Influence of Head Teachers’ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers’ Work Performance in Secondary Schools in Entebbe Municipality, Wakiso District, Uganda
INFLUENCE OF HEAD TEACHERS’ GENERAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORY PRACTICES ON TEACHERS’ WORK PERFORMANCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT, UGANDA
NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA
MASTER OF ARTS (EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT)
OCTOBER, 2011 i Influence of Head Teachers‘ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers‘ Work Performance in Secondary Schools in Entebbe Municipality, Wakiso District, Uganda
Nzabonimpa Buregeya
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Bugema University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Educational Management
(Master of Arts in Educational Management)
October, 2011 ii ACCEPTANCE SHEET This master‘s thesis entitled ―INFLUENCE OF HEAD TEACHERS’ GENERAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORY PRACTICES ON TEACHERS’ WORK PERFORMANCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT, UGANDA” prepared and submitted by NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT, is hereby approved.
KAKULE I. KISUNZU, Ph.D Member, Advisory Committee _________________________ Date Signed
JAJI KEHINDE A. MR. MA. STAT. Member, Advisory Committee _________________________ Date Signed
PATRICK MANU, Ph.D Chairperson,Advisory Committee __________________________ Date Signed MAURICE B. TAMALE, Ph.D Chairperson External Examining Committee ________________________ Date Signed GEBRE WORANCHA, Ph.D Member Internal Examining Committee ______________________ Date Signed
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT, Bugema University, Uganda
KAKULE I. KISUNZU, Ph.D Chairperson, Department of Education ____________________________ Date Signed
PAUL KATAMBA, Ph.D Dean, Graduate School
_______________________
Date Signed
iii
DECLARATION I, Nzabonimpa Buregeya, hereby acknowledge that this thesis entitled ―INFLUENCE OF HEAD TEACHERS‘ GENERAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORY PRACTICES ON TEACHERS‘ WORK PERFORMANCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT, UGANDA‖ is my personal original work that to the best of my knowledge has not been submitted, in part or in a whole, for any Degree in any University.
Signed…………… Nzabonimpa Buregeya Date……………..
iv
DEDICATION This book is dedicated to my loving mother NYIRANTIBAZIRIKANA MIRIAM and my late father MUNYAGITARI BUREGEYA ANANIAS for the unconditional loving care they always gave me right from my childhood, and for their emotional, physical and spiritual support I needed to grow up to maturity and sustain myself in life by means of the education they painfully financed.
v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author of the study, NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA JARED, was born in 1979 in Mushumba II, North-Kivu Province, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), formerly known as Zaire. He completed his primary education from Ecole Primaire de Katwiguru in 1994 in DRC and secondary education in 2002 from Institut Kisharo in DRC. In 2005 as DRC suffered recurrent wars, the author fled the country and settled in Uganda where he got his BA with Education, major English and Literature with French elective, from Nkumba University in 2009.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wholeheartedly thank our grand creator Jehovah God for his blessing of having me educated up to University level and the mighty hand he always extended to me during all my school and University days. I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to WINDLE TRUST UGANDA, a nonprofit organization that sponsors refugee education in Uganda, for the nonstop financial assistance it offered me to cover my education and medical financial demands right from undergraduate to post-graduate level. Under WINDLE TRUST UGANDA, I thank Madam Hellen Kulabako Kitimbo, Program Manager, for the timely emotional and spiritual support which she rendered to me during my difficult period of sickness while writing this thesis. Lastly, I am indebted to my research advisors, Dr. Patrick Manu, Dr. Kakule Kisunzu, and Mr. Jaji Kehinde (the statistician) for their individual guidance, which I eagerly needed and got at the right time; without which this work would not come to its completion.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………..xi LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...xii LIST OF PPENDICES………………………………………………………………….xiii ACCRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………….xiv ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...xv CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………..1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1 Background to the Study…………………………………………………………..1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….4 Research Questions………………………………………………………………..4 Research Objectives……………………………………………………………….5 Statement of Hypothesis…………………………………………………………..6 Scope of the Study………………………………………………………………...6 Limitations………………………………………………………………………...7 Significant of the Study…………………………………………………………...7 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………8 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………..10 Operational Definitions of Terms………………………………………………..13 CHAPTER TWO………………………………………………………………………...14 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE………………………………………………14 Introduction……………………………………………………………………....14 Overview of Supervision………………………………………………………...14 Instructional Supervision and Teacher Evaluation………………………………21 viii PAGE Informal Visit and General Supervision…………………………………………26 Instructional Supervision and Teacher Performance…………………………….27 Teacher Supervision-Related Challenges………………………………………..36 Summary of Identified Gap……………………………………………………..37 CHAPTER THREE……………………………………………………………………...39 METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………39 Research Design………………………………………………………………….39 Locale of the Study………………………………………………………………40 Population of the Study…………………………………………………………..40 Sample Size………………………………………………………………………41 Sampling Procedure……………………………………………………………...42 Research Instruments…………………………………………………………….42 Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments………………………………..43 Data Collection Procedure……………………………………………………….43 Data Analysis Method……………………………………………………………44 CHAPTER FOUR……………………………………………………………………….45 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………...45 Introduction………………………………………………………………………45 Supervision of secondary School Teachers……………………………………...45 Teachers‘ Viewpoints of Supervision and Quality of Supervision………………50 Methods and Techniques of teacher Supervision………………………………..54 Relationship between Supervisory Practices and teachers‘ Performance………..57 Challenges Head Teachers face in Supervising Teachers………………………..61
ix
PAGE CHAPTER FIVE………………………………………………………………………...64 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………64 Summary of the Study…………………………………………………………...64 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….66 Recommendations………………………………………………………………..67 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..70
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
Table 1: Sample of Research Participants……………………………………………….41 Table 2: Likert Scale, Coding, and Interpretation………………………………………42 Table 3: Instrument Reliability Statistics………………………………………………..43 Table 4: Secondary School Teachers are Supervised by their Head Teachers…………..46 Table 5: General Supervisory Practices………………………………………………….48 Table 6: Secondary School Teachers‘ Perspective of Supervision……………………...51 Table 7: Quality of General and Instructional Supervision in Secondary Schools………53 Table 8: Secondary School Teachers‘ Supervisory Experiences………………………..54 Table 9: Methods and Techniques Head Teachers use in Supervising Teachers……….56 Table 10: Supervision and Secondary School Teachers‘ Work Performance…………...59 Table 11: Relationship between Head Teachers‘ Supervisory Practices and Teachers‘ Work Performance…………………………………………………....60
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………..11 Figure 2: Map of Wakiso District Showing Entebbe Municipality……………………...40
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
PAGE
Appendix 1: Supervision Interview Question Guide for Research Participants…………73 Appendix 2: Supervision Questionnaire for Research Participants……………………...76
xiii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS EFA – Education For All ESA – Education Standard Agency DEOs – District education Officers IOSs –Inspector of Schools MOE – Ministry of Education SPSS – Statistical Package for Social Sciences UPE – Universal Primary Education USE – Universal Secondary education VOA –Voice of America
xiv
ABSTRACT NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA, School of Graduate Studies, Bugema University, Kampala, Uganda, October 2011. The study entitled ―INFLUENCE OF HEAD TEACHERS‘ GENERAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORY PRACTICES ON TEACHERS‘ WORK PERFORMANCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT, UGANDA.‖ Supervisor: ProfessorPATRICK MANU, PhD The study examined the Influence of Secondary School Head Teachers‘ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers‘ Work Performance. Qualitative and qualitative methods with a descriptive-correlational research approach were used in the study. Purposive sampling technique alongside random sampling technique was used to select the research participants from secondary schools. Self-constructed questionnaire and structured interviews were used as relevant tools to gather data from respondents. Descriptive statistics, frequency, percentage, and mean were used in analyzing data and reporting the study findings. And Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to establish the extent of relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. The study findings indicate that head teachers, to a great extent in private secondary schools; do not carry out instructional supervision albeit they do some informal classroom visits. They slightly do general and informal supervision at the expense of instructional or formal supervision. To this end, findings indicate that 64.3% of head teachers routinely check their teachers‘ pedagogic documents and as a practice of
xv
teacher supervision, while 57.1% of head teachers informally visit their teachers during classroom instruction. The findings of this study indicate that limited general and instructional supervision is commonplace in secondary schools. It is likewise revealed through the study findings that head teachers are unaware of their job description, are not given support to practice instructional supervision, and experience both role conflict and ambiguity in the course of completing the work of headship and teaching simultaneously. Also the study findings revealed that to some teacher participants, supervision is ―nonexistent‖ in secondary schools due the fact that some of them have been teaching for more than a decade, but they have never been supervised by the head teacher in the classroom. The research findings likewise indicate a high correlation between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. The relationship existed at the 0.001 level (2-tailed) with Pearson Correlation Coefficient of 0.636. And the coefficient of determination was 0.4044 or 40% indicating a moderate relationship between supervision and teacher performance. Challenges related to teacher supervision were reported by study participants, mainly, head teachers. Private secondary school head teachers reported more challenges than their counterparts in government schools.
xvi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background to the Study Global educational policies and programs alike have brought forth significant challenges to many education systems around the globe though ―educational policy in the twenty-first century is the key to global security, sustainability and survival‖ (Olssen et al. 2006). Education For All (EFA), Universal Primary Education (UPE), and Universal Secondary Education (USE) are some of the notable global educational policies implemented ages ago. The effect of globalization on education, on the other hand today, has called for survival measures of education the world over, and all organizations continuously strive for sustainable development and survival with no let up. Responding to this scenario, Armstrong (2003) suggests that this survival can basically be ensured through adequate work supervision as one of strategic survival approaches. As a manager in any organization, contends Hunsaker & Hunsaker (2009), one must ensure that objectives are met and also that employees learn how to enhance their performance through regular appraisals and supervision (p.50). In Uganda, supervision of schools started in 1924, during the missionary era when supervisory duties and responsibilities were entrusted to religious leaders. This was because most schools belonged to missionaries and their Arab counterparts. Decades later, an education department was established with the main objective of inspecting schools countrywide. At present, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Uganda still maintains its supervisory roles through Education Standard Agency (ESA) whereby,
1
supervisors are required to exhibit their competence, tactfulness, sincerity and integrity in their work (Nambassa, 2003). However, astute observations, articles and repeated educational research studies indicate that there is an ongoing decline of supervision in schools throughout the globe today (Bentley, 2005). Numerous recent studies still have indicated that today‘s education systems in countless nation-states around the globe are facing a number of education-related challenges that are making it difficult for them to achieve educational goals and objectives than ever before. Globalization is one of noticeable challenges today. In his master‘s thesis, Habimana, (2008) points out that political leaders and researchers continuously stress that in our time education is declining the world over as it faces diverse challenges. Education is even being criticized in some developing countries vis-à-vis its products. With reference to this, in VOA Special English Education Report, 2011, US president Barack Obama was quoted saying, ―If Americans want to win the future, and then they also have to win the race to educate their children‖. Referring to president Obama‘s assertive statement, the word ‗race‘ simply implies ongoing serious competition whereby countries are competing for top education success throughout the globe. To achieve this goal remains a question. As regards Universal Primary Education (UPE) and Universal Secondary Education (USE) programs failure to achieve their objectives in Uganda, Esudu (2010), a Development Studies student at Makerere University, reported in the New Vision that both programs UPE/USE are facing a number of challenges, especially ―lack of close supervision‖. He further points out that the Ministry of Education and Sport is not closely supervising its subordinates in charged of regions, who in turn are not closely supervising
2
and monitoring the District Education Officers (DEOs). And also the DEOs are not keeping a close eye on the inspectors of schools, and a result, the school inspectors do not visit schools to monitor the head teachers, who in turn also are not closely supervising teachers. As an unreliable alternative, continues Esudu (2010), supervision and monitoring is being done on phone and internet or e-mails by filling appraisal forms, yet there is no practical evidence that someone is performing in the field. Regardless of all various studies done on supervision, there is still no reported improvement in regard to effective teaching and learning in many secondary schools in Uganda today. The World Bank education specialist Mr. Paul Murphy (2002, pointed further in the New Vision that the quality of education under UPE program is unsatisfactory; there is inadequate teaching due high teacher-pupil ratio, and there is an overcrowding in classes that negatively affect the standard of education in Uganda (The New Vision, 2002). At a local scale still, from her research study, Nambassa (2003) points out that there have been indicators of falling standards in quality of teaching and learning in Wakiso district in Uganda due to a number of factors that have impacted pretty much on the quality teaching and students‘ performance. Beyond doubt, lack of supervision has apparently made some teachers no longer regard teaching as a desired career and ever take it for granted. To make the matter worse, teachers who fall under this category do not mind about improving their teaching, school performance and report in school whenever they like and do school duties unenthusiastically (Education Policy Review Report, 2005).
3
Statement of the Problem Supervision of school and classroom instruction is seemingly falling on deaf ears among heads of schools and taken for granted though ironically emphasized by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Uganda. Recent educational reports from rural schools and articles in newspapers in Uganda have indicated that many pupils/students are roaming around the village, teachers misbehaving as they come to class drunk or oftentimes being absent from school with no genuine reasons, having poor job performance, and sometimes head teachers are not in office during working hours. Admittedly, lack of close supervision is blamed to be the root cause intensifying all these factors just mentioned. The background of this study pointed out that there have been indicators of falling standards in quality teaching and learning in Wakiso district due to many factors including declining teacher supervision. Despite all previous studies on instructional supervision and their recommendations to boost quality teaching, the problem of limited/lack of supervision in schools continues to threaten effective teaching to wane as education stakeholders on administrative and managerial position, entrusted with direct supervisory responsibilities are turning a deaf ear and blind eye to this alarming problem. There was, therefore, a need for this study to be undertaken. Research Questions After collection and analysis of data, and interpretation of the findings, the latter were used to answer the following research questions: 1. Do secondary school head teachers regularly supervise their teachers inside and outside the classroom?
4
2. What are secondary school teachers‘ perspectives of general and instructional supervision? 3. What methods and techniques do head teachers use in carrying out their supervisory duties to improve classroom instruction and teacher‘s professional growth and development? 4. To what extent is the relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools? 5. What are the challenges that are faced by secondary school head teachers when they supervise their teachers? Research Objectives The general objective of the study was to examine if there is any significant relationship between head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools. Besides, the study was guided by the following specific objectives: 1. To find out if secondary school teachers are regularly supervised by their head teachers; 2. To examine teachers‘ viewpoints of supervision and quality of supervision in secondary schools; 3. To identify methods and techniques employed by head teachers in carrying out their general and instructional supervisory duties in secondary schools; 4. To determine the extent of the relationship between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers work performance;
5
5. To discover challenges that secondary school head teachers face in supervising their teachers. Statement of Hypothesis The researcher intended to use the study findings from this study to verify the following hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between general and instructional supervisory practices of head teachers and work performance of teachers in selected secondary schools. Scope of the Study As regard content scope of the study, the researcher strove to scrutinize only the relation between the two variables of concern, which are head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. Pertaining to head teachers‘ supervisory practices, the researcher was delimited to supervisory skills, available supervision facilities, informal visits, classroom visits, appraisal forms, and supervision reports. Whereas teachers‘ performance was indicated by teacher‘s regularity in school, time management, classroom instruction and management, pedagogic documents, conduct and teaching behavior. Research participants included secondary school head teachers, deputy head teachers, teachers, and student leaders. Participants were selected randomly comprising of both male and female based on a reasonable period of being in teaching service.
Regarding geographical margin, the study was carried out in Entebbe municipality, Wakiso district, Uganda. As regards time scope, the study was carried out
6
within the allotted period of time, which was from late June 2011 till late September 2011, the time of presenting and reporting research findings. Limitations During the process of collecting data, the researcher faced the limitation of meeting with the study participants, mainly teachers and deputy head teachers. When the researcher was distributing the questionnaires to teachers, the researcher realized that a big number of teachers were teaching in different secondary schools in the same location of the study. So, it was impossible to distribute the questionnaires to the same teachers to whom the questionnaires were administered earlier in other schools. To overcome this limitation, however, the researcher decided to increase the number of secondary schools to participate in the study; that is, from eight to ten secondary schools. Significance of the Study One of the researcher‘s grand expectations in regard to the import of the study was that the study would alert the key education stakeholders, first those holding administrative and managerial positions such as Minister of Education (MOE), District Education Officers (DEOs), Inspectors of Schools (IOS), educational institutional leaders to revive their zeal for teacher supervision in secondary schools. These stakeholders would be helped to realize that there may be other factors other than incentives, perquisites and teaching skills that may influence teachers‘ work performance, and one of such factors is supervisory practices, so to speak. Secondly, the MOE would be spurred to enforce supervision-based-training, seminars, workshops, and refresher courses countrywide for secondary school head teachers and deputy head teachers. By so doing, even those who missed out supervision
7
course at the university or college are likely to get supervision skills to become effective school leaders and supervisors in their respective secondary schools. Thirdly, the study would be so beneficial to the extent of breaking the underlying silence vis-à-vis supervision of school and classroom instruction by secondary school heads. Head teachers would be motivated to improve their supervisory skills and practices as they objectively read this research report, findings and recommendations wherefrom. Besides, it would likewise benefit secondary school teachers by keeping them abreast of the need for general and instructional supervision to improve their classroom instruction and management as well as help them meet their professional growth and development needs. Fourthly, since some educational administrators and managers might have been oblivious of the value of supervision as being a vital analytical tool to assess effectiveness of new implemented programs, the study would likewise show that supervision is worthy of application to monitor and evaluate educational programs, such as UPE/USE. As said earlier according to Esudu (2010), lack of close supervision is one of the factors to be blamed for the failure of UPE/USE programs in Uganda. Finally, the study would provide the researcher with in-depth insight into teacher supervision and its dimensions. It would likewise outright pave the way for other interested educational researchers to investigate further the problem on ground in other parts of the country or the globe if deemed worth doing so. Theoretical Framework The study was based on and guided by Symbolic Interactionism theory coined by Blumer (1969), as a relevant theory fitting to explain how and why teachers‘ work
8
performance can be influenced by head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices. Essentially, Blumer believed that symbolic interactionism was a method of constructing meaning from social interactions. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes interactions among people, the use of symbols in communication and interaction, and the reality of self as constructed by others through communication and interaction with one another. Needless to say, supervision by nature is a process (Pierce and Rowell, 2005) and by so being, it involves social interaction of the supervisor (head teacher) and the (supervisee) teacher throughout the process, which is from pre-conference observation, observation and post-conference observation. It is worth noting that Blumer‘s (1969) structure of symbolic interactionism rests upon three core premises: 1. People act toward things, including human beings, on the basis of the meanings they have for them. 2. These meanings are derived through social interaction with others. 3. These meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process, and finally the meanings prompt the person to action by making a change. Participants in the study were expected to share their past supervisory experiences by means of which they attached value and meaning to supervision. As the head teachers and teachers express their experiences during supervision process or research study, they were, in essence, ―engaging in the process of communication‖, creating meanings, and being prompted to act (Blumer, 1969:5). Emphasizing the role of interaction, Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2009), assert that communication, in other words interaction, is the process of sending a message to another person with the intent of
9
evoking an outcome or a change in behavior (p.18). To communicate is to influence the actions of people and to change their attitudes (Barasa, 2007). Since perspectives are the central concept of Symbolic Interactionism theory, secondary school teachers‘ perspectives of supervision were taken into account in the study. Conceptual Framework The research aimed at examining the relation between head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools. In fact, whatever a head teacher does during supervision process has a significant impact on teacher‘s teaching practices. Head teacher‘s supervision skills are manifest during observation and when giving the supervised teacher the observation feedback, a session during which both the head teacher and the teacher share their experiences. Influence of general supervision supplement the influence of instructional supervision on teachers‘ work performance. Figure 1 depicts all the essential prototypes of general and instructional supervision and teachers‘ work performance in school and how these variables relate.
10
Independent Variable
General Supervision: Extra-curricular activities Science practices School garden work Debates Sports Study trips
Dependent Variable
Teachers’ work performance: Teacher‘s regularity in school & class Time management Prepared pedagogic documents Classroom instruction and management Conduct and teaching behavior.
Intervening Variables
Instructional Supervision: Supervisory skills and approaches. Informal visits Classroom visits. Appraisal forms. Supervision reports
Nature of school. Personal qualities. Teaching techniques. Incentives. Perquisites.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
Possible facets of teacher‘s performance are also evident during and after supervision as he/she applies teaching skills and present all the required pedagogical documents in the class. The regular presence of the head teacher counts a lot to the teacher during extra-curricular activities like during sports, debates, science practices, or study trips. Likewise, informal and regular classroom visits by head teachers keep teacher awake and make them care about teaching and learning. In this both general and instructional supervision practices were taken as one general variable.
11
Operational Definition of Terms Operational and contextual definitions of the selected terms of concern used in the study are as follows: General supervision –in this study this refers to an occasional formative practices carried out outside the classroom leading to the improvement of teaching and learning practices, especially during extra-curricular activities such as sports, debates, and study trips. Instructional Supervision – in this study this refers to as an ongoing periodical formative practice carried out solely inside the classroom with intent to improvement teacher‘s instructional practices and student performance during normal classroom teaching. Supervisory skills – this refers to communication, conceptual, technical, and human relations skills required for effective supervision of school and classroom instruction. Informal visits –time when a head teacher or a deputy head teacher visits a teacher either in class or outside the classroom during instruction with no prior notice. Appraisal forms –these are official forms that are used periodically by secondary school head teachers in monitoring and evaluating teachers‘ work performance in classroom instruction and management. Supervisor –Any person such as head teacher, deputy head teacher, experienced teacher, inspector of schools or any other qualified person
12
entrusted with direct supervisory responsibilities to oversee subordinates and help them improve school and classroom instruction. Teacher’s work performance – this refers to teacher effective execution of school and classroom duties to contribute to accomplishment of school goals as well as his/her personal goals and meet his/her personal needs. Teacher’s regularity in school and class – the state of teacher not being absent from school or missing classes when he/she is supposed to be at school. Time management –this refers to one being conscious of and able to keep time and carry out school and classroom duties at the right time. Pedagogic documents –in this study, these are documents that a teacher uses during instruction inside or outside the classroom. Examples of such pedagogic documents are scheme of text books, record of work, lesson plan, register, and exam marking guide. Classroom instruction and management –a process of planning, organizing, executing classroom teaching, and controlling environment and students‘ behavior for the purpose of maximizing student cooperation and minimizing disruptive behavior. Conduct and teaching behavior – in the study, this refers to a positive change in how a teacher behaves and performs in class and school after being prodded though appraisals and regular supervision.
13
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains review of the study-related literature with its sub-headings, namely; overview of supervision, intents and purposes of supervision, instructional supervision and teacher evaluation, changing perspectives of supervision, informal visits and general supervision, instructional supervision and teacher performance, teacher supervision-related challenges, summary of identified gap. Dimensions of Supervision Initially, supervision, as a field of educational practice with clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, did not fall from the sky fully formed. Grauwe (2007) traces its origins back to the birth of public education, when young nations used education to forge a common language and culture. Supervision emerged slowly as a distinct practice, always in relation to the institutional, academic, cultural, and professional dynamics that have historically generated the complex agenda of schooling. In whatever context, supervision is meant for improvement of work performance. According to Blumberg (1998), Zepeda & Ponticell, (1998), supervision should be used to reinforce effective teaching methods and encourage teacher‘s growth and professional development. Merriam-Webster (n. d.) defines supervision as ―the action, process, or occupation of supervising; especially: a critical watching and directing (as of activities or course of action)‖ (―supervision‖). A closer examination of the word ―direct‖ revealed the following definition: ―to regulate the activities or course of; to carry out the organizing, energizing, and supervising of; to dominate and determine the course of; to
14
train and lead performances of‖ (Merriam-Webster, 2009, ―direct‖). Words such as organizing, energizing, supervising, determine the course of, and train and lead performances, all are fit to describe supervision in an educational setting. Today, different people view supervision in different lens. In a broad sense, Pierce and Rowell (2005) define supervision as a developmental process designed to support and enhance an individual‘s acquisition of the motivation, autonomy, selfawareness, and skills necessary to effectively accomplish the job at hand (p.1). Basically in education sector, the main purposes of supervision are to improve classroom instruction and to promote professional growth and development of teachers. Supervision can be thought of as ―the glue of successful school‖ and "behind every successful school is an effective supervision program". Generally, according to Fleming & Steen (2004:18), one of the crucial elements of supervision is the idea that the role of supervision is to protect the best interests of the client. Referring to educational context still, the main objective of supervisory practice in school is to improve instruction, which is teaching and learning. According to Pearson (2009), when supervising in the educational realm, supervisors should seek to help those being supervised realize their possibilities and usefulness. The supervisor must watch the teacher's work, ask the teacher questions about why the teacher used certain teaching methods and provide information on the best teaching practices, enabling educators to improve. In fact, according to Aseltine (2006), the process of supervision for learning offers both teachers and their supervisors the opportunity to work together to improve student learning. Okumbe (2007:176) points out that ―the most recent concept in instructional supervision is called clinical supervision. Clinical supervision is the
15
rationale and practice designed to improve teacher‘s classroom performance.‖ The very recent supervision model called Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation (PBSE) was suggested by Aseltine et al., (2006), and it has been tested effective in schools. Available information in books shows that supervision is a concept of ages ago, from industrial revolution in scientific management era and during the period of ―administrative inspector‖ (1642-1875). The term supervisor has its root in Latin, where it means ―looks over.‖ It was originally applied to the master of a group of artisans (Newstrom & Bittel, 2002). Today in business sector according to Newstrom & Bittel (2002), the supervisor‘s job combines some of the talents of the ‗foreman‖ (or leader) and of the ―master‖ (skilled administrative artisan) (pp.4-5). Simply put, while aimed at improving teacher‘s work performance, professional growth and development as well as student‘s academic performance, supervision is twofold, that is; general supervision and instructional supervision which subsumes supervisory activities that take place principally outside and inside the classroom (Okumbe, 2007). By function, supervision is an ―act of instructional leadership‖ (Andrews & Basom, 1991, p.97). According to Okumbe, general supervision denotes such activities as writing and revision of curricular, preparation of schemes of work and lesson plans, marking some of students‘ pending work, preparation of units and materials of instruction, the development of processes and instruments for reporting to parents and such broad concerns as the evaluation of the total educational program. Whereas, instructional supervision contends (Okumbe, 2007, p. 176) on the other hand, is concerned with teacher‘s teaching and student learning in the classroom.
