A Critical Review OF A Knowledge Regime In Supervision Theory

Author(s):

Kaare Skagen(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 12 B, Knowledge Regime and Performativity Discourses in Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-26

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-C214

Chair:

Itxaso Tellado

Contribution

1. General description on research questions, objectives and methodology

This paper examines some aspects of an assumed hegemonic strategy in the Norwegian supervision tradition within teacher education. The introduction of the action- and reflection – (a-/r-) strategy in the 1980s is commonly regarded as an educational turnaround or a new regime of knowledge in Norwegian teacher training. The term knowledge regime is used primarily in educational policy to describe how "power, authority, values and knowledge".

The a/r- strategy was designed in the 1970s and 80s under the impression from an international turn away from conduct orientation in educational research and teacher education towards faith in reflection as the new way to strengthen teacher education. When Donald Schön coined the phrase “the reflective practitioner” in the 1980s, it reinforced the interest in reflection as a key concept in professional practice. Schön used a versatile supervision term that encompasses learning with authority and model-learning (Schön, 1987). The a-/r- strategy design does not include living modelling traditions. The strategy's vision has elements in common with the anti-authoritarian and critical thinking that had considerable influence within the academic pedagogy in the 1970s and 80årene.

A national curriculum for up to one-year studies in educational supervision was designed in 1991, and the plan was based on the principles of the a-/and r-strategy (Carson and Isachsen, 2003; Aasen, 2007, p. 28; Sundli, 2001 and 2004: 140; Klemp, 2012: 10). During the 1990s studies in supervision theory was established by the vast majority of the nation's colleges and universities. Many Norwegian supervisors and other educators have been trained within this theorethical framework. This strategy has also had an impact in Sweden and Denmark, especially in teacher training. The ideal of the supervisor who does not give advice and directions on how the student teacher or the newly qualified teacher are to act operatively in the classroom, has an international prevalence. In the United States supervisors hardly ever give direct technical or methodological clues as to what was and how to teach, but also support more self-reflection of beginning teachers. Leading ideas are that each teacher must develop their own style ( Blömeke, S. & Paine, L.,2009).

Method

2. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used 2.1. Research questions Supervisionmust undoubtedly be seen as a didactic situation in that the purpose is learning, and because the supervision we are talking about here is part of a teacher education. There are differences between supervision and teaching, but also commonalities. Research shows that there is wide variation in how teachers teach in schools. Similarly, there are major differences in the way supervisors practice their supervision. The first research question concerns finding out what are the historical and contemporary knowledge profile of the a/r-strategy with regard to construction of the roles of the supervisor's and the student teacher / beginning teacher, the importance of the subject matter in supervision sessions and the view on final assessment of student teachers? The second research question examines more closely the key concepts of role construction, subject matter and assessment in the a-/r-strategy. Search in the data bases of the Norwegian Journal for Education (NPT) on the keywords "Handal and Lauvås" gave 28 hits, and dissertations in the period 2010-2014 in the database BIBSYS with keyword "teacher education" and found 126 hits. In these dissertations there has been made spot checks to see to what extent the a-/r-strategy is discussed or referred to. This paper nevertheless relies mainly on the new knowledge regime's fundamental texts as they exist in book form (Handal and Lauvås, 1983; 1999; Lauvås and Handal, 1990; 2000; 2014). Both textbooks have been revised. The historical reasons for the new strategy when it was launched has been examined by looking up relevant sources. The descriptions by champions of the new strategy of how supervision and practical teacher training was supposed to work, is compared to simultaneous research literature.

Expected Outcomes

3. Findings 3.1. A knowledge regime? The position of the a-/r-strategy in Norwegian teacher qualification is underlined by the fact that courses for coaches for new teachers in the 1990s was influenced the new supervision strategy. The a/r-strategy was normative for a generation Norwegian supervisors (Skagen, 2009; Sundli and Søndenå, 2007: 181; Bjerkholt, 2013). Books within this strategy was translated into Swedish and Danish, and is regularly referred to in research works and on reading lists in supervision studies (Bengtsen, 2012: 12; Åberg, 2009; Rosendahl and Rönnermann, 2005; Wedin, Hultman and Schoultz, 2012.) 3.3. Role construction and knowledge profile In the a-/r-strategy the concept of practical vocational theory (PYT) largely took the place of the professional standards. PYT is a psychological, individualistic term to describe subjective values, experiences and knowledge that characterize the setting of what constitutes good teaching. The authors behind the new strategy were keen to defend the students against being oppressed by authoritarian supervisors. Academic subject matter and professional standards of good teaching were pushed into background. Teacher educators often talk about the importance of students "reflecting", but say nothing about any subject matter they should reflect on (Granlund, 2013, p. 178). 3.4. From assessment of practical teaching skill assessment of reflection? Several research studies show great satisfaction among students if they receive feedback on their performance, and will attempt to become teachers. This seems to apply even if the quality of supervision and practical training varies (Skagen, 2010: 125-127). In an evaluation of a national supervision project new teachers reported that they had benefited from supervision as an opportunity to exchange experiences and discuss practice with colleagues in the same situation. Meanwhile, far fewer graduates replied that the supervision had helped with managing and mastering their classroom work with students (Skagen, 2010a).

References

Bibliography Bengtsen, S. S. E. (2012). Didaktik and idiosyncrasy. An examination of supervivion sessions at the university with a focus on the relationship between personal and professional content. Dissertation. Aarhus University, Denmark Bjerkholt, E. (2013). Opening of enclosed spaces. A qualitative study of the content and dialogues in supervision sessions among new teachers and local supervisors. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oslo Blömeke, S. & Paine, L. (2009). Career entry programs for teachers in an international comparison. journal for teacher education, 9 (3), 18-25.] Granlund, L. (2013). How to train the tutors ? A comparative study of teacher training for Waldorf schools and public education. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Sociology, University of Bergen Handal, G. and P. Lauvås (1982). On their own terms. A strategy for supervision teachers.. Lund: Studentliterature Handal, G. and P. Lauvås (1983, 1999). On their own terms. A strategy for supervision teachers. Oslo: Cappelen Handal, G. and P. Lauvås (1987). Promoting Reflective Teaching. Milton Keynes:Open University Press Lauvås, P. and G. Handal (1990, 2000, 2014). Supervision and practical vocational theory. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Academic Rosendahl, BL and Rønnermann, K. (2005): With the focus on clinical supervision in schools’ work form change. Institution for Pedagogy and Didactics, University of Gothenburg Educational Research in Sweden in 2005 year 10 No. 1 pp 35-51. Department for Pedagogy and Didactics, University of Gothenburg Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Skagen, K. (2009). Supervision in practice. About school practice in Norwegian teacher education. Acta Didactica, 1, (3) [https .// www.journals.uio.no/index.php/adno/article/view/1036/915] Skagen, K. (2010a). What kind mentoring do beginning teachers need? In Høihilder, E. K. and K. R. Olsen (2010). Mentoring of new teachers in schools and kindergartens. Oslo: Pedlex Søndenå, K. and Sundli, L. (2004). Supervision on the practice field. Space for reflection and didactic innovation - or just cloning and mirroring? In Brekke, M. (Red). Norwegian teacher training didactics changing. Learning, teaching and education in the light of new research (s.128-151). Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget Aasen, E. (2014). Educational supervision of thought and action - a study of supervisors’ learning. Doctoral dissertation 2014. Stockholm University

Author Information

Kaare Skagen (presenting / submitting)

Oslo and Akershus University College

Oslo

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.