This article was downloaded by: [Fondren Library, Rice University ]On: 16 November 2014, At: 04:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

The Dynamics of Collaboration: ACollaborative Approach to Supervision ina Five Year Teacher Education ProgramSharon Nodie Oja aa University of New Hampshire , Durham , USAPublished online: 04 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Sharon Nodie Oja (1991) The Dynamics of Collaboration: A Collaborative Approachto Supervision in a Five Year Teacher Education Program, Action in Teacher Education, 12:4, 11-20,DOI: 10.1080/01626620.1991.10463105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1991.10463105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE DYNAMICS OF COLLABORATION: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO SUPERVISION IN A FIVE YEAR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM

Sharon Nodie Oja The most recent area of school and university collaboration in the Five Year Teacher Education Program at the University of New Hampshire is Collaborative Supervision which was initiated by the project A ColIaborative Approach to Leader- ship in Supervision. Begun in 1985, the project involved a collaborative university-school effort to develop, refine, and extend the repertoire of supervisory skills of participating principals, teachers, and university supervisors. The project was funded for three years by the Office of Edu- cational Research and Improvement of the federal Department of Education.

Program Components

In A Collaborative Approach to Leadership in Supervision, school and university based teacher educators worked together in collaborative action research groups investigating and practicing an approach to supervision which matched alterna- tive supervision strategies with the developmental needs of supe~isees.

Collaborative Action Research Process

Collaborative supervisory groups were formed in each school. They consisted of teachers, princi- pals, and university faculty who met together regularly to identify common goals and use action research strategies to collaboratively generate top iCS Of investigation h SUpeNiSiOn. A hCipa1 Leadership Group (F'LG), composed of all inter-

ShmonNodie Oja is AssociaeProfessor of Educa- tion, University of New Hampshire, Dwhnm.

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

ested district principals, focused on implementing ddferentiated supervision in their schools and on using collaborative strategies within their district. The group met weekly for three months at the start of the program to leam about adult development and alternative models of supervision. The PLG met two to four times per year thereafter as a support for the collaborative supervisory groups in each school, as a vocal proponent of the project in the district, and as a liaison group to the university. The PLG helped organize a Teacher Supervision Group (TSG) within each school, involving all interested prospective cooperating teachers. Each TSG met biweekly for four months to explore alternative approaches to supervision and adult development stages and then monthly to discuss using this knowledge base in their supervisory practice with graduate interns, undergraduate ex- ploring teachers, and in peer supervision with colleagues. Each collaborative supervisory group provided a positive environment for implementing avariety of supervisory models within their schools (See overview in Table 1).

Adult Development Theories and Models of Supervision

The program content was based in adult devel- opment theories and models of supervision. Common findings in prior research studies suggest that one “best” supervisory model does not exist. A system of differentiated supervision or some combination of models most effectively responds to individual needs. Common findings also sug- gest that the most effective supervisors demon- strate a high degree of consistency between the theories and beliefs they espouse and those they practice. Teachers and principals investigated the two areas of research knowledge in adult cognitive development stages and alternative models of su- pervision in order to provide a theoretical frame- work for the collaborative supervisory groups to structure their common goals and operating pro- cedures ( S e e Table 2).

The knowledge base in these two content areas was neither prescribed nor interpreted in a limited fashion. Instead,each supervisiongroupdiscussed the scope of the two content areas and formed initial boundaries for the topics, concerns, and

Table 1 Overview:

A Collaborative Approach to Leadership Supervision

1985-1988

rHEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Content:

Theories of Adult Development Alternative Models of Supervision

Collaborative Action Research (CAR) Process:

