The six-category intervention

analysis: a classroom observation

reference
Aynur Yrekli

Introduction

Teacher development and teacher appraisal go hand in hand in

many institutions and teachers who demonstrate an expected rate
of improvement are those most likely to retain their position in any
particular institution. Observations are a key aspect of evaluation as
they are the most used means of recording teacher performance during
class. Randall and Thornton (2001: 17)state that in addition to the
use of advice in teacher training, managers will also be involved in
providing advice to teachers for the purpose of staff development or
appraisal.
ELT is the teaching context that offers some of the widest range of
studies in terms of observation. Both in pre-service and in-service
teacher development, class observations give a valuable insight into
teachers performance, characteristics, knowledge, and beliefs about
language teaching. Observations also provide researchers with data
covering areas such as student performance, the impact of classroom
interaction, and the application of different techniques andtasks.
However, observations are not carried out only for research purposes.
Teacher appraisal is another area where classroom observations play
an important role. Administrators responsible for teacher recruitment,
ELT Journal Volume 67/3 July 2013; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs102 

302

The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication February 14, 2013

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

This study discusses the importance of the post-observation session in teacher

development. It primarily looks at the intervention types that observers
employ in comparison to the intervention types that the observed teachers
prefer. The study bases its discussion on Herons six-category intervention
analysis, which is a framework for interpersonal relationships, especially in
terms of guidance and supervision. The results suggest that observers, who
are usually the coordinators, administrators, or teacher trainers, engage
in facilitative intervention modes when giving feedback during the postobservation session, thus avoiding authoritative intervention types as much
as possible. However, the findings based on teacher replies suggest that
many of the teachers also prefer to receive informative intervention, which is
inherently authoritative.

appraisal, or development frequently base their decisions on

observations carried out during a given period of time. There are four
main reasons for this, as follows:
1
2
3
4

to provide help/support for novice teachers;

to monitor teacher performance in terms of staff development;
to offer help to those who experience problems; and
to identify staff needs.

(Randall and Thornton op.cit.)

As such, it involves a level of stress on both the observer and the
observee.

Obviously, the mere presence of an observer in the classroom has an

effect. However, more concrete intervention takes place during the
post-observation stage, where the observee and the observer discuss
the observation experience. The way the post-observation is conducted
may, to a great extent, define the ultimate process and progress of the
whole outcome of the observation. If the type or method of intervention
is appropriate for both parties, then the experience may result in the
further development of the teacher. Yet, if preferences regarding
intervention do not match, observation may come to be regarded as
an intrusive practice by the teacher, which then negatively affects the
whole development process.

The post-observation Once the observation is completed and a suitable time is arranged,
the observer and the observee talk about the observation experience.
session
Irrespective of the approach the observer takes, post-observation
sessions can cause considerable stress on both the observee and
the observer, as it is almost impossible to remain purely objective

Six-category intervention analysis

303

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

Typically, the process cycle consists of pre-observation, observation,

and post-observation (feedback). In the pre-observation meeting, the
observer and the observee come together to discuss the lesson. The
main aim here is to familiarize the observer with the lesson plan,
course material, course objectives, and/or the methodology to be
adopted. Furthermore, it aims at bringing clarity to both parties and
at addressing certain areas that might cause concerns. If done in the
most effective way possible, this will lead to higher gains during the
observation and post-observation stages of the cycle. The observation
stage basically refers to the class time when the observer enters the
classroom with the teacher and either takes notes or fills out an
observation checklist, that is, collects descriptive data. This can also
be considered as the documentation stage, used as the basis for the
feedback to be given later. The final, post-observation stage is when
the real interaction between the observer and the observee takes place.
According to Kurtolu-Eken (2010), the aim of the post-observation
stage is for the observer to encourage the teacher to foreground the
strong and positive sides of the lesson, to share his/her own collected
data with the teacher, and to focus on general comments, including
strengths and points that need to be improved or workedon.

