Supervision and Evaluation Action Cycle:

Observing a Peer Tutor

Fall 2014

Keith Williams
December 1, 2014
EDLP 335: SEAC
Phase I: Getting Acquainted Conference and Phase II: Planning Conferences
Observation and Other Data Collection and Analysis Strategies
 For the Supervision and Evaluation Action Cycle (SEAC), I chose one of my

Supplemental Instruction leaders. Supplemental Instruction (SI) is a formalized, group-

based, peer-led review system. A successful student, having earned a high grade and

demonstrated proficiency with the course content and the ability to interact with and

explain the course material, is hired as an SI leader. Leaders prepare lessons from the

material presented either in lecture or other course materials, with the objective of novel

perspectives and synthesis. SI leaders are undergraduate juniors and seniors with

various academic backgrounds; however they have no academic exposure to education

or teaching pedagogy.

The SI leader I chose specifically was a senior undergraduate, working for a

second year with CHEM 031, a high volume introductory course which surveys general

chemistry.

The initial meeting focused on a review of her semester so far, and my explaining

the objectives and process of the SEAC. It was at this point that the SI leader outlined

her largest concern: managing time and transitions. I used the time to highlight my goal

for SI leaders to increase the numbers of students speaking during sessions and the

amount of direct interaction in which they engage. I also used this initial meeting to

explain that a big personal objective for me was to develop clear standards which could

guide me during future evaluation cycles.

These came to be my largest two points of focus; her general use of time while

delivering a lesson, as well as the frequency and level of student participation. The

biggest challenge during these initial conversations were around the ignorance of the SI

leader related to teaching strategies and styles, as well as a lack of familiarity with any
structure evaluation process. She struggled with outlining and agreeing with particular

goals, or points of potential development. Because of these factors, while we did settle

on these goals, the data collection methods were essentially up to me. She knew she

wanted some information about time usage, but couldnt imagine how this would be

executed.

In preparation for the observation, I prepared the standard observation checklist

and form, as well as some customized forms to track activities and topics

chronologically, with timestamps, as well as student participation and vocalizations.

Phase III: Observation and Data Collection

I tracked the SI leaders efforts throughout the duration of the lesson. With

timestamps, I listed the topics she covered, with notes on how she presented them. I

included this in order to provide more information to the leader on her ability to cover

material at an adequate pace, as well as transition from one topic to the next

appropriately. This also includes a list of total attendance, and changes throughout the

early part of the session. This is listed as Appendix I.

I also recorded a physical map of the classroom, with the approximate location of

each student labeled. I added a tally of individual instances of speaking for each

student, as well. I added notations on individuals who left early, spoke at least once, and

never spoke during the duration of the lesson. This artifact helps to illustrate visually the

data recorded in Appendix II. This is listed as Appendix II.

Additionally, I tracked the chronological instances of students vocally contributing

to the session. Further, I did a status check of all students at five minute intervals; I

recorded how many of the group were actively writing, as well as other relevant notes.
This can be compared to the first list, to assess whether certain topics or activities are of

more interest to those in attendance. This is listed as Appendix III.

Phase IV: Feedback Conference

There are no standards for professional practice on which I currently evaluate SI

leaders. That is one of my personal goals which I would like to at least address during

this process. Ideally, in combination with ideas I already have on the subject, I would

like to be able to formulate a draft of standards for which I can use in the future.

The opening of the meeting was asking the SI leader what she thought of the

session. Having shared the data I collected with her before the feedback conference,

she was able to synthesize that information with her perspective of actually leading the

lesson. Her opinion was that the lesson was adequate, but had no specifics on which to

elaborate. This reinforced for me the need to provide clearer standards and

expectations, complete with points of reference and appropriate language so that SI

leaders can attempt to forge their own goals and evaluate themselves accordingly.

I, myself, had three main conclusions drawn from the data which I shared: three

students never spoke to the SI leader or the group throughout the entire session; the

amount that different students speak varies (from 0 to 33 separate times over the 60

minute session); students pay less and less attention (six out of seven at 7:10 and four

out of nine at 7:50) as the session goes on.

Together we discussed these ideas. We exchanged our thoughts on the fact that

the three people who didnt participate sat close together in proximity; was this a factor?