16
Much like all skills, supervision can be taught. Unlike many simple or basic skills, nonetheless, supervision is best understood as a ―process‖ –requiring both knowledge and experience (Pierce and Rowell, 2005). Having this in mind, in order for an individual to develop knowledge and skills to become an effective supervisor of others, they must first go through the process of supervision themselves, particularly in terms of being supervised and mentored in the role of supervision. Pierce and Rowell‘s view is clearly supported by Okumbe (2007), who later contends that a supervisor in education must be a professionally qualified teacher, with pedagogical skills at his/her finger tips (p.186). In educational context, supervision implies an ―instructional leadership role‖ in which the supervisor diagnoses teacher performance needs and then guides, directs, assists, suggests, supports, and consults with the teacher. Supervision is the function in school that draws together discrete elements of instructional effectiveness in wholeschool action. Some professions have mandatory requirements concerning all aspects of supervision. The British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy (BACP, 2002), for example, requires all its members ‗to have regular and ongoing formal supervision/consultative support‘. In midwifery, there has been a statutory requirement, since 1902, for practicing midwives to receive regular supervision. Zepeda (2003), states that supervision‘s purpose is to promote growth, development, interaction, fault-free problem solving, and a commitment to build capacity in teachers. Relating the import of supervision to job success, Pierce and Rowell (2005), view supervision as a developmental process designed to support and enhance an individual‘s acquisition of the motivation, autonomy, self-awareness, and skills necessary to effectively accomplish the job at hand.
17
Recent supervision practices reflect Zepeda‘s ideas and are more collaborative in nature. Developmental supervision models have emerged that are tailored to the developmental needs of teacher, (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2007). Ultimately, changes in teaching practices in individual classrooms are the responsibility of each teacher. Principals need to reach each teacher as teachers are expected to reach each student if systemic change is to occur and meet the new mission of education, achievement for all students. Regarding role of supervision according to Figueroa (2004), supervision of instruction involves ―motivating the teacher to explore new instructional strategies.‖ The teacher must be made aware of the educational goals and standards to be implemented. The observer must be objective during the observation process and maintain confidentiality. It is also important for the observer/supervisor to provide due feedback and appropriate resources for the teacher to utilize (Hunsaker and Hunsanker, 2009; Armstrong, 2003). Effective supervision should result in growth and learning by the teacher and the student. Supervision is a formative process that focuses upon professional development and the improvement of instruction. It is characterized by a collegial, helping relationship between administrators or teachers and the teachers in a climate of trust and mutual understanding (Figueroa, 2004). Supervision encourages professional growth and development of staff and high quality classroom performance that promotes improved student learning. In a quality supervision program, the following conditions are present: 1. It is assumed that supervision is a participatory process with an ongoing dialogue between administrators/head teachers and teachers to find improved methods for
18
the delivery of instruction. Administrators strive to share the principles and practices of quality teaching while promoting input and decision making on the part of the teachers. 2. Supervision encourages a wide variety of instructional techniques and diversity in teaching methods which take into account the unique talents and capabilities of each teacher. 3. Administrators/head teachers support the improvement of instruction by observing teaching as well as by giving suggestions, coaching, or demonstrating a teaching skill or an alternative teaching method. They also provide resources such as videotapes of a particular skill, staff development activities to individuals or small groups of teachers, and appropriate instructional materials that enhance the delivery of instruction inside and outside the classroom. In 1969, concerned by the lack of professionalism associated with the common practices of teacher evaluation, a group of Harvard researchers headed by Robert Goldhammer, formulated a more systematic approach to teacher evaluation. Called ―clinical supervision,‖ this model advocated involving the teacher in setting goals and determining assessment methods (Wiles & Bondi, 2002). Clinical supervision has made a considerable contribution to our growing body of professional knowledge by articulating and addressing a teacher‘s prerequisite instructional skills (Aseltine, 2006). While Goldhammer‘s process emphasized the teacher‘s role in selecting areas of focus and evaluation criteria, Hunter‘s presented external criteria, purportedly based on empirical research in educational psychology, and emphasized the supervisor‘s role as objective observer (Nolan & Hoover, 2004).
19
Clinical supervision refers to specific pattern or cycle of working with teachers. A cycle of clinical supervision comprises of conferences, observation of teachers at work, and a pattern analysis. Clinical supervision is defined as that phase of instructional supervision that draws its data from first hand observation of teaching events and involves face-to-face interaction between the supervisor and the teacher in the analysis of teaching behaviors and activities for instructional improvement. Clinical supervision, as quoted in Kruskamp (2003) from, is a powerful model for professional development, and the purpose of clinical supervision is to help teachers modify existing patterns of teaching in ways that make sense to them. The supervisor‘s job is, therefore, to help the teacher select goals to be improved and teaching issues to be illuminated, and to understand better his or her practice. The emphasis on understanding provides the avenue by which more technical assistance can be given to the teacher; thus, clinical supervision involves, as well, systematic analysis of classroom events. What is arguably most striking in supervisory services, according to Grauwe (2007), was the lack of fundamental change in their mission and organization. Even more surprisingly, the end of colonialism did not lead to the newly independent African states to rethink school supervision. Some of those approaches are collegial supervision, selfdirected supervision, informal supervision, and inquiry-based supervision to mention a few. Nevertheless, clinical supervision approach is still unconsciously being applied in schools today. Effective supervision, however, requires knowledge of curriculum, training, interpersonal skills, conceptual and technical skills.
20
Although the methods and practices of instructional supervision have varied since the inception of formal supervisory models, its intents and purposes have primarily remained the same—―to help teachers improve instructional performance‖, as reflected in Okumbe (2007) work on instructional supervision. The broad goals of supervision were: To provide teachers with objective feedback on the current state of their instruction. To diagnose and solve instructional problems. To help teachers develop skill in using instructional strategies. To evaluate teachers for promotion, tenure, or other decisions. To help teachers develop a positive attitude about continuous professional development. (pp. 12-13) Proponents of clinical supervision maintain that it aims at improving teacher development training and takes the view that teaching is a form of human behavior that has structure and can be both influenced and controlled. They further assert that teachersupervisor relationship is viewed as one of mutuality within a framework of respect for individual autonomy and self-regulated enquiry analysis, examination and evaluation. Instructional Supervision and Teacher Evaluation Supervision, or instructional supervision, has often been coupled with the evaluation of teachers. Though supervision and evaluation are certainly associated processes, they do not share the same intents (Glanz, 2000) writing about the differences between supervision and evaluation stated:
One of the most persistent problems in supervision is the dilemma between (1) evaluating a teacher in order to make decisions about retention, promotion, and tenure, and (2)
21
working with the teacher as a friendly critic or colleague to help develop skills the teacher wants to use and to expand the repertoire of strategies that can be employed. (p. 209)
Instructional supervision is an ongoing formative process with the improvement of a teacher‘s instructional practices as its intent. Evaluation, on the other hand, is summative and results in a rating or judgment of the teacher‘s professional performance. The intents of instructional supervision are bundled under the construct of teacher development, and Zepeda (2003), reported the work of many in her synthesis of the intents of instructional supervision. In short, the intents of instructional supervision according to her are to promote: Face-to-face interaction and relationship building between the teacher and the supervisor; Ongoing learning; Improvement of students‘ learning through improvement of the teacher‘s instruction; Data-based decision making; Capacity building of individuals and the organization; Trust in the process, each other, and the environment; Change that results in a better developmental life for teachers and students and their learning. Talking about the nature of and discrepancy between supervision and evaluation, Zepeda (2003) contend that instructional supervision is an ongoing formative process with the improvement of a teacher‘s instructional practices as its intent, whereas, evaluation is summative and results in a rating or judgment of the teacher‘s professional
22
performance. These some authors believed that supervision could be ―the heart of a good evaluation system‖. However, according to Sullivan and Glanz (2000), most teachers fail to reap the benefits of instructional supervision since it is often replaced with evaluation. Many authors have described instructional supervision in varied ways, including a discussion of the myriad forms instructional supervision can take in any given school. Still, Kruskamp (2003) quoted Acheson and Gall who contend that the term clinical supervision is not used to ―connote pathology‖ but rather to indicate a ―face-to-face relationship between teacher and supervisor and a focus on the teacher‘s actual behavior in the classroom‖ (p. 9). Acheson and Gall described clinical supervision in this manner:
In brief, clinical supervision is a model of supervision that contains three phases: planning conference, classroom observation, and feedback conference. The most distinctive features of clinical supervision are its emphases on direct teacher supervisor interaction and on the teacher‘s professional development. (p. 11).
Proponents of supervision portrayed supervision as developmental, requiring the supervisor to identify the developmental stage of the teacher and then to use appropriate techniques to assist the teacher‘s professional growth. They stress that, ―Effective supervision must be based on matching orientations of supervision with the needs and characteristics of teachers‖. This statement is in agreement with what teachers are referred to as change agents. Basically, education is meant for bringing change in the learner the same as supervision is also meant for bringing change in the teacher‘s behavior. Developmental supervision was conceived by Glickman as comprising alternative approaches for helping teachers improve instruction. Differentiated supervision, according to educational scholars, would allow teachers to choose from a menu of both supervisory and evaluative options. Some of them expected ―regardless of
23
experience or competence, all teachers will be involved in three related processes for improving instruction: teacher evaluation, staff development, and informal
observations‖. Furthermore, some supervision proponents‘ view of differentiated supervision concluded that all teachers were to be involved in ―two or more‖ of the following developmental processes: Intensive development (mandatory use of the clinical supervision model); Cooperative development (developmental, socially mediated activities such as peer coaching or action research); or, Self-directed development (developmental activities teachers direct on their own). Differentiated supervision, to be successful, needs an environment conducive to nurturing collegial relationships that are based on ―cooperation and mutual assistance. Supervision has undergone many changes (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000; Zepeda, 2003). Clinical supervision alone has continuously faced a number of critiques. As the journey of clinical supervision traveled through a period of transition brought on by contemporary societal concerns, educational accountability, and political demands, scholars (e.g., Glickman, 1998) attempted to clarify the shift in supervisory methodology and to make sense of the problems associated with instructional supervision. When Glickman grappled with the shifting intents and purposes of supervisory practices, he said, ―I found myself caught between my ‗old‘ viewpoints and the realities of how public schools are actually moving ahead to improve teaching and learning‖. Nolan and Frances (1992) argued that supervision needed to become a group process of interdependent cooperation rather than the one-on-one clinical method, and they noted:
24
Given the research on cooperative learning and teacher collegiality, we hypothesize that if supervision were carried out as a group process in which the supervisors and teachers were interdependent in achieving group and individual goals, the process of supervision would become more effective in helping teachers learn about and improve their teaching. (p. 5)
As a parallel to the notion that the shift from a traditional, teacher-centered base of learning to a more collaborative foundational learning concept, scholars pointed to the need for self-supervision through reflection and the creation of knowledge. Grauwe (2007), contends that an increasing number of countries have, from the early 1990s onwards, attempted to reform supervision, not as the result of a radical political change, but because of recognition of its ineffectiveness. These reforms are inspired by the conviction that ―an effective supervision is a key tool to monitor and improve education quality,‖ (Nambassa, 2003). Consecutive supervision models have been suggested many times so as to improve supervisory practices. A recent supervision model was suggested by Aseltine, Faryniarz & Rigazio-DiGilio, and all professional educationists working with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) and teaching in Central Connecticut State University in USA. Aseltine et al. (2006), called this new model of supervision Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation (PBSE). They genuinely believe that the techniques associated with this model can help ―reprofessionalize‖ the work of teachers and provide efficient strategies to increase the analytic and instructional capacity of schools and school districts. The model was developed and first implemented in their home state of Connecticut, where it proved an effective means of strengthening teaching and student learning, and enhancing professional culture.
25
Informal Visits and General Supervision Many times informal visits, general supervision and informal supervision are used interchangeably. Partially, general supervision embodies those supervisory practices carried out by heads of schools outside the classroom (Okumbe, 2007). General supervision denotes a number of supervisory activities a head teacher may do outside the classroom purposely checking on teacher‘s performance outside the classroom. One prototype of such supervisory activities is informal visits (Beaver, 2002). And teacher‘s outside-the-classroom performance may include preparing lesson plans, schemes of work, teaching aids and materials if provided, supervising students while working in school garden, or during co-curricular activities to mention but few. A slight difference between general supervision and informal supervision is that informal supervision is comprised of the casual encounters that occur between supervisor and teacher, and it is characterized by frequent informal visits to teacher‘s classrooms, conversations with teachers about their work, and informal activities. Unfortunately, there is a handful of literature vis-à-vis research study on either correlation between outside-the-classroom supervision and teachers‘ performance or students‘ performance. Most researchers and scholars focus mainly on what teachers do in the classroom. Even some primary and secondary school heads do not consider it as essential to check on their teachers‘ performance outside the classroom; say like during co-curricular activities and trip study. The researcher did not come across any study that dealt with general supervision and teachers‘ work performance.
26
Instructional Supervision and Teacher Performance Oftentimes, instructional supervision and clinical supervision are used interchangeably both to denote all those supervisory practices done by heads of schools inside the classroom solely to check on and improve teacher‘s instructional performance (Holland & Garman, 2001). Instructional supervision as an ongoing and dynamic process remains an indispensable function, serving the highest ideals of schooling in our democracy though some theorists muse that supervision may no longer be necessary. In some instances, supervision should never be taken for evaluation of teacher performance. Several researches have indicated that supervision only for evaluation does nothing to improve teacher performance and can even have a negative effect on teachers‘ morale. Basically, based on its functions and purposes, instructional supervision is in fact perceived as formal supervision since it is carried out periodically by heads of schools (Beaver, 2002). There is a lot of research on supervision now than ever before. With reference to the existence of supervision in schools, from the findings provided by his research study, Beaver (2002), discovered that supervision was in school considered ―nonexistent‖ and distorted‖ by the study participants. Besides, for those who were not oblivious of supervision, findings also indicated that to assist middle school fine arts teachers improve their performance, instructional supervisors must understand the ―world of fine arts classroom,‖ narrow the gap between the ideal and what is practiced , to be trained to observe fine arts classrooms with a ―larger lens‖ in light of accountability. In support of this finding, Okumbe (2007) mentioned earlier, asserts that an instructional supervisor has got to be ―an-already-professionally qualified teacher, with the pedagogic
27
skills at his or her finger tips, and hi/her instructional supervisory leadership skills must be consciously developed through training‖ (p.186). In the similar development, Bentley (2005), got almost the same findings; in his research study, all participants reported little or no supervision of teachers in the gifted program. Describing supervision in the gifted program, Tina a participant in Bentley‘s study responded, ―I don‘t think we are supervised,‖ and ―I have taught gifted since 1974 and I have been totally unsupervised.‖ She reported getting no direction from her school administrators. Nell, another participant, also has been teaching in the gifted program since 1990, and she reported that in the early years there was ―pretty much no supervision.‖ Mary‘s statement paralleled with those of Tina and Nell recalling, ―I really don‘t get much supervision.‖ At a local scale, Esudu (2010) confirmed that there is a lack of supervision in Uganda‘s UPE/USE schools (The New Vision, January 23, 2010). Despite the fact that performance of teachers was not evaluated in Bentley‘s study, the findings revealed that the less experienced teachers desired more supervision while the experienced teachers preferred the independence they enjoyed by not being supervised (Bentley, 2005:175). Still from Bentley‘s research study findings, all participants reported that their administrators had little knowledge of the gifted program and the characteristics as well as the needs of concerned students. Relatively, this scenario parallels with what Okumbe (2007) said about instructional supervisors, who must be professional teachers and have knowledge of the subject or the program in which they are supervising. In line with the study findings above regarding nonexistence of supervision in education today, locally in Uganda, Esudu (2010) reported in the New Vision that
28
concerning UPE/USE programs the Ministry of Education and Sport is not closely supervising subordinates in charge of regions, who are also not supervising and monitoring DEOs. The DEOs are not keeping a close eye on inspectors of schools who, in turn, do not visit schools to monitor head teachers. At the end, head teachers do not mind to supervise teachers in their respective classes. Bentley‘s study, however, found no evidence that principals/head teachers were active in classroom instruction. To the contrary, the participants reported no input from the principals relating to classroom instruction (Bentley, 2005:164). The findings of Bentley‘s study also indicate that the participants viewed problem solving as the major form of positive supervision. All teachers in the study reported few classroom visits, and equate supervision with evaluation (p.173). Obviously, these teachers‘ view of supervision as evaluation might have been possibly due to the manner in which principals/head teachers were doing their supervisory practices. But again, supervision should not be taken for evaluation in some instances. Gerumi (2002) research findings, on the other hand, revealed that school heads were perceived by their teachers to perform very well in the five aspects of the supervisory practices. The teachers had an overall very satisfactory performance rating and performed beyond the target, unfortunately, majority of them did not have professional and technical skills other than their instructional skills. To this end, it is good to recollect again that supervision promotes teachers‘ professional growth, development as well as benefits them with technical skills. Otherwise if no supervised, the teachers will stagnate in a mechanical way of teaching with no positive change. Gerumi‘s study findings also indicate statistically that there was a very low correlation between
29
instructional supervision and teacher performance, and a negative negligible correlation between teacher performance and student achievement. The researcher, however, intends to verify if this hypothesis is constant even in the study to be undertaken yet. Teachers‘ attitude toward supervision is also of great concern. After their research study, Kramer et al. (2005) found through findings that there is a significant difference between the attitudes of teachers in low performance schools and the teachers in high performance schools. Teachers in high performance schools on the average had more positive attitudes toward supervision of instruction than teachers in low performance schools. This, in effect, implies that some teachers favor instructional supervision while others do not like at all. According to Kramer and his colleagues (2005), teachers in high performance secondary schools view supervision of instruction in a more positive light than those in low performance schools. In analyzing individual items from the questionnaire there are several areas where teachers in low performance schools feel supervision is lacking. They went further reporting from their research study findings that
Responding teachers in low performance schools do not feel they are motivated or encouraged during the observation or supervision process. Overall, they do not receive frequent feedback regarding their teaching performance. Their supervisors fail to help them understand new instructional strategies and standards or identify resources for use in the classroom. This is in contrast to the attitudes of the responding teachers in high performance schools (Kramer et al. 2005).
From Kramer et al., (2005) study findings, it can be surmised that supervision of instruction can have either negative or positive effect on the teacher depending on how the head teacher carries it out. This is another factor to consider, in fact. Supervision can encourage or discourage vis-à-vis teacher‘s attitude. Bias/prejudice is the may result into
30
negative attitude. Consequently, one of the keys to effective supervision is keep teachers abreast of supervision benefits through effective communication between the supervisor and the supervisee (Zepeda (2003). Still, more on teachers‘ perspectives of supervision will be looked at for constancy in the study to be yet carried out. Based on the above findings, it is partially revealed that general and instructional supervision has a significant correlation with teacher‘s work performance in schools. This is the very reason why the researcher of the present research study believes that the conspicuous decline of supervision of instruction poses a threat on teacher‘s performance. This, of course, becomes a challenge among others for a country to meet its educational goals and objectives that are considered as the compass of education system of any country (Petty, 2004). Thus, the researcher intends to investigate further the problem on ground. In a related development, Habimana (2008), study findings indicate that head teachers and deputy head teachers deemed supervisory practices extremely indispensable in secondary schools. Besides, results indicated that the way head teachers and teachers stimulate students affects students‘ academic performance, and also from students‘ responses, the way head teachers delegate their supervisory duties affects the students‘ academic performance. Whereas, according to teachers‘ responses the way supervision is carried out does not affect students‘ academic (Habimana, 2008). Teachers and students reported that the time spent by head teachers on supervision of instruction does not affect the academic performance of students whereas head teachers reported the opposite. Still, Habimana‘s study purpose is paralleled with Aseltine et al.‘s (2006), assertion that ―Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation begins with those
31
students‘ needs‖. To prepare for drafting a professional development plan to share with the supervisor, the teacher first considers the ―essential‖ aspects of the curriculum: what is most important for students to know and be able to do at this particular point in their educational development (Aseltine et al., 2006). As a result, the tangible effects that improved instruction has on student learning inspire change in both teacher action and teacher perception. In brief, it can be surmised that findings from Habimana‘s (2008), research study show conflict of participants‘ understanding and varied attitudes toward supervision. That is, head teachers, teachers and students do not have the same point of views in regard to supervision. Kramer, et al (2005), mentioned earlier found through his study that even teachers themselves have different attitude vis-à-vis supervision. Some attitudes are positive while others are negative toward supervision of school and classroom instruction. With reference to teachers‘ attitudes, supervision is at its best when it seems to occur in informal visits and is at its worst when it seems to occur in formal evaluations (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Somewhat, Habimana‘s study findings indicated that supervisory practices have a significant effect on secondary school students‘ academic performance. Most important, it is reasonable to note that this perceived effect of supervision of instruction on students‘ performance is indirect in that much of students‘ performance relies on a number of factors such as the role of teacher as both instructor and facilitator (Petty, 2004). More so, while correlating supervision with quality teaching, Nambassa (2003), study findings indicate that lack of supervisors and inadequate inspection brings about poor quality teaching and learning in primary schools. However, Glickman (1990)
32
contends that supervision is ―a glue of successful school‖. The study revealed that a number of primary school teachers are not supervised at all. Sadly, it was revealed that supervisors/head teachers do not possess prerequisite supervisory techniques and skills and are inadequately facilitated to do their supervisory duties. Even teachers who reported to have been at least supervised, post-conference between supervisor and supervisee, which formally takes place right after supervision, was a rare thing to hear about, and yet this phase is crucial in supervision. Outcomes of UPE/USE programs are not receiving due attention, yet much like research findings by Esudu (2010), as well as findings from Nambassa‘s study indicate that the on-going increasing number of pupils in primary schools due to UPE policy has resulted in high teacher-pupil ratio, which has in one way or another significantly affected practice of supervision and quality of teaching in primary schools in Wakiso district and Uganda at large. Admittedly, the same problem is apparent in secondary schools. Still relating challenges faced by UPE/USE policies to lack of supervision from the top educational managerial level to lower level, Esudu (2010), from his research study on how the direct implementers of universal education have embraced the program in Uganda, found that none of the officials or politicians in Uganda have children in a UPE/USE schools, and this is obviously owing to schools‘ negative image with reference to ineffective teaching and pupil‘s poor performance resulting from lack of close supervision of school and classroom instruction, leave alone other factors. In some instances, supervision of school and classroom instruction is understood in different ways by different people. To some people, supervision is regarded as employees‘ performance evaluation (Aseltine, 2006), performance monitoring (Nampa,
33
2007) or performance appraisal (Hunsaker & Hunsaker 2009). Having this in mind, findings from Nampa‘s (2007), research study indicated that there is a significant effect exerted by monitoring practices of teachers‘ performance in secondary schools. This finding is supported by other long ago findings from Lyman and Lawler‘s (1982) study, which also indicate that followers can have all the willingness and skills to do the job but will always need guidance through supervision. Basing on her study finding, Nampa contends that for an organization to achieve better performance, a supervisor must continuously check on day-to-day progress of work so as to put right what may be going wrong (Nampa, 2007, p. 47). Granted, supervision can be regarded as a measurement tool that is used to evaluate work progress and make improvement. In actual sense, any formal supervisory program must have an evaluation report. According to Okumbe (2007), a supervisory program is incomplete if it does not have an evaluation report. In this case, a supervisor acts as an ―educational auditor‖ whose function is to verify the teaching and learning outcomes in order to provide a corrective mechanism prompting to instructional improvement. Still Nampa‘s study reveals that effective supervisors expect nothing less than high productivity and good performance from teachers. It was also revealed that supervisors act as problem solvers and decision makers as they find out why something is going wrong and then decide what to do about it. In line with this finding, Sergiovanni and Starratt (1993), mentioned in previously, assert that supervisor‘s view is larger than individual teacher‘s view as regard the improvement of school and classroom instruction. This is simply so because supervisor moves back and forth between different schools, classrooms, and institutional level of administration and policy, and therefore, he or she
34
has a better sense of the whole school than individual teacher. Thus, head teachers entrusted with direct supervisory responsibilities are expected to have larger view of supervision than their teachers do. Simply put, a supervisor, in case of head teachers, must be an experienced, professional teacher (Okumbe, 2007). To emphasize the point, Newstrom and Bittel (2002), further assert that supervisors need to engage in personal time management, solve problems, provide training to employees, and handle a wide range of communication. Besides, findings from Nampa‘s study likewise indicate that there is a significant relationship between performance-related feedback and teachers‘ performance. Proponents of instructional supervision consider post-conference in which feedback is given in supervision as an ―instructional dialogue‖ type. The idea of providing feedback after supervision is pretty significant as it solely involves both parties sharing what was observed and experienced during supervision. According to Hunsaker and Johanna (2009), improving employees‘ performance depends on balanced and considerate feedback. To this end, Nampa contends that there is need to take the concept of providing feedback as important as teachers themselves. This finding parallel with the statement by Armstrong and Barm (1998) that information is usually fed back to the employees in form of ratings against various performance dimensions. As regards the advantages of feedback, Armstrong (2003), further points out that feedback helps individuals get a broad perspective of how they are perceived by others than previously possible, increase awareness of and relevance of competencies, encourage more feedback, re-enforce desired competencies, give people a more rounded view of performance and finally, it clarifies to employees‘ critical performance aspects or areas that need improvement.
35
Providing regular feedback to employees, contends Hunsaker (2009), will improve their performance. Most importantly, Nampa‘s study helps to understand the value of the concept of feedback provision as one of the dominant characteristics of performance management (p.50). In addition, it is worthy of noting that feedback on supervised teacher‘s performance takes place in the last phase of supervision, which is post-conference phase (Okumbe, 2007). Post-conference phase is crucial and allows both supervisor and teacher interact as the supervisor provides feedback regarding hi/her observation during supervision and entertains teacher‘s reaction to given feedback. As an instructional source, supervisors provide, not only a diagnosis of teaching, but also feedback that enables teacher‘s professional growth and development. Above all, this phase has a significant bearing on the success of supervision and requires qualities like intimacy, honesty, tactfulness, considerateness alongside mutual understanding from both parties. Regarding significance of feedback, Hunsanker and Hunsaker (2009), asserts that providing structured feedback through formal performance appraisal process can increase productivity and morale and decrease absenteeism and staff turnover in organization (p.50). Feedback is also regarded as a performance motivator as it involves provision of information on progress toward accomplishing a goal, or data indicating where a shortfall occurs (Newstrom & Bittel, 2002). Teacher Supervision-Related Challenges Lastly, much like any other activities or practices, supervision is susceptible to face challenges. Prior literature related to this present research study indicates that there are challenges that supervisors face during supervision process. Findings from Nampa
36
(2007), study indicate that there are a number of challenges faced by supervisors during their supervisory duties, and most of these challenges may hinder the success of supervision as well as affect the entire school and classroom instructional performance. Better still in his study, Kruskamp (2003), found that constraints to instructional supervision do exist. Ms. Williams, the Science Department chair at Lincoln North High School, indicated that the major obstacle to instructional supervision that she has experienced is the ―lack of time,‖ or put another way, ―the number of other tasks that fall‖ under her responsibility. Other constraints to instructional supervision are the lack of local school emphasis on department chairs acting as instructional supervisors, the resistance to supervision by veteran teachers, and the challenges presented by ―increased stress on teachers‖ due to the accountability of high-stakes testing. Summary of Identified Gap Taken all together, the available information got by reviewing the above related literature generally describes the overall intents and purposes of supervision of school and classroom instruction. From the noticeable perspective of positive and strength-based approaches to supervision in education sector, supervision has less to do with teaching and evaluation of teachers and more to do with establishing an environment which encourages individual teacher professional growth and development (Pierce and Rowell, 2005). Although much has been written on supervision in education, particularly teacher supervision, it is well noticed that none of these studies gave thought to teachers‘ work performance outside the classroom or head teachers‘ supervisory practices outside the classroom, and yet according to Glickman (1990), supervision is a ―glue of successful
37
school‖. Supervision should cover all school practices inside and outside the classroom. To this end, the predominant gap that the researcher perceived from these prior studies was the ignorance of influence of supervisory practices on teachers‘ work performance outside the classroom. Likewise, none of the related literature reviewed talked about methods and techniques head teachers use during supervision process, and yet obviously this may have a significant bearing on success of supervision of school and classroom instruction. For this reason, the researcher en passant examined further some of the factors such like teachers‘ viewpoint of supervision and their expectations as well as challenges faced by head teachers during supervision.
