Semiotic Analysis of a Foundational Textbook Used Widely Across Educational Supervision

Abstract

This article details a semiotic analysis of a foundational textbook used widely across the field of supervision. The purpose of this study was to explore how signs associated with key concepts in education may actualize through the work of supervision. The textbook served as a proxy for supervisors’ professional disposition and subsequent praxis within educational leadership and teacher education programs and U.S. PreK-12 school systems. Additionally, investigators served as proxies for equity-minded supervisors through an analytical framework, which centers race and cultural differences within the broader context of social justice. This investigation drew from the following theoretical constructions: (a) Sociocultural Theory, (b) Critical Pedagogy, and (c) Culturally Responsive School Leadership. Investigators used mixed research methods to analyze and quantify qualitative data. Findings from this investigation illustrated supervision’s capacity to facilitate praxis aimed at disrupting ideologies of whiteness within the process and context of school. This article concludes with a discussion of opportunities for the field of supervision to consider for broadening its impact by utilizing asset-based pedagogies and centering race and cultural differences within the broader context of social justice and society at large.

Culturally Responsive Instructional Supervision: Challenging Privilege in U.S. Education Systems

“…Through the development of critical consciousness of (Freire, 1970;Waite, 2021aWaite, , 2021b, culturally responsive instructional supervision supports the delivery of formative feedback that focuses on addressing sociocultural gaps and how educators can create liberatory instructional practices to confront inequitable outcomes (Mette et al, 2023). In addition, by leveraging the expertise of educators throughout a school building, principals can develop an intentionally representative supervision team reflective of various sociocultural identities to expedite the development of cultural proficiency (Cormier & Pandey, 2021), something that is not reflected in traditional instructional supervision models (Baker et al, in press;Guerra et al, 2022). Not only does this flatten the traditional hierarchy of most instructional supervision models (i.e., the principal is the overseer of knowledge) but it also frees supervision from plantation practices and traditions that have been baked into education systems (Squire et al, 2018).…”