CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of study

In Malaysia, as in many other developing countries, education has been considered to be

one of the imperative fields of economic growth and developments. Therefore, educational

reforms have taken places that are directed towards enhancing the quality of education. These

reforms are demanding greater performance and commitment from all parties involving

administration, management, instruction and supervision that are responsible for the performance

of students in schools. According to Rockoff (2004), supervision is a vital element of

professional growth and development. According to Segun (2004), the importance of school

supervision in today’s educational system requires for a greater attention. Nowadays, people are

becoming more conscious than in the past about the significance of education and people are

getting more interested to get involved in school’s system to ensure the achievement of the

school’s instruction as well as to be part of the school’s activities (Beesong & Ojong, 2009).

‘Supervision’ as defined by Mintzberg, (1979) which is a co-ordination by someone taking

responsibility for the work of others including planning, scheduling, allocating, instructing and

monitoring actions.’

1.2 Statement of Problem

Despite of the importance of instructional supervision, not all schools in Malaysia could

implement it successfully, especially for the schools that are located at the remote area such as in

Sarawak. Most of school teachers are aware of the instructional planning – who is to be taught,

1
what is to be taught and, how much is to be taught in their planning of instruction. Generally, the

teachers had a positive view of the syllabus. However, most of teachers, especially for the novice

teachers who have been sent to rural schools in Sarawak believe that it is impossible to deliver

the content of the whole syllabus within the specified time frame. In short what was written and

planned in the record books were not transferable to classroom teaching. Therefore, the quality

of teaching will be decrease from day to day. Here, instructional supervision plays a vital role in

ensuring the teachers always keep on improving and enhancing their knowledge and skills in

teaching. However, does it really work in schools? So, who should to be blamed on this matter?

Is it due to the lack of time, resources, teachers’ motivation or the school management?

1.3 Research objective

Given this background, the aim of this study is as mentioned below:

1. To examine the challenges of instructional supervision among secondary school

teachers at rural areas in Sarawak

2. To identify the significance of instructional supervision towards students’

performance

1.4 Research question

This particular study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the challenges in implementing instructional supervision at secondary

rural schools?

2
 2. What are the significance of instructional supervision towards students’

performance?

1.5 Limitation

This study is limited in a way it will only be carried out to three secondary schools in

district Sri Aman, Sarawak which are SMK St Luke, SMK Sri Aman and SMK Simanggang.

Generalizing the findings to the larger populations of other principals, teachers or schools may

be limited due to the demographic of sample of this study.

1.6 Delimitation

Delimitation of this study; it is only applicable to three secondary schools in Sri Aman.

1.7 Conclusion

This chapter described the background and problem statement of study, research

objectives and questions, sample and populations as well as limitations and delimitations of

study.

3
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

Malaysia’s government believes that in order to survive in the competitive world

economy, quality of education is the most helpful and functional key. (Afolakemi O & David

O.,2006). Supervision could be seen as an interaction involving some kind of established

relationship between and among people, such that people influence people (Patrick, 2009). Such

interactions are greatly influenced by a predetermined programme of instruction. In this regard,

and according to Netzer and Kerey (1971), the systematization of the interaction of those

responsible for working within the structure of administration is called supervision. Thus, the

supervisor is anticipated in the course of his duty as well as to initiate several activities that will

lead to a successful combination of these two contexts in order to achieve harmony and

satisfaction (Patrick, 2009).

2.2 Models and Methods of Supervision

Monroe (1913) reported the function of supervision previously is almost the same as

today. As described many years before, the term instructional supervision was invented, some

educational leaders had a vision for what later would become the study of instructional

supervision. Monroe (1913) also stated, “The main function of supervision is to improve

teaching practice” (p. 413). The following review examined various models of supervision

including the clinical, collaborative, developmental, and differentiated models of instructional

supervision. The intents of all models of instructional supervision appear to be the improvement

of teaching practices (Soelen, 2003).

4
 2.2.1 Clinical Supervision

The original clinical supervision model included a six-step cycle made up of conferences,

observations and pattern analysis merged in three distinct phases: the pre- observation

conference, the classroom observation, and the post-observation conference (Zepeda, 2003).

Moreover, Soelen (2003) claimed that clinical supervision is perceived as a direct method of

supervision due to the standard cycle with a predetermined number of conferences and

observations, regardless of the career stage and experience of the teacher. Direct supervision is

implemented when the teacher has a low level of abstraction. A low level of abstraction is where

the teacher has “difficulty identifying instructional problems and generating alternative solutions;

they normally seek concrete advice from an expert” (Glickman & Gordon, 1987, p.64).

However, Acheson and Gall (1987) also supported the use of clinical supervision because it is,

“interactive rather than directive, democratic rather than authoritarian, teacher-centered rather

than supervisor-centered”.