PROJECT OVERVIEW Phase 1: Development

Create Principal Leadership Group Create Collaborative Supervisory

Introduce Content and Process Initiate School-University Task Force

Groups

on Supervision Phase 2 Demonstration

Match Teachers and University Interns Collaborative Supervisory Groups

Apply Content Continue CAR Process Investigate Teacherfintern Supervisory

Develop Models of Collaborative Interactions

Supervision Phase 3: Dissemination/Dialogue

Continue CAR Process and Content

Disseminate Findings Regionally

Institutionalize Effective Practices Extend Model to Secondary Schools

Applications

and Nationally

issues to be further investigated. In one collaborative supervisory group, for instance, teachers divided into subgroups-trios, and pairs-to equalize the labor in identifying the additional desired litera- ture sources and seeking them out. Those who were able helped in “quality control” of the sources and types of sources for investigation. Subgroups assimilated, summarized, and presented to the whole group (orally and in short written outlines) the research bases, key concepts, and applications of the research topics in adult development and models of supervision. In Uus way individuals f?om the subgroups became leaders and resources for each research topic investigated in the collabo- rative supervision group. All participants were

Winter, 1990-1991. Vol. XII , N0.4 page 12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

active in the examination, reflection, and evalua- tion of the knowledge base and of their own prac- tice, so that each activity influenced the other.

As important as the insights and concepts gener- ated through their study of theoretical knowledge was, the practical knowledge of the teachers, princi- pals. and university participants were particularly important. Practical and theoretical knowledge in- teracted continuously as participants worked through this collaborative research process and were able to further analyze, understand, and evaluate their practical supervisory situations. principals discov- ered ways to vary their supervision practices ac-

cording to the capabilities, variety, and flexibility observed in the teachers they were supervising. Teachers were encouraged to reflect on their ways and stages of learning as adults, analyze their own experiences of being supervised, and try out differ- ent supervision strategies with supervisees.

Matching Supervisory Practices to Adult Development Needs

The program sought to prepare teachers and principals as instructional supervisors who were able to match alternative supervisory practices to

Table 2 Theoretical Framework in Collaborative Supervision

1. Educators can use collaborative action research (also called Interactive R & D) to grow personally and professionally, developing skills and competencies which will empower them to solve problems and improve educational practice.

References:Little (1981); Hord (1981); Huling (1981); Ward & Tikunoff (1982); Griffin, Lieberman, & Jacullo-Noto (1983); Oja & Pine (1983,1987); Oja & Ham (1984); Kyle and Hovda (1987); Oja & Smulyan (1989); Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990).

2. Schools are the best laboratories for educational research; the integration of research and practice through collaborative action research can contribute to the development of schools as centers of inquiry.

References: Schaefer (1967); Pine (1981); Wallat, et al. (1981); Mergendoller (1981); and the above references.

3. Given an appropriate process, participant motivation, and time, it is possible to promote the cognitive growth and psychological development of educators through effective in-service programs.

References:Oja (1978, 1980, 1985); McLaughlin & Marsh (1978); Little (1981); Bents & Howey (1981), Theis-Sprinthall (1984).

4. Educators who function at higher cognitive developmental stages are more flexible, stress tolerant, adaptive, and generally more effective in their roles.

References: Harvey (1966); Hunt & Joyce (1967); Silver (1973); Glassberg (1979); Oja (1978,1988); Witherell (1978); Thies-Sprinthall(l981); Thies-Sprinthall & Sprinthall (1983).

5. The practice of educational supervision lacks a solid theoretical and research based framework. References:Shutes (1975); Lortie (1977); Ryan (1979); Alfonso & Goldsbeny (1982);

Haberman (1982); Lovell & Wiles (1983); Alfonso, Firth, & Neville (1984). 6. Effective supervision is dependent upon the consistency between one’s espoused and practiced value

References: Argyris & Schon (1974); Argyris (1976,1982); McNergney & Carrier (1981). systems of theories.

7. Like teaching, instructional supervision is a highly complex task. It involves a broad base of knowledge regarding alternative supervisory models, as well as effective strategies for matching teacher needs to specific models.

References: Blumberg (1980); Glickman (1981,1985); Grimsley & Bruce (1982); Sergiovanni (1982, 1984); Grimmett (1983); Thies-Sprinthall(l980, 1984); Thies-Sprinthall & Sprinthall (1987); Cooper (1984); Glatthom (1984).

8. Instructional supervision is recognized as one of the responsibilities of an effective principal. A variety of styles can be effective, but it is the match which is deemed most important. Rather than seeking a prescription for effective principal behavior, research needs to clarify how different styles and personalities interact with specific contexts and individuals.

