TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 18, No.

3, September 1984

Models of Supervision: Choices

JERRY G. GEBHARD
Teachers College, Columbia University

Supervision of teachers is an important part of both pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, and teacher educators have a ide choice of supervisor! behaviors hich the! can use in the process of training second language teachers. "t seems to be the case, ho ever, that man! second language teacher educators continuall! limit themselves to the same reasons for doing supervision and the same supervisor! behaviors. #his article illustrates ho limiting some st!les of supervision can be and then, in e$ploring alternative a!s that supervision can be done, encourages teacher educators to e$periment in their use of supervisor! behaviors. %ive models of supervision are discussed& 1' directive, (' alternative, 3' collaborative, 4' non-directive, and )' creative.

*s +S, professionals, it is li-el! that most of us have e$perienced teacher supervision, at one time or another, either as a supervisor, as a teacher being supervised, or as an outside observer. "f e reflect on these e$periences and then tr! to describe the roles or functions hich the supervisor pla!ed in them, those roles or functions ould probabl! fall into one or more of the follo ing categories& . to direct or guide the teacher/s teaching . to offer suggestions on the best . to model teaching . to advise teachers . to evaluate the teacher/s teaching #hese categories ere elicited from man! teachers and teacher educators from several countries and appear to be a fairl! representative sample of hat man! teachers and teacher educators perceive supervision to be. #he purpose of this article is to demonstrate that supervision can be much more than this. %ive models of supervision are presented and discussed. #he first model is offered to illustrate the -ind of supervision hich has traditionall! been used b! teacher educators. 0ut since this model has some serious limitations, the other four models are proposed in order to describe a!s that e can define the role or function of the supervisor and supervision differentl!1that is, differentl! from ho the supervisor and supervision are normall! perceived. #he reason for presenting all five models is also to share reflections on e$perience2 hich " have personall! had ith each model. #he five models are 1' directive, (' alternative, 3' collaborative, 4' non-directive, and )' creative. a! to teach

Directive Supervision #his model of supervision is the one hich most teachers and man! teacher educators e$press as their idea of hat supervision is. "n directive supervision the role of the supervisor is to direct and inform the teacher, model teaching behaviors, and evaluate the teacher/s master! of defined behaviors. #here are at least three problems ith directive supervision. %irst, there is the problem of ho the supervisor defines 3good4 teaching. Second, there is the problem of negative humanistic conse5uences that ma! arise from using a directive model of supervision. *nd third, there is the problem of ho is ultimatel! responsible for hat goes on in the classroom. "n order to present these problems clearl!, " ould li-e to discuss an e$perience " had as a teacher being supervised& " had ta-en a part-time 6ob at a ell--no n language school, and as part of that 6ob " as e$pected to be open to being supervised. 7ne da! a person " had never seen before al-ed in and sat do n as " as in the process of teaching a reading lesson. " as tr!ing out a fe ne ideas and anted to see