38
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Research Design The study was both quantitative and qualitative by nature since the researcher intended to describe current conditions/trends, investigate relationship, and study causeeffect phenomena in respect of head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. It was much more a qualitative research type such that the investigator intended to gain in-depth understanding of teachers‘ knowledge of, attitude toward and perspective of general and instructional supervision in secondary schools, and how supervision is practiced in schools. Eisner (1998) explained, ―The point of using qualitative means to render and interpret the educational world is that it enables researchers to say what cannot be said through numbers-or at least cannot be said as well‖ (p.187). Above all, qualitative research enriches quantitative research as it involves a form of interaction between the researcher and participants (Gay, et al., 2009). The investigator applied descriptive-correlational research approach since the latter involves collection of data to determine whether , and to what degree, a relation exists between these two variables; namely, secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. Basically, correlational research is sometimes treated as a type of descriptive research, primarily because it describes an existing condition.
39
Locale of the Study The research study, which is Influence of Head Teachers‘ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers‘ Work Performance, was conducted in Entebbe Municipality, Wakiso district, Uganda. Entebbe Municipality is located in south Wakiso district bordering Lake Victoria, at 32km away from Kampala, capital city of Uganda.
Figure 2: Map of Wakiso district showing Entebbe Municipality Population of the Study Wakiso district has 385 secondary schools (School Guide Uganda, 2010). The target population of the study, however, comprised of 10 head teachers, 10 deputy head teachers, 238 teachers, and 30 student leaders all from the selected 10 secondary schools
40
comprising of government-aided and private schools in Entebbe Municipality, Wakiso district. Sample Size All the study participants were from the selected secondary schools in Entebbe municipality, Wakiso. In sampling the participants, the researcher followed Krejcie and Morgan (1970) method, which implies the smaller the population the bigger the sample. Detail of the sample size is shown in Table 2.1 provided below: Table 1: Sample of Research Participants
No Schools Head/D.Head Teachers Populat Sample 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1 1/1 1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1 1/1 1 16 Teachers Population 26 16 56 23 32 17 31 24 20 20 Sample 20 14 28 17 22 15 25 19 16 16 192 Student Leaders Population 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sample 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Jovens High School Kaasons S.S. Sch AirForce S.School Entebbe Central S.S Entebbe Parents S.S Entebbe Kings S.S Boston High School Lake View High S. Kitale college S St.Noah S.School
Research subjects who were expected to participate in the study comprised of 10 head teachers, six deputy head teachers, 192 teachers, and 30 student leaders, from selected private and government secondary schools in Entebbe Municipality as said earlier. The subjects of the study were selected randomly based on the researcher‘s interest in participants from particular secondary school. In short, the study subject sample size that was expected to participate in the study was 237.
41
Sampling Procedure To sample the research subjects to participate in the study, the investigator applied a purposive sampling technique alongside simple random sampling technique. The rationale behind this choice of these sampling approaches is that the researcher intended to use randomly as participants only long-serving secondary school head teachers, deputy head teachers and teachers for the likelihood of having supervised or been supervised. Research Instruments The researcher used both questionnaire and interview as relevant research tools to gather expected data. Questionnaire were self-constructed and administered to all sampled study participants. Regarding self-construction of the questionnaire, items were structured with open-ended questions and based on research objectives. The same was applied when setting the interview guide, which was structured with both open-ended and closed-ended questions to gather qualitative data from research participants. As regards questionnaire items, the researcher used five Likert scales, which required an individual participant to respond to a series of statements in questionnaire by indicating whether he/she strongly agrees (SA), or agrees (A), or is undecided (U), or disagrees (D), or strongly disagrees (SD). Table 2: Likert Scale, Coding, and Interpretation
Scale Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Coding 5 4 3 2 1 Mean 4.50-5.00 3.50-4.49 2.50-3.49 1.50-2.49 1.00-1.49 Interpretation Very high High Moderate Low Very low
42
Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments Validity of research instruments was ascertained by discussing both questionnaire and interview guide items with research colleagues, and then the instruments were passed onto research advisors for further assessment and consideration before use. Besides, the investigator heeded the advice given by professional researchers who assert that ―selfconstructed measurement instruments should be pilot tested before use so as to determine validity, reliability, and feasibility‖ (Gay, et al., 2009, p.169). Regarding the estimation of reliability, on the other hand, the researcher pilot tested the instrument and applied Cronbach's Alpha coefficient to ascertain the internal consistency of the research tool, namely, questionnaire. As shown in Table 1.3, the SPSS computation indicated that Cronbach‘s Alfa coefficient 0.870 > 0.70, hence, the research instrument was significantly reliable to be used to gather data. r = 0.870. Table 3: Instrument Reliability Statistics
Cronbach‘s Alfa No of Items
0 .870
17
Data Collection Procedure Before the researcher engaged into collection of data, an introductory letter to the secondary schools administrators to participate in the study was given to the researcher by the Dean of Graduate School of Bugema University. The sole source of data, which was primary source by nature, was the subjects of concern (head teachers, deputy head teachers, teachers, and student leaders). Expected data were collected by means of administering questionnaire to the said participants and
43
conducting face-to-face interview still with a couple of the participants. Structured interview with open-ended (i.e., divergent) and closed-ended questions was used to collect qualitative data from the respondents. Data Analysis Method Regarding the analysis of data, the researcher applied a statistical tool, namely, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the gathered data. With this package, the investigator made use of descriptive statistics, notably, frequency, percentage, mean, and Pearson Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) was applied in analyzing data on questionnaire items under research objectives 4 where relation between the two variables was put into account. Data on the rest of objectives were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, namely; frequency, percentage, and mean. The all process of data analysis was done with reference to research objectives, and findings to make recommendations to education stakeholders. The only rationale behind the choice of Pearson Correlation Coefficient to measure the relationship was that the variables in question to be measured were only two, the collected data were made interval or coded for their easy entry into SPSS analysis thereof.
44
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction This chapter presents the results of the study and discussion of the results in line with research objectives. Discussion of results was done in comparison with other previous and recent-related research findings so as to come up with reliable conclusion. Still in discussing the study results, the findings were used to answer the research questions from which the study objectives evolved as well as support or not support the hypothesis of the study. Much like a compass guiding a sailor, the research study was guided by objectives derived from the research questions. Both face-to-face interview and questionnaire were used to gather data on these objectives. Worthy noting is that in interpreting the study results, only the highest frequency, percentage, and mean were considered. Supervision of Secondary School Teachers The study results as shown in Table 4 indicate that 28 32.2% of teachers with a moderate mean of 2.5632 strongly disagreed that head teachers inform them earlier before the go to supervise them in the classroom. And 30 34.1% of teachers with a high mean of (3.0909) agreed that they have been supervised or visited by their head teachers outside the classroom during extra-curricular activities such as, sports, debates, or science practices. And 47 54.7% of teachers agreed that supervision is done in their schools, while 27 31.0% of teachers agreed that they always meet with their head teachers after supervision process for the discussion of what was observed, and 22 91.7% of student leaders agreed that they have seen their teachers being supervised by the head teacher in
45
classroom. And also for 34 39.5% of teachers, head teachers as supervisors, understand their difficulties, accept their suggestions and are generally clear and helpful. Table 4: Secondary School Teachers are Supervised by their Head Teachers
Scale My head teacher informs me earlier before he/she SD comes to supervise me in classroom. D U A SA Supervision is always done in my school. SD D U A SA I have seen my teachers being supervised by the Yes head teacher or deputy head teacher in the No classroom I have been supervised or visited by my head SD teacher outside the classroom during extra- D curricular activities such as, sports, debates, or U science practices. A SA My head teacher makes me feel relaxed but not SD intimidated during supervision process. D U A SA I always meet with my head teacher after SD supervision process for the discussion of what was D observed. U A SA My head teacher, as a supervisor, understands my SD difficulties, accepts my suggestions and is D generally clear and helpful to me. U A SA Freq 28 22 11 12 14 2 8 2 47 27 22 2 16 16 13 30 13 15 9 13 35 16 12 16 16 27 16 10 11 11 34 20 % 32.2 25.3 12.6 13.8 16.1 2.3 9.3 2.3 54.7 31.4 91.7 8.3 18.2 18.2 14.8 34.1 14.8 17.0 10.2 14.8 39.8 18.2 13.8 18.4 18.4 31.0 18.4 11.6 12.8 12.8 39.5 23.3 4.0349 Mean 2.9205
1.0800
3.0909
3.3182
3.2184
3.5000
Taken all together, statistics indicated that secondary school head teachers slightly try to supervise their teachers, though in most cases informally. Partially, this is because
46
3 out of 5 head teachers 71% of head teachers, especially in private secondary schools, reportedly said that they do not supervise their teachers in a formal way. Some of those head teachers confidently asserted, ―We have other ways we use to supervise teachers but not necessarily entering the classroom where the teacher is teaching,‖ they continued, ―we normally check the schemes of work, lesson plans, exam mark sheets, students‘ lesson notes, and teacher attendance book, which is filled in and kept by student leaders only.‖ Partially according the study findings, secondary school head teachers do not see a need to supervise teachers in the classroom during instruction, and these heads of school forget that teacher supervision is partial and part of their job description. To confirm the authenticity of the data got through the questionnaire, the researcher conducted interviews with five head teachers and six teachers. The information received was that supervision is rarely done in secondary school. Majority of head teachers openly reported that they do not supervise their teachers as such. And some veteran teachers also openly reported that they have never been supervised by the head teacher in the classroom apart from checking teachers‘ pedagogic documents. More still, when asked to relate their past supervisory experiences, secondary school teachers supplemented the information that was given by head teachers. In this regard, 60% of interviewed teachers reported that they have never seen their head teachers come to supervise them in classroom, apart from checking their pedagogic documents. A long-serving female teacher related, ―I have been teaching for 15 years, but I have never been supervised in classroom by the head teacher.‖ The only formal or instructional supervision many of secondary school teachers can recollect is the supervision they got when they were doing their school teaching practice while at the
47
college or university. The findings indicated that 70% of teacher participants, the real supervision is ―nonexistent‖ in secondary schools today. But contrary to this, head teachers in government-aided secondary schools reported that they formally visit or supervise their teachers in classroom, keep appraisal forms and supervision reports. On the other hand, table 5 presents the result that 6 42.9% of head teachers and 30 34.1% of teachers agreed that general supervision is occasionally practiced in secondary schools. General supervision is done in form of informal supervision.
Table 5: General Supervisory Practices
Head teachers I supervise my teachers during outside-theclassroom instruction like during science practices or extra-curricular activities such as sports and debates. Scale Freq. D 3 U 2 A 6 SA 3 Teachers I have been supervised or visited by my head teacher SD 16 outside the classroom during extra-curricular D 16 activities such as sports, debates, or science practices. U 13 A 30 SA 13 % 21.4 14.3 42.9 21.4 18.2 18.2 14.8 34.1 14.8 Mean 3.6429
3.0909
In a nutshell, based on the research findings, it is conspicuous that informal supervision is practiced by secondary school head teachers at the expense of formal or instructional supervision whereby the head teachers claim to use alternate ways of supervising teachers as aforementioned. But the question remains, how effective are these alternate ways of supervising teachers other than visiting them in classroom during classroom instruction and management? Relatively in support of these head teachers‘ alternate way of supervising teachers, Zepeda (2003), contended that supervision could be formal or informal; clinical
48
or some modification of the clinical process; or it may be differentiated or developmental. But effectiveness each model of supervision has to be brought into question as instructional supervision is always advocated. Also this study findings parallels with other recent educational researchers from other countries around the globe. Comparatively, Bentley (2005), got almost the same findings. In his research study, all participants reported little or no supervision of teachers in the gifted program in Athens, Georgia. Describing supervision in the gifted program, Tina a participant in Bentley‘s study responded, ―I don‘t think we are supervised,‖ and ―I have taught gifted since 1974 and I have been totally unsupervised.‖ She reported getting no direction from her school administrators. Better still, the study finding parallels with other more recent related research findings whereby, in his study, Beaver (2002), discovered that supervision was in Georgian schools considered ―nonexistent‖ and distorted‖ by the study participants. Actually, one of the underlying reason as why head teachers do not supervise their teachers is reflected in Kruskamp (2003), study findings which indicated that high school department chairs (heads) are unaware of their job description, are not given support to practice instructional supervision, and experience both role conflict and ambiguity in the course of completing the work of the department chair position. Similarly, as observed in this present study, it is unarguable that secondary school head teachers, whether in government or private schools, do not know well their job description of which general and instructional supervision is part and parcel.
49
Above all, however, Glickman (1990), contends that supervision is ―a glue of successful school‖. Akin to the present study, Nambassa (2003), research findings revealed that a number of primary school teachers are not supervised at all. Teachers’ Viewpoints of and Quality of Supervision in Secondary Schools When asked if teachers like to be supervised, 70% of head teachers said that teachers do not like to be supervised, but 60% of teachers agreed that they like to be supervised. This was, to some extent, in relation to how teachers regard supervision as well as what they expect and need from it. As reported by some teachers during interviews, veteran or long-serving teachers do not want to be supervised; they direct supervision to new teachers who have just embraced teaching job and are in need of experience. Table 6 below shows the results that indicate how teachers view supervision from their perspective. For 38 43.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.7011, supervision helps them get new skills, and 23 26.4% of teachers with a high mean 3.0115 agreed that supervision motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession, and 35 40.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.5233 agreed that supervision is done as a way of evaluating teachers‘ performance, while 33 37.5% of teachers with a high mean 4.1818 agreed that supervision of teachers is done as a way of helping teachers improve their teaching practices and develop professionally.
Secondary school teachers‘ perspective of supervision was understood as what teachers think supervision is all about with regard to one‘s attitude toward supervision. As regards supervision of teacher performance, evaluation creates negative attitude. Study findings indicated that some participants regard teacher supervision as teacher evaluation. But both fields, supervision and evaluation, have different intents and
50
purposes as evaluation is subjective not putting into consideration the person doing the work. Table 6: Secondary School Teachers‘ Perspective of Supervision
Scale SD D U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA Freq 6 11 9 38 23 18 14 18 23 14 7 12 14 35 18 5 14 8 33 27 % 6.9 12.6 10.3 43.7 26.4 20.7 16.1 20.7 26.4 16.1 8.1 14.0 16.3 40.7 20.9 5.7 15.9 9.1 37.5 30.7 Mean 3.7011
In my school, general and instructional supervision helps teachers get new skills and experience.
In my school, general and instructional supervision motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession.
3.0115
In my school, supervision of teachers is done as a way of evaluating teachers‘ performance.
3.5233
In my school, supervision of teachers is done as a way of helping teachers improve their teaching practices and develop professionally.
4.1818
During the study, the interviews with teachers also revealed what teachers need in regard to supervision. To that end, 70% of interviewed teachers reported that their individual needs were overlooked during supervision, that is; head teachers are not interested in knowing what teachers are passing through in their daily life. Hence, since these teachers, according to themselves, do not see any benefit from general and instructional supervision, they become apathetic in supervision and do not want to hear anything about supervising them. In this regards however, Barasa (2007), emphasizes that
51
―good supervision creates a climate in which personal desires and needs are expressed and satisfied in order to meet instructional purposes.‖ The finding on teachers‘ perspectives and attitudes parallels with what Kramer et al. (2005) found in their study. After their research study, Kramer and his co-researchers (2005) found through findings that there is a significant difference between the attitudes of teachers in low performance schools and the teachers in high performance schools. Teachers in high performance schools on the average had more positive attitudes toward supervision of instruction than teachers in low performance schools. Not surprising that even Habimana (2008), study findings showed a conflict of participants‘ understanding and varied attitudes toward supervision. That is, head teachers, teachers and students do not have the same point of views in regard to supervision, and this may have a significant effect on the success of supervision. Kramer, et al (2005), mentioned earlier found through their study that even teachers themselves have different attitude vis-à-vis supervision. To wash negative attitudes from teachers‘ mind, head teachers should meet teachers and explain to them what are the intents and purposes of supervision, and how it benefits teachers individually. To some teachers, when supervision is perceived as evaluation of teacher‘s performance, what comes out is obviously negative attitude. This is simply because the function of evaluation is greatly different from the function of supervision. Supervision is more than democratic, motivational and flexible, while evaluation is completely administrative with strictness. Nampa (2007), study findings revealed that effective supervisors expect nothing less than high productivity and good performance from teachers.
52
As regards the quality of general and instructional supervision in secondary schools, Table 7 below indicates how teachers rated the quality of supervision in their respective secondary schools. To 45 51.7% of teachers, supervision was deemed good, while only 6 6.9% of them rated it poor. Those who rated the quality of teacher supervision good might have been supervised once in a while in their teaching, or this may be in relation to their point of view of supervision, but not based on their experiences as many of the teachers are not supervised.
Table 7: Quality of General and Instructional Supervision in Secondary Schools
Scale Freq. %
Please, put a check in front of the option to rate the quality of general and instructional supervision in your school
Poor Fair Good very good
6 28 45 8
6.9 32.2 51.7 9.2
Better still during the research, it was also necessary to learn from secondary school teachers‘ supervisory experiences. Table 8 shows how teachers‘ expectation of supervision relates to their past supervisory experiences and categorizes teachers‘ supervisory experiences under two broad categories, positive and negative supervision in relation to teachers‘ perspective of supervision. Six sub-categories were identified as positive and seven sub-categories were identified as negative supervisory experience.
53
Table 8: Secondary School Teachers‘ Supervisory Experiences
Positive Appreciation Feedback Positive comments Help to get organized Help to detect one‘s weaknesses Encouragement to improve Negative Lack of two-way communication Lack of instructional materials Lack of motivation and staff development Neglect of individual needs Interference Lack of freedom Criticism
As mentioned earlier, roughly 70%, of interviewed teachers reported that their individual needs have been overlooked in regard to supervision. Relatively, in Kruskamp (2003) study, however, David smith, a participant and a head of department, explained what is supposed to be done as he said that besides treating ―individuals according to the situation and according to their unique histories, much of what I do is dependent on the experience of the individual teacher with whom I‘m working.‖ Mr. Smith explained that beginning teachers generally ―require more attention‖ and so he ―finds reasons to hover about them‖ and ―finds things to talk to them about,‖ ―listening for clues or hints of problems or issues.‖ Supervision is, to great extent, supervisee-centered. Methods and Techniques Employed by Head Teachers in Carrying out their General and Instructional Supervisory Practices Study findings through both interview and questionnaire revealed that, according to how head teachers supervise teachers; the supervision that is done in secondary schools is informal by function and methods. As indicated earlier, 5 85% of head teachers, especially in private secondary schools, reportedly said that they do not supervise their teachers in a formal way. Occasionally, majority of them simply check if
54
teachers‘ pedagogic documents are well prepared and if teachers report in classroom. Teachers‘ presence in classroom is ascertained by checking teacher attendance book, which filled in and kept only by student leaders. No more or less than that is done concerning supervision. Table 9 shows the frequencies, percentage, and mean of head teacher with reference to the methods and techniques they use in supervising teachers and to what extent observation feedback is given to supervised teachers. As shown in the Table 2.6, 28 32.2% of teachers with a mean 3.9205 strongly disagreed that their head teachers inform them earlier before they are supervised. Teachers‘ response agrees with what the head teachers reported in interview as 85% of interviewed head teachers said that they do not inform their when they are going to supervise them. True, also 27 31.0% of teachers with a high mean 3.2184 agreed that they always meet with their head teachers after supervision process for the discussion of what was observed, whereas 7 50.0% of head teachers with a very high mean 4.4286 agreed that right after supervision, they always meet with supervised teachers to give them feedback on what observed during supervision. And 8 57.1% of head teachers agreed with a high mean 3.9286 that they informally visit their teachers in their respective classes during classroom instruction, and 9 64.3% of head teachers with a high mean 3.9286 agreed that routinely check teachers‘ pedagogic documents and teacher attendance book as part of teacher supervision. Despite all these techniques found in table 2.6 that head teachers use to supervise teachers, interview with head teachers and some few teachers gave a different finding whereby instructional supervision was even nonexistent in secondary schools as reported
55
Table 9: Methods and Techniques Head Teachers use in Supervising Teachers
Scale Oftentimes, our head teacher talks to teachers about supervision of school and classroom instruction. SD D U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA D A SA D U A SA U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA Freq 11 10 8 44 14 28 22 11 12 14 12 16 16 27 16 2 9 3 1 1 8 4 1 6 7 13 17 11 31 14 20 27 14 16 10 % 12.5 11.4 9.1 50.0 15.9 32.2 25.3 12.6 13.8 16.1 13.8 18.4 18.4 31.0 18.4 14.3 64.3 21.4 7.1 7.1 57.1 28.6 7.1 42.9 50.0 15.1 19.8 12.8 36.0 16.3 23.0 31.0 16.1 18.4 11.5 Mean 3.9205
My head teacher informs earlier before he comes to supervise me in classroom.
2.5632
I always meet with my head teacher after supervision process for the discussion of what was observed.
3.2184
I regularly check on weekly basis teachers‘ schemes of work, lessons, and record of students‘ marks (grades). I informally visit my teachers in their respective classes during classroom instruction.
3.9286
After supervision, I always meet with supervised teacher to give him or her feedback on what I observed during supervision. When we meet after supervision process, my head teacher gives me sufficient time to discuss my difficulties and share my experiences.
4.4286
3.1860
During discussion with my head teacher after supervision, my head teacher focuses only on my weaknesses.
3.1860
Apparently, it was difficult to relate the present study findings to recent research findings in the field of education or other fields regarding supervisory methods. This was simply because none of the reviewed related literature looked at the methods and techniques that supervisors employ in supervising teachers or employees. But Zepeda (2003) contended that supervision could be formal or informal; clinical or some
56
modification of the clinical process; or it may be differentiated or developmental with specific methods and approaches. It is worth noting, however, that instructional supervision is a process that has three phases, namely, pre-observation conference, observation, and post-observation conference. Practically, according to Okumbe (2007), in pre-observation conference, supervisor meets with the person to be supervised before supervision starts. But in observation phase, the supervisor observes everything that is taking as the other person is performing the work, and in post-observation, the supervisor meets with the supervisee for the observation feedback and mutual discussion of what was observed. All methods and techniques relate to each of these supervision phases. As asserted by Zepeda & Ponticell, (1998), while numerous studies detailed various supervision models and methods, teachers have had, to date, little voice in the process of instructional supervision. Relationship between Secondary School Head Teachers’ Supervisory Practices and Teachers Work Performance As shown in Figure 1 in chapter one of this research report, head teachers‘ supervisory practices are denoted by supervision skills, supervision facilities, informal and formal classroom visits, appraisal forms, and supervision reports, while teachers‘ performance was indicated by teacher‘s regularity in school and classroom, time management, prepared pedagogic documents, classroom instruction and management, conduct and teaching behavior. Table 10 shows head teachers‘, deputy head teacher‘ and teachers‘ scores on relation between general-instructional supervision and teacher‘s performance in
57
secondary schools. As shown in Table 4, results indicated that 43 96.9% of head teachers, deputy head teachers, and teachers with a partial mean 3.8409 agreed that supervision helps teachers improve their classroom instruction and management, while 41 85.2% of all of these study participants with the same partial mean 3.8409 agreed that supervision helps teachers change their conduct and teaching behavior for the better in classroom and school. As regards student leader respondents, 9 36.0% of student leaders with a mean
2.6800 agreed that during supervision, they understand their teachers and the lessons better than during other normal classroom lessons, while 11 44.0% of student leaders with a high mean 3.1200 strongly agreed that their teachers do better in their teaching and classroom management after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher. And also 11 44.0% of student leaders with a high mean 2.8800 agreed that most of their teachers change their behavior for the better after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher.
As revealed through the study, the implication is that teacher performance is partially dependent upon supervision of school and classroom instruction. It is deciphered that there are other factors that cater for the good performance of teachers in schools besides teacher supervision.
58
Table 10: Supervision and Secondary School Teachers‘ Work Performance
Head Teachers Freq % 6 8 7 7 42.9 57.1 50.0 50.0 Teachers Freq 6 10 11 26 35 7 8 8 34 31 % 6.8 11.4 12.5 29.5 39.8 8.0 9.1 9.1 38.6 35.2 Total Freq 6 10 11 32 43 7 8 8 41 38 % 6.8 11.4 12.5 72.4 96.9 8.0 9.1 9.1 88.6 85.2 3.8409 Mean 3.8409
Scale Supervision helps teachers improve their classroom instruction and management. S D D U A S A S D D U A S A
Supervision helps teachers change their conduct and teaching behavior for the better in classroom and school at large.
Scale During supervision, I understand my SD teacher and the lesson better than during D other normal classroom lessons. A SA My teachers do better in their teaching SD and classroom management after they D have been supervised by the head A teacher or deputy head teacher. SA Most of my teachers change their behavior for the better after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher. SD D A SA
Freq 4 6 9 6 1 6 7 11 5 1 11 8
Student Leaders % Mean 16.0 24.0 36.0 24.0 4.0 24.0 28.0 44.0 20.0 4.0 44.0 32.0 2.6800
3.1200
2.8800
Still on this research objective of determining the relation between the two variables of concern, which are head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary school, the overall scores by research participants were correlated as shown in Table 2.8 below. To come up with the general relationship
59
between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance, all the scores by the teachers were correlated in comparison with scores by the head teachers.
Table 11: Relationship between Head Teachers‘ Supervisory Practices and Teachers‘ Work Performance
Teachers' Work Performance Head teachers‘ Supervisory Practices Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). .636** .000 83
Table 11 shows the result of the extent to which the relationship exists among the variables. Calculation by computing the scores using Pearson Correlation Coefficient with a statistical package SPSS indicated that the relationship between the two variables exists significantly at 0.01 level (2-tailed) as Pearson Correlation coefficient was 0.636. The coefficient of determination ��2 is 0.636 x 0.636, which is 0.4044×100 or 40%. Hence, 40 is a moderate coefficient of determination. The implication is that there is a moderate relationship between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and work performance of teachers. The relationship is moderate because there may be other factors that contribute to teacher performance. Partially akin to this present study finding on the relation between supervision and teachers‘ performance, Gerumi (2002), research findings indicated statistically that there was a very low correlation between instructional supervision and teacher performance, but there was a negative negligible correlation between teacher performance and student achievement.
