W .‘fILL,Q,dL,%3L1Iw:|l,"I£:fiQ L - JL'L'LQLILII'ILLL L"I LIL" ' IQ ‘l ‘ I II' 3 I, L ; 'LLILLQLIII . I. II... .. va- ‘Cao - m. "d‘ “‘2" ,_ . fig: _ , 51KB} 5,"...l —;-‘ , A _ , :29] I .1w1&§3'.é IsILIIEIL‘IIILIILL .I - ”r; P, Let ‘f'g : a, 2 $1.1“ $1. 25“"; ' .fl'fié-r '1 325'" 1' n a. .‘ a. . Iv ' ,‘ a“: v' -‘ a». ' - “153.2333. VW‘ . ' W ”0?; . I . 3,5,; I “‘ m '15". Q6‘ ' g. '7”. .3! .9 I233 a .‘ 1 : 3- LI '5 . ' LL, 5 ("ti .' .‘ I :'!~ I .. Id' . “ZLL‘IL‘: :1, 3,; 31K! . i I ' : ' .‘H I ‘ ‘ 1' ' ‘ D‘u ‘ ‘11,,1‘113 $.39" HM... . 1,1,1 Ki,“ ‘ .‘L 2 Q "n A" I“ ‘_,' 1- -'.V I :‘g‘lé‘h 'éfin‘u f ‘5: :‘ zi‘i. ““4 fi}.‘ V‘ I; 3 W L'I ‘ " II‘LI IL" ”I :I4 II‘I IL I,.‘ ., I q: , I 3:I I I. If.» I . 3 «Is-139 w: I “LI.“ILL QQIIILI IE: , ‘IQIE I»: I .31 31:9 Q?“ $3,”, .‘3 ' z., , 51.3fm :t‘t-Qf \ . LI? I :L ‘2‘" " I‘l\‘ M} n I, L . ' . .. I I' II .I .1 XQI Q, I “I '5. .' llIL”. I H1, I|I.~ £316,133 “1. .. M. "-'o L“: I" “A. ’Q I ' ' 43"}. '1‘1- 3‘ a .LY'JL‘ "13:13.1 I‘I‘IIL,IIII , 1, ,, L II 1 33$; ‘3’: ILL‘L‘ :LI'I'I “‘II 1w. L ' IELLII‘ L Q; 3313?: Q ,VI‘II A ' $1.1 IixLLfiLIILI tar I: I ‘IIII ., “It.“ ”I“ h“! ,I ' : \ ‘I I I .. xflI LLLLL'LI ;2 2545?}. y; :8 3'. . . I-I. - I I I'LL”! . t . LLhQLHa‘ L‘:.)LI“I"LI‘I 'I LA“ I 3’L' “L" .‘I'j‘ L In? 113M "L‘,,I -IIL-,I .L‘QLI "' in? . grins-(2.] V‘ F. . I. : Q It; .13” NIX-g; Q3II' 11,. h "LWI 3,3,...“ 3. 35., 4,-- In.“ \IL “I‘LLII hum! ”III ‘LLIIL'IE l I'il'. , y l I “-5131; 1Q? I,“ ':.!1. ,I‘ LLLLLL $14 J“ 1H Lynn‘s. “I . {if .1 IILIIIIIII .I 'II I .II .III.IL‘ '”L.I'IIILI‘.I. LILI ImIII‘.’ I ILII'L."‘;' LLLIILL ILIIIIIILI' 'L III IL‘. L“ QAILQL‘LI I I, L; LQILLQh.““IIIIML; II "LLjLEiflI‘LILLLLk‘E “I? ILLLL‘ , . , . III III. .I .._ ”LL‘L' LL‘I ”LI NILI'I";; ' L'LIILIL LLILL‘LJILHIJ ,HLL‘ Q Q'fln Q... If‘ Int «flags *9 4’ " f ‘0 t-'?-‘*rpfi '._ .. ~.\ r.‘ (f) 9’ u. 6" 33“? ' ..‘ f’u' x‘" .. :2. . 1:1: ch . vat ‘mwy / ”M This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PERCEPTIONS OF SUPERVISORY PROCESS: A STUDY OF ANAMBRA (NIGERIA) SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS presented by SAMUEL IKECHUKWU OKWUANASO has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Administration 6 Curriculum- degree in (Emphasis K-12 Administra- tion) [mg $164” ajor professor Date Oct. 25, 1983 .MSU is an Aflirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 IV1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to man/truss remove this checkout from ” your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. “a I!“ i 2‘" J u: :a: y mi 3 a f d: 7? :5. f; raw 6" -. PERCEPTIONS OF SUPERVISORY PROCESS: A STUDY OF ANAMBRA (NIGERIA) SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS BY Samuel Ikechukwu Okwuanaso A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF SUPERVISORY PROCESS: A STUDY OF ANAMBRA (NIGERIA) SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS BY Samuel Ikechukwu Okwuanaso This study was designed to determine how best to supervise teachers to help them teach more effectively. It sought to: (1) determine supervisory processes used in selected secondary schools in Anambra (Nigeria), (2) find which were perceived by teachers and principals as important, and (3) offer suggestions based on study findings to promote effective educational supervision in Anambra. An urban-rural sample of 212 teachers and 69 prin— cipals from 34 secondary schools in Anambra State, that favored males by 56 percent among teachers and 77 percent among principals, was administered a two-part question- naire of closed-ended questions. Teachers' and principals‘ opinions were solicited regarding: (l) procedures for class— room supervision, (2) establishing and maintaining super— visory relationships and (3) exercising technical super- visory skills. Twenty-two research questions were focal points of the study and indices of the primary purpose of supervision, Samuel Ikechukwu Okwuanaso applicability of the supervisory process, and the importance of supervisory process were formulated. One research ques- tion identified the components of each index and two others examined the effects of the respondent's position and years of teaching experience on that index. Subjects' responses were analyzed using chi-square, t—test, or Analysis of Var- iance, according to which statistical procedures was most able to discriminate significant differences within the variables. Analysis results indicated that both teachers and principals perceived the principal as the primary source of supervision in Anambra schools. Other major findings revealed that supervision was infrequent and irregular; almost 80 percent of the teachers reported a total lack of observation during the past five years or only one ob- servation. Generally, teachers and principals agreed on "improvement of instruction" as the primary purpose of super— vision. Statistically or proportionately*, the teachers and the principals disagreed on which supervisory statements applied, and were important for the improvement of instruc- tion in their schools. The most neglected area of supervision in Anambra was establishment and maintenance of good interpersonal relations. Both teachers and principals perceived the *This means that in those cases wherestatistical dif- ferencesvmme'not found, proportional differences were observed. Samuel Ikechukwu Okwuanaso supervisory exercise of technical skills as the most im- portant factor in the improvement of instruction. DEDICATION Dedicated to: My parents, Dorah and Elijah Okwuanasoanya, for their love and the value they placed on the edu— cation of young people. All Nigerian children, for whom I wish a better education. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the course of the doctoral program, I received guidance, support, and assistance from many individuals and organizations to whom I am deeply indebted. When Dorah Nwanneka Ikegwuani and Elijah Okeke Okwuanasoanya decided their existence warranted duplication for the sixth time, my life path was begun. For many years, my parents guided me with their optimistic, persevering and achievement-oriented philosophy of life. While neither of them is living to share the culmination of my Ph.D. studies with me in a visible manner, I acknowledge their spiritual presence which continues to contribute immeasurably to the quality and direction of my life. I am sincerely grateful to Dr. Stanley Hecker, Chairman of the guidance committee, and to Drs. Robert Poland, Rex Ray, and Louis Romano, who served as committee members. This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of the 281 secondary school teachers and prin- cipals in Anambra State of Nigeria who participated in the survey. Their cooperation is greatly appreciated. A special note of appreciation is extended to Messers Eric Okafor, Edwin Okwuanaso, Simon Nneli, and Josiah iii Ezeama for their assistance in administering the study instruments. Appreciation is also expressed to my colleague and friend, Mr. Iroabueke Elekwa, for his readiness to take care of some of my domestic concerns at Enugu during my absence from Nigeria and for providing the map used in this dissertation. A particular kind of gratitude is owed to the In- stitute of Management and Technology, Enugu, for study leave and financial support. My heartfelt appreciation is due my wife, Kate, for her support and to our children, Nwanneka and Chinelo, for their patience, understanding, and sacrifices during the course of my program. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE List of Tables ...... . ........................ ...... Viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION................................ 1 Background. ........ ....... ...... .. .......... 1 Need for the Study: Theoretical Bases...... 3 Statement of the Problem.................... 6 The Significance of the Study.. ...... . ..... . 8 Delimitations of the Study .................. 9 Limitations of the Study.................... 10 Definition of Terms............ ...... ....... 11 Organization of the Study ....... . ........... 13 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE... .......... .. ..... 15 The Purpose of Supervision..... ............. 15 The Need for Supervision ..... ............... 20 Improvement of Supervisory Process.......... 27 General Guidelines....................... 27 Maintenance of Adequate Environment and Communication........................ 34 Peer Supervision......................... 36 Developmental Supervision........ ....... . 39 Clinical Supervision ..... ................ 44 Perceptions of Supervisory Process.......... 59 Teachers' Perceptions of Supervision..... 6O Discrepancy Between Teachers' and Supervisors' Perceptions of Supervision.. 62 Summary..................................... 76 III. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY......... 78 The Population and Sample................... 78 Selection............ ................... . 78 Description.............................. 79 Survey Instruments.......................... 86 Construction...... ....................... 86 Description.............................. 87 Pilot Test............................... 88 Chapter Page III. Method of Collecting Data...... ............ 88 Procedure Used in Collecting Data ..... .. 88 Analysis of Questionnaire Returns ...... . 89 Research Design... .............. . .......... 91 Research Questions... ..... .. ............ 91 Data Analysis ................ . ............. 92 Summary.. .................................. 93 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ............................... 95 Introduction ......... . .................... . 95 Analysis of the Data ....................... 96 Responsibilities for Supervision ...... .. 96 Frequency of Supervision ...... . ...... ...102 Purpose of Supervision .............. ....104 Applicability of Supervisory Process....108 Degree of Importance of Supervisory Process ........................ . ...... ..134 Other Research Questions......... ....... 172 Discussion of Findings .......... ..... ...... 176 Responsibility for Supervision ....... ...l76 Frequency of Supervision ................ 179 Purpose of Supervision.. ................ 180 Applicability of Supervisory Process....181 Degree of Importance of Supervisory Process.. ........ ................ ..... ..185 Other Research Questions ................ 189 Summary ............... ... ..... ...... ..... ..192 V. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..... .193 Summary ................................... .193 The Purpose and Significance of the StUdy ........ .0....00000... ...... 0.0....193 Literature Review ....................... 194 Methodology and Design..................195 Analysis of the Data and the Findings...l97 Implications of the Findings ............... 200 For the Principal or Supervisor.........201 For the State Schools Management Board..203 For Teacher Education Institutions ...... 204 Implications for Further Research.......205 Conclusions ..... ................... ....... .206 vi Chapter FOOTNOTES .......... ..... ..... ..... ....... APPENDICES.. ..... ....... ............... .. A. Names of the Secondary Schools Studied......00.0.00....0..00..0.. B. Map showing the Locations of the Local Government Areas Studied.... C. Transmittal Letter for Teachers... D. Transmittal Letter for Principals. E. Research Instrument............... F. Codes for Part I of the Research Instrument........................ BIBLIOGRAPHY..... ........................ vii Page 209 221 221 222 223 224 225 238 243 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Number of Urban and Rural Schools Included in Sample by Local Government Areas...........80 Number of Teachers Surveyed According to Location, Student Population, and Teacher Population of the Schools.....................81 Number of Teachers Surveyed According to Sex, Level of Education, and Teaching Experience... ........ ............... ..... .....82 Number of Teachers Surveyed According to Teaching Subject Areas........................83 Number of Principals Surveyed According to Location, Student Population, and Teacher Population of the School......................84 Number of Principals Surveyed According to Sex, Pre-Administrative Teaching Experience, and Administrative Experience........... ...... 85 Number and Percentage of Principals and Teachers Involved in the Distribution and Return of the Questionnaires..... ..... . ....... 90 Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square of Who Actually Supervises the Teachers and Who the Principals Think Should Supervise....... ........ ............. ......... 97 Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square of Teachers' Perceptions of Who is Re- sponsible for Supervision by Years of Teaching Experience................... ...... ..99 Principals' Preferences and Reasons for Instructional Supervision Responsibility.100 Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square of Teachers and the Number of Times They Were Supervised in the Last Five Years, By Location of School................... ........ 103 Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square of the Number of Times Teachers Were Super- vised in the Last Five Years, by Years of Teaching Experience.......................105 Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Primary Purpose of Supervision........106 viii TABLE 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Frequencies, Percentages,and Chi Square of Teachers' Perceptions of the Primary Purpose of Supervision, by Years of Teaching Experience.........................107 Factor Pattern, Item Means, and Standard Deviation of 281 Teachers and Principals in Anambra State............................110 Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Applicability of Supervisory Statements Relating to Procedures for Classroom Supervision.................. ..... 114 Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Competence in Assisting the Teacher.........1l7 Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Working Relationship with the Teacher.......118 Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Establishment and Maintenance of Rapport with the Teacher............................1l9 Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Encouragement of Teacher Self—Evaluation....121 Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Enthusiasm for Teacher Involvement in the Supervision Process.........................122 Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of the Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Procedures for Classroom Supervision.124 Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Super- visor's Competence in Assisting the Teacher.126 ix TABLE Page 24. Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Applicability of Super- visory Statements Relating to the Super- visor's Working Relationship with the Teacher..... ...... ...........................128 25. Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Applicability of Super— visory Statements about Supervisor's Es— tablishment and Maintenance of Rapport with the Teacher.............................13- 26. Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Applicability of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Encouragement of Teacher Self-Evaluation........................ ...... 132 27. Frequencies, Percentages, and Chi Square of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Applicabiliyt of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Enthusiasm for Teacher Involve— ment in the Supervision Process... ..... . ..... 133 28. Percentages of Teachers' and Principals' Responses About the Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Pro— cedures for Classroom Supervision............135 29. Percentages of Teachres' and Principals' Responses Regarding the Importance of Supervisory Statements About the Super- visor's Competence in Assisting the Teacher......................................138 30. Percentages of Teachers' and Principals' Responses Regarding the Importance of Supervisory Statements About the Super- visor's Working Relationship with the Teacher......................................139 31. Percentages of Teachers' and Principals' Responses Regarding the Importance of Supervisory Statements About the Super- visor's Establishment and Maintenance of Rapport with the Teacher........... ....... 140 32. Percentages of Teachers' and Principals' Responses Regarding the Importance of Supervisory Statements About the Super- visor's Encouragement of Teacher Self— Evaluation...................................l42 TABLE 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Page Percentages of Teachers' and Principals' Responses Regarding the Importance of Supervisory Statements About the Super- visor's Enthusiasm for Teacher Involvement in Supervision....................... ........ 143 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Prin- cipals' Perceptions of the Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Procedures for Classroom Supervision.....144 Means and T—Values of Teachers' and Prin- cipals' Perceptions of the Importance, in the Improvement of Instruction, of the Supervisory Statements About the Super— visor's Competence in Assisting the Teacher..l46 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Prin- cipals' Perceptions of the Degree of Importance in the Improvement of Instruction of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Working Relationship with the Teacher.............................l47 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Prin— cipals' Perceptions of the Degree of Im— portance in the Improvement of Instruction of the Supervisory Statements About the Supervisor's Establishment and Maintenance of Rapport with the Teacher..................149 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Prin- cipals' Perceptions of the Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Supervisor's Encouragement of Teacher Self-Evaluation........ ...................... 150 Means and T—Values of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Supervisor Enthusiasm for Teacher Involvement in Supervision........... ........ 151 Means and T—Values of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Degree of Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Procedures for Classroom Supervision.....153 Means and T-Values of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Degree of Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Supervisory Competence in Assisting the Teacher.. .................. ..... ............. 154 xi TABLE 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. Page Means and T-Values of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Degree of Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Supervisory Competence in Assisting the Teacher................................154 Means and T—Values of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to the Supervisor's Establishment and Maintenance of Rapport with the Teacher...........................157 Means and T-Values of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Supervisor Encouragement of Teacher Self-Evaluation...158 Means and T-Values of Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of the Importance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Supervisor Enthusiasm for Teacher Involvement in the Supervision Process.... ..... . ..... .....159 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Impor- tance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Procedures for Classroom Supervision, by Those Who Said They Did Apply and By Those Who Said They Did Not Apply..................... ......... 161 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Im— portance of the Supervisory Statements About the Supervisor's Competence in Assisting the Teacher, By Those Who Said They Did Apply and By Those Who Said They Did Not Apply....................l64 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Impor- tance of the Supervisory Statements About the Supervisor's Working Relation- ship with the Teacher, By Those Who Said They Did Apply and By Those Who Said They Did Not Apply....................166 Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Impor- tance of the Supervisory Statements About the Supervisor's Establishment and Maintenance of Rapport with the Teacher, By Those Who Said They Did Apply and By Those Who Said They Did Not Apply...l68 xii TABLE 50. 51. 52. 