Clinical Supervision and Peer Coaching

Clinical Supervision and Peer Coaching

Peer coaching for principals and clinical supervision are the two strategies to be compared and contrasted in this paper.

Peer Coaching

Peer coaching is a professional development model in which a formal, collegial process takes place; in this model pairs of faculty members volunteer to team up together to "…improve or expand their approaches to teaching,": according to a peer-reviewed article in the journal Innovations in Higher Education (Huston, et al., 2007). One interesting aspect of peer coaching is that each partner in the pair may actually serve "…as coach to the other," Huston explains. And yet it can also be just one way, with one of the partners playing the role of coach and the other the learner, or recipient of the coaching experience (Huston, 6).

Peer coaching, also known as "peer mentoring," offers several potential benefits, Huston continues on page 6. Those benefits include: a) improved morale and motivation for the faculty (or in this case, for the principal and other administrators in addition to the faculty); b) "increased collaboration" with members of the school administration; and c) more "thoughtful attention" to one's leadership position in a school environment (Huston, 6). And while this article zeros in on faculty peer coaching, the principles set forth relate seamlessly to the administration side of the school, the principals in particular.

It is important to remember that peer coaching -- when it is reciprocal and grounded in "mutual respect and trust" -- can "virtually guarantee the positive approach essential for constructive change" in a school environment (Huston, 7).

There are three steps that generally take place in a peer coaching situation, Huston explains. Those steps include: a) consultation in order to identify the "focus of the coaching"; b) open-minded observation by the coach; and c) a session where the coach is debriefed and relates to his or her observations of what took place (8).

The strengths and weaknesses of peer coaching

The strengths of peer coaching are many; for one, it allows critical reflection on the many duties and responsibilities that a principal faces every day. Also, since society changes and students change, and because of these dynamics educators must never stop learning, it provides the chance for "rich learning" in that coaching and being coached stimulates the thought process (Huston, 12). The authors point out that iconic educator and psychologist John Dewey believed "…authentic learning could only come from the investigation of solving real problems and reflecting on the experience of doing so" (Huston, 12). Peer coaching is a way of investigating the here and now of real problems, and it opens the door for sorting them out through interaction with respected colleagues.

An article in Educational Leadership recounted a peer coaching experience in Pennsylvania in which the relative isolation of the school was contributing to the "…perpetuation of poor supervisory techniques" (Gibble, et al., 1987). The model carefully laid out ways to assess the skills of the teachers and of the principals at a high school, and to plan for how those skills would be evaluated.

The principals who engaged in the peer coaching process in Pennsylvania had two goals. One, two principals would observe a teacher together, and later compare and contrast their notes about the quality of that teacher's work. The interaction between two principals was intended to actually help them do their jobs more effectively. The second goal would have two principals meet with the teacher afterwards in a post-conference meeting. Working together for the principals served to be an "excellent tool for improving our supervisory conferences with our teachers" (Gibble, 73).

The only way there could be weaknesses in the peer coaching of principals is if the program was not well thought out; or if the two principals paired up to be coached did not fully and honestly interact with each other. Principals are busy professionals with a list of issues to face every day; but if they get too bogged down in the bureaucracy and have no time for learning and upgrading their leadership skills through properly led peer coaching, it would show a weakness in the approach to the concept.

Clinical Supervision and its Strengths and Weaknesses

Annie Pettifer and colleague Lynn Clouder explain in the peer-reviewed journal Learning in Health and Social Care that clinical supervision is commonly used in professional contexts as a way to "guide reflection with the purpose of advancing practice" (Pettifer, 2008, 169). Clinical supervision "…enables critical practice and development of personal knowledge, professional expertise and competence" (Pettifer, 169).

Pettifer mentions that there is no hard and fast rule as to how the clinical supervision model should be presented. There are many interpretations, the author explains, and there is "conceptual ambiguity" as well; but the ambiguity can be explained because there can be no single model that meets all the professional needs of principals. But that said, there is a basic definition of clinical supervision that is presented by the authors:

"…[clinical supervision] is a formal process of support and learning which enables individual practitioners to develop knowledge and competence, assume responsibility for their own practice…it is central to the process of learning and to the expansion of the scope of practice and should be seen as a means of encouraging self-assessment and analytic and reflective skills" (Pettifer, 169).

How does it actually work? The Reclaiming Journal explains that the "Circle of Courage" is a tool in a clinical supervision session that evaluates a series of lies that students sometimes come up with. Instead of degrading the child, the "circle" helps to view a different reason for the lies. Perhaps the student lacks a sense of "belonging" and hence lacks trust of adults; a student might feel inadequate and tells lies to "gain friends"; also a lying student may be covering for other peers; or he may be lying for "personal gain" (Pfeifer, 2011).

In a clinical supervisor session, the supervisor is encouraged to use "Socratic questions" because those kinds of questions help the staff "…think and be quick on their feet," which helps their level of confidence and competence, Pfeifer explains on page 33. The answers to the questions help the supervisor more fully engage with the staff, and this process is a way of moving from a situation where the supervisor is telling staff what to do and towards a situation that encourages staff to think for themselves and be eager to seek solutions (Pfeifer, 33).