Was the SI leader unconsciously ignoring the right side of the group? Were the most

apathetic students sitting closest to the door? Neither of us had any strong feelings
about any possible explanation for this. Further, was the act of writing a fair way to

assess level of interaction or interest? We agreed in that it was, albeit an imperfect one.

We ended in agreeing that these points fit with the foci on which we had agreed -

time management and student interaction. The rough conclusion was that by increasing

the pace at which she reviews material, and incorporating more pair- and group-based

activities, she could have every attendee speak, balance their contributions somewhat,

and get as much, and perhaps even more, done during each session, all without

decreasing in any significant way her over all effectiveness or the accessibility of the

session.

Overall, the discussion was more one between colleagues than a supervisor and

supervisee. I imagine the tone would have been, and will be in future feedback

conferences, different had standards been in place. There might have been more

emphasis placed on whether the observed performance met standards, at the expense

of the nature of the collaboration which permeated this particular meeting.

Phase V: Summative Evaluation and Phase VI: Supervisors Reflective Self-

Analysis

Based on my work with this process, the standards which I would consider for

future evaluations would probably number five in total, where two relate directly to

sessions, and three would connect instead to administrate duties and larger order

concerns that may or may not have to do with the sessions. I would like to consider the
percentage of students in attendance who speak at least once (and as a sub-topic,

perhaps the percentage of session engaged in students talking versus the leader

talking); average percentage of students writing, based on multiple data points across a

session; percentage of paperwork submitted on a timely basis; absences in required

tasks, such as office hours, attending lecture, or leading sessions; the percentage of the

total enrollment who participate in the leaders SI sessions.

Based on these hypothetical standards, this observation, as a single instance,

could really only address the first two. Firstly, when only those who stayed for the

majority of the session are considered, 66.7% of students spoke at least once. For the

second point, when the first and last points of data are excluded as outliers - 100 and 0

percent, respectively - an average of 51% of students in attendance were writing at any

given time.

Both of these rates would have been adequate, yet would have left plenty of

room for growth, based on my initial ideas of what should be appropriate. Before

actually going through the process of evaluating and engaging in the feedback

conference, I would have imagined for both points 50% being the minimum standard,

with 75% representing a good level, and 95-100% serving as excellent, or some other

synonym.

Entirely subjectively, however, I would have rated this session as well above

average. It was not the best session I have observed with this particular leader, but it

still included the particular behaviors I would link with a successful SI session; student

questions were answered directly and clearly, the material was relevant, the session

style was accessible, and the students were largely engaged throughout. This part of
the process has forced me to face more directly my potential biases; am I simply

dismissing potential issues in sessions which fit my predetermined, and entirely

baseless, ideas of what a lesson should be? It may very well be possible, and it

emphasizes one more reason about why I should have clear standards; its as much for

me as it is for any of my employees.

The reality is that these standards must be accommodating for the fact that

Supplemental Instruction is a voluntary program, and that there is no expectation for a

student to attend or participate in any particular way. There are no repercussions

(immediately, at least) if a student wishes to attend, but spend the time passively

listening and eating a snack, just as one student did in the session I observed. As the

supervisor crafting standards for employees, I must have an accurate sense of what the

differences are between good and bad SI sessions. Firstly, are these two measures

going to aid in distinguishing good sessions from bad? If so, what are realistic

percentages for these, in particular? Because my program has an historic lack of

standards, theres little to no past data to help inform these decisions. I must take more

time to focus on these ideas, and gather more data and feedback from observing other

SI leaders.

Ultimately, I found the feedback conference and my ensuing reflection as

valuable as I thought they would be. It is useful to hear an employees take on my

thoughts about implementing a new practice. It was productive to hear about what

sounded feasible versus unreasonable, clear versus confusing, meaningful versus

superfluous.
Supervisory Platform

I believe the role of a supervisor in an educational setting is to focus on the growth,

development, and success of both employees and students, both directly and indirectly. This
includes:

expectations must be clear

What this means: As a supervisor, it is my responsibility to update, and where necessary
create, standards for employees and our programs. The supervisory cycle will be part of the
methods I will use to help craft these new documents.

