Alternative Observation Tools for the Scope of Contemporary Education Supervision: An Action Research

Abstract

In this study, in-class lesson observations were made with volunteer teachers working in primary and secondary schools using alternative observation tools regarding the scope of contemporary educational supervision. The study took place during the fall and spring semesters of the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years and the class observations were made with six alternative volunteer teachers in the primary and secondary schools in the provincial and district centers using alternative observation tools. In the classroom observations, the teacher's verbal flow scheme, teacher's movement scheme and student behaviors both during tasks and not, were analyzed. Observations were made during the two classes with teacher's permission. After the first observation, an information meeting was held and then the second observation was made. Following the observations, interviews were held with the teachers. In interviews, the information about the class observations was shared with teachers and their opinions about research were asked. It has been found that alternative observations, in general, have a positive effect on the professional development of teachers. It is concluded that this type of observation approach positively affects teachers' in-class activities, helps in classroom management and teaching arrangements and positively affects student's unwanted behaviors. 

Keywords

• Contemporary education supervision,alternative observation tools primary school teacher,secondary school teacher

References

1. Acar, U. (2009). Yonetici Ve Ogretmenlere Gore Turk ve Alman (Krv Eyaleti) Okul Mudurlerinin Ders Denetimi Uygulamasi. Yayinlanmamis [According to the views of administrators and teachers the principals? Implementation of course control in the German and the Turkish educational systems]. Unpublished Master Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara.
2. Alkan, C. V. (2005). Ozel Ogretim Yontemleri (2nd Edition) Ankara: Ani.
3. Akin, A. G. U. & Kocak, R. (2007). Ogretmenlerin Sinif Yonetimi Becerileri Ile Is Doyumlari Arasindaki Iliski [The Relationship between Teachers’ Classroom Management Skills and Job Satisfaction]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 51(51), 353-370.
4. Aydin, I. (2016). Ogretimde Denetim [Instructional Supervision] (6th Edt.). Ankara: Pegem A.
5. Basaran, I. E. (2000). Egitim Yonetimi-Nitelikli Okul [ Educational Management-Qualified School ](4. Edt), Ankara: Feryal.
6. Basaran, I. E. (1982). Orgutsel Davranis [Organizational Behavior]. Ankara: Ankara University Faculty of Education.
7. Beyhan, A. (2013). Egitim Orgutlerinde Eylem Arastirmasi [Action Research in Educational Organizations]. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 1(2), 65-89.
8. Burton, W. H., & Brueckner, L. J. (1955). Supervision: A Social Process (Third Edition). Appleton- Century Crofts Inc.

