1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The world sits on leadership-based capabilities where leaders conscientiously

seek to become globally competitive notwithstanding the various agencies,

organizations and sectors that these leaders represent. The education sector places

high regard into how schools are managed competently by school leaders. School

leaders are professional leaders who understand the importance of building a

community to empower teachers and cultivate leadership skills, enhancing their ability

to utilize data and resources thereafter allowing them to be collaborative and passionate

about their work and subsequently become visionaries.

The success of the school depends on how effectively the school heads are able

to apply all the knowledge, skills, and values as an educational leader. As instructional

leader, the school heads are concerned with the quality of teaching that aim for results

that showcase improved student performance. It is the role of the school heads to help

teachers improve instruction to enhance the students’ learning.

In the Philippines, Republic Act (RA) 9155, also known as the Governance of

Basic Education Act of 2001, provides the overall framework for principal empowerment

by strengthening principal and leadership goals and local school-based management

within the context of transparency and local accountability. Section 4 of Republic Act

9155 defines a “school head” found as “a person responsible for the administrative and

instructional supervision of the school and accountable for the promotion and
 2

preservation of academic excellence and effective teaching and learning.” Section 7 of

the said Act enumerates the multifarious tasks of school heads as an institutional

supervisor that shall lead all educational activities and programs. In these endeavors,

the school head shall show professional courtesy, helpfulness and sympathy towards

teachers and other personnel. Such practices are the standard of effective school

supervision, dignified administration, responsible leadership and enlightened direction.

Further, Luistro (2010) during the Principals’ Forum of the National Capital

Region posited that the teachers’ instructional effectiveness is considered a key to

achieve optimum gains in the teaching-learning process. In order to ensure this, the

teachers’ efficiency in the educational environment must be sustained as this is an

important aspect that promotes student achievement and professional development. In

support to this, supervision of teachers must be constant as this has been one of the

most important functions of our educational system. As cited in Tyagi’s (2010) study

titled “___please insert title of the study___”, instructional supervision provides

guidance, support and empowerment of teachers for their professional development in

the teaching-learning process. Supervision provides teachers the support, knowledge

and skills that enable them to succeed. Moreover, the quality of instructional supervision

develops due to the teachers’ good perceptions and positive attitudes towards the

practice (Choy, 2011). Hoffman and Tesfaw (2012) adds that teachers were convinced

on the need of instructional supervisory engagements. They welcome supervision if it is

done in the right spirit with the aim of improving the learning process. It is also regarded

that the quality of supervision practiced in the school or in an institution is a key factor in

determining school success (Hamzah, 2013).

 3

Hence, quality education is additionally gauged on the quality of supervision as it

determines the success of the school. Quality education, as asserted by Kuizon and

Reyes (2014), depends on the extent of implementation of instructional supervision

especially in the public elementary and secondary schools as part of the duties and

functions of instructional supervisors. In addition, Limon (2015) mentioned that

instructional supervisors perform varied roles for the improvement and development of

curriculum instruction. Instructional supervisors, both the internal and external to the

school, are tasked to do supervisory works and carry out supervisory functions to help

teachers improve learning conditions. As a result, there were improvements in the

quality of instruction and academic performance in learning institutions. Relatedly,

Babalola and Hafsatu (2016) emphasized that the improvement of students’ academic

achievement is the measure of effective supervision.

Recently, the roles of school heads and supervisors in improving teaching quality

appears to be more defined with the issuance of two landmark education

policies that set professional standards for the country’s school leaders: Department

Order 24, s. 2020 or the National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine

Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), and Department Order 25, s. 2020

or the National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards

for Supervisors (PPSS). Accordingly, “The changes in various national and global

frameworks in education and the changing characteristics of our 21st century learners

necessitate a call for the rethinking of our professional standards of our school heads

and supervisors, as part of our efforts to prepare the Department for the transition into

the future. In relation to this, Secretary Leonor Magtolis Briones (2020) once declared,
 4

“We want to develop effective school leaders beyond our terms and beyond our lifetime

for the future of education.”

Further, the Misamis Oriental Division of Region 10, one of the biggest divisions

in as far as the Department of Education is concerned, strongly adheres to these set of

standards on school leadership. Considering its scope and the number of schools in the

Division, this entails great responsibilities and leadership competencies. Undoubtedly,

teachers need an equally strong supervision from their school heads but the question

that lurks is how do school heads themselves perceive developmental supervision in

their respective districts, and schools, more specifically?

Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, this study is designed to

examine the assessment level of public elementary school heads and teachers on

Instructional Supervision in the Division of Misamis Oriental. The results of the study will

thereafter serve as the basis for the creation of a School Management Plan.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This study is anchored on Robert J. House’s Path-Goal Theory (1971) and

Kadushin’s Supervision Theory (1992). Ultimately, the Path-Goal theory characterizes

that a leader's behavior is contingent to employee satisfaction, employee motivation and

employee performance. This theory states that a good leader provides clear direction,

sets high goals, gets involved in goal achievement and supports his employees. It

further posits the notion that the leader engages in behaviors that complement their
 5

subordinates abilities and compensate for deficiencies. This theory can also be

categorized as a contingency and as a transactional leadership theory. It has relevance

with the fact that a leader “paves” the path for the followers to take. It was developed to

describe how leaders support and encourage their followers in achieving the goals that

are set for them to achieve by making the path that they should be treading upon easier

and more convenient.

Further, this theory suggests that leaders should clarify the path so their

subordinates may be guided; that they remove the blockage that hinders them from

going there and increase the rewards along the route as leaders can take a strong or

limited approach. It explains that performance of school heads instructional supervision

practices depends upon effort. Instructional supervision of school heads influences

teachers’ commitments in teaching, improved teaching and learning techniques, and

improved academic performance. School heads can motivate teachers for academic

performance. According to this theory, leaders who show the way and help followers

along a path are effective in leading them. The assumption is that there is one right way

of achieving a goal and the leader can see but the followers cannot. It hails the leader

as the "knowing person" and the followers as "dependents". However, it still assumes

that the followers are completely rational and that appropriate methods can be selected

depending on the situation. In this theory, the three approaches of instructional

supervision will be employed, namely; collaborative, clinical and differentiated, which

are strongly linked with this theory.

Secondly, Kadushin (1992) argues that there are three main functions of this

model of supervision: educational, supportive and administrative. The educational or

 6

development function concerns the development of knowledge, skills and, importantly,

attitude toward the worker’s role. In this function, the goals of supervision are seen

to encourage reflection and exploration of the work and to develop new insights,

perceptions and ways of working. The supportive function involves supervisors

providing support for both the practical and psychological elements of a

practitioner's role. Hughes and Pengelly (1997) argue that attending to the

emotional response to the work is more important than mere support. In this

function, the primary issue can be seen as being the emotional impact of practice

and the potential of this to undermine safe practice, as well as the impact on

health and well-being of the practitioner. Lastly, the administrative or management

function is concerned with the promotion and maintenance of good standards of

work and the adherence to organizational policies and those of other key

stakeholders, including professional bodies and the Care Inspectorate. This can

be viewed as the quality assurance dimension within supervision. Morrison (2006)

suggests that supervision has a fourth function of mediation, which involves

providing a link between the worker and the broader organization.

The Kadushin theory is seen most fitting in looking into instructional

supervision of school heads towards teachers’ competence since this caters to the

knowledge, skills and attitude of teachers as it had been posited that Kadushin’s

Model of Supervision Development Function concerns the development of knowledge,

skills and, importantly, attitude toward the worker’s role.

 7

Figure 1 shows the framework of the study. The variables will be organized into

three categories, based on the research questions that will be investigated. The

independent variables will be represented by the assessment level of the three

instructional supervision approaches such as developmental, clinical, and differentiated.

The dependent variables are represented by the teacher’s competence and learner’s

achievement. The teacher’s competence in terms of knowledge of the content of subject

areas, application of teaching strategies, use of assessment technique, interpersonal

relationship, and professional development and learners’ achievement in terms of their

General Weighted Average (GWA) in Mathematics, Science, and English. The

moderating variables includes the respondents’ characteristics, the school head’s and

teacher’s age, sex, position, highest educational attainment, number of years as school

heads, teaching experience of teachers, related trainings/seminars attended, and

attitude towards instructional supervision. These are factors that work between the

independent and dependent variables that can weaken or strengthen the effect of the

variables mentioned.
 8

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Approaches of Instructional Teachers’ Competence in Terms

Supervision of:

 Content of subject
Moderating Variables areas
 Developmental
 Teaching strategies
Respondents Characteristics
 Assessment technique
School Heads  Interpersonal
relationship
 Age
 Clinical  Professional
 Sex
development
 Position
 Highest Educational Learners Achievement (GWA)
Attainment on the following:
 Differentiated  Number of Years as
 Mathematics
School Heads
 Science
 Related
 English
Trainings/Seminars
Attended
 Attitude towards
instructional
supervision

Teachers

 Age
 Sex
 Position
 Highest Educational
Attainment School Management Plan
 Teaching Experience
 Attitude towards
instructional
Supervision and
Teaching
Competence
 9

Figure 1. Schematic Presentation Showing the Interplay between the Independent and

Dependent Variables of the Study

Statement of the Problem

This study attempted to determine the assessment of school heads’ instructional

supervision on teachers’ competence and learners’ achievement in the Division of

Misamis Oriental during the School Year 2020 – 2021. The result of this study will be

the basis for a comprehensive school management plan.

Particularly, this paper seeks to answer the following questions.

1. What are the characteristics of the following:

1.1 School Heads

1.1.1 Age

1.1.2 Sex

1.1.3 Position

1.1.4 Highest Educational Attainment

1.1.5 Number of Years as School Head

1.1.6 Related trainings/Seminars attended

1.1.7 Attitude towards instructional supervision

1.2 Teachers

1.2.1 Age
 10

1.2.2 Sex

1.2.3 Position

1.2.4 Highest Educational Attainment

1.2.5 Teaching Experience

1.2.6 Attitude towards Instructional Supervision and Teaching

Competence

2. How do the respondents’ assess Instructional Supervision based on the

following approaches:

2.1 Developmental

2.2 Clinical

2.3 Differentiated

3. What is the respondents level of assessment on teachers’ competence as

measured by the following:

3.1 Knowledge of content of subject areas

3.2 Application of teaching strategies

3.3 Use of assessment techniques

3.4 Interpersonal relationship

3.5 Professional Development

4. What is the achievement of the learners on the following areas:

4.1 Mathematics

4.2 Science

4.3 English
 11

5. How do the teachers compare in their competence when grouped according

to:

5.1 Age

5.2 Sex

5.3 Position

5.4 Highest Educational Attainment

5.5 Teaching Experience

5.6. Related Trainings/Seminars Attended

5.7 Attitudes Towards Instructional Supervision and Teaching Competence

6. Is there a significant relationship between the School Heads instructional

supervision and each of the following:

6.1 Age

6.2 Sex

6.3 Position

6.4 Highest Educational Attainment

6.5 Number of Years as School Head

6.6 Number of related trainings/Seminars attended

6.7 Attitude towards instructional supervision

7. To what extent do the School Heads instructional supervision contribute to the

teachers’ competence and the learners’ achievement?

8. What are the results of the in-depth interview and focus group discussion

conducted to the select group of respondents:

8.1 School Heads

 12

8.2 Teachers

9. Based on the findings of the study, what comprehensive management plan on

instructional supervision can be formulated?

Hypothesis

Problems 1, 2,3,4,8 and 9 are hypotheses - free. On the basis of problems 5, 6

and 7, the following null hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the teachers’ competence when grouped

according to:

1.1 Age

1.2 Sex

1.3 Position

1.4 Highest Educational Attainment

1.5 Teaching Experience

1.6 Related Trainings/Seminars Attended

1.7 Attitude Towards Instructional Supervision and Teaching Competence

HO2: There is no significant relationship between the School Heads instructional

supervision and each of the following:

2.1 Age

2.2 Sex

2.3 Position

2.4 Highest Educational Attainment\

2.5 Teaching Experience

 13

2.6 Related Trainings/Seminars Attended

2.7 Attitude towards instructional supervision

Ho3: School Heads Instructional Supervision does not contribute significantly to the

teachers’ competence and the learners’ achievement.

Significance of the Study

Considering the school heads instructional supervision in the Division of Misamis

Oriental, the researcher is optimistic that the study shall be useful in many ways.

This study will enable the Department of Education in Region X to design a

supervisory training for school heads that are tailored-fit and relevant to the need of the

school heads in the public schools.

The findings of the study will undoubtedly be of great help to the School

Governance and Operation Division personnel as they are the prime mover in the

division in terms of school governance, operation, monitoring, evaluation and

adjustment.

Furthermore, the result of the study will help the Curriculum Implementation

Division of Misamis Oriental in the planning and designing of the instructional

supervision for the Public Secondary School Heads.

As a focal point of this study, the findings of the study would provide information

for the school heads on the instructional supervision approaches on teacher’s

competence and learners achievement. Hence, it will guide them in the school

management.
 14

The results of the study may be utilized to help the teachers aware of the

standard supervision that they are supposed to follow and comply with.

The result of this study may serve as a basis for parallel studies that may be

conducted by future researchers on a wider scope related to instructional supervision.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study will focus on the school heads’ instructional supervision on teachers’

competence and learners’ achievement in the division of Misamis Oriental during the

school year 2020 - 2021. The respondents of the study will be the sixty nine (69) Public

Elementary School Heads and two hundred thirty one (231) Public Elementary

Teachers in the division mentioned above.

The independent variables are the approaches of instructional supervision,

namely: developmental, clinical, and differentiated. The dependent variables are: 1)

teachers’ competence in terms of: knowledge of the content of the subject areas,

application of teaching strategies, use of assessment technique, interpersonal

relationship and professional development and 2) the learners’ achievement basing

from their General Weighted Average (GWA) in Mathematics, Science and English

subjects. Moreover, the moderating variables are: 1) school head’s characteristics in

terms of: age, sex, position, highest educational attainment, number of years as school

heads, related trainings / seminars attended, and attitude towards instructional

supervision; and 2) teachers’ characteristics in terms of: age, sex, position, highest

educational attainment, and teaching experience.

 15

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined operationally in order to highlight its relevance

and a clear interpretation of the study.

Attitude. This refers to the teachers’ competence in providing learners with

appropriate learning experience that address the learners’ gender needs, strengths,

interests and experience.

Clinical Supervision. This refers to instructional supervision that focuses on the

improvement of a teacher’s classroom instruction through the observation and collection

of records of what the teacher and students do in the classroom during the teaching –

learning process consisting of five cycles: pre – observation conference, observation,

analysis and strategy, post observation conference, and post conference analysis,

where the latter is exclusive only for the school head.

Developmental Supervision. This refers to instructional supervision wherein the

school head identifies the development needs of each teacher with regard to instruction

with three developmental supervisory orientations such as directive, non- directive and

collaborative.

Differentiated Supervision. This refers to instructional supervision that provides

choices to teachers in terms of the type of supervision they want to receive consisting of

five simple steps: conducting a supervisory needs analysis; preparing a differentiated

supervisory program; introducing the program to the faculty; implementing the program;

and evaluating the program.

 16

Instructional Supervision. This refers to the process of understanding and improving

teaching and learning by providing the necessary help needed by teachers to grow and develop in the

practice of their profession.

Learners’ achievement. This refers to the general weighted average in Mathematics,

Science and English of public elementary school learners in the first and second grading period of

school year 2020 -2021.

School Heads. This refers to the one who manages a school authorized by the schools

division superintendent whose duties and responsibilities are to assist and guide the teachers in the

performance of their duties.

Skills. This refers to the teacher’s competence that showcases his/her abilities to manage

classroom structure for a conducive learning environment; manage learner behavior constructively for

learning focused environments; and plan, manage and implement developmentally sequenced

teaching and learning processes appropriate for the curriculum.

Teachers’ competence. This refers to the teachers knowledge of the content of subject

areas, application of teaching strategies, use of assessment techniques, interpersonal relationship and

professional development.
 17

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents literature and studies related to the present investigation. The cited

literatures help strengthen the foundation of this study and will augment the analysis and interpretation

of the data. They are categorized into related literature and studies in foreign setting and in local

setting.

Related literature and Studies in Foreign Setting

According to the research titled, (insert title of Article) conducted by Tesfaw and Hofman

(2012), the following are the history of school supervision as perceived by different authors. (kindly

complete thought and re-check reference)

School supervision, according to Beycioglu and Donmez (2009), is defined as “an

administrative inspection that lays emphasis on administrative monitoring, enforcement and control”

(p.71). As it is described by various writers, school supervision is generally related with external

inspection aimed at monitoring and control of teachers’ performance and school improvement

(Beycioglu & Donmez, 2009; Grauve, 2007; Zepeda, 2007). School supervision, as a field of

educational practice has passed through many changes. Traditionally, inspection and supervision

were used as important tools to ensure efficiency and accountability in the education system. Later

adherents of the terminologies of inspection and school supervision are used different countries in
 18

different ways. In many developed countries, such as United Kingdom (UK) and United States, much

more attention has been given to the term inspection than school supervision (Lee, Dig & Song,2008).

Nevertheless, since the demand of teachers for guidance and support rendered from

supervisors has increased from time to time, some countries changed the terminology and preferred

the term “ supervisor” over “ inspector”. According to Grauwe (2007), some countries have recently

developed more specific terminologies: Malawi, uses “education methods advisor “, and Uganda

“teacher development advisor”. In line with this, Beycioglu and Donmez (2009), stated that “school

supervision has been changing in its practice from a control mechanism with inspects and restricts

teachers for not having them make errors to a practice which allows schools, especially at present, to

have its members supervise themselves in collaboration and group dynamics” (p.72). This suggests

the paradigm shift from the concept and practice of general school supervision (external inspection) to

instructional (in –school) supervision in various countries. Instructional supervision is defined by

various countries. In the same manner, instructional supervision is defined by various authors as a

type of school – based ( in – school) supervision carried out by the school personnel ( principals,

department heads, senior teachers, and appointed supervisors) aimed at providing guidance, support,

and encouragement to teachers for their professional development and improvement in the teaching

– learning process, which rely on the system that is built on trust and collaborative culture ( Beach &

Reinharts, 2000; Tyagi, 2010).

Over the years, instructional supervision has evolved from the notion on simple school

inspection and supervision. Though the purpose may be quite the same but the manner it was carried

out in the past as well as its scope has changed over time. Nonetheless, the history of supervision

proves the need of guidance for any academic institution to ascertain efficiency and accountability in

the educational system so to speak. The idea of supervision then has transitioned from just simple
 19

monitoring and control of teachers’ performance and school improvement to the inclusion of the

instruction and the workforce or personnel development within a particular school. So a paradigm shift

from the mechanism of restrictions and inspections or general school supervision in the past to

instructional supervision has become an avenue for supervisors in the provision of guidance, support,

and encouragement to teachers for their professional development and improvement in the teaching

– learning process where culture of trust and collaborative between the supervisor and the teachers

are given much consideration (Beach & Reinharts,2000; Tyagi,2010).

