International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
International Association of Educators

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2020, Vol. 15(2) 303-321

Teachers’ Evaluation on School Principals’ Supervision

Mehmet Özcan

pp. 303 - 321   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.251.17   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2003-29-0001.R2

Published online: June 20, 2020  |   Number of Views: 374  |  Number of Download: 817

Save PDF

Abstract

This study aims to analyze school principles’ supervision practices according to teachers’ opinions. The study employs phenomenology design out of qualitative research methods. The data of the study were gathered in 2019-2020 academic year from 16 teachers who had been working in state schools for 16 or more years through face to face interviews via a semi-structured interview form. The study attempted to reveal participating teachers’ opinions on school principles’ supervision based on their experiences with regard to teachers’ professional development, motivation, affectivity and objectivity of supervision.  The first finding of the study reveals that school principals’ sharing experience, mutual work, being organized, overcoming insufficiencies and satisfaction contribute to teachers’ professional development.  Second finding of the study states that support, constructive criticism, appreciation and communication increase teachers’ motivation. According to the third finding of the study school principals’ administrator role, supervision knowledge, supervisor role and continuity are factors of effective supervision. Last finding of the study explains that impartiality, equity, sense of mission and meticulousness are needed for objectivity of supervision. Results are discussed and suggestions are provided.

Keywords: Supervision, Lesson, School Principal, Teacher

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ozcan, M. (2020). Teachers’ Evaluation on School Principals’ Supervision . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(2), 303-321. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.251.17

Harvard
Ozcan, M. (2020). Teachers’ Evaluation on School Principals’ Supervision . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(2), pp. 303-321.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozcan, Mehmet (2020). "Teachers’ Evaluation on School Principals’ Supervision ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 15 (2):303-321. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.251.17.
References
  1. Ada, Ş., Akan, D., Ayık, A., Yıldırım, İ., & Yalçın, S. (2013). Motivation factors of teachers. Atatürk University  Journal of Social Science Institute, 17(3), 151-166. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ağaoğlu, E. (1997).  Clinical supervision in education. Eskişehir: Anadolu University Faculty of Education Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aslanargun, E. & Tarku, E. (2014). Teachers’ expectations about supervision and guidance roles of supervisors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 281-306. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aydın M. (2007). Contemporary educational supervision. Ankara: Hatiboğlu Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Aydın, İ. (2008). Supervision in education. Case determination, evaluation and improvement. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beach, D. M. & Reinhartz, J. (2000). Supervisory leadership: Focus on instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon [Google Scholar]
  7. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1991). New structure and behavior in school management. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Büyüköztürk Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem Academy. [Google Scholar]
  9. Can, E. (2019). Professional development of teachers: Obstacles and suggestions. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(4), 1618-1650. [Google Scholar]
  10. Can, E. & Gündüz, Y. (2016). Investigating the level of benefit primary school teachers get from the guidance of educational supervisors and principals. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 22(1), 1-28. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cholil, M. (2014). Effects of principal leadership and work motivation on teacher's work performance in muhammadiyah ngawi middle school. Media Prestasi Jurnal Ilmiah STKIP PGRI Ngawi 13 (1) 92– 101. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: HoughtonMifflin. [Google Scholar]
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thounsand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  14. Çiftçi, N. & Cesur, M. O. (2017). Determination of motivation sources according to their teachers. Unpublished Master Thesis, Maltepe University, Social Science Institute, Istanbul. [Google Scholar]
  15. Daresh J. C. (2001). Supervision as Proactive Leadership. Illinois: Waveland Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Demir, M. & Tok, T. N. (2016). Education supervision from the point of view of postgraduate students. Trakya University Journal of Education, 6(2), 102-125. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge Publications. [Google Scholar]
  18. DiPaola, M. F. & Hoy, W. K. (2013). Principals Improving Instruction: Supervision, Evaluation, and Professional Development. Boston: Pearson [Google Scholar]
  19. Dönmez, B. & Demirtaş, Ç. (2018). Opinions of school principals and teachers on the school principals’ duties of lesson supervision (an example of adıyaman province). Adıyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(29), 454-478. [Google Scholar]
  20. Duykuluoğlu, A. (2018). The opinions of high school teachers about classroom observations carried out by principals. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(6), 2081-2090. [Google Scholar]
  21. Eisner, E. (1982). An Artistic approach to supervision. (Ed. T. J. Sergiovanni,), Supervision of Teaching (pp. 53-66). Alexandria, VA: Associaiton of Supervision and Curriculum Development. [Google Scholar]
  22. Erdem, A. R. (2006). New perspective in teaching supervision: Supervision of teaching based on continuous development. Selçuk University Journal of Social Science Institute, 16, 275-294. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ergen, H. & Eşiyok, İ. (2017). Teacher opinions on school principals’ instructional supervision performances. Journal of Contemporary Administrative Science, 4(1), 2-19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ersoy, A. F. (2016). Phenomenology. (Ed. A. Saban & A. Ersoy) Qualitative research patterns in education, (pp.51-104). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  25. Eryaman, M. Y., & Riedler, M. (2010). Teacher-Proof Curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  26. Florence, G. W. (2005). Teacher supervision methods in Virginia. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. [Google Scholar]
  27. Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated supervision. Wirginia: ASCD. [Google Scholar]
  28. Glickman, C. D. (1980) The developmental approach to supervision. Educational Leadeship, 38(2), 178-180. [Google Scholar]
  29. Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning. USA: Assosciation for supervision and curricullum development (ASCD). [Google Scholar]
  30. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2015). Supervision and instructional leadership: Developmental approach. New York: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gökçe, O.(2006). Content analysis - theoretical and practical information. Ankara: Siyasal Publishing [Google Scholar]
  32. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli,W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513. [Google Scholar]
  33. İlgan, A. (2008). Primary school supervisors’ and primary school teachers’ perceptions on receptivity and applicability of differentiated supervision in primary schools. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 55(55), 389-422. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kadushin, A. (1992). Supervision in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kapusuzoglu, S. & Dilekci, U. (2017). Development of the artistic supervision model scale (asms). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(7), 1192-1200. [Google Scholar]
  36. Koç, M. H. (2018). Primary school principals’ views on school principals’ activities for the supervision of teachers. Marmara University Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 48(48), 91-110. [Google Scholar]
  37. Korkmaz, İ. (2015). An investigation of school administrators and superintends impact on teachers’ professional development. The Journal of International Educational Sciences, 2 (4), 55-64. [Google Scholar]
  38. Koşar, S. & Buran, K. (2019). An analysis of school principals’ course supervision activities in regard of instructional leadership. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(3), 1232-1265. [Google Scholar]
  39. Köybaşı, F., Uğurlu, C. T., Bakır, A. A., & Karakuş, B. (2017). Teacher opinions regarding classroom supervision in primary schools. Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(4), 327-344. [Google Scholar]
  40. McFaul S. A. & Cooper J. M. (1984). Clinical supervision: Teory vs. reality. Educational Leadership, 41 (7), 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  41. MEB, (2014). Ministry of national education regulation on the directorate of guidance and ınspection and ministry of education ınspectors, Legal Gazette, number: 29009. Retrieved from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/05/20140524-18.htm on 17/03/2020. [Google Scholar]
  42. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. London: SAGE Publications [Google Scholar]
  43. Oyewole, B. K. & Alonge, H. O. (2013). Principals’ instructional supervisory role performance and teachers’ motivation in Ekiti Central Senatorial District of Ekiti State, Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(2), 295. [Google Scholar]
  44. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.  [Google Scholar]
  45. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision: A Redefinition. New York: McGraw-Hill [Google Scholar]
  47. Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (1979). Supervision: human perspectives.  New York: McGraw-Hill  [Google Scholar]
  48. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75 [Google Scholar]
  49. Shulman, V., Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: Consequenes for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership Training, 11(4), 407-425. [Google Scholar]
  50. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2005). Supervision that ipmroves teaching. Strategies and technics. Foreword by Jo Blase. California: Corwin Pres.  [Google Scholar]
  52. Şanlı, Ö., Altun, M., & Tan, Ç. (2015). The assesment of satisfoctory level of school administrators on lesson supervision. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 4(7), 82-99 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (1985). Supervision in education problems and practicer. New York: Mc Milan Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  54. Taymaz,  A. H. (1982). Supervision in the education system (Concepts-Principles-Methods) Ankara: Ankara University, Educational Science Institute Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Burdett, J. (2003). International comparisons of the relationship among educational effectiveness, evaluation and improvement variables: An overview. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 5-20 [Google Scholar]
  56. Uçar, R. (2016). Relationship between distributed leadership behavior of primary school principals and teachers’ levels of creativity and motivation. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Dicle University, Educational Science Institute, Diyarbakır. [Google Scholar]
  57. Veloo, A., Komuji, M. M. A. & Khalid, R. (2013). The effects of clinical supervision on the teaching performance of secondary school teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 35-39. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wanzare, Z. (2012). Instructional supervision in public secondary schools in Kenya. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(2), 188-216. [Google Scholar]
  59. Williams, R. (2007). A case study in clinical supervision: Moving from an evaluation to a supervision model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yeşil, D., & Kış, A. (2015). Examining the views of teachers on school principals’ classroom supervision. Inonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 2(3), 27-45.  [Google Scholar]
  61. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yıldırım, O. (2015). Teachers with head of school motivation relationship between the vocational qualification. Unpublished Master's Thesis, İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, Social Science Institute, Istanbul.  [Google Scholar]
  63. Yılmaz, K. (2004). Artistic supervision. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 38(38), 292-311. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zellermayer, M. & Margolin, I. (2005). Teacher educators' professional learning described through the lens of complexity theory. Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1275-1304. [Google Scholar]
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 15 Issue 2

June 2020

All Articles

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.