resources and strategies for success must be present and accessible

What this means: Hypothetical standards, and the related observation process, are not
sufficient by themselves. In addition to crafting clear standards, I will need to also create
documents, processes, and additional resources that will aid professional development.
 evaluation and progress must be tracked, and reflected on, for individuals as well
as groups
What this means: The resources need to be created, and then must be implemented.
The observations must be genuine practice, and not merely theoretical good intentions. Aspects
of the supervisory cycle need to be explicitly connected to our employment duties and
expectations; for the evaluation process to be meaningful and productive, the employees must
have the means as well as the genuine opportunities to engage in efforts related to their
personal development.

the culture and atmosphere must be consistent with development as an objective

What this means: I must resist the temptation to passively implement these changes.
Nothing actually changes if these new practices are only perfunctory; there must be an
authentic expectation that these tasks will be done and will be taken seriously. The supervisory
and evaluation cycle, and all of its implications, must be made clear from before an individual is
hired to the last day of her employment.

Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (1998). (6th ed.) Supervision: A redefinition. Boston,

McGraw Hill.

Darling-Hammon, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.

McBride, M., & Skau, K. G. (1995). Trust, Empowerment, and Reflection: Essentials of
Supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(3), 262-77.

Kaiser, T. L. (2004). Supervisory relationships. Supervision as collaboration in the

human services: Building a learning culture, 21-34.
Appendix I: SI Leader Timeline

7:00: Screen displays periodic table; hybridization chart on board hybridization, bonds,
lone pairs, shape; conversation about material to be covered; introductions to Lewis dot
structure; final review session announcement

7:05: CS2 Drawing, placing electrons

7:10: CS2 continued, formal charge, shape, resonance, hybridization

7:15: Hybridization of CS2, continued; referal to table on board; resonance; 7:18: BrF 3O

7:20: BrF3O, continued; calculation of electrons, structure; some solicitation from group,
encouragement for contributions

7:25: BrF3O, continued; formal charge

7:30: BrF3O, continued; hybridization, shape; put text book on doc cam; body as a see-
saw

7:35: BrF3O, continued; resonance; 3D shapes

7:40: RnO32-; calculation, location of electrons

7:45: RnO32-, continued; octet rule; instructors structure vs. ours

7:50: RnO32-, continued; resonance, defined and illustrated

7:55: Closing

Attendance timeline

7:00: Students A through J present (10)

7:02: Students F, G, H depart (7)
7:03: Student I departs (6)
7:07: Student K enters (7)
7:17: Students L, M enter (9)

Appendix II: Engagement tally (includes all speaking to the group, as well as amongst
each other)

A: 7 H: 0 (left early)
B: 3 I: 0 (left early)
C: 33 J: 5
D: 0 (in red) K: 1
E: 0 (in red) L: 2 (in red)
F: 0 (left early) M: 3
G: 3 (left early)

Appendix III: Engagement and communication timeline

7:01: G speaks, x3
7:04: C speaks
7:05: C speaks
7:05: 6/6 students writing 100%
7:06: C speaks
7:07: C speaks
7:08: C speaks
7:09: C speaks, x2; K speaks
7:10: 6/7 students writing 86%
7:15: 4/7 students writing 57%
7:18: C speaks, C<->J
7:18: C speaks, x2; M speaks
7:20: 8/9 students writing 89%
7:21: C speaks; J speaks
7:23: A speaks
7:25: 6/9 students writing 67%
7:25: C speaks, x2
7:27: C speaks
7:29: C speaks, x3; A speaks
7:30: 5/9 students writing 56%
7:31: C speaks
7:32: J speaks
7:33: B speaks
7:34: C<->J
7:35: 4/9 writing, 1 on phone 44%
7:38: L<->M crosstalk; B speaks; C speaks
7:39: C speaks; L<->M crosstalk
7:40: 1/9 writing 11%
7:41: J speaks
7:44: C speaks, x2
7:45: 5/9 students writing, 1 on phone 56%
7:46: A speaks, x2; C speaks
7:47: A speaks, x2; C<->J
7:49: C speaks
7:50: 4/9 writing 44%
7:51: C<->J; C speaks
7:52: C speaks
7:54: C speaks
7:55: 0/9 students writing, 2 on phone 0%
7:56: C speaks, x2; A speaks
7:57: B speaks