Training District Personnel as Peer Consultants and Inservice Leaders: Implementation and Evaluation of a Training Program
Dana McCoy Anderson
Shirley A. Ritter
Furman University
Requests for reprints should be directed to: Dana McCoy Anderson, Department of Education, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613.
SUMMARY: This article was supported in part by Grant G008200423 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, to Project SITE, School Initiated Teacher Education, Furman University.
For several years, Furman University has offered training for special educators to develop skills as peer inservice providers and as peer consultants to general education personnel. By means of a personnel preparation grant, School Initiated Teacher Education (SITE) Outreach, 61 special education teachers, speech therapists, and curriculum specialists have been involved in a series of three graduate level courses designed to address development of skills in inservice content and presentation and peer consultation. Evaluation data were collected to determine the impact of the training program, perceived benefits to the participants, and the receptiveness of the participating school districts in terms of the incorporation of peer inservice and consultation activities into the ongoing instructional program.
The search for effective school components has been a focal point of research for the past decade. Every major research study on effective schools has noted the phenomenon of group action, an agreed-on purpose and a belief in the attainment of educational objectives as reliable indicators of effective schools (Pratzner, 1984). Glickman (1985) states that “effective schools do not happen by accident: Supervision is the force that shapes the organization into a productive unity.” With the target of instructional improvement, Glickman proposes that supervisors should use a variety of practices that gradually increase choice and control over instructional improvement, the result being that teachers become more committed to improvement and able to contribute collectively to group efforts at improvement.
Essentially, two avenues are available to teachers seeking direct human assistance in the improvement of their instruction. This element of direct assistance is crucial to the development of effective schools (Edmonds, 1982) and to teacher satisfaction when couched in terms of quantitative feedback (Dornbush & Scott, 1975; Natriello, 1982). One avenue is the supervisory direct assistance via the clinical supervision model. This five-step procedure developed by Cogan (1973) and Goldhammer (1969) consists of the following: preconference with teacher; observation of classroom; analysis and interpretation of observation; postconference with teacher; and critique of previous steps. Recent research by Glickman (1985) has indicated a modification of this traditional cycle utilizing directive, collaborative, and nondirective approaches by which to meet developmental instructional needs of the teacher.
Of recent interest in the field of instructional supervision has been the phenomenon known variously as peer supervision or collegial supervision. This practice is primarily the adoption of the clinical supervision model developed at Harvard (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer, 1969). McFaul and Cooper (1984) elaborate on the extensive discussion of this supervisory strategy while pointing out that forms of clinical supervision used in peer situations are actually mutations of the original concept. Glatthorn (1984) notes the term “peer supervision” has negative connotations for teachers, and suggests one will be placed in an evaluative capacity over other teachers. A broader term, “cooperative professional development,” or “peer support,” is suggested as inclusive of other traditional supervisory strategies available for instructional improvement. Four components are suggested which differentiate the activities of cooperative professional development from those of the role of formal supervisor within the organization. These include a moderately, rather than highly, formalized professional relationship; reciprocal rather than unilateral observations and followup conferences; employee only, as opposed to administrative involvement; and exclusion of evaluative activities in relation to salary, retention, and promotion. Although this reflects yet a broader definition of cooperative peer instructional behavior, it is nonetheless a close relative of the original clinical supervision model because it retains the basic cycle steps of pre-observation conference, observation, and post-observation conference.
Glickman (1985) identifies three dimensions o...