60
In support of the study findings still, Nampa (2007), research study indicated that there is a significant effect exerted by monitoring practices of teachers‘ performance in secondary schools. This finding is supported by other long ago findings from Lyman and Lawler‘s (1982) study, which also indicate that followers can have all the willingness and skills to do the job but will always need guidance through supervision. And while correlating supervision with quality teaching in Wakiso district primary schools, Nambassa (2003), study findings indicated that lack of supervisors and inadequate inspection brings about poor quality teaching and learning in primary schools. In conclusion, head teachers have got to supervise teachers in order to boost quality teaching and learning in secondary schools. Challenges Secondary School Head Teachers Face in Supervising their Teachers Only face-to-face interviews with the head teachers were used to gather data on these challenges. The most apparent challenges that head teachers reported with reference to supervision of teachers are as follows: Private secondary school managing directors interfere with head teachers‘ responsibilities. Head teachers in private secondary schools have limited power and authority vis-à-vis school leadership and management. Important and final decisions are made by the school managing directors, and head teachers do not have full power to deal with undisciplined, disrespectful and failure teachers because of the teachers‘ tie of friendship or relationship with the managing directors. These head teachers are just being used by the school managing directors as pawns.
61
Some teachers take a long time to improve their teaching or change their unbecoming behavior. Even after they have been warned and counseled several times, some teachers remain obstinate and do not change at all for the better.
More than 40% of interviewed head teachers reported that a couple of teachers, especially veterans, do not want to be supervised by the director of studies whom the head teacher sometime delegates to supervise teachers. These teachers think that the director of studies is not worthy of exercising leadership power over them in school and classroom matters.
Another supervision challenge that is peculiar to head teachers mainly in private secondary schools is ―lack of time‖ as perceived by the researcher while interviewing the participants. These head teachers overwork themselves by assuming office work and teaching in classroom in order for them to get a significant salary.
In summary, head teachers in private secondary schools, as reported in interview, are confronted with more challenges than their counterparts in government-aided schools in supervising teachers. The underlying reason for this is that head teachers in government secondary schools are, to some extent, facilitated with supervision facilities, instructional materials, and their salary is regular and significant compared to head teachers‘ in private schools where they struggle to survive.
Comparatively, Nampa (2007), study findings indicated that there are a number of challenges faced by supervisors during their supervisory duties, and most of these
62
challenges may hinder the success of supervision as well as affect the entire school and classroom instructional performance. As mentioned earlier in chapter two this report, Glickman (1990), points out that supervision can be thought of as ―the glue of successful school‖ and "behind every successful school is an effective supervision program." So, for supervision of school and classroom instruction to be effective, the top key education stakeholders must join hands and see to it that anything that may thwart supervision is effectively dealt with, especially at school level. As regards ‗lack of time‖ on head teachers‘ side with regard to supervision, this study finding agrees with Kruskamp (2003), research finding whereby he found that constraints to instructional supervision do exist. Ms. Williams, the Science Department chair at Lincoln North High School, indicated that the major obstacle to instructional supervision that she has experienced is the ―lack of time,‖ or put another way, ―the number of other tasks that fall‖ under her responsibility. To overcome challenges faced by secondary school head teachers in supervising teachers, however, combined efforts are needed from the education stakeholders, especially the Ministry of Education, education officers, inspectors of schools.
63
CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of secondary school head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices on teachers‘ work performance. A descriptive-correlational study approach was used to examine the presumed relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools. The study was guided by the research objectives on which study findings were based. The theoretical framework that guided the study was Symbolic Interactionism theory, which focuses on the way individuals interact with others and the meanings the individuals draw from these interactions (Blumer, 1969). Because the perspectives are the central concept of Symbolic Interactionism theory, this was appropriate to gain insights about the meanings and value the participants assigned to their past supervisory experiences. Regarding the practice of teacher supervision in secondary schools, to some participants, supervision is ―nonexistent,‖ and 60% of teachers reported that they have never been supervised in the classroom. As discovered in the study, statistics indicated that secondary school head teachers try to supervise their teachers, though in most cases informally. Partially, this is because 5 85% of head teachers, especially in private secondary schools, reportedly said that they do not supervise their teachers in a formal way. Some of those head teachers confidently asserted, ―We have other ways we use to supervise teachers but not necessarily entering the classroom where the teacher is
64
teaching‖. These head teachers reported in the interviews that they use other ways to supervise or check on their teachers‘ performance. As found out in the study still, the type of supervision that is done in secondary schools is informal. As mentioned earlier, informal supervision is being done at the expense of instructional or formal supervision, and a lot is lacking that informal supervision. Some of the participants of the study, especially teachers, related their past supervisory experiences of which some were negative and others were positive. Other participants, especially head teachers, reported a number of challenges they face in carrying out their supervisory duties. More still, participants‘ perspectives of and attitudes toward teacher supervision in secondary schools were also examined whereby for 38 43.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.7011, supervision helps them get new skills and experience, and 23 26.4% of teachers with a mean 3.0115 agreed that supervision motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession, but 35 40.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.5233 agreed that supervision is done as a way of evaluating teachers‘ performance, while 33 37.5% of teachers with a high mean 4.1181 agreed that supervision of teachers is done as a way of helping teachers improve their teaching practices and develop professionally.
Beside this, there were no specific methods and techniques reported that head teachers use in supervising teachers. This was simply because the supervision that is being done is informal in nature, and head teachers do not carry out instructional supervision in the classroom at all. Head teachers rarely visit teachers during classroom instruction.
65
As regards teachers‘ negative attitude toward supervision, 70% of head teachers said that teachers do not like to be supervised. This was, to some extent, in relation to how teachers regard supervision as well as what they expect and need from supervision. Veteran teachers prefer less supervision or do not like it at all. As discovered through the study, different participants had different perspectives and attitudes. The relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance was established by using Pearson correlation coefficient using a statistical package, SPSS. The relationship between these two variables significantly existed at 0.01 level (2-tailed) with Pearson Correlation coefficient 0.636. The coefficient of determination ��2 is 0.636 x 0.636, which is 0.4044×100 or 40%. 40 is a moderate coefficient of determination. The implication is that there is a moderate correlation between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and work performance of teachers. The implication was that head teachers‘ general and instructional supervision and teachers‘ work performance are correlated. Finally, the study likewise intended to find out the challenges that head teachers are confronted with when they are supervising their teachers. Most of the challenges, however, were reported by the head teachers in private secondary schools. There were underlying reasons as why private secondary school head teachers face more challenges than their counterparts in government secondary schools in teacher supervision. Conclusion The study findings indicate that informal supervision is being done at the expense of instructional supervision in secondary schools. Other than frequently visiting or supervising their teachers formally during classroom instruction, 9 64.3% of head
66
teachers with a high mean 3.9286 simply check their teachers‘ pedagogic documents, teacher attendance book, and students‘ lesson notes just to confirm that the teacher has taught. The study findings indicate that there is a significant moderate relationship between supervisory practices of head teachers and work performance of teachers in secondary schools. The correlation was positively moderate, significant at 0.001 level (2tailed) with Pearson Correlation coefficient of 0.636 and coefficient of determination ��2 is 0.636 x 0.636, which is 0.4044 or 40%. 40 whereby 43 96.9% of head teachers, deputy head teachers, and teachers with a high mean 3.84090 agreed that supervision helps teachers improve their classroom instruction and management, while 41 85.2% of all of these study participants with the same high mean 3.84090 agreed that supervision helps teachers change their conduct and teaching behavior for the better in classroom and school. The underlying implication of this correlation is that teacher supervision has a significant positive influence on teacher performance, and supervision must be of great concern among secondary school head teachers, and it should be regarded as part and partial of their job description. In conclusion, general and instructional supervision influence teacher performance in secondary schools to some extent. Recommendations Recommendations were derived from the study findings and made to the key education stakeholders in the government of Uganda. But these recommendations may also be relevant to education stakeholders in other parts of the globe.
67
To the Ministry of Education In spite of the available records that indicate how the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been trying to encourage inspectors of schools and school head teachers to carry out supervision, The study recommends the MOE to have a big hand in private secondary school matters where teacher supervision is mostly uncommon practice among head teachers. The study also recommends the MOE to reinforce supervision-based training, seminars, workshops, and refresher courses countrywide for secondary school head teachers and deputy head teachers. By so doing, even those who missed out supervision course at the university or college would benefit. To Private Secondary School Managing Directors The study recommends that Managing Directors of private secondary schools vest full power and authority in the head teachers whom they have employed so that undisciplined, obstinate and disrespectful teachers listen and obey their head teachers and comply with the school rules and regulations meant to be followed by teachers. To Secondary School Head Teachers The study recommends that secondary school head teachers to spare enough time to supervise their teachers during classroom instruction rather than simply checking teachers‘ pedagogic documents, teacher attendance book, and students‘ lesson notes.
68
The study recommends head teachers to foster general supervision during extra-curricular activities, and explain to teachers the intents and purposes of teacher supervision.
To Interested Researchers The study recommends interested educational researchers to investigate further teacher supervision in secondary schools with intent to find out factors that may be thwarting its practice in schools.
69
REFERENCES Aseltine, M. J., Faryniarz, J. O. and Rigazio-Digilio, A. J. 2006. Supervision for Learning: A performance-based approach to teacher development and school improvement. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Armstrong, M. 2003. Team Rewards. London Chartered institute of Personnel and Development. Barasa, J. M. N. 2007. Educational Organization and Management. Nairobi: The Jomo Kenyatta Foundation. Beaver, M. D. 2002. Instructional Supervision: Perspectives of Middle School Fine Arts Teachers. Published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia. Bentley, P. W. 2005. Instructional Supervision and Gifted Education: Elementary School Teachers’ Perspectives. Doctoral Dissertation, Published: University of Georgia. Bernard, J. M. and Goodyear, R. K. 1998. Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision (2nd ed), London: Allyn & Bacon. Education Policy Review Commission. 1998. Ministry of Education and Sport. KampalaUganda Education Policy Review Report. 2005. Ministry of Education and Sport. KampalaUganda Eisner, E.W. 1998. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Enon, J.C. 1998. Educational Research, Statistics and Measurement, (2nd ed). Kampala: Makerere University. Esudu, S. 2010. UPE, USE should be monitored. The New Vision, January 13, 2010. Figueroa Rexach, A. N. 2004. Actual and desired teacher attitudes toward supervision of instruction and instructional strategies in pedagogical and curriculum areas in high and low performance secondary schools of the Fajardo Educational Region of Puerto Rico. Published Dissertation, Dowling College (UMI No –in process) Fleming, I. and Steen, L. 2004. Supervision and Clinical Psychology: Theory, practice and perspectives. Brunner-Routledge: New York NY 10001 Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., and Gall, J. P. 1996. Education research: An Introduction (6thed). White Plaines, NY: Longman.
70
Gay, L. R, Mills, G. E and Airasian, P. 2009. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Glanz, J. (2000). Paradigm Debates in Curriculum and Supervision: Modern and Postmodern Perspectives. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Glickman, C. D; Gordon, S. P., and Ross-Cordon. 1998. Supervision of Instruction: A Developmental Approach. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gerumi S. 2003. Instructional Supervision: its impact on Teachers’ and Students’ Performance. Unpublished Masterly Thesis, University of Nueva Caceres, Naga City Gold, H., et al. (1980) Process of Clinical Supervision. Harvard University Grauwe, A. 2007.Transforming School Supervision into a Tool for Quality Improvement. Journal of International Review of Education (2007) 53:709-714. Habimana, A. M. 2008. The Effect of Head Teachers‘ Instructional Supervisory Practices on Performance of Private Secondary School Students in Musanze District, Rwanda. Published Master‘s Thesis, Bugema University. Holland, P. E., and Garman, N. 2001. Toward a resolution of the crisis of legitimacy in the field of supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(2), 95-111. Hunsaker, P. L. and Hunsaker, J. 2009. Managing People. Melbourne: Dorling Kindersley Ltd. Kramer, C., Blake, P and Alba F. 2005. A Comparison of Teacher Attitudes Toward Supervision of Instruction in Selected High and Low Performance Secondary Schools of Puerto Rico, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Dowling College Brookhaven, New York. Murthy, P. 2002. In the New Vision, July 2002. Nambassa, M. K. 2003.The Impact of Classroom Supervision on the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Primary Schools in Wakiso District, Uganda, Unpublished Master‘s Thesis. Makerere University, Kampala. Nampa, C. 2007. Supervision and Teachers‘ Performance in Catholic Secondary Schools in Luwero District, Uganda. Unpublished Master‘s thesis. Makerere University. Newstrom, J. W. and Bittel, L. R. 2002. Supervision: Managing for Results (8th ed). New York Columbus: Glencoe McGraw-Hill. Nolan, J., and Frances, P. 1992. Changing Perspectives in Curriculum and Instruction. In C. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in transition, 1992 ASCD Yearbook, Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
71
_______and Hoover, L. 2004. Teacher Supervision and Evaluation: Theory into Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Obama, B. 2011. VOA Special English Education report, Retrieved on February 2, 2011 f N, from Olssen, M., Godd, J., and O‘neill, A. M. 2006. Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy. London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd. PEARSON, C. 2009. Principles & Theories of Educational Supervision & Leadership. Retrieved on July 24, 2011 from http://www.ehow.com/info_8149786_principlestheories-educational-supervision-leadership.html#ixzz1PHEIZYop Pierce, R. A. and Rowell, J. S. 2005. Effective supervision: A Developmental Approach. White paper, January 2005, Retrieved on 14-06-2011 from http://www.risingsunconsultants.com/images/white_papers/PDFs/SupervisionShort.pdf. Sadker, M. P. and Sadker, D. M. 2003.Teachers, Schools, and Society (6thed).New York: McGraw-Hill. Starratt, R. J. 2008. Supervision of instruction – the history of supervision, roles and responsibilities of supervisors, issues trends and controversies. Retrieved on2706-20111from SULLIVAN, S. and Glanz, J. 2000. Supervision the Improves teaching: Strategies and Techniques. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Theodore, C. and William, A. 2010. Teacher Efficacy, Supervision, and the Special Education Resource-Room Teacher. Breton Source: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Mar. - Apr., 1997), pp. 230-239, Retrieved onMarch11,201014:57from Waite, D. 1995. Rethinking instructional supervision; Notes on its language and Culture. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Weller, L. D., Jr., and Weller, S. J. 2002. Preparing School Department Heads UsingNational Standards: Through the looking glass of leadership. Lancaster, PA:Pro>Active Publications Wiles, J., and Bondi, J. 2002. Curriculum Development: A Guide to Practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Zepeda, S. J. 2003. Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
72
Appendix 1: Teacher Supervision Interview Question Guide for Research Participants
HEAD TEACHER & DEPUTY HEAD TEACHERS Overall Questions 1. Do your teachers show a desire to be helped to improve their teaching? 2. How do you help your teachers improve their teaching in classroom develop professionally? 3. Do you visit teachers informally in classroom? 4. Do you visit teachers outside the classroom like during extra co-curricular activities? 5. Do teachers present their schemes of work, lesson plans and record of work in time when asked? 6. How many times do you supervise a teacher in a term or year? 7. Do your teachers show interest in being supervised?
8. How do you supervise or which techniques and strategies do use in supervising your teachers? 9. What do you do after supervision for a teacher or teachers who perform well? And how about teachers who don‘t perform well as indicated during supervision? 10. Do you ever see any positive change in teachers after they are supervised? 11. What are the challenges do you ever face in supervising your teachers? 12. Do have any suggestion (s) on how general and instructional supervision can be improved in secondary schools these days?
TEACHERS Preliminary Questions: 1. Have you ever been supervised ever since you begun teaching in secondary school? 2. . How many times throughout the term or year are you evaluated or supervised?
73
3. Do you like being supervised? And how do you feel when you are being supervised? 4. How long were the observations during the last supervision(s)? 5. How many times per term or year did you receive informal supervision? This could be short visits, meetings, telephone conversations, etc. Questions for Interview # 1: 1. From your perspective, what is supervision? 2. Think of the last time you were observed by a supervisor (head teacher), and walk me through your feelings and attitudes of the experience. Both before and after the observation, what was your sense of the experience? 3. Tell me what you do, maybe differently, when or while you are being observed in supervision. How things are different, and why? 4. Think about a time when your experience, or observation, with the supervisor didn‘t go as well as you thought it might, and tell me about it. 5. Think about a time when your supervisory experience went extremely well, and tell me about it. 6. 7. Are you satisfied with the way your head teacher supervises you? As you have been supervised many times, what do you like and don‘t like about supervision done by your head teacher or deputy head teacher? 8. What do you need from supervision? 9. What leadership characteristics do you believe head teachers need to demonstrate to support secondary school teacher‘s growth and development? 10. When you are observed and go through the supervisory process, does the supervisor make you feel at ease or relaxed, or you feel intimidated? 11. In what ways do you believe a supervisor (head teacher) could help you improve your teaching? 12. Are supervisors able to provide you with pedagogic/teaching growth and professional development at all? If so, in what ways? 13. Has supervision brought any positive change in your teaching career so far? Give an example.
74
Questions for Interview # 2:
1. Have you ever been in need of being supervised at all? 2. As a result of being proud to be a secondary school teacher, do you feel that you and your individual needs have been overlooked with regard to supervision? Explain. 3. Do you really believe that your teaching would improve as teacher if you had a supervisor who understood your individual needs? Tell me how. 4. Given the choice, would you opt for more or less supervision as a secondary school teacher? Why? 5. Do you feel your supervisor knows enough about supervision and teaching to help you improve at what you do best? Explain. 6. Is there anything that you could add to help supervisors meet your needs and wants so that you may improve as teacher? 7. What do you suggest head teachers should do to improve supervision of school and classroom instruction?
75
Appendix 2: Teacher Supervision Questionnaire for Research Participants HEAD TEACHERS AND DEPUTY HEAD TEACHERS Dear respondent, The researcher is a post-graduate student from Bugema University. In this questionnaire you will be asked to give information that will be used in research study, namely; “Influence of Head Teachers’ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers’ Work Performance in Secondary Schools”. Any information you give will be used for scholarly purposes and your confidentiality will be protected. Please, read the items carefully before you answer. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION For each of the following items, please put a tick √ beside the choice that best describes you. 1. Gender: Male_____ Female______ 2. Age: 24-30yrs_____ 31-35yrs_____ 36-40yrs____ more than 40yrs_____ 3. Level of education: Diploma____ Bachelor‘s degree______ Master‘s Degree______ 4. Total years being a head teacher: 1-3yrs____ 4yrs-10yrs____ 11-15yrs___ more than 15yrs_____ Select by ticking √ the choice (s) that best describes your agreement with the following statements: ________I did a supervision course at the College/University. ________ I did not take any supervision course at the College/University. ________ I did supervision training after holding the post of head teacher. ________ I did not do any supervision course or training before and after becoming a head teacher. Please tick √ the option box that best describes your agreement with the statement that follows: 1. I am always provided with supervision facilities to help me carry out my supervisory duties in my school. Yes No 2. I delegate my deputy head teacher to supervise teachers. Sometime
76 Never
LIKERT Please circle the number that sums up your agreement or disagreement with the statement in the table that follows. The scales are: 5= strongly agree (SA), 4= agree (A), 3 =uncertain (U), 2= disagree (D), and 1= strongly disagree (SD) No 1 Items SD D 2 U 3 A 4 SA 5
Oftentimes, I talk to my teachers about 1 supervision of school and classroom instruction. I regularly check on weekly basis teacher‘s 1 scheme of work, lesson plan, lesson notes, student‘s notes and record of marks (grades). I always keep appraisal forms that have been 1 filled in. I informally visit my teachers in their 1 respective classes during classroom instruction. I supervise my teachers on a regular basis 1 inside the classroom during instruction. I always keep my teachers aware of supervision 1 of teachers in my school. I supervise my teachers during outside-the- 1 classroom instruction, for example during science practices or extra-curricular activities like sports, debates, and many others. During supervision, I always find the teacher 1 ready with register, scheme of work, lesson plan, record of work, and record of students‘ marks (grades). After supervision, I always meet with the 1 supervised teacher to give him/her feedback on what I observed during the lesson. After supervision process, I always make and 1 keep supervision reports for future reference. Teachers prepare schemes of work, lesson 1 plans, lesson notes, record of work, and record of students‘ marks (grades) regularly after being supervised.
2
2
3
4
5
3 4 5 6
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
7
2
3
4
5
8
2
3
4
5
9
2
3
4
5
10 11
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
77
12 13
Regular supervision absenteeism in school.
reduces
teacher‘s 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
After being regularly supervised, teachers 1 improve their classroom instruction and management. Teachers change their conduct and teaching 1 behavior for the better as a result of being regularly supervised.
14
2
3
4
5
TEACHERS DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION For each of the following items, please put an X beside the choice that best describes you. 1. Gender: Male_____ Female_____ 2. Age: 20-30yrs_____ 31-35yrs_____ 36-40yrs____ more than 40yrs_____
CHECKLIST Following are a couple of statements describing general and instructional supervision. Please, read each statement and circle whether you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), are uncertain (U), disagree (D), or strongly disagree (SD) with statements given below. In my school, supervision of teachers: 6. is always done 7. helps teachers get new skills and experience 8. motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession 9. is done as a way of evaluating teacher‘s performance 10. is done as a way of helping teachers to improve their teaching practices and develop professionally
78
SA SA
A U A U
D SD D SD
SA SA
A U A U
D SD D SD
SA
A U
D SD
Following are a number of statements related to supervision in school. Read each statement carefully and circle corresponding number indicating whether you 1= strongly disagree (SD), 2= disagree (D), 3= are uncertain (U), 4= agree (A), 5= strongly agree (SA) No 1 2 3 Items SD D 2 2 2 U 3 3 3 A 4 4 4 SA 5 5 5
Oftentimes, our head teacher talks to teachers about 1 supervision of school and classroom instruction. My head teacher informs me earlier before he comes 1 to supervise me in classroom. My head teacher as supervisor is often available when 1 I need guidance and advice on how to improve my classroom instruction and management. I have been supervised or visited by my head teacher 1 outside the classroom during extra-curricular activities such as sports, debates, or science practices. My head teacher makes me feel relaxed but not 1 intimidated during supervision process. My head teacher is honest, considerate and easy to 1 talk to when he supervises me. I always meet with my head teacher after supervision 1 process for the discussion of what was observed. When we meet after supervision, my supervisor (head 1 teacher) gives me sufficient time to discuss my difficulties and share my experiences. During discussion with my supervisor (head teacher) 1 after supervision process, my head teacher focuses on my weaknesses only. My supervisor (head teacher) understands my 1 difficulties, accepts my suggestions and is generally clear and helpful. Supervision helps me get new classroom management 1 and teaching skills and techniques. Supervision helps me change my conduct and teaching 1 behavior for the better in school and classroom.
4
2
3
4
5
5
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
9
2
3
4
5
10
2
3
4
5
11 12
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
79
FREE RESPONSES 13. Please, put a check √ in front of the appropriate option to rate the quality of general and instructional supervision in your school: ____Very good _____good _____fair ______poor
14. With reference to preceding question number 13, please, write a brief explanation of why you feel as you do about the quality of general and instructional supervision in your school. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 15. Please make any additional comment you may have about this topic (supervision of teachers in secondary schools). ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………
STUDENT LEADERS / PREFECTS
SUPERVISION-RELATED QUESTIONS Please put a tick √ in the box which indicates the option that best describes your agreement with the statement 1. I have seen my teachers being supervised in the classroom by the head teacher or deputy head teacher.
Yes No
2. I have seen the head teacher visit/observe my teachers outside the classroom during extra-curricular activities like sports, debates, or science practices.
Yes No
Following are a few statements about how you view your teachers during supervision and how your learning experience changes during supervision. Please, read the statements below and put a check √ in front of the option that best describes your agreement with statements.
80
3. When the head teacher is supervising my teacher, the way my teacher teaches during that time in class changes positively: (a)____ never (b)____ not much (c)____ much (d)_____ very much 4. I understand my teacher and the lesson better during supervision than during other normal classroom lessons: (a)____ strongly agree (b)____ agree (c)____ disagree (d)____ strongly disagree Following are a number of statements related to supervision in school. Please, read each statement carefully and circle corresponding number whether you 1= strongly disagree (SD), 2= disagree (D), 3= agree (A), 4= strongly agree (SA) No 1 Items SD D 2 A 3 SA 4
I am not satisfied with the way our teachers teach us 1 in some subjects. So, there is a need to supervise them to improve their teaching. The head teacher visits (supervises) my teachers in 1 the classroom at least once per term. My teachers do better in their teaching and 1 classroom management after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher. Most of my teachers change their behavior for the 1 better after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher.
2
2
3
4
3
2
3
4
4
2
3
4
Thank you for your participation in the study
81
NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA
MASTER OF ARTS (EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT)
OCTOBER, 2011 i Influence of Head Teachers‘ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers‘ Work Performance in Secondary Schools in Entebbe Municipality, Wakiso District, Uganda
Nzabonimpa Buregeya
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Bugema University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Educational Management
(Master of Arts in Educational Management)
October, 2011 ii ACCEPTANCE SHEET This master‘s thesis entitled ―INFLUENCE OF HEAD TEACHERS’ GENERAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORY PRACTICES ON TEACHERS’ WORK PERFORMANCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT, UGANDA” prepared and submitted by NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT, is hereby approved.
KAKULE I. KISUNZU, Ph.D Member, Advisory Committee _________________________ Date Signed
JAJI KEHINDE A. MR. MA. STAT. Member, Advisory Committee _________________________ Date Signed
PATRICK MANU, Ph.D Chairperson,Advisory Committee __________________________ Date Signed MAURICE B. TAMALE, Ph.D Chairperson External Examining Committee ________________________ Date Signed GEBRE WORANCHA, Ph.D Member Internal Examining Committee ______________________ Date Signed
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT, Bugema University, Uganda
KAKULE I. KISUNZU, Ph.D Chairperson, Department of Education ____________________________ Date Signed
PAUL KATAMBA, Ph.D Dean, Graduate School
_______________________
Date Signed
iii
DECLARATION I, Nzabonimpa Buregeya, hereby acknowledge that this thesis entitled ―INFLUENCE OF HEAD TEACHERS‘ GENERAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORY PRACTICES ON TEACHERS‘ WORK PERFORMANCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT, UGANDA‖ is my personal original work that to the best of my knowledge has not been submitted, in part or in a whole, for any Degree in any University.