53. Page Means and T-Values of Teachers' and Principal's Perceptions of the Im- portance of the Supervisory Statements About Supervisor Encouragement of Teacher Self—Evaluation, by Those Who Said They Did Apply and By Those Who Said They Did Not Apply.................169 Means and T—Values of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of the Impor— tance of the Supervisory Statements Relating to Supervisor Enthusiasm for Teacher Involvement in the Supervision Process, by Those Who Said They Did Apply and By Those Who Said They Did Not Apply...................................171 Mean Indices of Applicability for Six Factor Categories of Supervisory Statements for Teachers and Principals ..... .173 Mean Indices of Importance for the Six Factors Considered in Supervisory Statements for Teachers and Principals......l75 xiii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background The goals of educational supervision are the im- provement of instruction and the continuing professional development of teachers. The concept of educational supervision in Nigeria goes back to 1882, when an inspector of schools was ap- pointed for West African Colonies. Since then, the in- spectorate units of the country's Ministries of Education have been under serious criticism over the way they carry out supervision in Nigerian schools. The public and teachers criticize them on the grounds that they not only fail to provide the necessary guidance and leadership but that the inspectors themselves assume the role of intelligence of- ficers from the Ministry of Education. The inspectors are also accused of being very reluctant to praise the work of others and of being too critical of existing practice with- out offering acceptable and constructive alternatives. The educational expansion with significant school enrollment increases that began in Nigeria in 1955 helped to make the inadequacy of the services of the inspectorate l more glaring. Headmasters and principals of schools joined with the public and teachers in criticizing the inefficient way supervision was carried out in Nigerian schools. Many headmasters and principals complain that their schools have not been regularly visited, and that even when inspection is done it is far from being thorough. Inspection reports are infrequently made available to the schools and there are no follow-ups that could determine that the weaknesses identified have been corrected. In view of these mounting criticisms and the many educational problems facing the country, the governments in Nigeria have started to emphas- ize the importance of effective supervision in the country's schools. The Federal Government in its National Policy on Education published in 1977, stated that the success of any system of education is dependent on inspection and super- vision. It directed that the Ministries of Education should carry out regular inspection and supervision of schools. In Anambra State (Nigeria), the government accepted the recommendation of the Committee on the Restructure of Education. The Committee was set up on October 12, 1979, and published its report in 1980. The report identified poor and infrequent inspection and supervision of schools as one of the major problems of the state's educational sys— tem. It recommended a systematic, thorough, and regular in- spection and supervision of primary and post-primary schools in the State. The report of the Committee on the Restructure of Education, as it pertains to supervision, was approved by many people in Anambra State who, however, pointed out that supervision in the state's educational system cannot be systematic, thorough, and regular as long as it remains the sole responsibility of the inspectors of education. They believed that principals and headmasters of schools should be more actively involved in the supervisory program of the state's educational system. Need for the Study: Theoretical Bases Educational supervision is essential in leading every nation's schools toward better education. This is only possible if supervisors can supervise effectively. The need for effective supervisory processes has been expressed by many writers in different ways. Harris asserted that supervision has not reached maturity through research. He stated that one of the most important steps toward improving supervisory practices and placing it on a truly professional level could come from a large—scale program of research on activity effectiveness. The effectiveness of various supervisory activities and program applied to influence persons and situations toward better instruction needs to be thoroughly researched. l McDonald2 cited the apparent lack of research con- cerning effective supervisory practices. He reported that the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Research Institutes focused upon the question, "What are the most effective procedures in supervision?" This ques— tion remained unanswered, at least in the research findings. Furthermore, the Institute planners were hard pressed to find meaningful research in the area of supervision. Another way of making supervision effective is to supervise teachers in the way they want and expect. Un- fortunately, what teachers want and expect in supervision is not what supervisors expect and want. Neville3 after analyzing numerous investigations concerning supervision concluded that: 1. Teachers do not see supervision as focusing on the improvement of instruction; 2. Teachers do not see supervision as having a "human relations" base; 3. Teachers do not see supervisors as being prepared to help them in the study of teaching; 4. Teachers want supervision that will help them attack instructional problems. Walden also discussed the difference between the perception of teachers and supervisors as to what consti- tutes effective supervision. He rightly referred to this difference as a credibility gap in supervision. He stated: The credibility gap in supervision exists not by design, but for the simple reason that when teachers, administrators, and supervisors view the functions of supervision they each develop different perceptions. Current lit- erature in this area recommends certain super- visory techniques and practices as being highly effective in improving teaching-learning process. However, the improvement of this process is dependent upon teacher attitudes toward super- vision. Although much has been written about supervision, it has not been emphasized that teachers and supervisors simply do not agree on what effective supervision 15.4 0 In a survey of elementary teachers in western New York regarding their perceptions of supervision and evalua- tion, Heichberger and Young5 recommended that the princi- pal must set the stage for open communication, as the most important link between a teacher and his supervisor is effective communication. They recommended that teachers should be partners in the process of supervision. Lovell and Phelps6 recommended that since super- visors and principals could not agree with teachers on the quantity and nature of conferences and observations and other instructional services, teachers, supervisors, and principals should make an effort to communicate in a more open and cooperative way in order to achieve mutual under- standing and support for the program of instructional ser- vices for teachers. Effective supervision is possible if supervisory processes are adjusted to the changes that are taking place in the society. Ogletree7 pointed out that supervision is not like it used to be. Experienced supervisors were aware that changes in their roles and responsibilities had been less clear than a decade ago. Also, supervisors recognized that the pressures and demands made upon them required a knowledge and skills for which many had not been prepared for either by formal preparatory programs or by experience. Practicing supervisors recognized that what had been ex- pected of them had been changing just as rapidly as their organizations' attempts to respond to the demands and pres- sures placed upon them by society and by an increasingly professional and militant staff. Ogletree further stated that teacher professionalism and its resulting militancy has affected the role of super- visors. More and more states and local boards of education have been granting professional organizations the right to negotiate. These negotiations do not only include salaries but also working conditions, inservice programs, classroom size, discipline, academic freedom, and in some instances curriculum and instruction. Statement of the Problem Before teachers and principals attempt to improve instruction, each must be aware of how the other perceives supervisory process. Due to the need for effective super— vision to help solve the mounting educational problems facing Nigeria, and due to the emphasis being set forth by the Governments in Nigeria that achievement of quality educa- tion depends on the maintenance of a high level of super- vision, the purpose of this study was to: (1) discover which supervisory processes are being used in the selected secondary schools of Anambra (Nigeria); (2) determine which supervisory processes were perceived by principals and teachers to be important; (3) offer suggestions based on the findings of the study, that would assist the Anambra (Nigeria) educational system establish effective super- visory programs. Specifically, the study sought to answer the follow- ing questions: 1.0 who actually supervises teachers in Anambra (Nigeria)? 1.1 who do principals think should be responsible for instructional supervision? 1.2 what are the reasons for the principals views as regards who should be responsible for instructional supervision? 2.0 how frequently are teachers supervised in Anambra State? 2.1 are teachers in urban schools more frequently supervised than experienced teachers? 2.2 are inexperienced teachers more frequently supervised than experienced teachers? 3.0 what is the primary purpose of supervision in Anambra State of Nigeria? 3.1 do teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision differ from those of the princi- pals? 3.2 do inexperienced teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision differ from those of experienced teachers? IhIIIIII:________________:I------------—t 4.0 which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra State schools? 4.1 do the supervisory processes perceived by the teachers as being used in the State differ from those of the principals? 4.2 do the supervisory processes perceived by in- experienced teachers as being used in the state differ from those of the experienced teachers? 5.0 which supervisory processes are considered im- portant in improving instruction in Anambra state schools? 5.1 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by all teachers differ from those of all the principals? 5.2 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by inexperienced teachers differ from those of the experienced teachers? 5.3 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by teachers who say they apply to the schools differ from those of the principals who say they apply? 5.4 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by teachers who say they do not apply to the schools differ from those of the prin- cipals who say they do not apply? The Significance of the Study Teachers in Nigeria are becoming better prepared. It is imperative that supervisors of schools in Nigeria become aware of and understand the teachers' expectations of the supervisory process. In order to determine which supervisory processes principals and teachers perceived as being effective in improving instruction, it was hoped that this study would be beneficial in helping principals and supervisory officials in Anambra (Nigeria) develop super- visory programs which would better meet the instructional needs of teachers. Since there has been very little super- vision research on which to base the practice of educational supervision in Nigeria, this study was an effort to fulfill this need. Finally, as this investigator is in teacher education, and since student teaching experience may greatly shape the prospective teacher's teaching attitude and confidence, the results of this study will help the investigator use those processes teachers perceived as important in develop- ing positive teaching attitudes and confidence while super- vising student teachers during the teaching practice per- iods. Deliminations of the Study This study was deliminated in the following manner: 1. The population of this study was confined to only one out of the nineteen states in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This is Anambra State. 2. The sample of the study was confined to two urban and two rural local government areas randomly selected from the twenty—three original local government areas of Anambra State of Nigeria. 10 3. Only teachers and principals in classes four and five secondary schools were considered in this study. 4. The information reported in this study was limited to data obtained from a questionnaire administered to each secondary school principal and systematically sel— ected teachers in the selected population schools. 5. The study was limited to the academic year 1982/83. 6. Only teachers with the qualification of National Certificate of Education and above were considered in this study. Limitations of the Study A11 limitations inherent in the use of questionnaire as a data gathering instrument were applicable to this study. The questionnaire used in this investigation was adapted from one developed by Cleaver (1974) to measure teachers' perceptions of the supervisory process. The questionnaire and how it was adapted are described in Chapter Three. In order to have a reasonable response rate, the investigator made use of four experienced, knowledgeable, and responsible teachers from the selected local govern- ment areas as research assistants. These assistants per- sonally distributed and collected the questionnaires after the teachers' and principals' responses. The personal contact 11 with the respondents might affect the way the questionnaire was responded to and was a limiting factor. Finally, there is very little supervision research in Nigeria. Available literature on supervision in Nigeria is thin and most of the literature reviewed by the inves- tigator is American literature. This fact constituted a limitation to this study. Definitions of Terms In order to provide clarity of meaning, the terms as they are used in this study are defined as follows: Supervision--All efforts of a supervisor directed to the improvement of classroom instruction and the learn- ing process. Supervisor--A designated school official who has major responsibility of being of assistance to teachers as he* attempts to help solve classroom teaching-learning problems. The following are accepted for this study: subject head, departmental head, vice principal, principal, headmaster, and superintendent of schools. Supervisory Process-~A means utilized by the super- visor to improve classroom instruction and the learning process. * Here and in Similar circumstances throughout this study, "he," "his,” "him" are used in a generic sense to refer to both sexes. This is for purposes of convenience. 12 Principal--An administrative and supervisory officer in charge of a secondary school. The vice-principal is included in this definition for the purpose of administer- ing the principal's questionnaire for this study. Headmaster--An administrative and supervisory officer in charge of a primary school. Supervisory Conference--A discussion between a super- visor and a teacher concerning a common educational problem under consideration. Pre—observation Conference--A discussion between the supervisor and the teacher before the actual classroom observation by the supervisor. Post-observation Conference-—A discussion between supervisor and the teacher after actual classroom obser- vation by the supervisor. National Certificate of Education—-A teaching cer- tificate in Nigeria usually awarded after successful com- pletion of three—year education study at a College of Edu- cation, Advanced Teacher's College or Polytechnic. Experienced Teachers——Teachers with four years' teaching experience or more. Inexperienced Teachers—-Teachers with three years' teaching experience or less. 13 Organization of the Study This study was organized so that it could be pre- sented in five chapters. Chapter One introduced the sub— ject of the study, gave the background to the study, ex- plained the need for the study and stated the problem. It also explained the significance of the study, stated delimitations and limitations of the study, stated defini- tion of terms and described the organization of the study. Chapter Two consists of a review of relevant related literature which served as a general background for the study. The review was done under the following four sub- headings: The Purpose of Supervision, The Need for Super- vision, Improvement of the Supervisory Process and Per— ceptions of the Supervisory Process. Chapter Three explains the methodology utilized in order to conduct the study. It includes an explanation of the procedure used in conducting the study, the adapta- tion of the instrument, the method of analysis of data, and an analysis of questionnaire returns. Chapter Four contains a statistical analysis of the data which were collected. This analysis was designed to show who actually does the work of supervision in Anambra (Nigeria) schools, how frequently teachers are supervised, teachers' and principals' perceptions of supervisory pro- cesses being used in the selected secondary schools, and 14 the degree of importance of the supervisory processes in improving instruction. The statistical analysis also in- dicate whether there is a difference between the perceptions of the responding teachers and principals, and whether there is a difference between the perceptions of the re- sponding inexperienced and experienced teachers. Chapter Five presents the summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. The summary includes a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the procedures used in conducting the study and a summary of the findings. The conclusions are inferred directly from the statistical results. These inferences are then trans- lated into recommendations and recommendations for future study. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter presents a review of the literature and research related to the topic of this study. The chapter is presented under the following subheadings: The Purpose of Supervision; The Need for Supervision; Improvement of Supervisory Process; and Perceptions of Supervisory Process. The Purpose of Supervision The purpose of supervision has been stated by many writers in various ways. As far back as 1919 Gray stated that "the main function of supervision is the improvement of instruction, the encouragement of good work, and the constructive elimination of ineffective and misapplied energy."l Gist2 articulated three purposes of supervision. The first purpose is the improvement of teachers by making them grow in service. The second purpose is the improve- ment of teaching whereby instruction is improved from an impersonal point of view. The third purpose of super- vision as articulated by Gist is conducting research studies. The research studies would seek to develop curriculum, to 15 16 study individual children and provide for differences in interests and abilities, to improve the psychological tech- niques of teachers and to adapt classroom practices to varying social conditions. Briggs and Justman3 expressed their views about the purpose of supervision in 1952. Their views were based upon the following statement and summary of purposes. Supervision...must be defined in terms of the purposes which lend meaning to the techniques employed. The fol- lowing six of twelve purposes listed by Briggs and Justman summarize their views. 1. To help teachers see more clearly the real ends of education, and the special role of the schoolixiworking towards these ends. 2. To help teachers see more clearly the problems and needs of young people, and to help them provide, as far as possible, for these needs. 3. To help teachers to develop greater competence in teaching. 4. To induct beginning teachers into the school and into the profession. 5. To evaluate the results of each teacher's efforts in terms of pupil growth toward ap- proved ideals. 6. To assist teachers in diagnosing the learning difficulties of pupils and to help in planning effective remedial instruction. Burton and Brueckner,4 identified certain principles which govern the purpose of supervision. l. The ultimate purpose of supervision is the promotion of pupil growth and hence eventually the improvement of society. l7 2. A second general purpose of supervision is to supply leadership in securing continuity and constant readaptation in the educational program over a period of years; from level to level within the system; and from one area of learning experience and content to another. 