Furthermore, another study on instructional supervision is presented which focuses on public

school teachers effectiveness through instructional supervision conducted in Nigeria. This study

examined the place of instructional supervision in enhancing teachers’ effectiveness in

public primary schools in Ebonyi State. Major findings of the study include that

instructional supervision helps teachers to improve their professional growth, use

relevant instructional materials, improve their teaching methods and evaluate pupils’

learning outcome appropriately. The recommendations were that government should

recruit adequate qualified supervisor, provide adequate funds for supervisors’ support

as well as for organizing workshops, seminars and conferences for teachers. Above all,

an erring staff should be made to face appropriate disciplinary actions (Nwambam &

Eze, 2017).

Education in Nigeria has been identified as an instrument par excellence for

effecting national development. This justifies the huge financial resources being

allocated to education by the government, non-governmental organizations and private

individuals. Because of the complex nature of the provision and management of

education in the world, in Nigeria, it is needed for a unit designated to oversee the
 20

activities going on in the schools to ensure effective realization of educational goals in

our nascent society especially at the primary school level which is the bedrock of other

levels of education. It is in line with this assumption that Aleke (2001) maintained that

the development of any society starts from primary level of education and that if the

foundation of a child is faulty at this level, it usually affects his or her future academic

performance. It is in response to this overriding importance of primary education that

both the federal and Ebonyi State government have declared free and compulsory basic

education and primary/secondary education respectively.

Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms

of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License 468 Educ. Res.

Rev. This gesture of the government was received with much enthusiasm by parents as

the number of pupils’ enrolment into primary schools increased astronomically without

the corresponding number of teachers. Aleke (2001) also observed that Ebonyi State

government, in the bid to tackle this problem employed people with doubtful academic

and professional qualification as teachers thus, increasing the role of school supervisors

in order not to compromise quality. The importance of teachers in determining the

quality of every level of education cannot be taken for granted since it is obvious that no

education can rise above the quality of its teachers (Federal Republic of Nigeria FRN,

2004:38). Hill (1999) observed that teacher effectiveness is the key to improved

educational outcome and suggested that the quality of teachers can be improved

through effective supervision of instructional program.

The importance of supervision in the educational system cannot be

overemphasized especially faced with the challenging changes in the educational

 21

process. Experience has shown that many people are not always willing to do what they

are expected to do without external control or monitoring in form of supervision.

Ezeocha (1985) in Chike-Okoli (2006) noted that any type of assignments or projects

that are undertaken by people and are not carefully supervised run into the danger of

being haphazardly finished or not finished at all. He maintained that supervision helps to

prevent waste of human/material resources in order to instill discipline in our schools

and bring about improved school performance which is the cause of so many hue and

cries in our society today. Enemuo (2001) stated that instructional supervision is a

planned and coordinated effort of supervisors to stimulate, help, advice, assist and

guide the continued growth of teachers in the better understanding of more effective

performance of their instructional functions. According to him, instructional supervision

embraces all the activities leading to the improvement of instructional program, boosting

of teachers’ moral, human relation, curriculum development and professional growth.

Nwaogu (1980) in Nzegbulem and Anyaogu (2016) observed that instructional

supervision helps to provide adequate conditions that are essential for effective learning

through effective teaching methods. It also helps to improve teachers’ capacity and

methodology of impacting knowledge to the pupils. Ogbuagu (2016) posits that

instructional supervision aims at seeing how the teacher manages the classroom,

teachers’ mastery of the subject matter and lesson delivery. This implies that

instructional supervision makes the teachers to be effectively in-charge of the lesson to

be taught and how to make the classroom conductive for the delivery of the lesson.

Ukeje (1982) in Nwaneri and Ikwuegbu (2016) remarked that effective supervision of

instruction helps to develop highly motivated teaching staff. He added that it ensures
 22

adequate use of instructional materials among teachers. Chike (2004) summarized the

roles of instructional supervision under the functions of a supervisor as follows: 1)

Serves as a resource person, initiate ideas and suggestions and provides individual

help to teachers in schools under their area of jurisdiction. 2) Acts as adviser to

government by providing accurate knowledge of instructions and their suitability through

assessment of the quality of teachers and their teaching techniques. 3) Provides reports

on the progress of the schools in the attainment of the laid-down government

objectives. 4) Works with the principals to engage in classroom visitation and

sometimes demonstrate particular teaching method or use of relevant instructional

materials.

The study showed that teachers learn from the supervisors during classroom

visitation, conferences, seminars and in-service training programs though not regular,

the condition of service that will help them grow in their profession. This finding is in

consonance with Enemuo (2005) who observed that instructional supervision embraces

all the activities leading to the improvement of instruction and teachers’ professional

growth. The results in Table 2 revealed that supervisors emphasize and demonstrate

the use of instructional materials during supervision. Supervisors also help teachers

improve their use of relevant instructional materials through special workshops on

selection and use of instructional materials. This is in agreement with Atanda and

Lameed (2006) who opined that instructional supervision can help to improve teaching

and learning situations by advising and stimulating interest in teachers and pupils on the

use of instructional aids. The result of the data analyzed in Table 3 showed that
 23

supervisors emphasize and demonstrate appropriate teaching methods to teachers

during supervision.

Supervisors also organize orientation courses for teachers to educate them on

the appropriate teaching skills and methods. These findings lead credence to Nwaogu

(1980) in Nzegbulem and Anyaogu (2016)’s opinion that instructional supervision helps

to improve teachers’ capacity and methodology of impacting knowledge to pupils. The

result of the data analyzed in Table 4 indicated that teachers are given formats for class

tests during supervision. Teachers’ class evaluation reports are checked and workbooks

for class tests provided during supervision. It was also observed that supervisors

organize special sessions for teachers on the correct administration and recording of

tests. However, it was equally gathered that supervisors do not use equipment like

projectors and slides to relay to teachers their performance during supervision of

instructional process. These findings were in harmony with the views of Ezeocha (1985)

in Chike-Okoli (2006), who observed that evaluation is so vital that school supervisors

must be satisfied and ensure that all facts of the instructional program are evaluated

and such record well preserved to serve as a feedback to parents, teachers, pupils,

supervisors and the whole education system for the purpose of making references and

improvement. The results of the data analyzed revealed that teachers are rarely given

opportunities for in-service training and supervisors do not carry out their supervisory

roles regularly. It was also observed that the supervisors do not look for relevant

instructional materials during supervision nor demonstrate appropriate teaching

methods test administration with projectors/slides during supervision so as to relay it to

them for correction and above all, teachers are not given opportunities for conferences
 24

and in-service training supervisors do not to help them grow in their profession.

However, it was obvious from the observational findings that instructional supervision, if

carried out effectively will help teachers grow in their profession, locate and use relevant

instructional materials, improve their methods of teaching and evaluation of pupils’

learning outcome.

Related literature and Studies in Local Setting

In the Philippines, instructional supervision is deemed important and necessary

in managing schools. A collaborative study on Instructional Supervision and

Performance Evaluation: A Correlation of Factors was conducted by Cominghud., et al

(2020) which aimed to determine the correlation between instructional supervision and

performance evaluation in the Public Elementary Schools of Bayawan City Division.

This study discussed that the teachers’ instructional effectiveness is considered a key to

achieve optimum gains in the teaching-learning process. In order to ensure this,

teachers’ efficiency in the educational environment must be sustained as this is an

important aspect that promotes student achievement and professional development. In

support to this, supervision of teachers must be constant as this has been one of the

most important functions of our educational system. As cited in Tyagi (2010),

instructional supervision provides guidance, support and empowerment of teachers for

their professional development in the teaching-learning process. Supervision provides

teachers the support, knowledge and skills that enable them to succeed. Moreover, the

quality of instructional supervision develops among teachers’ good perceptions and

 25

positive attitudes towards the practice (Choy, 2011). Hoffman and Tesfaw (2012) added

that teachers were convinced on the need of instructional supervisory engagements.

Teachers’ welcome supervision if it is done in the right spirit with the aim of improving

the learning process. It is also regarded that the quality of supervision practice is a key

factor in determining school success (Hamzah, 2013). Kuizon and Reyes (2014) further

noted that quality education depends on the extent of implementation of instructional

supervision especially in the public elementary and secondary schools as part of the

duties and functions of instructional supervisors. In addition, Limon (2015) mentioned

that instructional supervisors perform varied roles for the improvement and development

of curriculum instruction. Instructional supervisors, both the internal and external to the

school, are tasked to do supervisory works and carry out supervisory functions to help

teachers improve learning conditions. As a result, there were improvements in the

quality of instruction and academic performance in learning institutions. In this

connection, Babalola and Hafsatu (2016) emphasized that the improvement of students’

academic achievement is the measure of effective supervision.

In line with the abovementioned, this study was designed to examine the Extent

of Implementation of Instructional Supervision as perceived by the Novice and

Experienced Teachers of the Department of Education-Bayawan City Division. It also

revealed the correlation between factors such as teachers’ perceptions and job

performance evaluation. The study used the descriptive and correlational method of

research in the sense that the extent of implementation of instructional supervision was

surveyed and the results were related to teachers’ job performance evaluation results.

The locale of the study is the public elementary schools of Bayawan City Division.
 26

Generally, the public elementary schools of Bayawan City Division are assigned with

elementary school principals, head teachers, and teachers-in-charge who served as

both school administrators and school-based supervisors. In addition, the division is

administered and headed by a Schools Division Superintendent with the assistance of

the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent, Curriculum Implementation Division

Chief Supervisor, Division Education Program Supervisors, and Public Schools District

Supervisors are used to constantly monitor the public elementary and secondary

schools especially in the area of curriculum implementation and teaching instruction.

The respondents of the study were the 70 novice teachers and 230 experienced

teachers of the 30 public elementary schools of Bayawan City Division. The researcher

used self-made questionnaires which were organized into three parts. Part one

contained the profile of the teachers both the novice and experienced. Part two sought

the data on the extent of implementation of instructional supervision. Part three was

designed to seek data on the connection between the perceived extent of

implementation of instructional supervision and job performance evaluation. The

researcher-made questionnaire was constructed after a careful and thorough reading of

books, articles, journals and electronic sources related to the topic. The modifications of

the survey instrument were based on the review of related literature and the specific

context of the study.

The study found out that the extent of implementation of instructional supervision

as perceived by the experienced teachers was “very high” in terms of the following

aspects: (a) concept and purpose of instructional supervision; (b) planning and

preparations for instructional supervision; and (c) organization and implementation of

 27

instructional supervision; (d) dialogue and discussion in post-instructional supervision;

and (e) satisfaction with and evaluation of instructional supervision. Similarly, the extent

of implementation of instructional supervision as perceived by the novice teachers was

also “very high” based on how they rated their instructional supervisors in terms of the

first three areas. In addition, a moderate relationship was found to exist between the

teachers’ job performance evaluation and the extent of implementation of instructional

supervision in the following aspects: (a) concept and purpose of instructional

supervision; (b) planning and preparations for instructional supervision; and (c)

satisfaction with and evaluation of instructional supervision.

Instructional supervision whether in local or foreign setting, are reflected in these

reviews of related studies as having great contribution in the teachers’ competence and

work performance, as well as in learners’ achievements in school.

Moreover, in another study on instructional supervision which focuses on Goal

Setting, Monitoring and Feedbacking Practices as Performance Management

Mechanisms, Comighud (2019) emphasized the interconnection of instructional

supervision and educational management in achieving the aforementioned actions. The

researcher posited the importance of performance management.

Performance management is important for an organization. As indicated by

Dwivedi and Giri (2016), in a top-down perspective, it emphasizes the strategic

alignment of the agency's thrusts with the day-to-day operation. Also, from a bottom-up

approach, it aligns and optimizes individual performance with the common goal of the

group. In the Philippines, the Civil Service Commission circulated CSC MC 06, s. 2012

which decreed the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) that aligns the
 28

agency's thrusts with the individual goals and the 3 daily organizational functions as well

as provides performance measures alongside the collective performance and common

output of the group. Putting this into context, the Department of Education anchored on

the goal of providing access and equity, quality and excellence as well as relevance and

responsiveness of basic education programs adopted SPMS in educational institutions

through the Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) to ensure

adherence to the principle of performance-based tenure. As cited in Department of

Education Order No. 2, s. 2015, RPMS shall be used as a performance management

tool to manage, monitor, and measure performance in relation to teachers' job

evaluation. Furthermore, through the RPMS Employees' Manual 2016, teaching

personnel has been directed to the Individual Performance Commitment Review Form

(IPCRF) which replicates the individual commitment as well as the job performance to

be accomplished by the teachers depicting the agreed individual Key Result Areas

(KRAs), objectives and performance indicators. Also, the significant relationship of the

implementation of RPMS to the work values and belief systems of our teachers

alongside performance appraisal incentives and motivational strategies in the workplace

have gone critical analyses and constant evaluations as cited in the works of Ayap and

Macalalad (2016), Atinc and Read (2017), and Susa (2018).

However, in all of these literature and studies cited, findings have not revealed

critical accounts on the extent of school heads' goal setting, monitoring and feedbacking

practices in the implementation of RPMS in relation to the job performance evaluation of

the teaching personnel as reflected in their IPCRF and have not provided parameters

on its effectiveness or ineffectiveness on employee engagement, school improvement

 29

and performance management. The researcher therefore aims to give a critical review

through sharing her research findings and actual results as the value of goal setting,

monitoring and feedbacking and culture on feedback outcomes are recognized gaps in

the existing literature. Although reviews of the related literature and studies identified its

several characteristics that are predictive of effectiveness, few researches have

examined its influence on teachers' job performance evaluation.

Additionally, the local study that was conducted by Dizon (2018) on RPMS

implementation focused mainly on teachers’ viewpoints and perceptions. However, the

present study aims to provide comparative analyses on the extent of RPMS

implementation, as then assessed by both the school heads and teachers as the study

articulated concrete terms and key indicators that are actually observed and practiced in

the RPMS Cycle as contextualized and implemented in the Department of Education. In

view thereof, it is the intent of the researcher to study Goal Setting, Monitoring and

Feedbacking Practices as Performance Management Mechanisms implemented in the

Department of Education-Bayawan City Division drawing its relation with Teachers.

The study aimed to examine the extent of school heads’ implementation of goal

setting, monitoring and feedback practices in relation to teachers’ job performance in

the Department of Education Division of Bayawan City for SY 2018-2019 specifically to

1. Describe the extent of school heads’ implementation of goal setting, monitoring and

feedbacking practices in terms of the following Results-based Performance

Management System (RPMS) Phases: 1.1 planning and commitment; 1.2 monitoring

and coaching; 1.3 review and evaluation; 1.4 rewards and developmental planning; 2.

Determine the job performance of the teachers based on RPMS-IPCRF; 1 3. Examine

 30

the significant difference between the extent of school heads’ implementation of goal

setting, monitoring and feedbacking practices when they are grouped according to their

profile items in terms of: 3.1 length of leadership experience; 3.2 highest educational

attainment; 3.3 leadership position held; 4. Examine the significant difference between

the teachers’ job performance based on RPMS-IPCRF when they are grouped

according to their profile items in terms of: 4.1 length of teaching experience; 4.2

highest educational attainment; 4.3 teaching position held; and 5. Examine the

significant relationship on the extent of school heads’ implementation of goal setting,

monitoring and feedbacking practices and teachers’ job performance.

The study concluded based on the findings of the study: 1. The extent of school

heads’ implementation of goal setting, monitoring and feedback practices in terms of the

Results-Based Performance Management (RPMS) Phases was “very great” as

perceived by both the school heads and teachers in terms of the following aspects: (a)

planning and commitment; (b) monitoring and coaching; (c) review and evaluation; and

(d) rewards and developmental planning. 2. The job performance of the teachers based

on the RPMS-IPCRF was in a “very satisfactory” level. 3. There is a significant

difference between the extent of school heads’ goal setting, monitoring, and feedback

practices when they are grouped according to their respective profile items. 1 4. There

is a significant difference between the teachers’ job performance based on the RPMS-

IPCRF when they are grouped according to the aforementioned profile items. 5. There

is a strong and significant relationship between the extent of school heads’

implementation of goal setting, monitoring, and feedback practices and teachers’ job

performance. In general, the extent of school heads’ implementation of goal setting,

 31

monitoring, and feedback practices is “very great” and has a strong relationship to

teachers’ job performance.

Hence, instructional supervision can be deduced as a great contributory factor in

the improvement of teachers’ job performance as well as it also provides an avenue for

both the school head as the supervisor and the teachers to meet halfway to be able to

achieve the goals being set at the onset of the supervisory plan.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methods and procedures employed in the

study. This includes the discussion of the research design, research setting, the

respondents and sampling procedure, research instruments, data gathering procedure

and statistical treatments.

Research Design

This study employed the descriptive survey method in order to investigate school

heads and teachers’ assessment level of Instructional Supervision and its relationship

with teachers’ competence and learners’ achievement in the Division of Misamis

Oriental during the School Year 2020 -2021. A descriptive research design can use a

wide variety of research methods to investigate one or more variables. In this study,

school heads’ instructional supervision on teachers; competence and learners’

achievement will be measured.

Research Setting
 32

This study was conducted in the Division of Misamis Oriental during the School

Year 2020-2021. The Province of Misamis Oriental is along the northern coast of the

island of Mindanao. It is bounded on the north of Macajalar Bay, on the west by Iligan

Bay, on the south and southwest by the Province of Bukidnon and Lanao del Norte and

on the east by the Province of Agusan del Norte. It has an estimated total land area of

357,010 hectares making it the second largest province in the region. It is subdivided

into 24 municipalities, and 3 cities of Cagayan de Oro, Gingoog and El Salvador.

Specifically, this study was conducted in three municipalities of the Division of Misamis

Oriental namely: Claveria, Magsaysay and Medina. The Division of Misamis Oriental is

divided as the Western and Eastern Misamis Oriental comprising 23 districts. However,

this study focused only on the 5 districts in the Eastern part of Misamis Oriental,

namely: the districts of Claveria 1 and 2, the districts of Magsaysay 1 and 2, and

Medina. The research chose these municipalities among the 5 identified districts for the

following reasons: 1) the researcher is currently assigned in one of these districts as

secondary school head; 2) considering the health and safety protocol in this pandemic

situation, the identified districts are the most accessible and closest to the work area of

the research, and 3) the researcher sees the need to enhance the instructional

supervision in these 5 identified districts.

