
































Microsoft Word - 3. Strieker-Jan 2016.docx


Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan 2016, pp. 27-39   
 
 
 
 
The Evolution of Promising Practices for University Supervisors of  
Candidates in Yearlong Clinical Experiences  
Toni Strieker, Lee Langub, Marcia Wright 
Kennesaw State University 
 
 

Abstract 
 

This paper describes the exploration of a team of university supervisors and faculty who 

were charged with identifying effective practices for university supervisors who evaluated 

teacher candidates enrolled in yearlong co-taught clinical experiences.  The paper discusses the 

need for greater collaboration in reflective dialogue among the candidate, the collaborating 

teacher and the supervisors. In addition, the paper discusses the exploration of GROW, a 

candidate goal-setting structure, as well as 3-way conversations and video-elicited reflections as 

promising practices for university supervisors.  Note: This paper summarizes the content of the 

co-authors’ presentation at the annual meeting of the The Renaissance Group in San Antonio, 

Texas, in October of 2015. 

 

  



28	
     T. Strieker, L. Langub & M. Wright 
	
  
 

Introduction 

Over the past five years, calls for improvements in teacher effectiveness (Lewin, 2011) 
have resulted in changes to the accreditation standards (Council for the Accreditation of 
Educator Preparation (CAEP), 2015), particularly in terms of restructuring clinical experiences 
by means of school-university partnerships. The most recent draft of CAEP Standard 2.1 requires 
school-university partners to establish “….mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, 
preparation and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across 
clinical and academic components of preparation; and shared accountability for candidate 
outcomes” (CAEP, 2015, p.1).  

At Kennesaw State University, members of the faculty representing various teacher 
education programs (e.g., English Education, Secondary and Middle Grades Education, 
Elementary and Early Childhood Education, and Educational Leadership) formed an 
interdisciplinary research team to examine the effectiveness of new approaches to yearlong 
clinical experiences (Gray, Stockdale, & Williams, 2011; Williams, Gray,  & Monti, 2010); pre-
service co-teaching (Heckert, Strieker, & Shaheen, 2012) and instructional coaching (Strieker, 
Shaheen, Hubbard, Digiovanni, & Lim, 2014). These approaches were aligned with the common 
variables of highly effective teacher education programs reported by Darling-Hammond (2000), 
including a common vision of teaching and learning, carefully crafted field experiences, 
theorization and justification of practice, focus upon the needs of the students, reflection on 
active pedagogy, engagement of collaborating teachers as lifelong learners, and collaboration 
with colleagues. 

While the literature provides definitions of various forms of effective co-teaching during 
clinical experiences, there is limited research on the pedagogy and practices of university 
supervisors who evaluate the performance of candidates during their co-taught experiences.  
Thus, the purpose of our exploration is to explore the pedagogical practices of university 
supervisors situated in a collegial and reflective model of supervision, developed by, and for, 
teacher educators and university supervisors who support teacher candidates enrolled in a 
yearlong, co-taught, clinical experience. 

 
Our Journey 

Since 2008 our university has employed a continuous cycle of program design, 
implementation, evaluation and research, and revision and refinement by university faculty and 
school leaders. The redesign of clinical experiences, funded by our Teacher Quality Partnership 
(TQP) grant (2013, 2014), occurred in three stages (Figure 1). 



 Promising Practices for University Supervisors    29 
 

 
Stage 1: School-University Partnerships & Yearlong Clinical Experiences 

Since 2008, school-university teams have developed various levels of partnership 
agreements that determine the parameters of our yearlong clinical experiences as well as the 
roles and responsibilities for collaborating teachers and candidates. For example, faculty in 
Elementary Education established memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with elementary 
schools based upon specific themes of STEM, global education, and/or social justice. Similarly, 
faculty in English Education and Science Education formed a variety of partnerships with 
secondary schools to enlist their former graduates of their programs to serve as collaborating 
teachers. Later, members of our university faculty, led by our Dean, co-authored successful 
application for funding through a Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) (U.S. Department of 
Education, Teacher Quality Partnership Grant, 2009) with a neighboring school district. The 
overarching goal of this grant was to develop an Urban Education (UE) option for initial 
certification that would ultimately lead to improved K-12 student achievement in high-need 
schools. The funds from this grant were used to support faculty who engaged in the 
transformation of clinical experiences over the next five years. 
 