References: Blumberg & Greenfield (1980); Sizer (1983); DeBoise (1984); Ham (1987).

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

the developmental needs of supervisees. The teachers and principals used both formal and infor- mal assessments of the supeMsee’s developmen- tal stage. Formal assessments included standard- ized measures of conceptual level, moral judg- ment, and ego development. Informal assessments included use of observational data from confer- ences and interactions with the supervisee. Teachers and principals applied their knowledge of adult development to select appropriate supervision strategies which both supported the supeMsee in new learning experiences and challenged the supervisee’s learning to new levels. In situations which were impromptu and in other situations which were structured conferences, supervisory interventions were based on a strong theoretical framework.

Cooperating teachers kept supervisory interac- tion logs to document interactions with asupervisee and used these as a basis for reflection and analysis in collaborative supervisory group meetings with the university supervisor. For specific examples of the collaborative supervision process, see Oja, Dupuis and Bonin (1988). In the traditional stu- dent teaching model, cooperating teachers relied upon the university supervisor to provide most feedback to the intern. In the newer collaborative supervision model, cooperating teachers took on a role of supervisors and observed interns daily, documented interactions, and provided feedback to the intern in a clinical supervision model.

University supervisors interested in collabora- tive supervision were assigned to a cluster of six interns in one school and prepared to implement a collaborative supervision model. In addition to carrying out the traditional triad model of supervi- sion, with six clinical observations of the intern per semester, university supervisors met monthly with the collaborative supervisory group in the school to discuss issues related to supervision. University supervisors also regularly discussed their roles in the University Supervisors’ biweekly meetings. These discussions encouraged other Supervisors to implement components of collaborative supervi- sion in their own work with cooperating teachers and interns. The discussions began an ongoing dialogue at the university about the process of working more collaboratively with cooperating teachers in the process of intern supervision.

The Practice Profileof the project (Oja& Ham, 1988) includes project demographics, implemen-

tation requirements for collaborative supervision, and a complete checklist of essential program components, each with descriptors for ideal, ac- ceptable, or unacceptable levels of implementa- tion.

Methods of Collecting Data

The concepts of triangulation and recursion underlie the methodology of the project. As advo- cated by anumber of contemporary ethnographers, theauthorcombined and synthesizedmultiplekinds of data and used the concept of triangulation (Denzin, 1977) to bring these multiple data to bear on the research questions in the project. Using triangulation strengthens the validity of the data collected and demonstrates the relationship be- tween the project’s variables. The second under- lying concept in the methodology was recursion, the idea of “ongoing tentativeness” (Oja & Pine, 1987). Basic to research processes, recursion implies that acquired data are subject to continual revision and the research problem itself is capable of being in a continuous state of dynamic revision. The recursion process permits participants to consider newly accumulated data and, when nec- essary, to redefine the initial parameters of the study. Table 3 includes an overview of the meth- odology specifying assessments for outcomes in the areas of knowledge, performance, attitudes, and development of participants in the collabora- tive supervisory groups.

Outcomes and Benefits of Collaborative Supervision

The project outcomes and benefits for cooper- ating teachers, principals, graduate teaching in- terns, school-university collaboration, and the university teacher education program were dis- cussed in the Program Assessment Report (Oja, 1988) and are summarized here.

Benefits of Collaborative Supervisory Group Meetings

In each school site the collaborative supervi- sory group of cooperating teachers, principal, and university supervisor met at least monthly. They investigated and tried out the matching of appro- priate supervision strategies to the developmental

Winter, 1990-1 991. Vol. XII , No. 4 page 14

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 3 Methodology

[. KNOWLEDGE 1. Further study and investiga-

2. Further study and research on

tion of adult cognitive developmental stage theories

a variety of alternative super- visory models and strategies

[I. PERFORMANCE 1. Increased use in the practice

and analysis of audiotapes and videotapes effectiveness

2. Refinement of the assess- ment inventory and practice in applying competencies identified in adult develop- ment, supervision, and collaboration

UI. ATTITUDE OBJECTIVES 1. Application of developmental

stage theory to participants’ espoused and practiced values

2. Extension of certain project activities designed to promote affective goals to include interns, w r s , administrators