The municipality of Claveria is officially a 1st class municipality in the province of

Misamis Oriental, Philippines. According to the 2015 census, it has a population of

48,906 people composing 24 barangays. It is the only landlocked municipality of

Misamis Oriental that is rich in Agriculture and tourism. It is also the largest in terms of

land area in the province. Presently, it is one of the most visited tourist spots in Region
 33

X. Moreover, as far as the Department of Education is concerned, the municipality is

divided into two (2) districts tagged as 1) Claveria 1, known as the mainland, which

comprises 12 elementary schools where each school is supervised by a school head;

and 2) Claveria 2, commonly known by the residents as the “tabok”, referring to the

hinterland with 15 public elementary schools each being supervised by a school head.

Small barangays with a multigrade school is not included as respondents of the study.

The municipality of Magsaysay, a 4th class municipality and the gateway from

Caraga to Region 10, is geographically positioned in the northeastern portion of the

Province of Misamis Oriental in Region 10. According to the 2015 census, it has

a population of 34,605 people under the 25 barangays with eight public secondary

schools including the 6 integrated schools. The municipality of Magsaysay is also

divided into 2 districts, namely: Magsaysay 1 composing of ten (10) elementary schools,

each being supervised by a school head, and Maysaysay 2 composing of 12

elementary schools, each being supervised by a school head. Small barangays with a

multigrade school or clustered school are not included as respondents of the study

where these types of schools are managed by a school in-charge only.

Medina is a coastal municipality in the province of Misamis Oriental with a land area

of 148.29 square kilometers or 57.26 square miles which constitutes 4.74% of Misamis

Oriental's total area. Its population, as determined by the 2015 Census was 32,907

representing 3.70% of the total population of Misamis Oriental province. Medina district

has twenty (20) existing elementary schools each being supervised by a school head.
 34

Source: http://www.mindanaomaps.com/Mindamaps/MisOr.pdf

Figure 2.0 Map of the Division of Misamis Oriental

 35

Respondents and Sampling Procedure

The respondents of the study were the sixty-nine (69) public elementary school

heads and two hundred thirty (231) public elementary school teachers. These two

hundred thirty (231) public elementary schools teachers were taken from the population

of eight hundred seventy nine (879) public elementary school teachers from the

identified five districts in the Division of Misamis Oriental. The Slovin’s formula was

employed to get the desired number of respondents stated above. Stratified sampling

procedure was utilized by dividing the obtained sample size by its total population to get

the appropriate number of respondents in every district. Moreover, a purposive

sampling was used in choosing the four hundred sixty (460) learners who served as

subject of the study in order to obtain their performance in the 3 areas: Mathematics,

Science and English. Below is the table showing the distribution of respondents.

TABLE A

Distribution of Respondents

District / school School Heads Teachers

Grade 5 Grade 6

Claveria 1 1 1 1
Anei ES 1 1 1
Bangonbangon ES 1 1 1
Claveria CS 1 5 5
Cabacungan ES 1 1 1
Gumaod IS 1 2 2
Hinaplanan ES 1 2 2
Kanangkaan ES 1 1 1
Lambagohon ES 1 1 1
Minsacuba ES 1 1 1
Plaridel ES 1 2 2
 36

Patrocinio ES 1 2 2
Sta. Cruz ES 1 1 1

Claveria 2
Aposkahoy ES 1 2 2
Bulahan IS 1 2 2
DG Pelaez ES 1 1 1
Lanise ES 1 2 3
Luna IS 1 1 1
Madaguing ES 1 2 2
Malagana ES 1 2 2
Malunsagay ES 1 1 1
Ma-ibay ES 1 1 1
Mat-I CS
Minalwang IS
Panampawan ES 1 2 2
Pambugas ES 1 2 2
Rizal ES 1 2 2
Tamboboan ES 1 2 2
1 1 1
Magsaysay 1 1 2 2
Cabalawan ES 1 1 1
Cabantian ES 1 3 4
Cabubuhan ES 1 2 2
Damayohan ES 1 1 1
Magsaysay CS 1 1 1
Mindulao ES 1 2 2
San Isidro ES
San Vicente ES
Tibon-tibon ES 1 1 1
Villa Felipa ES 1 2 2
1 1 1
Magsaysay 2 1 1 1
Abunda IS 1 1 1
Artadi IS 1 4 4
Bonifacio ES 1 2 1
Consuelo ES 1 1 1
Gumabon ES 1 3 3
Kandiis IS 1 2 2
Katipunan ES 1 2 2
Kibungsod CS 1 4 4
Kimaya ES 1 1 1
Mahayahay ES 1 1 1
Sta. Cruz ES 1 2 2
Tama IS 1 2 2
2
 37

Medina
Bangbang ES 1 1
Bulwa ES 1 1 2
Dig-agoyan ES 1 2 1
Duka ES 1 1 1
Gasa ES 1 1 1
Gov. Pelaez ES 1 1 4
Kibugahan ES 1 4 1
Labas Pagsama ES 1 2 1
Maanas ES 1 1 3
Mananum Bag-o ES 1 3 2
Mananum Daan ES 1 2 2
Medina CS 1 2 4
Pahindong ES 1 4 1
Palaopao ES 1 1 1
Portulin ES 1 1 2
San Jose ES 1 2 2
San Roque ES 1 2 2
San Vicente ES 1 1 1
Tambagan ES 1 2 2
Tup-on ES 1 2 2

TOTAL 69 115 116

Research Instrument

The instrument that was used in the study is a questionnaire that is patterned

from Tesfaw and Hofmam(2012) on their study titled, “Instructional supervision and its

relationship with professional development: Perception of private and government

secondary school teachers in Addis Ababa.” It was modified to suit the needs and

characteristics of the respondents.

The questionnaire has three parts. The first part inquired into the respondent’s

characteristics in terms of age, sex, position, highest educational attainment, number of

years as school head/teacher, number of related trainings/seminars attended, and

attitude towards supervision. The second part is the school heads’ instructional
 38

supervision that includes developmental, clinical and differentiated approaches. The

third part is the teachers’ competence and learners’ achievements. Teachers’

competence includes knowledge of the content of subject areas, application of teaching

strategies, use of assessment technique, interpersonal relationship, and professional

development as identified and modified based from the Department of Education RPMS

Tool while learners’ achievement includes the General weighted average (GWA) in

Mathematics, science and English subjects.

Validation of Instrument

The instrument was tried out to twenty (20) school heads and thirty (30) teachers

from other districts in the division of Misamis Oriental who were part of the population

with similar characteristics to those of the actual respondents but they did not participate

in the actual study. This was done to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the

instrument in gathering the needed data and to be able to obtain recommendations and

suggestions for the enrichment of the instrument.

Data Gathering Procedure

The following data gathering procedure was observed:

An approval to conduct the study was sought from the office of the schools

division superintendent of Misamis Oriental. Once the approval from the school’s

division superintendent was obtained, the approved letter was attached to another letter

addressed to the school heads to secure permission to administer the questionnaire to

the school heads themselves and to the teachers composing of 69 school heads and
 39

115 Grade 5 teachers and 116 Grade 6 teachers, respectively. The administered

questionnaire was retrieved.

In administering the questionnaire, the researcher established rapport with the

respondents to make them feel comfortable in answering the questionnaire. The

direction of each part was explained by the researcher thoroughly. The respondents’

questions was accommodated by the researcher for clarification.

The retrieval of the questionnaire was done by the researcher himself right away

as soon as the respondents filled out the questionnaires.

As soon as all the respondents accomplished the questionnaires, the results

were tabulated and processed by the researcher himself.

Categorization of the variables

The following categories of variables was created to facilitate analysis and

interpretation of the data gathered:

Part I. School heads’ Characteristics

Age

60 years old and above

50 – 59 years old

40 – 49 years old

30 – 39 years old
 40

Less than 30 years old

Sex

Male

Female

Position

Principal IV

Principal III

Principal II

Principal I

Head Teacher IV

Head Teacher III

Head Teacher II

Head Teacher I

Highest Educational Attainment

Doctorate Degree Holder

With Doctorate Degree units

Master’s Degree Holder

 41

With Master’s Degree units

Bachelors’ Degree Holder

Number of Years as School Head

More than 11 years

7 – 11 years

2 – 6 years

Less than 2 years

Related trainings/seminars attended

Level 5 and above 3- 4 1-2 None

International

National

Regional

Division

District

School

Scoring of variables

School heads’/teachers’ attitude towards instructional supervision and teaching

competence
 42

Scale Range Description Interpretation

4 3.31 – 4.0 Strongly Agree Very Positive

3 2.21 – 3. 30 Agree Positive

2 1.11 – 2.20 Disagree Negative

1 0.01 – 1.10 strongly Disagree Very Negative

Part II. Approaches of Instructional Supervision

Scale Range Description Interpretation

4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High

3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High

2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low

1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low

Part III A. Teachers’ Competence

Scale Range Description Interpretation

4 3.7 – 4.0 Outstanding Very High

3 2.8 – 3.69 Very Satisfactory High

2 1.9 – 2.79 Satisfactory Low

 43

1 1.0 – 1.89 Poor Very low

Part III B. Learners’ Achievement

Grading Scale Description

90 -100 Outstanding

85 – 89 Very Satisfactory

80 -84 Satisfactory

75 -79 Fairly Satisfactory

Below 75 Did not Meet Expectations

Teachers’ Characteristics

Age:

60 years old and above

50 – 59 years old

40 – 49 years old

30 – 39 years old

Less than 30 years old

Sex

Male
 44

Female

Position

Master Teacher III

Master Teacher II

Master Teacher I

Teacher III

Teacher II

Teacher I

Highest Educational Attainment

Doctorate Degree Holder

With Doctorate Degree units

Master’s Degree Holder

With Master’s Degree units

Bachelors’ Degree Holder

Teaching Experience

More than 11 years

7 – 11 years
 45

2 – 6 years

Less than 2 years

Statistical Treatment

In the interpretation and analysis of the data gathered, the following statistical

tools were used:

Descriptive statistics such as frequency percentage mean and standard deviation

was utilized to describe the variables in the study.

T – test and F – test was used to determine the significant difference of the

respondents’ competence level when grouped according to their characteristics; age,

sex, designated position/position, highest educational attainment, number of years in

service as school heads/ teachers, number of related seminars/trainings attended.

Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient (r) was used to determine the significant

or the relationship between the school heads instructional supervision and their

characteristics.

Regression analysis was employed to determine as to what extent school heads

instructional supervision contribute to teachers’ competence and learners’ achievement.

 46

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter discusses the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data

gathered from the survey questionnaires given to the respondents to determine the

assessment of school heads’ instructional supervision on teachers’ competence and

learners’ achievement in the Division of Misamis Oriental during the School Year 2020 –

2021. The result of this study will be the basis for a comprehensive school management

plan.

Problem 1: What are the characteristics of the following:

1.1 School Heads
1.1.1 Age;
1.1.2 Sex;
1.1.3 Position;
1.1.4 Highest Educational Attainment;
 47

1.1.5 Number of Years as School Head;

1.1.6 Related trainings/Seminars attended; and
1.1.7 Attitude towards instructional supervision?
1.2 Teachers
1.2.1 Age;
1.2.2 Sex;
1.2.3 Position;
1.2.4 Highest Educational Attainment;
1.2.5 Teaching Experience; and
1.2.6 Attitude towards instructional supervision and teaching
Competence?

Table 1
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Age
Age Frequency Percentage
60 years old and above 4 5.71
50-59 years old 24 32.29
40-49 years old 13 18.57
30-39 years old 11 15.71
Less than 30 years old 18 25.71
Overall 70 100%

Table 1 shows the school head-respondents profile in terms of age and data

show that 24 (32.39%) of the school head-respondents belonged to the 50-59 years old

age bracket while only four (4) or 5.71% are 60 years old and above. This means that

many of the school head-respondents are 50-59 years old. This implies that the school

head-respondents have been in the education field for quite some time considering their

advanced age. Studies have shown that experienced teachers are believed to have

combined years of service and a repertoire of classroom skills and strategies, thereby
 48

making their strategies effective in implementation. (Unal, 2012) On a related note,

school supervision, as a field of educational practice has passed through many changes. Traditionally,

inspection and supervision were used as important tools to ensure efficiency and accountability in the

education system. This fact implies that the school heads length of experience allows them to realize

the changes and which works effectively. (Lee, Dig & Song,2008).

Table 2
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Sex
Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 26 37.14
Female 44 62.86
Overall 70 100%

Table 2 shows the school head-respondents profile in terms of sex and data

show that 44 (62.86%) are female while 26 (37.14%) are male. This means that majority

of the school head-respondents are female. Most often than not, studies build on the

hypothesis that there is a corresponding rationale on the results when respondents are

distinguished according to their sexes. However, some results otherwise show that

irrespective of the sex of the employees, they all perform their jobs almost similarly. The

results however show that the respondents are dominantly male showing that most

head positions are male. This implies that male managers reported greater perceived

responsibility than did female managers. (Valentine, 2001)

Table 3
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Position
Position Frequency Percentage
Principal II 3 4.29
Principal I 19 27.14
 49

Head Teacher III 10 14.29

Head Teacher II 12 17.14
Head Teacher I 26 37.14
Overall 70 100%

Table 3 shows the school head-respondents’ profile in terms of position and data

show that 26 (37.14%) holds a Head Teacher I position while only three (3) or 4.29%

are Principal II. This means that many of the school head-respondents are HT I. This

implies that most of the respondents fall a qualification short of a principal, there being a

slight difference in the exposure of the respondents in terms of training and ability. This

supports the study where the recommendations were that government should recruit

adequate qualified supervisor, provide adequate funds for supervisors’ support as well

as for organizing workshops, seminars and conferences for teachers. (Nwambam &

Eze, 2017)

Table 4
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Highest Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage
Doctorate Degree Holder 6 8.57
With Doctorate Degree Units 6 8.57
Master’s Degree Holder 12 17.14
With Master’s Degree Units 31 44.29
Bachelor Degree Holder 15 21.43
Overall 70 100%

Table 4 shows the school head-respondents’ profile in terms of highest

educational attainment and data reveal that 31 (44.29%) of the school head-

respondents have master’s degree units while only six (6) or 8.57% are full-fledged

doctorate degree holder or with doctorate degree units. This means that many of the
 50

school head-respondents are pursuing their master’s degree. These results have, in the

same manner, the same implication as to the level of profession of the respondents.

The degree of the respondents reflect the level of vast knowledge they have on the

subject matter. In the same manner that the recommendations were that government

should recruit adequate qualified supervisor, provide adequate funds for supervisors’

support as well as for organizing workshops, seminars and conferences for teachers

(Nwambam & Eze, 2017), such should be the case in encouraging school heads in

advancing their knowledge by getting a doctorate degree.

Table 5
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Number of Years as School Head
Number of Years Frequency Percentage
More than 11 years 41 58.57
7-11 years 14 20.00
2-6 years 12 17.14
Less than 2 years 3 4.29
Overall 70 100%

Table 5 shows the school head-respondents’ profile in terms of number of years

as school head and overall data show that 41 (58.57%) of the school head-respondents

served as a school head for more than 11 years while only three (3) or 4.29% served in

less than 2 years. This means that majority of the school head-respondents were

designated as school head for more than 11 years. This implies that the number of

years of experience of the school heads warrant their knowledge on the subject matter

of supervision. Experience is defined as the accumulation of knowledge or skill that

results from direct participation in events or activities (Hansen, 2000) which show that
 51

the perspective of the school heads and their strategic supervision is borne from their

years of experience which in this case would be enough as majority of the school head-

respondents carry an experience of more than a decade.

Table 6
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Related Trainings/Seminars Attended
Level Frequency Percentage
National 6 8.57
Regional 9 12.86
Division 26 37.14
District 28 40.00
School 1 1.43
Overall 70 100%

Table 6 shows the school head-respondents’ profile in terms of related

trainings/seminars attended and data show that 28 (40%) have attended related

seminars and trainings in the district level while only one (1) in the school level. This

means that many of the school head-respondents attended district level related

seminars and trainings. This strongly strengthens the implication the recommendations

that government should recruit adequate qualified supervisor, provide adequate funds

for supervisors’ support as well as for organizing workshops, seminars and conferences

for teachers (Nwambam & Eze, 2017). Undoubtedly, engagement in any trainings or

education for whatever profession contributes highly to the efficiency of individuals.

Table 7
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Attitude towards Instructional Supervision
Indicators Mean SD Verbal
Description
 52

1. I love doing supervision with my teachers 3.44 0.715 Strongly

Agree
2. I enjoy providing technical assistance to teachers 3.50 0.676 Strongly
as a result of my supervision. Agree
3. I love praising and complimenting teachers for 3.49 0.654 Strongly
their work and accomplishments. Agree
4. I enjoy spending time with my teachers for 3.46 0.674 Strongly
conference after class observation. Agree
5. I believe that providing teachers with advice will 3.53 0.631 Strongly
improve their work performance. Agree
6. I know that supervisory meetings are important for 3.61 0.621 Strongly
teachers and me. Agree
7. I believe that encouraging teachers to work is 3.57 0.604 Strongly
necessary for effective supervision. Agree
8. I love giving my teachers helpful feedback. 3.54 0.606 Strongly
Agree
9. I enjoy reading teachers’ reports submitted on 3.51 0.631 Strongly
time. Agree
10. I find my teachers very interesting and 3.49 0.608 Strongly
challenging to work with. Agree
Overall 3.51 0.642 STRONGLY
AGREE
Legend: Scale Range Description
Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.00 Strongly Agree Very
Positive
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Agree Positive
2 1.11 – 2.20 Disagree Negative
1 0.01 – 1.10 Strongly Disagree Very
Negative

Table 7 shows the school head-respondents’ profile in terms of attitude towards

instructional supervision and overall data show that the school-head respondents had a

very positive attitude towards instructional supervision as indicated by the overall mean

of 3.51 (SD=0.642).
 53

In particular, the indicator “I know that supervisory meetings are

important for teachers and me” got the highest mean rating of 3.61 (SD=0.621)

described as strongly agree while the indicator “I love doing supervision with my

teachers” got the lowest mean rating of 3.44 (SD=0.715) described as strongly agree.

This implies that instructional supervision through supervisory meetings can be deduced

as a great contributory factor in the improvement of teachers’ job performance as well

as it also provides an avenue for both the school head as the supervisor and the

teachers to meet halfway to be able to achieve the goals being set at the onset of the

supervisory plan.

