UK Essay Writing Service - We accept all
subjects. Just send us your instructions. Only £10 per page. www.mywritingassistant.com
Hong Kong Essay Writing Service - We accept all subjects. Just send us your instructions. Only HK$117 per page. www.mywritingassistant.com
Singapore Essay Writing Service - We accept all subjects. Just send us your instruction. Only SG$19.32 per page. www.mywritingassistant.com.
Hong Kong Essay Writing Service - We accept all subjects. Just send us your instructions. Only HK$117 per page. www.mywritingassistant.com
Singapore Essay Writing Service - We accept all subjects. Just send us your instruction. Only SG$19.32 per page. www.mywritingassistant.com.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of study
In Malaysia, as in many other developing countries,
education has been considered to be one of the imperative fields of economic
growth and developments. Therefore, educational reforms have taken places that
are directed towards enhancing the quality of education. These reforms are
demanding greater performance and commitment from all parties involving
administration, management, instruction and supervision that are responsible
for the performance of students in schools. According to Rockoff (2004), supervision
is a vital element of professional growth and development. According to Segun
(2004), the importance of school supervision in today’s educational system
requires for a greater attention. Nowadays, people are becoming more conscious
than in the past about the significance of education and people are getting
more interested to get involved in school’s system to ensure the achievement of
the school’s instruction as well as to be part of the school’s activities
(Beesong & Ojong, 2009). ‘Supervision’ as defined by Mintzberg, (1979) which
is a co-ordination by someone taking responsibility for the work of others
including planning, scheduling,
allocating, instructing and monitoring actions.’
1.2 Statement of Problem
Despite of the importance of instructional
supervision, not all schools in Malaysia could implement it successfully,
especially for the schools that are located at the remote area such as in
Sarawak. Most of school teachers are aware of the
instructional planning – who is to be taught, what is to be taught and, how
much is to be taught in their planning of instruction. Generally, the teachers
had a positive view of the syllabus. However, most of teachers, especially for
the novice teachers who have been sent to rural schools in Sarawak believe that
it is impossible to deliver the content of the whole syllabus within the
specified time frame. In short what was written and planned in the record books
were not transferable to classroom teaching. Therefore, the quality of teaching
will be decrease from day to day. Here, instructional supervision plays a vital
role in ensuring the teachers always keep on improving and enhancing their
knowledge and skills in teaching. However, does it really work in schools? So,
who should to be blamed on this matter?
Is it due to the lack of time, resources, teachers’ motivation or the
school management?
1.3 Research objective
Given
this background, the aim of this study is as mentioned below:
1.
To examine the challenges of instructional
supervision among secondary school teachers at rural areas in Sarawak
2.
To identify the significance of instructional
supervision towards students’ performance
1.4
Research question
This particular study
seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. What
are the challenges in implementing instructional supervision at secondary rural
schools?
2. What
are the significance of instructional supervision towards students’ performance?
1.5
Limitation
This study is limited
in a way it will only be carried out to three secondary schools in district Sri
Aman, Sarawak which are SMK St Luke, SMK Sri Aman and SMK Simanggang.
Generalizing the findings to the larger populations of other principals,
teachers or schools may be limited due to the demographic of sample of this
study.
1.6
Delimitation
Delimitation
of this study; it is only applicable to three secondary schools in Sri Aman.
1.7
Conclusion
This
chapter described the background and problem statement of study, research
objectives and questions, sample and populations as well as limitations and
delimitations of study.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
Introduction
Malaysia’s government
believes that in order to survive in the competitive world economy, quality of
education is the most helpful and functional key. (Afolakemi O & David
O.,2006). Supervision could be seen as an interaction involving some kind of
established relationship between and among people, such that people influence
people (Patrick, 2009). Such interactions are greatly influenced by a
predetermined programme of instruction. In this regard, and according to Netzer
and Kerey (1971), the systematization of the interaction of those responsible
for working within the structure of administration is called supervision. Thus,
the supervisor is anticipated in the course of his duty as well as to initiate
several activities that will lead to a successful combination of these two
contexts in order to achieve harmony and satisfaction (Patrick, 2009).