OUTCOMES ASSESSMENTS Increased knowledge and

Increased knowledge and

Project Surveys understanding of develop- Supervisory Competencies mental theories Assessment Inventory

Project Surveys understanding of alternative Supervisory Competencies supervisory models Assessment Inventory

OUTCOMES ASSESSMENTS Strengthened observational

Enhanced supervisory

Observation forms Skills Audio and videotapes

Increased reliability and Reviews by Outside validity of assessment Evaluators inventory

OUTCOMES Greater consistency between

espoused and practiced values

Acquisition and expression Greater openness to the value

of educational research, especially action research

Consistent reinforcement of attituddvalues implicit in project

Institutionalization of and university faculty members practices

differentiated supervision

IV. DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES 1. Post-test assessments of Increased growth in ego,

the formal measures taken moral, and conceptual by participants stages of development

2. Self-Assessment on supervisory Increased ability to match competencies inventory supervision strategies to developmental needs

ASSESSMENTS

Meeting Summaries Collaborative Group

Reflective Journals Focused Interviews

Focused Interviews Reflective Journals Project Surveys Observations

ASSESSMENTS Sentence Completion

Defining Issues Test

Paragraph Completion

Supervisory Competencies Assessment Inventory

(Loevinger)

(Rest)

needs of supervisees. A number of benefits from individuals’ participation in the collaborative su- pervision were observed.

There was a healthy dissatisfaction with current supervision practices, showing the beginnings of experimentation in supervision. Principals added to their repertoire of supervisory styles an appre- ciation of the legitimation of using different super- vision styles with different people. When cooper-

ating teachers learned developmental supervision they became less impulsive and directive with interns, and more developmental, objective, and reflective. An increased sense of professionalism and responsibility for the school and the staff was observed. Collaborative group discussions often provideda forum fordiscussion of important school issues. Opportunities for sharing and support in the collaborative supervision groups resulted in an

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

appreciation of common purpose and common challenges, mutual support, open sharing, and less isolation. Participants believe that their collective learning needs to continue. Teachers expanded their roles, increased their risk-taking, gained con- fidence, and helped each other grow. They are doing a better job with interns. Numerous spin- offs of participation in the project included: indi- vidual research projects, experimentation with peer supervision, expanded career aspirations. writing grants, university teaching, and conference p re sentations.

education program, we may expect more of a diversity of cooperating teachers. We know from the research of Lois "hies-Sprinthall and Peter Grimmett that supervisors at modest levels of development may have difficulty relating effec- tively to student teachers functioning at higher stages. Collaborative supervisory groups in each school may be an appropriate process through which diverse cooperating teachers can effectively learn from each other more successful ways to developmentally match supervisory strategies to the needs and stages of interns.

Benefits for Interns Benefits for School-University Collaboration

Interns gained a broaderperspectiveof teaching and learning through their cluster placement sites. They found opportunities to work with others in the school, observe in similar and different grade levels, and share the experiences of many diverse cooperating teachers. They learned how to get along with other adults in schools. Cluster place- ment of six interns ina school provides interns with an identity group for support and security through which interns have been provided opportunities to work together, to learn and teach by collaborating with each other. Interns also have the opportunity to reflect on their teaching experiences with the cadre of other interns, all of whom share the same school context. Interns valued the additional su- pervision provided by the cooperating teacher in coordination with the clinical supervision by the university supervisor.

Corcoran (1989) studied the critical issues for interns during the full year clinical internship ex- perience. One of the critical issues is the relation- ship with the cooperating teacher. In responding to stress factors for interns, their supervisors and cooperating teachers, she reports that it is possible to reduce stress of uncertain direction and uneven support from cooperating reachers who lack the experience of working with full year graduate teaching interns by using the cluster placement and collaborative supervisory group concepts so that experienced cooperating teachers can help to ori- ent inexperienced cooperating teachers.