3. The immediate purpose of supervision is co- operatively to develop favorably settings for teaching and learning: (a) supervision, through all means available, will seek im- proved methods of teaching and learning; (b) supervision will create a physical, social, and psychological climate or environment favorable to learning; (c) supervision will co-ordinate and integrate all educational efforts and materials, and will supply con- tinuity; (d) supervision will enlist the co- operation of all staff members in serving their own needs and those of the situation; will provide ample, natural opportunities for growth by all concernediJithe correction and prevention of teaching difficulties, and for growth in the assumption of new respon- sibilities; (e) supervision will aid, in— spire, lead and develop that security which liberates the creative spirit. Swearington5 broke supervision into eight major functions: (1) coordination of effort, (2) provision of leadership, (3) extension of experience, (4) stimulation of creative effort, (5) facilitating and evaluation of change, (6) analysis of learning situations, (7) contri- bution of a body of professional knowledge, and (8) in- tegration of goals. In 1963, Harris6 advocated improving teacher ef- fectiveness as the principal goal of all supervision. Similar views were expressed by many other writers like Neagley and Evans,7 Elsbree, McNally and Wynn,8 Watman,9 and Klotz and Simmon.10 18 Blumbergll viewed the purpose of supervision through two distinct roles for the supervisor; that of maintenance and that of change agent. Blumberg stated that when a supervisor and teacher interacted in a super- visory conference, two broad aims of the situation emerged. The first was to help the teacher maintain and enhance those parts of his teaching which were seen as productive. The second was to help the teacher change those aspects of his teaching in need of improvement. Lovell12 viewed supervision as facilitating teach- ing. He provided six possible functions that could facili— tate teaching. He stated and explained the six functions as follows: 1. Goal Development: Since teachers and pupils are subsystems of larger systems such as the local school, ideally, therefore, teachers, because of their expertise, should be par- ticipants in a coordinated effort to develop operational goals of teacher pupil system that will be congruent with those of local schools, school districts, and super systems. 2. Control and Coordination: Coordination and control of those unique and specialized features of an organization are unnecessary. 3. Motivation: Educational organizations must make provisions for the motivation of teaching staff to assume the achievement of educational goals. 4. Professional Development: The skills needed in teaching in a modern technological society are rapidly changing and require the continuous development of teachers in such a way to insure behavior appropriate for the achievement of the organizational goals. l9 5. Problem Solving: When teaching is conceptualized as goal identification, development or operations for achieving goals and evaluation of goal achieve- ment, human problem solving is the central activity in teacher pupil systems. 6. Since educational organizations have goals and use resources for achieving goals, it is essen- tial to provide a systematic procedure for the evaluation of the output of the educational social system. Ohlesl3 stated that the purpose of supervision has been to insure that social objectives are met and that youngsters do learn. He emphasized that, supervision has not been directly aimed at determining whether or not a teacher was to be fired or rehired, commended or reprimanded, these were incidental to the major purposes. The function of supervision has been to super— vise and guide instruction and to make adjust- ments in the curriculum, testing techniques, instructional materials, teaching, and ad- ministrative personnel. In his address to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) at its annual conference el4 inferred the purposes of at New Orleans in 1975, By supervision from various sources and summarized that the purposes of supervision have ranged from that of monitoring or policing to that of direction and stimulating. Oliva,15 conceived supervision as a means of offer- ing to teachers specialized help in improving instruction. He believes a supervisor is any school official whose pri- mary responsibility is to assist teachers in the improve- ment of the curriculum and instruction. 20 Alfonso, Firth and Nevillel6 stated that supervision is directly responsible for understanding the organization's goals, following the production procedures, meeting schedules, evaluating work and making adjustments in response to chang— ing needs. They felt that the purpose of supervision is to provide the conditions for the achievement of organiza— tional goals. Reporting the results of their study in 1982, Thompson and Ziemer supported the views of other writers about the purpose of supervision. They stated that "historical-- and contemporty-—goals of supervision in schools is the improvement of the teaching-learning task."l7 To summarize, the purpose of supervision, as indi— cated above, is to improve the quality of classroom in— struction for the benefit of the learner. To be able to achieve this purpose, teachers should be given the help that will enable them to improve their effectiveness in the classroom. Improvement of classroom instruction can be maximized not only through the continual professional growth of the teacher but also through the continual growth of the learner, the supervisor and the parents. The Need for Supervision The rate of change in every society is great and teachers need to be re-equipped by supervision with new 21 skills and knowledge in order to cope with the demands of the present. In addition, many writers have stated reasons why supervision is necessary in every educational system. Douglas, Bent, and Boardman18 gave three reasons why supervision is necessary in secondary schools. They are: l. the teaching problems of a secondary school teacher are becoming more complex and dif- ficult. These indicate the need for a supervisory program which will provide adequate professional leadership. the typical secondary school teacher has a limited preparation for teaching. This limited preparation means that teachers begin their careers with incomplete pro- fessional training which must be supple- mented by continuation of their education in service. The need for supervisory aid which “all help teachers meet their problem is therefore self-evident. the teaching load in the secondary school has grown unduly heavy. This heavy load which teachers now carry shows the need for supervisory effort to assist them. In his article published in 1962, Manlove attempted to indicate the need for supervision. He emphasized that, all teachers need help in reaching the high- est level of attainment which their training, experience, and ability will allow. Certain- ly help is needed by those who are new to the teaching field. In addition, many ex- perienced teachers need help. Some welcome . it out of their desire to improve and become master teachers, and others unfortunately need it because they have not grown professionally nor changed their techniques or methods from year to year. 19 22 Wear20 stated that the bringing of on-the-job assis- tance to teachers rapidly became recognized as a function of supervision. This has come about because of the de- velopment of a more complex society, the explosion of knowledge, the increasing enrollment of more diverse stu- dents in the schools, the development of a technical ap- proach to learning, and the development of school facilities that included well prepared teachers from varied backgrounds of training and experience. Harrison,21 felt that supervision is necessary be— cause of crowded classrooms and because schools make use of teachers with sub—standard qualifications, both in preparation and in experience. He also stated that all teachers need supervisory assistance of varying kinds and amounts. Some need it more than others. However, assis- tance is needed by all teachers at all levels. Ohles,22 in his article titled, ”Supervision: Essen— tial and Beneficial," seemed to suggest that societal pres- sures have increased the need for supervision. He indi— cated that the supervisor functioned as an agent for society. He stated that schools have been established by the social order, not by teachers and administrators. Schools must be operated for the benefit of youngsters, not teachers or administrators. Therefore, the educational process needed to be supervised to insure the societal objectives of the schools are being met and youngsters' educational needs were being served. 23 Johnson23 gave three reasons why it is necessary to supervise. The first was to protect children from incom- petent teaching; second, to administer curriculum; and third to assist each teacher to attain and maintain ef- fectiveness in instruction. In his paper presented at the Supervision of In- struction Symposium in April 1972, McNeil,24 felt that accountability, which is a societal pressure, enhanced the need and necessity of supervision. He stated that school people faced mounting pressures such that they needed to render full account of their accomplishments and deficiencies in order that society could be better served. Writing in 1973 on whether Business and Office Edu- cation teachers were receiving positive supervision, Bright25 stated three factors that point up the need for effective supervisory practices. He stated the factors as: rapid growth in the number of people involved in business edu- cation, the advancing technology, and the complexity of resource allocation. Wiles and Lovell26 indicated that expert supervisory assistance would be in demand due to the growing specializa- tion of teaching and the rapidly developing knowledge base from which content and process of teaching are derived. To help teachers be sensitive to change, develop new skills, and implement appropriate innovations should become a major task for instructional supervision. as it 24 Olivarunxxithat there is a great need for supervision is indispensable. He stated: Supervisors meet a need in our current edu- cational structure and will undoubtedly con- tinue to do so for a long time to come. Theoretically, however, we could dispense with the services of supervisors if—-a very improbable if——a11 teachers were as dynamic, as knowledgeable, and as skillful as the best supervisor. In one way the supervisor is like the clergyman who strives to make his parishoners into sinless beings. When all the parishoners have reached this happy utopian state, the need for the clergyman will have been obviated. Since it is not likely that all humans will achieve this state of sinlessness, the task of the clergyman will not be relegated to obsolescence. Since not all, perhaps few, teachers have reached a state of perfection, the need for supervision remains. 27 Besides the fact that only few teachers have reached a state of perfection, Oliva also gave two other reasons why supervision is needed. The first is that teachers have not been fully prepared by their teacher education programs. The second is that teachers differ in their abilities and needs and as such need help by way of super- vision. Nwaogu wrote on the need for supervision in Nigerian Educational System. He stated: There is a pressing need in Nigeria today in every school system to decide what to teach and how to teach it. In other words there is a need for appropriate school curriculum which is designed to be adapted 25 to the needs of the Nigerian society. Accompanying the increase of possible con- tent in the curriculum is the tremendous growth in number and type of instructional media, such as instructional films, tape recorders, radios and televisions. To cope with these excessive demands that are pressing on the existing school struct- ure, such organizational patterns as team teaching and individualized method of teach- ing have been advocated experimentally. All of this means an increasing rate of ob— solescence in content, method and materials of instruction. Supervision, then, seems destined to play an essential role in deciding the nature and content of curriculum in selecting the school organizational patterns and learning materials to facilitate teaching, and in evaluating the entire educational process. Effective coordination of the total program, kindergarten through primary and secondary schools, have never been achieved in most school systems. This, of course, is one of the most pressing needs in school edu- cation throughout Africa today. We can no longer afford the waste of human resources that is involved in overlapping courses, duplication of teaching effort which can be avoided or minimized by team teaching, and lack of continuity from one school level to the next which leads to uncoordinated ideas and knowledge in edu— cation. An effective supervision program is, therefore, needed in every school and at all levels of educational institutions to coordinate all teaching and learning efforts. 28 Gillespie, felt that supervision is necessary in every type of organization so as to increase the production of the people involved. She stated: 26 Whenever two people set out to accomplish a task, some form of authority must be established if the work is to be done ef— fectively. Although neither may under- take to oversee the work of the other, both must understand the job to be accomplished and agree about the responsibility for various aspects of the task. All organizations, whether profit oriented or non-profit oriented, have found that assigning responsibility for units of work increases the production of the people involved. All enterprises having more than two employees, therefore, will have some form of supervisory activity. In one way or another, everyone is supervised. In homes, children are supervised by parents, guardians or older relatives. In businesses, employees are supervised by owners or designated bosses. In schools, students are supervised by teachers; teachers, in turn are supervised by department Chairpersons and/or principals or deans. In hospitals, nurses are super- vised by more senior nurses or hospital ad- ministrators. In offices, clerical workers are supervised by office managers.29 In summarizing, it can be said that there is a great need for supervision of educational process. Teachers do not graduate from their preservice programs as finished products and they differ in their abilities and needs and as a result they need assistance in the form of super- vision. From the societal point of view, supervision of educational process is essential so as to insure that the social objectives of the schools are met and childrens' needs served. In Nigerian educational system particularly, supervision is necessary because of the population explosion in Nigerian schools and the need to coordinate all teach- ing and learning efforts. 27 Improvement of Supervisory Process The means by which the supervisor carries out his numerous supervisory tasks plays a significant role in determining overall supervisory program effectiveness. The literature contains many suggestions on how to improve the supervisory process. General Guidelines Antell30 reported in his study that the following practices, among others, were regarded as very helpful by over fifty percent of the respondents: (1) the supervisor acts as a consultant or technical advisor, (2) conferences to discuss common problems, (3) individual conferences with supervisor, (4) demonstration lessons. Bail31 compared the type of supervision which teachers desired with that which they received. His analysis of the informaticwi gathered :from the study was as follows: (1) teachers desire most frequently supervision which provides constructive, new techniques and methods, demonstration teaching, suggested materials and equipment, (2) teachers do not receive from supervision the service which they desire. Palmer32 studied supervisory services teachers are receiving and compared them with their desire. He compared these findings “mix: the statements of elementary school 28 consultants and principals as to the type and frequency of supervisory services being received by the teachers surveyed. Some of the major findings of Palmer's study were: 1. Teachers do want supervision of the right kind. Teachers want the cooperative, participatory, democratic type. They want help rather than answers for their problems. 2. Teachers desire supervisors who are sympathetic, understanding and democratic. The supervisor's attitude is considered to be of more importance than the services he renders. 3. Teachers want more demonstration teaching. 4. Beginning teachers appear to desire and need a somewhat different type and extent of supervisory service than required and desired by experienced teachers. For supervision to be effective, Rogers33 recommended that the supervisor will be most helpful and effective when functioning in a non-evaluative manner. He felt that evaluation by others does not facilitate one's personal growth. Argyris34 emphasized that supervisors must be com- petent in the way they relate with other people in order to help them solve problems. He linked four qualities to interpersonal competence. These qualities are the ability to: 1. Give and receive feedback about self and others so as to create minimal defensiveness. 29 2. Own, and help others own their feelings, values and attitudes. 3. Remain open to new values and attitudes and help others to have similar experiences. 4. Experiment with new values and attitudes and help others do the same. Like Rogers, Gibb stressed the need for a non— evaluative approach to supervision. He stated that growth is often hindered when one member of the helping team sets out to appraise or remedy the defects of the other member. Help is most effective when it is seen as a force moving toward growth rather than as an effort to remove gaps, remedy defects or bring another person up to a standard criterion. 35 Northcutt36 presented guidelines for the improvement of instruction through supervision in 1965. They were the result of the Montana Educational Association Curri- culum and Educational Development Committee study for the improvement of instruction through supervision. In this study, both the inexperienced and the experienced classroom teachers found supervision helpful if the con- sultant, supervisor, or principal: 1. Is friendly and warm. 2. Has time to listen and encourage questions. 3. Will observe and then help bring about improvement through constructive criticism. 4. Will look for good points and comment on these as well as the weaknesses. 10. ll. 12. Ritz and Stackpole title: Guide." 30 Takes notes as necessary on pertinent points to discuss with the teacher at another time--preferably the same day. Does not "listen in" without making presence known. Makes normal visits long enough to really see what is happening-—or not happening. Comes in frequently for short periods of time--perhaps just to look around to keep knowledgeable about progress and change. Is willing to demonstrate or to participate in teaching a class. Has had frequent visits in the classroom both formal and informal, before making a rating or recommendation. Has spaced visitations at intervals such as beginning, middle, and end of the year, in order to see growth or change. Helps secure resource persons and materials. 37 developed a module with the "Non—Evaluative Classroom Observation—~Discussion In the module, Ritz and Stackpole proposed a systematic approach which was designed to facilitate at- tainment of a teacher/supervisor collaborative partner- ship. The approach contained the following key elements: 1. "Observation" is viewed as consisting of three important phases: an initial "pre- observational conference," the observa- tional interval itself and a follow—through "post-observational conference." As implied by the module title, the super- visor does not evaluate the teacher; his role is, instead, that of non-evaluative, observer (data collector), whose chief responsibility is providing the teacher with objective observational data. 31 3. What the supervisor focuses upon during the observational (data collecting) period is collaborateively determined by the teacher and the supervisor during the pre—observational discussion; it is not something decided upon unilaterally. 4. The process yields objective feedback which the teacher can use as a basis for modifying teaching behavior in accordance with personal goals and standards. In 1972, Goldstein recommended how to improve the quality of supervision in schools. One of such recommen— dations was that of a non-telling approach to supervision. According to him, In a world where almost everyone has been graduated from college at least once, the sense of achievement, of capacity to per- form, of ability to obtain results--in other words, ego--is very strong in such an en- vironment, telling someone how to do some- thing which he feels he is licensed to do and does rather well anyway is much like bringing coals to Newcastle in the percep- tion of those who are supervised. 