Signed…………… Nzabonimpa Buregeya Date……………..
iv
DEDICATION This book is dedicated to my loving mother NYIRANTIBAZIRIKANA MIRIAM and my late father MUNYAGITARI BUREGEYA ANANIAS for the unconditional loving care they always gave me right from my childhood, and for their emotional, physical and spiritual support I needed to grow up to maturity and sustain myself in life by means of the education they painfully financed.
v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author of the study, NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA JARED, was born in 1979 in Mushumba II, North-Kivu Province, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), formerly known as Zaire. He completed his primary education from Ecole Primaire de Katwiguru in 1994 in DRC and secondary education in 2002 from Institut Kisharo in DRC. In 2005 as DRC suffered recurrent wars, the author fled the country and settled in Uganda where he got his BA with Education, major English and Literature with French elective, from Nkumba University in 2009.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wholeheartedly thank our grand creator Jehovah God for his blessing of having me educated up to University level and the mighty hand he always extended to me during all my school and University days. I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to WINDLE TRUST UGANDA, a nonprofit organization that sponsors refugee education in Uganda, for the nonstop financial assistance it offered me to cover my education and medical financial demands right from undergraduate to post-graduate level. Under WINDLE TRUST UGANDA, I thank Madam Hellen Kulabako Kitimbo, Program Manager, for the timely emotional and spiritual support which she rendered to me during my difficult period of sickness while writing this thesis. Lastly, I am indebted to my research advisors, Dr. Patrick Manu, Dr. Kakule Kisunzu, and Mr. Jaji Kehinde (the statistician) for their individual guidance, which I eagerly needed and got at the right time; without which this work would not come to its completion.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………..xi LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...xii LIST OF PPENDICES………………………………………………………………….xiii ACCRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………….xiv ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...xv CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………..1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1 Background to the Study…………………………………………………………..1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….4 Research Questions………………………………………………………………..4 Research Objectives……………………………………………………………….5 Statement of Hypothesis…………………………………………………………..6 Scope of the Study………………………………………………………………...6 Limitations………………………………………………………………………...7 Significant of the Study…………………………………………………………...7 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………8 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………..10 Operational Definitions of Terms………………………………………………..13 CHAPTER TWO………………………………………………………………………...14 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE………………………………………………14 Introduction……………………………………………………………………....14 Overview of Supervision………………………………………………………...14 Instructional Supervision and Teacher Evaluation………………………………21 viii PAGE Informal Visit and General Supervision…………………………………………26 Instructional Supervision and Teacher Performance…………………………….27 Teacher Supervision-Related Challenges………………………………………..36 Summary of Identified Gap……………………………………………………..37 CHAPTER THREE……………………………………………………………………...39 METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………39 Research Design………………………………………………………………….39 Locale of the Study………………………………………………………………40 Population of the Study…………………………………………………………..40 Sample Size………………………………………………………………………41 Sampling Procedure……………………………………………………………...42 Research Instruments…………………………………………………………….42 Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments………………………………..43 Data Collection Procedure……………………………………………………….43 Data Analysis Method……………………………………………………………44 CHAPTER FOUR……………………………………………………………………….45 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………………...45 Introduction………………………………………………………………………45 Supervision of secondary School Teachers……………………………………...45 Teachers‘ Viewpoints of Supervision and Quality of Supervision………………50 Methods and Techniques of teacher Supervision………………………………..54 Relationship between Supervisory Practices and teachers‘ Performance………..57 Challenges Head Teachers face in Supervising Teachers………………………..61
ix
PAGE CHAPTER FIVE………………………………………………………………………...64 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………64 Summary of the Study…………………………………………………………...64 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….66 Recommendations………………………………………………………………..67 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..70
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
Table 1: Sample of Research Participants……………………………………………….41 Table 2: Likert Scale, Coding, and Interpretation………………………………………42 Table 3: Instrument Reliability Statistics………………………………………………..43 Table 4: Secondary School Teachers are Supervised by their Head Teachers…………..46 Table 5: General Supervisory Practices………………………………………………….48 Table 6: Secondary School Teachers‘ Perspective of Supervision……………………...51 Table 7: Quality of General and Instructional Supervision in Secondary Schools………53 Table 8: Secondary School Teachers‘ Supervisory Experiences………………………..54 Table 9: Methods and Techniques Head Teachers use in Supervising Teachers……….56 Table 10: Supervision and Secondary School Teachers‘ Work Performance…………...59 Table 11: Relationship between Head Teachers‘ Supervisory Practices and Teachers‘ Work Performance…………………………………………………....60
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………..11 Figure 2: Map of Wakiso District Showing Entebbe Municipality……………………...40
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
PAGE
Appendix 1: Supervision Interview Question Guide for Research Participants…………73 Appendix 2: Supervision Questionnaire for Research Participants……………………...76
xiii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS EFA – Education For All ESA – Education Standard Agency DEOs – District education Officers IOSs –Inspector of Schools MOE – Ministry of Education SPSS – Statistical Package for Social Sciences UPE – Universal Primary Education USE – Universal Secondary education VOA –Voice of America
xiv
ABSTRACT NZABONIMPA BUREGEYA, School of Graduate Studies, Bugema University, Kampala, Uganda, October 2011. The study entitled ―INFLUENCE OF HEAD TEACHERS‘ GENERAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORY PRACTICES ON TEACHERS‘ WORK PERFORMANCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT, UGANDA.‖ Supervisor: ProfessorPATRICK MANU, PhD The study examined the Influence of Secondary School Head Teachers‘ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers‘ Work Performance. Qualitative and qualitative methods with a descriptive-correlational research approach were used in the study. Purposive sampling technique alongside random sampling technique was used to select the research participants from secondary schools. Self-constructed questionnaire and structured interviews were used as relevant tools to gather data from respondents. Descriptive statistics, frequency, percentage, and mean were used in analyzing data and reporting the study findings. And Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to establish the extent of relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. The study findings indicate that head teachers, to a great extent in private secondary schools; do not carry out instructional supervision albeit they do some informal classroom visits. They slightly do general and informal supervision at the expense of instructional or formal supervision. To this end, findings indicate that 64.3% of head teachers routinely check their teachers‘ pedagogic documents and as a practice of
xv
teacher supervision, while 57.1% of head teachers informally visit their teachers during classroom instruction. The findings of this study indicate that limited general and instructional supervision is commonplace in secondary schools. It is likewise revealed through the study findings that head teachers are unaware of their job description, are not given support to practice instructional supervision, and experience both role conflict and ambiguity in the course of completing the work of headship and teaching simultaneously. Also the study findings revealed that to some teacher participants, supervision is ―nonexistent‖ in secondary schools due the fact that some of them have been teaching for more than a decade, but they have never been supervised by the head teacher in the classroom. The research findings likewise indicate a high correlation between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. The relationship existed at the 0.001 level (2-tailed) with Pearson Correlation Coefficient of 0.636. And the coefficient of determination was 0.4044 or 40% indicating a moderate relationship between supervision and teacher performance. Challenges related to teacher supervision were reported by study participants, mainly, head teachers. Private secondary school head teachers reported more challenges than their counterparts in government schools.
xvi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background to the Study Global educational policies and programs alike have brought forth significant challenges to many education systems around the globe though ―educational policy in the twenty-first century is the key to global security, sustainability and survival‖ (Olssen et al. 2006). Education For All (EFA), Universal Primary Education (UPE), and Universal Secondary Education (USE) are some of the notable global educational policies implemented ages ago. The effect of globalization on education, on the other hand today, has called for survival measures of education the world over, and all organizations continuously strive for sustainable development and survival with no let up. Responding to this scenario, Armstrong (2003) suggests that this survival can basically be ensured through adequate work supervision as one of strategic survival approaches. As a manager in any organization, contends Hunsaker & Hunsaker (2009), one must ensure that objectives are met and also that employees learn how to enhance their performance through regular appraisals and supervision (p.50). In Uganda, supervision of schools started in 1924, during the missionary era when supervisory duties and responsibilities were entrusted to religious leaders. This was because most schools belonged to missionaries and their Arab counterparts. Decades later, an education department was established with the main objective of inspecting schools countrywide. At present, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Uganda still maintains its supervisory roles through Education Standard Agency (ESA) whereby,
1
supervisors are required to exhibit their competence, tactfulness, sincerity and integrity in their work (Nambassa, 2003). However, astute observations, articles and repeated educational research studies indicate that there is an ongoing decline of supervision in schools throughout the globe today (Bentley, 2005). Numerous recent studies still have indicated that today‘s education systems in countless nation-states around the globe are facing a number of education-related challenges that are making it difficult for them to achieve educational goals and objectives than ever before. Globalization is one of noticeable challenges today. In his master‘s thesis, Habimana, (2008) points out that political leaders and researchers continuously stress that in our time education is declining the world over as it faces diverse challenges. Education is even being criticized in some developing countries vis-à-vis its products. With reference to this, in VOA Special English Education Report, 2011, US president Barack Obama was quoted saying, ―If Americans want to win the future, and then they also have to win the race to educate their children‖. Referring to president Obama‘s assertive statement, the word ‗race‘ simply implies ongoing serious competition whereby countries are competing for top education success throughout the globe. To achieve this goal remains a question. As regards Universal Primary Education (UPE) and Universal Secondary Education (USE) programs failure to achieve their objectives in Uganda, Esudu (2010), a Development Studies student at Makerere University, reported in the New Vision that both programs UPE/USE are facing a number of challenges, especially ―lack of close supervision‖. He further points out that the Ministry of Education and Sport is not closely supervising its subordinates in charged of regions, who in turn are not closely supervising
2
and monitoring the District Education Officers (DEOs). And also the DEOs are not keeping a close eye on the inspectors of schools, and a result, the school inspectors do not visit schools to monitor the head teachers, who in turn also are not closely supervising teachers. As an unreliable alternative, continues Esudu (2010), supervision and monitoring is being done on phone and internet or e-mails by filling appraisal forms, yet there is no practical evidence that someone is performing in the field. Regardless of all various studies done on supervision, there is still no reported improvement in regard to effective teaching and learning in many secondary schools in Uganda today. The World Bank education specialist Mr. Paul Murphy (2002, pointed further in the New Vision that the quality of education under UPE program is unsatisfactory; there is inadequate teaching due high teacher-pupil ratio, and there is an overcrowding in classes that negatively affect the standard of education in Uganda (The New Vision, 2002). At a local scale still, from her research study, Nambassa (2003) points out that there have been indicators of falling standards in quality of teaching and learning in Wakiso district in Uganda due to a number of factors that have impacted pretty much on the quality teaching and students‘ performance. Beyond doubt, lack of supervision has apparently made some teachers no longer regard teaching as a desired career and ever take it for granted. To make the matter worse, teachers who fall under this category do not mind about improving their teaching, school performance and report in school whenever they like and do school duties unenthusiastically (Education Policy Review Report, 2005).
3
Statement of the Problem Supervision of school and classroom instruction is seemingly falling on deaf ears among heads of schools and taken for granted though ironically emphasized by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Uganda. Recent educational reports from rural schools and articles in newspapers in Uganda have indicated that many pupils/students are roaming around the village, teachers misbehaving as they come to class drunk or oftentimes being absent from school with no genuine reasons, having poor job performance, and sometimes head teachers are not in office during working hours. Admittedly, lack of close supervision is blamed to be the root cause intensifying all these factors just mentioned. The background of this study pointed out that there have been indicators of falling standards in quality teaching and learning in Wakiso district due to many factors including declining teacher supervision. Despite all previous studies on instructional supervision and their recommendations to boost quality teaching, the problem of limited/lack of supervision in schools continues to threaten effective teaching to wane as education stakeholders on administrative and managerial position, entrusted with direct supervisory responsibilities are turning a deaf ear and blind eye to this alarming problem. There was, therefore, a need for this study to be undertaken. Research Questions After collection and analysis of data, and interpretation of the findings, the latter were used to answer the following research questions: 1. Do secondary school head teachers regularly supervise their teachers inside and outside the classroom?
4
2. What are secondary school teachers‘ perspectives of general and instructional supervision? 3. What methods and techniques do head teachers use in carrying out their supervisory duties to improve classroom instruction and teacher‘s professional growth and development? 4. To what extent is the relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools? 5. What are the challenges that are faced by secondary school head teachers when they supervise their teachers? Research Objectives The general objective of the study was to examine if there is any significant relationship between head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools. Besides, the study was guided by the following specific objectives: 1. To find out if secondary school teachers are regularly supervised by their head teachers; 2. To examine teachers‘ viewpoints of supervision and quality of supervision in secondary schools; 3. To identify methods and techniques employed by head teachers in carrying out their general and instructional supervisory duties in secondary schools; 4. To determine the extent of the relationship between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers work performance;
5
5. To discover challenges that secondary school head teachers face in supervising their teachers. Statement of Hypothesis The researcher intended to use the study findings from this study to verify the following hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between general and instructional supervisory practices of head teachers and work performance of teachers in selected secondary schools. Scope of the Study As regard content scope of the study, the researcher strove to scrutinize only the relation between the two variables of concern, which are head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. Pertaining to head teachers‘ supervisory practices, the researcher was delimited to supervisory skills, available supervision facilities, informal visits, classroom visits, appraisal forms, and supervision reports. Whereas teachers‘ performance was indicated by teacher‘s regularity in school, time management, classroom instruction and management, pedagogic documents, conduct and teaching behavior. Research participants included secondary school head teachers, deputy head teachers, teachers, and student leaders. Participants were selected randomly comprising of both male and female based on a reasonable period of being in teaching service.
Regarding geographical margin, the study was carried out in Entebbe municipality, Wakiso district, Uganda. As regards time scope, the study was carried out
6
within the allotted period of time, which was from late June 2011 till late September 2011, the time of presenting and reporting research findings. Limitations During the process of collecting data, the researcher faced the limitation of meeting with the study participants, mainly teachers and deputy head teachers. When the researcher was distributing the questionnaires to teachers, the researcher realized that a big number of teachers were teaching in different secondary schools in the same location of the study. So, it was impossible to distribute the questionnaires to the same teachers to whom the questionnaires were administered earlier in other schools. To overcome this limitation, however, the researcher decided to increase the number of secondary schools to participate in the study; that is, from eight to ten secondary schools. Significance of the Study One of the researcher‘s grand expectations in regard to the import of the study was that the study would alert the key education stakeholders, first those holding administrative and managerial positions such as Minister of Education (MOE), District Education Officers (DEOs), Inspectors of Schools (IOS), educational institutional leaders to revive their zeal for teacher supervision in secondary schools. These stakeholders would be helped to realize that there may be other factors other than incentives, perquisites and teaching skills that may influence teachers‘ work performance, and one of such factors is supervisory practices, so to speak. Secondly, the MOE would be spurred to enforce supervision-based-training, seminars, workshops, and refresher courses countrywide for secondary school head teachers and deputy head teachers. By so doing, even those who missed out supervision
7
course at the university or college are likely to get supervision skills to become effective school leaders and supervisors in their respective secondary schools. Thirdly, the study would be so beneficial to the extent of breaking the underlying silence vis-à-vis supervision of school and classroom instruction by secondary school heads. Head teachers would be motivated to improve their supervisory skills and practices as they objectively read this research report, findings and recommendations wherefrom. Besides, it would likewise benefit secondary school teachers by keeping them abreast of the need for general and instructional supervision to improve their classroom instruction and management as well as help them meet their professional growth and development needs. Fourthly, since some educational administrators and managers might have been oblivious of the value of supervision as being a vital analytical tool to assess effectiveness of new implemented programs, the study would likewise show that supervision is worthy of application to monitor and evaluate educational programs, such as UPE/USE. As said earlier according to Esudu (2010), lack of close supervision is one of the factors to be blamed for the failure of UPE/USE programs in Uganda. Finally, the study would provide the researcher with in-depth insight into teacher supervision and its dimensions. It would likewise outright pave the way for other interested educational researchers to investigate further the problem on ground in other parts of the country or the globe if deemed worth doing so. Theoretical Framework The study was based on and guided by Symbolic Interactionism theory coined by Blumer (1969), as a relevant theory fitting to explain how and why teachers‘ work
8
performance can be influenced by head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices. Essentially, Blumer believed that symbolic interactionism was a method of constructing meaning from social interactions. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes interactions among people, the use of symbols in communication and interaction, and the reality of self as constructed by others through communication and interaction with one another. Needless to say, supervision by nature is a process (Pierce and Rowell, 2005) and by so being, it involves social interaction of the supervisor (head teacher) and the (supervisee) teacher throughout the process, which is from pre-conference observation, observation and post-conference observation. It is worth noting that Blumer‘s (1969) structure of symbolic interactionism rests upon three core premises: 1. People act toward things, including human beings, on the basis of the meanings they have for them. 2. These meanings are derived through social interaction with others. 3. These meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process, and finally the meanings prompt the person to action by making a change. Participants in the study were expected to share their past supervisory experiences by means of which they attached value and meaning to supervision. As the head teachers and teachers express their experiences during supervision process or research study, they were, in essence, ―engaging in the process of communication‖, creating meanings, and being prompted to act (Blumer, 1969:5). Emphasizing the role of interaction, Hunsaker and Hunsaker (2009), assert that communication, in other words interaction, is the process of sending a message to another person with the intent of
9
evoking an outcome or a change in behavior (p.18). To communicate is to influence the actions of people and to change their attitudes (Barasa, 2007). Since perspectives are the central concept of Symbolic Interactionism theory, secondary school teachers‘ perspectives of supervision were taken into account in the study. Conceptual Framework The research aimed at examining the relation between head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools. In fact, whatever a head teacher does during supervision process has a significant impact on teacher‘s teaching practices. Head teacher‘s supervision skills are manifest during observation and when giving the supervised teacher the observation feedback, a session during which both the head teacher and the teacher share their experiences. Influence of general supervision supplement the influence of instructional supervision on teachers‘ work performance. Figure 1 depicts all the essential prototypes of general and instructional supervision and teachers‘ work performance in school and how these variables relate.
10
Independent Variable
General Supervision: Extra-curricular activities Science practices School garden work Debates Sports Study trips
Dependent Variable
Teachers’ work performance: Teacher‘s regularity in school & class Time management Prepared pedagogic documents Classroom instruction and management Conduct and teaching behavior.
Intervening Variables
Instructional Supervision: Supervisory skills and approaches. Informal visits Classroom visits. Appraisal forms. Supervision reports
Nature of school. Personal qualities. Teaching techniques. Incentives. Perquisites.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
Possible facets of teacher‘s performance are also evident during and after supervision as he/she applies teaching skills and present all the required pedagogical documents in the class. The regular presence of the head teacher counts a lot to the teacher during extra-curricular activities like during sports, debates, science practices, or study trips. Likewise, informal and regular classroom visits by head teachers keep teacher awake and make them care about teaching and learning. In this both general and instructional supervision practices were taken as one general variable.
11
Operational Definition of Terms Operational and contextual definitions of the selected terms of concern used in the study are as follows: General supervision –in this study this refers to an occasional formative practices carried out outside the classroom leading to the improvement of teaching and learning practices, especially during extra-curricular activities such as sports, debates, and study trips. Instructional Supervision – in this study this refers to as an ongoing periodical formative practice carried out solely inside the classroom with intent to improvement teacher‘s instructional practices and student performance during normal classroom teaching. Supervisory skills – this refers to communication, conceptual, technical, and human relations skills required for effective supervision of school and classroom instruction. Informal visits –time when a head teacher or a deputy head teacher visits a teacher either in class or outside the classroom during instruction with no prior notice. Appraisal forms –these are official forms that are used periodically by secondary school head teachers in monitoring and evaluating teachers‘ work performance in classroom instruction and management. Supervisor –Any person such as head teacher, deputy head teacher, experienced teacher, inspector of schools or any other qualified person
12
entrusted with direct supervisory responsibilities to oversee subordinates and help them improve school and classroom instruction. Teacher’s work performance – this refers to teacher effective execution of school and classroom duties to contribute to accomplishment of school goals as well as his/her personal goals and meet his/her personal needs. Teacher’s regularity in school and class – the state of teacher not being absent from school or missing classes when he/she is supposed to be at school. Time management –this refers to one being conscious of and able to keep time and carry out school and classroom duties at the right time. Pedagogic documents –in this study, these are documents that a teacher uses during instruction inside or outside the classroom. Examples of such pedagogic documents are scheme of text books, record of work, lesson plan, register, and exam marking guide. Classroom instruction and management –a process of planning, organizing, executing classroom teaching, and controlling environment and students‘ behavior for the purpose of maximizing student cooperation and minimizing disruptive behavior. Conduct and teaching behavior – in the study, this refers to a positive change in how a teacher behaves and performs in class and school after being prodded though appraisals and regular supervision.
13
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains review of the study-related literature with its sub-headings, namely; overview of supervision, intents and purposes of supervision, instructional supervision and teacher evaluation, changing perspectives of supervision, informal visits and general supervision, instructional supervision and teacher performance, teacher supervision-related challenges, summary of identified gap. Dimensions of Supervision Initially, supervision, as a field of educational practice with clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, did not fall from the sky fully formed. Grauwe (2007) traces its origins back to the birth of public education, when young nations used education to forge a common language and culture. Supervision emerged slowly as a distinct practice, always in relation to the institutional, academic, cultural, and professional dynamics that have historically generated the complex agenda of schooling. In whatever context, supervision is meant for improvement of work performance. According to Blumberg (1998), Zepeda & Ponticell, (1998), supervision should be used to reinforce effective teaching methods and encourage teacher‘s growth and professional development. Merriam-Webster (n. d.) defines supervision as ―the action, process, or occupation of supervising; especially: a critical watching and directing (as of activities or course of action)‖ (―supervision‖). A closer examination of the word ―direct‖ revealed the following definition: ―to regulate the activities or course of; to carry out the organizing, energizing, and supervising of; to dominate and determine the course of; to
14
train and lead performances of‖ (Merriam-Webster, 2009, ―direct‖). Words such as organizing, energizing, supervising, determine the course of, and train and lead performances, all are fit to describe supervision in an educational setting. Today, different people view supervision in different lens. In a broad sense, Pierce and Rowell (2005) define supervision as a developmental process designed to support and enhance an individual‘s acquisition of the motivation, autonomy, selfawareness, and skills necessary to effectively accomplish the job at hand (p.1). Basically in education sector, the main purposes of supervision are to improve classroom instruction and to promote professional growth and development of teachers. Supervision can be thought of as ―the glue of successful school‖ and "behind every successful school is an effective supervision program". Generally, according to Fleming & Steen (2004:18), one of the crucial elements of supervision is the idea that the role of supervision is to protect the best interests of the client. Referring to educational context still, the main objective of supervisory practice in school is to improve instruction, which is teaching and learning. According to Pearson (2009), when supervising in the educational realm, supervisors should seek to help those being supervised realize their possibilities and usefulness. The supervisor must watch the teacher's work, ask the teacher questions about why the teacher used certain teaching methods and provide information on the best teaching practices, enabling educators to improve. In fact, according to Aseltine (2006), the process of supervision for learning offers both teachers and their supervisors the opportunity to work together to improve student learning. Okumbe (2007:176) points out that ―the most recent concept in instructional supervision is called clinical supervision. Clinical supervision is the
15
rationale and practice designed to improve teacher‘s classroom performance.‖ The very recent supervision model called Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation (PBSE) was suggested by Aseltine et al., (2006), and it has been tested effective in schools. Available information in books shows that supervision is a concept of ages ago, from industrial revolution in scientific management era and during the period of ―administrative inspector‖ (1642-1875). The term supervisor has its root in Latin, where it means ―looks over.‖ It was originally applied to the master of a group of artisans (Newstrom & Bittel, 2002). Today in business sector according to Newstrom & Bittel (2002), the supervisor‘s job combines some of the talents of the ‗foreman‖ (or leader) and of the ―master‖ (skilled administrative artisan) (pp.4-5). Simply put, while aimed at improving teacher‘s work performance, professional growth and development as well as student‘s academic performance, supervision is twofold, that is; general supervision and instructional supervision which subsumes supervisory activities that take place principally outside and inside the classroom (Okumbe, 2007). By function, supervision is an ―act of instructional leadership‖ (Andrews & Basom, 1991, p.97). According to Okumbe, general supervision denotes such activities as writing and revision of curricular, preparation of schemes of work and lesson plans, marking some of students‘ pending work, preparation of units and materials of instruction, the development of processes and instruments for reporting to parents and such broad concerns as the evaluation of the total educational program. Whereas, instructional supervision contends (Okumbe, 2007, p. 176) on the other hand, is concerned with teacher‘s teaching and student learning in the classroom.
16
Much like all skills, supervision can be taught. Unlike many simple or basic skills, nonetheless, supervision is best understood as a ―process‖ –requiring both knowledge and experience (Pierce and Rowell, 2005). Having this in mind, in order for an individual to develop knowledge and skills to become an effective supervisor of others, they must first go through the process of supervision themselves, particularly in terms of being supervised and mentored in the role of supervision. Pierce and Rowell‘s view is clearly supported by Okumbe (2007), who later contends that a supervisor in education must be a professionally qualified teacher, with pedagogical skills at his/her finger tips (p.186). In educational context, supervision implies an ―instructional leadership role‖ in which the supervisor diagnoses teacher performance needs and then guides, directs, assists, suggests, supports, and consults with the teacher. Supervision is the function in school that draws together discrete elements of instructional effectiveness in wholeschool action. Some professions have mandatory requirements concerning all aspects of supervision. The British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy (BACP, 2002), for example, requires all its members ‗to have regular and ongoing formal supervision/consultative support‘. In midwifery, there has been a statutory requirement, since 1902, for practicing midwives to receive regular supervision. Zepeda (2003), states that supervision‘s purpose is to promote growth, development, interaction, fault-free problem solving, and a commitment to build capacity in teachers. Relating the import of supervision to job success, Pierce and Rowell (2005), view supervision as a developmental process designed to support and enhance an individual‘s acquisition of the motivation, autonomy, self-awareness, and skills necessary to effectively accomplish the job at hand.
17
Recent supervision practices reflect Zepeda‘s ideas and are more collaborative in nature. Developmental supervision models have emerged that are tailored to the developmental needs of teacher, (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2007). Ultimately, changes in teaching practices in individual classrooms are the responsibility of each teacher. Principals need to reach each teacher as teachers are expected to reach each student if systemic change is to occur and meet the new mission of education, achievement for all students. Regarding role of supervision according to Figueroa (2004), supervision of instruction involves ―motivating the teacher to explore new instructional strategies.‖ The teacher must be made aware of the educational goals and standards to be implemented. The observer must be objective during the observation process and maintain confidentiality. It is also important for the observer/supervisor to provide due feedback and appropriate resources for the teacher to utilize (Hunsaker and Hunsanker, 2009; Armstrong, 2003). Effective supervision should result in growth and learning by the teacher and the student. Supervision is a formative process that focuses upon professional development and the improvement of instruction. It is characterized by a collegial, helping relationship between administrators or teachers and the teachers in a climate of trust and mutual understanding (Figueroa, 2004). Supervision encourages professional growth and development of staff and high quality classroom performance that promotes improved student learning. In a quality supervision program, the following conditions are present: 1. It is assumed that supervision is a participatory process with an ongoing dialogue between administrators/head teachers and teachers to find improved methods for
18
the delivery of instruction. Administrators strive to share the principles and practices of quality teaching while promoting input and decision making on the part of the teachers. 2. Supervision encourages a wide variety of instructional techniques and diversity in teaching methods which take into account the unique talents and capabilities of each teacher. 3. Administrators/head teachers support the improvement of instruction by observing teaching as well as by giving suggestions, coaching, or demonstrating a teaching skill or an alternative teaching method. They also provide resources such as videotapes of a particular skill, staff development activities to individuals or small groups of teachers, and appropriate instructional materials that enhance the delivery of instruction inside and outside the classroom. In 1969, concerned by the lack of professionalism associated with the common practices of teacher evaluation, a group of Harvard researchers headed by Robert Goldhammer, formulated a more systematic approach to teacher evaluation. Called ―clinical supervision,‖ this model advocated involving the teacher in setting goals and determining assessment methods (Wiles & Bondi, 2002). Clinical supervision has made a considerable contribution to our growing body of professional knowledge by articulating and addressing a teacher‘s prerequisite instructional skills (Aseltine, 2006). While Goldhammer‘s process emphasized the teacher‘s role in selecting areas of focus and evaluation criteria, Hunter‘s presented external criteria, purportedly based on empirical research in educational psychology, and emphasized the supervisor‘s role as objective observer (Nolan & Hoover, 2004).