Stage 2: Pre-service Co-teaching and Co-teaching Coaches 

Pre-service Co-teaching. In 2011, teams of faculty and administrators at the university 
and the local schools began to design, develop and research our new approach to pre-service co-
teaching for candidates enrolled in yearlong clinical experiences. Like other university-based co-
teaching models (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Badaili & Titus, 2012), our approach 
allowed the certified teacher to remain in the classroom with the candidate throughout the 
placement. Thus, both the collaborating teacher and the teacher candidate served as an integral 
part of planning, instruction, assessment and reflection. 

Early on, the focus of our research was to better understand how co-teaching in pre-
service teacher education was different from traditional co-teaching, conducted by two certified 
teachers (Friend, 1995). In the end, while our new approach was informed by Friend’s original 



30	
     T. Strieker, L. Langub & M. Wright 
	
  
 
model, it was also heavily influenced by the work of Roth and Tobin (2012) who researched pre-
service co-teaching in advanced high school science classes and described co-teaching as co-
praxis (or a shared experience) that ultimately fosters co-generative dialogue through reflection 
in practice and reflection on practice. In 2012, we ultimately named our model, Pre-service Co-
teaching: A Mentor-Model Approach (Center for Educational Placements and Partnerships, 
2012-2015).  Also in 2012, we reported the benefits of pre-service co-teaching as vehicles for: 
(a) shifting the power in the classroom from the classroom teacher to the candidate, (b) 
supporting differentiated instruction, (c) conducting classroom management, and (d) increasing 
student engagement and learning (Heckert, Strieker, & Shaheen, 2012).  Finally, in 2013, we 
explored ways to align our emerging framework of pre-service co-teaching with that of edTPA; 
and ultimately, to intentionally support our candidates in demonstrating mastery of the 
competencies on assessed edTPA (Strieker, Shaheen, Hubbard, Digiovanni, & Lim, 2014).  

Co-teaching Coaches.  From 2011-2012, we also explored ways to situate a specialized 
form of instructional coaching (coaching co-teaching) to support our candidates and 
collaborating teachers during their clinical experiences. At that point, all members of our cadre 
of co-teaching coaches were faculty or former teachers and administrators who were 
recommended by our local district partners with formal MOUs.  Our co-teaching coaches were 
explicitly employed to offer job-embedded professional development to our candidates and their 
collaborating teachers. Our co-teaching coaches never evaluated candidate performance. Our 
EPP did employ university supervisors who were charged with evaluating the teacher candidates 
based upon a series of observations the supervisors conducted each semester in the yearlong 
placement. 

With funding through TQP, our approach to coaching co-teaching was implemented and 
researched for approximately three years. During that time, we established that our goal-setting 
framework (adapted from Whitmore, 2002) was effective in guiding our candidates in 
establishing their personal-improvement goals related to differentiated instruction, classroom and 
behavior management, and improvement of student learning and/or engagement (Strieker, et al., 
2014).  Our approach to candidate goal-setting was intentionally designed to support the 
candidate’s development of the metacognitive skills inherent in reflective practice, theorization 
of practice, and justification of data-based decision making. In large part, this approach was part 
of our attempt to align our program with the new CAEP standards and to provide opportunities 
for our candidates to demonstrate their skills on state and national performance assessments, like 
edTPA (Figure 2). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 Promising Practices for University Supervisors    31 
 

Figure 2. GROW Framework for Establishing Candidate Goals  

 
 