Table 8
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Age
Age Frequency Percentage
60 years old and above 8 3.48
50-59 years old 46 20.00
40-49 years old 51 22.17
30-39 years old 79 34.35
Less than 30 years old 46 20.00
Overall 230 100%

Table 8 shows the teacher-respondents profile in terms of age and data show

that 79 (34.35%) belonged to the 30-39 years old age bracket while eight (8) or 3.48%

of them are 60 years old and above. This means that many of the teacher-respondents

are 30-39 years old. The age bracket that the majority of the teacher-respondents

belong to can imply that these teachers are within the beginning years of their teaching

experience which in this case needs utmost supervision. The major conclusion is that

supervision is crucial to a positive work-study experience and effective learning for

students (Hays & Clements, 2011) which in this case are teachers.
 54

Table 9
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Sex
Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 50 21.74
Female 180 78.26
Overall 230 100%

Table 9 shows the teacher-respondents profile in terms of sex and data show

that 180 (768.26%) are female while 50 (21.74%) are male. This means that in this

study, it is dominated by female teacher-respondents. As previously stated, there is very

little significance that can be shown into the factor of sex in the results of studies.

However, the results show that the teacher-respondents are dominantly female. Gender

gap is wider in higher levels of education (Ashford, n.d.), hence the fact that teachers

are mainly female in number imply the determination of women to establish their plpace

in society which attributes for good followers with regard to supervision.

Table 10
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Position
Position Frequency Percentage
Master Teacher II 2 0.87
Master Teacher I 14 6.09
Teacher III 67 29.13
Teacher II 26 11.30
Teacher I 121 52.61
Overall 230 100%
 55

Table 10 shows the teacher-respondents’ profile in terms of position and

data show that 121 (52.61%) holds a Teacher I position while only two (2) or 0.87%

holds a Master Teacher II position. This means that majority of the teacher-respondents

are Teacher I. The overwhelming number of Teacher I respondents imply the slow

progress of development in the Department of Education which is crucial in the

assessment of instructional supervision. It has been stressed that instructional

supervision whether in local or foreign setting, are reflected in these reviews of related

studies as having great contribution in the teachers’ competence and work

performance, as well as in learners’ achievements in school.

Table 11
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Highest Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage
Doctorate Degree Holder 2 0.87
With Doctorate Degree Units 2 0.87
Master’s Degree Holder 22 9.57
With Master’s Degree Units 147 63.91
Bachelor Degree Holder 57 24.78
Overall 230 100%

Table 11 shows the teacher-respondents profile in terms of their highest

educational attainment and data show that 147 (63.91%) of the teacher-respondents

had a Master’s degree units while only two (2) or 0.87% had a units of doctorate degree

or graduated with the doctorate degree. This means that majority of the teacher-

respondents are pursuing master’s degree education. The results reflecting that very

minimal respondents have a doctorate degree is of high regard as it attributes to the

competence of the teacher-respondents. This raises the implication that minimal

advancement of the teacher-respondents to a doctorate degree is a reflection of the

 56

supervision they receive. Most private schools require evidence of a bachelor's degree

and a background check before approving a new hire, and master's degrees and

doctorates are highly desired. (Kennedy, 2019)

Table 12
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Teaching Experience
Number of Years Frequency Percentage
More than 11 years 101 43.91
7-11 years 44 19.13
2-6 years 61 26.52
Less than 2 years 24 10.43
Overall 230 100%

Table 12 shows the teacher-respondents profile in terms of their teaching

experience and data show that 101 (43.91%) of them are teaching for more than 11

years while 24 (10.43%) are teaching in less than 2 years. This means that many of the

teacher-respondents are experienced teachers. The abundance of years of experience

of the teacher-respondents and the fact that majority of them are Teacher 1 greatly

implies the very little growth that they are given in the field. Lack of advancement

creates morale problems when employees realize they’re stuck in a dead-end position,

according to FEMA and the New York State Internal Control Association. Poor morale

manifests itself in a variety of ways, such as abuse of leave policies,

underperformance in job positions and a reluctance to embrace changes in the

workplace. (Shnotz, n.d)

Table 13
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Profile in terms of
Attitude towards Instructional Supervision and Teaching Competence
 57

Indicators Mean SD Verbal

Description
1. I appreciate the support and guidance of our 3.84 0.376 Strongly
school head. Agree
2. I love being praised and complimented by my 3.61 0.595 Strongly
school head for the tasks and accomplishments Agree
done.
3. I enjoy spending time with my school heads 3.60 0.550 Strongly
conference before and after class observation Agree
4. I find supervisory meetings important and 3.79 0.421 Strongly
challenging. Agree
5. I believe that encouraging teachers to work is 3.85 0.372 Strongly
necessary for effective supervision Agree
6. I love to communicate well with my students. 3.87 0.342 Strongly
Agree
7. I believe that teachers’ expertise will maximize 3.87 0.355 Strongly
learning. Agree
8. I know that a competent teacher has full 3.84 0.364 Strongly
knowledge of subject matter he/she teaches. Agree
9. I love to inculcate moral values to my students. 3.93 0.262 Strongly
Agree
10. I know that the knowledge and skills of a teacher 3.88 0.323 Strongly
will enable him/her to be successful. Agree
Overall 3.81 0.396 STRONGLY
AGREE
Legend: Scale Range Description
Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.00 Strongly Agree Very
Positive
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Agree Positive
2 1.11 – 2.20 Disagree Negative
1 0.01 – 1.10 Strongly Disagree Very
Negative

Table 13 shows the teacher-respondents’ profile in terms of attitude towards

instructional supervision and teaching competence and overall data show that they

possess a very positive attitude as indicated by the overall mean of 3.81 (SD=0.396).
 58

The indicator “I love to inculcate moral values to my students” got the

highest mean rating of 3.93 (SD=0.262) described as strongly agree, this implies that

the teacher-respondents have a sense of dedication in their teaching; that beyond

teaching the subject, they are invested in parting a lesson to their students which

reflects on their commitment to the profession.

While the indicator “I enjoy spending time with my school heads conference

before and after class observation” got the lowest mean rating of 3.60 (SD=0.550)

described as strongly agree. While the results in this indicator do not have an

overwhelming significance from the highest indicator, the results imply that there is a

little regard of the teachers to sit with the school heads and discuss necessary points in

their teaching, hence implying an effect on the school heads’ instructional supervision.

Problem 2: How do the respondents assess Instructional Supervision based on

the following approaches:

2.1 Developmental

2.2 Clinical

2.3 Differentiated

Table 14
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Assessment of
Instructional Supervision based on Developmental Supervision Approach
Indicators Mean SD Verbal
Description
As a school head, I…
1. help teachers in utilizing the new instructional 3.30 0.622 Most of the
materials developed for the learners. time
2. guide teachers in their proposed classroom 3.34 0.657 At all times
innovation.
3. act as facilitator in directing teachers’ instructional 3.30 0.667 Most of the
problems. time
 59

4. listen to teachers problems by asking them about 3.36 0.615 At all times
their students who are bored with the lesson.
5. expect that teachers make wise decisions about 3.29 0.617 Most of the
their own class problem. time
6. encourage teachers to analyze their problem by 3.33 0.631 At all times
saying “Please go on;” “Explain that further”; or
“tell me more.”
7. involve teachers in the planning of the supervisory 3.37 0.618 At all times
process prior to supervision.
8. am frank and open to teachers’ suggestion . 3.34 0.679 At all times
9. discuss with teachers the options that can be 3.41 0.712 At all times
negotiated to find solution.
10. considers each other’s ideas until we agree on 3.39 0.708 At all times
what should be done to solve problem in the
class.
11. ends up with a plan to be carried out by all 3.37 0.706 At all times
teachers assuming responsibility for the results of
implementing it.
12. clarifies problems and listen to the teachers’ 3.37 0.726 At all times
perception about it.
13. considers each other’s ideas to bring back 3.30 0.688 Most of the
enthusiasm and motivation of teachers’. time
14. tackle the problem, plan activities, and make 3.34 0.678 At all times
decisions together with the me.
15. assume responsibility for the results of whatever 3.37 0.663 At all times
action will come out with the teachers.
Overall 3.35 0.665 AT ALL
TIMES
Legend: Scale Range Description Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High
2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low
1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low

Table 14 shows the school head-respondents’ assessment of instructional

supervision based on developmental supervision approach and overall, they rated very

high as indicated by the overall mean of 3.35 (SD=0.665).

The indicator “As a school head, I consider each other’s ideas until we

agree on what should be done to solve problem in the class” got the highest mean

rating of 3.39 (SD=0.708) described as at all times. This indicator implies the openness
 60

of the school head to be in conversation with their teachers and how they can be able to

develop and provide a solution on the prevailing issues that affect the students in the

learning process.

The indicator “As a school head, I expect that teachers make wise decisions

about their own class problem” got the lowest mean rating of 3.29 (SD=0.617)

described as most of the time. This further implies that the school heads do not want

to leave the situation alone to the teacher’s discretion. This further implies that the

school heads approach issues as a team and not singularly.

Table 15
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Assessment of
Instructional Supervision based on Developmental Supervision Approach
Indicators Mean SD Verbal
Description
My school head…
1. helps me in utilizing the new instructional materials 3.59 0.598 At all times
developed for the learners.
2. Guides me in my proposed classroom innovation. 3.56 0.637 At all times
3. acts as facilitator in directing my instructional 3.63 0.591 At all times
problems.
4. listens to my problems by asking me about my 3.63 0.581 At all times
students who are bored with the lesson.
5. expects that I make the wise decisions about my 3.64 0.541 At all times
own class problem.
6. encourages me to analyze my problem by saying 3.64 0.579 At all times
“Please go on;” “Explain that further”; or “tell me
more.”
7. involves me in the planning of the supervisory 3.60 0.596 At all times
process prior to supervision.
8. is frank and open to ideas suggested by the 3.66 0.559 At all times
teachers.
9. discusses with me the options that can be 3.63 0.597 At all times
negotiated to find solution.
10. considers each other’s ideas until we agree on 3.66 0.567 At all times
what should be done to solve problems in the
class..
11. ends up with a plan to be carried out by all 3.64 0.532 At all times
teachers assuming responsibility for the results of
implementing it..
 61

12. clarifies the problem and listens to the teacher’s 3.69 0.544 At all times
perception of the problem.
13. considers each other’s ideas to bring back 3.70 0.530 At all times
enthusiasm and motivation of teachers’.
14. tackles the problem, plan activities, and makes 3.60 0.573 At all times
decisions together with me.
15. assumes responsibility for the results of whatever 3.61 0.586 At all times
action with the teachers.
Overall 3.63 0.574
AT ALL
TIMES
Legend: Scale Range Description Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High
2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low
1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low
Table 15 shows the teacher-respondents’ assessment of instructional

supervision based on developmental supervision approach and overall, they rated it

very high as indicated by the overall mean of 3.63 (SD=0.574).

The indicator “My school head considers each other’s ideas to bring back

enthusiasm and motivation of teachers” got the highest mean rating of 3.70

(SD=0.530) described as at all times. This implies that from the perception of the

teachers, the school heads are able to manifest their willingness to get involved with its

teachers to showcase their abilities. This is a positive implication on the effect of the

form of supervision that is received by the respondents, considering that they are

gathered from different schools.

The indicator “My school head guides me in my proposed classroom

innovation” got the lowest mean rating of 3.56 (SD=0.637) described as at all times.

This implies that not all of the school heads of the teacher respondents guide in the

classroom innovations of the teachers. This can suggest that teacher-respondents have

minimal classroom innovations hence, there can be no innovation that may be

supported by the school head.

 62

Table 16
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Assessment of
Instructional Supervision based on Clinical Supervision Approach
Indicators Mean SD Verbal
Description
As a school head, I…
1. establish a trusting relationship with teachers 3.39 0.708 At all times
before the observation.
2. start the supervisory process by clarifying my role 3.37 0.685 At all times
as school head before the actual class observation.
3. discuss with teachers how they want to be 3.33 0.717 At all times
observed.
4. discuss with teachers their lesson plan and make 3.34 0.720 At all times
revision before the actual teaching
5. discuss with teachers the best strategy before 3.37 0.663 At all times
class observation.
6. go to the teachers’ classroom and observe how 3.41 0.602 At all times
they teach and how their students respond to their
teaching.
7. come up with an objective record of the entire 3.37 0.618 At all times
instructional process.
8. observe teachers to help them develop their skills 3.40 0.623 At all times
in teaching.
9. do a careful analysis of the classroom data that I 3.37 0.663 At all times
have in the classroom observation.
10. go through the observation data and label the 3.30 0.663 Most of the
cause-and-effect situations that have been time
recorded.
11. identify the decisions and actions of teachers and 3.37 0.705 At all times
their effects on the learners.
12. analyze the data that my teachers and I agreed 3.30 0.729 Most of the
during our pre-observation conference. time
13. provide guidance to improve their teaching during 3.33 0.696 At all times
the post-observation conference.
14. acknowledge teacher’s strength during the post - 3.40 0.668 At all times
observation conference.
15. share the evaluation of teachers during the post - 3.29 0.705 Most of the
observation conference to prevent biases and time
make the discussion more orderly.
Overall 3.36 0.678 AT ALL
TIMES
Legend: Scale Range Description Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High
 63

2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low

1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low

Table 16 shows the school head-respondents’ assessment of instructional

supervision based on clinical supervision approach and overall, they rated it very high

as indicated by the overall mean of 3.36 (SD=0.678).

The indicator “As a school head, I go to the teachers’ classroom and

observe how they teach and how their students respond to their teaching” got the

highest mean rating of 3.41 (SD=0.602) described as at all times. From this item, it can

be inferred that the school heads have utmost involvement in the teaching and learning

process in their school. This further suggests that they are able to conduct one-on-one

observations in the classes which give them an actual view of what is happening inside

the classroom.

The indicator “As a school head, I share the evaluation of teachers during

the post - observation conference to prevent biases and make the discussion

more orderly” got the lowest mean rating of 3.29 (SD=0.705) described as most of the

time. This implies that while the school heads actively monitor the situation in the

classroom as evidenced in the previous indicator, this suggests that the observations of

the school head may not be subjected to meetings or one-on-one conferences.

Table 17
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Assessment of
Instructional Supervision based on Clinical Supervision Approach
Indicators Mean SD Verbal
Description
My school head…
1. establishes a trusting relationship with me before 3.73 0.517 At all times
the observation.
 64

2. starts the supervisory process by clarifying his role 3.74 0.460 At all times
as school head before the actual class observation.
3. discusses with me how I want to be observed. 3.70 0.520 At all times
4. discusses with me my lesson plan and makes 3.66 0.544 At all times
revision before the actual teaching
5. discusses with me before the observation how to 3.68 0.518 At all times
come up with the best strategy to test how well my
students learned their lesson.
6. goes to my classroom and observes how I teach 3.64 0.515 At all times
and how my students respond to my teaching.
7. comes up with an objective record of the entire 3.67 0.532 At all times
instructional process.
8. observes me to help me develop my skills in 3.73 0.478 At all times
teaching.
9. does a careful analysis of the classroom data that 3.64 0.532 At all times
he had in the classroom observation?
10. goes through the observation data and labels the 3.63 0.566 At all times
cause-and-effect situations that have been
recorded.
11. identifies my decisions and actions and their effects 3.65 0.554 At all times
on the learners.
12. analyzes the data that he / she and I agreed during 3.66 0.525 At all times
our pre-observation conference.
13. provides guidance to improve my teaching during 3.71 0.508 At all times
the post-observation conference.
14. acknowledges my strength during the post - 3.70 0.538 At all times
observation conference.
15. ensures to share the evaluation with me during the 3.69 0.533 At all times
post - observation conference only to prevent
biases and makes the discussion more orderly,
Overall 3.68 0.523
AT ALL
TIMES
Legend: Scale Range Description Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High
2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low
1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low
Table 17 shows the teacher-respondents’ assessment of instructional

supervision based on clinical supervision approach and overall, they rated it very high

as indicated by the overall mean of 3.68 (SD=0.523).

The indicator “My school head starts the supervisory process by clarifying

his role as school head before the actual class observation” got the highest mean
 65

rating of 3.74 (SD=0.460) described as at all times. This item suggests that from the

view of the teacher-respondents, the school heads in their respective schools

establishes their position before a class observation. From this, it can be inferred that

the act of establishing oneself as a school head is either to motivate the teacher in the

process.

The indicator “My school head goes through the observation data and labels

the cause-and-effect situations that have been recorded” got the lowest mean

rating of 3.63 (SD=0.566) described as at all times. This shows into the supposedly

detailed manner of the school head, which in this case, the results show is not present.

While the previous indicator shows that the school head is dedicated into conducting

observation, it shows the after-effect of the observation, which should have been a

detailed discussion on where there could be a room for improvement, which once again,

in this case is minimal.

Table 18
Distribution Table Showing the School Head-Respondents’ Assessment of
Instructional Supervision based on Differentiated Supervision Approach
Indicators Mean SD Verbal
Description
As a school head, I…
1. conduct needs analysis to identify and evaluate the 3.14 0.708 Most of the
type of supervision my teachers need. time
2. provide teachers the reason/s of analyzing their 3.16 0.715 Most of the
supervisory needs as teachers. time
3. implement supervisory approaches that I see 3.24 0.669 Most of the
important to apply for teachers. time
4. find solutions to some issues regarding appropriate 3.24 0.690 Most of the
supervisory approaches for teachers. time
5. hold meeting with teachers about the differentiated 3.27 0.635 Most of the
supervisory system and the various options under time
it.
6. ask teachers to choose their preferred supervisory 3.18 0.728 Most of the
option and allow them to explain their choice. time
7. provide teachers with templates for the 3.08 0.608 Most of the
 66

Differentiated Supervisory Program (DSP) time

8. introduce Differentiated Supervisory Program to 3.17 0.613 Most of the
teachers such as Clinical Supervision , time
Cooperative Professional Development , Self-
Directed Development , and Administrative
Monitoring .
9. let teachers discuss, present feedback, take note of 3.07 0.688 Most of the
comments and revise in their DSP group their DSP time
with me prior to implementation.
10. constantly monitor teachers in the implementation 3.10 0.663 Most of the
of the Differentiated Supervisory Program (DSP) in time
school along with designated Head Teachers and
Master Teachers.
11. allow teachers to change their Differentiated 3.13 0.635 Most of the
Supervisory Program (DSP) after realizing that time
their choices are not the best in actual practice.
12. suggest to continue with their programs for at least 3.14 0.643 Most of the
two months before they decide to change to time
another program, if necessary.
13. encourage teachers to sustain their chosen 3.16 0.581 Most of the
Differentiated Supervisory Program to completely time
see the impact of this program.
14. instruct teachers who are undergoing the same 3.11 0.603 Most of the
mode of supervision to meet and evaluate their time
experiences at the end of the agreed
implementation period.
15. assign group leader to record proceedings of the 3.16 0.605 Most of the
meeting and recommendations. time
Overall 3.16 0.652 MOST OF
THE TIME
Legend: Scale Range Description Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High
2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low
1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low

Table 18 shows the school head-respondents’ assessment of instructional

supervision based on differentiated supervision approach and overall, they rated it as

high as indicated by the overall mean of 3.16 (SD=0.652).