the conse5uences of not going over vocabular! before having the students read. "nstead of presenting vocabular!, " as having the students read a stor! several times, each time or-ing on a different tassuch as underlining ords hich described the person in the stor! or crossing out ords the! did not -no . #he supervisor sat in the bac- of the room ta-ing notes, and " became nervous. *fter about fifteen minutes of silence the supervisor came over to me. She smiled and hispered that she ould li-e to meet ith me at her office after the class. She opened the meeting b! leaning over, touching me on the arm, smiling and sa!ing, 3" hope !ou don/t mind. "/m not one to beat around the bush.4 " san- a little further into m! chair. She proceeded to tell me that " should al a!s rite difficult vocabular! on the board and go over it before the students read, that students should read aloud to help them ith pronunciation, and that in ever! class there should be a discussion so that students have the chance to practice the ne vocabular!. #his e$perience as one of several similar ones hich " had ith that supervisor and others at the same institution. *t the time " ondered hat made the supervisor/s a! of teaching more effective than hat " anted to do. No " -no that it as not more 3effective.4 "t as simpl! different. 0ut it nevertheless appears to be the case that most people, including teachers, supervisors, school administrators, the o ner of the neighborhood hangout, the person on the street, . . . believe that the! can identif! good teaching hen the! see it. 8o ever, it might not be good teaching that these people see. "t is, more li-el!, their idea of hat good teaching should be. #here is a difference. 9ost people accept the idea that good teaching means that learning ta-es place. #he problem, ho ever, is not in identif!ing hether learning has ta-en place but rather in identif!ing hat specific teaching behaviors caused the students to learn. "dentif!ing hat behaviors result in student learning can be so difficult that, after revie ing most of the classroom process-product research on teaching up to the earl! 19:;s, <un-in and 0iddle =19:4' concluded that e still have ver! little idea about hat good or effective teaching actuall! is. %urthermore, as *ll right points out in referring to the field of second language teaching, although research methodolog! is changing, 3the ultimate aim is still to end up ith something helpful to sa! to teachers and their trainers4 =1983&199'. #he search for effective teaching goes on. %or these reasons, since e do not -no much about the effects of our teaching behaviors on learning, it is difficult to 6ustif! prescribing hat teachers should do in the classroom. * second problem ith directive supervision concerns humanistic conse5uences. 7n the basis of e$periences such as the one " described above, it is eas! to see that directive supervision can have negative conse5uences. %irst, it can ma-e teachers see themselves as inferior to the supervisor, and this can lo er their self-esteem. %or e$ample, after " met ith the directive supervisor " referred to earlier, " felt doubtful about m!self as a teacher. * second negative conse5uence of directive supervision is that it can be threatening. >hile going to or- " remember sa!ing to m!self more than once, 37h, supervisor, don/t come toda!. ?lease don/t come toda!.4 " -ne that the supervisor as not going to li-e hat 1 had prepared. @ardin describes this state of affairs clearl! hen she notes that 3threat can produce a Ahalf-in-half-out/ engagement4 =19::&184'. *lthough " anted to full! engage m!self in m! o n ideas of hat the students could benefit from, " could not because of the overriding threat that the supervisor ould disapprove. "n other ords, threat can create the need for teachers to defend themselves from the supervisor/s 6udgments concerning hether or not the! are meeting the supervisor/s e$pectations of them as teachers. @o e has pointed out that if e feel that e are being 6udged, e lose the 3right to be rong4 =19:3&3;8'. She believes that if e lose this right, e can also lose the courage to tr! ne ideas, to e$plore more than one alternative, and to e$plore freel!. * third problem ith directive supervision is that a prescriptive approach forces teachers to compl! ith hat the supervisor thin-s the! should do. 0latchford =19:B' and Carvis =19:B' have both suggested that this -eeps the responsibilit! for decision ma-ing ith the teacher educator. "t does not allo the teachers to become their o n e$perts and to rel! upon themselves, rather than on the supervisor, for the ans ers. Alternative Supervision Dopeland =198(' discovered in his research on teacher attitudes to supervision that some teachers