Stage 3:  Emergence of Developmental Supervision 

After several years of study, we realized that while the methods used by coaches were 
extremely valuable, coaching was not sustainable at our university for a number of reasons.  First 
of all, the logistics of deploying cadres of university supervisors and co-teaching coaches was 
confusing and difficult to manage. In some cases, the departments were not able to find enough 
qualified people to serve in both roles, so the same individuals served as coaches in some schools 
and as supervisors in others, leading to role confusion on the part of the new coaches as well as 
the administrators in the schools, the collaborating teachers, and the candidates. Second, without 
external funding the university had difficulty finding resources for both coaches and university 
supervisors. We discussed blending the two functions, but felt that there were crucial differences 
between the two that precluded combining coaching and supervision (Tschannen-Moran, & 
Tschannen-Moran, 2011; Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). In the end, our team 
decided to protect the integrity of coaching and supervision by selecting one approach. Given the 
difficulties in the logistics and in resourcing coaching, and the fact that our institution is 
accountable for the state and national assessment of the effectiveness of our candidates, our team 
prioritized supervision.  Once that decision was made, our research team shifted its focus to 
reforming our traditional model of clinical supervision to better meet the needs of candidates 
enrolled in co-taught, yearlong clinical experiences. To that end, a task force, comprised of 
faculty and former school administrators, was convened to explore the potential of 
Developmental SuperVision (Glickman, 1981; Glickman and the Association for Supervision 
and Curriculum Development, 2002; Glickman, Gordan-Ross, & Ross, 2014).  

According to Glickman (1981), Developmental Supervision is a collegial, collaborative 
and developmental approach to clinical supervision that has evolved over the past 35 years into a 



32	
     T. Strieker, L. Langub & M. Wright 
	
  
 
highly effective, democratic approach to supervising teachers in P-12 schools (Glickman et al., 
2014). Developmental Supervision provides supervisors with a model for adjusting his or her 
communication and behavioral approaches (ranging from directive to non-directive) to meet the 
developmental needs of the teacher. Based upon this understanding, our task force felt that 
Developmental Supervision held promise for implementation in teacher education programs 
engaged in implementing new models of clinical experiences that incorporated yearlong 
placements and co-taught instruction.  

The increased interest in Developmental Supervision was based upon the perception that 
candidates need a collaborative and developmental approach to supervision as they develop into 
mature, effective teachers. The need for collaborative approaches was based, in large part, upon 
our experiences in moving to yearlong clinical placements, where teacher candidates and 
collaborating teachers co-taught in the same classrooms for an entire year, and the candidates 
were supported and evaluated by the same supervisor throughout that year. Given the expanded 
length of the placements, we felt that all candidates needed a developmental approach to support 
the trajectory of their growth throughout the yearlong clinical. Developmental approaches 
appeared to be particularly important for traditional candidates who were in the early stages of 
adult development and in need of supervisors who were able to adjust their communication and 
behavioral approaches to support the candidates’ developmental needs.  

Our move to a model of pre-service co-teaching also seemed to complicate the 
supervision and evaluation of the candidates. First of all, it appeared that the very nature of our 
co-teaching cycle, which included co-planning, co-instruction, co-assessment and co-reflection 
(Center for Educational Placement and Partnerships (2015) created difficulties for supervisors 
using our original model of supervision. While our supervisors were charged with evaluating the 
performance of the candidate, they were not charged with evaluating the collaborating teacher 
who co-taught with the candidate. Furthermore, because the candidate and collaborating teachers 
co-taught throughout the day, nearly every day, the collaborating teacher knew as much (or 
more) about the candidate’s performance than the supervisor did. Although Bullough & Draper 
reported in 2004 that triangulation was common among supervisors, collaborating teachers and 
candidates, we felt a growing need to create a more collaborative, if not collegial model of 
supervision that would provide the opportunity to access the resources and maximize the 
contributions of the collaborating teachers in supporting the growth and development of the 
candidates. 

Finally, we felt that Developmental Supervision had the potential to increase the 
coherence of our teacher education programs by supporting our candidates as they applied the 
knowledge, skills and dispositions that they had learned in university coursework to their 
pedagogical practices in schools. Because of the collegial and collaborative nature of 
Developmental Supervision, we felt that it provided a model for supervisors to adjust not only 
their approaches, but also their roles.  With Developmental Supervision, the supervisors have the 
flexibility to move in and out of expert and facilitator roles based upon their perceived 
developmental needs of the candidate. For example, if the candidate demonstrates high needs for 
information, the supervisor assumes the role of expert and directs the candidate, telling him or 
her what task to perform, when and how to perform the task and why the task is beneficial to the 
P-12 students. Conversely, during co-reflection on video, the supervisor has the freedom to 
assume a facilitation role, guiding 3-way conversations between him or herself, the collaborating 
teacher, and the candidate. During these sessions, the candidate has the opportunity to actively 



 Promising Practices for University Supervisors    33 
 

engage in a dialogue with two experienced professionals and co-generate answers to complex 
problems of practice.  

