Levels of School Administrators Exhibiting Instructional Supervision Behaviors: Teachers’ Perspectives

Abstract

Instructional supervisory authority beginning with the 2015-2016 academic year in Turkey was given as a responsibility to school principals. The purpose of this study is to reveal the level of instructional supervision exhibited by the school principals according to the perceptions of teachers and to examine these perceptions in terms of various variables. In this context, 1237 teachers working in primary, middle and high schools in Balıkesir and Bursa provinces were included in the study. In the research, a survey, was used to reveal the current situation. The results of the study showed that the instructional supervision exhibited by the school principals occurred at a low frequency. Within the scope of the study, it is recommended that the current practice regarding the instructional supervision should be provided in a way that will recognize the teachers in the process of providing feedback to teaching and teachers and benefit from these teachers in this process.

Keywords

• : instructional leadership
• instructional supervision
• classroom supervision
• teacher perceptions
• school principal

References

1. Akgün, N. (2001). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderliği (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.
2. Aydın, İ. (2016). Öğretimde denetim: Durum saptama değerlendirme ve geliştirme (6st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
3. Aydın, M. (2014). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi (6st ed.). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
4. Başar, H. (1995). Öğretmenlerin değerlendirilmesi (2st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
5. Başar, H. (2000). Eğitim denetçisi (2st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
6. Başaran, İ. E. (2000). Eğitim yönetimi (4st ed.). Ankara: Feryal Matbaası.
7. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
8. Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519 535.