38 To avoid disgruntlement with the supervisory process, Goldstein also recommended a non—evaluative and a helping order approaches to supervision. He stated: While there are many other dissatisfactions one could raise, these seem sufficient to characterize the general state of things. Neither the supervisor nor the teacher is villain in this unimaginative scenario; blame or the customary hysteria about 'resistance to change' are also not an is- sue; rather, the process of supervision is very human, subject to problems which are very human, probably able to be improved by taking into account very human needs-- especially the ones of belonging and security.39 32 Harty and Ritz?O wrote on: "A Non-Evaluative Helping Relationship: An Approach to Classroom—Oriented Supervision." In this article,Harty and Ritz like the previous writers, called for a non-evaluative approach to supervision. They felt that a non-evaluative approach to supervision can assist the supervisor in building the kind of rapport and spirit of openness conducive to a truly helping relationship. About collaborative partnership approach to super- vision, Harty and Ritz observed that such an approach as proposed by Ritz and Stackpole in 1970, cannot work well unless the supervisor is genuinely interested in estab- lishingaalong-term collaborative partnership with the teacher. They emphasized that the development of the kind of relationship as proposed by Ritz and Stackpole, is gen- erally speaking, a slow process and requires mutual re— Spect and trust if the process is to be successful.41 In his study designed to generate the credible char— acteristics of science supervisors as perceived by ele- mentary school teachers, Shrigley42 indicated that the data gathered from the study showed that teachers per- ceived the office of the credible supervisor as a service rather than a rating agency. They also expected to be con- sulted on curriculum matters. On the basis of the data and results of this study, Shrigley suggested that for supervision to be effective, 33 the supervisor's visit to the classroom should be teacher- centered rather than a visit by the boss. He suggested that more credible supervisors and so effective supervision is possible if the supervisor promotes a horizontal, rather than a vertical, professional relationship with teachers. In 1982, Reck developed a model of supervision which he hoped would integrate the interrelated concerns of super— vision and would focus on the actual problems affecting educational supervision. He called this model an existen— tial model of supervision and in it made the following recommendations for the improvement of educational super- vision: 1. Creation of self-awareness through dialectic interaction between the teacher and the supervisor during the supervision process. 2. The supervisor should consider super- vision to be a process rather than a function attached to particular roles. It should, therefore, be seen as a pro- cess participated in by all members of the school community regardless of their educational position. 3. A supervisor should view a teacher as a full human (not just a teacher) who wants to help his students to the utmost and who (if approached positively and nonthreaten- ingly) will be accepting and appreciative of a supervisor's personal interaction. 4. Supervision process should aim at producing I-Thou relationships instead of producing I-it relationships. The I-Thous relation- ship reduces the distrust and fear with which supervisors and teachers often ap- proach one another. 43 34 During the same year, the results of Thompson and Ziemer's44 study supported the views of previous writers that learning-teaching situation can be improved if super- vision should imply assistance and not evaluation. The study was carried out to determine the status of super- vision in professional education. A strong consensus among the professors of supervision surveyed, was that providing assistance to teachers is preliminary to the improvement of educational programs. The teachers sur- veyed were also strong in their attitudes that supervision should imply assistance and not evaluation. Maintenance of Adequate Environment and Communication Besides the above general guidelines for improving the quality of educational supervision, some writers felt that maintaining adequate environment and communication can help to improve the supervisory process. For example, Abrell,45 contended that to facilitate encounters which encourage human growth and fulfillment among those with whom the supervisor works, he must create an encouraging, helpful, facilitative, and all-persons growth-oriented environment if anything constructive in the supervisory relationship is to occur. To create this environment and release human potential the supervisor must become a dia- logic rather than monologic communicator with others. 35 In an essay written in 1977, Beatty46 stated that the recognition of the need for dialogic communicators rather than monologic communicators and the necessary conditions for dialogue with self and others are the initial steps for the improvement of the supervision process. According to Beatty, a monologic supervisor minimizes the amount of communication which can occur in his relation- ships with others. When this happens, communication be- comes ineffective and the supervisor is no longer creating the encouraging, helpful, and facilitative environment necessary for constructive changes. On the other hand, a dialogic supervisor maximizes the amount of communication which enables the supervisor to create the encouraging, helpful and facilitative environment necessary for con- structive changes. Jones47 stated that an effective channel of com- munication must be opened between the supervisor and teacher if instruction is to be improved. As a way of helping to improve communication pro- cess, Jones presented an "Effective Supervisor Model of Communication." This model dealt specifically with the supervisor-teacher interaction process and assumed three possible blocks in the communicative process: the behavior of the supervisor, the behavior of the teacher, or the behavior of the supervisor and teacher. To remove 36 any of these possible blocks, Jones recommended as follows: (1) supervisor analyzes his behavior to know if his behavior creates the block; (2) if the supervisor's behavior does not create the block, the supervisor will then help the teacher remove the block, or make the teacher aware of where the block is originating so that the teacher can remove the block.48 Finally, Jones stressed the importance of the super— visor developing two-way communication that allows free flow of information between the supervisor and teacher and also allows the teacher to react and to suggest if there is a semantic breakdown. He concluded: Effective communication is work! It is a difficult task, and it requires the super— visor to cultivate relationships. Fore- most, it requires the supervisor to have an understanding of himself. Without self- awareness, communication blocks cannot be overcome. The supervisor must be concerned with all aspects of the communication pro- cess as well as related research. The Effective Supervisor Model of Communication provides a practical framework for such an undertaking. Each component of the communi- cation process is important because, as Sergiovanni says, supervision is communication.49 Peer Supervision Peer supervision, is another method some writers felt would help improve instruction. As a method of im— proving instruction, it underwent a considerable amount of discussion during the 1970's. The available literature 37 on peer supervision as a formal concept is small, although the educational record contains accounts of ways in which teachers have been involved in efforts to improve instruc- tion. An examination of the very small amount of literature available on peer supervision shows that, in general, writers looked at peer supervision as focusing almost exclusively on observation of teachers. BlumbergSO focused chiefly on the involvement of teachers in observing and addressing classroom behavior by means of peer and self analysis of verbal interaction. Reavis recognized the move toward peer evaluation as a natural outgrowth of teacher's dissatisfaction with the quality of supervisory visits to the classroom.51 Alfonso52 was of the view that supervision goes be— yond the narrow confine of classroom observation. In his view, some supervisory activity is directed at a teacher in a classroom; in other cases, attempt at improving in— struction may need to be building-wide or system-wide. He concluded: Teachers need a new sense of professional- ism and autonomy, but they are not inde- pendent agents and they must operate within some guidelines and respond to organizational goals. Formal supervisors provide this interpretative link, one that is essential in all organizations. It is clear, however, that the influence of supervision and instruc- tional improvement can be enhanced by the legitimate involvement of teachers in improving 38 instruction. Properly directed, peer supervision can be part of the process. Much of the current discussion of peer supervision suffers from being too limited in its conception of supervision and too sweeping in its assumptions about what peer supervision can achieve. Peer sup- ervision can make some important contri- butions; but it has its limitations, and it cannot be a substitute for formal, organizationally directed supervision, ex— pressed through a wide array of complex behaviors. Ellis, Smith, and Abbot53 reported on an action program study by one rural elementary school principal. The program was designed to answer the following ques- tions: (1) What was the present level of teacher ex- pectancy concerning supervision? (2) Was it possible, through inservice sessions, to attain perception change? (3) Was there an existing technique that could be employed in the school setting without disrupting learning process? Would the technique chosen strengthen teaching, reduce suspicion of supervision and increase acceptance? The result of the study showed that teachers had an improved attitude toward supervision when they had participated in a program of peer supervision. Commenting on this result, Ellis, Smith and Abbot concluded that, Teachers support and have reacted favorably to the implementation of clinical super- vision when a peer is a member of the super- visory team. This, perhaps, reemphasizes some principles that enlightened administra- tors and supervisors have recognized for quite some time. In brief, teachers are more 39 receptive to supervision when they have helped to determine its purposes and pro— cedures; when the supervision is for the purpose of assisting them to do a better job and not for evaluation; and, when the problems being worked on are, indeed, the teacher's problems as he/she perceives them.54 Developmental Supervision Developmental approach to supervision is another method some writers felt would improve instruction. Like peer supervision, there is very little available litera- ture on developmental approach to supervision. An exam- ination of the literature on developmental supervision shows that writers looked at it as taking into account professional development of teachers, teachers' person- ality characteristics and other attributes, and situational circumstances during supervision. Effective supervision demands giving beginning teachers the type of supervision that meets their needs and problems. In 1961, Harrington55 stated that beginning teachers as a group have unique needs and problems and therefore need a different type of supervision. He emphasized: Undoubtedly the greatest pitfall for the beginning teacher is the lack of super- vision. If supervision stands for the improvement of instruction, the work must begin with the novice and continue in a planned program until he is professionally mature and able to stand alone. 40 Effective supervision also demands that the super- visor must use his knowledge about each teacher and his understanding of teachers as professional people. Super- visors should become familiar with their teachers' per- sonality characteristics and other attributes. Techniques which were effective in one situation may not be effective in another. Marks, Stoops, and Stoops56 pointed out that applying the techniques of supervision has not just been a mechanical procedure. The principal, as a supervisor, must be creative because each school system, school, class- room, teacher, and class offers unique circumstances, capabilities, and personalities. Glickman seems to be the most exhaustive in his treatment of the concept of developmental or situational supervision as a method of improving instruction. In 1980, he advocated matching models of supervision to stages of teacher growth.S7 According to Glickman teachers within the same school have different perceptions of what is useful to them or what supervisory help they need. Besides one supervisory plan for instructional improvement might be a delight to one teacher and a bore to another. The rea- son for these differences is because teachers differ in. their stages of development and this makes them differ also in their concerns and needs. As teachers differ in these various ways, Glickman accordingly, advocated that effective supervision with each teacher requires knowledge about differing approaches to instructional supervision. A supervisor should, there- fore, use an approach that meets the need or concerns of a particular teacher instead of using a single uniform approach. As an example, Glickman felt that beginning teachers who are concerned with self survival or self— 3 adequacy are better supervised by directive approach, where the supervisor models, directs and measures. On the other hand, teachers who are no more concerned with self sur- vival but with improving the work in their classrooms are better supervised by collaborative approach, where the supervisor presents, interacts and contracts. As regards those teachers who are experienced and who are concerned with helping other students and teachers, Glickman ad- vocated miminal influence of nondirective approach with the supervisor mainly listening, clarifying and encouraging. In 1981, Glickman added another dimension to his 1980 views of supervising according to the needs or con- cerns of a particular teacher. He advocated taking the concerns and needs of both the supervisee and the super— visor into consideration during supervision. According to him, improvement of instruction is best obtained when the supervisor and the supervisee feel comfortable with the choice of supervisory behaviors.58 42 Glickman also noted that the type of supervisory process a supervisor uses depends on the belief of the supervisor. Supervisors who believe that knowledge is acquired as an individual chooses to follow his own in— clinations, tend to favor nondirective supervision. Those who believe that learning is the result of reciprocity and experimentation advocate collaborative supervision. Those who believe that learning is acquired through com- pliance with a set of standards advocate directive super- vision. As supervisor's belief influences the type of super- visory process a supervisor uses, Glickman recommended that as all methods of supervision can be successful when applied in the proper circumstances, a supervisor should identify his belief about the super- visory process and determine the ap— propriate amount and sequence of the process of listening, clarifying, en- couraging, presenting, problem solving, negotiating, demonstrating, directing, and reinforcing as they work to improve learning. Like Glickman, Burden59 called for provision of different types of assistance and varied supervisory ap- proach for teachers at different developmental levels. He emphasized that no supervisory process is effective at all times and with all people. Burden identified three stages of teacher career development and noted that teachers have different job 43 skills, knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and concerns at each of these stages. He recommended the following assis- tance and supervisory approaches for teachers at different develOpmental levels. Stage 1: Teachers at this stage are beginning teachers who are at the survival stage. They need assistance in many technical skills of teaching (e.g. lesson planning, record keeping, teaching strategies, and handling discip- line). Despite training and experience in these areas during the preservice teacher preparation, these teachers feel weak in these areas and need a person to come in and show them how to perform and refine certain skills. Be— ginning teachers also need specific information about the curriculum and school rules and procedures. A directive supervisory approach may be the most helpful at this survival stage. The supervisor would present, direct, demonstrate and reinforce when inter- acting with the teacher at this stage. The supervisor would also take primary responsibility in helping the teachers with identified concerns. Stage 2: Teachers at this stage are at the adjust- ment stage. They have learned from their first year ex- periences and have acquired job skills and information in a number of areas. They are more able to look at their needs more objectively and seek out assistance. 44 A collaborative approach would be appropriate at this stage where the supervisor and teacher take equal responsibility for meeting the teacher's needs. The super- visor would present, clarify, listen, problem solve, and negotiate when working to meet the teacher's needs at this stage. Stage 3: Teachers at this stage are at the mature stage. They have a good command of the job skills, know- ledge, and behaviors necesseary to be effective. They feel confident and mature. They are interested in vary— ing their instruction to meet individual student needs and also to add variety for themselves. Teachers at this stage have competence in many job skills and behaviors and are capable of objectively assessing their performance. A non-directive supervisory approach may be most appropriate at this stage where the supervisor listens, encourages, clarifies, presents and helps solve problems. In this way, the teacher assumes the primary responsibility for improving instruction through self-assessment. Clinical Supervision The last method of supervision necessary for the improvement of instruction that will be considered under this literature review is that of Clinical Supervision Plan. As a method of improving instruction, Clinical Supervision has received extensive coverage in the l , 45 1% literature. It has been described by Fred Wilhems as a system of supervision "with enough weight to have impact and with the precision to hit the target."60 Clinical supervision was develOped in the late 19505 by Morris Cogan, Robert Goldhammer, and Robert Anderson while they were supervising student teachers in Harvard's Master of Arts for Teachers' program. At that time they were faced with the fact that what they were doing was not working, hence their effort to devise a more effect- ive method of supervision in the form of clinical super- vision plan. Initially, clinical supervision started slowly until professional interest in it accelerated and grew into a movement. The movement was given the first impetus by the publication of Goldhammer's book, Clinical Supervision, in 1969. In this book, Goldhammer defined clinical super- vision as a type of supervision that involves close ob- servation, detailed observational data, face—to—face in- teraction between the supervisor and the teacher, and an intensity of focus that binds the two together in an in- timate professional relationships.61 The value of this type of supervision, according to Goldhammer is to in- crease teachers' incentives and skills for self-supervision and for supervising their professional colleagues.62 The dominant pattern of clinical supervision is the following five-step process Goldhammer proposed: 46 l. Pre-observation Conference. In this confer- ence, the supervisor is oriented to the class, objectives, and lesson by the teacher. Then the teacher and supervisor decide on the pur- poses of the observation. 2. Observation. The supervisor observes the lesson, taking verbatim notes as much as possible or recording the lesson by mechanical means. 3. Analysis and Strategy. The supervisor con- siders his notes with respect to the purposes of the observation and also to discover any patterns which were either favorable or un- favorable that might characterize the teacher's behavior. After the lesson has been analyzed, the supervisor considers the teacher, his level of self-confidence, maturity, and experience and decides on strategy for the conference. 4. Post-observation Conference. The supervisor implements his strategy. He deals with the items concerning the purposes of the observa- tion first and, with the consent of the teacher, may introduce comments on patterns not a part of the purposes of the observation he has identified. The supervisor can also plan with the teacher for a future lesson that incorpor- ates mutually agreed upon changes. 5. Post Conference Analysis. The supervisor analyzes his own performance and makes plans for working with the teacher in a more pro-63 fessional, productive manner in the future. Goldhammer emphasized that just going through the five step process in a mechanical fashion will not result in substanitally improved supervision or improved teacher behavior. There must be genuine air of colleagueship and mutuality in the relationship. The supervisor must see his or her role as trying to help this teacher achieve purposes in a more effective, efficient manner, not im— posing pet theories and methods. 