The indicator “As a school head, I hold meeting with teachers about the

differentiated supervisory system and the various options under it” got the highest
 67

mean rating of 3.27 (SD=0.635) described as most of the time. This results show that

the school head places importance to meetings to establish a purpose. This further

implies that the meetings are at place for the school head to reach the teachers into

relaying the different purposes of his office and how they will function around it.

The indicator “As a school head, I let teachers discuss, present feedback,

take note of comments and revise in their DSP group their DSP with me prior to

implementation” got the lowest mean rating of 3.07 (SD=0.688) described as most of

the time. This results strengthen further the previous findings that while the school head

is dedicated into his supervision, it is usually placed at a one-way setting as this

indicator reveal that the teachers are not set in motion with a discussion on important

matters that give way to their improvement.

Table 19
Distribution Table Showing the Teacher-Respondents’ Assessment of
Instructional Supervision based on Differentiated Supervision Approach
Indicators Mean SD Verbal
Description
My school head…
1. conducts needs analysis to identify and evaluate 3.56 0.579 At all times
the type of supervision I need.
2. provides me the reason/s of analyzing my 3.57 0.600 At all times
supervisory needs as teachers.
3. implements supervisory approaches that he / she 3.63 0.567 At all times
sees important to apply for me.
4. finds solutions to some issues regarding 3.63 0.582 At all times
appropriate supervisory approaches for me.
5. 5. holds meeting with me about the differentiated 3.59 0.575 At all times
supervisory system and the various options under
it.
6. ask me to choose my preferred supervisory option 3.64 0.523 At all times
and allows me to explain my choice.
7. provides me with templates for the Differentiated 3.51 0.618 At all times
Supervisory Program (DSP)
8. introduces Differentiated Supervisory Program to 3.56 0.601 At all times
 68

me such as Clinical Supervision , Cooperative

Professional Development , Self-Directed
Development , and Administrative Monitoring .
9. lets me discuss, present feedback, take note of 3.56 0.593 At all times
comments and revise in my DSP group my DSP
with him / her prior to implementation.
10. constantly monitors me in the implementation of 3.51 0.604 At all times
the Differentiated Supervisory Program (DSP) in
school, along with designated Head Teachers and
Master Teachers,
11. allows me to change my Differentiated Supervisory 3.51 0.604 At all times
Program (DSP) after realizing that my choices are
not the best in actual practice.
12. suggests to continue with my programs for at least 3.49 0.652 At all times
two months before I decide to change to another
program, if necessary.
13. encourages me to sustain my chosen Differentiated 3.57 0.585 At all times
Supervisory Program to completely see the impact
of this program.
14. instructs teachers who are undergoing the same 3.59 0.590 At all times
mode of supervision to meet and evaluate our
experiences at the end of the agreed
implementation period.
15. assigns group leader to record proceedings of the 3.57 0.642 At all times
meeting and recommendations.
Overall 3.57 0.594 AT ALL
TIMES
Legend: Scale Range Description Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High
2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low
1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low

Table 19 shows the teacher-respondents’ assessment of instructional

supervision based on differentiated supervision approach and overall, they rated it very

high as indicated by the overall mean of 3.57 (SD=0.594).

The indicator “My school head ask me to choose my preferred supervisory

option and allows me to explain my choice” got the highest mean rating of 3.64

(SD=0.523) described as at all times. The results show the straightforwardness of

 69

school heads in allowing their teachers to choose their preferred supervisory option.

This implies that the school head is keen on knowing what the teachers feel will work for

them. This shows that the supervision that the school head aims to achieve is derived

from the choice of the teachers.

The indicator “My school head suggests to continue with my programs for

at least two months before I decide to change to another program, if necessary”

got the lowest mean rating of 3.49 (SD=0.652) described as at all times. This implies

that there is a minimum focus given to a flexible strategy to see which works for the

teachers. While the results suggest that not all teachers were able to avail of the trial-

and-error manner suggested by the item.

Table 20
Summary Table Showing Respondents Assessment of
Instructional Supervision
School Head- Teacher-
Instructional Respondents Respondents
Supervision Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
Approaches Desc Desc
Developmental 3.35 0.665 At all times 3.63 0.574 At all times
Clinical 3.36 0.678 At all times 3.68 0.523 At all times
Differentiated 3.16 0.652 Most of the 3.57 0.594 At all times
time
Overall 3.29 0.665 MOST OF 3.63 0.564 AT ALL
THE TIME TIMES
Legend: Scale Range Description Interpretation
4 3.31 – 4.0 At all times Very High
3 2.21 – 3. 30 Most of the time High
2 1.11 – 2.20 Sometimes Low
1 0.01 – 1.10 Never Very Low

Table 20 shows the summary of the school head and teacher-respondents

assessment of instructional supervision. Overall, the school head-respondents rated it

 70

as high as indicated by the overall mean of 3.29 (SD=0.665) while the teacher-

respondents rated it as very high as indicated by the overall mean of 3.63 (SD=0.564).

The “clinical approach” to instructional supervision was rated highest by the

school head and teacher-respondents as indicated by the overall mean of 3.36

(SD=0.678) and 3.68 (SD=0.523), respectively, described as at all times. This implies

that commonly, the manner of supervision is based on an observational manner where

the school head observes and collects data, hence arriving at a strategy derived from

actual facts.

The “differentiated approach” to instructional supervision was rated lowest by

the school head and teacher-respondents as indicated by the overall mean of 3.16

(SD=0.652) and 3.57 (SD=0.594), respectively, described as most of the time for the

school heads and at all times for the teacher-respondents. This shows that some of the

respondents prefer that they are supervised based on a needs analysis and thereafter a

response to the needs analysis is crafted to suit the need. This is somehow similar into

gathering or collecting data but the data is based on results gathered from a survey or

the like.

Problem 3: What is the respondent’s level of assessment on teachers’

competence as measured by the following:

3.1 Knowledge of content of subject areas;

3.2 Application of teaching strategies;

3.3 Use of assessment techniques;

3.4 Interpersonal relationship; and

 71

3.5 Professional Development?

Table 21
Distribution Table Showing the Respondents’ Assessment on Teacher’s
Competence as Measured in terms of Knowledge of the Content of
Subject Areas
School Head- Teacher-
Indicators Respondents Respondents
Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
Desc Desc
1. Apply extensive knowledge of 3.12 0.635 VS 3.70 0.469 O
content in my area of
specialization.
2. Motivate learners to 3.23 0.685 VS 3.71 0.453 O
investigate the content area to
expand their knowledge and
satisfy their natural curiosity.
3. Cite intra and interdisciplinary 3.10 0.593 VS 3.63 0.517 VS
content relationship.
4. Show expertise of the content 3.20 0.604 VS 3.66 0.491 VS
and use appropriate pedagogy
in delivering the lesson.
5. Give opportunities for learners 3.13 0.679 VS 3.70 0.498 O
to synthesize or summarize
information within or across
disciplines.
Overall 3.16 0.639 VS 3.68 0.486 VS

Legend: Scale Range Description

Interpretation
4 3.7 – 4.00 Outstanding (O) Very High
3 2.8 – 3.69 Very Satisfactory (VS) High
2 1.9 – 2.79 Satisfactory (S) Low
1 1.0 – 1.89 Poor (P) Very low

Table 21 shows the school head and teacher-respondents’ assessment on

teacher’s competence as measured in terms of knowledge of the content of subject

areas and overall, they rated it as very satisfactory as indicated by the overall mean of

3.16 (SD=0.639) for school head-respondents and 3.68 (SD=0.486) for the teacher-

respondents.
 72

As rated by the school head-respondents, the indicator “Motivate learners to

investigate the content area to expand their knowledge and satisfy their natural

curiosity” got the highest mean rating of 3.23(SD=0.685) described as very

satisfactory. This implies that as an approach, the school head encourages that

teachers allow the learners an investigatory form of learning. For the school head, this is

a measurement of the teachers’ competence if they are able to utilize such approach.

This indicates that the school head encourages further that the teachers are guardingly

involved in the learning of the learners.

While the indicator “cite intra and interdisciplinary content relationship” got

the lowest mean rating of 3.10 (SD=0.593) described as very satisfactory. This shows

that alongside an involved form of learning, another form of measuring the teacher’s

competence is being able to correlate various form of studies and engage it into one

discussion. This is one way to show that a teacher is ultimately knowledge of the topic

they are given.

As rated by the teacher-respondents, the indicator “Motivate learners to

investigate the content area to expand their knowledge and satisfy their natural

curiosity” got the highest mean rating of 3.71 (SD=0.453) described as outstanding

while the indicator “Cite intra and interdisciplinary content relationship” got the

lowest mean rating of 3.63 (SD=0.517) described as very satisfactory. These results

similarly show that the school heads and the teacher-respondents are on the same

page in assessing their level of competence when it come to teaching. The results imply

that a teacher’s competence is measured in the ability of the teacher to integrate the

learning in the lives of the learners and their ample knowledge on the subject matter.
 73

Table 22
Distribution Table Showing the Respondents’ Assessment on Teacher’s
Competence as Measured in terms of Application of Teaching Strategies
School Head- Teacher-
Indicators Respondents Respondents
Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
Desc Desc
1. Employ activities that 3.31 0.671 VS 3.73 0.452 O
enhance and support
learners’ higher level of
literacy and/or numeracy skills
as a significant part of my
instruction.
2. Provide appropriate 3.29 0.684 VS 3.67 0.498 VS
instructional adaptation for
diverse learners that allow
them to have opportunities to
actively engage in various
realistic and effective learning
activities.
3. Skillfully manage diverse 3.21 0.635 VS 3.60 0.509 VS
instructional materials that
encompass other disciplines
which consistently support the
learning goals.
4. Thoughtfully plan the class 3.30 0.709 VS 3.66 0.493 VS
progression from the warm-up
to the main activity. The
review of basic concepts and
the activities that followed are
effective in taking the
application of this knowledge
to the next level of
exploration.
5. Use variety of teaching 3.30 0.671 VS 3.65 0.495 VS
strategies to enhance the
higher order thinking skills
and critical thinking skills of
the learners
Overall 3.29 0.674 VS 3.66 0.489 VS

Legend: Scale Range Description

Interpretation
4 3.7 – 4.00 Outstanding (O) Very High
3 2.8 – 3.69 Very Satisfactory (VS) High
2 1.9 – 2.79 Satisfactory (S) Low
 74

1 1.0 – 1.89 Poor (P) Very low

Table 22 shows the respondents’ assessment on teacher’s competence as

measured in terms of application of teaching strategies and overall, they rated it very

satisfactory as indicated by the overall mean of 3.29 (SD=0.674) for school head-

respondents and 3.66 (SD=0.489) for the teacher-respondents.

The indicator “Employ activities that enhance and support learners’ higher

level of literacy and/or numeracy skills as a significant part of my instruction” got

the highest mean rating of 3.31 (SD=0.671) described as very satisfactory as rated by

the school head-respondents and 3.73 (SD=0.452) as rated by the teacher-respondents

described as outstanding. The results suggest that the teachers’ competence may be

gauged further by their ability to create an avenue where the learners may apply their

learnings through some activities. It has been established that an assessment of a

learner’s understanding is through effective application.

The indicator “Skillfully manage diverse instructional materials that

encompass other disciplines which consistently support the learning goals” got

the highest mean rating of 3.21 (SD=0.635) as rated by the school head-respondents

and 3.60 (SD=0.509) described as rated by the teacher-respondents described as very

satisfactory. These results show that the teachers as well as the school heads identify

as a factor of competence the ability of the teacher to integrate other learnings to

achieve a common understanding of the subject matter. The variety of knowledge that

may be integrated into the lesson is an effective sign of competence.

Table 23
 75

Distribution Table Showing the Respondents’ Assessment on Teacher’s

Competence as Measured in terms of Use of Assessment Techniques
School Head- Teacher-
Indicators Respondents Respondents
Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
Desc Desc
1. Use assessment strategies 3.18 0.761 VS 3.64 0.507 O
that engage learners to use
assessment criteria to self-
monitor and reflect on their
own progress.
2. Prompt learners to frequently 3.17 0.672 VS 3.60 0.550 VS
assess their own work and
the work of their peers using
assessment criteria
embedded in my teacher-
learners-generated rubrics,
peer review.
3. Provide sensible and 3.20 0.701 VS 3.64 0.508 VS
prejudice-free assessment to
learners’ needs and carefully
address them at the right
time.
4. Provide corrective feedback, 3.19 0.728 VS 3.69 0.482 VS
either direct or indirect, to
learners to ensure learners’
misconceptions are corrected.
5. Ensure that learners are 3.29 0.745 VS 3.70 0.494 O
guided and have mastered
the necessary skills during the
formative assessment prior to
the conduct of summative
assessment.
Overall 3.20 0.721 VS 3.66 0.508 VS

Legend: Scale Range Description

Interpretation
4 3.7 – 4.00 Outstanding (O) Very High
3 2.8 – 3.69 Very Satisfactory (VS) High
2 1.9 – 2.79 Satisfactory (S) Low
1 1.0 – 1.89 Poor (P) Very low

Table 23 shows the respondents’ assessment on teacher’s competence as

measured in terms of use of assessment techniques and overall, they rated as very
 76

satisfactory as indicated by the overall mean of 3.20 (SD=0.721) as rated by the school

head-respondents and 3.66 (SD=0.508) as rated by the teacher-respondents.

The indicator “Ensure that learners are guided and have mastered the

necessary skills during the formative assessment prior to the conduct of

summative assessment” got the highest mean rating of 3.29 (SD=0.745) described as

very satisfactory as rated by the school head-respondents and 3.70 (SD=0.494)

described as outstanding as rated by the teacher-respondents. The results of this

indicator suggest that for the respondents, a measure of competence is that the

teachers are able to follow a process where the students are guided and taught before

they are finally evaluated through tests, exams and comprehension activities.

The indicator “Prompt learners to frequently assess their own work and the

work of their peers using assessment criteria embedded in my teacher-learners-

generated rubrics, peer review” got the lowest mean rating of 3.17 (SD=0.672) as

rated by the school head-respondents and 3.60 (SD=0.550) as rated by the teacher-

respondents described as very satisfactory. From the results, it can be inferred that

the respondents similarly agree that another measurement of competence is the ability

of teachers to allow students to assess themselves and their peers so that they can

derive learning from each other and from themselves.

Table 24
Distribution Table Showing the Respondents’ Assessment on Teacher’s
Competence as Measured in terms of Interpersonal Relationship
School Head- Teacher-
Indicators Respondents Respondents
Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
Desc Desc
1. Encourage the learners to 3.33 0.675 VS 3.83 0.376 O
take responsibility of their
behavior.
 77

2. Provide moral, spiritual, 3.31 0.693 VS 3.79 0.421 O

psychological, emotional and
intellectual support to my
learners according to their
diverse needs.
3. Provide timely compliment 3.37 0.641 VS 3.74 0.440 O
and appreciation and
constructive feedback for
every learner’s achievement
and performance.
4. Give learners fair and biased- 3.34 0.657 VS 3.77 0.430 O
free treatment with due
respect to diverse
personalities or individualities.
5. Present myself approachable 3.40 0.623 VS 3.78 0.431 O
to learners, parents and other
stakeholders.
Overall 3.35 0.656 VS 3.78 0.420 O

Legend: Scale Range Description

Interpretation
4 3.7 – 4.00 Outstanding (O) Very High
3 2.8 – 3.69 Very Satisfactory (VS) High
2 1.9 – 2.79 Satisfactory (S) Low
1 1.0 – 1.89 Poor (P) Very low

Table 24 shows the respondents’ assessment on teacher’s competence as

measured in terms of interpersonal relationship and overall, the school head-

respondents rated it as very satisfactory as indicated by the overall mean of 3.25

(SD=0.656) while the teacher-respondents overall rated it as outstanding as indicated

by the overall mean of 3.78 (SD=0.420).

The indicator “Present myself approachable to learners, parents and other

stakeholders” obtained highest mean rating of 3.40 (SD=0.623) described as very

satisfactory as rated by the school head-respondents. This implies that the teachers

have a high regard on how they appear to the learners and others. This is a reflection
 78

on the importance they set on how people perceive them is affected by how they teach

the learners.

While the indicator “Encourage the learners to take responsibility of their

behavior” obtained the highest mean rating of 3.83 (SD=0.376) described as

outstanding as rated by the teacher-respondents. This shows that the teachers have a

keen understanding on how it is relevant for learners to evaluate themselves

accordingly and objectively so that they can become responsible individuals.

The indicator “Provide moral, spiritual, psychological, emotional and

intellectual support to my learners according to their diverse needs” obtained the

highest mean rating of 3.31 (SD=0.693) described as very satisfactory as rated by the

school head-respondents. This shows that school heads expect that teachers should be

able to provide a multitude of support to the learners as this exemplifies another

competence of the teachers to substantiate that they are competent teachers.

While the indicator “Provide timely compliment and appreciation and

constructive feedback for every learner’s achievement and performance” got the

lowest mean rating of 3.74 (SD=0.440) described as outstanding. This implies that

school heads expect the teachers to have a feedback system in addition to assessment

tests conducted to learners to measure their understanding of the subject matter. This

item shows that the competence of teachers may be justified if they are able to evaluate

every learner and provide feedback to them.

Table 25
Distribution Table Showing the Respondents’ Assessment on Teacher’s
Competence as Measured in terms of Professional Development
School Head- Teacher-
Indicators Respondents Respondents
Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
 79

Desc Desc
1. Have the knowledge and 3.20 0.694 VS 3.67 0.490 VS
ability to select appropriate
professional activities for my
improvement
2. Participate in professional 3.23 0.726 VS 3.70 0.476 O
development activities in a
form of trainings, seminar-
workshops and higher
education acquisition as a
result of my school head’s
supervision.
3. Choose my own professional 3.19 0.644 VS 3.65 0.497 VS
development opportunities
based on my needs and
capabilities.
4. Have improved my classroom 3.27 0.700 VS 3.71 0.476 O
instruction as a result of my
school head’s supervision.
5. Acquire professional 3.26 0.679 VS 3.69 0.483 VS
development for self-
fulfillment and career
promotion.
Overall 3.23 0.689 VS 3.69 0.484 VS

Legend: Scale Range Description

Interpretation
4 3.7 – 4.00 Outstanding (O) Very High
3 2.8 – 3.69 Very Satisfactory (VS) High
2 1.9 – 2.79 Satisfactory (S) Low
1 1.0 – 1.89 Poor (P) Very low

Table 25 shows the respondents’ assessment on teacher’s competence as

measured in terms of professional development and overall, they rated it as very

satisfactory as indicated by the overall mean of 3.23 (SD=0.689) as rated by the school

head-respondents and 3.69 (SD=0.484) as rated by the teacher-respondents.