feel the need to be told hat to do hen the! first begin to teach. 8e attributes this to their insecurit! in facing students ithout having the s-ills to cope ith that situation. #eachers from a number of countries have also pointed out that if the teacher is not given direction b! the supervisor, then the supervisor is not considered 5ualified. #he roots of directive supervision gro deep. 8o ever, there is a a! to direct teachers ithout prescribing hat the! should do. #his a! is through a model that %reeman =198(' calls alternative supervision. "n this model, the supervisor/s role is to suggest a variet! of alternatives to hat the teacher has done in the classroom. #his limits the number of choices for teachers, and it can reduce an$iet! over not -no ing hat to do ne$t. 8o ever, it still -eeps the responsibilit! for decision ma-ing ith the teacher. #here is simpl! less choice. %reeman points out that alternative supervision or-s best hen the supervisor does not favor an! one alternative and does not sound 6udgmental. #he purpose of offering alternatives is to iden the scope of hat a teacher ill consider doing. %anselo =in press' states that his goal is to substitute self-generated alternatives for prescribed alternatives. ,i-e %reeman, %anselo might begin b! suggesting alternatives. 8o ever, %anselo also provides a!s through hich teachers can generate their o n alternatives in their teaching. 7ne a! is to tr! the opposite of hat is usuall! done. %or e$ample, if students usuall! read silentl!, the teacher can generate a lesson here the! read aloud. *nother a! is b! duplicating inside the classroom hat goes on outside of it. 8e also trains teachers to be a are of 3leaden4 =as opposed to 3golden4' moments hen things consistentl! do not go ell =for e$ample, hen students al a!s come to class late' and to tr! alternative behaviors to resolve the problem =for e$ample, offer coffee to those ho come on time or simpl! sit do n and tal- ith the students about the importance of starting on time'. No matter ho the alternatives are generated, the aim, as %anselo ma-es clear, is for teachers to tr! alternative behaviors and to pa! attention to the conse5uences. "f the supervisor provides strategies =such as those described above' hich give teachers a a! to understand the conse5uences of hat the! do, teachers can graduall! become their o n e$perts and can rel! on themselves to ma-e teaching decisions. "n the supervisor! situation " described at the beginning of this article, instead of prescribing hat " should have done ith m! reading lesson, the supervisor could have had me describe hat " did that da! and then describe ho " could do the opposite. She could have re5uested that " tr! the opposite to see hat happens, and this could have been a a! to teach me a strateg! of pa!ing attention to the different conse5uences on the students/ behavior of doing lessons differentl!. 7r, if " had appeared to need more direction, the supervisor could have limited the number of choices and said something li-e, 3" don/t -no hat the best a! to teach a reading lesson is. Eou ill have to ma-e those decisions for !ourself. 8o ever, " can share m! e$perience. ,et me give !ou three a!s to teach a reading lesson. Eou can tr! the one !ou li-e or tr! all three on different da!s. #he first a! !ou can teach a reading lesson is . . .4 olla!orative Supervision >ithin a collaborative model the supervisor/s role is to or- ith teachers but not to direct them. #he supervisor activel! participates ith the teacher in an! decisions that are made and attempts to establish a sharing relationship. Dogan =19:3' advocates such a model, hich he calls 3clinical supervision,4 Dogan believes that teaching is mostl! a problem-solving process that re5uires a sharing of ideas bet een the teacher and the supervisor. #he teacher and supervisor or- together in addressing a problem in the teacher/s classroom teaching. #he! pose an h!pothesis, e$periment, and implement strategies hich appear to be a reasonable solution to the problem under consideration. "n the supervisor! situation " described at the beginning of this paper, instead of telling me hat " should have done, the supervisor could have as-ed, 3>hat did !ou thin- of the lessonF 8o did it goF <id !ou meet !our ob6ectiveF,4 in a positive, interested, and non- 6udgmental a!. #hen the supervisor could have more easil! understood m! ideas, problems " sa in the lesson, and the -inds of things " as planning to do. "t ould have been possible for the supervisor to also have input, to ma-e suggestions, and to share her e$perience. * decision about hat to do ne$t could have been made together. "t is orth mentioning that although the ideas of e5ualit! and sharing ideas in a problem-solving process can be appealing, the ideal and the real are sometimes far apart. Not all teachers are illing to