47 The movement of clinical supervision was given further impetus by the publication of Coggan's book, "Clinical Super- vision." Cogan referred to clinical supervision as those salient operational and empirical aspects of supervision in the classroom. He distinguished general supervision from clinical supervision by stating that general super- vision refers to those supervisory Operations that take place principally outside the classroom. It includes such activities as writing and revision of curriculums,the preparation of units and materials of instruction, the development of processes and instruments for reporting to parents, and such broad concerns as the evaluation of the total educational program.64 Like Goldhammer, Cogan emphasized that the essential ingredients for clinical supervision include the estab- lishment of a healthy general supervisory climate, a special supervisory mutual support system called colleague- ship, and a cycle of supervision comprising conferences, observation of teachers at work, and pattern analysis. Unlike Goldhammer's five-step process of clinical supervision, Cogan's is an eight-step process of clinical supervision. However, he observed that certain phases of the cycle may be altered or omitted as the supervisor and the teacher develop successful working relationships. He also warned that the process of carefully working through 48 the eight phases of the cycle should not be abbreviated prematurely. Cogan discussed the phases as follows: Phase 1. Establishing the teacher-supervisor relationship. This is the first phase of clinical supervision in which the supervisor (a) establishes the clinical relationship between himself and the teacher; (b) helps the teacher to achieve some general under- standings about clinical supervision and a perspective on its sequences; and (c) begins to induct the teacher into his new role and functions in supervision. These first phase operations are generally well advanced before the supervisor enters the teacher's classroom to observe his teaching. Phase 2. Planning with the teacher. The teacher and supervisor together plan a lesson, a series of lessons, or a unit. Plans com— monly include specification of outcomes, anticipated proolems of instruction, mater- ials and strategies of teaching, processes of learning, and provisions for feedback and evaluation. Phase 3. Planning the strategy of observa- tion. The supervisor plans the objectives, the processes, and the physical and technical arrangements for the observation and the collection of data. The teacher joins in the planning of the observation and takes a role in it as he becomes more familiar with the process of clinical supervision. Phase 4. Observing instruction. The super- visor observes the instruction in person and/or by way of other observers and other techniques for recording classroom events. Phase 5. Analyzing the teaching-learning process. Following the observation, the teacher and the supervisor analyze the events of the class. They may do this separately or together depending on the teacher's developing competencies in clinical supervision and his needs at the moment. l 49 Phase 6. Planning the strategy of the con— ference. The supervisor develops the plans, alternatives, and strategies for conducting the conference with the teacher. If it is advisable, the supervisor may plan the con— ference with the teacher. When this is done, the planning for the conference may be in- corporated into the conference itself. Phase 7. The Conference. The teacher and the supervisor conduct the conference. If necessary and appropriate other participants may join them in the conference. Phase 8. Renewed Planning. In the confer— ence, the teacher and the supervisor decide the kinds of change the teacher should make in his classroom behavior. The teacher and supervisor will plan the next lesson that will incorporate the sought change in the teacher's classroom behavior. 65 Making his own contribution to the concept of clin— ical supervision as a method of improving instruction, Reavis,66 noted that clinical supervision rests on the conviction that instruction can only be improved by direct feedback to a teacher on aspects of his teaching that are of concern to him rather than items on an evalua- tion form or items that are pet concerns of the supervisor only. He concluded that clinical supervision brings a clarity and specificity to in-class supervision that promise to improve the quality of instruction provided to children. In 1977, Sergiovanni differentiated between tradi— tional supervision and clinical supervision. He stated that clinical supervision requires a more intense relationship 50 between supervisor and teacher than found in traditional supervision. This is because colleagueship should be es- tablished and articulated through the cycle of supervision. He emphasized that "the heart of clinical supervision is an intense, continuous, mature relationship between super- visor and teacher with the intent being the improvement of professional practice."67 In his article published in 1980 on "Effective Instructional Leadership Produces Greater Learning," Cawelti68 stated that effective instructional leadership produces higher learning and enhances student achievement. He pro- pounded that a supervisor must have what he called process skills in order to become involved in instructional improve— ment. One of these process skills is that of clinical supervision and as stated by him, clinical supervision means "engaging in a no—threat planning session with the teacher, developing an observation strategy, observing, instruction, and a post observation analysis of teaching learning process." Snyder69 defined clinical supervision as an impor— tant branch of general supervision, which focuses on helping teachers improve their performance through the analysis and feedback of observed events in the classroom. She stated that the perceptions of scholars and edu- cational practitioners in the 19805 about the skill needs of teachers could shape clinical supervision into a 51 coaching system or an inspection system. She summar- ized: Clinical Supervision can be used as part of an inspection system, designed to re- inforce and maintain traditional practices in which teachers are presumed to be ade- quately trained. When so used, it becomes less a helping technology and more an evalu- ation technology. However, clinical super- vision offers far more promise when viewed as part of a comprehensive teacher develop- ment system that aims at more ambitious goals (especially for learners) and that assumes teachers have need for continuous extension and refinement of their skills in goal set- ting, diagnosis, program design, organiza- tion and management, instruction, and re- sponding to supervisory assistance. Clinical supervision has the potential for enabling teachers and administrators to break out of isolated and outdated practices and to achieve new performance norms.... Clinical supervision, used as a coaching system, has the potential for catapulting schools into a new set of standards for excellence. 70 Besides the specific contributions of the above writers to clinical supervision, there are other writers who made their contributions by discussing how to make some of the phases of the clinical supervision plan ef- fective. In 1970, Blumberg reported on his study on supervisory conference. On the basis of the findings of the study, he made the following recommendations. 52 1. A supervisor should communicate the desire to understand the teacher with whom he is conferring and should also be sensitive to the nonverbal aspects of his behavior which influence the opinions being formed by the teacher. 2. The supervisor should help the teacher to sharpen his thinking about a problem he is experiencing. The supervisor can facilitate the teacher's problem-solving effort by helping him to differentiate among what is wrong, what the causes are of the difficulty, and what action should be taken to correct the particular problem. 3. The supervisor should help the teacher to focus on problems having to do with the intellectual and emotional development of students rather than on classroom maintenance problems. 71 Gordon72 reported on his study conducted to deter- mine how most teachers evaluate supervisory behavior in the individual conference. The results of the study showed that supervisor—teacher conference is most ef- fective when it is carried out in a true helping suppor- tive relationship. Gordon concluded: ...teachers do not look upon a person in a supervisory position as being most effect— ive when they are continually advising and informing. Teachers have the realization that this behavior can involve a considerable amount of time. As circumstances of the conference dictate, this can be used as a time for input by the teachers. This strongly suggests that supervisors are expected to have and make available to teachers the technical expertise that is wanted and needed. It is equally true that teachers feel they have pro- fessional insights they need to share. The individual conference setting can afford them one of the closest and most meaningful ways of accomplishing this. 53 In his own contribution on how to make the super— visory conference phase of clinical supervision effective, Diamond, 1978, noted that the tendency toward making a supervisory conference a dialogue rather than an offering like the traditional lecture in the classroom is an impor- tant development. He suggested that the exchanges in such a conference should be collegial in recognition of the high level of eduCation of teachers today as well as of their shifting perceptions about authority. He emphasized that the old form of individual conference wherein the principal dictates procedures and offers criticism to be heard and acted upon is no better than the lecturing class— room teacher who shuts his students out of an opportunity for dialogue and participa- tion. Our teachers will unquestionably accept help if they are able to spell out for themselves objectives which make sense to them and if they can respect the per- sons and the means by which supervision is delivered. 73 During the same year, Valentine74 pointed out that the interaction between the supervisor and supervisee during the supervisory conference is an important factor that shapes how the supervisee perceives the supervisor as an educational leader. To make supervisory conference effective, Valentine made the following recommendations: 1. The supervisee should be allowed to assess himself throughout the period of the con- ference. He should also be led to the ap- propriate conclusion through interaction rat er than the superVisor 5 lecture. 54 2. Supervisory conference should always close on a positive note of encouragement. In her articleopen-ended ones. The close-ended ques- tions were of the checklist types or rating items. The questionnaire was designed so that the maximum time to administer it would not exceed forty minutes. The language was made simple so that all the respondents could be ex- pected to comprehend it. Canary paper was used for the 88 teachers' questionnaire and pink paper was used for the principals' questionnaire. This was done so as to make it more attractive totherespondents6 and to distinguish returns from the teachers from returns from the principals. Precise instructions were printed at the beginning of each part of the instrument. In order to ensure anonymity, respondents were not required to record their names on the questionnaire. Pilot Test In an attempt to ensure minimum error and bias on this instrument, Cleaver conducted a pilot test. In ad- dition to his pilot test, this instrument was reviewed by three Nigerian Graduate Students at Michigan State University and committee members for content and validity. Suggestions and recommendations from these groups were considered in finalizing the instrument. Method of Collecting Data Procedure Used in Collecting Data On August 6, 1982 the researcher wrote to twelve graduate teachers in Anambra (Nigeria), requesting them to indicate whether they were ready to assist him in the study. By the second week of September 1982, eight of 89 those teachers replied that they were ready to assist. Out of those eight teachers, two were teaching in Enugu, three in Onitsha, one in Uzo-Uwani and two in Anambra local government areas. On September 20, 1982 directions of what the assis- tants should do were mailed to each of the eight teachers. The directions included the selection of the sample, the procedure for administering the questionnaires, the tabulation of returns, and the date of returning the ad- ministered questionnaires. They were also requested to comment upon and ask questions about the directions. The comments and questions of six out of the eight teachers who were given the directions were received by the end of October, 1982. After the review of their com- ments and questions, the researcher chose one experienced, knowledgeable, and responsible teacher from each of the four local government areas. These four teachers (re- search assistants) administered the research instrument in their local government areas. Analysis of Questionnaire Returns Table 7 indicates the number of the principals and teachers who completed and returned the instrument. As shown in Table 7, 69 out of the 100 principals returned the instrument, which gave a return of 69 percent. Also 222 of the 250 teachers returned the instrument for 90 TABLE 7: NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS INVOLVED IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES Number of Questionnaires Returned Respondents Questionnaires Distributed Number Percentage Principals 100 69 69.0 Teachers 250 222* 88.8* *Ten questionnaires received from the teachers were un- usable. Thus the usable teacher response was 212 returns or 84.8 percent. a return of 88.8 percent. However, only 84.8 percent of the questionnaires returned by teachers were usable. Ten of the questionnaires returned by teachers were not usable because most of the items in Part II of the instrument were not checked. Although the response rate for the principals was slightly lower, the overall response rate obtained in the study was within levels suggested by the experts for making valid generalizations. Kerlinger7 recommended a response rate of at least 80 to 90 percent and Wiersma8 suggested that generally 75 percent should be the minimum rate of return. 91 Research Design The study was a descriptive research designed to determine which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra (Nigeria) schools and which ones are perceived by teachers and principals to be very important in the improvement of instruction. Research Questions The following seventeen questions were designed to serve as focal points for the study. Analysis of data was designed to answer the questions. 1.0 Who actually supervises teachers in Anambra 1.1 (Nigeria)? Who do principals think should be responsible for instructional supervision? What are the reasons for the principals' views as regards who should be responsible for in- structional supervision? How frequently are teachers supervised in Anambra state? Are teachers in urban schools supervised more frequently than teachers in rural schools? Are inexperienced teachers more frequently supervised than experienced teachers? What is the primary purpose of supervision in Anambra State of Nigeria? Do teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision differ from those of the principals? Do inexperienced teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision differ from those of experienced teachers? 92 4.0 Which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra State schools? 4.1 Do the supervisory processes perceived by the teachers as being used in the State differ from those of the principals? 4.2 Do the supervisory processes perceived by in- experienced teachers as being used in the state differ from those of the experienced teachers? 5.0 Which supervisory processes are considered im- portant in improving instruction in Anambra state schools? 5.1 Do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by all teachers differ from those of all the principals? 5.2 Do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by inexperienced teachers differ from those of the experienced teachers? 5.3 Do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by teachers who say they apply to the schools differ from those of the principals who say they apply? 5.4 Do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by teachers who say they do not apply to the schools differ from those of the prin- cipals who say they do not apply? Data Analysis The questionnaire responses for each subject were transferred to computer laboratory forms. The data en- tered on these forms were subsequently key punched and verified. All the data were analyzed through the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) of Michigan State University. 93 Several statistical procedures were used depending on which was the most discriminatory to test for signi- ficant differences within the variables. Thus frequencies, percentages and chi square were used in analyzing the data on responsibility for supervision, frequency of supervision, purpose ofsupervision, and the applicability of the supervisory statements in Anambra State schools. T—test was used to compare the mean responses of teachers and principals about the degree of importance they at- tached to the supervisory statements while Analysis of Variance was used for repeated measures for teachers and principals. Summary The study was designed to determine which super- visory processes are being used in Anambra (Nigeria) schools and which ones are perceived by teachers and prin- cipals to be very important in the improvement of in- struction. The systematic-random approach was used to select the teachers' sample. All the principals and vice principals in the selected schools were selected. Both teachers and principals selected for the study were from 34 selected secondary schools in four selected local government areas. The measuring instrument used was a modification of an instrument developed in 1974 by Larry Arthur Cleaver of the University of Pittsburgh. It 94 consisted mostly of close-ended questions and responded by the teachers and the principals. A research assistant from each of the local government areas was responsible for administering the questionnaires and tabulating the returns. The returns yielded a combined response rate of 80.3 percent. The analysis of data was meant to obtain descriptive and inferential statistics. CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to analyze and dis- cuss the data obtained from the survey of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the supervisory process. The purpose of the study was to determine which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra (Nigeria) schools and which ones are perceived by teachers and principals to be important in the improvement of instruction. The data gathered through the use of a questionnaire was analyzed on the basis of the research questions which served as the focal point of the study. They are presented in this chapter in five sections under five headings: re- sponsibility for supervision, frequency of supervision, purpose of supervision, applicability of supervision pro- cess, the degree of importance of supervisory process, and other research questions. Each section shows, by means of tables and discussion, the frequencies, percentages and chi square, t-test or analysis of variance, of the subjects' responses. 95 96 Analysis of Data Responsibility for Supervision Research Question 1.0: Who actually supervises teachers in Anambra (Nigeria) schools? Research Question 1.1: Who do the principals think should be responsible for instructional supervision? In order to answer the above questions, teachers were asked to say who was responsible for supervision in their schools. The principals were also asked to say who they thought should be responsible for instructional supervision in the schools. Table 8 presents the frequencies, percen— tages and chi—square responses of teachers and principals as to who is or should be responsible for instructional supervision. The tables and discussions are concerned with only the three most frequently mentioned supervisory personnel. From the teachers' responses, it is clear that the most frequently mentioned supervisory role was that of the principal which made up 50.2 percent of the responses. The zonal superintendent of schools ranked second with 36.8 percent; the vice principal ranked third and accounted for 11.0 percent of the responses. Of the principals, 52.4 percent also felt that the principal of a school is the most suitable supervisory person to assume the responsibility of instructional supervision in 97 TABLE 8: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF WHO ACTUALLY SUPERVISES THE TEACHERS AND WHO THE PRINCIPALS THINK SHOULD SUPERVISE Supervisory Teachers Principals Totals Role N % N % N % Principal 105 50.2 33 52.4 138 50.7 Vice Principal 23 11.0 20 31.7 43 15.8 Zonal Superintendent of Schools 81 38.8 10 15.9 91 33.5 Totals 209 100.0 63 100.0 272 100.0 Chi Square = 20.793 df=2 p=.000 schools. The vice principal was ranked second with 31.7 percent; the zonal superintendent of schools ranked third and accounted for 15.9 percent of the principal's responses. Although the responses of teachers (50.2 percent) and the responses of principals (52.4 percent) were close with regard to the principal of the school being responsible for supervision, the percentage of principals (31.7 percent) who thought the vice principal should be responsible for supervision was substantially greater than the percentage of the teachers (11.0 percent) who were supervised by the vice principal. The same lack of agreement was observed as regards the zonal superintendent of schools. Of the teachers, 38.8 percent reported that the zonal superintendent of schools 98 was responsible for supervision in their schools but only 15.9 percent of the principals thought he should be respon- sible for supervision. Thus with two degrees of freedom, the chi square value of 20.793 is statistically significant at the .05 level. Consequently, it is concluded that there was a significant difference between who actually supervises the teachers and the personnel the principals think should be responsible for supervision. The frequencies, percentages and chi square of teachers' perceptions of who supervises them are presented in Table 9, according to their years of teaching experience. The re- sponses for each of the experience categories were close. The same observation is true if the teachers are divided into two broad groups of inexperienced teachers (0-3 years of teaching experience) and experienced teachers (4+ years of teaching experience). While 57.6 percent of inexperienced teachers perceived the principal as most frequently respon- sible for supervision, 47.3 percent of the experienced teachers did so. The zonal superintendent of schools was ranked second by 33.9 percent of inexperienced teachers and by 40.7 per- cent of the experienced teachers. The vice principal was ranked third by 8.5 percent of inexperienced teachers and by 12.0 percent of experienced teachers. According to the chi square findings teaching experience failed to account for differences in the perceptions of teachers with regard to who is responsible for supervision in schools. 