2.2 Models and Methods of
Supervision
Monroe (1913) reported the function of supervision
previously is almost the same as today. As described many years before, the
term instructional supervision was invented, some educational leaders had a
vision for what later would become the study of instructional supervision.
Monroe (1913) also stated, “The main function of supervision is to improve
teaching practice” (p. 413). The following review examined various models of
supervision including the clinical, collaborative, developmental, and
differentiated models of instructional supervision. The intents of all models
of instructional supervision appear to be the improvement of teaching practices
(Soelen, 2003).
2.2.1
Clinical Supervision
The original clinical supervision model included a
six-step cycle made up of conferences, observations and pattern analysis merged
in three distinct phases: the pre- observation conference, the classroom
observation, and the post-observation conference (Zepeda, 2003). Moreover,
Soelen (2003) claimed that clinical supervision is perceived as a direct method
of supervision due to the standard cycle with a predetermined number of
conferences and observations, regardless of the career stage and experience of
the teacher. Direct supervision is implemented when the teacher has a low level
of abstraction. A low level of abstraction is where the teacher has “difficulty
identifying instructional problems and generating alternative solutions; they
normally seek concrete advice from an expert” (Glickman & Gordon, 1987,
p.64). However, Acheson and Gall (1987) also supported the use of clinical
supervision because it is, “interactive rather than directive, democratic
rather than authoritarian, teacher-centered rather than supervisor-centered”.
2.2.2
Collaborative supervision
Harris and Ovando (1992) defined that collaborative
supervision is a “process by which people with diverse expertise such as teachers,
principals, and supervisors work together with equal status and share
commitment in order to achieve mutually beneficial instructional goals”.
Instructional supervision of this kind can be achieved through a peer coaching
or a peer supervision model in which peers observe one another and provide
feedback in a nonthreatening manner (Manning, 1988). The distinguishing feature
between peer coaching and peer supervision is that coaching involves the
“development and practice of new teaching methods and skills in both ‘workshop’
settings and under actual teaching conditions” (Glatthorn, 1987, p. 32) and the
intent of peer supervision is to “engage a colleague in focused discussion
based upon observed teaching practice” (Goldsberry, 1998, p. 453).
2.2.3
Developmental supervision
Developmental supervision supports
the teacher in taking a personal journey by
encouraging
reflection on practice (Benin, 2006). Developmental supervision provides
individualized, client-centered guidance where the teacher and supervisor have
a partnership in inquiry (Blumberg, 1980) that leads to teacher self-direction
(Glickman et al., 1998). The goal of developmental supervision is to support
teachers in becoming self-directing. There are several stages to allow teachers
to become self-directed. The stages leading to self-direction are:
self-directed, directive control, nondirective, and the collaborative approach.
To support the developmental process Glickman et al. (2001) stated, “It provides
teachers with as much primary choice as they are ready to assume, then fosters
teachers’ decision-making capacity and expanded choice over time”
2.2.4
Differentiated supervision
As in Soelen (2003), Glatthorn
(1997) defined differentiated supervision as “an approach to supervision that
provides teachers with options about the types of supervisory and evaluative
services that they could receive.”. In depth, Glatthorn (1984, 1997) also
proposed two components of differentiated supervision: developmental options
and evaluative options. Differentiated supervision recognizes and builds on the
values of developmental supervision and extends the individualization of the
supervisory plan. Marczely (2001) believed that a goal of differentiated
supervision was to provide reasoned and meaningful supervision for every
teacher. The objective of the model is to assist instead of assessing the
teacher.