As cluster placement of interns and collabora- tive supervision modelsareadoptedby more school districts who work with our five year teacher

As a result of the collaborative supervision project, school and university cooperation has improved and collaboration among teachers in cluster site schools has improved. School and university participants join in a commitment to improving the teacher training process, believing thatteachersandschools should havemoreimpact, thus enabling collaborative approaches to supervi- sion. A School-University Collaborative for Teacher Education, initiatedduring the project and institutionalized since then, consists of teachers, principals, university supervisors, and teacher education faculty meeting together with the fol- lowing goals: collaborating on the cluster place- ment concepts, strengthening the link between university supervisor and cooperating teacher su- pervision, exploring alternative supervisory mod- els, exploring common university and public school issues, and improving public relations. Represen- tatives share ideas that have been productive in their own collaborative supervisory groups. There has been increased interchange between different school districts implementing slightly differing concepts of collaborative supervision. These in- terchanges have broadened everyone's perspec- tive. Through this forum a number of full day workshops have been developed to address issues in supervision and improve networking among the cluster site schools.

The Dynamics of Collaboration

Collaborative action research groups often ex- hibit thesecharacteristics: 1) schooland university

Winter, 1990-1991, Vol. X I I , No. 4 page 16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

participants join together with the goals of improv- ing practice, contributing to educational theory, and providing staff development; 2) they often meet on site in schools; 3) they reach consensus on goals which address each person’s immediate con- cerns; 4) they use cycles of action research to investigate and apply research findings; 5) they co-author and co-present reports of their work; and 6) over time they develop a collegial, trusting relationship and communication network between schools and university (Oja & Pine, 1987).

There were a number of different activities undertaken in the collaborative supervisory groups at school sites. Participants felt very involved in discussions and problem-solving sessions, shared decision making, as well as reporting to each other about their readings andprojects. In addition, they were engaged in making and viewing videotapes, and role playing supervisory situations. They wrote proposals, presented at, and attended profes- sional conferences for purposesof dialoging issues and disseminating information about the Collabo- rative Supervision project. The very active par- ticipants were also engaged in writing action re- search papers analyzing their experiences in matching supervision strategies to the develop- mental needs (stages) of their supervisee.

In the final evaluation survey for the Collabora- tive Supervision Project, participants were asked to describe their experiences of collaborative ac- tion research. Critical elements of their descrip- tions of collaborative action research are as fol- lows: 1 .) A group works together toward a common goal. 2.) Everyone has a stake in the common goal. 3.) Everyone uses hisher own expertise to further the goal. 4.) Everyone is involved in sharing and pro- viding support for one another, using new bodies of knowledge (e.g., models of adult development and supervision) to further the group goal. 5.) Everyone is more willing to take risks, recognizing and talking about their less developed areas. 6.) Everyone learns and experiences new things.

Summary

The researchers associated with this collabora- tion effort are pleased with the excitement gener- atedinthecooperatingteachersandourownsuper- vision faculty by the concepts in collaborative

supervision. From the project’s Final Assessment Report (Oja, 1988) they found that 100% of project participants indicated collaboration with the uni- versity has improved, and 87% indicated that col- laboration among teachers within their school had improved. One hundred percent of participants reported the discovery of new ways of looking at people. in particular, at different developmental levels persons have different strengths and weak- nesses, capacities and limitations. Participants experienced an increased sense of efficacy. Over 75% of participants reported significant changes in their school’s recruitment, placement, supervision and evaluation of interns. Participants perceived benefits from collaborative supervision in terms of the opportunities for sharing and support among colleagues. Eighty percent appreciated the sense of common purpose and common challenges, 95% reported the feeling of mutual support, and 85% liked the open sharing in supervisory group meet- ings. Collaborative Supervisory group discus- sions often focused on larger school context issues and concerns beyond the here and now supervision of interns but which affect the climate of the schools.

In our planning to move the cluster placement and collaborative supervision concepts to the sec- ondary level, there are a number of factors being considered. At the elementary level, a cluster site was defined by the placement of three to six interns in one school. In 1989-90 there was one cluster placement in secondary science, with three interns in a junior high school science department and three in a high school science department in the same district. In all but the largest high schools, it is difficult to place three or more interns in a single academic department and still expect to make good matches between cooperating teachers and interns. In light of this, project managers are considering the option for university supervisors at the second- ary level to be able to supervise more than one discipline, and we are discussing the advantages and disadvantages of an interdisciplinary cluster site at the secondary level.

