Teacher competency: Problem, theory, and practice

The Heuristic Value of regarding Classroom Instruction as an Aesthetic Medium

“…31I am aware that objectives are often specified when a formal evaluation plan is used (e.g., Hunter's Instructional Theory Into Practice--see, for example, Hunter, 1976); however, "evaluating teaching performance" largely remains an imprecise label for an amorphous task. This may explain how two experienced teacher evaluators can view the same teaching performance and arrive at very different judgments.…”

“…It is important to note at this point that, although theoreticians of instructional supervision have defined discrete approaches to teacher evaluation-for example, "scientific" (McNeil, 1982), "clinical" (Garman, 1982;Hunter, 1976), or "developmental" (Glickman, 1985) models of supervision-none were derived from empirical studies of the cognitive activities actually invoked by evaluators in the naturalistic process AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1989 13 of judging teacher performance. Because this sort of craft knowledge is highly automated and usually unconscious, it cannot be elicited simply by asking experienced evaluators what they look for, or how they define good teaching.…”

The Heuristic Value of Regarding Classroom Instruction as an Aesthetic Medium

“…In naturalistic studies, researchers have identified discrete supervisory behaviors that appear to be related to teachers' satisfaction or to success in modifying teachers' classroom behaviors (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977;Gliessman, Pugh, Dowden, & Hutchins, 1988;Joyce & Showers, 1981;Kagan, 1988a). In experimental studies, researchers have imposed a standardized routine on supervisors-like Hunter's (1976) version of clinical supervision-and then have measured its effectiveness in producing desired outcomes (Donovan, Sousa, & Walberg, 1987;Griffin & Barnes, 1986). Research in this field currently has no true analogue to the research on teachers' cognitions (Clark & Peterson, 1986;Kagan, 1988b), but it has been suggested (Niemeyer & Moon, 1987), and a new wave of cognitive studies on supervision is beginning to appear.…”

“…If this is true, we ought to describe those differential activities explicitly, and we ought to clarify their objectives and values; perhaps we should also assign them unique labels. 3 It is important to note at this point that, although theoreticians of instructional supervision have defined discrete approaches to teacher evaluation-for example, "scientific" (McNeil, 1982), "clinical" (Garman, 1982;Hunter, 1976), or "developmental" (Glickman, 1985) models of supervision-none were derived from empirical studies of the cognitive activities actually invoked by evaluators in the naturalistic process of judging teacher performance. Because this sort of craft knowledge is highly automated and usually unconscious, it cannot be elicited simply by asking experienced evaluators what they look for, or how they define good teaching.…”

“…3 I am aware that objectives are often specified when a formal evaluation plan is used (e.g., Hunter's Instructional Theory Into Practicesee, for example, Hunter, 1976); however, "evaluating teaching performance" largely remains an imprecise label for an amorphous task. This may explain how two experienced teacher evaluators can view the same teaching performance and arrive at very different judgments.…”