More recent studies have highlighted the importance of reflection

in the developmental process of teachers, thus claiming that this
should be the ultimate aim of any post-observation session (Lee 2007;
Brandt 2008; Gn 2011). With this in mind, it could be assumed that
all interventions coming from the trainer or the observer should lead
to self-reflection and, eventually, to self-directed learning. However,
the post-observation session should be considered in terms of the
personal relationship between the two parties and should therefore be
structured according to the preferences of both. If the observer insists
on guiding towards self-reflection through exploration, but, in contrast,
the observee gains more from receiving more direct feedback that
centres around information sharing, then certainly the mode should be
reconsidered, as in any case, the ultimate aim is constructive feedback
that will lead to the professional development of the observed teacher.
The post-observation session is a feedback meeting leading to
The six-category
intervention analysis interventions in the form of guiding, advising, suggesting,

recommending, criticizing, challenging, questioning, facilitating,

helping, nurturing, or judging. Therefore, the intervention type
inevitably has an impact both on the observer and the observee. Heron
(1976) puts forward a six-category intervention analysis as a framework
that is applicable to any situation involving supervision and intervention.
Originally, the six-category intervention analysis was developed and
introduced by Heron as a model that serves to promote the greater
understanding of the interpersonal relations that guide the delivery of
intervention within a helping paradigm (Sloan and Watson 2001).
There are many types of intervention, but the intervention framework
suggested by Heron (op.cit.) has been used in many areas that require
interpersonal skills for supervision at both formal and informal levels
(Sloan and Watson op.cit.). According to Heron (op.cit.), interpersonal
relationships include any communication between a practitioner (one
who offers a professional service like a doctor, lawyer, nurse, or teacher)
and a client (one who involves him/herself in the service offered). The

304

Aynur Yrekli

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

and non-judgemental at every stage of the feedback (William 1989).

Feedback, as the concept is commonly understood, requires a certain
degree of view, perspective, value, and stance on a given experience
or issue. As such, feedback implies an intervention based on some
conception formed earlier by the observer on what s/he sees as a good
teacher or lesson. Consequently, the post-observation session is also the
stage where the intervention of the observer takes place. Intervention
can have various forms and functions. The observer chooses a form
of intervention that matches the aim of the observation. In the many
studies on post-observation sessions, an important focus is the role
of the observer and the approach taken (Murdoch 2004; KurtoluEken op.cit.; Yksel 2011). In this respect, the language and style
used to address the teacher and the way the conversation progresses
become significant. Randall and Thornton (op.cit.) identify the role of
dialogue and ways of talking to teachers as major areas that need to be
considered before engaging in any kind of feedback.

observer is the practitioner who offers guidance and help to the client
(in this case, the observed teacher), who then uses the post-observation
session as a service for improving teaching.
As such, the interpersonal relationship that takes place between the
observer (practitioner) and the observee (client) during the postobservation session is a type of intervention that can be analysed
through the six-category intervention framework. The six-category
intervention analysis is divided into two main areas, authoritative and
facilitative.

Authoritative
intervention types

Prescriptive
The prescriptive category refers to interventions of the observer or
adviser that provide strong direction. In an authoritative intervention
process, the observees take the role of the receiver in the postobservation session.
Informative
The informative category refers to contexts where the observers
aim is to share his/her own knowledge about the teaching situation.
The ultimate aim is the teachers development. This category is also
authoritative in the sense that the observer is the information provider.
Confronting
In the third category, the aim of the observer is to challenge the teacher
over certain aspects of their performance in the classroom considered
problematic. The aim is to improve the teacher by making him/her
more aware of the teaching situation. This third category is inherently
authoritative as the observer makes all the decisions regarding
identifying problematic areas and directly challenges the teacher.

Facilitative
intervention types

Cathartic
The cathartic category refers to the type of intervention where the
observee is given the chance to talk about feelings such as fear and
anger. This intervention type is supportive as it allows the observee to
discharge any negative emotions.
Catalytic
In this category, the aim of the observer is to encourage teacher
involvement in self-discovery by enquiring into areas that seem to be
critical and by uncovering the knowledge and information necessary
for discovery. This category is supportive rather than authoritative, as it
leads teachers to their own self-evaluation.

