Experimentalism as a Supervisory Platform in Education

Introduction

Educational supervision represents a vitally important component of education management today. Identifying the educational views that delineate a supervisory platform is an important enterprise because the study of educational ideas can facilitate an understanding of how the present educational system has developed, and this understanding can then serve as a legitimate basis for further progress or change. To this end, this essay delineates a personal supervisory platform, including the overarching educational super-philosophy. A summary of the research and its key findings is presented in the conclusion.

The Scope of Educational Supervision

Educational supervision has become an important part of education management with respect to a wide range of activities, including the provision of applicant feedback, the provision of resources to educational facilities, and the recognition of the processes and goals required for personal career development and transformation (Sahin, Cek & Zeytin, 2011). Educational supervisors must draw on a wide range of knowledge and skills to assist their staff members in improving their performance through the following:

1. Weekly supervision meetings;
2. Intervention strategies that affect the way people interact in conferences;
3. Application of insights about group process to the problems and concerns of staff;
4. Maintenance of records on staff progress;
5. Scheduling of individual and group meetings that help staff reflect upon their behavior and goals;
6. Planning for the allocation of materials and equipment; and
7. Communications with community agencies that help them understand and support the school's policies and programs (Garubo & Rothstein, 1998, p. 145).

Experimentalism as a Super-Philosophy

The educational application of experimentalism by educational supervisors to achieve these and other goals has been described in detail by educators such as Dewey. From this perspective, "Teachers (as students) need to learn what are the truths of their time, but they should not rest content with that parcel of knowledge. Supervisors view schools as laboratories for working with teachers to test old hypotheses and to try new ones" (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 2010, p. 97). The defining characteristics of experimentalism are as follows:

8. View of reality: Reality is what works; it is tentative and constantly changing;
9. How to learn about reality: Interact with the environment and experiment; and
10. Application to supervision: Supervisors work democratically with teachers in order to test old hypotheses and to try new ones (Glickman et al., 2010, p. 100).

Today, experimentalist traditions are not always aligned with the theoretical foundation developed by Dewey on the three fundamental factors — the learner, the society, and the subject matter — and there may be a need to conform to controlling legislation that precludes the application of the experimentalist approach (Glanz & Behar-Horenstein, 2000). Indeed, some critics of experimentalism argue that "Experimentalist research traditions are at first handicapped, confused, and even bewildered with the notion of engaging in participatory research of any kind. They expect to do research 'on the science teacher' or 'on science students,' not collaborate with teachers and students to improve instruction" (Malone & Atweh, 1998, p. 197).

Democratic Foundations and the Role of Opinion

Despite these constraints, the experimentalist focus on identifying what works best and doing more of that makes good sense. This school of thought also emphasizes, however, that the reality of what works best today may not work as well — or at all — in the future, because the human condition is a dynamic affair and new theories frequently replace older ones based on new information and knowledge. In this regard, Glickman et al. (2010) report that, "Reality was what worked. If a person could form a hypothesis, test it, and find it to work, then it was regarded as tentatively true. On repeated experimentation with the same results, it became real" (p. 97). This reality is only transient in nature and will eventually change in response to shifts in the operating environment. Experimentalists hold that there is always a better way to do things, even if an apparently optimal solution has been identified. As Glickman et al. (2010) add, "Experimentalists would never claim an absolute truth. The human environment was believed to be constantly changing, so that what one can do and prove today may not be probable tomorrow. A new situation and a different approach may alter yesterday's reality" (p. 97).

The inextricable interrelationship between working democratically with teachers and experimentalism is an important point because it establishes the framework in which experimentalism operates. In his seminal work Modern Philosophies of Education, Brubacher (1939) advises that, "Democracy, as a way of life, is more than a mode of associated living; it is, also, a method of thought. It stands for voluntary choice" (p. 158). The schoolhouse may not be a democratic institution for students, but the pragmatic dependence on what works in reality — and the use of new ideas to improve these processes — means that experimentalism is and must be a democratic process for educators.

Brubacher further notes that, "Because variety of opinion is directly encouraged and freely exchanged in a democratic group, there must be some effective logic for selecting the particular varieties of opinion which promise most in achieving the group's purposes. Both democracy and experimentalism lay great store by the individual" (p. 158). Here, educational supervisors play a critical role in leading their groups toward a desired goal through the free exchange of opinions in a democratic setting. As Ediger (1995) points out, properly implemented and administered experimentalism is capable of generating optimal solutions to complex problems. Ediger (1995) emphasizes that, "Problem solving is highly useful to individuals in all situations in life. New solutions are needed to solve identified problems" (p. 372).

Conclusion

The research showed that educational supervisors are faced with a complex set of challenges in their day-to-day work that demands a viable educational super-philosophy. The research also showed that experimentalism provides educational supervisors with the framework they need to evaluate alternatives and identify optimal solutions in different settings. Although the approach is democratic by definition, it remains the ultimate responsibility of the educational supervisor to determine which opinions should be afforded serious consideration. Finally, a consistent theme that emerged from the relevant literature was the temporary nature of the optimal solutions identified by the experimentalist process — wherein knowledge is not absolute — and the recognition that the dynamic nature of the human condition will always require ongoing reevaluation of existing approaches to determine whether changes are needed.