In the end, three new pedagogical practices emerged from our first two years of exploring 
ways to adjust and adapt Glickman’s Developmental Supervision to a university setting, 
including the following:  

• 3-way conversations among the candidate, the collaborating teacher, and the 
supervisor who facilitates the group; 

• GROW: Candidate goal-setting instrument; and 
• Video-elicited reflections. 

 
Promising Practices in Supervision of Teacher Candidates in Co-Taught Placements 

 
Because teaching is a complex activity, the evaluation of teaching and the supervision of 

teacher candidates are exceedingly complex. To be effective, supervisors must have a broad 
repertoire of teaching and assessment practices, possess excellent communication and facilitation 
skills, and understand a myriad of connections that can, and do, occur in the teaching and 
learning process between the teacher and student. In the current era of accountability, indicators 
of teacher effectiveness are nearly always based upon student performance and/or engagement in 
challenging tasks. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the supervisor to use the most efficacious 
methods of observing student performance. According to scholars in coaching and supervision 
(Knight, 2014) student work can be studied in two ways: by examining student products, such as 
writing samples or science projects, and by examining video recordings of the teaching and 
learning processes. Because our faculty had already devoted a great deal of time and attention to 
the analysis of student work products, our research team began to explore new and creative ways 
to use video to evaluate the effectiveness of our candidates, specifically in terms of student 
performance and/or engagement (Sewall, 2009).  

During the 2013-2014 academic year, our second author, then a university supervisor, 
used pre-post video observations as alternatives to traditional classroom observations. During the 
final co-reflection on the videos, both the university supervisor and the candidate experienced a 
significant breakthrough. When the videos of two observations were displayed simultaneously on 
a split-screen, the differences in the engagement of students became obvious. One video showed 
merely compliance on the part of the elementary students as they worked quietly at their desks, 
following the examples of the candidate as she solved math problems on the board. The second 
video showed the same students, actively engaged, as they worked in teams to solve problems 
related to various math games. In the second video, the candidate and the collaborating teacher 
were also actively engaged as they interacted with the small groups of students to foster their 
problem solving. Thus, when the two video clips, viewed side by side, clearly illustrated the 
growth of the candidate’s skills over that period of time, highlighted the development of the co-
teaching partnership between the candidate and the collaborating teacher, both of which seemed 
to increase student engagement in the lesson. Had this lesson not been recorded, it is possible 
that this growth and professional learning may have gone largely unnoted. 

Through this real-life experience, the co-teachers as well as the university supervisor 
began to understand the real power of video in supporting candidates.  To share this information 
with a broader audience, Langub (2014) engendered discussions among members of the EPP 
faculty, former coaches, supervisors, and administrators served as a catalyst for today’s effort to 
increase the use of video to record teaching and learning processes. In addition to creating a 



34	
     T. Strieker, L. Langub & M. Wright 
	
  
 
record of the candidate’s professional growth and development, our experimentation with video 
increased our understanding of how video can be used effectively to benchmark student 
engagement, particularly in terms of time on task, ratios of interactions, opportunities to respond, 
and other aspects of the teaching process that are difficult to capture during real-time instruction 
(Sprick, Knight, Reinke, Skyles,  & Barnes, 2010).  When video is used to benchmark, the 
candidate has the advantage of concrete examples to use in the assessment and monitoring of 
student engagement and learning. These approaches have the potential to assist candidates in 
improving the engagement of students from simply attending to a task, to compliance, to 
engagement in challenging tasks.   

Our efforts to increase the frequency of, and improve the effectiveness of, video-elicited 
reflections are based upon the research of numerous scholars, including Schon (2009); Sewall 
(2009); Calandra & Brantley-Dias (2010); Lokey-Vega & Brantley-Dias (2006); and Knight 
(2014). Our experiences and understandings are consistent with Sewall (2009) in that we find 
(anecdotally) that our candidates’ reflections on video are more consistent with those of the 
collaborating teachers and the supervisors. Specifically, it appears that when the candidates 
reflect upon their own experiences, without the benefit of video, their reflections are neither as 
nuanced nor as deep as reflections that are elicited from video.  Video not only provides the 
candidate with deeper understanding, it also provides the candidate with the gift of time because 
the candidate can watch the video repeatedly to observe the responses of his or her students to 
the pedagogical and classroom management practices used during instruction. 