Six-category intervention analysis

305

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

Authoritative intervention types are called such because they are

more hierarchical in nature, that is, the supervisor or advisor is more
in control in terms of raising consciousness, guiding, and giving
instructions. Facilitative types, on the other hand, are less hierarchical,
encouraging autonomy, releasing negative feelings, and eliciting selfdiscovery (Hamid and Azman 1992).

Supportive
In this category, the aim of the observer is to affirm the value of the
observees qualities, attitudes, and actions. This is done by raising the
self-esteem of the observee and by confirming that the observees work
and intention are appreciated.

There are many studies of this approach to intervention, the main ones
having been conducted with nurses and the way they approach patients
(Ashmore and Banks 2004; McCabe 2004). Hamid and Azman (op.
cit.) relate the six categories of intervention to the feedback sessions
between teachers and observers, highlighting the linguistic aspect
(the language used) and the intentional aspect (aim) of the feedback
delivery. Their study suggests that the overuse or misuse of any of the
suggested categories may result in unwanted outcomes. That is, if one
of the intervention types dominates the whole post-observation session,
this leads to the overuse of that particular form of intervention. The
misuse of an intervention type, on the other hand, refers to cases
where one intervention type, for instance prescriptive, is used in such a
dominant way that it deviates from its aim and no longer encourages or
promotes developmental behaviour on the side of the teacher.

Purpose of thestudy The aim of this study is to uncover teachers and observers preferences
for approaches to post-observation sessions. This is important as both
parties enter the post-observation session with different perspectives
and attitudes; however, the expected outcome is the same, that is, the
observees development in terms of his/her role as a teacher. Thus, a
greater overlap between teacher preferences and observer intervention
types leads to more effective development.
The research questions of this study can be summarized as follows:
1 What are teachers preferences in terms of the six-category

intervention in the post-observation session?

2 What are observers preferences in terms of the six-category

intervention in the post-observation session?

3 Is there a difference between teachers and observers preferences in

terms of the six-category intervention analysis?

Methodology
Participants

All teachers, coordinators, teacher trainers, and administrators

participating in this study currently teach in the School of Foreign
Languages Preparatory Programme in a private university in Turkey.

306

Aynur Yrekli

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

These intervention types should not be thought of as being in

competition but as tendencies or preferences of the individual observer
or teacher. In addition, the situation and the topic may dictate one type
over the other. There may be times when a facilitative intervention
is more effective than an authoritative one. Conversely, there may be
times when an authoritative intervention type has a greater impact
on the professional development of the teacher. It is important that
a balance is established based on the preferences of both parties.
However, it is also important that the supervisor or observer leading the
post-observation session is aware of the different intervention types and
can apply them as appropriate to the context.

This programme is a requirement for students to enter their

chosen university departments. The observees teach for an average
of 20 hours a week. All teachers in the school are accustomed to
observations (both notified and without prior notice) as part of their
professional development and the appraisal culture of the institution.
Each observation is followed by a detailed feedback session and an
observation report. Other professional development activities include
in-house workshops and seminars, according to the needs of the
teachers.

Observers
The observer group consisted of 19 (out of a total of 20)staff
responsible for observations at the institution. Members of the group
conducted observations as part of their roles as teacher trainers (4),
coordinators (13), or administrators (2). The observers all underwent a
series of training sessions on observation and giving feedback. In this
group, 14 were women and 5 men. Seventeen were non-native speakers
(Turkish) and two were British English native speakers. This group had
an age range between 36 and 61years and members had between 15
and 30years of ELT experience. All held degrees in language teaching;
in addition, four were qualified at Masters level and three at Doctorate
level.