The indicator “Have improved my classroom instruction as a result of my

school head’s supervision” obtained the highest mean rating of 3.23 (SD=0.700)

described as very satisfactory as rated by the school head-respondents and 3.71

 80

(SD=0.476) as described as outstanding as rated by the teacher-respondents. This

indicator implies that both the school head and teacher respondents affirm that the

school head’s supervision plays a crucial role in the progress of a teacher’s classroom

instruction. This item implies the effectivity of instructional supervision of school heads.

The indicator “Choose my own professional development opportunities

based on my needs and capabilities” obtained the lowest mean rating of 3.19

(SD=0.644) as rated by the school head-respondents and 3.65 (SD=0.497) as rated by

the teacher-respondents described as very satisfactory. This shows that the school

heads and teacher respondents give importance to the fact that teachers are able to

determine what they need to substantiate their professional development. This proactive

way implies that both the school head and the teacher work around what is individually

important to the teachers as they are the ones that carry the task of educating.

Table 25
Summary of Respondents’ Assessment on Teacher’s Competence
School Head- Teacher-
Teaching Competence Respondents Respondents
Indicators Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
Desc Desc
Knowledge of content of subject 3.16 0.639 VS 3.68 0.486 VS
areas
Application of teaching strategies 3.29 0.674 VS 3.66 0.489 VS
Use of assessment techniques 3.20 0.721 VS 3.66 0.508 VS
Interpersonal relationship 3.35 0.656 VS 3.78 0.420 O
Professional Development 3.23 0.689 VS 3.69 0.484 VS
Overall 3.25 0.676 VS 3.69 0.477 VS

Legend: Scale Range Description

Interpretation
4 3.7 – 4.00 Outstanding (O) Very High
3 2.8 – 3.69 Very Satisfactory (VS) High
2 1.9 – 2.79 Satisfactory (S) Low
 81

1 1.0 – 1.89 Poor (P) Very low

Table 25 shows the summary respondents’ assessment on teacher’s

competence and overall, they rated the teacher’s competence as very satisfactory as

indicated by the overall mean of 3.25 (SD=0.676) as rated by the school head-

respondents and 3.69 (SD=0.477) as rated by the teacher-respondents.

The indicator “interpersonal relationship” obtained the highest overall mean

rating of 3.35 (SD=0.656) described as very satisfactory as rated by the school head-

respondents and 3.78 (SD=0.420) described as outstanding as rated by the teacher-

respondents. This implies that the school heads and the teachers as well agree on the

fact that the teachers’ ability to connect with their students and people around them

have a bearing on their competence as a teacher.

The indicator “Knowledge of content of subject areas” got the lowest mean

rating of 3.16 (SD=0.639) described as very satisfactory. From this result, it can be

inferred that a teacher’s competence tantamount to an equipped knowledge on the

subject they teach meaning they have vast information to impart on the subject matter

as can be evidenced by their lesson plans and their manner of delivery on the subject.

While the indicators “Application of teaching strategies” and “use of

assessment techniques” got the lowest mean rating of 3.66 (SD=0.489) and 3.66

(SD=0.508), respectively, described as very satisfactory as rated by the teacher-

respondents. These two items derive the same implication that a teacher’s competence

is manifested by the way they introduce their subject and how they go about teaching

the subject. Teaching strategies, even if categorized, are unique in terms of delivery of
 82

teachers, hence the need for assessment techniques or feedback mechanisms to know

whether such strategies employed are effective.

Problem 4: What is the achievement of the learners on the following areas:

4.1 Mathematics

4.2 Science

4.3 English

Table 26
Learner’s Achievement in Mathematics, Science and English
First Quarter Second Quarter Overall Achievement
Subjects
Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal Mean SD Verbal
Grade Desc Grade Desc Grade Desc

Mathematics 77.85 2.850 FS 87.35 4.981 VS 82.60 3.916 S

Science 78.11 2.920 FS 86.35 5.502 VS 82.23 4.211 S

English 78.37 2.735 FS 87.17 5.060 VS 82.77 3.898 S

Overall 78.11 2.835 FS 86.96 5.181 VS 82.53 4.008 S

Legend: Grading Scale Verbal Description

90 -100 Outstanding (O)
85 – 89 Very Satisfactory (VS)
80 -84 Satisfactory (S)
75 -79 Fairly Satisfactory (FS)
Below 75 Did not Meet Expectations (DNME)

Table 26 shows the learner’s achievement in Mathematics, Science and English.

Overall, the learners had a satisfactory performance as indicated by the overall mean

grade of 82.53 (SD=4.008).

In particular, the learners had a satisfactory performance in Mathematics,

Science and English as indicated by the overall mean grade of 82.60 (SD=3.916), 83.23

(SD=4.211) and 82.77 (3.898), respectively. In the first quarter, the learners had a fairly
 83

satisfactory achievement as indicated by the overall mean of 78.11 (SD=2.835).

However, in the second quarter, the learners improved and showed a satisfactory

achievement as indicated by the overall mean of 86.96 (SD=5.181). The results imply

that the measures and strategies adopted by their teacher are effective hence the

improvement in the learners’ overall grade in Mathematics, Science and English. The

results of Dr. Sanders’ study well document that the most important factor affecting

student learning is the teacher. In addition, the results show wide variation in

effectiveness among teachers. The immediate and clear implication of this finding is that

seemingly more can be done to improve education by improving the effectiveness of

teachers than by any other single factor. Effective teachers appear to be effective with

students of all achievement levels, regardless of the level of heterogeneity in their

classrooms. (Tucker and Stronge, 2005)

Problem 5: How do the teachers compare in their competence when grouped

according to:

5.1 Age;

5.2 Sex;

5.3 Position;

5.4 Highest Educational Attainment;

5.5 Number of years as School Head/Teachers; and

5.6 Number of related trainings/seminars attended?

Table 27
Comparison of Teachers’ Competence as Perceived by the School Head-
Respondents When Grouped According to Their Profile
School Head- Teaching Competence Indicators
 84

Knowled Applicati Use of Interpers Professi

ge of on of assessm onal onal OVERAL
content teaching ent relations Develop L
of subject strategie techniqu hip ment
Respondents
areas s es F-value F-value
Profile
F-value F-value p-value p-value
p-value F-value p-value
F-value p-value
p-value
Age 3.21 1.55 5.19 2.35 4.08 5.20
0.025* 0.210 0.002* 0.075 0.009* 0.002*
S NS S NS S S
Sex 0.49 0.20 3.75 0.99 1.31 0.70
0.489 0.658 0.062 0.328 0.261 0.408
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Position 0.39 0.17 1.68 1.47 1.36 0.49
0.817 0.951 0.180 0.235 0.269 0.744
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Highest 3.46 2.25 2.83 1.25 1.70 3.43
Educational 0.018* 0.086 0.041* 0.308 0.174 0.019*
Attainment S NS S NS NS S
Number of Years 1.94 1.88 2.05 2.67 1.26 2.41
as School Head 0.142 0.152 0.127 0.064 0.304 0.085
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Related 1.34 2.32 2.15 1.22 1.74 2.38
trainings/Seminar 0.277 0.078 0.097 0.320 0.165 0.073
s attended NS NS NS NS NS NS
Attitude towards 2.01 1.33 2.74 1.63 1.72 2.24
instructional 0.043* 0.236 0.007* 0.115 0.091 0.024*
supervision S NS S NS NS S
Legend: *significant at p<0.05 alpha level S – significant NS –
not significant

Table 27 shows the comparison of teachers’ competence as perceived by the

school head-respondents when grouped according to their profile and overall data show

that the assessment of the teacher’s competence as perceived by the school head-

respondents was significantly different when grouped according to their age, highest

educational attainment and attitude towards instructional supervision as indicated by the

F-value and probability value less than 0.05 which led to the rejection of the null

hypothesis. This means that the ratings of the school head-respondents on teachers’
 85

competence was different based on their age, highest educational attainment and

attitude towards instructional supervision. This is an implication that the aforementioned

factors have a significance on the teachers’ competence.

Table 28
Comparison of Teachers’ Competence as Perceived by the Teacher-Respondents
Themselves When Grouped According to Their Profile
Teaching Competence Indicators
Knowled Applicati Use of Interpers Professi
ge of on of assessm onal onal OVERAL
content teaching ent relations Develop L
Teacher-
Respondents of subject strategie techniqu hip ment
areas s es F-value F-value
Profile p-value
F-value F-value p-value
p-value F-value p-value
F-value p-value
p-value
Age 2.76 1.93 1.99 0.37 2.03 2.09
0.029* 0.107 0.098 0.833 0.092 0.084
S NS NS NS NS NS
Sex 0.57 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.49 0.15
0.449 0.881 0.857 0.810 0.483 0.694
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Position 0.67 0.33 0.87 0.59 0.35 0.46
0.617 0.860 0.484 0.671 0.845 0.766
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Highest 1.13 0.75 0.17 0.32 0.16 0.43
Educational 0.344 0.559 0.954 0.862 0.959 0.788
Attainment NS NS NS NS NS NS
Teaching 0.64 0.75 0.60 0.59 0.21 0.29
Experience 0.589 0.526 0.615 0.622 0.890 0.829
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Attitude towards 3.43 4.18 4.56 3.60 3.26 4.79
instructional 0.002* 0.001* 0.001* 0.003* 0.001* 0.001*
supervision and S S S S S S
teaching
competence
Legend: *significant at p<0.05 alpha level S – significant NS –
not significant
Table 28 shows the comparison of teachers’ competence as perceived by the

teacher-respondents themselves when grouped according to their profile and overall

 86

data show that their rating on teacher competence was significantly different when

grouped according to their attitude towards instructional supervision and teaching

competence as indicated by the F-value and probability value less than 0.05 which led

to the rejection of the null hypothesis. This implies that the teacher-respondents rating

on teaching competence was different according to their attitudes towards instructional

supervision and teaching competence.

Problem 6: Is there a significant relationship between the School Heads

instructional supervision and each of the following:

6.1 Age;

6.2 Sex;

6.3 Position;

6.4 Highest Educational Attainment;

6.5 Number of Years as School Head;

6.6 Number of related trainings/Seminars attended; and

6.7 Attitude towards instructional supervision?

Table 29

Relationship between School Head-Respondents’ Profile and

Instructional Supervision Approaches
School Heads Instructional Supervision
Approaches
Developmen Clinical Differentiate OVERALL
School Head-
tal d
Respondents Profile
Pearson-r Pearson-r
Pearson-r p-value Pearson-r p-value
p-value p-value
Age 0.621 0.582 0.432 0.608
(MPR) (MPR) (WPR) (MPR)
 87

0.001* 0.001* 0.001* 0.001*

S S S S
Sex 0.008 0.002 0.005 0.002
(NLR) (NLR) (NLR) (NLR)

0.947 0.988 0.967 0.988

NS NS NS NS
Position 0.398 0.422 0.360 0.439
(WPR) (WPR) (WPR) (WPR)

0.001* 0.001* 0.002* 0.001*

S S S S
Highest Educational 0.532 0.459 0.305 0.483
Attainment (MPR) (WPR) (WPR) (WPR)

0.001* 0.001* 0.010* 0.002*

S S S S
Number of Years as 0.455 0.416 0.348 0.453
School Head (WPR) (WPR) (WPR) (WPR)

0.001* 0.002* 0.003* 0.001*

S S S S
Number of Related 0.302 0.368 0.336 0.374
Trainings and Seminars (WPR) (WPR) (WPR) (WPR)
Attended
0.011* 0.001* 0.004* 0.001*
S S S S
Attitudes towards 0.708 0.747 0.524 0.738
Instructional Supervision (SPR) (SPR) (MPR) (SPR)

0.001* 0.001* 0.001* 0.001*

S S S S
Legend: *significant at p<0.05 alpha level S – significant NS –
not significant

Pearson-r Values Description Pearson-r Values Description

0.00 – 0.09 No Linear Relationship (NLR) 0.10 – 0.49
Weak Positive Relationship (WPR)
0.50 – 0.69 Moderately Positive Relationship (MPR) 0.70 – 0.99
Strong Positive Relationship (SPR)
1.00 Perfect Linear Relationship (PLR)

Table 29 shows the relationship between school head-respondents’ profile and

instructional supervision approaches and overall data showed strong positive

 88

relationship between their attitude towards instruction supervision and their assessment

on instructional supervision approaches as indicated by the r-value and probability value

less than 0.05 which led to the rejection of the null hypothesis. This implies that the

more positive they are towards instructional supervision, and then they could also have

high levels of assessment of the instructional supervision approaches.

Further, their assessment on instructional supervision approaches showed

moderately positive association on their age as indicated by the r-value and probability

value less than 0.05 which led to the rejection of the null hypothesis.

Also, the school head-respondents assessment on instructional supervision

approached showed weak positive association on their position, highest educational

attainment, number of years as school head and number of related seminars and

trainings attended as indicated by the r-value and probability value less than 0.05 which

led to the rejection of the null hypothesis.

Problem 7: To what extent do the School Heads instructional supervision

contribute to teachers’ competence and learner’s achievement?

Table 30
Extent of School Heads Instructional Supervision on Teacher’s Competence as
Perceived by the School Head-Respondents
School Heads Teaching Competence Indicators
Instructional Knowled Applicati Use of Interpers Professi
Supervision ge of on of assessm onal onal OVERAL
Indicators content teaching ent relations Develop L
of subject strategie techniqu hip ment
areas s es
T-value
T-value T-value T-value p-value T-value
p-value T-value p-value p-value p-value
 89

p-value
Developmental 3.44 3.31 2.72 3.93 2.96 4.28
0.001* 0.002* 0.008* 0.001* 0.004* 0.001*
S S S S S S
Clinical 1.71 1.45 1.84 1.33 0.28 1.72
0.091 0.152 0.070 0.187 0.784 0.089
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Differentiated 0.54 0.78 0.65 0.63 1.52 0.84
0.591 0.438 0.517 0.531 0.133 0.401
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Legend: *significant at p<0.05 alpha level S – significant NS –
not significant

Table 30 shows the extent of school heads instructional supervision on teacher’s

competence as perceived by the school head-respondents and overall data show that

their developmental approach to instructional supervision had a significant extent on

their teaching competence as indicated by the t-value and probability value less than

0.05 which led to the rejection of the null hypothesis. This implies that developmental

approach to instructional supervision had an impact on how teacher’s competence was

rated by the school head-respondents. As perceived by the school head-respondents,

their developmental approach to instructional supervision is effective in improving

teachers teaching competence.

Table 31
Extent of School Heads Instructional Supervision on Teacher’s Competence as
Perceived by the Teacher-Respondents
School Heads Teaching Competence Indicators
Instructional Knowled Applicati Use of Interpers Professi
Supervision ge of on of assessm onal onal OVERAL
Indicators content teaching ent relations Develop L
of subject strategie techniqu hip ment
areas s es
T-value
T-value
 90

T-value T-value T-value p-value p-value

p-value T-value p-value p-value
p-value
Developmental 0.76 0.57 0.19 0.99 2.20 0.40
0.448 0.566 0.853 0.324 0.029* 0.692
NS NS NS NS S NS
Clinical 2.53 2.69 0.43 2.35 2.72 2.61
0.012* 0.008* 0.669 0.019* 0.007* 0.010*
S S NS S S S
Differentiated 2.53 2.99 5.51 2.59 5.56 4.78
0.011* 0.003* 0.001* 0.010* 0.001* 0.001*
S S S S S S
Legend: *significant at p<0.05 alpha level S – significant NS –
not significant

Table 31 shows the extent of school heads instructional supervision on teacher’s

competence as perceived by the teacher-respondents and overall data show that

teacher-respondents had a different perspective compared to the school head-

respondents because clinical and differentiated approach to instructional supervision

showed significant extent on their teaching competence as indicated by the t-value and

probability values less than 0.05 which led to the rejection of the null hypothesis. This

means that as perceived by the teacher-respondents, clinical and differentiated

approaches to instructional supervision are effective in improving their teaching

competence.

Table 32
Extent of School Heads Instructional Supervision on Learner’s Achievement
SUBJECTS
School Heads Mathematic Science English
Instructional OVERALL
s
Supervision T-value T-value
Indicators T-value
T-value p-value p-value p-value
p-value
Developmental 0.92 1.03 2.40 1.63
0.359 0.302 0.017* 0.104
NS NS S NS
 91

Clinical 0.60 1.40 2.12 1.56

0.550 0.162 0.035* 0.120
NS NS S NS
Differentiated 0.11 0.60 1.08 0.67
0.914 0.549 0.282 0.500
NS NS NS NS
Legend: *significant at p<0.05 alpha level S – significant NS –
not significant

Table 32 shows the extent of school heads instructional supervision on learner’s

achievement and overall data showed no significant extent on the achievement of

learners as indicated by the t-value and probability values greater than 0.05 which led to

the non-rejection of the null hypothesis. This implies that school heads instructional

supervision had no direct effect on students’ overall achievement levels.

However, the school heads developmental and clinical approaches to

instructional supervision showed significant on learner’s achievement in English as

indicated by the t-value and probability value less than 0.05 which led to the rejection of

the null hypothesis. This implies that the developmental and clinical approaches to

instructional supervision of the school heads had a direct effect on the learner’s

achievement in English.

Problem 8: What are the results of the in-depth interview and focus group

discussion conducted to the select group of respondents?

8.1 School Heads

8.2 Teachers

Table 33
School Head Responses during the In-Depth Interview Conducted
 92

Structured Questions Responses

1. What striking feature have you  Majority of the school head-respondents

discovered in using agreed that they observed that teachers
developmental supervision are considered to be analytical observers,
approach? that is, they possess high abstraction but
they have low commitment in their teaching
because of their status.
2. What problems have you  Majority of the teacher-respondents noted
encountered in clinical that the scheduled class observation was
supervision approach? disrupted by school activities. Moreover,
there were only three cycles of the clinical
supervision was implemented instead of
five which makes the clinical supervision
incomplete.
3. Which of the three approaches  All of the school head-participants agreed
(developmental, clinical and that they are satisfied with clinical
differentiated) in instructional supervision because of their familiarity with
supervision do you find this kind of instructional supervision
satisfaction? Why? compared to the other two.
4. What challenges have you  The school head-respondents agreed that
encountered with your teachers teacher’s unwillingness to be immersed in
in employing instructional the new style of instructional supervision
supervision? which is different from their usual practice
in their previous school assignment. With
this, they are hesitant to be observed
because they are not used to it.
5. Which of the approaches have  All of the school head-participants agreed
helped you in attaining your that they choose clinical supervision
goals as a school head? because again they are familiar with the
method and other two are quite new and
they need more exposure and practice to
this kind of instructional supervision.
6. What can you suggest to  All school head-participants noted that in
improve the performance of your order to improve teachers and students’
teachers and learners? performance, proper implementation of
instructional supervision must be followed.