 
Overall Impact and Future Directions 

Over the past year, members of a professional learning community of experienced 
university supervisors have worked closely with the first author to improve their craft and 
practice as developmental supervisors.  Throughout the year, these individuals expanded their 
repertoires of communication, behavioral, and interpersonal approaches. For example, some of 
our supervisors found their candidates to be somewhat immature in the fall of their senior year, 
and that this immaturity forced the supervisor to assume the role of an expert, with a directive 
approach of literally telling the candidate what to do and when to do it. However, as the 
candidates matured, the supervisors shifted their approaches to a more collegial role by 
facilitating co-reflection and co-generative dialogue with the collaborating teacher. Toward the 
end of the first year spent in developmental approaches, our supervisors reported that they no 
longer needed to use directive approaches and that most of the time they facilitated three-way 
conversations with the candidate and collaborating teachers. The supervisors also reported that 
they were very comfortable using non-directive approaches, letting the candidate guide his or her 
own professional learning by means of specific goal-setting and progress-monitoring of self-
improvement. During that same time, the supervisors also worked closely with the first author as 
well as with the candidates and collaborating teachers, to revise and refine their facilitation of 
candidate goal-setting, progress monitoring, video observation, and co-reflection. 

Based upon our experiences in developing and piloting our EPP’s approach to 
Developmental Supervision, we feel that this approach to supervision shows great promise for 
supporting our B-12 candidates in this era of high accountability and assessment. Through 
Developmental Supervision, our candidates engage in ongoing goal setting and progress- 
monitoring, collaboration and co-teaching, co-generative problem solving, and video-elicited co-
reflection by the teacher candidate, the collaborating teacher and the university supervisor.       



 Promising Practices for University Supervisors    35 
 

In the summer of 2015, our university supervisors (Wright, Klinger-Maffet, Peterson, 
Thompson, & Langub) were invited to relate their experiences with the practices described in 
this paper to a group of current and potential collaborating teachers. Specifically, they stated the 
following benefits of our model: 

1. Goal-setting improves the candidates’ focus and increases professional 
development in areas identified by the candidate, creating greater commitment to his or her 
personal growth. The university supervisor and the collaborating teacher can then support the 
candidate in these specific areas, moving to new goals as the year progresses. 

2. Collaborative approaches, particularly 3-way conversations, create a forum for 
co-reflection and cooperative dialogue. The expertise of the classroom teacher and the university 
supervisor is developed along with the candidate’s, in a mutually supportive environment. The 
candidate has an equal voice. 

3. The use of video and virtual observations provides a record of the candidate’s 
growth and a platform for reflective dialogue on concrete, observable behaviors. The evaluations 
of the co-teacher and the university supervisor are thus more objective and beneficial to the 
candidate.  Based upon our supervisors’ positive perceptions of the new approaches, our future 
plan is to continue to engage our developmental supervisors in monthly sessions of their 
professional learning communities where the experienced supervisors will work closely with 
new ones to: (a) adjust their communication and behavioral approaches to the developmental 
needs of the candidates; (b) improve the practice of video observation; (c) facilitate candidate 
goal-setting and progress monitoring; as well as (d) increase student engagement and learning. 

 

  



36	
     T. Strieker, L. Langub & M. Wright 
	
  
 

References 
 

Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through 

co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3–14. 

Badiali, B., & Titus, N. (2012). Co-teaching: Enhancing student learning through mentor-intern 

partnerships. School-University Partnerships, 4(2), 74–80. 

Blanton, M.L., Berensen, S.B., & Norwood, K.S. (1999). Exploring a pedagogy of educative 

supervision. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453193) 
 
Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Draper, R. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, university  
 

supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 407-420. 
 

Calandra, B. & Brantley-Dias, L. (2010). Using digital video editing to shape novice teachers: A 

generative process for nurturing professional growth. Educational Technology, 50(1), 13-

17. 

