Running head: LINKING SUPERVISORY PERSPECTIVES: AN ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISORY

TASKS
1

Linking Supervisory Perspectives: An Analysis of Supervisory Tasks

Jessica Egger
William Paterson University

Running head: LINKING SUPERVISORY PERSPECTIVES: AN ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISORY

TASKS
2
Instructional Supervision is a pedagogical practice that is beneficial to
teachers and supervisors alike. As assigned, I inquired with teachers and
supervisors as to their perceptions of the five most important tasks of instructional
supervision. Neither teachers, nor supervisors were able to naturally use the
verbiage of tasks as described in the text. However, I was able to align their
responses to the task categories as outline by Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon
(2013). In doing so, I found that Direct Assistance was the primary task that the
supervisors identified as their professional imperatives. Direct Assistance is defined
by Glickman & Gordon in the text as the provision of personal and ongoing
contact with the individual teacher to observe and assist in classroom instruction
(2013, p.10). This comparatively mirrors the needs of teachers who self-identified as
also requiring Direct Assistance from their supervisors to support their instruction.
In retrospect, I feel that the supervisors interpreted the interview question as
a behavioral or methods-based question that was being posed to them. Supervisors
identified the methods and behaviors necessary to facilitate the important task of
supervision of staff, rather than interpret the question from a holistic lens to identify
the different facets of supervisory tasks that an administrator might engage in. For
example, supervisors that I interviewed used the terms building relationships,
listening, asking questions, and providing overall support to name the supervisory
tasks that they felt were important. In my opinion these tasks that supervisors
identified as being needed by staff can be categorized under the umbrella of Direct
Assistance. Both groups of interviewees cited the need for supervisors to model
instructional practices. However, after the interviews were complete and I reviewed
the answers and discussed the responses with the supervisors, it became apparent
that supervisors identify modeling as the technical task of Professional

Running head: LINKING SUPERVISORY PERSPECTIVES: AN ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISORY

TASKS
3
Development, rather than that of Direct Assistance. Since modeling is jobembedded training performed by supervisors, it is considered by them to be under
the umbrella of Professional Development. This contrasts with the teachers
perspective that modeling falls under the task umbrella of Direct Assistance
because they have accessibility to a supervisor, and follow-up is often required.
The two teachers interviewed are veteran teachers, and are generally
perceived by colleagues and administrators as being difficult and resistant to
change. I interviewed them so that I might gain more insight into the stereotypical
negative and outspoken teacher-personality types that are often overly critical of
supervisors. I wanted to see if they were able to communicate specific needs that
would aid them in their pedagogy; to see if they had any idea what their supervisory
support needs were. I was interested to see if their responses would convey
solutions, rather than just complaints and criticisms. Within the category of Direct
Assistance the teachers named the following needed supervisory supports from
their administrators: open dialogue, accessibility, modeling, and post-observation
follow-up. Both teachers spoke to the need for patience and non-judgment from
their administrator, which in my opinion aligns under the category of Building
Community.
I feel that among the supervisors interviewed, tasks are very clearly
delineated within each of their roles. I believe that the exception to this perception
may exist within the role of a building principal. Had she been able to participate in
the interview, I think my building principal would have self-identified as fulfilling a
broader range of technical tasks, including Action Research. Action research uses
data to inform instruction which I believe is a key supervisory task that she engages

Running head: LINKING SUPERVISORY PERSPECTIVES: AN ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISORY

TASKS
4
in regularly. As well, I feel that Addressing Diversity and Building Community are
supervisory tasks that effective building administrators would be wise to focus on,
and that are addressed regularly by my building administrator.
The technical task of Curriculum Development in supervision was a theme
that was not discussed in any of the interview responses. Considering that it is a
critical component in educational administration, I found it interesting that it was so
greatly lacking in supervisory responses. However, I do not feel that it was an
oversight on the part of the interviewed supervisors. Rather, I assume that this
response deficiency in Curriculum Development is rooted in the current role of how
Curriculum Development is addressed in the district where these interviews were
conducted. Like other designated supervisory tasks, curriculum development is a
task that has been delegated to specific staff in specific roles. Despite this dynamic,
the district has recently revamped its language arts curriculum maps, which are
based on the NJ DOE Model Curriculum. Upon analysis of the new language arts
curriculum maps, it has become apparent that that the revision of these maps was
clearly a collaborative effort amongst content areas supervisors, bilingual
supervisors, and special education supervisors. This collaboration among colleagues
allowed for the creation of dynamic curriculum maps which have clearly considered
the needs of various student populations. So although curriculum development was
not mentioned among the interviewees, it is clearly not a missed priority within
district. The task of curriculum development has just been delegated to certain
supervisors rather than to all of them.
Lastly, it felt as though the teachers truly value the instructional support of
the content supervisors. They clearly differentiate between a content supervisor and

Running head: LINKING SUPERVISORY PERSPECTIVES: AN ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISORY

TASKS
5
a building administrator. They expressed their need for access to content
supervisors, as well as a desire to be provided with resources that will support their
instruction. This was also expressed in the teachers complaint of not having
received her supplies. In essence they view supervisors as being able to provide
the access to resources, whether they are human resources, or instructional
materials.
Although there were contrastive viewpoints amongst teachers and
supervisors, the necessary role of direct assistance was prevalent in their collective
responses. The other consistent factor contained in the answers of both of the
interviewed groups was the absence of curriculum development in their supervisory
roles. As an aspiring administrator, the idea of working as a supervisor disconnected
from curriculum development seems like a departure from my original intentions as
I embarked on my administrative endeavors. This assigned outcome has definitely
prompted thoughts about what type of educational environment will be the best fit
for my professional prowess in educational administration. Based on the
respondents omissions of Curriculum Development as an essential task, I realize
that it will be important for me to be in an administrative role that allows me to be
creative.

Running head: LINKING SUPERVISORY PERSPECTIVES: AN ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISORY

TASKS
6

References
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P., & Ross- Gordon, (2013). The basic guide to supervision
and leadership. 3rd
ed. New York: Pearson.