share e5uall! in a s!mmetrical collaborative decision- ma-ing process. #his has been pointed out clearl! b! a colleague from a 9iddle +astern countr! ho remar-ed that if, as a supervisor, he attempted to get teachers to share ideas ith him, the teachers ould thin- that he as not a ver! good supervisor. "on#Directive Supervision >hile collaborative supervision places the teacher and supervisor in a sharing relationship, nondirective supervision does not. Nor does a non-directive supervisor prescribe or suggest nonprescriptive alternatives. >hat a non-directive supervisor does do as recentl! e$pressed b! a teacher hen she said, 39! supervisor usuall! attempts to have me come up ith m! o n solutions to teaching problems, but she isn/t cold. She/s a giving person, and " can tell that she cares. *n! a!, m! supervisor listens patientl! to hat " sa!, and she consistentl! gives me her understanding of hat " have 6ust said.4 #he same teacher also e$pressed the conse5uences of this t!pe of supervision for her hen she added, 3" thin- that hen m! supervisor repeats bac- to me m! o n ideas, things become clearer. " thin- this ma-es me more a are of the a! " teach1at least " am a are of m! feelings about hat " do ith students. 4 >hen the teacher tal-ed about ho the supervisor listened and provided an understanding of hat she had said, she as referring to something that Durran =19:8', ho bases his ideas on the or- of Darl @ogers, calls an 3understanding response.4 *n understanding response is a 3re-cogniGed4 version of hat the spea-er has said. "n supervision, the supervisor does not repeat ord-for- ord hat the teacher has said but rather restates ho he or she has understood the teacher/s comments. "n the supervisor! situation " described at the beginning of this article, instead of the supervisor prescribing hat " should do, she could have said something li-e, 3Eou 6ust e$plained to me hat and h! !ou did hat !ou did in the classroom. ,et me see if " understand hat !ou said. Eou told me that !ou anted to see the conse5uences of tr!ing a reading lesson here the students read silentl! hile doing tas-s such as underlining ords hich describe the main character in the stor!. Eou said that !ou did not rite vocabular! on the board because !ou anted to see if the students ould come up ith the ords the! anted to learn. Eou also said that !ou anted students to . . .4 *ccording to those foreign and second language teacher educators ho have discussed a nondirective supervisor! approach =<o ling and Sheppard 19:B, +arl! and 0oitho 1981, %reeman 198(', if the supervisor had been more non-directive hen supervising me, " could have had the freedom to e$press and clarif! m! ideas, and a feeling of support and trust could have gro n bet een us. " could have discovered that there as no need to be defensive. " could have realiGed a freedom to tr! ne ideas and to full! invest m!self in hat " as doing. " could also have had the chance to raise 5uestions about m!self as a teacher and about the conse5uences that m! teaching had on the students. " could also have gained e$perience in ma-ing decisions on m! o n, and " could have further realiGed m! o n responsibilit! for m! teaching behavior. "t is important to point out that the opposite effect can also result from non-directive supervision. Some teachers report that this -ind of supervision ma-es them feel an$ious and alienated. 0ut one reason for an$iet! ma! be due to the ine$perience of the teacher. %or e$ample, " remember once supervising a ne teacher through mostl! non-directive means. 8e suddenl! loo-ed up and said, 30ut hat do !ou thin- " should do in the classroomF 8o can " -no hat to do if " have no e$perience doing itF4 "f e follo the assumption, as Dopeland =198(' does, that teachers benefit from hat the! thin- the! need, then a non-directive model of supervision might not al a!s be appropriate. * second reason h! teachers become an$ious and uncomfortable could be because of the a! the supervisor understands non- directive supervision. >hen teachers comment that this -ind of approach ma-es them an$ious, e should onder hether the supervisor has simpl! been using the surface techni5ues hile ignoring the deeper philosophical principles. 0lair ma-es sense hen he points out that 3to borro onl! certain out ard features of the approach ithout understanding hat its real po er is ould be li-e using an airplane onl! as a car or a sophisticated computer onl! as a t!pe riter4 =198(&1;3-1;4'. *t the deeper philosophical level, e need to understand the importance hich Durran =Durran 19::, 19:8, @ardin 19::, Stevic198;, #a!lor 19:9' placed on or-ing ith the 3 hole person4 of the learner. 8e advocated such