Data collection

Pilotstudy
The six-category intervention scale developed by the researcher was
piloted with 35 instructors working in the institution where the study
was conducted. The result of the pilot study analysis suggests that the
scale is reliable and can be used for data collection purposes.
However, Items 1, 3, 4, 23, and 26 had to be deleted from the scale as
they were found to be faulty in the analysis of pilot item results.
The six-category intervention preferencescale
A 29-item scale was designed to elicit teachers preferences regarding
the six intervention categories suggested by Heron. The same scale
was rephrased and used with observers to elicit their intervention
preferences during the post-observation stage. After the elimination of
Items 1, 3, 4, 23, and 26, there were 24 remaining items, each eliciting
one of the six intervention categories, with an equal number of items
assigned to each category (thus, each category was measured with four

Six-category intervention analysis

307

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

Observees
Of the 97 English language teachers at the school, 48 completed the
preference scale (37 women, 11 men). The group consisted of 36 nonnative (Turkish) and 12 native-speaker (British, American, or Canadian)
teachers, with ages ranging from 34 to 56years and experience
ranging from 13 to 25years. All instructors had either a degree or held
a certificate (such as the CELTA or the US-based Certificate TEFL) in
language teaching. All teachers in the sample group were observed
between 10 and 12 times each by different observers in the same
educational institution.

items). After the omission of the problematic items, the scale reliability
(according to the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient) was found to be
0.838.

Observees were asked to rate the items on a five-point Likert-type scale

ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1), to express
preferences in regard to post-observation behaviour type. Similarly,
observers were asked to rate the items on a five-point Likert-type scale
ranging from always (5) to never (1), eliciting how frequently they
engage in each type of behaviour while giving feedback during the postobservation session. In both cases, the highest score possible for each
item was 5, whereas the lowest score was 1.

Data analysis

The factor analysis of the items was conducted taking the responses of
both observers and observees into consideration (N=67). The means
and standard deviations were calculated on group bases. T test was
carried out to determine whether there was a significant difference
between group means (confidence interval taken as 95 percent).
Based on the intervention category used in the post-observation session,
the total scores suggest that the Supportive intervention style received
the highest score, whereas Confronting received the lowest. Table1
shows the descriptive statistics for the total scores given to the six
categories.
The results of the statistical analysis suggest that the only significant
difference between observers and observees intervention type
preferences is in terms of the Informative intervention type
(U=311.00, P<0.041, analysed via the Mann-Whitney Utest).
The results of the analysis are shown in Table2.
When all six intervention types are considered, it can be seen that with
regard to score averages, there are no major differences between the

308

Aynur Yrekli

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

Items 6, 7, 10, and 18 elicit the Prescriptive intervention category

(PRE). For example, The observer should make recommendations
on what should not have been done.
Items 12, 17, 22, and 25 elicit the Informative intervention category
(INF). For example, The observer should inform me about
alternative sources Icould use to improve myself.
Items 5, 9, 13, and 16 elicit the Confronting intervention category
(CNF). For example, The observer should confront me with my
weaknesses as a teacher.
Items 8, 11, 19, and 20 elicit the Cathartic intervention category
(CTH). For example, The observer should be aware that Iwill be
nervous during the feedback session.
Items 2, 14, 21, and 24 elicit the Catalytic intervention category (CTL).
For example, The observer should help me understand my own
process for development.
Items 15, 27, 28, and 29 elicit the Supportive intervention category
(SUP). For example, The observer should affirm my work and
achievements.