19
Clinical supervision refers to specific pattern or cycle of working with teachers. A cycle of clinical supervision comprises of conferences, observation of teachers at work, and a pattern analysis. Clinical supervision is defined as that phase of instructional supervision that draws its data from first hand observation of teaching events and involves face-to-face interaction between the supervisor and the teacher in the analysis of teaching behaviors and activities for instructional improvement. Clinical supervision, as quoted in Kruskamp (2003) from, is a powerful model for professional development, and the purpose of clinical supervision is to help teachers modify existing patterns of teaching in ways that make sense to them. The supervisor‘s job is, therefore, to help the teacher select goals to be improved and teaching issues to be illuminated, and to understand better his or her practice. The emphasis on understanding provides the avenue by which more technical assistance can be given to the teacher; thus, clinical supervision involves, as well, systematic analysis of classroom events. What is arguably most striking in supervisory services, according to Grauwe (2007), was the lack of fundamental change in their mission and organization. Even more surprisingly, the end of colonialism did not lead to the newly independent African states to rethink school supervision. Some of those approaches are collegial supervision, selfdirected supervision, informal supervision, and inquiry-based supervision to mention a few. Nevertheless, clinical supervision approach is still unconsciously being applied in schools today. Effective supervision, however, requires knowledge of curriculum, training, interpersonal skills, conceptual and technical skills.
20
Although the methods and practices of instructional supervision have varied since the inception of formal supervisory models, its intents and purposes have primarily remained the same—―to help teachers improve instructional performance‖, as reflected in Okumbe (2007) work on instructional supervision. The broad goals of supervision were: To provide teachers with objective feedback on the current state of their instruction. To diagnose and solve instructional problems. To help teachers develop skill in using instructional strategies. To evaluate teachers for promotion, tenure, or other decisions. To help teachers develop a positive attitude about continuous professional development. (pp. 12-13) Proponents of clinical supervision maintain that it aims at improving teacher development training and takes the view that teaching is a form of human behavior that has structure and can be both influenced and controlled. They further assert that teachersupervisor relationship is viewed as one of mutuality within a framework of respect for individual autonomy and self-regulated enquiry analysis, examination and evaluation. Instructional Supervision and Teacher Evaluation Supervision, or instructional supervision, has often been coupled with the evaluation of teachers. Though supervision and evaluation are certainly associated processes, they do not share the same intents (Glanz, 2000) writing about the differences between supervision and evaluation stated:
One of the most persistent problems in supervision is the dilemma between (1) evaluating a teacher in order to make decisions about retention, promotion, and tenure, and (2)
21
working with the teacher as a friendly critic or colleague to help develop skills the teacher wants to use and to expand the repertoire of strategies that can be employed. (p. 209)
Instructional supervision is an ongoing formative process with the improvement of a teacher‘s instructional practices as its intent. Evaluation, on the other hand, is summative and results in a rating or judgment of the teacher‘s professional performance. The intents of instructional supervision are bundled under the construct of teacher development, and Zepeda (2003), reported the work of many in her synthesis of the intents of instructional supervision. In short, the intents of instructional supervision according to her are to promote: Face-to-face interaction and relationship building between the teacher and the supervisor; Ongoing learning; Improvement of students‘ learning through improvement of the teacher‘s instruction; Data-based decision making; Capacity building of individuals and the organization; Trust in the process, each other, and the environment; Change that results in a better developmental life for teachers and students and their learning. Talking about the nature of and discrepancy between supervision and evaluation, Zepeda (2003) contend that instructional supervision is an ongoing formative process with the improvement of a teacher‘s instructional practices as its intent, whereas, evaluation is summative and results in a rating or judgment of the teacher‘s professional
22
performance. These some authors believed that supervision could be ―the heart of a good evaluation system‖. However, according to Sullivan and Glanz (2000), most teachers fail to reap the benefits of instructional supervision since it is often replaced with evaluation. Many authors have described instructional supervision in varied ways, including a discussion of the myriad forms instructional supervision can take in any given school. Still, Kruskamp (2003) quoted Acheson and Gall who contend that the term clinical supervision is not used to ―connote pathology‖ but rather to indicate a ―face-to-face relationship between teacher and supervisor and a focus on the teacher‘s actual behavior in the classroom‖ (p. 9). Acheson and Gall described clinical supervision in this manner:
In brief, clinical supervision is a model of supervision that contains three phases: planning conference, classroom observation, and feedback conference. The most distinctive features of clinical supervision are its emphases on direct teacher supervisor interaction and on the teacher‘s professional development. (p. 11).
Proponents of supervision portrayed supervision as developmental, requiring the supervisor to identify the developmental stage of the teacher and then to use appropriate techniques to assist the teacher‘s professional growth. They stress that, ―Effective supervision must be based on matching orientations of supervision with the needs and characteristics of teachers‖. This statement is in agreement with what teachers are referred to as change agents. Basically, education is meant for bringing change in the learner the same as supervision is also meant for bringing change in the teacher‘s behavior. Developmental supervision was conceived by Glickman as comprising alternative approaches for helping teachers improve instruction. Differentiated supervision, according to educational scholars, would allow teachers to choose from a menu of both supervisory and evaluative options. Some of them expected ―regardless of
23
experience or competence, all teachers will be involved in three related processes for improving instruction: teacher evaluation, staff development, and informal
observations‖. Furthermore, some supervision proponents‘ view of differentiated supervision concluded that all teachers were to be involved in ―two or more‖ of the following developmental processes: Intensive development (mandatory use of the clinical supervision model); Cooperative development (developmental, socially mediated activities such as peer coaching or action research); or, Self-directed development (developmental activities teachers direct on their own). Differentiated supervision, to be successful, needs an environment conducive to nurturing collegial relationships that are based on ―cooperation and mutual assistance. Supervision has undergone many changes (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000; Zepeda, 2003). Clinical supervision alone has continuously faced a number of critiques. As the journey of clinical supervision traveled through a period of transition brought on by contemporary societal concerns, educational accountability, and political demands, scholars (e.g., Glickman, 1998) attempted to clarify the shift in supervisory methodology and to make sense of the problems associated with instructional supervision. When Glickman grappled with the shifting intents and purposes of supervisory practices, he said, ―I found myself caught between my ‗old‘ viewpoints and the realities of how public schools are actually moving ahead to improve teaching and learning‖. Nolan and Frances (1992) argued that supervision needed to become a group process of interdependent cooperation rather than the one-on-one clinical method, and they noted:
24
Given the research on cooperative learning and teacher collegiality, we hypothesize that if supervision were carried out as a group process in which the supervisors and teachers were interdependent in achieving group and individual goals, the process of supervision would become more effective in helping teachers learn about and improve their teaching. (p. 5)
As a parallel to the notion that the shift from a traditional, teacher-centered base of learning to a more collaborative foundational learning concept, scholars pointed to the need for self-supervision through reflection and the creation of knowledge. Grauwe (2007), contends that an increasing number of countries have, from the early 1990s onwards, attempted to reform supervision, not as the result of a radical political change, but because of recognition of its ineffectiveness. These reforms are inspired by the conviction that ―an effective supervision is a key tool to monitor and improve education quality,‖ (Nambassa, 2003). Consecutive supervision models have been suggested many times so as to improve supervisory practices. A recent supervision model was suggested by Aseltine, Faryniarz & Rigazio-DiGilio, and all professional educationists working with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) and teaching in Central Connecticut State University in USA. Aseltine et al. (2006), called this new model of supervision Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation (PBSE). They genuinely believe that the techniques associated with this model can help ―reprofessionalize‖ the work of teachers and provide efficient strategies to increase the analytic and instructional capacity of schools and school districts. The model was developed and first implemented in their home state of Connecticut, where it proved an effective means of strengthening teaching and student learning, and enhancing professional culture.
25
Informal Visits and General Supervision Many times informal visits, general supervision and informal supervision are used interchangeably. Partially, general supervision embodies those supervisory practices carried out by heads of schools outside the classroom (Okumbe, 2007). General supervision denotes a number of supervisory activities a head teacher may do outside the classroom purposely checking on teacher‘s performance outside the classroom. One prototype of such supervisory activities is informal visits (Beaver, 2002). And teacher‘s outside-the-classroom performance may include preparing lesson plans, schemes of work, teaching aids and materials if provided, supervising students while working in school garden, or during co-curricular activities to mention but few. A slight difference between general supervision and informal supervision is that informal supervision is comprised of the casual encounters that occur between supervisor and teacher, and it is characterized by frequent informal visits to teacher‘s classrooms, conversations with teachers about their work, and informal activities. Unfortunately, there is a handful of literature vis-à-vis research study on either correlation between outside-the-classroom supervision and teachers‘ performance or students‘ performance. Most researchers and scholars focus mainly on what teachers do in the classroom. Even some primary and secondary school heads do not consider it as essential to check on their teachers‘ performance outside the classroom; say like during co-curricular activities and trip study. The researcher did not come across any study that dealt with general supervision and teachers‘ work performance.
26
Instructional Supervision and Teacher Performance Oftentimes, instructional supervision and clinical supervision are used interchangeably both to denote all those supervisory practices done by heads of schools inside the classroom solely to check on and improve teacher‘s instructional performance (Holland & Garman, 2001). Instructional supervision as an ongoing and dynamic process remains an indispensable function, serving the highest ideals of schooling in our democracy though some theorists muse that supervision may no longer be necessary. In some instances, supervision should never be taken for evaluation of teacher performance. Several researches have indicated that supervision only for evaluation does nothing to improve teacher performance and can even have a negative effect on teachers‘ morale. Basically, based on its functions and purposes, instructional supervision is in fact perceived as formal supervision since it is carried out periodically by heads of schools (Beaver, 2002). There is a lot of research on supervision now than ever before. With reference to the existence of supervision in schools, from the findings provided by his research study, Beaver (2002), discovered that supervision was in school considered ―nonexistent‖ and distorted‖ by the study participants. Besides, for those who were not oblivious of supervision, findings also indicated that to assist middle school fine arts teachers improve their performance, instructional supervisors must understand the ―world of fine arts classroom,‖ narrow the gap between the ideal and what is practiced , to be trained to observe fine arts classrooms with a ―larger lens‖ in light of accountability. In support of this finding, Okumbe (2007) mentioned earlier, asserts that an instructional supervisor has got to be ―an-already-professionally qualified teacher, with the pedagogic
27
skills at his or her finger tips, and hi/her instructional supervisory leadership skills must be consciously developed through training‖ (p.186). In the similar development, Bentley (2005), got almost the same findings; in his research study, all participants reported little or no supervision of teachers in the gifted program. Describing supervision in the gifted program, Tina a participant in Bentley‘s study responded, ―I don‘t think we are supervised,‖ and ―I have taught gifted since 1974 and I have been totally unsupervised.‖ She reported getting no direction from her school administrators. Nell, another participant, also has been teaching in the gifted program since 1990, and she reported that in the early years there was ―pretty much no supervision.‖ Mary‘s statement paralleled with those of Tina and Nell recalling, ―I really don‘t get much supervision.‖ At a local scale, Esudu (2010) confirmed that there is a lack of supervision in Uganda‘s UPE/USE schools (The New Vision, January 23, 2010). Despite the fact that performance of teachers was not evaluated in Bentley‘s study, the findings revealed that the less experienced teachers desired more supervision while the experienced teachers preferred the independence they enjoyed by not being supervised (Bentley, 2005:175). Still from Bentley‘s research study findings, all participants reported that their administrators had little knowledge of the gifted program and the characteristics as well as the needs of concerned students. Relatively, this scenario parallels with what Okumbe (2007) said about instructional supervisors, who must be professional teachers and have knowledge of the subject or the program in which they are supervising. In line with the study findings above regarding nonexistence of supervision in education today, locally in Uganda, Esudu (2010) reported in the New Vision that
28
concerning UPE/USE programs the Ministry of Education and Sport is not closely supervising subordinates in charge of regions, who are also not supervising and monitoring DEOs. The DEOs are not keeping a close eye on inspectors of schools who, in turn, do not visit schools to monitor head teachers. At the end, head teachers do not mind to supervise teachers in their respective classes. Bentley‘s study, however, found no evidence that principals/head teachers were active in classroom instruction. To the contrary, the participants reported no input from the principals relating to classroom instruction (Bentley, 2005:164). The findings of Bentley‘s study also indicate that the participants viewed problem solving as the major form of positive supervision. All teachers in the study reported few classroom visits, and equate supervision with evaluation (p.173). Obviously, these teachers‘ view of supervision as evaluation might have been possibly due to the manner in which principals/head teachers were doing their supervisory practices. But again, supervision should not be taken for evaluation in some instances. Gerumi (2002) research findings, on the other hand, revealed that school heads were perceived by their teachers to perform very well in the five aspects of the supervisory practices. The teachers had an overall very satisfactory performance rating and performed beyond the target, unfortunately, majority of them did not have professional and technical skills other than their instructional skills. To this end, it is good to recollect again that supervision promotes teachers‘ professional growth, development as well as benefits them with technical skills. Otherwise if no supervised, the teachers will stagnate in a mechanical way of teaching with no positive change. Gerumi‘s study findings also indicate statistically that there was a very low correlation between
29
instructional supervision and teacher performance, and a negative negligible correlation between teacher performance and student achievement. The researcher, however, intends to verify if this hypothesis is constant even in the study to be undertaken yet. Teachers‘ attitude toward supervision is also of great concern. After their research study, Kramer et al. (2005) found through findings that there is a significant difference between the attitudes of teachers in low performance schools and the teachers in high performance schools. Teachers in high performance schools on the average had more positive attitudes toward supervision of instruction than teachers in low performance schools. This, in effect, implies that some teachers favor instructional supervision while others do not like at all. According to Kramer and his colleagues (2005), teachers in high performance secondary schools view supervision of instruction in a more positive light than those in low performance schools. In analyzing individual items from the questionnaire there are several areas where teachers in low performance schools feel supervision is lacking. They went further reporting from their research study findings that
Responding teachers in low performance schools do not feel they are motivated or encouraged during the observation or supervision process. Overall, they do not receive frequent feedback regarding their teaching performance. Their supervisors fail to help them understand new instructional strategies and standards or identify resources for use in the classroom. This is in contrast to the attitudes of the responding teachers in high performance schools (Kramer et al. 2005).
From Kramer et al., (2005) study findings, it can be surmised that supervision of instruction can have either negative or positive effect on the teacher depending on how the head teacher carries it out. This is another factor to consider, in fact. Supervision can encourage or discourage vis-à-vis teacher‘s attitude. Bias/prejudice is the may result into
30
negative attitude. Consequently, one of the keys to effective supervision is keep teachers abreast of supervision benefits through effective communication between the supervisor and the supervisee (Zepeda (2003). Still, more on teachers‘ perspectives of supervision will be looked at for constancy in the study to be yet carried out. Based on the above findings, it is partially revealed that general and instructional supervision has a significant correlation with teacher‘s work performance in schools. This is the very reason why the researcher of the present research study believes that the conspicuous decline of supervision of instruction poses a threat on teacher‘s performance. This, of course, becomes a challenge among others for a country to meet its educational goals and objectives that are considered as the compass of education system of any country (Petty, 2004). Thus, the researcher intends to investigate further the problem on ground. In a related development, Habimana (2008), study findings indicate that head teachers and deputy head teachers deemed supervisory practices extremely indispensable in secondary schools. Besides, results indicated that the way head teachers and teachers stimulate students affects students‘ academic performance, and also from students‘ responses, the way head teachers delegate their supervisory duties affects the students‘ academic performance. Whereas, according to teachers‘ responses the way supervision is carried out does not affect students‘ academic (Habimana, 2008). Teachers and students reported that the time spent by head teachers on supervision of instruction does not affect the academic performance of students whereas head teachers reported the opposite. Still, Habimana‘s study purpose is paralleled with Aseltine et al.‘s (2006), assertion that ―Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation begins with those
31
students‘ needs‖. To prepare for drafting a professional development plan to share with the supervisor, the teacher first considers the ―essential‖ aspects of the curriculum: what is most important for students to know and be able to do at this particular point in their educational development (Aseltine et al., 2006). As a result, the tangible effects that improved instruction has on student learning inspire change in both teacher action and teacher perception. In brief, it can be surmised that findings from Habimana‘s (2008), research study show conflict of participants‘ understanding and varied attitudes toward supervision. That is, head teachers, teachers and students do not have the same point of views in regard to supervision. Kramer, et al (2005), mentioned earlier found through his study that even teachers themselves have different attitude vis-à-vis supervision. Some attitudes are positive while others are negative toward supervision of school and classroom instruction. With reference to teachers‘ attitudes, supervision is at its best when it seems to occur in informal visits and is at its worst when it seems to occur in formal evaluations (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Somewhat, Habimana‘s study findings indicated that supervisory practices have a significant effect on secondary school students‘ academic performance. Most important, it is reasonable to note that this perceived effect of supervision of instruction on students‘ performance is indirect in that much of students‘ performance relies on a number of factors such as the role of teacher as both instructor and facilitator (Petty, 2004). More so, while correlating supervision with quality teaching, Nambassa (2003), study findings indicate that lack of supervisors and inadequate inspection brings about poor quality teaching and learning in primary schools. However, Glickman (1990)
32
contends that supervision is ―a glue of successful school‖. The study revealed that a number of primary school teachers are not supervised at all. Sadly, it was revealed that supervisors/head teachers do not possess prerequisite supervisory techniques and skills and are inadequately facilitated to do their supervisory duties. Even teachers who reported to have been at least supervised, post-conference between supervisor and supervisee, which formally takes place right after supervision, was a rare thing to hear about, and yet this phase is crucial in supervision. Outcomes of UPE/USE programs are not receiving due attention, yet much like research findings by Esudu (2010), as well as findings from Nambassa‘s study indicate that the on-going increasing number of pupils in primary schools due to UPE policy has resulted in high teacher-pupil ratio, which has in one way or another significantly affected practice of supervision and quality of teaching in primary schools in Wakiso district and Uganda at large. Admittedly, the same problem is apparent in secondary schools. Still relating challenges faced by UPE/USE policies to lack of supervision from the top educational managerial level to lower level, Esudu (2010), from his research study on how the direct implementers of universal education have embraced the program in Uganda, found that none of the officials or politicians in Uganda have children in a UPE/USE schools, and this is obviously owing to schools‘ negative image with reference to ineffective teaching and pupil‘s poor performance resulting from lack of close supervision of school and classroom instruction, leave alone other factors. In some instances, supervision of school and classroom instruction is understood in different ways by different people. To some people, supervision is regarded as employees‘ performance evaluation (Aseltine, 2006), performance monitoring (Nampa,
33
2007) or performance appraisal (Hunsaker & Hunsaker 2009). Having this in mind, findings from Nampa‘s (2007), research study indicated that there is a significant effect exerted by monitoring practices of teachers‘ performance in secondary schools. This finding is supported by other long ago findings from Lyman and Lawler‘s (1982) study, which also indicate that followers can have all the willingness and skills to do the job but will always need guidance through supervision. Basing on her study finding, Nampa contends that for an organization to achieve better performance, a supervisor must continuously check on day-to-day progress of work so as to put right what may be going wrong (Nampa, 2007, p. 47). Granted, supervision can be regarded as a measurement tool that is used to evaluate work progress and make improvement. In actual sense, any formal supervisory program must have an evaluation report. According to Okumbe (2007), a supervisory program is incomplete if it does not have an evaluation report. In this case, a supervisor acts as an ―educational auditor‖ whose function is to verify the teaching and learning outcomes in order to provide a corrective mechanism prompting to instructional improvement. Still Nampa‘s study reveals that effective supervisors expect nothing less than high productivity and good performance from teachers. It was also revealed that supervisors act as problem solvers and decision makers as they find out why something is going wrong and then decide what to do about it. In line with this finding, Sergiovanni and Starratt (1993), mentioned in previously, assert that supervisor‘s view is larger than individual teacher‘s view as regard the improvement of school and classroom instruction. This is simply so because supervisor moves back and forth between different schools, classrooms, and institutional level of administration and policy, and therefore, he or she
34
has a better sense of the whole school than individual teacher. Thus, head teachers entrusted with direct supervisory responsibilities are expected to have larger view of supervision than their teachers do. Simply put, a supervisor, in case of head teachers, must be an experienced, professional teacher (Okumbe, 2007). To emphasize the point, Newstrom and Bittel (2002), further assert that supervisors need to engage in personal time management, solve problems, provide training to employees, and handle a wide range of communication. Besides, findings from Nampa‘s study likewise indicate that there is a significant relationship between performance-related feedback and teachers‘ performance. Proponents of instructional supervision consider post-conference in which feedback is given in supervision as an ―instructional dialogue‖ type. The idea of providing feedback after supervision is pretty significant as it solely involves both parties sharing what was observed and experienced during supervision. According to Hunsaker and Johanna (2009), improving employees‘ performance depends on balanced and considerate feedback. To this end, Nampa contends that there is need to take the concept of providing feedback as important as teachers themselves. This finding parallel with the statement by Armstrong and Barm (1998) that information is usually fed back to the employees in form of ratings against various performance dimensions. As regards the advantages of feedback, Armstrong (2003), further points out that feedback helps individuals get a broad perspective of how they are perceived by others than previously possible, increase awareness of and relevance of competencies, encourage more feedback, re-enforce desired competencies, give people a more rounded view of performance and finally, it clarifies to employees‘ critical performance aspects or areas that need improvement.
35
Providing regular feedback to employees, contends Hunsaker (2009), will improve their performance. Most importantly, Nampa‘s study helps to understand the value of the concept of feedback provision as one of the dominant characteristics of performance management (p.50). In addition, it is worthy of noting that feedback on supervised teacher‘s performance takes place in the last phase of supervision, which is post-conference phase (Okumbe, 2007). Post-conference phase is crucial and allows both supervisor and teacher interact as the supervisor provides feedback regarding hi/her observation during supervision and entertains teacher‘s reaction to given feedback. As an instructional source, supervisors provide, not only a diagnosis of teaching, but also feedback that enables teacher‘s professional growth and development. Above all, this phase has a significant bearing on the success of supervision and requires qualities like intimacy, honesty, tactfulness, considerateness alongside mutual understanding from both parties. Regarding significance of feedback, Hunsanker and Hunsaker (2009), asserts that providing structured feedback through formal performance appraisal process can increase productivity and morale and decrease absenteeism and staff turnover in organization (p.50). Feedback is also regarded as a performance motivator as it involves provision of information on progress toward accomplishing a goal, or data indicating where a shortfall occurs (Newstrom & Bittel, 2002). Teacher Supervision-Related Challenges Lastly, much like any other activities or practices, supervision is susceptible to face challenges. Prior literature related to this present research study indicates that there are challenges that supervisors face during supervision process. Findings from Nampa
36
(2007), study indicate that there are a number of challenges faced by supervisors during their supervisory duties, and most of these challenges may hinder the success of supervision as well as affect the entire school and classroom instructional performance. Better still in his study, Kruskamp (2003), found that constraints to instructional supervision do exist. Ms. Williams, the Science Department chair at Lincoln North High School, indicated that the major obstacle to instructional supervision that she has experienced is the ―lack of time,‖ or put another way, ―the number of other tasks that fall‖ under her responsibility. Other constraints to instructional supervision are the lack of local school emphasis on department chairs acting as instructional supervisors, the resistance to supervision by veteran teachers, and the challenges presented by ―increased stress on teachers‖ due to the accountability of high-stakes testing. Summary of Identified Gap Taken all together, the available information got by reviewing the above related literature generally describes the overall intents and purposes of supervision of school and classroom instruction. From the noticeable perspective of positive and strength-based approaches to supervision in education sector, supervision has less to do with teaching and evaluation of teachers and more to do with establishing an environment which encourages individual teacher professional growth and development (Pierce and Rowell, 2005). Although much has been written on supervision in education, particularly teacher supervision, it is well noticed that none of these studies gave thought to teachers‘ work performance outside the classroom or head teachers‘ supervisory practices outside the classroom, and yet according to Glickman (1990), supervision is a ―glue of successful
37
school‖. Supervision should cover all school practices inside and outside the classroom. To this end, the predominant gap that the researcher perceived from these prior studies was the ignorance of influence of supervisory practices on teachers‘ work performance outside the classroom. Likewise, none of the related literature reviewed talked about methods and techniques head teachers use during supervision process, and yet obviously this may have a significant bearing on success of supervision of school and classroom instruction. For this reason, the researcher en passant examined further some of the factors such like teachers‘ viewpoint of supervision and their expectations as well as challenges faced by head teachers during supervision.
38
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Research Design The study was both quantitative and qualitative by nature since the researcher intended to describe current conditions/trends, investigate relationship, and study causeeffect phenomena in respect of head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. It was much more a qualitative research type such that the investigator intended to gain in-depth understanding of teachers‘ knowledge of, attitude toward and perspective of general and instructional supervision in secondary schools, and how supervision is practiced in schools. Eisner (1998) explained, ―The point of using qualitative means to render and interpret the educational world is that it enables researchers to say what cannot be said through numbers-or at least cannot be said as well‖ (p.187). Above all, qualitative research enriches quantitative research as it involves a form of interaction between the researcher and participants (Gay, et al., 2009). The investigator applied descriptive-correlational research approach since the latter involves collection of data to determine whether , and to what degree, a relation exists between these two variables; namely, secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance. Basically, correlational research is sometimes treated as a type of descriptive research, primarily because it describes an existing condition.
39
Locale of the Study The research study, which is Influence of Head Teachers‘ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers‘ Work Performance, was conducted in Entebbe Municipality, Wakiso district, Uganda. Entebbe Municipality is located in south Wakiso district bordering Lake Victoria, at 32km away from Kampala, capital city of Uganda.