techni5ues as the non-6udgmental 3understanding response4 to brea- do n the defenses of the learners, to facilitate a feeling of securit!, and to build a trusting relationship bet een the learners and the teacher. #his trusting relationship allo s the teacher and learners to 35uest4 together to find ans ers to each learner/s 5uestions. reative Supervision <e0ono/s idea that 3an! particular a! of loo-ing at things is onl! one from among man! other possible a!s4 =19:;&B3' serves as the basis of creative supervision. #he models of supervision hich have been presented thus far limit our a! of loo-ing at supervision. #he creative model allo s freedom to become creative not onl! in the use of the models presented, but also in other behaviors e ma! care to generate and test in our supervisor! efforts. #here are at least three a!s the creative model can be used. "t can allo for 1' a combination of models or a combination of supervisor! behaviors from different models, (' a shifting of supervisor! responsibilities from the supervisor to other sources, and 3' an application of insights from other fields hich are not found in an! of the models. >or-ing ith onl! one model can be appropriate, or it can be limiting. Sometimes a combination of different models or a combination of supervisor! behaviors from different models might be needed. %reeman =198(', for e$ample, selects a particular supervisor! approach according to the t!pe of information the teacher is see-ing. "f ne teachers are tr!ing to find out 3 hat4 to teach, he uses a directive approach. "f the! ant to -no 3ho 4 to teach, he uses an alternative approach. "f the! ant to -no 3 h!4 the! teach, he uses a non-directive approach. * colleague li-es to or- ith teachers through alternative supervision and ill sometimes model the alternatives. Hraduall! he starts to use non-directive supervision as the teachers gain the abilit! to generate their o n alternatives and understand the conse5uences of hat the! do in the classroom, *nother colleague approaches supervision through a non-directive model2 after she gains the teachers/ trust, she begins to collaborate more ith them. #he number of combinations is endless. * second a! that a creative model of supervision can be used is to allo for a shift of supervisor! responsibilit! from the supervisor to another source. 7ne a! is to ma-e teachers responsible for their o n supervision. #o do this, Iigarmi =19:9' sho s ho teacher centers can be used. #eacher centers are places here teachers can go to find ans ers to 5uestions, have access to resources, and talabout problems ith other teachers or special 3consultants4 or 3supervisor! e$perts.4 @ather than the supervisor going to the teachers, the teachers can go to the teacher center. *nother a! to shift responsibilit! a a! from the supervisor is to have peer supervision, here fello teachers observe each others/ classes. "n this case there is no supervisor. " have seen this done in #hailand at the universit! level here teachers ere friends, had no reason to defend their teaching, and en6o!ed tr!ing out ne ideas in their classes. * third a! that creative supervision can be used is through the application of insights from other fields hich are not found in an! of the models. %or e$ample, some teacher educators have adapted observation s!stems originall! developed for research, such as 9os-o itG/s =19:1' and Carvis/s =19B8' adaptations of %landers/ "nteraction *nal!sis, to help them observe and supervise practice teachers. 7ther teachers prefer %anselo /s =19::, in press' %7DJS =%oci for 7bserving Dommunications Jsed in Settings' because the five ma6or categories and man! subcategories ithin %7DJS can be used easil! as a metalanguage to tal- about teaching in non6udgmental and specific terms. #he application of observation s!stems has been a valuable asset to supervisors. "t allo s supervisors to describe rather than prescribe teaching, and observation s!stems provide a means through hich teachers can continue to monitor and stud! their o n teaching. 0ut, h! stop thereF >h! not appl! !oga and meditation techni5ues to teacher supervisionF ,eadership training from business managementF +thnographic intervie ing techni5uesF Stor!-telling s-ills from 8a aiian fol-loreF Jse of metaphors in counselingF *s %anselo =1983' ma-es clear, e ill never -no the conse5uences of tr!ing ne ideas in the preparation of teachers if e -eep doing the same things over and over again. " have ta-en %anselo /s comment seriousl! and have been e$ploring the application of insights from several fields to teacher supervision. "t ould be be!ond the scope of this article to discuss all of these fields and insights but, as an e$ample, " ill present the application of insights into the rapport-