table 1
Descriptive statistics of
participants scores for
the six categories

Number of
respondents

Mean

Standard
deviation

Minimum

Prescriptive
Informative
Cathartic
Catalytic
Supportive
Confronting

67
67
67
67
67
67

15.45
17.01
17.28
17.24
18.22
11.18

3.09
3.22
2.33
2.74
1.78
3.80

Group

Mean rank

Sum of ranks

Observer
Teacher

19
48

26.37
37.02

501.00
1,777.00

311.00

0.041

7.00
4.00
12.00
4.00
12.00
4.00

Maximum
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
19.00

Mean rank

table 3
Results of the Friedman
test for rank order

Prescriptive
Informative
Confronting
Cathartic
Catalytic
Supportive

Teacher

Observer

3.13
4.21
1.46
3.84
3.75
4.61

2.82
3.66
1.24
4.37
4.29
4.63

two groups in terms of preferences regarding the intervention types

employed during the post-observation sessions. The only difference
observed is in the Informative intervention category, where observees
have significantly higher mean scores than observers.
However, to see whether the mean scores have an effect on the rank
order of intervention preferences of both groups, the Friedman Test for
rank order was carried out. Table3 shows the results of the analysis.
Based on the results of the Friedman Test, the order of observees
preferences for intervention types employed during the postobservation stage is as follows:
Supportive (4.61) > Informative (4.21) > Cathartic (3.84) > Catalytic
(3.75) > Prescriptive (3.13) > Confronting(1.46)
The order of observers preferences for intervention types employed
during the post-observation stage is as follows:
Supportive (4.63) > Cathartic (4.37) > Catalytic (4.29) > Informative
(3.66) > Prescriptive (2.82) > Confronting(1.24)
The rank order for observees suggests that the first two intervention
types, i.e. Supportive and Informative, received scores higher than 4.00
and are placed as the toptwo.

Six-category intervention analysis

309

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

table 2
Results of the MannWhitney U test of
observers and teachers
for the Informative
intervention category

Intervention
type

The rank order for observers suggests that the first three intervention
types, i.e. Supportive, Cathartic, and Catalytic, received scores higher
than 4.00 and are placed as the top three.

Results and
discussion

The results of the study show that, except for the Informative
intervention type, observers and observees exhibit similar preferences
in approaches to post-observation feedback. While teachers rank
the Informative intervention type second, observers prefer a more
facilitative intervention type. However, when score averages, along with
the rank order of preferences, are taken into account, high preference
intervention types, i.e. those with scores higher than 4.00, stand out.
Observees high intervention type preferences centre around two main
types, namely Supportive (4.61) and Informative (4.21), which shows a
balance of both authoritative and facilitative intervention. In contrast,
the preferences of observers centre around three types, Supportive
(4.63), Cathartic (4.37), and Catalytic (4.29), with all highly preferred
intervention types being facilitative in nature.
It is interesting to note that for both groups, facilitative intervention
types have priority; however, in terms of informing or being informed,
there is a difference. Teachers (observees) see the observer as a source
of information regarding potential areas of improvement in their own
teaching. On the other hand, the observers preference for the Catalytic
intervention type shows they favour teacher self-reflection and
discovery as a method of development.
310

Aynur Yrekli

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

Interventions of any type often have negative connotations and

may cause resistance on the part of the person who is subject to
intervention. In the case of classroom observations, it is the teacher
who is directly affected by feedback, comment, or reaction, i.e.
intervention in their professional routine. Thus, the observee has to
manage two main intervention types during the observation cycle.
The first is the physical presence of the observer, which imposes,
although only psychologically, an intervention in the natural flow
of the lesson. The second intervention takes place during the postobservation session itself. As teachers are the direct recipients of
feedback, it is of vital importance to understand their expectations
of the observation cycle. Current research suggests that the most
effective learning and professional development comes from
self-exploration, self-discovery, and self-reflection; however, the
success of the process clearly depends on teacher willingness
to engage in such behaviour. Considering the six intervention
categories suggested by Heron (op.cit.), it can be seen that Catalytic
intervention, which is geared towards self-exploration or reflection,
is not necessarily the only, or even the most effective, intervention
method. All six types have equally important functions and aims
if employed in the correct way and at the correct time. Knowing
about individual teachers preferences and being able to modify
feedback accordingly will enable observers to conduct more effective
feedback sessions that have the potential to bring about the desired
behavioural changes in teachers.

We have to bear in mind the profile of the teachers involved in this

study, the majority consisting of non-native instructors who went
through the educational system in Turkey. These non-native instructors
are products of the Turkish educational system, which, as is wellknown, regards teachers as sources of information. This attitude is
often reflected in their teaching, and the same mentality seems to
be valid for expectations from an observer; i.e., the observer, as the
supervisor, should be the information provider. This could partly
account for the high score of the Informative intervention type given by
observees. In contrast, in-service training during observation and giving
feedback for observers may be responsible for the differences in their
intervention preferences compared to those of teachers.