The success of cluster sites depends on effective collaboration among the administrator. cooperat- ing teachers and university supervisor. The addi- tion of more elementary cluster sites since the project ended has shown, even more clearly, how

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page I7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

each collaborative supervisory group develops its own characteristics which appropriately address its own school context. Although the cluster sites developed differences, they did share important similarities: time was made available for cooper- ating teachers to meet together; the university supervisor, cooperating teachers, and principal collaborate in making supervisory decisions; more

emphasis is placed on making a good match be- tween the cooperating teacher and intern in the placement process; and the university supervisor acts as an organizing, mobilizing force among the cooperating teachers, principal and interns in the school site as well as liaison connecting the school with the university teacher education program, faculty, and resources.

References

Alfonso, R. & Goldsberry,L. (1982). Colleagueship and supervision. In T. Sergiovanni (Ed.). Supervision

Alfons0,R.J.. Firth, G., & Neville, R. (1984). The supervisory skill mix. Educational Leadership, 41(7),

Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing leadership effectiveness. New York: John Wiley. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco, C A

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory inpractice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco,

Blumkrg, A. &Greenfield, W. (1980). The effectiveprincipal: Perspectivesonschool leadership. Boston:

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that

Cooper, J. (Ed.). (1984). Developing skills in instructional supervision. New York Longman. Corcoran, E. (1989). Critical issues for intern teachers during the clinical experience. Paper presented at

DeBeoise, W. (1984, February). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader. Educational

Denzin, N. (1977). The research act. Chicago: Aldine. Glassberg, S. (1979). Developmental models of teacher development. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Glatthorn, A. (1984). Differentiated supervision. Alexandria, VA. Association of Supervision and

Glickman, C. D. (198 1). Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for helping teachers improve

Glickman. C. D. (1985). Supervisionof instruction: Adevelopmental approach. Boston: Allynand Bacon. Griffin, G. A., Lieberman, A., & Jacullo-Noto, J. (1983). Interactive research and development on

schooling: Executive summary of thefinal report. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Grimmett, P. (1983). Effective clinical supervision co@erence interventions. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Symposium, Montreal, Canada.

Grimsley, E.E., & Bruce, R.E. (Eds.). (1982). Readings in educational supervision. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Haberman, M. (1982). The legacy of teacher education, 1980-2000. Hunt Lecture presented at the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education Annual Meeting, Houston, TX.

Ham, M. C. (1987). Enhnacing supervisory effectiveness through collaborative action research. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 44-56.

Hord, S. (1981). Working together: Cooperation or collaboration. Austin, TX: Research and Develop ment Center for Teacher Education.

of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

16-18.

Jossey-Bass.

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Allyn and Bacon.

divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 1-1 1.

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.

Leadership, 41(5), 14-20.

Service No. ED 171658)

Curriculum Development.

instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Winter, 1990-1991, Vol. X l l . No.4 page 18

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Huling, L. L. (1981). The effects on teachers of participation in an interactive research and development

Hunt,D.E. (1975). TheB-P-Eparadigmfortheory,research, andpractice. CanadianPJychologicaIReview,

Hunt, D. E., & Joyce, B. R. (1987). Teacher trainee personality and initial teaching style. American

Kyle,D.K.,& Hovda,R. A. (Eds.). (1987). Thepotentialandpracticeofactionresearch. PeabodyJournal

Little, J. W. (1981). School success and staff development. Boulder, CO: Center for Action Research. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco, C A Jossey-Bass. Lortie, D. (1977). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lovell, J., & Wiles, K. (1983). Supervision for better schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College

McNergney, R., & Carrier, C. (1981). Teacher development. New York Macmillan. Mergendoller, J. R. (1981). Mutual inquiry: The role of collaborative research on teaching in school based

stuff development. San Francisco, CA Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Develop- ment.

Oja, S. N. (1978). A cognitive-structural approach to adult conceptual. moral, and ego development through inservice teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Oja, S. N. (1980). Adult development is implicit in staff development. TheJournol of StaffDevelopment,

Oja, S. N. (1985). Review of the literature: Adult development and teacher education. Unpublished manuscript. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire Collaborative Research Project Office.