Figure 2: Map of Wakiso district showing Entebbe Municipality Population of the Study Wakiso district has 385 secondary schools (School Guide Uganda, 2010). The target population of the study, however, comprised of 10 head teachers, 10 deputy head teachers, 238 teachers, and 30 student leaders all from the selected 10 secondary schools
40
comprising of government-aided and private schools in Entebbe Municipality, Wakiso district. Sample Size All the study participants were from the selected secondary schools in Entebbe municipality, Wakiso. In sampling the participants, the researcher followed Krejcie and Morgan (1970) method, which implies the smaller the population the bigger the sample. Detail of the sample size is shown in Table 2.1 provided below: Table 1: Sample of Research Participants
No Schools Head/D.Head Teachers Populat Sample 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1 1/1 1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1 1/1 1 16 Teachers Population 26 16 56 23 32 17 31 24 20 20 Sample 20 14 28 17 22 15 25 19 16 16 192 Student Leaders Population 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sample 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Jovens High School Kaasons S.S. Sch AirForce S.School Entebbe Central S.S Entebbe Parents S.S Entebbe Kings S.S Boston High School Lake View High S. Kitale college S St.Noah S.School
Research subjects who were expected to participate in the study comprised of 10 head teachers, six deputy head teachers, 192 teachers, and 30 student leaders, from selected private and government secondary schools in Entebbe Municipality as said earlier. The subjects of the study were selected randomly based on the researcher‘s interest in participants from particular secondary school. In short, the study subject sample size that was expected to participate in the study was 237.
41
Sampling Procedure To sample the research subjects to participate in the study, the investigator applied a purposive sampling technique alongside simple random sampling technique. The rationale behind this choice of these sampling approaches is that the researcher intended to use randomly as participants only long-serving secondary school head teachers, deputy head teachers and teachers for the likelihood of having supervised or been supervised. Research Instruments The researcher used both questionnaire and interview as relevant research tools to gather expected data. Questionnaire were self-constructed and administered to all sampled study participants. Regarding self-construction of the questionnaire, items were structured with open-ended questions and based on research objectives. The same was applied when setting the interview guide, which was structured with both open-ended and closed-ended questions to gather qualitative data from research participants. As regards questionnaire items, the researcher used five Likert scales, which required an individual participant to respond to a series of statements in questionnaire by indicating whether he/she strongly agrees (SA), or agrees (A), or is undecided (U), or disagrees (D), or strongly disagrees (SD). Table 2: Likert Scale, Coding, and Interpretation
Scale Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Coding 5 4 3 2 1 Mean 4.50-5.00 3.50-4.49 2.50-3.49 1.50-2.49 1.00-1.49 Interpretation Very high High Moderate Low Very low
42
Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments Validity of research instruments was ascertained by discussing both questionnaire and interview guide items with research colleagues, and then the instruments were passed onto research advisors for further assessment and consideration before use. Besides, the investigator heeded the advice given by professional researchers who assert that ―selfconstructed measurement instruments should be pilot tested before use so as to determine validity, reliability, and feasibility‖ (Gay, et al., 2009, p.169). Regarding the estimation of reliability, on the other hand, the researcher pilot tested the instrument and applied Cronbach's Alpha coefficient to ascertain the internal consistency of the research tool, namely, questionnaire. As shown in Table 1.3, the SPSS computation indicated that Cronbach‘s Alfa coefficient 0.870 > 0.70, hence, the research instrument was significantly reliable to be used to gather data. r = 0.870. Table 3: Instrument Reliability Statistics
Cronbach‘s Alfa No of Items
0 .870
17
Data Collection Procedure Before the researcher engaged into collection of data, an introductory letter to the secondary schools administrators to participate in the study was given to the researcher by the Dean of Graduate School of Bugema University. The sole source of data, which was primary source by nature, was the subjects of concern (head teachers, deputy head teachers, teachers, and student leaders). Expected data were collected by means of administering questionnaire to the said participants and
43
conducting face-to-face interview still with a couple of the participants. Structured interview with open-ended (i.e., divergent) and closed-ended questions was used to collect qualitative data from the respondents. Data Analysis Method Regarding the analysis of data, the researcher applied a statistical tool, namely, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the gathered data. With this package, the investigator made use of descriptive statistics, notably, frequency, percentage, mean, and Pearson Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) was applied in analyzing data on questionnaire items under research objectives 4 where relation between the two variables was put into account. Data on the rest of objectives were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, namely; frequency, percentage, and mean. The all process of data analysis was done with reference to research objectives, and findings to make recommendations to education stakeholders. The only rationale behind the choice of Pearson Correlation Coefficient to measure the relationship was that the variables in question to be measured were only two, the collected data were made interval or coded for their easy entry into SPSS analysis thereof.
44
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction This chapter presents the results of the study and discussion of the results in line with research objectives. Discussion of results was done in comparison with other previous and recent-related research findings so as to come up with reliable conclusion. Still in discussing the study results, the findings were used to answer the research questions from which the study objectives evolved as well as support or not support the hypothesis of the study. Much like a compass guiding a sailor, the research study was guided by objectives derived from the research questions. Both face-to-face interview and questionnaire were used to gather data on these objectives. Worthy noting is that in interpreting the study results, only the highest frequency, percentage, and mean were considered. Supervision of Secondary School Teachers The study results as shown in Table 4 indicate that 28 32.2% of teachers with a moderate mean of 2.5632 strongly disagreed that head teachers inform them earlier before the go to supervise them in the classroom. And 30 34.1% of teachers with a high mean of (3.0909) agreed that they have been supervised or visited by their head teachers outside the classroom during extra-curricular activities such as, sports, debates, or science practices. And 47 54.7% of teachers agreed that supervision is done in their schools, while 27 31.0% of teachers agreed that they always meet with their head teachers after supervision process for the discussion of what was observed, and 22 91.7% of student leaders agreed that they have seen their teachers being supervised by the head teacher in
45
classroom. And also for 34 39.5% of teachers, head teachers as supervisors, understand their difficulties, accept their suggestions and are generally clear and helpful. Table 4: Secondary School Teachers are Supervised by their Head Teachers
Scale My head teacher informs me earlier before he/she SD comes to supervise me in classroom. D U A SA Supervision is always done in my school. SD D U A SA I have seen my teachers being supervised by the Yes head teacher or deputy head teacher in the No classroom I have been supervised or visited by my head SD teacher outside the classroom during extra- D curricular activities such as, sports, debates, or U science practices. A SA My head teacher makes me feel relaxed but not SD intimidated during supervision process. D U A SA I always meet with my head teacher after SD supervision process for the discussion of what was D observed. U A SA My head teacher, as a supervisor, understands my SD difficulties, accepts my suggestions and is D generally clear and helpful to me. U A SA Freq 28 22 11 12 14 2 8 2 47 27 22 2 16 16 13 30 13 15 9 13 35 16 12 16 16 27 16 10 11 11 34 20 % 32.2 25.3 12.6 13.8 16.1 2.3 9.3 2.3 54.7 31.4 91.7 8.3 18.2 18.2 14.8 34.1 14.8 17.0 10.2 14.8 39.8 18.2 13.8 18.4 18.4 31.0 18.4 11.6 12.8 12.8 39.5 23.3 4.0349 Mean 2.9205
1.0800
3.0909
3.3182
3.2184
3.5000
Taken all together, statistics indicated that secondary school head teachers slightly try to supervise their teachers, though in most cases informally. Partially, this is because
46
3 out of 5 head teachers 71% of head teachers, especially in private secondary schools, reportedly said that they do not supervise their teachers in a formal way. Some of those head teachers confidently asserted, ―We have other ways we use to supervise teachers but not necessarily entering the classroom where the teacher is teaching,‖ they continued, ―we normally check the schemes of work, lesson plans, exam mark sheets, students‘ lesson notes, and teacher attendance book, which is filled in and kept by student leaders only.‖ Partially according the study findings, secondary school head teachers do not see a need to supervise teachers in the classroom during instruction, and these heads of school forget that teacher supervision is partial and part of their job description. To confirm the authenticity of the data got through the questionnaire, the researcher conducted interviews with five head teachers and six teachers. The information received was that supervision is rarely done in secondary school. Majority of head teachers openly reported that they do not supervise their teachers as such. And some veteran teachers also openly reported that they have never been supervised by the head teacher in the classroom apart from checking teachers‘ pedagogic documents. More still, when asked to relate their past supervisory experiences, secondary school teachers supplemented the information that was given by head teachers. In this regard, 60% of interviewed teachers reported that they have never seen their head teachers come to supervise them in classroom, apart from checking their pedagogic documents. A long-serving female teacher related, ―I have been teaching for 15 years, but I have never been supervised in classroom by the head teacher.‖ The only formal or instructional supervision many of secondary school teachers can recollect is the supervision they got when they were doing their school teaching practice while at the
47
college or university. The findings indicated that 70% of teacher participants, the real supervision is ―nonexistent‖ in secondary schools today. But contrary to this, head teachers in government-aided secondary schools reported that they formally visit or supervise their teachers in classroom, keep appraisal forms and supervision reports. On the other hand, table 5 presents the result that 6 42.9% of head teachers and 30 34.1% of teachers agreed that general supervision is occasionally practiced in secondary schools. General supervision is done in form of informal supervision.
Table 5: General Supervisory Practices
Head teachers I supervise my teachers during outside-theclassroom instruction like during science practices or extra-curricular activities such as sports and debates. Scale Freq. D 3 U 2 A 6 SA 3 Teachers I have been supervised or visited by my head teacher SD 16 outside the classroom during extra-curricular D 16 activities such as sports, debates, or science practices. U 13 A 30 SA 13 % 21.4 14.3 42.9 21.4 18.2 18.2 14.8 34.1 14.8 Mean 3.6429
3.0909
In a nutshell, based on the research findings, it is conspicuous that informal supervision is practiced by secondary school head teachers at the expense of formal or instructional supervision whereby the head teachers claim to use alternate ways of supervising teachers as aforementioned. But the question remains, how effective are these alternate ways of supervising teachers other than visiting them in classroom during classroom instruction and management? Relatively in support of these head teachers‘ alternate way of supervising teachers, Zepeda (2003), contended that supervision could be formal or informal; clinical
48
or some modification of the clinical process; or it may be differentiated or developmental. But effectiveness each model of supervision has to be brought into question as instructional supervision is always advocated. Also this study findings parallels with other recent educational researchers from other countries around the globe. Comparatively, Bentley (2005), got almost the same findings. In his research study, all participants reported little or no supervision of teachers in the gifted program in Athens, Georgia. Describing supervision in the gifted program, Tina a participant in Bentley‘s study responded, ―I don‘t think we are supervised,‖ and ―I have taught gifted since 1974 and I have been totally unsupervised.‖ She reported getting no direction from her school administrators. Better still, the study finding parallels with other more recent related research findings whereby, in his study, Beaver (2002), discovered that supervision was in Georgian schools considered ―nonexistent‖ and distorted‖ by the study participants. Actually, one of the underlying reason as why head teachers do not supervise their teachers is reflected in Kruskamp (2003), study findings which indicated that high school department chairs (heads) are unaware of their job description, are not given support to practice instructional supervision, and experience both role conflict and ambiguity in the course of completing the work of the department chair position. Similarly, as observed in this present study, it is unarguable that secondary school head teachers, whether in government or private schools, do not know well their job description of which general and instructional supervision is part and parcel.
49
Above all, however, Glickman (1990), contends that supervision is ―a glue of successful school‖. Akin to the present study, Nambassa (2003), research findings revealed that a number of primary school teachers are not supervised at all. Teachers’ Viewpoints of and Quality of Supervision in Secondary Schools When asked if teachers like to be supervised, 70% of head teachers said that teachers do not like to be supervised, but 60% of teachers agreed that they like to be supervised. This was, to some extent, in relation to how teachers regard supervision as well as what they expect and need from it. As reported by some teachers during interviews, veteran or long-serving teachers do not want to be supervised; they direct supervision to new teachers who have just embraced teaching job and are in need of experience. Table 6 below shows the results that indicate how teachers view supervision from their perspective. For 38 43.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.7011, supervision helps them get new skills, and 23 26.4% of teachers with a high mean 3.0115 agreed that supervision motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession, and 35 40.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.5233 agreed that supervision is done as a way of evaluating teachers‘ performance, while 33 37.5% of teachers with a high mean 4.1818 agreed that supervision of teachers is done as a way of helping teachers improve their teaching practices and develop professionally.
Secondary school teachers‘ perspective of supervision was understood as what teachers think supervision is all about with regard to one‘s attitude toward supervision. As regards supervision of teacher performance, evaluation creates negative attitude. Study findings indicated that some participants regard teacher supervision as teacher evaluation. But both fields, supervision and evaluation, have different intents and
50
purposes as evaluation is subjective not putting into consideration the person doing the work. Table 6: Secondary School Teachers‘ Perspective of Supervision
Scale SD D U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA Freq 6 11 9 38 23 18 14 18 23 14 7 12 14 35 18 5 14 8 33 27 % 6.9 12.6 10.3 43.7 26.4 20.7 16.1 20.7 26.4 16.1 8.1 14.0 16.3 40.7 20.9 5.7 15.9 9.1 37.5 30.7 Mean 3.7011
In my school, general and instructional supervision helps teachers get new skills and experience.
In my school, general and instructional supervision motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession.
3.0115
In my school, supervision of teachers is done as a way of evaluating teachers‘ performance.
3.5233
In my school, supervision of teachers is done as a way of helping teachers improve their teaching practices and develop professionally.
4.1818
During the study, the interviews with teachers also revealed what teachers need in regard to supervision. To that end, 70% of interviewed teachers reported that their individual needs were overlooked during supervision, that is; head teachers are not interested in knowing what teachers are passing through in their daily life. Hence, since these teachers, according to themselves, do not see any benefit from general and instructional supervision, they become apathetic in supervision and do not want to hear anything about supervising them. In this regards however, Barasa (2007), emphasizes that
51
―good supervision creates a climate in which personal desires and needs are expressed and satisfied in order to meet instructional purposes.‖ The finding on teachers‘ perspectives and attitudes parallels with what Kramer et al. (2005) found in their study. After their research study, Kramer and his co-researchers (2005) found through findings that there is a significant difference between the attitudes of teachers in low performance schools and the teachers in high performance schools. Teachers in high performance schools on the average had more positive attitudes toward supervision of instruction than teachers in low performance schools. Not surprising that even Habimana (2008), study findings showed a conflict of participants‘ understanding and varied attitudes toward supervision. That is, head teachers, teachers and students do not have the same point of views in regard to supervision, and this may have a significant effect on the success of supervision. Kramer, et al (2005), mentioned earlier found through their study that even teachers themselves have different attitude vis-à-vis supervision. To wash negative attitudes from teachers‘ mind, head teachers should meet teachers and explain to them what are the intents and purposes of supervision, and how it benefits teachers individually. To some teachers, when supervision is perceived as evaluation of teacher‘s performance, what comes out is obviously negative attitude. This is simply because the function of evaluation is greatly different from the function of supervision. Supervision is more than democratic, motivational and flexible, while evaluation is completely administrative with strictness. Nampa (2007), study findings revealed that effective supervisors expect nothing less than high productivity and good performance from teachers.
52
As regards the quality of general and instructional supervision in secondary schools, Table 7 below indicates how teachers rated the quality of supervision in their respective secondary schools. To 45 51.7% of teachers, supervision was deemed good, while only 6 6.9% of them rated it poor. Those who rated the quality of teacher supervision good might have been supervised once in a while in their teaching, or this may be in relation to their point of view of supervision, but not based on their experiences as many of the teachers are not supervised.
Table 7: Quality of General and Instructional Supervision in Secondary Schools
Scale Freq. %
Please, put a check in front of the option to rate the quality of general and instructional supervision in your school
Poor Fair Good very good
6 28 45 8
6.9 32.2 51.7 9.2
Better still during the research, it was also necessary to learn from secondary school teachers‘ supervisory experiences. Table 8 shows how teachers‘ expectation of supervision relates to their past supervisory experiences and categorizes teachers‘ supervisory experiences under two broad categories, positive and negative supervision in relation to teachers‘ perspective of supervision. Six sub-categories were identified as positive and seven sub-categories were identified as negative supervisory experience.
53
Table 8: Secondary School Teachers‘ Supervisory Experiences
Positive Appreciation Feedback Positive comments Help to get organized Help to detect one‘s weaknesses Encouragement to improve Negative Lack of two-way communication Lack of instructional materials Lack of motivation and staff development Neglect of individual needs Interference Lack of freedom Criticism
As mentioned earlier, roughly 70%, of interviewed teachers reported that their individual needs have been overlooked in regard to supervision. Relatively, in Kruskamp (2003) study, however, David smith, a participant and a head of department, explained what is supposed to be done as he said that besides treating ―individuals according to the situation and according to their unique histories, much of what I do is dependent on the experience of the individual teacher with whom I‘m working.‖ Mr. Smith explained that beginning teachers generally ―require more attention‖ and so he ―finds reasons to hover about them‖ and ―finds things to talk to them about,‖ ―listening for clues or hints of problems or issues.‖ Supervision is, to great extent, supervisee-centered. Methods and Techniques Employed by Head Teachers in Carrying out their General and Instructional Supervisory Practices Study findings through both interview and questionnaire revealed that, according to how head teachers supervise teachers; the supervision that is done in secondary schools is informal by function and methods. As indicated earlier, 5 85% of head teachers, especially in private secondary schools, reportedly said that they do not supervise their teachers in a formal way. Occasionally, majority of them simply check if
54
teachers‘ pedagogic documents are well prepared and if teachers report in classroom. Teachers‘ presence in classroom is ascertained by checking teacher attendance book, which filled in and kept only by student leaders. No more or less than that is done concerning supervision. Table 9 shows the frequencies, percentage, and mean of head teacher with reference to the methods and techniques they use in supervising teachers and to what extent observation feedback is given to supervised teachers. As shown in the Table 2.6, 28 32.2% of teachers with a mean 3.9205 strongly disagreed that their head teachers inform them earlier before they are supervised. Teachers‘ response agrees with what the head teachers reported in interview as 85% of interviewed head teachers said that they do not inform their when they are going to supervise them. True, also 27 31.0% of teachers with a high mean 3.2184 agreed that they always meet with their head teachers after supervision process for the discussion of what was observed, whereas 7 50.0% of head teachers with a very high mean 4.4286 agreed that right after supervision, they always meet with supervised teachers to give them feedback on what observed during supervision. And 8 57.1% of head teachers agreed with a high mean 3.9286 that they informally visit their teachers in their respective classes during classroom instruction, and 9 64.3% of head teachers with a high mean 3.9286 agreed that routinely check teachers‘ pedagogic documents and teacher attendance book as part of teacher supervision. Despite all these techniques found in table 2.6 that head teachers use to supervise teachers, interview with head teachers and some few teachers gave a different finding whereby instructional supervision was even nonexistent in secondary schools as reported
55
Table 9: Methods and Techniques Head Teachers use in Supervising Teachers
Scale Oftentimes, our head teacher talks to teachers about supervision of school and classroom instruction. SD D U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA D A SA D U A SA U A SA SD D U A SA SD D U A SA Freq 11 10 8 44 14 28 22 11 12 14 12 16 16 27 16 2 9 3 1 1 8 4 1 6 7 13 17 11 31 14 20 27 14 16 10 % 12.5 11.4 9.1 50.0 15.9 32.2 25.3 12.6 13.8 16.1 13.8 18.4 18.4 31.0 18.4 14.3 64.3 21.4 7.1 7.1 57.1 28.6 7.1 42.9 50.0 15.1 19.8 12.8 36.0 16.3 23.0 31.0 16.1 18.4 11.5 Mean 3.9205
My head teacher informs earlier before he comes to supervise me in classroom.
2.5632
I always meet with my head teacher after supervision process for the discussion of what was observed.
3.2184
I regularly check on weekly basis teachers‘ schemes of work, lessons, and record of students‘ marks (grades). I informally visit my teachers in their respective classes during classroom instruction.
3.9286
After supervision, I always meet with supervised teacher to give him or her feedback on what I observed during supervision. When we meet after supervision process, my head teacher gives me sufficient time to discuss my difficulties and share my experiences.
4.4286
3.1860
During discussion with my head teacher after supervision, my head teacher focuses only on my weaknesses.
3.1860
Apparently, it was difficult to relate the present study findings to recent research findings in the field of education or other fields regarding supervisory methods. This was simply because none of the reviewed related literature looked at the methods and techniques that supervisors employ in supervising teachers or employees. But Zepeda (2003) contended that supervision could be formal or informal; clinical or some
56
modification of the clinical process; or it may be differentiated or developmental with specific methods and approaches. It is worth noting, however, that instructional supervision is a process that has three phases, namely, pre-observation conference, observation, and post-observation conference. Practically, according to Okumbe (2007), in pre-observation conference, supervisor meets with the person to be supervised before supervision starts. But in observation phase, the supervisor observes everything that is taking as the other person is performing the work, and in post-observation, the supervisor meets with the supervisee for the observation feedback and mutual discussion of what was observed. All methods and techniques relate to each of these supervision phases. As asserted by Zepeda & Ponticell, (1998), while numerous studies detailed various supervision models and methods, teachers have had, to date, little voice in the process of instructional supervision. Relationship between Secondary School Head Teachers’ Supervisory Practices and Teachers Work Performance As shown in Figure 1 in chapter one of this research report, head teachers‘ supervisory practices are denoted by supervision skills, supervision facilities, informal and formal classroom visits, appraisal forms, and supervision reports, while teachers‘ performance was indicated by teacher‘s regularity in school and classroom, time management, prepared pedagogic documents, classroom instruction and management, conduct and teaching behavior. Table 10 shows head teachers‘, deputy head teacher‘ and teachers‘ scores on relation between general-instructional supervision and teacher‘s performance in
57
secondary schools. As shown in Table 4, results indicated that 43 96.9% of head teachers, deputy head teachers, and teachers with a partial mean 3.8409 agreed that supervision helps teachers improve their classroom instruction and management, while 41 85.2% of all of these study participants with the same partial mean 3.8409 agreed that supervision helps teachers change their conduct and teaching behavior for the better in classroom and school. As regards student leader respondents, 9 36.0% of student leaders with a mean
2.6800 agreed that during supervision, they understand their teachers and the lessons better than during other normal classroom lessons, while 11 44.0% of student leaders with a high mean 3.1200 strongly agreed that their teachers do better in their teaching and classroom management after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher. And also 11 44.0% of student leaders with a high mean 2.8800 agreed that most of their teachers change their behavior for the better after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher.
As revealed through the study, the implication is that teacher performance is partially dependent upon supervision of school and classroom instruction. It is deciphered that there are other factors that cater for the good performance of teachers in schools besides teacher supervision.
58
Table 10: Supervision and Secondary School Teachers‘ Work Performance
Head Teachers Freq % 6 8 7 7 42.9 57.1 50.0 50.0 Teachers Freq 6 10 11 26 35 7 8 8 34 31 % 6.8 11.4 12.5 29.5 39.8 8.0 9.1 9.1 38.6 35.2 Total Freq 6 10 11 32 43 7 8 8 41 38 % 6.8 11.4 12.5 72.4 96.9 8.0 9.1 9.1 88.6 85.2 3.8409 Mean 3.8409
Scale Supervision helps teachers improve their classroom instruction and management. S D D U A S A S D D U A S A
Supervision helps teachers change their conduct and teaching behavior for the better in classroom and school at large.
Scale During supervision, I understand my SD teacher and the lesson better than during D other normal classroom lessons. A SA My teachers do better in their teaching SD and classroom management after they D have been supervised by the head A teacher or deputy head teacher. SA Most of my teachers change their behavior for the better after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher. SD D A SA
Freq 4 6 9 6 1 6 7 11 5 1 11 8
Student Leaders % Mean 16.0 24.0 36.0 24.0 4.0 24.0 28.0 44.0 20.0 4.0 44.0 32.0 2.6800
3.1200
2.8800
Still on this research objective of determining the relation between the two variables of concern, which are head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary school, the overall scores by research participants were correlated as shown in Table 2.8 below. To come up with the general relationship
59
between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance, all the scores by the teachers were correlated in comparison with scores by the head teachers.
Table 11: Relationship between Head Teachers‘ Supervisory Practices and Teachers‘ Work Performance
Teachers' Work Performance Head teachers‘ Supervisory Practices Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). .636** .000 83
Table 11 shows the result of the extent to which the relationship exists among the variables. Calculation by computing the scores using Pearson Correlation Coefficient with a statistical package SPSS indicated that the relationship between the two variables exists significantly at 0.01 level (2-tailed) as Pearson Correlation coefficient was 0.636. The coefficient of determination ��2 is 0.636 x 0.636, which is 0.4044×100 or 40%. Hence, 40 is a moderate coefficient of determination. The implication is that there is a moderate relationship between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and work performance of teachers. The relationship is moderate because there may be other factors that contribute to teacher performance. Partially akin to this present study finding on the relation between supervision and teachers‘ performance, Gerumi (2002), research findings indicated statistically that there was a very low correlation between instructional supervision and teacher performance, but there was a negative negligible correlation between teacher performance and student achievement.
60
In support of the study findings still, Nampa (2007), research study indicated that there is a significant effect exerted by monitoring practices of teachers‘ performance in secondary schools. This finding is supported by other long ago findings from Lyman and Lawler‘s (1982) study, which also indicate that followers can have all the willingness and skills to do the job but will always need guidance through supervision. And while correlating supervision with quality teaching in Wakiso district primary schools, Nambassa (2003), study findings indicated that lack of supervisors and inadequate inspection brings about poor quality teaching and learning in primary schools. In conclusion, head teachers have got to supervise teachers in order to boost quality teaching and learning in secondary schools. Challenges Secondary School Head Teachers Face in Supervising their Teachers Only face-to-face interviews with the head teachers were used to gather data on these challenges. The most apparent challenges that head teachers reported with reference to supervision of teachers are as follows: Private secondary school managing directors interfere with head teachers‘ responsibilities. Head teachers in private secondary schools have limited power and authority vis-à-vis school leadership and management. Important and final decisions are made by the school managing directors, and head teachers do not have full power to deal with undisciplined, disrespectful and failure teachers because of the teachers‘ tie of friendship or relationship with the managing directors. These head teachers are just being used by the school managing directors as pawns.
61
Some teachers take a long time to improve their teaching or change their unbecoming behavior. Even after they have been warned and counseled several times, some teachers remain obstinate and do not change at all for the better.
More than 40% of interviewed head teachers reported that a couple of teachers, especially veterans, do not want to be supervised by the director of studies whom the head teacher sometime delegates to supervise teachers. These teachers think that the director of studies is not worthy of exercising leadership power over them in school and classroom matters.
Another supervision challenge that is peculiar to head teachers mainly in private secondary schools is ―lack of time‖ as perceived by the researcher while interviewing the participants. These head teachers overwork themselves by assuming office work and teaching in classroom in order for them to get a significant salary.
In summary, head teachers in private secondary schools, as reported in interview, are confronted with more challenges than their counterparts in government-aided schools in supervising teachers. The underlying reason for this is that head teachers in government secondary schools are, to some extent, facilitated with supervision facilities, instructional materials, and their salary is regular and significant compared to head teachers‘ in private schools where they struggle to survive.