Teacher trainers, coordinators, and administrators continuously undergo

training or professional and academic development to enable more
effective and flexible observation behaviour. As such, in accordance
with the current tendency towards reflection, they may also employ
intervention types that help teachers to self-reflect. However, imposing
an intervention type without adequate teacher preparation and readiness
may have unwanted consequences. Therefore, observers, despite being
in favour of the Catalytic intervention type, should be prepared to reach a
compromise, rather than only employ what the current literature dictates.
Herons six-category intervention analysis is a potentially important way
of ensuring a more successful mutual exchange of expertise in terms of
determining the manner of the supervisors verbal behaviour towards
the trainee or any teacher undergoing observation and feedback. This
analysis does not require the observer to adopt any single approach to
offering guidance or feedback. However, it is able to make the observer
aware of a set of behavioural tools that can be used to determine the
most appropriate method of practice (Hamid and Azman op.cit.) and
that takes into account the context and the preferences of the person
receiving feedback, as well as the specific topic being discussed.
Final version received November 2012

References
Ashmore, R. and D. Banks. 2004. Student
nurses use of their interpersonal skills within
clinical role-plays. Nurse Education Today 24/1:
209.

Brandt, C. 2008. Integrating feedback and

reflection in teacher preparation. ELT Journal
62/1: 3746.
Gn, B. 2011. Quality self-reflection through
reflection training. ELT Journal 65/2: 12635.

Six-category intervention analysis

311

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

This being the case, it seems that both teachers and observers need to
be informed about the various types of interventions and their ultimate
aims, so that teachers do not constantly expect to be informed and
observers do not impose only self-reflection on teachers during postobservation sessions. As stated in many studies (see Gn op.cit.), selfreflection and self-exploration are the keys to professional development;
however, teachers need to be trained in these skills first. Once they
see the benefits and realize the autonomy that self-reflection, i.e.
the Catalytic intervention, provides, their strong preference for the
Informative type may weaken in favour of other interventions.

312

Aynur Yrekli

Sloan, G. and H.Watson. 2001. John Herons

six category intervention analysis: towards
understanding interpersonal relations and
progressing the delivery of clinical supervision
for mental health nursing in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Advanced Nursing 36/2:
20614.
William, M. 1989. A developmental view of
classroom observations. ELT Journal 43/2:
8591.
Yksel, . 2011. The effects of post-observational
reflective feedback modes on teaching beliefs: peer
vs. teacher-mediated feedback. Turkish Online
Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 2/1: 3856.
The author
Aynur Yrekli is currently working as Assistant
Director of the School of Foreign Languages at
zmir University of Economics. She holds an MA
and a PhD in ELT. Her research interest areas
include teacher training, EAP, and curriculum
development.
Email: aynur.yurekli@ieu.edu.tr

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Hellenic Open University on March 14, 2015

Hamid, B. A. and H.Azman. 1992. Making

supervisory intentions clear: adapting the
six category intervention analysis to promote
facilitative type supervisory feedback in teaching
practice in E. Sadtono (ed.). Language Teacher
Education in a Fast-Changing World (Anthology
Series). Singapore: SEAMEO RELC.
Heron, J. 1976. A six-category intervention analysis.
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 4/2: 14355.
Kurtolu-Eken, D. 2010. Principles and practice in
trainer training and supervision. IATEFL TTED
SIG Newsletter (April): 512.
Lee, I. 2007. Preparing pre-service English teachers
for reflective practice. ELT Journal 61/4: 3219.
McCabe, C. 2004. Nursepatient communication:
an exploration of patients experiences. Journal of
Clinical Nursing 13/1: 419.
Murdoch, G. 2004. What makes a good observer
of classroom teaching? in A. Pulverness (ed.).
IATEFL Liverpool Conference Selections. Canterbury:
IATEFL.
Randall, M. and B. Thornton. 2001. Advising and
Supporting Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.