The transition from hierarchical to collegial relationships between teachers and administrators is examined within the context of a school district that implemented a new model of teacher supervision and evaluation. This new model called for teachers to assume responsibility and accountability for their individual professional growth, and it called for administrators to facilitate and coach teachers to become self-directed and self-evaluating. This transition required teachers and administrators to reconstruct meanings about the teacher-administrator relationship. Meanings constructed by teachers and administrators are examined, along with the interpretive process through which individual and shared meanings developed. Several implications for research and practice are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonG.1990. “Toward a Critical Constructivist Approach to School Administration: Invisibility, Legitimation, and the Study of Non-Events,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(1): 38–59.
2.
ArgyrisC., and SchonD.1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action PerspectiveReading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
BeckerH., and McCallM.1990. Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
BrewA.1993. “Unlearning through Experience,” in Using Experience for Learning, BoudD., CohenR., and WalkerD., eds., Bristol, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and University Press, pp. 87–98.
6.
CandyP.1982. “Personal Constructs and Personal Paradigms: Elaboration, Modification, and Transformation,”Interchange on Educational Policy, 13(4): 56–69.
7.
CostaA., and GarmstonR.1985. “Supervision for Intelligent Teaching,”Educational Leadership, 42(5): 70–80.
8.
CostaA., and GarmstonR.1986. “Cognitive Coaching-Supervision for Intelligent Teaching,” in Better Teaching through Instructional Supervision: Policy and Practice, TyeK., and CostaA., eds., Sacramento, CA: California School Boards Association.
9.
Darling-HammondL., and SchlanE.1992. “Policy and Supervision,” in Supervision in Transition: 1992 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, GlickmanC., ed., Alexandria, VA: ASCD, pp. 7–29.
10.
DenzinN.1992. Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies: The Politics of Interpretation.Cambridge: Blackwell.
11.
DukeD.1990. “Developing Teacher Evaluation Systems that Promote Professional Growth,”Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4: 131–144.
12.
DukeD., HallA., HargadineD., RandallA., RoseD., RussellJ., SteinburgP., StruthersD., and YoshidaJ.1994. Journeys of Discovery: Promoting Teacher Professional Growth in Washington StateFederal Way, WA: National Education Association.
13.
FreireP.1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.New York: Continuum.
14.
FullanM.1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change, 2nd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
GitlinA., and PriceK.1992. “Teacher Empowerment and the Development of Voice,” in Supervision in Transition: 1992 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, GlickmanC., ed., Alexandria, VA: ASCD, pp. 61–74.
16.
Giving Voice to Our Hidden Commitments and Fears: A Conversation with Robert Kegan. The Harvard Education Letter, 11(1): 3–5.
17.
GlickmanC.1988. “Supervision and the Rhetoric of Empowerment: Silence or Collision?”Action in Teacher Education, 10(1): 11–15.
18.
GrimmettP., and EricksonG., eds. 1988. Reflection in Education.New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
GrimmettP., RostadO., and FordB.1992. “The Transformation of Supervision,” in Supervision in Transition: 1992 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, GlickmanC., ed., Alexandria, VA: ASCD, pp. 185–202.
20.
HabermasJ.1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society.Boston: Beacon Press.
21.
HabermasJ.1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume Two: Life-world and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason.Boston: Beacon Press.
22.
KellyG.1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs.Volumes I and II. New York: W. W. Norton.
23.
KolbD.1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
MartinJ.1992. Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives.New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
MeadG. H.1938. The Philosophy of the Act.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
MerriamS.1987. “Adult Learning and Theory Building: A Review,”Adult Education Quarterly, 37(4): 187–198.
27.
MezirowJ.1985. “A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education,”Adult Education, 32: 3–27.
PerinbanayagamR. S.1985. Signifying Acts: Structure and Meaning in Everyday LifeCarbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
30.
PiagetJ.1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children.New York: International Universities Press.
31.
PooleW.1994. “Removing the ‘Super’ from Supervision,”Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(3): 284–309.
32.
ScheinE.1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33.
SchonD.1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.New York: Basic Books.
34.
SchonD.1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35.
SengeP.1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.New York: Doubleday Currency.
36.
SheckleyB.1994. “Experiential Learning Theory Revisited,” Paper presented at The International Consortium for Experiential Learning, Washington, DC.
37.
SheckleyB., AllenG., and KeetonM.1990. “Adult Learning as a Recursive Process,”The Journal of Cooperative Education, 28(2): 58–67.
38.
StigginsR., and DukeD.1988. The Case for Commitment to Teacher Growth: Research on Teacher Evaluation.Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
39.
TracyS., and MacNaughtonR.1989. “Clinical Supervision and the Emerging Conflict between the Neo-Traditionalists and the Neo-Progressives,”Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(3): 246–256.