9. Çelik, V. (2015). Eğitimsel liderlik (8st ed.) Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
10. Chao, C. Y., & Dugger, J. C. (1996). A total quality management model for instructional supervision in vocational technical programs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33, 23-35.
11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
12. Creemers, B. P., & Scheerens, J. (1994). Developments in the educational effectiveness research programme. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(2), 125-140.
13. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance. Retrieved March 29 2018, from http://www.csaionline.com/sites/default/files/resource/imported/AchievingWithData.pdf
14. De Bevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 14-20.
15. Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2011). Türk Eğitim Sistemi’nde bir alt sistem olan denetim sisteminin seçilmiş bazı ülkelerin denetim sistemleri ile karşılaştırılması. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(2), 23-48.
16. Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2018). The role of abusive supervision in predicting teachers’ withdrawal and revenge responses / El papel de la supervisión abusiva en la predicción de las respuestas de venganza y abandono de los docents. Cultura y Educación, 30(4), 693-729.
17. DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
18. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
19. Erdem, Y. T. (2009). Osmanlı eğitim sisteminde teftiş. OTAM: Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 26, 55-91.
20. Ergen, Y. (2009). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretim liderlik davranışlarının öğretmenlerin motivasyonu üzerindeki etkisi (Unpublished master’s thesis). Celal Bayar University, Manisa.
21. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 25-29.
22. Glanz, J. (2005). What every principal should know about cultural leadership (1st ed.). London: Corvin Press.
23. Glanz, J., & Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (2000). Paradigm debates in curriculum and supervision: Modern and postmodern perspectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
24. Glanz, J., Shulman, V., & Sullivan, S. (2006, April). Usurpation or abdication of instructional supervision in the New York city public schools? In Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 10 Nisan 2006 (pp. 1-18). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved January 9 2017, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500777.pdf
25. Glanz, J., Shulman, V., & Sullivan, S. (2007). Impact of instructional supervision on student achievement: Can we make the connection? In paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Researchers Association (AERA) 13 April 2007 (pp. 1-28). Chicago. Retrieved December 22 2016, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496124.pdf
26. Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated supervision (2st ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
27. Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2017). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (10st ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
28. Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1091-1123.
29. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-444.
30. Gümüşeli, A. İ. (1996). İstanbul ilindeki ilköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği davranışları (Unpublished research). Yıldız Teknik University, İstanbul.
31. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
32. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
33. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
34. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
35. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355.
36. Hammond, M. (2005). Next steps in teaching: A guide to starting your career in the secondary school. London & New York: Routledge.
37. Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34.
38. Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94-125.
39. Henson, K. T. (2010). Supervision: A collaborative approach to instructional improvement. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.
40. Hess, F. M. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved March 11 2017, from http://www.aei.org/wp-ccontent/uploads/2011/10/20030131_New_Leadership_0103.pdf
41. Holland, P. E., & Adams, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 5(3), 227-247.
42. Huck, S. W. (2011). Reading statistics and research (6st ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
43. Hult, A., & Segerholm, C. (2012). Inspection effects through the eyes of the inspectors: Swedish notions. In European Conference of Educational Research (ECER), Network 23 Symposium ‘Governing by inspection (ii) National Developments’, 17-20 September 2012 (pp. 1-14). Cádiz: ECER.
44. İlğan, A. (2014). Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 1-23.
45. Korkmaz, İ., Saban, A., & Akbaşlı, S. (2004). Göreve yeni başlayan sınıf öğretmenlerinin karşılaştıkları güçlükler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 38, 266-277.
46. Korkmaz, M. (2005). Duyguların ve liderlik stillerinin öğretmenlerin performansı üzerinde etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 11(3), 401-422.
47. Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 430-443.
48. Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1-7. Retrieved May 9 2017, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED466023.pdf
49. Leithwood, K. A., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
50. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
51. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
52. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved June 10 2018, from https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/2035/CAREI?sequence=1
53. Lochmiller, C. R. (2016). Examining administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 75–109.
54. Lochmiller, C. R., Huggins, K. S., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2012). Preparing leaders for math and science: Three alternatives to traditional preparation. Planning & Changing, 43(1/2), 198-220.
55. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved May 8 2019, from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2006/RAND_OP170.pdf
56. Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
57. MEB. (2016). Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri. Retrieved April 25 2019, from https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_03/30044345_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2015_2016.pdf
58. Memduhoğlu, H. B., & Zengin, M. (2012). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi modeli olarak öğretimsel denetimin Türk eğitim sisteminde uygulanabilirliği. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(1), 131-142.
59. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2016). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (6st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
60. Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher’s first year. In Marge Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 19-23). USA: Association For Supervision And Curriculum Development.
61. Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
62. Nolan, J. (1997). Can a supervisor be a coach?. In J. Glanz & R. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues and controversies (pp. 100-108). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
63. Özdemir, S., & Sezgin, F. (2002). Etkili okullar ve öğretim liderliği. Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 265-282.
64. Özden, Y. (2013). Eğitimde yeni değerler (9st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
65. Pajak, E. (1993). Change and continuity in supervision and leadership. G. Cawelti (Ed.), In Challenges and achievements of American education (pp. 158-186). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
66. Pansiri, N.O. (2008). Instructional leadership for quality learning: An assessment of the impact of the primary school management development project in Botswana. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 36(4), 471-494.
67. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2016). Organizational behavior (17st ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
68. Rous, B. (2004). Perspectives of teachers about instructional supervision and behaviour that influence pre-school instruction. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(4), 266-283.
69. Şahin, S., Elçiçek, Z., & Tösten, R. (2013). Türk eğitim sisteminde teftişin tarihsel gelişimi ve bu gelişim süreci içerisindeki sorunlar. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(5), 1105-1126.
70. Schlechty, P. C. (2014). Okulu yeniden kurmak (Y. Özden, Trans.). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
71. Schulman, V., Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: Consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 407-425.
72. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
73. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2014). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (7st ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Educational Inc.
74. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. (2014). Supervision: A redefinition (9st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
75. Serin, M. K., & Buluç, B. (2012). İlköğretim okul müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği davranışları ile öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılıkları arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 3(3), 435-459.
76. Şişman, M. (2014). Öğretim liderliği (5st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
77. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC: MDRC. Retrieved August 2 2018, from https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/foundations_for_success_summary.pdf
78. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
79. Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective. In J. P. Spillane & J. B. Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in practice (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
80. Spillane, J. P., & Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log: Using logs to study the practice of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 375-423.
81. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
82. Stronge, J. H. (1993). Defining the principalship: Instructional leader or middle manager. NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 1-7.
83. Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques (4st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
84. Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
85. Taymaz, H. (2015). Eğitim sisteminde teftiş (11st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
86. Taymaz, H. (2019). Okul yönetimi (11st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
87. Tyagi, R. S. (2010). School‐based instructional supervision and the effective professional development of teachers. Compare, 40(1), 111-125.
88. Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
89. Whitaker, B. (1997). Instructional leadership and principal visibility. The Clearing House, 70(3), 155-156.
90. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.
91. Zepeda, S. J. (2011). Instructional supervision, coherence, and job-embedded learning. In Townsend, & J. MacBeath (Ed.), International handbook of leadership for learning (pp. 741-756). London: Springer.
92. Zepeda, S. J. (2017). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (4st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.