9. Borgia, E. T., & Schuler, D. (1996). Action Research In Early Childhood Education. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Clearinghouseon Elementary And Early Childhood Education, Urbana II, No:401047).
10. Caras, A., & Sandu, A. (2014). The role of supervision in professional development of social work specialists. Journal of Social Work Practice, 28(1):75–94. doi:10.1080/02650533.2012.763024
11. Caspi, J., & Reid, W. J. (2012). Educational supervision in social work: A task-centered model for field instruction and staff development. Columbia University Press.
12. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage.
13. Costello, P. J. M. (2003). Action Research. Continuum Books: London.
14. Dea, M. (2016). The Nexus between Instructional Supervision, Supervisors' and Teachers': The Practical Paradox and Its Effect on Quality Education a Case of Woliat Zone Administration Elementary and Secondary Schools (1-8). Journal of Education and Practice, 7(7), 108-118.
15. Dash, D.  P. (1999). Current debates in action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(5), 457-492.
16. Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision For The Millennium: A Retrospective And Prospective. Focus On Education, Fall, 9–15, Http://www.Wagner.Edu/Faculty/Users/Jglanz/
17. Egan, R. (2012). Australian social work supervision practice in 2007. Australian Social Work, 65(2), 171–184. doi:10.1080/ 0312407x.2011.653575
18. Erdem, A. R. (2006). Ogretimin Denetiminde Yeni Bakis Acisi:“Surekli Gelistirme” Temeline Dayali Ogretimin Denetimi [Under the Supervision of the Teaching the new perseverance: "Inspirational Development"]. Selcuk University Sosyal Sciences Instutional Journal, 16, 275-294.
19. Gokce, F., & Kahraman, P. B. (2010). Etkili Okulun Bilesenleri: Bursa Ili Ornegi. [Components of an Effective School: A Sample from Bursa] Uludag Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 23(1):173-206
20. Goldhammer, R Anderson, R., & Karjewski, R. (1980). Clinical Supervision: Special Method for the Supervision of Teachers. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
21. Gunduz, Y. (2015). Egitim Orgutlerinde Denetimin Gerekliligi: Kuramsal Bir Calisma.[Inspection Requirement In Educational Organizations: A Theoretical Study]. Dumlupinar Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 34(34), 1-6
22. Hair, H. (2014).Power relations in supervision: Preferred practices according to social workers. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 95(2), 107–114. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.2014.95.14
23. Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (2014). In: Applied Research in Education and the Social Sciences. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
24. Erdem, A. R. (2006). Ogretimin Denetiminde Yeni Bakis Acisi: Surekli Gelistirme Temeline Dayali Ogretimin Denetimi. Selcuk University The Journal of Institute of Social Science, 16, 275-294.
25. Erdogan, C. (2014). Prof. Dr. Haydar Taymaz Armagan Kitabi Egitim Yonetimi, Denetimi ve Politikasi.  In I. Aydin, & K.Yilmaz (Ed.). Ankara: Pegem-A
26. Ferrance, E. (2000). Action Research. Themes in Education. USA: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory At Brown University.
27. Inan, G. (2011). Eylem Arastirmasi: Egitimde Degisimin Yaratilmasinda Ogretmenin Gucu [Action Research: The Effect Of Teacher On The Change Of Education].  Celal Bayar University The Journal of Social Sciences . 9(2):481-486.
28. Ipek, C., & Balay, R. (2016). Sinif  Gozlemi [Classroom Observation]. Ali Balci & Cigdem Apaydin (Ed.) Ogretimde Denetim [Instructional Supervision] in (261-288). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
29. Kadushin, A. (1992). What’s wrong, what’s right with social work supervision? The Clinical Supervisor, 10(1), 3–19
30. Masters, J. (1995). The History Of Action Research. In I. Hughes (Ed.), Action Research Electronic Reader. The University Of Sydney, On-Line Http://www.Behs.Cchs.Usyd.Edu.Au/Arow/Reader/Rmasters.
31. Mansor, A. N., Wong, K. E., Rasul, M. S., Hamzah, M. I. M., & Hamid, A. H. A. (2012). Effective Classroom Management. International Education Studies, 5(5), 35.
32. Memduhoglu, H. B., & Zengin, M. (2012). Cagdas Egitim Denetimi Modeli Olarak Ogretimsel Denetimin Turk Egitim Sisteminde Uygulanabilirligi. [Implementability of Instructional Supervision as a Contemporary Educational Supervision Model in Turkish Education System]. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 5(1).
33. Memisoglu, S. P. (2001). Cagdas Egitim Denetimi Ilkeleri Acisindan Ilkogretim Okullarinda Ogretmen Denetimi Uygulamalarinin Degerlendirilmesi [The Evaluation of teachers supervisory applications in primary education schools in relation to the principles of contemporary educational supervision]. Unpublished Phd Thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal  U. SBE., Bolu.
34. Morse, K. R., & Others (1970). Effects Different Types of Supervisory feedback on Teacher Candidate’ Development of Refocusing Behaviors. Retrived from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED046906.pdf
35. Morki, M. (2010). An assessment of the status of school based instructional supervision in secondary schools of west Arisi zone of Oromia region. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Addis Ababa.
36. Neuman, W. L. (2010). Toplumsal arastirma yontemleri nitel ve nicel yaklasimlar [Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches] (4. Edt). Istanbul: Yayin Odasi.
37. O’Donoghue, K., Wong Yuh Ju, P., & Tsui, M. S. (2017). Constructing an evidence-informed social work supervision model. European Journal of Social Work, 1-11.
38. Ozaslan, G. (2016). Eylem Arastirmasi. [Action Research] Ali Balci & Cigdem Apaydin (Ed.) Ogretimde Denetim [Instructional Supervision] in (261-288). Ankara: Pegen Akademi
39. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The elementary school journal, 83(4), 427-452.
40. Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Virginia: ASCD.
41. Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2005). Supervision That Ipmroves Teaching. Strategies And Technics. Foreword By Jo Blase. California. Corwin Pres. Second Edition.
42. Sencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranissal olcumlerde guvenirlik ve gecerlik [Reliability and validity in social and behaviora]. Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik.
43. Simsek, H., & Yildirim, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seckin Pub.
44. Tanriogen, A. (1997). Intensive Guided Supervision. Educational Administration: Theary and Practice, 3(1), 111-121.
45. Taymaz, H. (1985). Teftis, Kavramlar-Ilkeler-Yontemler[Inspection, Concepst-Principles-Mothods]. Ankara: Kadioglu.
46. Topcu, I. (2010). Supervisory and Evaluationary Styles of School Administrators in Turkish State and Primary Schools.  University of Cumhuriyet Faculty of Literature, Journal of Social Sciences, 34(2), 31-39.
47. Yesil, D., & Kis, A. (2015). Okul Mudurlerinin Ders Denetimine Iliskin Ogretmen Goruslerinin Incelenmesi [Examining the Views Of Teachers On School Principals’ Classroom Supervision]. The Inonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 2(3):27-45
48. Yuksel, O., & Aykac, B. (1994). Frederick Taylor’in Goruslerinin Degerlendirilmesinde Yeni Bir Yaklasim.  The Journal of Amme Idaresi, 27(4):83-96.