krajewski, R. J. (1993). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gray, W. A., & Gray, M. M. (1985). Synthesis on research on mentoring beginning teachers. Educational Leadership, 43 (3), 37-43.
Harris, B. M. (1985). Supervisory behaviour in education. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, P. B. (1986). Effective supervision: Theory into practice. New York: Random House.
Jonasson, H. G. (1993). Effective schools link professional development, teacher supervision and student learning. Canadian School Executive, 12, 18-21.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.
Karant, V. (1989). Supervision in the age of teacher empowerment. Educational Leadership, 46 (8), 27-30.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
McBride, M., & Skau, K. G. (1995). Trust, empowerment, and reflection: Essentials of supervision. Journal of Curriculum Supervision, 10, 262-277.
McQuarrie, F. O. Jr., & Wood, F. H. (1991). Supervision, staff development, and evaluation connections. Theory into Practice, 30, 91-96.
Reiman, A.J. & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and Supervision for Teacher Development. New York: Longman.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision: A Redefinition. (6th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53 (6), 12-16.
Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (2000). Supervision: A Guide to Practice. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1995). The supervisory continuum: A developmental approach. NASSP Practitioner, 22 (1), 1-4.
WWW Links for EDAL 570
LINKS OF INTEREST FOR BEGINNING TEACHERS:
