RESEARCH PROPOSAL:

A STUDY ON CHALLENGES OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION AT THREE

SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SRI AMAN, SARAWAK.

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,
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 objectives

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 questions

This particular study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the challenges in implementing instructional supervision at secondary
rural schools?

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

performance?

1.5 Limitations and Delimitations

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.
Whilst, delimitation of this study; it is only applicable to three secondary schools in Sri
Aman that have been stated above.
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 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).

2.1 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).

2.1.1 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”.

2.1.2 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
intent of peer supervision is to “engage a colleague in focused discussion based upon observed
teaching practice” (Goldsberry, 1998, p. 453).

2.1.3 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”
 2.1.4 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
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.

2.2 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.

2.3 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;
• 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.
 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.

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.

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.
 3.4.5 Section E: Perceptions on teachers and principals’ motivation towards
instructional supervision
In section E will concern on respondents’ motivation to conduct supervision as
this also could be one of the main contributors to the successful of instructional
supervision.

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.

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.
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