Empathy and professional support via relate-to-self in post-observation meetings

Lewis, Kristina; Wagner, Santoi

doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103025

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Case study methodology was employed in sixteen out of fifty-three studies with a total of 231 participants consisting of supervisors (n=64), pre-service teachers (PSTs) (n=151) and inservice teachers (ISTs) (n=16) (e.g., Akcan & Tatar, 2010; Barnawi, 2016;Chen & Cheng, 2013;Kuter, 2016;Lin et al, 2019;Mosley Wetzel et al, 2017;Nguyen & Parr, 2018;Ong'ondo & Borg, 2011;Smith & Lewis, 2015;Yamamura & Okazaki, 2019). Fifteen studies utilized a discourse analytic perspective consisting of a linguistic ethnographic analysis (e.g., Copland, 2011;2012;Donaghue, 2018;2020a;2020b;2020c), discourse analysis (e.g., Le & Vasquez, 2011;Mena et al, 2015;Mosley Wetzel et al, 2017), conversation analysis (e.g., Lewis & Wagner, 2023a;2023b;Wagner & Lewis, 2021), and a micro genetic analysis (e.g., Yoon & Kim, 2019). Studies using a discourse analytic perspective had thirty-one supervisors, thirty-seven in-service teachers and fifty-five pre-service teachers.…”

Section: The Methodologies Used In the Reviewed Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, researchers up to date have strived to engage in eliminating these persistent difficulties in supervision (Lewis & Wagner, 2023a, 2023bLin et al, 2019). One way that researchers have tackled this issue was through analyzing the discourse of the post-observation conferences through discourse analytic procedures to comprehend how teachers acquire information, transform professionally and conduct high quality supervision in the world (Bailey, 2009).…”

Section: Supervision In Language Teachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1. face-saving feedback (Agheshteh, 2019;Amini & Gholami, 2018;Copland, 2015) 2. scaffolding feedback (Engin, 2013a; 3. confirmatory feedback (Kurtoglu-Hooton, 2016) 4. questioning strategies (Engin, 2013b;Smith & Lewis, 2015) 5. appraisals, rules, and artifacts (Mena et al, 2016) 6. subject-specific feedback (Gan, 2014;Gan & Yang, 2018;Yamamura & Okazaki, 2019;Lindahl & Baecher, 2015) 7. affective feedback (Lewis & Wagner, 2023b), and 8. politeness strategies (Vásquez, 2004).…”

Section: The General Outcomes In the Reviewed Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The empathetic relate-to-self tellings showed shared experience between the mentors and mentees through normalizing problems and minimizing status differences between the two parties. Lewis & Wagner (2023b) Politeness strategies Negative politeness strategies were used to minimize the intrusion of supervisors' suggestions, while positive politeness strategies served to construct a feeling of collegiality or harmony. Vásquez (2004) Lack of PCK in feedback "A one size fits all approach" in which PCK was ignored in giving feedback.…”

Section: Subject-specific Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first point of our argument regards the nature of supervisee-supervisor talk. The synthesis results demonstrated that a number of studies on supervisory practices of ELT teachers had a focus on strategies used by mentor teachers during postobservation conferences (Copland, 2015;Engin, 2013a;2013b;Lewis & Wagner, 2023a, 2023bNguyen, 2022). For instance, Engin (2015) investigated the use of scaffolding in trainer talk in post-observation feedback sessions via linguistic analysis.…”

Section: Discourse Analysis Of the Supervisory Interaction: The Natur...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Supervision Models and Supervisory Feedback in English Language Teacher Education: A Meta-Synthesis Study Adopting a Discourse Analytic Perspective

Şeyma Koç,

Savaş

2024

TESL-EJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-synthesis reviewed and synthesized the findings of 53 studies on supervisory post-conferences and feedback with a total of 807 participants published between 2004-2023. The aim of this meta-synthesis was to illustrate the trends in the reviewed studies and synthesize the results of the studies on supervisory discourse and models of supervision in the field of English language teaching. The criteria for eligibility for selection were being empirical, peer-reviewed, and published in English. Articles were scanned through the Web of Science, ERIC, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar till July, 2023. The studies lacking a report of detailed and clear-cut data collection and analysis phases were removed in the appraisal phase to avoid a risk of bias. The results indicated that supervisors implemented directive supervisory styles as well as collaborative approaches exploiting power dynamics such as expert power. The findings also showed that the use of conversational techniques such as mediation, mitigators, and elicitation in supervisory talk play a central role in supervising English language teachers. The results suggested that supervised teachers demonstrated confronting, autonomous, and fluid identities when faced with a directive style of supervision. The limitations of evidence for this study related the search strategy, participants and variations in educational settings.

show abstract