developing process hich " have gained from activel! learning Neuro-,inguistic ?rogramming =N,?'. N,? as developed b! @ichard 0andler and Cohn Hrinder, ho base their techni5ues on their observations of hat 3therapeutic iGards4 such as %ritG ?erls, Virginia Satir, and 9ilton +ric-son do as professional communicators. 7ne concept central to N,? is that communication bet een people can be anal!Ged and understood b! s!stematicall! focusing on the process rather than on the content, and it is b! helping us to -no hat to concentrate on ithin the process that N,? can provide insights. "n most models of supervision, supervisors are told to establish rapport, but supervisors are rarel! given insight into ho to do this. "nstead, rapport is defined ith vague ords such as 3harmon!,4 3empath!,4 or 3a s!mpathetic relationship.4 8o ever, 0andler and Hrinder =19:9', Dameron-0andler =19:8', and ,an-ton =198;' have indicated that the! develop rapport b! consciousl! and unconsciousl! matching verbal and non-verbal behavior ith the other person, and the! provide specific a!s to help others learn to do so. >ith regard to verbal behavior, in N,? one step to ard establishing rapport is to match the other person/s a! of verball! representing his or her e$perience, -no n in N,? as a person/s 3representational s!stem.4 *ccording to Hrinder and 0andler =19:B', e have five recogniGed senses for ma-ing contact ith the orld. >e see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. "n addition to these sensor! s!stems, e have a language s!stem hich e use to represent our e$perience. "n order to identif! a person/s a! of verball! representing his or her e$perience at a given point in time, e need onl! to pa! attention to the predicates =verbs, ad6ectives, adverbs' hich that person uses. #hus, if a person sa!s things li-e 3" see hat !ou mean,4 Focus on this,4 3" can picture that clearly, or 3Eour perspective sure seems vague, that person is representing e$perience through a visual channel. ,i-e ise, a person represents e$perience through an auditor! channel hen using language such as 38er ne dress is a real scream, 3"/m reall! tuned into learning,4 or 3#he idea as amplified hen . . .4 and a person represents e$perience through a -inesthetic channel hen using language such as 3" have a feeling that . . . .4 3Dan !ou grasp that ideaF,4 or 38is riting has some rough edges. #he more practice e have in identif!ing another person/s representational s!stems, the easier it becomes. #his is because each person tends to process information through a favored sense in an! given conte$t. *lthough e represent the orld around us through all of the senses, people tend to ma-e use of one or more of these representational s!stems more often than others13 hich is to sa! that e more highl! value one or more of the representational s!stems4 =,an-ton 198;&(34'. "n order to develop rapport, people ho are practicing N,? match their predicates to those of the other person. "f, for e$ample, a person is using predicates hich indicate an auditor! representational s!stem, the person practicing N,? ill also s itch into an auditor! s!stem, using auditor! ords and 3tuning into4 the e$periences of that person, "n cases of matching visual and -inesthetic representational s!stems, the person practicing N,? ould attempt to 3see4 or 3feel4 the e$periences of the other person. "t is also possible to match a person/s non-verbal behavior. "n brief, matching non-verbal behaviors, li-e matching verbal predicates, can place people ho are using the techni5ue closer to the e$periences of the person ith hom the! are interacting. "t is possible to match a person/s posture, al-ing stride, breathing rate, gestures, facial e$pressions, tone of voice, and tempo of spea-ing. 9! observations of mismatches of non-verbal behaviors ith representational s!stems ma-e the nature of rapport apparent. ,ac- of rapport, for e$ample, as especiall! evident in the follo ing observed interaction. #he supervisor as sitting up, shoulders tense, breathing shallo in the chest =visual position' and loo-ing at the teacher. #he teacher/s e!es ere to ard the floor =to the right', shoulders rela$ed and drooped, breathing deep from the abdominal area =-inesthetic position'. =See <ilts et al. K198;&81-84L for these and other non-verbal positions. ' #he follo ing dialogue too- place =as " recall it'&

#eacher&& " feel the class 6ust doesn/t respond to the

a! " teach. hat " anted them to do. " had a sense it

Supervisor& " see. >ould !ou li-e to focus on an! particular partF #eachers& >ell, " felt that none of the students could grasp as the directions " gave.