2.2.2 Collaborative supervision

Harris and Ovando (1992) defined that collaborative supervision is a “process by which

people with diverse expertise such as teachers, principals, and supervisors work together with

equal status and share commitment in order to achieve mutually beneficial instructional goals”.

Instructional supervision of this kind can be achieved through a peer coaching or a peer

supervision model in which peers observe one another and provide feedback in a nonthreatening

manner (Manning, 1988). The distinguishing feature between peer coaching and peer supervision

is that coaching involves the “development and practice of new teaching methods and skills in

both ‘workshop’ settings and under actual teaching conditions” (Glatthorn, 1987, p. 32) and the

5
intent of peer supervision is to “engage a colleague in focused discussion based upon observed

teaching practice” (Goldsberry, 1998, p. 453).

2.2.3 Developmental supervision

Developmental supervision supports the teacher in taking a personal journey by

encouraging reflection on practice (Benin, 2006). Developmental supervision provides

individualized, client-centered guidance where the teacher and supervisor have a partnership in

inquiry (Blumberg, 1980) that leads to teacher self-direction (Glickman et al., 1998). The goal of

developmental supervision is to support teachers in becoming self-directing. There are several

stages to allow teachers to become self-directed. The stages leading to self-direction are: self-

directed, directive control, nondirective, and the collaborative approach. To support the

developmental process Glickman et al. (2001) stated, “It provides teachers with as much primary

choice as they are ready to assume, then fosters teachers’ decision-making capacity and

expanded choice over time”

2.2.4 Differentiated supervision

As in Soelen (2003), Glatthorn (1997) defined differentiated supervision as “an approach

to supervision that provides teachers with options about the types of supervisory and evaluative

services that they could receive.”. In depth, Glatthorn (1984, 1997) also proposed two

components of differentiated supervision: developmental options and evaluative options.

Differentiated supervision recognizes and builds on the values of developmental supervision and

extends the individualization of the supervisory plan. Marczely (2001) believed that a goal of

6
differentiated supervision was to provide reasoned and meaningful supervision for every teacher.

The objective of the model is to assist instead of assessing the teacher.

2.3 Effective instructional supervision

Poirier (2009) affirmed that one must comprehend the definition, effectiveness of

supervision process and kinds of instructional supervision. Andrews, Basom, and Basom (2001)

stated that the main purpose of instructional leadership is to improve and accomplish instruction

by utilizing supervision as a way to improve teachers’ skills and abilities. Furthermore, Blasé and

Blasé (2004) also confirmed the importance of communication between principals and teachers

to develop reflection for the purpose of growth, especially through supervision. According to

Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (1998), supervision must be accepted to assist teachers in

order to improve as well as enhance their instructional skills and abilities.

2.4 Ineffective instructional supervision

Supervision at its best should be a collaborative approach rather than “inspection,

oversight, and judgment” (Blasé & Blasé, 2004, p. 8). To add to ineffective supervision, Renihan

(2005) provided the Profile of a Lousy Supervisor as below:

• Demonstrates inadequate basic listening skills;

• Unclear expectations;

• Did not have a sense of how teachers were doing;

• No initial conference to identify your needs;

• Unprepared for supervising the lesson;

7
• Supervisee did not value the opinion;

• No basic understanding about what you were teaching;

• Only vague feedback provided;

• Supervisor’s focus was on developing the skill/technique, not you as a person;

• Exclusively negative feedback;

• Supervisee was left not knowing what to improve on;

• Purpose was only to fill a requirement to have a certain number of supervisions completed (p.

4).

In addition, ineffective or lousy supervision (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1989) can be described

as supervision that has taken more of a summative function, which means supervision is

“conducted merely for the purpose of developing records which can be used to justified

continuing or terminating the employment of the teacher” (Rossow & Warner, 2000, p. 66).

Study of Poirier (2009) summarize the findings of Zepeda and Ponticell (1989) and Renihan

(2005), the common elements missing from the summative model of supervision are a lack of

purpose and reflection between teachers and principals, as well as inadequate knowledge of the

supervisory process.

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter described the literature review of the study. It explains on the past

researches that have been done, related models and approaches in instructional supervisions as

well as the differences between effective and ineffective instructional supervision.

8
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the research design used by the researchers in this study. It is

presented in terms of population, sample and the sample selection, data gathering instrument,

administration of the instrument and the data analysis process.

3.2 Research Design

This research will be of descriptive research since much of the data collected is based on

questionnaires. This study uses quantitative method, which has been designed to get some

reviews on principals and teachers on their perspective on the challenges of instructional

supervision at their schools.

The researchers designated a questionnaire consisting of a set of questions, which will be

divided into five sections. In section A, the researchers will obtain demographic data of the

sample. The other sections in this questionnaire will be about the three factors as challenges in

supervision. Section B will be regarding on teachers and principals perceptions towards

objectives of instructional supervision. In Section C will be discussing on teachers and

principals’ perception towards sufficiency of school’s resources / facilities factor in supervision.