99 TABLE 9: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISION BY YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE. Years of Teaching Experience 0 - 3 4 - 7 8 - 11. 12 - 15 15+ Supervisory Roles N % N % N % N % N if Principal 34 57.6 19 39.6 19 51.4 8 38.1 25 56.8 Zonal Superintendent of Schools 20 33.9 21 43.8 16 43.2 10 47.6 14 31.8 Vice Principal _§ 8.5 _8 16.7 _2 5.4 _3 14.3 _§ 11.4 Totals 59 48 37 21 44 Chi square = 17.795 df=20 p=.601 Research Question 1.2: What are the reasons for the principals' views as regards who should be responsible for instructional supervision? In order to find out why principals preferred parti- cular supervisory personnel to be in charge of instructional supervision, they were asked to give reasons why they thought a particular supervisory role was most suitable. Table 10 presents their responses. As already shown in Table 8, 33 of the reSponding principals thought that the principal of a school is the most suitable to be in charge of instructional supervision. Four out of this number did not give any reason for their preferences. The remaining twenty-nine principals gave three 100 TABLE 10: PRINCIPALS' PREFERENCES AND REASONS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION RSSPONSIBILITY. Preferred Personnel and Reasons N S PrinCipal: "PrinCipal should be responSible for in- structional superViSion without further reason". 4 12.1 "PrinCipal should be responsible for in- structional supeIViSion because he knows the teachers and the students more than the Vice prinCipal and the zonal super- intendent of schools." 4 12.1 "Principal should be responsible for in- structional superViSion because he pro- Vides a more regular and a more systematic superViSion than the zonal superintendent of schools." 9 27.3 "Principal should be responSible for in- structional superVision because his auth- ority as the head of the school will make his superViSion more effective than that of the Vice prinCipal and the zonal super- intendent of schools.“ 16 48.5 The Vice Principal: "The Vice prinCipal should be responSible for instructional superViSion because he knows the teachers and the students more than the prinCipal and the zonal super- intendent of schools." 2 10.0 "The VlCe prinCipal should be responSible for instructional superViSion because he prOVides more regular and more systematic superViSion than the prinCipal and the zonal superintendent of schools." 18 90.0 The Zonal Superintendent of Schools: "The zonal superintendent of schools should be responSible for instructional superViSion and supplement internal superViSion." 1 10.0 "The zonal superintendent of schools should be responSible for instructional superVision because students and teachers respect him more than they respect the Vice prinCJpal and the prinCipal." 4 40.0 "The zonal superintendent of schools should be responSible for instructional superVision because he will be more ob- jective in his superViSion than the Vice prinCipal and the prinCipal.” S 50.0 101 broad reasons for their preferences. The two most fre- quently cited were that the principal would make use of his authority as the head of the school to provide more effective supervision (48.5 percent) and that he would provide more regular and more systematic supervision than the zonal superintendent of schools (27.3 percent). Twenty of the responding principals preferred to have the vice principal of a school responsible for in- structional supervision. Of this number, 90 percent pre— ferred him because he would provide more regular and more systematic supervision than the principal of a school and the zonal superintendent of schools. The zonal superintendent was preferred by ten prin- cipals as the most suitable person to assume the respon— sibility of instructional supervision in schools. Fifty percent of this number preferred him because he would be more objective in his supervision while 40.0 percent pre- ferred him because students and teachers would respect him more than the vice principal and the principal. In general, principals preferred to have those who would provide more regular and more systematic supervision (42.9 percent) be responsible for instructional supervision. 102 Frequency of Supervision Research Question 2.0: How frequently are teachers supervised in Anambra (Nigeria)? Research Question 2.1: Are teachers in urban schools more frequently supervised than teachers in rural schools? One of the major criticisms of the services of in- spectorate divisions of the Ministries of Education and Education Boards in Nigeria has been that supervision in schools is irregular and infrequent. To ascertain whether there has been an improvement since the governments in Nigeria started emphasizing regular and systematic super- vision of schools, teachers were asked to indicate the num- ber of times they were supervised in the last five years. Table 11 presents the frequencies, percentages and chi square of the teachers and the number of times they were supervised in the last five years according to the location of the schools. Of the responding teachers, 34.9 percent were not supervised at allin the last five years, 44.8 percent were supervised only once, and 20.3 percent were supervised two times, three times, four times or five times. Responses to this item did not show any variation between those teaching in urban schools and those teaching in rural schools. Thirty three and three—tenths of those teaching in urban schools, and 37.2 percent of those teaching 103 TABLE 11: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS AND THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY WERE SUPERVISED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, BY LOCATION OF SCHOOL Number of Times Urban Rural Total Supervised N—____% N——___i N 0 42 33.3 32 37.2 74 34.9 1 62 49.2 33 38.4 95 44.8 2 10 7.9 7 8.1 17 8.0 3 5 4.0 7 8.1 12 5.7 4 4 3 2 1 1.2 5 2 4 5 _3_ _2__-£ _6 1e _2_ _4_-_2_ Total 126 59.4 86 40.6 212 100.0 Chi square = 6.553 df=5 p =.2561 in rural schools were not supervised at all in the last five years. For those who were supervised once, 49.2 per- cent were teaching in urban schools while 38.4 percent were teaching in rural schools. With regard to those who were supervised two times, three times, four times, or five times, 17.5 percent were teaching in urban schools while 24.4 percent were teaching in rural schools. Thus, the chi square test did not prove that there was a variation between the frequency of supervision in urban and rural schools. 104 Research Question 2.2: Are inexperienced teachers more frequently supervised than experienced teachers? Table 12 presents frequencies, percentages and chi square, by years of teaching experience, for the number of times teachers were supervised in the last five years. Of the inexperienced teachers (0—3 years) 37.3 percent and 33.9 percent of all experienced teachers (4 years and above) were not supervised at all in the last five years. As for those who were not supervised at all in the last five years, a greater percentage of inexperienced teachers (52.5 per- cent) were also supervised only once in the last five years as against 41.8 percent of the experienced teachers. Significant differences were found between the num- ber of times inexperienced teachers were supervised in the last five years and the number of times experienced teachers were supervised in the last five years. Thus, there was a variation in frequency of supervision between inexper— ienced and experienced teachers. Purpose of Supervision Research Question 3.0: What is the prima.y purpose of supervision in Anambra State of Nigeria? Research Question 3.1: Do teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision differ from those of the principals? 105 TABLE 12: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES TEACHERS WERE SUPERVISED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, BY YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Years of Teaching Experience No. of Times 0 - 3 4 — 7 8 - 11 12 -15 15 + Supervised N % N 7% N_———% ‘N___—% N————% 0 22 37.3 21 42.0 17 45.9 6 28.6 8 17.8 1 31 52.5 22 44.0 16 43.2 7 33.3 19 42.2 2 2 3.4 1 2.0 3 8.1 5 23.8 6 13.3 3 2 3.4 4 8.0 1 2.7 l 4.8 4 8.9 4 2 3.4 1 2.0 0 0.0 1 4.8 l 2.2 5 _0 0.0 _l 2.0 _0 0.0 _1 4.8 _1 15.6 Total 59 50 37 21 45 Chi square = 41.960 df=20 p =.0028 Item 42 on the questionnaire asked the teachers and the principals to choose what they thought was the primary purpose of supervision. Five purposes of supervision were presented. Table 13 presents the frequencies, percentages and chi square of the teachers' and principals' response for the two most frequently mentioned purposes of super— vision. Of the principals, 83.1 percent as agains; 79.5 per- cent of the teachers felt that the primary purpose of super- vision was to improve instruction in the classroom. Forty of the teachers (20.5 percent), as against 16.9 percent of the principals, however, felt supervision was aimed at 106 protecting children from incompetent teachers. Thus the responses of principals and teachers were quite similar. No significant differences were found between the responses of teachers and principals. TABLE 13: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SUPERVISION Teachers Principals Primary Purpose of Supervision N % N % To improve instruction in the classroom 155 79.5 54 83.1 To protect children from in— competent teaching 40 20.5 11 16.9 Chi square = .20327 df = 1 p = .6521 Research Question 3.2: Do the inexperienced teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision dif- fer from those of the experienced teachers? Table 14 presents the frequencies, percentages and the chi square of the teachers' responses to the question of the primary purpose of supervision, by years of teaching experience. Focusing on the two most frequently mentioned pur- poses of supervision, it was observed that a smaller percen- tagecfi'the inexperienced teachers (61.0 percent) as against a greater percentage of the experienced teachers (77J3percent) TABLE 14: FREQUENCIES, TEACHERS' 107 PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SUPERVISION, BY YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Years.of Teaching Experience 07-‘3 N % Primary Purpose of Supervision To grant approval for opening a school 3 To make a decision about the promotions of teachers 1 To decide on the upgrading of a school 5 To improve instruc- tion in the class— room 36 61.0 To protect children from incompetent teaching _14 23.7 Total 4 - 7 N % 32 14 59 100.0 50 1 64.0 28.0 00.0 8 -11 12—15 13+ N % N % N % 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 83.8 19 90.5 37 82.2 3 8.1 1 4.8 37 100.0 21 100.0 45 100.0 8 17.8 Chi square = 31.94 df=16 P .010 108 perceived the primary purpose of supervision to be that of improving instruction in the classroom. At the same time, a greater percentage of the inexperienced teachers (23.7 percent) as against a smaller percentage of the experienced teachers (17.0 percent) perceived that protection of children from incompetent teaching was the primary purpose of super- vision. Thus a variation existed between the responses of inexperienced teachers and experienced teachers. With 16 degrees of freedom, the chi square value of 31.944 was significant at the .05 level. It is thus concluded that the inexperienced teachers perceived the primary purpose of supervision differently from the experienced teachers. Applicability of Supervisory Statements Research Question 4.0: Which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra State schools? Research Question 4.1: Do the supervisory processes perceived by the teachers as being used in the state differ from those of the principals? In order to know which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra schools, the responding teachers and principals were askedtx>check "yes" if a particular state- ment applied to their schools or "no" if it did not apply. A list of forty-one supervisory statements was given. In order to group the statements appropriately, a factor 109 analysis of these was done, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Table 15 presents the factor pattern, item means and standard deviation resulting from this analysis. Thus, the fourth and fifth index measures of this study are presented and discussed under the following six factors. 1. Procedures for classroom supervision. 2. Supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher. 3. Supervisor's working relationship with the teacher. 4. Supervisor's establishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher. 5. Supervisor's encouragement of teacher self- evaluation. 6. Supervisor's enthusiasm for teacher involvement in the supervisory process. The perceptions of teachers and principals of the applicability of the supervisory statements relating to the procedures for classroom supervision are summarized in Table 16. A majority of teachers and principals indi— cated that three out of the nine statements apply, while five do not apply. For the other statement, the percen- tage of the respondents who said it applies and the per- centage of those who said it does not apply were close. The differences between the teachers' and principals' perceptions lacked statistical significance but a tendency 110 New. Hmm.m mmw. nomfi>uodsm ecu mo mafipcmumumpc: m.uocomo9 mew. ooo.m mvv. mucouod neoo m.uomfl>uodsm ecu wow poodmou m.uocumoe man. mHv.m owe. nocumou ecu mo coflpmazeflum New. emu.m mom. mausommu usonm mopmazocx use. osm.m woe. Ham: use mucosa menace nonumwe mcu mo mocmumflmm< coo. mmm.m mom. Dona Immndem mnuocouum pom mommocxmoz m.umcomoe mash. omm.m own. cams oocouom Icou Hmcoflum>ummnouumom 5mm. ovm.m mam. coaum>uwm Ino ocausu coxmu mouoz moH.H vmh.m has. Eco onu ow unflccaoob on» eoum commoa pm>uomno vo~.H HmN.N vmo.m>uomno Hafiz Homfl>umasm ocu umnz mo coflmmsomfla HhH.H mam.m vmm. cam: moucwuom icou HMEOHum>uom90|oum mva.a mam.m 0mm. cmocsoccm Ucm ooazposom mCOHum>uomno ems. omm.~ mom. oomfl>uodsm muocomoe coocmfluomxm mam. mmo.m mom. :oflmfl>umasm Hoseaucou "coamfl>ummsw eooummmao .>oo .oum cmoz m e m m a mcoHuma>oubn< meouH souH emuH muOuomm Hmm m0 mqmzmQ QmHnmuu0meoo xuoz nocomwu pom nomfi>uodsm nomad OCchmwa sumo mood wCHQoHo>op uocumou pom nomfi>uodsm nocuoo nou ocaxuoz souw cflmo nocummu pom uOmH>MOQ3m Ocacumoa mo ucoem>ouaefl now dflcmuwcuuMQ asexuoz mcflcumou we: m>ouQEH ow umcumwu ocu moaumflmm< mo>fiuomnno uEMHNOQEH m.uwcumou co nonumUOu mafixuoz acacumoa menopaum o>oud use 0» umcuooou ocaxuoz OCHcomou mo oa>um Hmcomuod mo unoEQoHo>mp Monumoe macmcofiumaom ocfixuoz nocommu on» now mcoflummuosm Hommm: Ocfixmz mpumpcmum Hmcoflmwom loud Loan mo wocmcwucamz maadza m.umnumou one mo momma mafibcmumumpca .>oa .Uum EOHH emu: souH v m muOuUmm H wcoHymfl>ounn< meouH Aezoo. "me mumo ou m>m3 soc Hocumou mzocm coHuosam>mimaom nocommu moomusoocm nonomou onu nuflz :onmsume uom mofidou mummoosm mmouooua wwwmwm nocomou mumfimm< coflumsam>mimaom Locomoe vmo. >ummcoc m.uonomou mo ucoeommusoocm ohm. mosmmo uaooamwflo o>aomou 0cm omflmu ow mwococflaaaz mvm. >uHHHQm choflmmom loud mo oucmpamcou mvm. nocomou mnu cues sumocoz mom. mucouodeoo w.uocomou uom pummmom uuommmm mo oocmcoucamz 0cm ucoecwflanmumm .>oo .oum souH :mmz EOHH v m N H mcoaumu>oubb< meouH uOuomm Aezoov "ma msmm >Hamuocoo avo. moo.m mom. czocx Ocanumou m.uocumou on» psonm macaaoom moxmz mom. Nmo.m va. nocomou ocu cue: ocfixuoz EH Emmflmscucm mom. moo.m mom. nocumou onu spa: xuo3 m.uomH> numdsw ca >uHSCHuEOU mom. ham.~ vmm. uonuooou sue: on oEHu cosoco o>mc nocumou pom uomfl>uwdsm mao.a omo.~ mom. muoma>uodsm ecu nuflz mcaxuoz m>ohco umcomoe vHH.H mvm.m va. Howdaon conH>uoasm ocfixme so conHoop assoc mmoooum conH>uodsm one no ucoeo>ao>cH umcomoe .>oo .oum com: o m v m N H mcoauma>ounn< meouH souH souH uOuomm ABZOUvumH Mdm<9 114 TABLE 16: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES, AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR CLASSROOM SUPERVISION Does Statement Apply Supervisory Teachers Principals 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P Pattern of Supervision Supervision is con- N: 104 108 43 26 3.158 .076* tinual rather than %= 49.1 50.9 62.3 37.7 occasional Experienced teachersbh=l35 77 45 24 4 1 are also supervised 7%: 63.7 36.3 65.2 34.8 Classroom observa— N: 56 156 18 51 4 1 tions by super- %= 26.4 73.6 26.1 73.9 visors are scheduled and announced. Pre-Observation Conference BehaViors A pre—observation N: 41 171 17 52 <1 conference is held %= 19.3 80.7 24.6 75.4 between the teacher and supervisor. During the pre- N: 48 164 16 53 <1 observation con— %= 22.6 77.4 23.2 76.8 ference the super— visor discusses with the teacher what he will be looking for during the class— room observation. Classroom Observation Behaviors During the classroomNz 74 138 25 44 <1 observation the %= 34.9 65.1 36.2 63.8 superVisor enters the room before the period begins and does not leave until the '71355 ;;?r: xi his viii]. 115 TABLE 16: (Cont) Does Statement Apply Supervisory Teachers Principals 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X The supervisor N=137 75 48 21 4:1 takes written notes %= 64.6 35.4 69.6 30.4 during the class- room observation. Post-Observation Con- ference Behaviors A post-observation N: 134 78 51 18 2.198 conference is held %= 63.6 36.8 73.9 26.1 between the super- visor and teacher to discuss and analyze the data collected during the observa- tion. During post—obser- N: 73 139 19 50 ‘41 vation conference, %= 34.4 65.6 27.5 72.5 the supervisor em- phasized both the teacher's weaknesses and strengths *=Tendency toward significance. 116 toward significant difference between teachers' and princi- pals' perceptions was found in one case. Table 17 presents the teachers' and principals' per- ceptions of the applicability of the supervisory statements dealing with the supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher. A majority of teachers and principals indicated that all eight statements applied to their schools. No significant differences were found between teachers' and principals' perceptions of the eight statements. A summary of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the applicability of the supervisory statements relating to the supervisor's working relationship with the teacher is given in Table 18. As shown, a majority of teachers and principals indicated that six out of eight statements applied. A majority of the respondents said one statement did not apply, while for the remaining statement, almost as many said it applied as those who said it did not apply. No significant differences were found between teachers' and principals' perceptions of the applicability of the state- ments. Table 19 presents frequencies, percentages, and chi square of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the ap- plicability of the supervisory statements relating to super— visor's establishment and maintenance of rapport with teachers. A majority of teachers and principals indicated that four of the statements applied to their schools, while a majority indicated that one statement did not apply. 117 TABLE 17: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR'S COMPETENCE IN ASSISTING THE TEACHER Does Statement Apply Supervisory Teachers Principals 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor N=137 75 48 21 4 1 thinks things out %= 64.6 35.4 69.6 30.4 well before he works with the teacher. The supervisor knowsN=163 49 58 11 1.196 .274 a great deal about %= 76.9 23.1 84.1 15.9 teaching. The supervisor N=158 54 52 17 < 1 stimulates the %= 74.5 25.5 75.4 24.6 teacher to do his best. The teacher re- N=166 46 57 12 a 1 spects the super— %= 78.3 21.7 82.6 17.4 visor's competence. The teacher under— N=166 46 57 12 4 1 stands what the %= 78.3 21.7 82.6 17.4 supervisor means. The supervisor un- N=146 66 50 19 4 1 stands the needs = 68.9 31.1 72.5 27.5 of the teacher's pupils. The supervisor N=134 78 49 20 1.074 .300 maintains high pro- %= 63.2 36.8 71.0 29.0 fessional stand- ards in working with the teacher. The supervisor N=l70 42 58 11 < 1 makes suggestions %= 80.2 19.8 84.1 15.9 that the teacher finds useful. 