Oja, S. N. (1988a). Program assessment report: A collaborative approach to leadership in supervision. Part B of The Final Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Development. Durham, NIT Department of Education Collaborative Research Projects.

Oja, S. N. (1988b). Somepromising endeavors in school-university collaboration: Collaborative research and collaborative supervision in afive-year teacher education program. Paper presented at the National Holmes Group Meeting. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED294835)

Oja, S. N. (1988~). Teachers: Ages and stages of development. In M. L. Holly & C. S. McLoughlin (Eds.), Perspectives on teacher professional development. London: Falmer Press.

Oja, S. N., Dupuis, P., & Bonin, S. (1988). Mentoring: Challenges and opportunities for collaborative supervision in the Universify of New Hampshirefive year teacher education program. Paper presented to the Association of Teacher Educators National Meeting, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. SP 029867)

Oja, S. N., &Ham, M. C. (1988a). Practiceprofile: A collaborativeapproach to leadership in supervision. Part C of The Final Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Development. Durham, NH: Department of Education Collaborative Research Projects.

Oja, S. N. & Ham, M.C. (1988b). Projectportrayal: A collaborative approach to leadership in supervision. Part A of The Final Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Development. Durham, NH: Department of Education Collaborative Research Projects.

Oja, S. N.. & Pine, G. J. (1983). A two year study of teachers’ stages of development in relation to collaborative action research in schools: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Educa- tion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 247249)

Oja, S. N., & Pine, G. J. (1987). Collaborative action research. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(1), 96- 113.

Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental process. London: Falmer Press.

project. Unpublished dissertation, Texas Tech University.

16, 185-197.

Educational Research Journal, 4,253-259.

of Education, 64(2). Part I and 11.

Record, 80( 1).

1(2).

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION page 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pine, G. (1981). Collaborative action research: The integration of research and service. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Detroit, MI.

Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York Praeger. Ryan, K. (1979). Mainstreaming and teacher education: The last straw. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), A common

Schaefer, R. J. (1967). The school as a center of inquiry. New York: Harper and Row. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: Howprofessionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York Academic Press. Sergiovanni, T. (1982). Supervision of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and organizational culture: Newperspectives in administrative theory

Shutes, R. (1975). Needed: A theory of teacher education. Texas-Tech Journal of Teacher Education, 2 ,

Silver, P. (1973). Principals’ conceptual ability in relation to situation and behavior. Educational Ad- ministration Quarierly, 1 1 , 4 9 6 .

Sizer, T. (1983). Personal communication. Education Leadership, Association for Supervision and Cur- riculum Development.

Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1980). Supervision: An educative or miseducative process? Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 17-20.

Thies-Sprinthall, L. (198 1). Educating for teacher growth: A cognitive developmental perspective. Theory Into Practice. 19,278-286.

Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1984). Promoting developmental growth of supervising teachers: Theory, research, process, and implications. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 53-60.

Thies-Sprinthall, L. & Sprinthall, N. A. (1983). Preservice teachers as adult learners: A new framework for teacher education. In M. Habennan, & J. Backus (Eds.), The nature and scope of research in teacher education. New York: Longman.

Thies-Sprinthall, L. & Sprinthall, N. A. (1987). Experienced teachers: Agents for revitalization and renewal as mentors and teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 169(1), 65-75.

Wallat, C., Green, J. L., Conlin, S. M., & Haramis, M. (1981). Issues related to action research in the classroom-the teacher and researcher as a team. In J. L. Green, & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ward, B. A., & Tikunoff, W. J. (1982). Collaborative research. Paper presented at The Implications of Research on Teaching for Practice Conference. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Witherell, C. (1978). A structural-developmental analysis of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and human development in relation to patterns of teaching behavior: Five case studies. Unpublished dissertation, University of Minnesota.

body of pracrice for teachers. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Support Systems.

Curriculum Development.

and practice. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

94-101.

Winlei, 1990-1991, Vol. X I I , No. 4 page 20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 04:

18 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014