Table 33 shows the school head responses during the in-depth interview

conducted. For the first question, the school head-participants were asked on what

striking feature did they discover in using the developmental supervision approach?
 93

Majority of the school head-respondents agreed that they observed that teachers are

considered to be analytical observers, that is, they possess high abstraction but they

have low commitment in their teaching because of their status.

On the second question, they were asked on problems they have encountered in

clinical supervision approach. Majority of the teacher-respondents noted that the

scheduled class observation was disrupted by school activities. Moreover, there were

only three cycles of the clinical supervision that were implemented instead of five which

makes the clinical supervision incomplete.

On the third question, the school head-respondents were asked on which of the

three approaches (developmental, clinical and differentiated) in instructional supervision

they are satisfied and all of the school head-participants agreed that they were satisfied

with clinical supervision because of their familiarity with this kind of instructional

supervision compared to the other two.

On the fourth question, the school head-respondents are asked on the

challenges they have encountered with their teachers in employing instructional

supervision. Majority of the school head-respondents agreed that a teacher’s

unwillingness to be immersed in the new style of instructional supervision which is

different from their usual practice in their previous school assignment. With this, they

were hesitant to be observed because they were not used to it.

On the fifth question, the school head-respondents are asked on which of the

approaches helped them in attaining their goals as a school head and all of the school

head-participants agreed in choosing clinical supervision because they were familiar

 94

with the method and the other two were quite new and they need more exposure and

practice to this kind of instructional supervision.

Finally, the school head-respondents were asked on their suggestions on how to

improve the performance of teachers and learners and all school head-participants

noted that in order to improve teachers and students’ performance, proper

implementation of instructional supervision must be followed.

 95

Table 34
Teacher-Participant’s Responses during the Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
Conducted

Structured Questions Responses

1. What have you noticed with your  The majority of the teacher-participants
school head employing agreed that in terms of the level of
developmental supervision abstraction (high/low) and commitment
approach? (high/low), many of the teachers showed
high abstraction but poor in commitment
(analytical observer) which can be
addressed using the collaborative
approach while some may have low
abstraction and commitment (teacher drop-
out) which can be addressed using
directive approach. However, for teachers
who have high commitment and high
abstraction they call it as a Professional
Teacher which every teachers must
emulate.
 Some teacher-participants also noted that
there was a lacking of orientation of the
developmental approach and they are
shocked on the process because they are
not familiar with it.
2. Have you encountered difficulty  Majority of the teacher-participants
with your school head using exclaimed that their school heads only
clinical supervision? implemented the three (3) cycles instead of
5 cycles (pre-conference, observation,
strategy and analysis, post-observation and
post-observation analysis).
3. What in differentiated  Majority of the teacher-participants agreed
supervisory approach did you that using differentiated supervisory
find contentment? approach their school heads can only focus
on teacher’s individual needs and that each
has its own weakness and strength.
Teachers must be given the opportunity to
use instructional materials which are
accessible to them.
4. What challenges have you  Majority of the teacher-participants agreed
encountered with your school instructional supervision cause them stress
head using the three (3) and anxiety.
approaches in instructional  Some teachers do not have classrooms
supervision? where instructional supervision can be
 96

effectively managed.
 School heads feedbacks are their source of
motivation to further improve their teaching
practices.
5. Has your teaching competence  Majority of the teacher-participants agreed
improved with the assistance of that with school heads’ instructional
your school head? supervision, they improved their teaching
competence.
 School heads are motivators and
encourage teachers to do their tasks
effectively.
6. What suggestion can you give to  Majority of the teacher-participants agreed
help improve learners’ that in terms of learner’s performance, full
performance? attention must be given to non-reader
pupils and reading interventions should be
initiated as a remedial activity to improve
their reading skills. Parents must also help
in this effort to help struggling readers to
improve.

Table 34 shows the teacher-participants responses during the conduct of the

researcher’s focus group discussion. On the first question, the teacher-participants are

asked on what they noticed with their school head that utilized the developmental

supervision approach. Majority of the teacher-participants agreed that in terms of the

level of abstraction (high/low) and commitment (high/low), many of the teachers showed

high abstraction but poor in commitment (analytical observer) which can be addressed

using the collaborative approach while some may have low abstraction and commitment

(teacher drop-out) which can be addressed using the directive approach. However, for

teachers who have high commitment and high abstraction, they categorize it as a

“Professional Teacher” which every teacher must emulate. Some teacher-participants

also noted that there was a lack of orientation of the developmental approach and they

were dazed on the process as they are not familiar with it.
 97

On the second question, the teacher-participants were asked if they encountered

difficulty with their school head using clinical supervision. Majority of the teacher-

participants claimed that their school heads only implemented the three (3) cycles

instead of 5 cycles (pre-conference, observation, strategy and analysis, post-

observation and post-observation analysis).

On the third question, the teacher-participants are asked on what aspect of

differentiated supervisory approach are they satisfied with. Majority of the teacher-

participants agreed that using differentiated supervisory approach, their school heads

can only focus on the teacher’s individual needs and that each has its own weakness

and strength. Teachers must be given the opportunity to use instructional materials

which are accessible to them.

On the fourth question, the teacher-participants were asked on the challenges

they have encountered with their school head using the three (3) approaches in

instructional supervision. Majority of the teacher-participants agreed instructional

supervision caused them stress and anxiety. Some teachers do not have classrooms

where instructional supervision can be effectively managed. The school heads

feedbacks are their source of motivation to further improve their teaching practices.

On the fifth question, the teacher-participants are asked if their teaching

competence has improved with the assistance of their school head and majority of the

teacher-participants agreed that with their school heads’ instructional supervision, they

improved their teaching competence. At this point, school heads are perceived

motivators and encourage teachers to do their tasks effectively.

 98

Finally, the teacher-participants were asked on their suggestions to help improve

the learners’ performance. Majority of the teacher-participants agreed that in terms of a

learner’s performance, full attention must be given to non-reading pupils and reading

interventions should be initiated as a remedial activity to improve their reading skills.

Parents must also help in this effort to help struggling readers to improve.

Problem 9: Based on the findings of the study, what comprehensive management

plan on instructional supervision can be formulated?

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ON INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION

 99

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the relevant features of the study. It draws significant

information and insights on the conclusions arrived at based on the findings of the

study.

Summary
This study attempted to determine the assessment of school heads’ instructional

supervision on teachers’ competence and learners’ achievement in the Division of

Misamis Oriental during the School Year 2020 – 2021. The result of this study will be

the basis for a comprehensive school management plan.

Particularly, this paper sought to: 1.) determine the characteristics of the

respondents; 2) the respondents’ assessment of instructional supervision; 3) the

respondents’ level of assessment on the teachers’ competence; 4) the level of

achievement of learners in specific areas; 5) the teacher-participants competence when

grouped according to their characteristics; 6) whether or not there is a significant

relationship between the school heads’ instructional supervision and their identified

characteristics; 7) the contribution of the instructional supervision to the teacher’s

competence and learner’s achievement; and 8) the formulation of a comprehensive

management plan on instructional supervision.

This study employed the descriptive survey method in order to investigate school

heads and teachers’ assessment level of Instructional Supervision and its relationship

with teachers’ competence and learners’ achievement in the Division of Misamis

Oriental during the School Year 2020 -2021. The Slovin’s formula was employed to get
 100

the desired number of respondents stated above. Stratified sampling procedure was

utilized by dividing the obtained sample size by its total population to get the appropriate

number of respondents in every district. Moreover, a purposive sampling was used in

choosing the four hundred sixty (460) learners who served as subject of the study in

order to obtain their performance in the 3 areas: Mathematics, Science and English.

Findings

The following findings surfaced along the course of the investigation:

1. The school-head respondents had a very positive attitude towards instructional

supervision.

2. Teacher participants have a positive attitude towards instructional supervision in

relation to their teaching competence.

3. The learner’s achievement had a satisfactory performance in Mathematics,

Science and English.

4. The assessment of the teacher’s competence as perceived by the school head-

respondents was significantly different when grouped according to their age,

highest educational attainment and attitude towards instructional supervision.

5. The rating on teacher competence was significantly different when grouped

according to their attitude towards instructional supervision and teaching

competence.

6. The developmental approach to instructional supervision had an impact on how

teacher’s competence was rated by the school head-respondents.

7. Teacher-respondent perceive that clinical and differentiated approaches to

instructional supervision are effective in improving their teaching competence.

 101

8. There is no significant effect on school heads instructional supervision to the

students’ overall achievement levels. However, the developmental and clinical

approaches to instructional supervision of the school heads had a direct effect on

the learner’s achievement in English.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, it can be deduced that the different approaches

utilized by the school head have a positive effect and reception in the teacher’s

competence. But while these approaches aim to highlight the effectiveness of the

instructional supervision of school heads, these do not have a direct link to the students’

overall achievement level. Remarkably, the teachers’ competence varied when grouped

according to their characteristics vis-à-vis when measured according to specific

competencies. Finally, they hypothesis that the School Heads Instructional Supervision

does not contribute significantly to the learners’ achievement is accepted.

Recommendations

Based on the above findings and conclusions, the following recommendations

are presented:

1. An in-depth study on the effect of the teacher’s competence when grouped

according to their characteristics;

2. A trial run on the proposed school management plan to look into its

effectiveness, thereby delegating a committee for its implementation;

3. An in-depth study on the approaches of instructional supervision and identifying

which works best for a specific school setting;

 102

4. A professional training aimed at enhancing the capacity of teachers to enhance

their competence based on the effective approach of instructional supervision;

and

5. A study on the subject matter on a wider or different scope to encourage school

heads to cultivate their relations with their teachers to enhance their

competencies.
 103

REFERENCE

Abulon, E. (2014). Basic Education Teachers’ Concept of Effective Teaching: Inputs to

Teacher Education Curriculum in the Philippines. International Journal of
Research Studies in Education. Volume 3, Number 3, July, 2014.

Amina, J. (2015). An Evaluation of Head teachers Performance in Supervision of

Instruction and Involvement of Staff in Decision-Making in the School.
International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies. Volume 2,
Issue 7, July 2015.

Awuah, P. (2011). Supervision of Instruction in Public Primary Schools in Ghana:

Teachers’ and Headteachers’ Perspective.Dissertation. Murdoch University,
Ghana.

Babalola, V. & Hafsatu, A. (2016). School Administration and Instructional Supervision

of
Secondary School Chemistry for Students’ Academic Performance. Issues in
Scientific Research Vol.1 (3),pp. 27-36,April 2016.

Choy, D., et al. (2011). Beginning Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Level of Pedagogical
Knowledge and Skills: Did They Change Since Their Graduation From Initial
Teacher Preparation? Asian Pacific Educational Review, 12, 79-87.

Faltado, A. and Faltado,R.(2014). Needs Assessment of Novice Teachers: Basis for a

Model Assistance Program. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial
Research. Vol.1, No. 2, October 2014. Web.

Hamzah, M. (2013). Supervision Practices and Teachers’ Satisfaction in Public

Secondary Schools: Malaysia and China. International Education Studies.Vol. 6,
No.8; 2013.

Hoffman, R. H. &Tesfaw, T. A. (2012). Instructional Supervision and Its Relationship

with Professional Development: Perception of Private and Government
Secondary School Teachers in Addis Ababa.MA Theses, Faculty of Behavioral
and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Netherland. Retrieved on 15 Dec
2016 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED534226, Online Submission, 2012 – ERIC.
 104

Kadtong, M. and Usop, D. (2013).Work Performance and Job Satisfaction among

Teachers. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Vol. 3 No. 5,
March 2013. Web.

Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher

Effectiveness? A Review of the Research (Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute,
2016).

Kuizon, M. & Reyes, R. (2014). Extent of Instructional Supervision Implementation in

the Basic Education Schools: Effects on School Performance. Annals of Studies
in Science and Humanities.Vol. 2 No. 1, 2014.Web.

Limon, M. (2015). Role Performance of TLE Supervisors: Its Implications to Supervisory

Practices in University Setting.International Journal of Vocational and Technical
Education Research.Vol.1, No.3, pp.35-44, December 2015.Web.

Nwaneri PN, Ikwuegbu PN (2016). Leadership Challenges in Inspection and

Supervision. In S. O. Oluwuo, V. C. Onyeike & J. D. Asodike (eds). Supervision
and Inspection in Schools for Productivity: emerging perspectives. Port Harcourt:
Pearl Digital Press. pp. 110- 120.

Nwankwo IN (2013). Research report and article writing in educational management

and social sciences. Awka: Love-Isaach Consultancy Services.

Nzegbulem PSC, Anyaogu RO (2016). Supervision and Inspection for Quality

Assurance and Quality Control in Education. In: S.O.

Oluwuo, V. C. Onyeike and J. D. Asodike (eds). Supervision and Inspection in Schools

for Productivity: emerging perspectives. Port Harcourt: Pearl Digital Press. pp.
58-76.

Pescuela, C. (2015). Extent of School Administrators’ Implementation of Instructional

Leadership and Its Relationship to their Teachers’ Performance. Thesis.
Foundation University. Dumaguete City.
 105

Rees, R. (2015). Beginning Teachers' Perceptions of Their Novice Year of Teaching. All
Graduate Theses and Dissertations.Paper 4229.

Torres, R. (2014). Administration and Leadership Behavior of Elementary School

Principals in Relation to Teachers’ and Pupils’ Performance.Thesis. Foundation
University.

Tshabalala, T. (2013). Teachers’ Perceptions towards Classroom Instructional

Supervision: A Case Study of Nkayi District in Zimbabwe. International J. Soc.
Sci. & Education. Vol.4 Issue 1, 2013.

Tyagi, R.S. (2010). School-Based Instructional Supervision and The Effective

Professional Development of Teachers.A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, Special Issue: Globalisation, Educational Governance
and Decentralisation, 40(1): 111-125.

Yukl, G., 2010. Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
341080097_Instructional_Supervision_and_Performance_Evaluation_A_Correlation_of
_Factors retrieved January 12, 2021

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081647.pdf retrieved on January 12, 2021

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-
288X (Online) Vol.6, No.10, 2
 106

Appendix A

Letter of Permission to Conduct the Study

February 8, 2021

JONATHAN S. DELA PEŇA,

Schools Division Superintendent
Division of Misamis Oriental
Don Apolinar Velez Street, Cagayan de Oro City

Sir:
I am currently writing my dissertation: “ School Heads Instructional Supervision
on Teachers Competence and Learners Achievement: Basis for School Management
Plan”.
This study will be for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course
Doctor of Philosophy in Educational administration and Supervision at Cagayan de Oro
College, Phinma Education Network.
In this connection, may I have the honor to request permission from your good
office to conduct a research study to generate information on school Heads Instructional
Supervision on Teachers Competence and Learners achievement among our selected
elementary schools. The respondents in this study will be the teachers and the
respective school heads from said selected elementary schools. The result of this study
will serve as basis for school management planning.

I am looking forward for your positive response on this request.

Very truly yours,

ANELITO B. CALLO
Researcher

Appendix B
 107

Letter and Questionnaire to School Head

Dear Sir/Madame,

I am currently writing my dissertation titled “School Heads Instructional

Supervision on Teachers Competence and Learners Achievement: Basis for School
Management Plan”. The purpose of this research is to generate information on school
Heads Instructional Supervision on Teachers Competence and Learners achievement
and hope to come up a design for the school heads instructional supervision
management plan.

You are one of the respondents chosen for the survey. I am earnestly requesting
your kind cooperation to answer all the items as carefully and honestly as you can. I
assure you that your responses shall be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Thank you very much and God Bless you.

Respectfully yours,

ANELITO B. CALLO
Researcher
PHINMA Graduate School

Questionnaire
 108

PART I: School Heads Characteristics

Directions: Please read each statement carefully and put a check on the parenthesis

that corresponds to your answer to every item.

Name (Optional) ___________________________

Name of School (Optional) __________________________

1. Age ( ) 60 years old and above

( ) 50-59 years old

( ) 40–49 years old

( ) 30-39 years old

( ) less than 30 years old

2. Sex ( ) Male

( ) Female

3. Position

( ) Principal IV

( ) Principal III

( ) Principal II
 109

( ) Principal I

( ) Head Teacher IV

( ) Head Teacher III

( ) Head Teacher II

( ) Head Teacher I

4. Highest Educational Attainment

( ) Doctorate Degree Holder

( ) With Doctorate Degree Units

( ) Master’s Degree Holder

( ) With Master’s degree Units

( ) Bachelor Degree Holder

5. Number of years as school head

( ) More than 11 years

( ) 7-11 years

( ) 2-6 years

( ) Less than 2 years

6. Related trainings/seminars attended

 110

Level 5 and above 3 -4 1-2 None

International

National

Regional

Division

District

School

7. Attitude towards instructional supervision

For each of the following statements about attitude towards instructional

supervision, please check the box of the number that corresponds to your choice.

4 Strongly Agree 2 Disagree

3 Agree 1 Strongly Disagree

Indicators 4 3 2 1

11. I love doing supervision with my teachers

12. I enjoy providing technical assistance to

teachers as a result of my supervision.

13. I love praising and complimenting teachers for

their work and accomplishments.

 111

14. I enjoy spending time with my teachers for

conference after class observation.

15. I believe that providing teachers with advice will

improve their work performance.

16. I know that supervisory meetings are important

for teachers and me.

17. I believe that encouraging teachers to work is

necessary for effective supervision.

18. I love giving my teachers helpful feedback.

19. I enjoy reading teachers’ reports submitted on

time.

20. I find my teachers very interesting and

challenging to work with.

PART II: Instructional Supervision

 112

Directions: Read each item carefully and put a check on the space that

corresponds to your answer. Please use the following options.