118 TABLE 18: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SUPER- VISOR'S WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TEACHER Does Statement Apply Supervisory Teachers Principals Statements Yes No Yes No X2 P The supervisor en— N: 139 73 45 24 4 l courages the teacher %= 65.6 34.4 65.2 34.8 to develop his own personal style of teaching. The things the super-N=l68 44 55 14 4 l visor and the S: 79.2 20.8 79.7 20.3 teacher do together help improve students' learning. The supervisor and N: 101 111 37 32 < 1 the teacher work 5: 47.6 52.4 53.6 46.4 on objectives that are important to the teacher. The supervisor helpsbh=129 83 42 27 4 1 the teacher setgoals%= 60.8 39.2 60.9 39.1 for improving his teaching. The supervisor and N=135 77 45 24 ‘4 1 the teacher work %= 63.7 36.3 65.2 34.8 together as partners in the improvement of teaching and learning. Both the supervisor N=l62 50 54 15 id 1 and the teacher gain%= 76.4 23.6 78.3 21.7 from working together. The supervisor helpsN=112 100 41 28 < .l the teacher develop %= 52.8 47.2 59.4 40.6 long term plans for his teaching. The supervisor and N: 98 114 35 34 < 1 the teacher work %= 46.2 53.8 50.7 49.3 comfortably together. 119 TABLE 19: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR'S ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF RAPPORT WITH THE TEACHER. Does Statement Apply Supervisory Teachers Principals Statements Yes No Yes No X2 P The supervisor re— N=159 53 49 20 4 1 spects teacher's %= 75.0 25.0 71.0 29.0 competence as a professional. The supervisor is N=155 57 53 16 4 1 honest with the = 73.1 26.9 76.8 23.2 teacher. The supervisor is N=171 41 58 11 < 1 confident of his/ %= 80.7 19.3 84.1 15.9 her professional ability. The supervisor is N=127 85 45 24 4 l willing to raise %= 59.9 40.1 65.2 34.8 difficult issues if he/she feels re- solving them is im- portant. The supervisor is N: 64 148 13 56 2.824 .093* someone with whom %= 30.2 69.8 18.8 81.2 the teacher can be honest. *=tendency toward significance. 120 Statistically, all but one statement lacked signifi- cant differences between teachers' and principals' percep- tion of the applicability of the supervisory statements. A tendency for such a difference was found in one statement. Teachers' and principals' perceptions of the appli- cability of the supervisory statements relating to the super- visor's encouragement of teacher self-evaluation are indi- cated in Table 20. A majority of the respondents indicated that two of the statements applied while a majority also indicated the other two statements did not apply. A significant difference between teachers' and prin- cipals' perceptions was found for one supervisory statement under this factor. The other three statements lacked such a difference. The perceptions of teachers and principals of the applicability of the supervisory statements relating to the supervisor's enthusiasm for teacher involvement in the supervision process are summarized in Table 21. A majority of teachers and principals indicated that five out of the seven supervisory statements under this factor did not ap- ply to their schools. A majority of the respondents indi- cated that the other five statements did apply. Statisti- cally significant differences between teachers' and prin— cipals' perceptions were found for two of the statements, while the other five statements did not show such differ- ences . TABLE 20: FREQUENCIES, TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' 121 PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR'S ENCOURAGEMENT OF TEACHER SELF-EVALUATION. Does Statement Apply Supervisory Teachers Principals 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor helpsN: 87 125 18 51 4.354 .037* the teacher to %= 41.0 59.0 26.1 73.9 assess his progress. The supervisor sug— N: 142 70 43 26 < l gests useful things %= 67.0 33.0 62.3 37.7 for discussion with the teacher. The supervisor en- N= 60 152 17 52 4 1 courages the teacher%= 28.3 71.7 24.6 75.4 to evaluate his teaching. The supervisor showsN= 114 98 39 30 4 1 the teacher new ways%= 53.8 46.2 56.5 43.5 to look at his teaching. *=significant 122 TABLE 21: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR'S ENTHUSIASM FOR TEACHER INVOLVEMENT IN THE SUPERVISION PROCESS. Does Statement Apply Supervisory Teachers Principals 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor and N: 67 145 26 43 4.1 the teacher decide %= 31.6 68.4 37.7 62.3 together how the supervisor can be most helpful. The teacher enjoys N: 104 108 28 41 1.181 .277 working with the %= 49.1 50.9 40.6 59.4 supervisor. The supervisor and N: 59 153 29 40 4.241 .039* the teacher have %= 27.8 72.2 42.0 58.0 enough time to— gether to accomplish useful things. There is continuity N: 83 129 33 36 1.278 .258 in the supervisor's %= 39.2 60.8 47.8 52.2 work with the teacher. The supervisor is N=ll6 96 48 21 4.132 .042* enthuasiastic about %+ 54.7 45.3 69.6 30.4 working with the teacher. The supervisor lets N=142 70 54 15 2.627 .105 the teacher know %= 67.0 33.0 78.3 21.7 his/her feelings about the teacher's teaching. The supervisor is N: 57 155 26 43 2.419 .120 generally available %= 26.9 73.1 37.7 62.3 when the teacher wants to work with him/her. *=significant. 123 Research Question 4.2: Do the supervisory process perceived by inexperienced teachers as being used in the State differ from those of the experienced teachers? Table 22 presents frequencies, percentages and chi square of inexperienced and experienced teachers' perceptions of whether the supervisory statements about procedures for classroom supervision apply to the schools. For six out of the nine supervisory statements in this category, the percentage of inexperienced teachers who said that the state- ments applied were greater than that of experienced teachers who said that the statements applied. For the other three statements, this trend was reversed. The percentage of the experienced teachers who said that the statements applied was greater than that of the the inexperienced teachers who said that the statements applied. Despite the above proportionate trend, statistically significant differences between the perceptions of inexper- ienced and experienced teachers were found for only two supervisory statements. The perceptions of inexperienced and experienced teachers with regard to whether or not the supervisory statements about the supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher apply to the schools are summarized in Table 23. A greater percentage of the inexperienced teachers said that all the eight statements under this category applied while a greater percentage of experienced teachers said that they did not apply. 124 TABLE 22: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF IN- EXPERIENCED AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE PROCEDURES FOR CLASSROOM SUPERVISION Does Statement Apply Inexper- Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P Pattern of Supervision Supervision is con- N= 30 29 74 79 4 l tinual rather than %= 50.8 49.2 48.4 51.6 occasional. Experienced teachersN: 36 23 99 54 4 1 are also supervised %= 61.0 39.0 64.7 35.3 Classroom observa- N= 25 34 31 122 9.603 .002* tions by supervisors%= 42.4 57.6 20.3 79.7 are scheduled and announced. Pre-Observation Conference Behaviors A pre-observation N: 18 41 23 130 5.583 .018* conference is held %= 30.5 69.5 15.0 85.0 between the teacher and supervisor. During the pre- N: 15 44 33 120 4 l observation con- %= 25.4 74.6 21.6 78.4 ference the super— visor discusses with the teacher what he will be looking for during the classroom ob- servation. Classroom Observation Behaviors During classroom = 26 33 48 105 2.487 .115 N2 observation the = 44.1 55.9 31.4 68.6 supervisor enters the room before the period begins, and does not leave until the class period has ended. 125 TABLE 22: (Cont) Does Statement Apply Inexper— Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X The supervisor N= 40 19 97 56 4 1 takes written notes %= 67.8 32.2 63.4 36.6 during the class- room observation. Post-Observation Con- ference Behaviors A post-observation N= 36 23 98 55 <1 conference is held %= 61.0 39.0 64.1 35.9 between the super- visor and the teacher to discuss and analyze the data collected during the observa— tion. During post- N: 20 39 53 100 < 1 observation confer- %= 33.9 66.1 34.6 65.4 ence, the supervisor emphasizes both the teacher's weaknesses and strengths. *=significant 126 TABLE 23: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF IN- EXPERIENCED AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO SUPERVISOR'S COMPETENCE IN ASSISTING THE TEACHER. Does Statement Apply Inexper- Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor N: 40 19 97 56 4 1 thinks things out %= 67.8 32.2 63.4 36.6 well before he works with the teacher. The supervisor N: 48 11 115 38 4 1 knows a great deal %: 81.4 18.6 75.2 24.8 about teaching. The supervisor stim-N= 45 14 113 40 < l ulates the teacher %: 76.3 23.7 73.9 26.1 to do his best. The teacher re- N= 48 11 118 35 4.1 spects the super— %: 81.4 18.6 77.1 22.9 visor's competence. The teacher under- N: 47 12 119 34 <.1 stands what the %: 79.7 20.3 77.8 22.2 supervisor means. The supervisor N: 46 13 100 53 2.596 .107 understands the %: 78.0 22.0 65.4 34.6 needs of the teach- er's pupils. The supervisor main-N: 41 18 93 60 1.039 .308 tains high pro- = 69.5 30.5 60.8 39.2 fessional stand— ards in working with the teacher. The supervisor N: 48 11 122 31 ‘41 makes suggestions %= 81.4 18.6 79.7 20.3 that the teacher finds useful. 127 No significant differences between the perceptions of inexperienced and experienced teachers were found for all eight supervisory statements. Table 24 presents frequencies, percentages and chi square of inexperienced and experienced teachers' percep- tions of whether or not the supervisory statements relating to the supervisor's working relationship with the teacher apply to the schools. Proportionate differences between the perceptions of inexperienced and experienced teachers were found in all the eight supervisory statements under this category. A greater percentage of inexperienced teachers said that the statements applied to their schools, while a greater percentage of the experienced teachers said that they did not apply. Significant differences was found only for the state- ment about the supervisor and the teaching gaining from working together. Table 25 summarizes the perceptions of inexperienced and experienced teachers as to whether or not the supervisory statements about the supervisor's establishment and mainten- ance of rapport with the teacher applied to the schools. A greater percentage of the inexperienced teachers and a smaller percentage of experienced teachers said two of the five state— ments applied. For the other three supervisory statements, however, a smaller percentage of inexperienced teachers and a greater percentage of the experienced teachers said the 128 TABLE 24: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES, AND CHI SQUARE OF INEXPERIENCED AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' PERCEP- TIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SUPERVISORY STATE— MENTS RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR'S WORKING RE- LATIONSHIP WITH THE TEACHER Does Statement Apply Inexper— Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor en— N: 40 19 99 54 4 1 courages the teacher%: 67.8 32.2 74.7 35.3 to develop his own personal style of teaching. What the supervisor N: 48 11 120 33 4 1 and teacher do to- %= 81.4 18.6 78.4 21.6 gether help im- prove students' learning. The supervisor and N: 30 29 71 82 4 1 the teacher work on %= 50.8 49.2 46.4 53.6 objectives that are important to the teacher. The supervisor helpsN: 40 19 89 64 1.277 .259 the teacher set %: 67.8 32.2 58.2 41.8 goals for improving his teaching. The supervisor and N: 40 19 95 58 4 1 the teacher work %= 67.8 32.2 62.1 37.9 together as partners in the improvement of teaching and learning. Both the supervisor N: 51 8 111 42 3.821 .050* and the teacher gain%= 86.4 13.6 72.5 27.5 from working together The supervisor helpsN: 37 22 75 78 2.678 .102 the teacher develop %: 62.7 37.3 49.0 57.0 long term plans for his teaching. 129 TABLE 24:(Cont) Does Statement Apply Inexper- Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X The supervisor and N: 31 28 67 86 4 1 the teacher work %: 52.5 47.5 43.8 56.2 comfortably to- gether. *=significant. TABLE 25: FREQUENCIES, 130 PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF INEXPERIENCED AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' PERCEP— TIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SUPERVISORY STATE— MENTS ABOUT SUPERVISOR'S ESTABLISHMENT AND MAIN- TENANCE OF RAPPORT WITH THE TEACHER Does Statement Apply Inexper- Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor re- N: 50 9 109 44 3.452 .063* spects the teacher's%= 84.7 15.3 71.2 28.8 competence as a professional. The supervisor is N: 44 15 111 42 4 1 honest with the %: 74.6 25.4 72.5 27.5 teacher. The supervisor is N: 47 12 124 29 4 1 confident of his/ %: 79.7 20.3 81.0 19.0 her professional ability. The supervisor is N: 34 25 93 60 4 1 willing to raise %= 57.6 42.4 60.8 39.2 difficult issues if resolving them is important. The supervisor is N: 16 43 48 l05 4 1 someone with whom %: 27.1 72.9 31-4 68.5 the teacher can be honest. *=tendency toward significance 131 statements applied. The statement dealing with the super- visor's respect for the teacher's competence as a professional had a tendency to show a significant difference between the perceptions of inexperienced and experienced teachers. Table 26 presents a summary of inexperienced and experienced teachers' perceptions of whether or not the supervisory statements about the supervisor's encouragement of teacher self—evaluation applied to the schools. For three of the statements in this category, a greater per- centage of the experienced teachers said the statements applied, while a greater percentage of the inexperienced teachers said they did not apply. For the other statement, the results were reversed. Statistically, no significant differences were found between the perceptions of inexperienced and experienced teachers regarding these statements. Table 27 presents frequencies, percentages and chi square of inexperienced and experienced teachers' percep- tions of the applicability of the supervisory statements about the supervisor's enthusiasm for teacher involvement in the supervision process. Proportionately, the trend was for a greater per— centage of inexperienced teachers to say that the statements applied to their schools, while a greater percentage of the experienced teachers said that they did not apply. In statistical terms, however, a significant difference between 132 TABLE 26: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF IN- EXPERIENCED AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR'S ENCOURAGEMENT OF TEACHER SELF-EVALUATION. Does Statement Apply Inexper- Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor N: 24 35 63 90 4 l helps the teacher %: 40.7 59.3 41.2 58.8 to assess his progress. The supervisor N: 45 14 97 56 2.635 .105 suggests useful %= 76.3 23.7 63.4 36.6 things for discus- sion with the teacher. The supervisor en— N: 15 44 45 108 4.1 courages the teacher%= 25.4 74.6 29.4 70.6 to evaluate his teaching. The supervisor N: 30 29 84 69 4.1 shows the teacher %= 50.8 49.2 54.9 45.1 new ways to look at his teaching. 133 TABLE 27: FREQUENCIES, PERCENTAGES AND CHI SQUARE OF IN- EXPERIENCED AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR'S ENTHUSIASM FOR TEACHER INVOLVEMENT IN THE SUPERVISION PROCESS Does Statement Apply Inexper- Exper- Supervisory ienced ienced 2 Statements Yes No Yes No X P The supervisor and N: 23 36 44 109 1.614 .204 the teacher decide %= 39.0 61.0 28.8 71.2 together how the supervisor can be most helpful. The teacher enjoys N: 34 25 70 83 1.951 .163 working with the %= 57.6 42.4 45.8 54.2 supervisor. The supervisor and N: 20 39 39 114 1.109 .292 the teacher have %: 33.9 66.1 25.5 74.5 enough time to- gether to accomplish useful things. There is contin— N: 30 29 53 100 4.039 .045* uity in the super- %= 50.8 49.2 34.6 65.4 visor's work with the teacher. The supervisor is N: 39 20 77 76 3.663 .056+ enthusiastic about %= 66.1 33.9 50.3 49.7 working with the teacher. The supervisor lets N: 42 17 100 53 4 1 the teacher know %- 71.2 28.8 65.4 34.6 his/her feelings about the teacher's teaching. The supervisor is N: 19 40 38 115 4 1 generally available %= when the teacher wants to work with him/her. +tendency to significance *significant 134 the perceptions of inexperienced and experienced teachers was found for the statements: "There is continuity in the supervisor's work with the teacher." The statement about the supervisor's enthusiasm also had a strong tendency for such a difference. Other supervisory statements under this category showed no significant differences. Degree of Importance of Supervisory Process Research Question 5.0: Which supervisory processes are considered important in improving instruction in Anambra State Schools? In order to find which supervisory processes the teachers and principals considered important in improving instruction, they were asked to indicate their opinions of several supervisory statements by circling one response in the following rating scale: 1: not important 2: somewhat important 3: important 4: very important Table 28 presents percentages of teachers' and prin- cipals' responses regarding the importance of supervisory statements about procedures for classroom supervision. A majority of the teachers and a majority of the principals considered five of the statements very important, and one important. They considered three to be unimportant. 135 .coflum>uomno eooummmao on» madman mono: couufluz o.mm v.om s.m N.s m.ss o.~e s.m o.m mmxmu uomusuwasm one .oooco mm: noduod woman on» Hausa o>on uo: hoop pom .wcfloon pofiuom on» muomon soou on» muoucm uoma>uodsm on» soap o.mm o.v~ m.om H.om o.hm m.>~ h.NH >.HN im>uwmno sooummmao mcfluna muoa>mcom coflum>uomno sooummmau .coflum>uowno eooummmau on» mcfluso now acaxooH on H443 on own: umcomou may sue: mowmsomflo nomH>uodsm ecu oucouowcou coau m.vH m.om m.ma H.mm o.m~ o.- h.ma o.mm Im>uomoonoud one ocfiuso .uoma>uod:m cam nocomou ocu coozpon paws ma mono m.o~ m.am m.va m.mm m.om o.om N.va >.mm uuomcoo cofium>uomn01oud 4 muofi>mcom oucouomcou cofium>uomQOIoum .ooocsoccm com ooHSUocum mum muoma>uodom o.ms H.0N m.o~ s.sm «.m: o.mm m.oe H.oe so mcouum>uomno eooummmao .oomo>uodsm omam o.me v.om m.o: o.m o.m~ m.mm o.m: o.m mum muonomwu omocmuuoaxm . HmCOHmmuoo cmsu HOLHMH 4.4m m.vu 4.4 o.o ~.Hs H.4N m.e m.~ Hmscuucoo mu coamu>uoasm cosmfi>uodsm eooummmau mo cuouumm ..H.> ..H 4.H.m ..H.z 4.H.> 4.H *.H.m ..H.z mucmemumum suomu>uodsm mHmQHUCHud muocumoe oocmuuomEH mo omuooa L ZOHmH>mmmDm 200mmmmmmDm NIB m0 mUZ¢BmOmzH mmfi BDOm< mumZOmmmm .mduo>n.H.> acouHOQEHu .H oomquQEH ponsoeomu.H.m ucmuuooEH bozu.H.24 .ocuocouum Ucm oommocxooz m.uocumou onu noon mouflomcdeo noofi>uodsm ocu .oocouomcou m.oo N.om m.N o.o H.mo m.mm v.~ N.v coaum>uoo30ium0d acousa .cofluo>uoono one mcauso Uouooaaou memo one o~>aoco pom woodman ou uocuoou 0cm nonfl>uodso one coozuon oaon we oocouow m.mo o.:m o.~ 4.4 0.40 m.m~ o.e N.m icoo ecuum>uomnouomoo 4 muoH>m£om oocouowcou coaum>uomno unom s.H.> *.H «.H.m «.H.z «.H.> s.H «.H.m «.H.z mucoeopmum wHOmH>HoQDm mammflocaud ouonomoe oocouuomeH mo oouaoo Aucoo. "mm mumee 137 Table 29 summarizes the teachers' and principals' responses regarding the importance of the statements about the supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher. All the principals felt six of the statements had some importance, but a majority of the teachers considered one statement very important while a majority of the prin- cipals considered it only important. A majority of the teachers and a majority of the principals considered five of the supervisory statements very important and two as important. Table 30 presents the percentages of teachers' and principals' responses regarding the importance of the supervisory statements about the supervisor's working re- lationship with the teacher. A majority of the teachers considered two of the statements very important while a majority of the principals considered them only important. A majority of the teachers and a majority of the principals, however, agreed that three statements were very important and another three were only important. A summary of the responses of teachers and principals regarding the importance, for the improvement of teaching, of the supervisory statements about the supervisor's estab— lishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher, is presented in Table 31. A majority of the teachers and a majority of the principals considered three of the statements ucmquQEH >uo>u.H.> ”unouHOQEHu.H "acoHLOQEH uocsoeomu.H.m "acouMOQEfl uozu.H.z* .HSNoo: modem uocumou ocu umcu mcoflumoo m.om s.sm m.m o.o o.sv m.m4 m.s o. -osm mmxm: somusumasm one .uocomou on» Loos asexuos EH mono upcmum Hmcoflomomoua 20H: o.oo N.mm m.~ o.o m.~v 5.5m s.~u H.s mcumucume somu>umdsm one mHHQSQ m.ouocumou mo moooc one m.m4 m.m4 ~.s o.o m.sa 0.44 o.o N.s_mocmumuopcs uomu>umasm one mcooe noofl>uodsm onu umcz m.mv v.ov H.0H o.o o.om o.