Center for Educational Placement and Partnerships (2015). Pre-service Co-teaching: A Mentor 

Modeling Approach. Handbook for Teacher Candidates, Collaborating Teachers, Site 

Coordinators, and Developmental Supervisors. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw: 

GA. http://bagwell.kennesaw.edu/centers/cepp/field-experiences/student-

teachingpracticum-3 

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 

104-118. 

Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2015). CAEP Accreditation Manual, 

Washington, D.C. Retrieved from www.caep.org/publications  



 Promising Practices for University Supervisors    37 
 

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.) (2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation in a 

5-year program. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher 

Education. 

Evertson, C. M. (1990). Bridging knowledge and action through clinical experiences. In D. D. 

Dill (Ed.) What teachers need to know. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Friend, M. (2005). The power of 2. [DVD]. Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend. 

Glickman, C.D. (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for helping teachers 

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

Development.	
  

Glickman, C.D., & the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2002). 

Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.	
  

Glickman, C.D., Gordan, S.P., & Ross-Gordan, J. M. (2014). SuperVision and instructional 

leadership: A developmental approach (9th ed.). Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson. 

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Studying the education of educators: From conception to findings. Phi 

Delta Kappan, 71, 698-701. 

Gray, K., Stockdale, S., & Monti, T. (2012). From year-long internship to PDS: Working 

together to build better teachers.  School-University Partnerships, 5(2), 7–12. 

Heckert, J., Strieker, T., & Shaheen, M. (Winter, 2013). Kennesaw State University: 

Collaborative clinical practice model.  Educational Renaissance, 1(2). 83-96. 

Knight, J. (2007).  Instructional Coaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. 

Knight, J., & van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Instructional coaching: A focus on practice. 

Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), 100–112. 

Knight, J. (2013). Coaching for High Impact Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 



38	
     T. Strieker, L. Langub & M. Wright 
	
  
 

Inc. 

Knight, J. (2014). Focus on teaching: Using video for high impact instruction. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Corwin Press, Inc. 

Langub, L. (2014).  The promise of video-elicited feedback. Teacher Quality Partnership Project, 

Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA. 

Lewin, T. (2011, July 21). Training of teachers is flawed, study says. New York Times. Retrieved 

from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/education/21teaching.html 

Lokey-Vega, A., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2006). Another view on mentoring. Learning & Leading 

with Technology, 34(2), 18-21. 

Rodgers, A. & Jenkins, D.B. (2010). Redesigning supervision: Alternative models for student 

teacher and field experiences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grant (2009, 2013, 2014). Annual Report. U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, D.C. 

Tobin, K. & Roth, W-M. (2010). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing in 

urban science education. School Science and Mathematics, 105(6), 313-322. 

Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The coach and the evaluator. 

Educational Leadership, 69(2), 10-16. 

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive 

construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783 -805. 

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: 

Basic Books. 

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. 



 Promising Practices for University Supervisors    39 
 

Siens, C.M., & Ebmier, H. (1996). Developmental supervision and the reflective thinking of 

teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11(4), 299-319. 

Sewall, M. (2009). Transforming supervision: Using video elicitation to support preservice 

teacher-directed reflective conversations. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 11-30. 

Sprick, R., Knight, J., Reinke, W., Skyles, T.,  & Barnes, L. (2010). Coaching classroom 

management: Strategies and tools for administrators and coaches. Eugene, OR: Pacific 

Northwest Publishing, Inc. 

Strieker, T., Shaheen, M., Hubbard, D., Digiovanni, L. & Lim, W. (February, 2014). 

Transforming clinical practice in elementary teacher education through pre-service co-

teaching and coaching. Educational Renaissance, 2(2), 39-62. 

Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for performance: Growing people, performance and 

purpose (3rd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey. 

Williams, D., Gray, K., & Stockdale, S. (2012). Ready, set, go: It’s middle school. Current 

Issues in Middle Level Education, 17(2), 16–20. 

Wright, M., Klinger-Maffet, L., Peterson, K., Thompson, J., & Langub, L. (2015). The promise 

of developmental supervision. 1st Annual Clinical Collaboration Conference, Kennesaw State 

University, Kennesaw, GA. 