Supervisor >ell, " thin- the! ere clear, but !ou gave them in such a flash that students couldn/t see hat !ou anted them to do.

#eacher& Eeah. " sense " need to smooth things out. " onder ho F >hat Supervisor& " might use more than one medium. " might them.

ould !ou doF

rite the directions on the board so the! can see

#eacher& >ell, " don/t -no . " feel m! presentation is so cold. "f onl! " could arm up to them1ma-e closer contact ith them . . #he supervisor and teacher ere tal-ing through t o different representational s!stems. #here as little rapport and, as far as " could tell, the teacher/s problem as not resolved. "f, according to 0andler and Hrinder and others, this supervisor had used N,? matching techni5ues and, as a result, had developed a fuller representation of the teacher/s e$perience, the communication ould have been 3pac-aged4 so that understanding could ta-e place more easil!. #here is much more that could be said about ho observation s!stems and N,? can be applied to the supervision of teachers. 8o ever, the main point here is not ho these t o fields of -no ledge can be applied to supervision, but rather that e have the freedom to appl! concepts from outside supervision as e discover them. O" LUS$O" "t seems to be the case that man! second language teacher educators limit their approach to supervision and their choice of supervisor! behaviors. Supervision under such conditions can restrict or, in the case of ver! directive supervision, can even retard teachers/ progress in assuming the responsibilities for their o n teaching and in developing their talents as professional teachers. #his article illustrates that there is a ide choice of supervisor! behaviors hich teacher educators can select from. 8o ever, there are no claims being made regarding the best model of supervision or the best supervisor! behaviors. #his tas- of discovering hich supervisor! behaviors or- ell for the supervisor is left to the supervisor. 8o ever, unless e are illing to e$plore and use ne behaviors in our supervisor! efforts, e ill never -no the conse5uences that these behaviors can have on the professional development of teachers. "t is up to us to continuall! appl! this and other -no ledge in our development of more and more sophisticated and productive teacher supervision.

A %"O&LEDG'E"TS " ould li-e to than- Cohn %anselo , Sergio Haitan, and Cudith <ancoff for their encouragement and feedbac- on earlier versions of this article. THE AUTHOR Cerr! Hebhard is presentl! an ad6unct instructor at #eachers Dollege, Dolumbia Jniversit!, here he is also completing his +d.<. in #+S7, ith a specialiGation in teacher preparation. 8is previous e$perience includes teaching +S, in 8a aii, cross-cultural training in Capan, and +%, and teacher training in #hailand. 8is 9.*. degree is from the Jniversit! of 8a aii, and his +d.9. from Dolumbia Jniversit!. 8e has published in the English Teaching Forum and in 6ournals in *sia. RE(ERE" ES *ll right, <ic-. 1983. Dlassroom-centered research on language teaching and learning& a brief historical overvie . TE !" #uarterly 1:=('&191-(;4. 0andler, @ichard, and Cohn Hrinder. 19:9. Frogs into princes. 9oab, Jtah& @eal ?eople ?ress. 0lair, @obert >. 198(. $nnovative approaches to language teaching. @o le!, 9assachusetts& Ne bur! 8ouse ?ublishers. 0latchford, Dharles 8. 19:B. #he silent a! and teacher training. "n !n TE !" %&', Cohn %. %anselo and @uth 8. Dr!mes =+ds.', (3-(8. >ashington, <. D.& #+S7,.