Comparatively, Nampa (2007), study findings indicated that there are a number of challenges faced by supervisors during their supervisory duties, and most of these
62
challenges may hinder the success of supervision as well as affect the entire school and classroom instructional performance. As mentioned earlier in chapter two this report, Glickman (1990), points out that supervision can be thought of as ―the glue of successful school‖ and "behind every successful school is an effective supervision program." So, for supervision of school and classroom instruction to be effective, the top key education stakeholders must join hands and see to it that anything that may thwart supervision is effectively dealt with, especially at school level. As regards ‗lack of time‖ on head teachers‘ side with regard to supervision, this study finding agrees with Kruskamp (2003), research finding whereby he found that constraints to instructional supervision do exist. Ms. Williams, the Science Department chair at Lincoln North High School, indicated that the major obstacle to instructional supervision that she has experienced is the ―lack of time,‖ or put another way, ―the number of other tasks that fall‖ under her responsibility. To overcome challenges faced by secondary school head teachers in supervising teachers, however, combined efforts are needed from the education stakeholders, especially the Ministry of Education, education officers, inspectors of schools.
63
CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of secondary school head teachers‘ general and instructional supervisory practices on teachers‘ work performance. A descriptive-correlational study approach was used to examine the presumed relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance in secondary schools. The study was guided by the research objectives on which study findings were based. The theoretical framework that guided the study was Symbolic Interactionism theory, which focuses on the way individuals interact with others and the meanings the individuals draw from these interactions (Blumer, 1969). Because the perspectives are the central concept of Symbolic Interactionism theory, this was appropriate to gain insights about the meanings and value the participants assigned to their past supervisory experiences. Regarding the practice of teacher supervision in secondary schools, to some participants, supervision is ―nonexistent,‖ and 60% of teachers reported that they have never been supervised in the classroom. As discovered in the study, statistics indicated that secondary school head teachers try to supervise their teachers, though in most cases informally. Partially, this is because 5 85% of head teachers, especially in private secondary schools, reportedly said that they do not supervise their teachers in a formal way. Some of those head teachers confidently asserted, ―We have other ways we use to supervise teachers but not necessarily entering the classroom where the teacher is
64
teaching‖. These head teachers reported in the interviews that they use other ways to supervise or check on their teachers‘ performance. As found out in the study still, the type of supervision that is done in secondary schools is informal. As mentioned earlier, informal supervision is being done at the expense of instructional or formal supervision, and a lot is lacking that informal supervision. Some of the participants of the study, especially teachers, related their past supervisory experiences of which some were negative and others were positive. Other participants, especially head teachers, reported a number of challenges they face in carrying out their supervisory duties. More still, participants‘ perspectives of and attitudes toward teacher supervision in secondary schools were also examined whereby for 38 43.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.7011, supervision helps them get new skills and experience, and 23 26.4% of teachers with a mean 3.0115 agreed that supervision motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession, but 35 40.7% of teachers with a high mean 3.5233 agreed that supervision is done as a way of evaluating teachers‘ performance, while 33 37.5% of teachers with a high mean 4.1181 agreed that supervision of teachers is done as a way of helping teachers improve their teaching practices and develop professionally.
Beside this, there were no specific methods and techniques reported that head teachers use in supervising teachers. This was simply because the supervision that is being done is informal in nature, and head teachers do not carry out instructional supervision in the classroom at all. Head teachers rarely visit teachers during classroom instruction.
65
As regards teachers‘ negative attitude toward supervision, 70% of head teachers said that teachers do not like to be supervised. This was, to some extent, in relation to how teachers regard supervision as well as what they expect and need from supervision. Veteran teachers prefer less supervision or do not like it at all. As discovered through the study, different participants had different perspectives and attitudes. The relationship between head teachers‘ supervisory practices and teachers‘ work performance was established by using Pearson correlation coefficient using a statistical package, SPSS. The relationship between these two variables significantly existed at 0.01 level (2-tailed) with Pearson Correlation coefficient 0.636. The coefficient of determination ��2 is 0.636 x 0.636, which is 0.4044×100 or 40%. 40 is a moderate coefficient of determination. The implication is that there is a moderate correlation between secondary school head teachers‘ supervisory practices and work performance of teachers. The implication was that head teachers‘ general and instructional supervision and teachers‘ work performance are correlated. Finally, the study likewise intended to find out the challenges that head teachers are confronted with when they are supervising their teachers. Most of the challenges, however, were reported by the head teachers in private secondary schools. There were underlying reasons as why private secondary school head teachers face more challenges than their counterparts in government secondary schools in teacher supervision. Conclusion The study findings indicate that informal supervision is being done at the expense of instructional supervision in secondary schools. Other than frequently visiting or supervising their teachers formally during classroom instruction, 9 64.3% of head
66
teachers with a high mean 3.9286 simply check their teachers‘ pedagogic documents, teacher attendance book, and students‘ lesson notes just to confirm that the teacher has taught. The study findings indicate that there is a significant moderate relationship between supervisory practices of head teachers and work performance of teachers in secondary schools. The correlation was positively moderate, significant at 0.001 level (2tailed) with Pearson Correlation coefficient of 0.636 and coefficient of determination ��2 is 0.636 x 0.636, which is 0.4044 or 40%. 40 whereby 43 96.9% of head teachers, deputy head teachers, and teachers with a high mean 3.84090 agreed that supervision helps teachers improve their classroom instruction and management, while 41 85.2% of all of these study participants with the same high mean 3.84090 agreed that supervision helps teachers change their conduct and teaching behavior for the better in classroom and school. The underlying implication of this correlation is that teacher supervision has a significant positive influence on teacher performance, and supervision must be of great concern among secondary school head teachers, and it should be regarded as part and partial of their job description. In conclusion, general and instructional supervision influence teacher performance in secondary schools to some extent. Recommendations Recommendations were derived from the study findings and made to the key education stakeholders in the government of Uganda. But these recommendations may also be relevant to education stakeholders in other parts of the globe.
67
To the Ministry of Education In spite of the available records that indicate how the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been trying to encourage inspectors of schools and school head teachers to carry out supervision, The study recommends the MOE to have a big hand in private secondary school matters where teacher supervision is mostly uncommon practice among head teachers. The study also recommends the MOE to reinforce supervision-based training, seminars, workshops, and refresher courses countrywide for secondary school head teachers and deputy head teachers. By so doing, even those who missed out supervision course at the university or college would benefit. To Private Secondary School Managing Directors The study recommends that Managing Directors of private secondary schools vest full power and authority in the head teachers whom they have employed so that undisciplined, obstinate and disrespectful teachers listen and obey their head teachers and comply with the school rules and regulations meant to be followed by teachers. To Secondary School Head Teachers The study recommends that secondary school head teachers to spare enough time to supervise their teachers during classroom instruction rather than simply checking teachers‘ pedagogic documents, teacher attendance book, and students‘ lesson notes.
68
The study recommends head teachers to foster general supervision during extra-curricular activities, and explain to teachers the intents and purposes of teacher supervision.
To Interested Researchers The study recommends interested educational researchers to investigate further teacher supervision in secondary schools with intent to find out factors that may be thwarting its practice in schools.
69
REFERENCES Aseltine, M. J., Faryniarz, J. O. and Rigazio-Digilio, A. J. 2006. Supervision for Learning: A performance-based approach to teacher development and school improvement. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Armstrong, M. 2003. Team Rewards. London Chartered institute of Personnel and Development. Barasa, J. M. N. 2007. Educational Organization and Management. Nairobi: The Jomo Kenyatta Foundation. Beaver, M. D. 2002. Instructional Supervision: Perspectives of Middle School Fine Arts Teachers. Published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia. Bentley, P. W. 2005. Instructional Supervision and Gifted Education: Elementary School Teachers’ Perspectives. Doctoral Dissertation, Published: University of Georgia. Bernard, J. M. and Goodyear, R. K. 1998. Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision (2nd ed), London: Allyn & Bacon. Education Policy Review Commission. 1998. Ministry of Education and Sport. KampalaUganda Education Policy Review Report. 2005. Ministry of Education and Sport. KampalaUganda Eisner, E.W. 1998. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Enon, J.C. 1998. Educational Research, Statistics and Measurement, (2nd ed). Kampala: Makerere University. Esudu, S. 2010. UPE, USE should be monitored. The New Vision, January 13, 2010. Figueroa Rexach, A. N. 2004. Actual and desired teacher attitudes toward supervision of instruction and instructional strategies in pedagogical and curriculum areas in high and low performance secondary schools of the Fajardo Educational Region of Puerto Rico. Published Dissertation, Dowling College (UMI No –in process) Fleming, I. and Steen, L. 2004. Supervision and Clinical Psychology: Theory, practice and perspectives. Brunner-Routledge: New York NY 10001 Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., and Gall, J. P. 1996. Education research: An Introduction (6thed). White Plaines, NY: Longman.
70
Gay, L. R, Mills, G. E and Airasian, P. 2009. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Glanz, J. (2000). Paradigm Debates in Curriculum and Supervision: Modern and Postmodern Perspectives. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Glickman, C. D; Gordon, S. P., and Ross-Cordon. 1998. Supervision of Instruction: A Developmental Approach. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gerumi S. 2003. Instructional Supervision: its impact on Teachers’ and Students’ Performance. Unpublished Masterly Thesis, University of Nueva Caceres, Naga City Gold, H., et al. (1980) Process of Clinical Supervision. Harvard University Grauwe, A. 2007.Transforming School Supervision into a Tool for Quality Improvement. Journal of International Review of Education (2007) 53:709-714. Habimana, A. M. 2008. The Effect of Head Teachers‘ Instructional Supervisory Practices on Performance of Private Secondary School Students in Musanze District, Rwanda. Published Master‘s Thesis, Bugema University. Holland, P. E., and Garman, N. 2001. Toward a resolution of the crisis of legitimacy in the field of supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(2), 95-111. Hunsaker, P. L. and Hunsaker, J. 2009. Managing People. Melbourne: Dorling Kindersley Ltd. Kramer, C., Blake, P and Alba F. 2005. A Comparison of Teacher Attitudes Toward Supervision of Instruction in Selected High and Low Performance Secondary Schools of Puerto Rico, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Dowling College Brookhaven, New York. Murthy, P. 2002. In the New Vision, July 2002. Nambassa, M. K. 2003.The Impact of Classroom Supervision on the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Primary Schools in Wakiso District, Uganda, Unpublished Master‘s Thesis. Makerere University, Kampala. Nampa, C. 2007. Supervision and Teachers‘ Performance in Catholic Secondary Schools in Luwero District, Uganda. Unpublished Master‘s thesis. Makerere University. Newstrom, J. W. and Bittel, L. R. 2002. Supervision: Managing for Results (8th ed). New York Columbus: Glencoe McGraw-Hill. Nolan, J., and Frances, P. 1992. Changing Perspectives in Curriculum and Instruction. In C. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in transition, 1992 ASCD Yearbook, Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
71
_______and Hoover, L. 2004. Teacher Supervision and Evaluation: Theory into Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Obama, B. 2011. VOA Special English Education report, Retrieved on February 2, 2011 f N, from Olssen, M., Godd, J., and O‘neill, A. M. 2006. Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy. London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd. PEARSON, C. 2009. Principles & Theories of Educational Supervision & Leadership. Retrieved on July 24, 2011 from http://www.ehow.com/info_8149786_principlestheories-educational-supervision-leadership.html#ixzz1PHEIZYop Pierce, R. A. and Rowell, J. S. 2005. Effective supervision: A Developmental Approach. White paper, January 2005, Retrieved on 14-06-2011 from http://www.risingsunconsultants.com/images/white_papers/PDFs/SupervisionShort.pdf. Sadker, M. P. and Sadker, D. M. 2003.Teachers, Schools, and Society (6thed).New York: McGraw-Hill. Starratt, R. J. 2008. Supervision of instruction – the history of supervision, roles and responsibilities of supervisors, issues trends and controversies. Retrieved on2706-20111from SULLIVAN, S. and Glanz, J. 2000. Supervision the Improves teaching: Strategies and Techniques. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Theodore, C. and William, A. 2010. Teacher Efficacy, Supervision, and the Special Education Resource-Room Teacher. Breton Source: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Mar. - Apr., 1997), pp. 230-239, Retrieved onMarch11,201014:57from Waite, D. 1995. Rethinking instructional supervision; Notes on its language and Culture. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Weller, L. D., Jr., and Weller, S. J. 2002. Preparing School Department Heads UsingNational Standards: Through the looking glass of leadership. Lancaster, PA:Pro>Active Publications Wiles, J., and Bondi, J. 2002. Curriculum Development: A Guide to Practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Zepeda, S. J. 2003. Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
72
Appendix 1: Teacher Supervision Interview Question Guide for Research Participants
HEAD TEACHER & DEPUTY HEAD TEACHERS Overall Questions 1. Do your teachers show a desire to be helped to improve their teaching? 2. How do you help your teachers improve their teaching in classroom develop professionally? 3. Do you visit teachers informally in classroom? 4. Do you visit teachers outside the classroom like during extra co-curricular activities? 5. Do teachers present their schemes of work, lesson plans and record of work in time when asked? 6. How many times do you supervise a teacher in a term or year? 7. Do your teachers show interest in being supervised?
8. How do you supervise or which techniques and strategies do use in supervising your teachers? 9. What do you do after supervision for a teacher or teachers who perform well? And how about teachers who don‘t perform well as indicated during supervision? 10. Do you ever see any positive change in teachers after they are supervised? 11. What are the challenges do you ever face in supervising your teachers? 12. Do have any suggestion (s) on how general and instructional supervision can be improved in secondary schools these days?
TEACHERS Preliminary Questions: 1. Have you ever been supervised ever since you begun teaching in secondary school? 2. . How many times throughout the term or year are you evaluated or supervised?
73
3. Do you like being supervised? And how do you feel when you are being supervised? 4. How long were the observations during the last supervision(s)? 5. How many times per term or year did you receive informal supervision? This could be short visits, meetings, telephone conversations, etc. Questions for Interview # 1: 1. From your perspective, what is supervision? 2. Think of the last time you were observed by a supervisor (head teacher), and walk me through your feelings and attitudes of the experience. Both before and after the observation, what was your sense of the experience? 3. Tell me what you do, maybe differently, when or while you are being observed in supervision. How things are different, and why? 4. Think about a time when your experience, or observation, with the supervisor didn‘t go as well as you thought it might, and tell me about it. 5. Think about a time when your supervisory experience went extremely well, and tell me about it. 6. 7. Are you satisfied with the way your head teacher supervises you? As you have been supervised many times, what do you like and don‘t like about supervision done by your head teacher or deputy head teacher? 8. What do you need from supervision? 9. What leadership characteristics do you believe head teachers need to demonstrate to support secondary school teacher‘s growth and development? 10. When you are observed and go through the supervisory process, does the supervisor make you feel at ease or relaxed, or you feel intimidated? 11. In what ways do you believe a supervisor (head teacher) could help you improve your teaching? 12. Are supervisors able to provide you with pedagogic/teaching growth and professional development at all? If so, in what ways? 13. Has supervision brought any positive change in your teaching career so far? Give an example.
74
Questions for Interview # 2:
1. Have you ever been in need of being supervised at all? 2. As a result of being proud to be a secondary school teacher, do you feel that you and your individual needs have been overlooked with regard to supervision? Explain. 3. Do you really believe that your teaching would improve as teacher if you had a supervisor who understood your individual needs? Tell me how. 4. Given the choice, would you opt for more or less supervision as a secondary school teacher? Why? 5. Do you feel your supervisor knows enough about supervision and teaching to help you improve at what you do best? Explain. 6. Is there anything that you could add to help supervisors meet your needs and wants so that you may improve as teacher? 7. What do you suggest head teachers should do to improve supervision of school and classroom instruction?
75
Appendix 2: Teacher Supervision Questionnaire for Research Participants HEAD TEACHERS AND DEPUTY HEAD TEACHERS Dear respondent, The researcher is a post-graduate student from Bugema University. In this questionnaire you will be asked to give information that will be used in research study, namely; “Influence of Head Teachers’ General and Instructional Supervisory Practices on Teachers’ Work Performance in Secondary Schools”. Any information you give will be used for scholarly purposes and your confidentiality will be protected. Please, read the items carefully before you answer. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION For each of the following items, please put a tick √ beside the choice that best describes you. 1. Gender: Male_____ Female______ 2. Age: 24-30yrs_____ 31-35yrs_____ 36-40yrs____ more than 40yrs_____ 3. Level of education: Diploma____ Bachelor‘s degree______ Master‘s Degree______ 4. Total years being a head teacher: 1-3yrs____ 4yrs-10yrs____ 11-15yrs___ more than 15yrs_____ Select by ticking √ the choice (s) that best describes your agreement with the following statements: ________I did a supervision course at the College/University. ________ I did not take any supervision course at the College/University. ________ I did supervision training after holding the post of head teacher. ________ I did not do any supervision course or training before and after becoming a head teacher. Please tick √ the option box that best describes your agreement with the statement that follows: 1. I am always provided with supervision facilities to help me carry out my supervisory duties in my school. Yes No 2. I delegate my deputy head teacher to supervise teachers. Sometime
76 Never
LIKERT Please circle the number that sums up your agreement or disagreement with the statement in the table that follows. The scales are: 5= strongly agree (SA), 4= agree (A), 3 =uncertain (U), 2= disagree (D), and 1= strongly disagree (SD) No 1 Items SD D 2 U 3 A 4 SA 5
Oftentimes, I talk to my teachers about 1 supervision of school and classroom instruction. I regularly check on weekly basis teacher‘s 1 scheme of work, lesson plan, lesson notes, student‘s notes and record of marks (grades). I always keep appraisal forms that have been 1 filled in. I informally visit my teachers in their 1 respective classes during classroom instruction. I supervise my teachers on a regular basis 1 inside the classroom during instruction. I always keep my teachers aware of supervision 1 of teachers in my school. I supervise my teachers during outside-the- 1 classroom instruction, for example during science practices or extra-curricular activities like sports, debates, and many others. During supervision, I always find the teacher 1 ready with register, scheme of work, lesson plan, record of work, and record of students‘ marks (grades). After supervision, I always meet with the 1 supervised teacher to give him/her feedback on what I observed during the lesson. After supervision process, I always make and 1 keep supervision reports for future reference. Teachers prepare schemes of work, lesson 1 plans, lesson notes, record of work, and record of students‘ marks (grades) regularly after being supervised.
2
2
3
4
5
3 4 5 6
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
7
2
3
4
5
8
2
3
4
5
9
2
3
4
5
10 11
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
77
12 13
Regular supervision absenteeism in school.
reduces
teacher‘s 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
After being regularly supervised, teachers 1 improve their classroom instruction and management. Teachers change their conduct and teaching 1 behavior for the better as a result of being regularly supervised.
14
2
3
4
5
TEACHERS DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION For each of the following items, please put an X beside the choice that best describes you. 1. Gender: Male_____ Female_____ 2. Age: 20-30yrs_____ 31-35yrs_____ 36-40yrs____ more than 40yrs_____
CHECKLIST Following are a couple of statements describing general and instructional supervision. Please, read each statement and circle whether you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), are uncertain (U), disagree (D), or strongly disagree (SD) with statements given below. In my school, supervision of teachers: 6. is always done 7. helps teachers get new skills and experience 8. motivates teachers and stimulates them to love teaching profession 9. is done as a way of evaluating teacher‘s performance 10. is done as a way of helping teachers to improve their teaching practices and develop professionally
78
SA SA
A U A U
D SD D SD
SA SA
A U A U
D SD D SD
SA
A U
D SD
Following are a number of statements related to supervision in school. Read each statement carefully and circle corresponding number indicating whether you 1= strongly disagree (SD), 2= disagree (D), 3= are uncertain (U), 4= agree (A), 5= strongly agree (SA) No 1 2 3 Items SD D 2 2 2 U 3 3 3 A 4 4 4 SA 5 5 5
Oftentimes, our head teacher talks to teachers about 1 supervision of school and classroom instruction. My head teacher informs me earlier before he comes 1 to supervise me in classroom. My head teacher as supervisor is often available when 1 I need guidance and advice on how to improve my classroom instruction and management. I have been supervised or visited by my head teacher 1 outside the classroom during extra-curricular activities such as sports, debates, or science practices. My head teacher makes me feel relaxed but not 1 intimidated during supervision process. My head teacher is honest, considerate and easy to 1 talk to when he supervises me. I always meet with my head teacher after supervision 1 process for the discussion of what was observed. When we meet after supervision, my supervisor (head 1 teacher) gives me sufficient time to discuss my difficulties and share my experiences. During discussion with my supervisor (head teacher) 1 after supervision process, my head teacher focuses on my weaknesses only. My supervisor (head teacher) understands my 1 difficulties, accepts my suggestions and is generally clear and helpful. Supervision helps me get new classroom management 1 and teaching skills and techniques. Supervision helps me change my conduct and teaching 1 behavior for the better in school and classroom.
4
2
3
4
5
5
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
9
2
3
4
5
10
2
3
4
5
11 12
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
79
FREE RESPONSES 13. Please, put a check √ in front of the appropriate option to rate the quality of general and instructional supervision in your school: ____Very good _____good _____fair ______poor
14. With reference to preceding question number 13, please, write a brief explanation of why you feel as you do about the quality of general and instructional supervision in your school. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 15. Please make any additional comment you may have about this topic (supervision of teachers in secondary schools). ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………
STUDENT LEADERS / PREFECTS
SUPERVISION-RELATED QUESTIONS Please put a tick √ in the box which indicates the option that best describes your agreement with the statement 1. I have seen my teachers being supervised in the classroom by the head teacher or deputy head teacher.
Yes No
2. I have seen the head teacher visit/observe my teachers outside the classroom during extra-curricular activities like sports, debates, or science practices.
Yes No
Following are a few statements about how you view your teachers during supervision and how your learning experience changes during supervision. Please, read the statements below and put a check √ in front of the option that best describes your agreement with statements.
80
3. When the head teacher is supervising my teacher, the way my teacher teaches during that time in class changes positively: (a)____ never (b)____ not much (c)____ much (d)_____ very much 4. I understand my teacher and the lesson better during supervision than during other normal classroom lessons: (a)____ strongly agree (b)____ agree (c)____ disagree (d)____ strongly disagree Following are a number of statements related to supervision in school. Please, read each statement carefully and circle corresponding number whether you 1= strongly disagree (SD), 2= disagree (D), 3= agree (A), 4= strongly agree (SA) No 1 Items SD D 2 A 3 SA 4
I am not satisfied with the way our teachers teach us 1 in some subjects. So, there is a need to supervise them to improve their teaching. The head teacher visits (supervises) my teachers in 1 the classroom at least once per term. My teachers do better in their teaching and 1 classroom management after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher. Most of my teachers change their behavior for the 1 better after they have been supervised by the head teacher or deputy head teacher.
2
2
3
4
3
2
3
4
4
2
3
4
Thank you for your participation in the study
81
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Supervision is important and staff and teacher performance must be evaluated in a variety of ways (CCSSO 2008).…
- 4814 Words
- 20 Pages
Better Essays -
The organisation in which I work is the Public Sector. It is a Secondary School with one thousand one hundred students eleven to sixteen. There are approximately one hundred and twenty staff of which eighty percent are teaching staff and twenty percent administrative staff. The school is undergoing redevelopment and an expansion project. At the same time, the Government has introduced a new Programme of Study, new grading systems and OFSTED is continually changing their criteria that they grade a school. The school has, in addition promoted the two Deputy Head Teachers to hold the position as joint Headteacher. With this is mind, the mission statement of the school requires to be flexible and work with the ethos of ‘Two heads are better than one’ and reflect the values of the school. One may…
- 4484 Words
- 129 Pages
Best Essays -
References: Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc..…
- 980 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
Educational leadership has changed and evolved through the years as a result of dramatic changes in the school culture, student demographics, environment, science, technology, and economy. Given the complexity and unpredictability of the demanding challenges to educate all children, prospective school leaders may find it desirable to define their own beliefs about instructional supervision and evaluation as they prepare for the rigor of school leadership practice. While enacting supervision, a supervisor is guided by certain values, assumptions, beliefs, and opinions that support the purpose and process of supervision (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2006). This can be described as the supervisor’s platform of supervision. The supervisor’s platform provides an opportunity for you to share the philosophy that undergirds your practice and your supervisory goals. For your final course assessment, you will need to develop an individual platform for supervision and evaluation addressing beliefs about supervising in an educational setting.…
- 3952 Words
- 16 Pages
Powerful Essays -
This essay examines the importance of supervision and appraisal to educational systems by firstly defining the two concepts and then identifying some of their key differences and similarities in terms of values, functions, and contributions to organisations. The role of the supervisor is also emphasized and how it has evolved from the traditional method of supervision. The essay also discusses the nature of supervision and appraisal in terms of issues occurring in the organisations. There is an emphasis on how leadership principles are used to ensure trust, accountability and professionalism among teachers.…
- 2289 Words
- 10 Pages
Better Essays -
Dimmock, C. (1995). School leadership: Securing quality teaching and learning. In C. Evers & J. Chapman (Eds.), Educational Administration: An Australian perspective. (pp. 274-295). St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.…
- 1950 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Thomas McElhenney “The Ethical Issues behind Cosmetic Surgery, and how JS Mill and Immanuel Kant would view it…
- 1373 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
Instructional leadership is a pivotal factor in the principal becoming an effective leader in a school setting and its implications on the school climate has very significant impact on a school. This research is carried to identify whether this role of the principle as the instructional leader is being practised in Malaysian government schools and its relationship with the overall climate of the school. The method used to carry out this research was a questionnaire of the characteristics of a principle as an instructional leader based on a Ohio State University dissertation project on the implications of instructional leadership (Jana Michelle Alig-Mielcarek, 2003). This questionnaire was then altered to suit the present research. The sample of this research was 45 respondents which were different levelled, experience and background teachers. This research shows that there is a significant relationship between the level of instructional leadership practiced and the creation of positive school climate. The study also shows a linear relationship between the two variable. This shows that the greater the level of instructional leadership practised, the better the school climate will be.…
- 2145 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
JOB SATISFACTION AMONG EMPLOYEES OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA…
- 23920 Words
- 96 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Hydrogen binds with Oxygen to form water. Without water, we can not survive. In fact, we are mostly made of water.…
- 1377 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
9. Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional Leadership and School…
- 3378 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Combination and Multi-grade Teachers in the Hinterlands of Talakag District II: Preparedness and Effectiveness in Classroom Management and Instruction…
- 471 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Busher, H., & Saran, R. (1995). Managing Teachers as Professionals in Schools. London: Kogan Page.…
- 4455 Words
- 18 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Every new educational reforms come with challenges and some of these challenges are syllabi and unaccompanied new text books in line with changes, changes in methodologies and skills of teaching as well as changes in the educational curricula; With these, some of the teachers are at times overwhelmed by these changes and these affect their teaching methodologies and hence the poor performance of their pupils. The education reform brings a number of challenges and we need to train specialist, increase access and at the same time improve quality in teacher education to meet the demands. Also, there is the need to empower teachers to participate in curriculum development, assessment and providing right training and retraining so that teachers could help the nation realise the purpose for the current educational reform. It is in view of the above that, this study seeks to assess the impact of in-service training on primary teachers in the Kwahu West Municipality to find out whether in-service training can be a solution to the above problems.…
- 489 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
O r ig in a l it y / va l u e – Many educational research studies have emphasized the benefits of…
- 10354 Words
- 42 Pages
Good Essays