2.3 Effective instructional supervision
Poirier (2009) affirmed that one must comprehend the
definition, effectiveness of supervision process and kinds of instructional
supervision. Andrews, Basom, and Basom (2001) stated that the main purpose of
instructional leadership is to improve and accomplish instruction by utilizing
supervision as a way to improve teachers’ skills and abilities. Furthermore,
Blasé and Blasé (2004) also confirmed the importance of communication between
principals and teachers to develop reflection for the purpose of growth,
especially through supervision. According to Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon
(1998), supervision must be accepted to assist teachers in order to improve as
well as enhance their instructional skills and abilities.
2.4 Ineffective instructional
supervision
Supervision
at its best should be a collaborative approach rather than “inspection, oversight,
and judgment” (Blasé & Blasé, 2004, p. 8). To add to ineffective
supervision, Renihan (2005) provided the Profile of a Lousy Supervisor as below:
• Demonstrates inadequate basic
listening skills;
• Unclear expectations;
• Did not have a sense of how
teachers were doing;
• No initial conference to identify
your needs;
• Unprepared for supervising the
lesson;
• Supervisee did not value the
opinion;
• No basic understanding about what
you were teaching;
• Only vague feedback provided;
• Supervisor’s focus was on
developing the skill/technique, not you as a person;
• Exclusively negative feedback;
• Supervisee was left not knowing
what to improve on;
• Purpose was only to fill a
requirement to have a certain number of supervisions completed (p. 4).
In addition, ineffective or lousy supervision
(Zepeda & Ponticell, 1989) can be described as supervision that has taken
more of a summative function, which means supervision is “conducted merely for the purpose of developing records
which can be used to justified continuing or terminating the employment of the
teacher” (Rossow & Warner, 2000, p. 66). Study of Poirier (2009) summarize
the findings of Zepeda and Ponticell (1989) and Renihan (2005), the common
elements missing from the summative model of supervision are a lack of purpose
and reflection between teachers and principals, as well as inadequate knowledge
of the supervisory process.
2.5 Conclusion
This
chapter described the literature review of the study. It explains on the past
researches that have been done, related models and approaches in instructional
supervisions as well as the differences between effective and ineffective
instructional supervision.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
This chapter presents
the research design used by the researchers in this study. It is presented in
terms of population, sample and the sample selection, data gathering
instrument, administration of the instrument and the data analysis process.
3.2 Research Design
This
research will be of descriptive research since much of the data collected is
based on questionnaires. This study uses quantitative method, which has been
designed to get some reviews on principals and teachers on their perspective on
the challenges of instructional supervision at their schools.
The
researchers designated a questionnaire consisting of a set of questions, which
will be divided into five sections. In section A, the researchers will obtain
demographic data of the sample. The other sections in this questionnaire will
be about the three factors as challenges in supervision. Section B will be
regarding on teachers and principals perceptions towards objectives of
instructional supervision. In Section C will be discussing on teachers and principals’
perception towards sufficiency of school’s resources / facilities factor in
supervision. Meanwhile, Section D will be concerning on teachers and principals
perceptions towards efficiency of management factor in supervision. Finally,
Section E teachers and principals perceptions towards organizational structure
factor in supervision.
3.3 Samples and Population
The
target population of this study is the principals and teachers of SMK St Luke,
SMK Sri Aman and SMK Simanggang. There will be about 3 principals and 60
teachers as respondents for this study. The sample for this study will be
selected by using random sampling. Stratified sampling is a procedure used to
obtain a greater degree of representativeness while decreasing probable sampling
error.
3.4
Instrumentation
The instrument that
will be used to conduct this study is questionnaire which comprises of 30 questions
in five major sections. A pilot study of this questionnaire will be carried out
with the researcher’s supervisor in order to check the validity of the items. The
consistency of items will be validated with the Cronbach Alpha Reliability
Test.
3.4.1
Section A: Demographic Data
In section A, the questionnaire investigates on the
respondents demographic data. There are
five questions asked in this section which are age, gender, job position,
qualification level, teaching experience and teaching subject. By the end of
this section, the researchers insist respondents to state which school they are
teaching.
