During the 1950s, Morris Cogan (1973), a supervisor of pre-service teachers at Harvard, noticed a lack of adequate professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers alike. Education was not viewed as a profession. Cogan developed the concept of clinical supervision with the dual purpose of moving the education field toward professionalism and also prescribing a practice where teachers and supervisors would work together in collaboration every day. The concept is clinical in terms of the data gathering process in the classroom, as well as the role of the supervisor. Clinical supervision was the first attempt to address changing educational expectations and create a climate of more specific interaction and participation between teacher and supervisor.
Through many published models and after a century of published literature, educators are still unsure of the definition of supervision, largely because of the politics, values and philosophies (Goldhammer, 1980). Teachers dislike being the object of supervision, and inherent is hierarchy and threat. Cogan (1973) states that clinical supervision is clinical in that it places an emphasis on analysis of in-class events with a focus on the teacher and student
data sources are the records of the classroom events, or what teachers and students do in the teaching and learning process.
The rationale for this model of supervision is to create a sense of belonging, break down the isolation of teachers in school, and ultimately to employ new roles and techniques in teaching. Cogan (1973) advocates a nine step cycle of clinical supervision. The cycle is important as it is designed to facilitate a change in behavior and to offer help that is meaningful. As a process, there are several suggested steps or phases to implement. First, phase one involves establishing a teacher-supervisor relationship. Next, phase two involves the co-planning of a lesson with the teacher. This includes accounting for outcomes, processes, anticipated problems, materials and methods of feedback. In phase three, the supervisor plans the objectives, processes, and methods for collection of data. As the teacher becomes more familiar with the process, they begin to take more of a lead role in the planning. During phase four and five, the actual lesson is observed as set in the conference, and the data is analyzed. Typically, the analysis is done separately, but may at times include the teacher. Phase six and seven involve the planning for the conference followed by the actual principal-teacher conference. The supervisor typically designs the strategy of the conference alone. Often, the conference is between the teacher and supervisor, but also may occasionally include other participants. Finally, stage eight includes renewed planning. Here, the supervisor and teacher decide on the kinds of changes to be sought in the classroom behavior, and the continuation of the cyclical process begins.
Goldhammer (1980) presents an approach, which is uniquely different than previous methods. It is goal-oriented for instructional improvement, and it focuses on deliberate intervention into the instructional process. This approach requires a mutual trust in the working
relationship, a systematic method and assumption that the supervisor knows more about instruction and learning than the teacher.
Goldhammer (1980) suggests five stages for the implementation of the clinical model: (1) pre-observation conference; (2) observation; (3) analysis and strategy; (4) supervision conference; (5) post-conference analysis (1980, p. 32). The preconference stage is mainly designed to establish rapport and provide a procedural framework for the sequence to follow. It serves as a rehearsal of the plans, and an opportunity for revision and contract building. Complete and accurate data is then collected through the observation. This data may be determined through the previous stage, or it may be fresh data gained as the lesson unfolds. The third stage is the analysis. Here, clarity and understanding is made of the observational data, and this data drives the plan for the following conference. Goldhammer (1980) states that “all roads must lead to the conference” (p. 41). As such, there are several components or outcomes of the conference. These include establishing planning time for future teaching, redefining the supervisory contract, acknowledging success, outlining the existence of issues, sharing specific expertise, and training the teacher in the skill of self-supervision. The final stage that Goldhammer advocates should be a time of reflection in the ability to engage the supervisory practice.
Noreen Garman (1986) offers a slightly revised perspective of Cogan and Goldhammer’s framework (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer et al., 1980). Garman suggests that in an effort to improve practice, to move to a professional status, teachers need to be developed in the skill of inquiry, need to have a rationale for their practice based in everyday events, and must take personal responsibility for self- understanding. She suggests that a “mature professional develops inquiry as a source of professional action” (p. 16). Inquiry involves reasoning, such as
discovery, verification, interpretation, and evaluation. Garman’s reflective approach is procedurally represented by following an established criteria. First, she suggests involvement in the scenario, or the events with a history to be set aside and noted. Next, the teacher should record the scenario, a source of stable data for later analysis. The third step involves the meaning-making of the data determined through introspection, which develop patterns and insights. Next, the event is placed in a framework, context or a meaning, where confirmation, a reflection of the experience, takes place with others to determine if it has a meaning (Garman, 1986). Garman adds to Cogan and Goldhammer’s framework by recommending that teachers take responsibility for arranging the data and making sense of it. Further, the skill of inquiry should be taught as part of the framework for clinical supervision.