Meanwhile, Section D will be concerning on teachers and principals perceptions towards

efficiency of management factor in supervision. Finally, Section E teachers and principals

perceptions towards organizational structure factor in supervision.

9
3.3 Samples and Population

The target population of this study is the principals and teachers of SMK St Luke, SMK

Sri Aman and SMK Simanggang. There will be about 3 principals and 60 teachers as

respondents for this study. The sample for this study will be selected by using random sampling.

Stratified sampling is a procedure used to obtain a greater degree of representativeness while

decreasing probable sampling error.

3.4 Instrumentation

The instrument that will be used to conduct this study is questionnaire which comprises

of 30 questions in five major sections. A pilot study of this questionnaire will be carried out with

the researcher’s supervisor in order to check the validity of the items. The consistency of items

will be validated with the Cronbach Alpha Reliability Test.

3.4.1 Section A: Demographic Data

In section A, the questionnaire investigates on the respondents demographic data.

There are five questions asked in this section which are age, gender, job position,

qualification level, teaching experience and teaching subject. By the end of this section,

the researchers insist respondents to state which school they are teaching.

3.4.2 Section B: Perceptions on objectives of supervision

In this section, the respondents will be asked on their perceptions on objectives of

supervision. This section is to determine whether school teachers and principals agree on

the objectives of implementation of instructional supervision in school.

10
 3.4.3 Section C: Perceptions on sufficiency of school resources / facilities

In section C will investigate on teachers and principals perceptions as well as

awareness of sufficiency of their school resource / facilities that could affect on their

mark during supervision. This could be involved with financial and material resources.

3.4.4 Section D: Perceptions on efficiency of school management

In section D will seek on efficiency of school management react to the

supervision as not all of schools understand the real needs of instructional supervision

and practice it in order to satisfy the ministry’s command rather than to improve the

teaching performance.

3.5 Data Collection Procedure

The respondents will be required to answer the Likert-Scale questions based on their

preference. Basically, the questionnaire is a straight forward task where respondents would only

answer about 30 questions that only take approximately 10 - 15 minutes to complete it. Each

questionnaire will be attached with instructions that clearly explain the purposes of the study and

the questionnaires will be returned to the respective researchers as soon as it is completed

answered by the respondents. In addition, the respondents will be informed about the objective of

completing the questionnaires, the confidentiality of their responses and that the data would only

be utilized for the academic purposes.

11
3.6 Data Analysis

From the completed questionnaires, the data will be analyzed by using SPSS. Frequency

analysis will be carried out to describe the demographic factors of the respondents.

3.7 Conclusion

This chapter described the research design used in this study. It explains on the

population, sample and sample selection, data gathering instrument, data collection method as

well as the data analysis process. It is hoped that this chapter has provided a clearer picture on

the tabulated data.

12
REFERENCES

Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1987). Techniques In The Clinical Supervision Of Teachers (2nd
Ed.). White Plains, Ny: Longman.

Bessong And Felix Ojong (2009) Supervision As An Instrument Of Teaching – Learning

Effectiveness: Challenge For The Nigerian Practice F. E. Global Journal Of Educational
Research Vol 8, No.1&2, 2009: 15-20

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook Of Instructional Leadership: How Successful Principals
Promote Teaching And Learning (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). Supervision Of Instruction: A

Development Approach (4th Ed.) Needham, Ma: Allyn And Bacon.

Glatthorn, A.A. (1984). Differential Supervision. Alexandria, Va: Association For Supervision
And Curriculum Development.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated Supervision (2nd Ed). Alexandria, Va: Association For
Supervision And Curriculum Development.

Goldsberry, L. F. (1998). Teacher Involvement In Supervision. In F. Gerald & E. Pajak (Eds.),

Handbook Of Research On School Supervision (p. 428-462). Ny: Simon And Schuster
Macmillan

Harris, B., & Ovando, M. (1992). Collaborative Supervision And The Developmental Evaluation
Of Teaching. Journal Of School Administrators Association Of New York State, 23, 12-18

Marczely, B. (2001). Supervision In Education: A Differentiated Approach With Legal

Perspectives. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen.

Monroe, P. (1913). A Cyclopedia Of Education. New York: Macmillan.

Poirier O. D. (2009). A Principal’s and Teachers’ Perceptions and Understandings of

Instructional Leadership: A Case Study of One School. University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Canada

Rossow, L. F., & Warner, L. S. (2000). The Principalship: Dimension In Instructional

Leadership (2nd Ed.). Durham, Nc: Carolina Academic Press.

Segun, O., (2004). Educational Supervision: Perspective And Practice In Nigeria. Ile- Ife:
University

Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At Cross-Purposes: What Do Teachers Need, Want, And
Get From Supervision? Journal Of Curriculum And Supervision, 14(1), 68-87

13