ERIC Number: ED294301
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1987-Apr
Reference Count: 0
Clinical Supervision and Teacher Evaluation: Positions of Hunter, Garman and Glickman Interpreted as Literal or Figurative Language.
During a 1985 symposium in Chicago sponsored by the American Society for Curriculum Development, Noreen Garman, Carl Glickman, and Madeline Hunter discussed the question of whether clinical supervision should be used for formal evaluation and contract renewal. While Hunter's answer was a qualified "yes," Garman and Glickman both felt strongly that it should not. Nevertheless, evaluation of teachers in schools is often tied to the "Hunter Model," even though Hunter expressed reservations regarding such use. Inquiring why this is so, this paper argues that the language used by proponents of clinical supervision implies a form of evaluation that is generated to judge the outcomes of the process, regardless of the original intent of these proponents. A second proposition discussed is that if the language used to describe a "model,""strategy," or "practice" is literal, it implies a literal evaluation process, whereas if it is figurative, it implies a figurative process. The third proposition is that in a society caught up in rapid technological change, with a need for fast answers and definitive directions, those responsible for evaluation of instruction naturally tend to develop and use literal, not figurative or imaginative, evaluation instruments and practices. These propositions are investigated through analysis of the use of literal or figurative language in the text of the Hunter, Garman, and Glickman symposium. Findings are that Hunter's model of clinical supervision is based on literal language, Garman's is based on figurative language, and Glickman's is based on both, but predominantly figurative. But in a country possessed with the need for literal accountability of their teachers and schools, Hunter's language has naturally come to predominate. (TE)
Publication Type: Opinion Papers; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Note: Revision of paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Washington, DC, April 20-24, 1987).