4 At all times 2 Sometimes

3 Most of the time 1 Never

A. Developmental Supervision
Indicators 4 3 2 1
As a school head, I …
16. help teachers in utilizing the new instructional
materials developed for the learners.
17. guide teachers in their proposed classroom
innovation.
18. act as facilitator in directing teachers’
instructional problems.
19. listen to teachers problems by asking them
about their students who are bored with the
lesson.
20. expect that teachers make wise decisions
about their own class problem.
21. encourage teachers to analyze their problem
by saying “Please go on;” “Explain that further”;
or “tell me more.”
22. involve teachers in the planning of the
supervisory process prior to supervision.
23. am frank and open to teachers’ suggestion .

24. discuss with teachers the options that can be

negotiated to find solution.
25. considers each other’s ideas until we agree on
what should be done to solve problem in the
class.
26. ends up with a plan to be carried out by all
teachers assuming responsibility for the results
of implementing it.
27. clarifies problems and listen to the teachers’
perception about it.

28. considers each other’s ideas to bring back

enthusiasm and motivation of teachers’.

29. tackle the problem, plan activities, and make

 113

decisions together with the me.

30. assume responsibility for the results of
whatever action will come out with the
teachers.
B. Clinical Supervision
Indicators 4 3 2 1
As a school head, I …
1.establish a trusting relationship with teachers before
the observation.
2. start the supervisory process by clarifying my role
as school head before the actual class observation.
3. discuss with teachers how they want to be
observed.
4. discuss with teachers their lesson plan and make
revision before the actual teaching
5. discuss with teachers the best strategy before
class observation.
6. go to the teachers’ classroom and observe how
they teach and how their students respond to their
teaching.
7. come up with an objective record of the entire
instructional process.
8. observe teachers to help them develop their skills
in teaching.
9.do a careful analysis of the classroom data that I
have in the classroom observation.
10. go through the observation data and label the
cause and effect situations that have been recorded.
11. identify the decisions and actions of teachers and
their effects on the learners.
12.analyze the data that my teachers and I agreed
during our pre-observation conference.
13. provide guidance to improve their teaching during
the post-observation conference.
14.acknowledge teacher’s strength during the post -
observation conference.
15 share the evaluation of teachers during the post -
observation conference to prevent biases and make
the discussion more orderly,
C. Differentiated supervision
Indicators 4 3 2 1
As a school head, I …
1. conduct needs analysis to identify and evaluate the
type of supervision my teachers need.
2. provide teachers the reason/s of analyzing their
supervisory needs as teachers.
 114

3. implement supervisory approaches that I see

important to apply for teachers.
4. find solutions to some issues regarding appropriate
supervisory approaches for teachers.
5. hold meeting with teachers about the differentiated
supervisory system and the various options under it.
6.ask teachers to choose their preferred supervisory
option and allow them to explain their choice.
7. provide teachers with templates for the
Differentiated Supervisory Program (DSP)
8.introduce Differentiated Supervisory Program to
teachers such as Clinical Supervision , Cooperative
Professional Development , Self-Directed
Development , and Administrative Monitoring .
9.let teachers discuss, present feedback, take note of
comments and revise in their DSP group their DSP
with me prior to implementation.
10.constantly monitor teachers in the implementation
of the Differentiated Supervisory Program (DSP) in
school along with designated Head Teachers and
Master Teachers.
11. allow teachers to change their Differentiated
Supervisory Program (DSP) after realizing that their
choices are not the best in actual practice.
12. suggest to continue with their programs for at
least two months before they decide to change to
another program, if necessary.
13.encourage teachers to sustain their chosen
Differentiated Supervisory Program to completely see
the impact of this program.
14.instruct teachers who are undergoing the same
mode of supervision to meet and evaluate their
experiences at the end of the agreed implementation
period.
15. assign group leader to record proceedings of the
meeting and recommendations.

PART III A TEACHERS’ COMPETENCE

 115

Direction: Please indicate your answer by checking the column of your choice.

4 At all times 2 Sometimes

2 Most of the times 1 Never

A .Knowledge of the content of subject areas

Indicators 4 3 2 1
My teachers…
1. apply extensive knowledge of content in his / her area
of specialization.
2. motivate learners to investigate the content area to
expand their knowledge and satisfy their natural
curiosity.
3. cite intra and interdisciplinary content relationship.
4. show expertise of the content and use appropriate
pedagogy in delivering the lesson.

5. give opportunities for learners to synthesize or

summarize information within or across disciplines.
B. Application of teaching strategies
My teachers…
1. employ activities that enhance and support learners’ higher
level of literacy and/or numeracy skills as a significant part of
his/her instruction.
2. provide appropriate instructional adaptation for diverse
learners that allow them to have opportunities to actively
engage in various realistic and effective learning activities.
3. skillfully manage diverse instructional materials that
encompass other disciplines which consistently support
the learning goals.
4. thoughtfully plan the class progression from the warm-up
to the main activity. The review of basic concepts and the
activities that followed are effective in taking the
application of this knowledge to the next level of
exploration.
5. use variety of teaching strategies to enhance the higher
order thinking skills and critical thinking skills of the
learners
C. Application of teaching strategies
My teachers…
1. use assessment strategies that engage learners to use
assessment criteria to self-monitor and reflect on their own
progress.
 116

2. prompt learners to frequently assess their own work and

the work of their peers using assessment criteria
embedded in the teacher-learners-generated rubrics, peer
review.
3. provide sensible and prejudice-free assessment to
learners’ needs and carefully address them at the right
time.
4. provide corrective feedback, either direct or indirect, to
learners to ensure learners’ misconceptions are corrected.
5. ensure that learners are guided and have mastered the
necessary skills during the formative assessment prior to
the conduct of summative assessment.
D. Interpersonal relationship
My teachers…
1. encourage the learners to take responsibility of their
behavior.
2. provide moral, spiritual, psychological, emotional and
intellectual support to their learners according to their
diverse needs.
3. provide timely compliment and appreciation and
constructive feedback for every learner’s achievement and
performance.
4. give learners fair and biased-free treatment with due
respect to diverse personalities or individualities.
5. Present themselves approachable to learners, parents
and other stakeholders.
E. Professional Development
My teachers…
1. have the knowledge and ability to select appropriate
professional activities for their improvement
2. participate in professional development activities in a form
of trainings, seminar-workshops and higher education
acquisition
3. choose their own professional development opportunities
based on their needs and capabilities.
4. have improved their classroom instruction as a result of
the trainings/seminars attended
5. acquire professional development for self-fulfillment and
career promotion.

PART III B. LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT

(To be filled out by the researcher)

 117

Subject Areas School Year 2020 – 2021

1st Grading 2nd Grading Average

Mathematics

Science

English

Appendix C
 118

Letter and Questionnaire to Teachers

Dear Sir/Madame,

I am currently writing my dissertation titled “School Heads Instructional

Supervision on Teachers Competence and Learners Achievement: Basis for School
Management Plan”. The purpose of this research is to generate information on school
Heads Instructional Supervision on Teachers Competence and Learners achievement
and hope to come up a design for the school heads instructional supervision
management plan.

You are one of the respondents chosen for the survey. I am earnestly requesting
your kind cooperation to answer all the items as carefully and honestly as you can. I
assure you that your responses shall be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Thank you very much and God Bless you.

Respectfully yours,

ANELITO B. CALLO
Researcher – PHINMA
Graduate School

Questionnaire
 119

PART I: Teachers Characteristics

Directions: Please read each statement and put a check on the parenthesis that

corresponds to your answer in every item.

Name (Optional) ___________________________

Name of School (Optional) __________________________

1. Age ( ) 60 years old and above

( ) 50-59 years old

( ) 40–49 years old

( ) 30-39 years old

( ) less than 30 years old

2. Sex ( ) Male

( ) Female

3. Position

( ) Master Teacher II

( ) Master Teacher I

( ) Teacher III

( ) Teacher II

( ) Teacher I
 120

4. Highest Educational Attainment

( ) Doctorate Degree Holder

( ) With Units in Doctorate Degree

( ) Master’s Degree Holder

( ) With Units in Master’s degree

( ) Bachelor’s Degree Holder

5. Number of years as teachers

( ) More than 11 years

( ) 7-11 years

( ) 2-6 years

( ) Less than 2 years

6. Attitude towards instructional supervision and teaching competence

 121

For each of the following statements about attitude towards instructional

supervision, please check the box of the number that corresponds to your level of

agreement.

4 Strongly Agree 2 Disagree

3 Agree 1 Strongly Disagree

Indicators 4 3 2 1

1. I appreciate the support and guidance of our school

head.
2. I love being praised and complimented by my
school school head for the tasks and accomplishments
done.
3. I enjoy spending time with my school head for
conference before and after class observation
4. I find supervisory meetings important and
challenging.
5. I believe that encouraging teachers to work is
necessary for effective supervision
6. I love to communicate well with my students.
7 I believe that teachers’ expertise will maximize
learning.
8 I know that a competent teacher has full knowledge
of subject matter he/she teachers
9. I love to inculcate moral values to my students.
10.I know that the knowledge and skills of a teacher
will enable him/her to be successful.

PART II: Instructional Supervision

 122

Directions: Put a check on the space provided for according to your choice is the best

for the following options.

4 At all times 2 Sometimes

3 Most of the time 1 Never

A. Developmental Supervision
My school head … 4 3 2 1
16. helps me in utilizing the new instructional
materials developed for the learners.
17. Guides me in my proposed classroom innovation.

18. acts as facilitator in directing my instructional

problems.
19. listens to my problems by asking me about my
students who are bored with the lesson.

20. expects that I make the wise decisions about my

own class problem.
21. encourages me to analyze my problem by
saying “Please go on;” “Explain that further”; or
“tell me more.”
22. involves me in the planning of the supervisory
process prior to supervision.
23. is frank and open to ideas suggested by the
teachers.
24. discusses with me the options that can be
negotiated to find solution.

25. considers each other’s ideas until we agree on

what should be done to solve problems in the
class..
26. ends up with a plan to be carried out by all
teachers assuming responsibility for the results of
implementing it..
27. clarifies the problem and listens to the teacher’s
perception of the problem.
28. considers each other’s ideas to bring back
enthusiasm and motivation of teachers’.

29. tackles the problem, plan activities, and makes

 123

decisions together with me.

30. assumes responsibility for the results of whatever
action with the teachers.
B. Clinical Supervision
Indicators
My school head …
16. .establishes a trusting relationship with me before
the observation.
17. starts the supervisory process by clarifying his
role as school head before the actual class
observation.
18. . discusses with me how I want to be observed.
19. discusses with me my lesson plan and makes
revision before the actual teaching
20. discusses with me before the observation how to
come up with the best strategy to test how well
my students learned their lesson.
21. goes to the my classroom and observes how I
teach and how my students respond to my
teaching.
22. comes up with an objective record of the entire
instructional process.
23. observes me to help me develop my skills in
teaching.
24. does a careful analysis of the classroom data
that he had in the classroom observation.
25. goes through the observation data and labels the
cause and effect situations that have been
recorded.
26. identifies my decisions and actions and their
effects on the learners.
27. analyzes the data that he / she and I agreed
during our pre-observation conference.
28. provides guidance to improve my teaching during
the post-observation conference.
29. acknowledges my strength during the post -
observation conference.
30. ensures to share the evaluation with me during
the post - observation conference only to prevent
biases and makes the discussion more orderly,
C. Differentiated Supervision
Indicators
My school head …
1. conducts needs analysis to identify and evaluate
the type of supervision I need.
2. provides me the reason/s of analyzing my
 124

supervisory needs as teachers.

3. implements supervisory approaches that he / she
sees important to apply for me.
4. finds solutions to some issues regarding
appropriate supervisory approaches for me.
5. holds meeting with me about the differentiated
supervisory system and the various options under it.
6. ask me to choose my preferred supervisory option
and allows me to explain my choice.
7.provides me with templates for the Differentiated
Supervisory Program (DSP)
8.introduces Differentiated Supervisory Program to
me such as Clinical Supervision , Cooperative
Professional Development , Self-Directed
Development , and Administrative Monitoring .
9.lets me discuss, present feedback, take note of
comments and revise in my DSP group my DSP with
him / her prior to implementation.
10. constantly monitors me in the implementation of
the Differentiated Supervisory Program (DSP) in
school, along with designated Head Teachers and
Master Teachers,
11. allows me to change my Differentiated
Supervisory Program (DSP) after realizing that my
choices are not the best in actual practice.
12. suggests to continue with my programs for at least
two months before I decide to change to another
program, if necessary.
13.encourages me to sustain my chosen
Differentiated Supervisory Program to completely see
the impact of this program.
14. instructs teachers who are undergoing the same
mode of supervision to meet and evaluate our
experiences at the end of the agreed implementation
period.
15. assigns group leader to record proceedings of the
meeting and recommendations.

PART III: TEACHERS’ COMPETENCE

 125

Directions: For each of the following statement about your teaching competence, please

check the column that indicates your teaching competence.

4 - At All Times 2 - Sometimes

3 - Most of the Time 1 - Never

A. Knowledge of the content of subject areas

Indicators 4 3 2 1
As a teacher, I…
6. apply extensive knowledge of content in my area of
specialization.
7. motivate learners to investigate the content area to expand
their knowledge and satisfy their natural curiosity.
8. cite intra and interdisciplinary content relationship.
9. show expertise of the content and use appropriate
pedagogy in delivering the lesson.

10. give opportunities for learners to synthesize or summarize

information within or across disciplines.
B. Application of teaching strategies
As a teacher, I…
6. employ activities that enhance and support learners’
higher level of literacy and/or numeracy skills as a
significant part of my instruction.
7. provide appropriate instructional adaptation for diverse
learners that allow them to have opportunities to actively
engage in various realistic and effective learning activities.
8. skillfully manage diverse instructional materials that
encompass other disciplines which consistently support
the learning goals.
9. thoughtfully plan the class progression from the warm-up
to the main activity. The review of basic concepts and the
activities that followed are effective in taking the
application of this knowledge to the next level of
exploration.
10. use variety of teaching strategies to enhance the higher
order thinking skills and critical thinking skills of the
learners
C.Use of assessment technique
As a teacher, I…
1. use assessment strategies that engage learners to use
assessment criteria to self-monitor and reflect on their own
progress.
2. prompt learners to frequently assess their own work and
 126

the work of their peers using assessment criteria embedded in

my teacher-learners-generated rubrics, peer review.
3. provide sensible and prejudice-free assessment to learners’
needs and carefully address them at the right time.
4. provide corrective feedback, either direct or indirect, to
learners to ensure learners’ misconceptions are corrected.
5. ensure that learners are guided and have mastered the
necessary skills during the formative assessment prior to the
conduct of summative assessment.
D. Interpersonal relationship
As a teacher, I…
1. encourage the learners to take responsibility of their
behavior.
2. provide moral, spiritual, psychological, emotional and
intellectual support to my learners according to their diverse
needs.
3. provide timely compliment and appreciation and
constructive feedback for every learner’s achievement and
performance.
4. Give learners fair and biased-free treatment with due
respect to diverse personalities or individualities.
5. Present myself approachable to learners, parents and other
stakeholders.
E. Professional development
As a teacher, I…
1. have the knowledge and ability to select appropriate
professional activities for my improvement
2. participate in professional development activities in a form
of trainings, seminar-workshops and higher education
acquisition as a result of my school head’s supervision.
3. choose my own professional development opportunities
based on my needs and capabilities.
4. have improved my classroom instruction as a result of my
school head’s supervision.
5. acquire professional development for self-fulfillment and
career promotion.
 127

Appendix D

Guide Questions for In-depth Interview with School Heads

1. What striking feature have you discovered in using developmental supervision

approach?

2. What problems have you encountered in clinical supervision approach?

3. Which of the three approaches (developmental, clinical and differentiated) in

instructional supervision do you find satisfaction? Why?

4. What challenges have you encountered with your teachers in employing instructional

supervision?

5. Which of the approaches have helped you in attaining your goals as a school head?

6. What can you suggest to improve the performance of your teachers and learners?
 128

Appendix E

Guide Questions for Focused Group Discussion with Teachers

1. What have you noticed with your school head employing developmental supervision

approach?

2. Have you encountered difficulty with your school head using clinical supervision?

3. What in differentiated supervisory approach did you find contentment?

4. What challenges have you encountered with your school head using the three (3)

approaches in instructional supervision?

5. Has your teaching competence improved with the assistance of your school head?

6. What suggestion can you give to help improve learners’ performance?

129
 130

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: ANELITO B. CALLO

Date of Birth: November 19, 1973
Civil Status: Single

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
Elementary Education Talisay Elementary School
Talisay, Gingoog City
Batch Valedictotian
SY 1983 – 1984
Secondary Education - Gingoog City National
Comprehensive
High School
Motoomull St, Gingoog City
Honorable Mention
SY 1987 – 1988
Tertiary Education - BSE – Mathematics
Capitol University
Corrales Extention, Cagayan,
De Oro City
Highest Academic Distinction
SY 1994 – 1995

Graduate Education - Master of Science in Teaching

Mathematics (MST – Math)

Mindanao University of Science

and Technology (formerl Mindanao
Polytechnic College)
 131

Cagayan de Oro City

SY 1998 – 1999

- Doctor of Philosophy in
Mathematics Education (PH.
D. Math Ed.)

Mindanao University of
Science
and Technology

Cagayan de Oro City

- Doctor of Philosophy in
Educational Administration
and Supervision
(On Going)

CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY

Career Civil Service Professional - March 1995

Professional Board Examination for Teachers - May 1995

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

June 1995 – March 1996 - College Instructor

Capitol University (formerly
Cagayan Capitol College)

Cagayan de Oro City

June 11, 1996 to August 27, 2001 - Secondary School

Teacher I
Dr. Gerardo Sabal
Memorial
National High School

PoblacionClaveria, Misamis
Oriental
 132

August 28, 2001 to October 31, 2010 - Secondary School

Teacher III
Dr. Gerardo Sabal
Memorial
National High School

PoblacionClaveria, Misamis
Oriental

November 1, 2010 to July 9, 2017 - Secondary School

Master Teacher I
Dr. Gerardo Sabal
Memorial
National High School

PoblacionClaveria, Misamis
Oriental

July 10,2017 up to present Secondary School

Principal I
Consuelo National High School

Consuelo, Magsaysay, Misamis

Oriental

Membership in Professional / Civic Organization

Member Mathematics Society of the Philippines (MSP)

Member Mathematics Society of Mindanao (MSM – Caraga Chapter)
Member Mathematics Teachers Association of the Philippines
(MTAP)
Member Philippine Physics Society
4th Honorary Degree Knights of Columbus Chapter 10487
Household Leader Single for Christ
Executive Director Claveria Municipal Tourism Council
President Division of Misamis Oriental
Math Teachers Association
SY 2018- Present
 133

President Division of Misamis Oriental

Research Enthusiast
SY 2018 - Present
Auditor Western Misamis Oriental Athletic
Association
SY 2018 - 2019