Dameron-0andler, ,eslie. 19:8. They lived happily ever after. Dupertino, Dalifornia& 9eta ?ublications. Dogan, 9orris ,. 19:3. Clinical supervision. 0oston& 8oughton 9ifflin ?ublishers. Dopeland, >illis <. 198(. Student teachers/ preference for supervisor! approach. (ournal of Teacher Education 33=('&3(-3B. Durran, Dharles *. 19::. Counseling-learning) a *hole-person model for education. +ast <ubu5ue, "llinois& Dounseling-,earning ?ublications. Durran, Dharles *. 19:8. Understanding) a necessary ingredient in human belonging. +ast <ubu5ue, "llinois& Dounseling-,earning ?ublications. de 0ono, +d ard. 19:;. "ateral thin+ing) creativity step by step. Ne Eor-& 8arper and @o ?ublishers. <ilts, @obert, Cohn Hrinder, @ichard 0andler, ,eslie D. 0andler, and Cudith <e,oGier. 198;. ,euro-linguistic programming. Volume "& The study of the structure of sub-ective e.perience. Dupertino, Dalifornia& 9eta ?ublications. <o ling, Hretchen, and Men Sheppard. 19:B. #eacher training& a counseling focus. "n !n TE !" %&', Cohn %. %anselo and @uth 8. Dr!mes =+ds.', ))-BB. >ashington, <. D.& #+S7,. <un-in, 9ichael C., and 0ruce C. 0iddle. 19:4. The study of teaching. >ashington, <. D.& Jniversit! ?ress of *merica. +arl!, ?atric-, and @od 0olitho. 1981. @easons to be cheerful for helping teachers to get problems into perspective1a group counseling approach to the inservice teacher training of foreign teachers of +nglish. /echerches Echanges B=1'&13-33. %anselo , Cohn %. 19::. 0e!ond /ashomon 1conceptualiGing and describing the teaching act. TE !" #uarterly 11=1'&1:-41. %anselo , Cohn %. 1983. 7ver and over again. ?aper presented at the 34th *nnual Heorgeto n Jniversit! @ound #able on ,anguages and ,inguistics, >ashington, <. D., 9arch 9-1(, 1983. %anselo , Cohn %. "n press. 0rea+ing rules) alternatives for language teachers. Ne Eor-& ,ongman. %reeman, <onald. 198(. 7bserving teachers& three approaches to in-service training and development. TE !" #uarterly 1B=1'&(1-(9. Hrinder, Cohn, and @ichard 0andler. 19:B. The structure of magic "". ?alo *lto, Dalifornia& Science and 0ehavior 0oo-s, "nc. Carvis, Hilbert *. 19B8. * behavioral observation s!stem for classroom foreign language s-ill ac5uisition activities. 1odern "anguage (ournal )(=('&33)-341. Carvis, Hilbert *. 19:B. #eacher education& the!/re tearing up the street here " as born. "n 0ilingual, E !" and foreign language teacher preparation) models, practices, issues, Cohn %. %anselo and @ichard ,. ,ight =+ds.', 1B9-1:8. >ashington, <. D.& #+S7,. ,an-ton, Steve @. 198;. 2ractical magic) a translation of basic neuro- linguistic programming into clinical psychotherapy. Dupertino, Dalifornia& 9eta ?ublications. 9os-o itG, Hertrude. 19:1. "nteraction anal!sis1a ne modern language for supervisors. Foreign "anguage 3nnals )=('&(11-((1. @ardin, Cenn!belle. 19::. #he language teacher as facilitator. TE !" #uarterly 11=4'&383-38:. @o e, 9ar! 0udd. 19:3. Teaching science as continuous in4uiry. Ne Eor-& 9cHra -8ill 0ooDompan!. Stevic-, +arl >. 198;. 3 *ay and *ays. @o le!, 9assachusetts& Ne bur! 8ouse ?ublishers. #a!lor, 0arr! ?. 19:9. +$ploring communit! language learning. "n !n TE !" %&5, Darlos *. Eorio, M!le ?er-ins, and Cac5uel!n Schachter =+ds.', 8;-84. >ashington, <. D.& #+S7,. Iigarmi, ?atricia. 19:9. #eacher centers& a model for staff development. "n taff development) ne* demands, ne* realities, ne* perspectives, *nn ,ieberman and ,!nne 9iller =+ds.', 189-(;4. Ne Eor-& #eachers Dollege ?ress.