3.4.2
Section B: Perceptions on objectives of supervision
In this section, the respondents will be asked on
their perceptions on objectives of supervision. This section is to determine
whether school teachers and principals agree on the objectives of
implementation of instructional supervision in school.
3.4.3
Section C: Perceptions on sufficiency of school resources / facilities
In section C will investigate on teachers and
principals perceptions as well as awareness of sufficiency of their school
resource / facilities that could affect on their mark during supervision. This
could be involved with financial and material resources.
3.4.4
Section D: Perceptions on efficiency of school management
In section D will seek on efficiency of school
management react to the supervision as not all of schools understand the real
needs of instructional supervision and practice it in order to satisfy the
ministry’s command rather than to improve the teaching performance.
3.5 Data Collection Procedure
The
respondents will be required to answer the Likert-Scale questions based on
their preference. Basically, the questionnaire is a straight forward task where
respondents would only answer about 30 questions that only take approximately 10
- 15 minutes to complete it. Each questionnaire will be attached with
instructions that clearly explain the purposes of the study and the
questionnaires will be returned to the respective researchers as soon as it is
completed answered by the respondents. In addition, the respondents will be
informed about the objective of completing the questionnaires, the
confidentiality of their responses and that the data would only be utilized for
the academic purposes.
3.6 Data Analysis
From
the completed questionnaires, the data will be analyzed by using SPSS. Frequency
analysis will be carried out to describe the demographic factors of the
respondents.
3.7 Conclusion
This
chapter described the research design used in this study. It explains on the
population, sample and sample selection, data gathering instrument, data
collection method as well as the data analysis process. It is hoped that this
chapter has provided a clearer picture on the tabulated data.
REFERENCES
Acheson, K. A.,
& Gall, M. D. (1987). Techniques In The Clinical Supervision Of Teachers
(2nd Ed.). White Plains, Ny: Longman.
Bessong And Felix Ojong (2009)
Supervision As An Instrument Of Teaching
– Learning
Effectiveness: Challenge For The Nigerian
Practice F. E. Global
Journal Of Educational Research Vol 8, No.1&2, 2009: 15-20
Blasé, J., &
Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook Of Instructional Leadership: How Successful
Principals Promote Teaching And Learning (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca:
Corwin Press.
Glickman, C. D.,
Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). Supervision Of Instruction:
A Development Approach (4th Ed.) Needham, Ma: Allyn And Bacon.
Glatthorn, A.A.
(1984). Differential Supervision. Alexandria, Va: Association For Supervision
And Curriculum Development.
Glatthorn, A. A.
(1997). Differentiated Supervision (2nd Ed). Alexandria, Va: Association
For Supervision And Curriculum Development.
Goldsberry, L.
F. (1998). Teacher Involvement In Supervision. In F. Gerald & E. Pajak (Eds.),
Handbook Of Research On School Supervision (p. 428-462). Ny: Simon And
Schuster Macmillan
Harris, B.,
& Ovando, M. (1992). Collaborative Supervision And The Developmental
Evaluation Of Teaching. Journal Of School Administrators Association Of New
York State, 23, 12-18
Marczely, B.
(2001). Supervision In Education: A Differentiated Approach With Legal Perspectives.
Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen.
Monroe,
P. (1913). A Cyclopedia Of Education. New York: Macmillan.
Poirier O. D. (2009). A Principal’s and Teachers’
Perceptions and Understandings of Instructional Leadership: A Case Study of One
School. University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada
Rossow, L. F.,
& Warner, L. S. (2000). The Principalship: Dimension In Instructional
Leadership (2nd Ed.). Durham, Nc: Carolina Academic Press.
Segun, O., (2004).
Educational Supervision: Perspective And
Practice In Nigeria. Ile- Ife: University
Zepeda, S. J.,
& Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At Cross-Purposes: What Do Teachers Need, Want,
And Get From Supervision? Journal Of Curriculum And Supervision, 14(1),
68-87