>v m.HH m.m opcmuouooco uocomou one oucouoaeoo m.uoofl>uodso m e.om m.om H.0H m.m m.m~ m.mv «.mu m.o one muomdmou sonomou one 1 ammo oHc op 0p uonomop ocu ~.~m m.m4 m.~ 4.: «.mm ~.mm 0.0 m.~ mmum452uum somu>umdsm one .mcflcomou usonm Hoop umouo m.m> m.om v.H 0.0 m.>o m.mm N.v v.~ m ozocx nomfl>uodso one uocuoou ocu coax oxuoz on ou0mon HHoS uso mocflcu m.ve m.me m.m o.o m.me m.~e o.o ~.m mxcucu somu>uodsm one «.H.> *.H ..H.m «.H.z «.H.> ..H 4.H.m ..H.z mucoeoumum auomfl>uodsm mammaucaud muocomoe oucmuuomEH mo oouooo mmmUmmmDm MIR 930m< mBzmszmmmDm ho MUZuo>u.H.> “uanHOQEHu.H ”unmuHOQEm umnzoeomu.H.m ”unouMOQEfi uozu.H.z« o.Nv m.vv N.b m.v o.m m.vm o.mv o.hv m.om b.NH o.o .uonuomou >Hnmuu0meoo xuoz uonomou h.v on» Unm Homfl>uodsm one .mnflnomoy man now onoad Euou mood QoHo>oo uonomou o.m onu odaon uomfl>uodso one .uonuooou mnflxuoz eoum comm uonumou onu N.m can nomfl>uodso on» nuom .onflnuooa poo Unfinomou mo unoe |o>ouQEH onu CH ouonuuod no uonuooou xuoz uonomou N.v onu can uomH>uodoo one .UCHnuoou man onfl>oua uEH now mamom poo uonuoou N.m onu mdaon noofl>uodsm one .uonooou on» on unoHLOQEfl ouo uonu oo>aauonno no xuoz uonooop m.aa one new Hoow>uodsm one .mnflnuooa .munopsum o>ouQEH maon nonpooou op uonomou on» poo m.m Hooa>uodsm onu monflnu one .mcanomou mo oaxuo Honowuoa n30 man QoHo>oo Ou uonooou onu H.h mommusoono nomfi>uodsm one s.H.m «.H.z ounoeououm muowfi>uomsm muonoooe s.H.> ¥.H «.H.m «.H.z s.H.> ¥.H mammflonoum oonmuuomEH mo ooumoo mmm0mmmDm mIB BDOm< mfizmzm8<9m memH>mmmDm m0 muzcfimOQZH mIE OZHchomm mmmzommmm .mqvaUZHmm 02¢ .mmmmUuo>u.H.> enoeHOQEHu .H enmeMOQEH emn3oeomu.H.m ecmequEH eozn.H.z. emonon on now uonomoe one son: nee: ono m.ev ~.om o.ee m.s s.ev m.sm o.o ~.m -msom we some>umasm one enmeu0d use we eone one>eomoe oaoow onm\on me mosmme eesoemmep omeme oe one v.om o.ov m.om o.o m.mm o.ev o.oe v.oa iaeez we uooe>uod=m one >eeaenm HoEOHmmom loud umn\mec mo scoped m.No o.om o.o m.m o.ov o.om o.o N.v Inoo we eooe>eodzo one uonumoe one nee3 o.mm m.vm N.> m.v o.om e.ov o.o m.m emocon we nome>uodsm one Honoemmomoed o no oonoeodeoo o.uonumoe one m.vm o.om m.v m.v m.mv v.mv o.o m.m meoodooe eooe>uodsm one «.H.> ..H ..H.m ¥.H.z ..H.> «.H ..H.m ¥.H.z mecoeoumem xuome>uomsm neomeoneud ouonuooe ounmeHOQEH mo oouooa m02mmmDm mmB BDOm< m82mzm9<9m memH>mmmDm m0 .mmm$Uuo>u.H.> enmeeOQEHu .H enmeHOQEe emnzoeomu.H.m enmeHOQEH eozn.H.2¥ onenuooe men em xooa 0e m>o3 3o: eonomoe b.hm m.mv N.R o.o R.mm o.ev o.vH o.o one m3onm eooe>uodso one onenomoe men oemsam>o oe eonumoe one m.mv v.ov H.0H o.o m.vv m.mv o.o v.N oomousoono uooe>uodsm onR uonomoe one nee3 nonnsu twee uom monene Homom: o.om v.ov H.0H o.o m.om o.om v.m N.v memom03m Home>uod3m onR .mmoumoud men omommo 0e uonumoe m.hm v.om H.0H m.N N.mm m.vv m.m H.o one mQHon uomH>eoQDo onR 4.H.> *.H ..H.m ..H.z 4.H.> *.H «.H.m «.H.z mecoeoemem suome>uonsm mammeuneum meonoooR ounoeuomEH mo ooumoo ZOHRMILJMM MMMUMMmDm MIR RDOM< WRZMZMRMMmDm m0 .MMM:Uuo>u.H.> ”enmeHOQEHu.H ”enmeuOQEH eonzoeomu.H.m "enmeHOQEH eozu.H.z* o.vN m.om m.mH N.MN o.Hm o.mm o.oa o.HH o.om m.mv v.oa m.v m.vm o.ov v.oa H.R o.vm m.mv v.oa m.v o.am m.mv o.oa H.R uo2\eHc nee: xeoz 0e menm3 eonumoe one non3 oanmaeo>m >Hem luonom me uooe>uodsm one .Onenoooe m.uo Inomoe one esonm moneaoow eon\men zonx uonomoe one oeoa uooe>uodsm one .uonumoe one nee3 onexuoz esono oeemme Imsneno we eooe>eodsm one .uonumoe one neeB xuoz o.uome>uodsm one m.vm ~.Nm H.0H m.m N.mm o.om o.oe o.o ne >eesneenoo we ouonR .mmnene Hoeom: nmeedeooom oe eoneoooe oEHe nmsono o>mn uonomoe m.em m.mv o.mH o.ae ~.om o.mm m.RH m.NH one can uome>uodsm one .uome>uoddo one neez one H.mm m.ee m.me o.o: o.- s.em o.om m.me -xuoz msoflcm umeumme one .asmdaon emoe on coo uowe>uodso one 3on eoneoooe ooeooo uonumoe N.mm v.om v.oe o.om H.mm o.om o.me m.mm one Ono uome>eodsm one ..H.> ..H ..H.m ..H.z ..H.> ..H ..H.m ..H.z mecoeoemem muome>uodsm oemmeoneed muonomoR oonoeeomEH Mo ooeooo ZOHMH>MMQDM MMIUMMmDm MmR RDOM< mRZMZMRJO>2H RMOMH>MMQDW m0 MO MMO¢R2MUMMQ "mm MJMummno eooummmao mcu madman now ocflxooH mg 4443 we umc3 umsommu ocu cufiz mommsomao pomfl>umasm may mocmuwmcoo coflp H v 4m.4 mo.~ +4mo. os.a 4m.~ mm.m -m>ummno-mua may ocfluso nomfl> (woman new nonommu mnu cmw3umn Damn mH mocmumm adv sH.~ OH.~ H v mo.m so.m -cou coflpm>ummnoumua 4 muoa>mcmm mucmuowcou coaum>ummnolmum 161 noocsoccm 0cm Umasomcom mum muomfl>umasm >Q mam. v~.H mm.H H~.N «>40. No.~ mm.m m~.~ mcoflum>ummno sooummmao Umwfl>umasm omam mum ova. m4.H 4m.m mm.m a v No.m so.m mumnommu omocwflumdxm Hmcoflmmooo cmcu Lacuna Hm: +omo. >>.H Hm.m vm.m mom. mo.a vm.m vh.m Influcoo ma conH>udew cona>quDm eooummmau mo cumuumm m B Acmmzv Acmmzv m e Acmmzv Acmmzv mucmemumum mHmQflUCHum mumnomma mamQHUCHum mumsomme >uomfl>ummsm (\NHmm< uoz moon ucweoumum mmaaad< pomempmum qum< BOZ GHQ wmmfi QHJmm< GHQ >mmB QHmmmDm 200mmmmmmDm MIR m0 WUZIB 02¢ mzoco©cmuu+ mcumcmuuw 0cm mmmmmcxmmz m.um£ommu mnu Lyon mmNflmmcaew nomfl>umasm mnu .mocmumwcoo 20H» H v mm.m om.m H v coo.m km.m -m>ummnoupmoa mcHusa cofium>ummno may mcfiuso omuowaaou mumo mcu mu>amcm Ucm mmsUMHo on Hmcommu 0cm Homfi>umdsm mnu cmeumn pawn ma mocmuom vvm. ba.a vv.m 4H.m mma. mv.a mo.m mh.m Icoo coflum>umm30cumoa 4 wHoH>mnmm mocmummcou coaum>ummnolumom cofium>uwmno eooummmao mnu mCHHDU mwuoc cmuufluz H v mm.~ mn.~ H v ov.m sv.m mmxmu HomH>nmasm mns .ooocm mm: UOHHmQ mmmao mcp Hausa w>moH uoc mwop Ucm .mcammn oofluma may muommn soon on» mumucm HowH>HmQ3m mcu coHum> «moo. om.N mm.a vm.m moa. mm.a om.m vm.m Inmmno sooummmao modusa muoa>mnwm coaum>ummno eooummmau d E Acmmzv Acmmzv m B Acmwzv Acmmzv mucwemumum mamaaocaum mnmcomme mHmQHocHHm mumnomme >Homa>umasm (NHQQ4 #02 noon ucmemumum moHHmm< Homemumum AuCOUV new mdm<8 163 than the mean indices of importance for teachers and prin- cipals who said they did not apply. Statistically, however, a significant difference between the perceptions of teachers and principals who said the statements applied was found for only one statement. With regard to the perceptions of teachers and principals who said the statements did not apply, a tendency for significant difference was found for one supervisory statement and a significant difference for another. Table 47 presents a summary of teachers' and prin- cipals' perceptions of the importance, in the improvement of instruction, of the supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher, according to whether they said that the state- ments applied or did not apply. For the teachers, the mean indices of importance for those who said the statements applied were higher than those who said the statements did not apply. This trend was reversed for the principals, where in four cases the mean indices of importance of those who said the statements did not apply were higher than those who said the statements did apply. For one statement, a significant difference was found between the perceptions of teachers and principals who said the statement applied. Among those who said the statement did not apply, significant differences in per— ceptions were found for two of the supervisory statements. 164 HcmuHHHconux Hawmms mUCHm Honommu may you» mcoflummomsm ooa. mv.H 4m.m mm.m .Hv mv.m H4.m mmxme Homfl>uwasm one umcomwu mcu :uH3 mafixuoz CH woum nocmum Hmcoflmmmwoua 20H: shoe. on.m ov.m on.m «mmo. om.m mo.m mm.m mcamHCHme Homa>nmasm one madman m.umcomwu on» GO momma mnu mocmum mam. vo.H m~.m oo.m .Hv mv.m mm.m :umocs HomH>Hmasm was momma Homfl>uoasm mnu Hons mvm. 5H.H Nv.m mo.m .Hv mm.m mm.m mocmumumocs Honommu one wocmumaeoo m.uomfl>ummsw *soo. mm.m ~4.m om.~ H_v mo.m mo.m may mpomdmmn umnummu 6:9 pump was 00 Cu Locommu on» H v mm.m mH.m Hwy mm.m hv.mqmmumH:EHum Homa>ummsm one acacommu usonm Hmmo ummum mnH. hm.H mm.m mm.m mnH. om.H m>.m mo.m m mzocx HomH>Honm one Honommu on» nuflz mxuoz on muowmn HHmz uso mocacu H vm.m HH.m H v mv.m mm.m meHnu Homa>ummsm 6:9 m B Acmmzv Acmmzv m B Acmmzv Homozv mucwemumum mHmQHUCHHm mumcumwe mHmaHocHHm mumsomme >uomH>Hwasm NHGQ¢ #02 noon acmemumum mmHHQQ< unmemumum HJGQ¢ 802 QHG VGEB GH¢m 023 mmOIB NG G2¢ wJQG¢ GHQ wax? QH¢w Om: mmOIB wm msz¢mB GEE OZHBmHmm¢ 2H GUZGBMGZOU m.mOmH>mmmDm BDOG¢ mBzmzme¢Em rmOmH>mmGGw mmB m0 MUZ¢BGOGEH GEE m0 MZOHBGMUGGG MJ¢GHUZHGG G2¢ mammU¢mB m0 mmGQ¢>IB G2¢ m2¢mz uhv MJG¢B 165 Table 48 presents the means and t-values of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the importance of the super- visory statements about the supervisor's working relation- ship with the teacher, according to whether they said the statements applied or did not apply. The trend in the previous cases was maintained. The mean indices of impor- tance of teachers and principals who said the statements applied were higher than those who said they did not apply. No significant differences were found between the percep- tions of teachers and principals in either case. A summary of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the importance of the supervisory statements relating to the supervisor's establishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher, according to whether they said the state- ments applied or did not apply, is presented in Table 49. The trend of higher mean indices for those who said the statements applied was maintained, except in one case where the mean index of the principals who said the statement did not apply was higher than those who said it did apply. No significant differences were found between the perceptions of the teachers and principals in these cases. Table 50 presents the means and t—values of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the importance of the super- visory statements about supervisor encouragement of teacher self-evaluation, according to whether they said the state- ments applied or did not apply. 166 HV HVV H.V H v Hv H V MH.m vo.m oo.m mh.m om.m mh.N vm.m HN.m mo.m No.m mN.m oo.m H V H V mm.m no.m om.m NN.m om.m mv.m mv.m mo.m Hv.m mm.m 4m.m ov.m LocumUOH UCquoz EOHH CHmm uwcomwu wcu ocm HomH>Hmdsm wcu cuom oCchmmH Ucm mcHnommu mo ucmsm>oua IEH mnu CH muwcyuma mm umcuomou xuoz Hmcomwu on» 0cm HomH>Hmasm one mcHzommu mHz GCH>0HQEH How mHmoa umm Hmcommu wcu dems HomH>Hmasm one umnomwu map OH ucmuuoaeH mum umnu mm>Hu nomnno co xuo3 Hocommu mzu 6cm HowH>umasm one OCchmmH .mucmGSHm m>oua (EH Qch Hmcummou op Honommp on» 0cm HowH> numasm ocu mGCHnu one ochommu mo mH>um Hmcomuma czo ch Qon> Imp Op Hmcommu 02H mmom luzoucm Hon>Hszm one m B Acmwzv Acmmzv m B Acmmzv Acmwzv mHmQHucHHm mumcomme mHmQHUCHHm mumcommfi >HQG¢ uoz mmoo Homempmum mmHHQQ¢ Homemumum mucmemumum >HomH>qu3m >JQG¢ Eozflfizuwmmb QH¢m 0:3 mmOmE >G Q2¢ >GQG¢A22GHMEB GH¢m Om: mmOEB >m .mmmU¢mB GEE 28H: mszZOHE¢Jmm 02me03 m.mOmH>mmme GEE EGOG¢ m92mzm9¢9m >mOmH>mmmDm GEE GO MUZ¢BmOGZH HEB m0 mZOHBQmummm .mG¢QHUZHmm G2¢ .mmm:U¢mB m0 mmDG¢>IB Q2¢ m2¢m2 umv MJG¢B 167 Hmcummou >Hnmu unOmeoo xuo3 umcomwu H v oo.m mo.m H v pH.m vm.m wcu 0cm HomH>Hmasm one OCHcommu mHL How mCMHQ Emmy mcoH Qon>mU Locummu onH. om.H vo.m vr.~ H v NN.m mN.m on» mQHmL HomH>HmQ3m mca m B Acmozv Acmozv B Acmmzv Acmwzv mpcmemume mHmQHUCHHm mumcomme mHmQHUCHum mumnumme >HomH>umasm >HGQ¢ uoz mmoa ucmemumum meHQQ< unmemumum HHCOUV umv mJG¢E 168 ummcon on cmo HQSUMOH 03“ E053 £HH3 0C0 H v mH.m oo.m H v om.m mm.m nmeom mH HomH>Hszm one HCMHHOQEH wH emcu GCH>HomoH mHmmm mcm\m: GH mmsme uHson -HHo mmHmu ou ocHHHHz H v mm.m mm.~ H v NN.m om.m mH HomH>umdsm one GuHHHQm Hmconme (cum Hm;\mHs Ho HcmoHH mHH. oo.H vo.m om.m mm.H mv.m mm.m Icoo mH ..HomHHZmQHHMW one Honomou on» nqu H v mo.m om.m H v H4.m mm.m Hmmcon mH HomH>nmasm mes Hmconmwmoud m mm mocmuwdeoo w.umnommu on» mmH. om.H om.m mm.m H v mm.m om.m muomamou .HomH>.HonMW one Q E Acmmzv Acmozv B Acmwzv Acmmzv mucmeoumum mHmQHocHHm muwcomwe mHmQHUCHHm mumcomms GnomH>Hwasm >HQQ¢ uoz mmoo unmewumum meHQG¢ ucwemumum G2¢ >GGG¢ GHQ >GEB GH¢m 0E3 mmOEB >G >JGG¢ BOZ GHQ >GEB GH¢m OEZ mmOEB .EGEU¢GB GEE EBHZ BEOGG¢G GO GUZ¢2mB I2H¢z Q2¢ BZGZEmHQm¢Bmm m.mOwH>mmGDm GEE BDOG¢ m92mzm8¢8m rmOmH>mmGGm GEE GO GUZ¢BEOQZH GEE GO GZOHBGGUGGG .mJ¢GHUZHmG Q2¢ .mmmEU¢mB GO mde¢>IB G2¢ m2¢m2 nmv GJG¢B 169 unmonHconux ucmonHcon on on Gocovcouu+ OCHcUmoH mHn um xooH o» m>m3 3o: Honomou ony H v mm.N mm.m H v mm.m Em.m ozocm .HomH>.HoQ:o osE GCHnomou ch oumsHm>o Op Hocumou onu momm «4H0. om.m mm.m hm.m +000. mm.H E~.m mv.m lusooco .HomHHHHoQHHo ocE Hocomou on» nqu conmso ImHU How mochu Homom: H v mm.~ Hm.m H v mm.m mm.m mumoomsm HomH>Hodsm och mmoumoua ch mmommm ou Honomou on» H v va.~ mm.m mom. mo.H mH.m mm.m mQHoc .Ho.oH>.HoQHHm one G E Acmozv Homozv G E Homozv Homozv mucoeoumum mHmaHocHHG muocomoE onQHUCHHG muozomoe GnomH>Hodam HHGG¢ uoz moOG ucoEoumum moHHQQ¢ ucoeououm EGGG¢ EOZ GHQ EGEE GH¢m 0E3 GmOEE G2¢ >4GG¢ GHQ EGEE GH¢m OE: GmOEE Em .ZOHE¢DG¢>G IGJGm GGEU¢GE GO E2GZGO¢GGOUZG GOmH>GGGDm EGOG¢ WEZGZGE¢EG >GOGH>GGGDW GEE GO GUZ¢EGOGEH GEE GO GZOHEGGUGGG .mJ¢GHOZHGG Q2¢ .mGGEU¢GE GO GGDJ¢>IE Q2¢ m2¢G2 Hom GJG¢E 170 With the exception of one case, where the mean of the principals who said the statement did not apply was higher than the mean of those who said it did apply, the previous trend was maintained. For one statement, a ten— dency toward significant difference was found between the perceptions of teachers and principals who said the state- ment applied. For the same statement, a significant dif— ference was noted between the perceptions of teachers and principals who said the statement did not apply. Table 51 presents the means and t-values of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the importance, in the im— provement of instruction, of the supervisory statements relating to the supervisor enthusiasm for teacher involve- ment in supervision according to whether they said the statements applied or did not apply. In all these state- ments, the mean indices of teachers and principals who said the statements applied were higher than those of the teachers and principals who said the statements did not apply. For teachers and principals who said the statements applied, a significant difference was found between their perceptions of one statement. For those who said they did not apply, a significant difference in perceptions was also found in one statement. 171 HcmuHHHconux «HNO. how. NEH. mm.N HV HH.H Hv .Hv mm.H Em.m ME.N om.N 4H.m mm.N Hv.N No.N mh.m v>.N mm.N mm.N @E.N mm.m mN.N Nom. mMH. kao. vo.H mv.H H V vo.m HH.n EH.m vm.m 4H.m mv.m mm.m mN.m mN.m NH.m mm.m EH.m no.m 0H.m umn\eHz cqu v_.HO3 OH W#Cm3 HmfiUmmu on» cons oHQMHHm>o >HHmHo Icoa mH HomH>HoQ5m oLE GCHnomou m.uonomou ocu uzonm mGCHHoow Hon\mHn socx uonomou onu muoH HomH>HoG5m ocE Locomou ocu nqu GCH Ixuoz usonm UHummHmsnu aco mH HomH>Honm one Honooou osu cqu xuoz m.HomH>uodsm on» cH GuHscHucoo mH ouone mUCHnu Homow: LmHHdeooom o» HoLHoGOH oEHH nmsoco o>mc Honomou onu oco HomH>uoasm one HomH>HoQ5m ocu cqu @cH Ixuoz m>ohco Hocumou one HSGQHon uwos on coo HomH>HoQ3o on» 30: HocuoOOH ooHoop Hocomou onu Cam HomH>quDm ocE G E Homozv onGHUCHHG muocomoE Homozv GHGG¢ uoz ooOG pcoeoumum E Acmozv mHmQHUCHHG Homozv muocomoE moHHQG¢ ucoeoumum mucoeououm GuomH>qu5m G2¢ EJGG¢ GHQ EGEE QH¢m 0E3 GmOEE EG GGEO¢GE GOG 2m¢HmGEE2G GOGH>GGGGG OE 02HE¢JGG mEZGZGE¢Em >GOGH>GGGGG GEE GO GUZ¢EGOGZH GEE GO GZOHEGGUGGG EJGG¢ EOZ QHG EGEE QH¢m OE: GmOEE EG .mG¢GHUZHGG G2¢ .mGGEU¢GE GO mGDJ¢>IE Q2¢ m2¢Gz .mmGUOGG ZOHmH>GGGGm GEE 2H E2G2G>GO>2H HHm GJG¢E 172 Other Research Questions In addition to the research questions that served as the focal points for this study, other research questions needed to be answered. They are considered below as re- search questions 6.0 through 6.4. Research Question 6.0: Do the teachers' perceptions of the applicability of the six factor categories, as collective groups, differ from those of the prin- cipals? Research Question 6.1: Which factors of supervisory process as collective groupsennamost neglected in Anambra schools? Table 52 presents the mean indices of applicability for the six categories of supervisory statement for teachers and principals. In one of the six categories, statistically signi- ficant differences were found between the perceptions of the teachers and the principals regarding the applicability of that factor in Anambra schools. According to the mean indices of applicability for both teachers and principals, the three most neglected factors in the supervisory process are, in order of their neglect: 1. supervisor encouragement of teacher self-evaluation. 2. supervisor enthusiasm for teacher involvement in the supervisory process. 3. supervisory establishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher. 173 TABLE 52: MEAN INDICES OF APPLICABILITY FOR SIX FACTOR CATEGORIES OF SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS FOR TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS Factor Category of Means Supervisory Statements Teachers Principals T P Procedures for classroom 4.094 4.536 1.38 .170 supervision Supervisorhscompetence 5.850 6.217 1.08 .282 in assisting the teacher Supervisor's working re- 4.925 5.130 4 1 lationship with the teacher Supervisor's establishment 3.585 3.783 4 1 and maintenance of rapport with the teacher Supervisor's encouragement 2.514 2.681 4 1 of teacher self-evaluation Supervisor's enthusiasm 2.962 3.536 1.99 .047* for teacher involvement in the supervisory process *=significant 174 Research Question 6.2: Do teachers' perceptions of the degree of importance of the six factors as col- lective groups differ from those of the principals? Research Question 6.3: Do the teachers' perceptions and the principals' perceptions differ among the six factors as collective groups? Research Question 6.4: Which factor of the super- visory statements do the teachers and the principals perceive to be most important? Table 53 presents the mean indices of importance for six factor categories of supervisory statements for teachers and principals. For one of the six factors, a significant differ— ence was found between the perceptions of the teachers and principals, regarding the importance they attached to that factor. As regards teachers' perceptions of the six factors, with an f-value of 87.54, a highly significant difference was found regarding the degree of importance the teachers attached to the different factors. With an f—value of 22.45, the principals' perceptions about the degree of importance attached to each factor also showed a significant differ- ence. According to the mean indices for the six faxtors, for both teachers and principals, greatest importance was attached to supervisory competence in assisting the teacher. The three most important factors for each group, in order of importance, are shown below. 175 TABLE 53: MEAN INDICES OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE SIX FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS FOR TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS Means 1 Factors Teachers Principals T P Procedures for classroom 2.951 2.942 4 1 supervision Supervisor's competence 3.278 3.451 2.71 .007* in assisting the teacher Supervisor's working re- 3.244 3.257 4 1 lationship with the teacher Supervisor's establishment 3.238 3.261 4 l and maintenance of rapport with the teacher Supervisor's encouragement 3.192 3.199 4 1 of teacher self-evaluation Supervisor's enthusiasm for 2.881 2.886 4 1 teacher involvement in the supervisory process 2 F 87.54 22.45 p .001* .001* *=significant 1=T-test and levels of significance comparing teachers and principals for each of the six factors. 2=Ana1ysis of variance for repeated measures for teachers and principals 176 Teachers: 1. Supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher. 2. Supervisor's working relationship with the teacher. 3. Supervisor's establishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher. Principals: 1. Supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher. 2. Supervisor's establishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher. 3. Supervisor's working relationship with the teacher. Discussion of Findings In the following section, the major findings of the study are discussed, with references to previous studies to point out findings similar to or divergent from those of the study at hand. As indicated earlier one of the major limitations of this study was the relative lack of supervision research in Nigeria. In this section, therefore, the reader will find references made to studies done in the United States. Responsibility for Supervision The question of who should be responsible for super- vision in schools has been a controversial issue. For 177 decades, educators have been arguing the merits of super- vision through a staff consultant structure against a line authority structure. In light of this, the investigator found the result of this study revealing, in that they showed that both teachers and principals irlAnambra wanted supervision through a line authority structure as shown in Table 8. Both teachers and principals ranked the prin- cipals as first in the line of authority. They differed, however, in the order of authority of the vice-principal and the zonal superintendent of schools. The principals ranked the vice—principal before the zonal superintendent of schools while the teachers did the opposite. What was the reason given for preferring particular supervisory personnel to be responsible for supervision in schools? The reason given by a majority of the responding principals was that the principal anfihi best use his authority as the head of the school to provide effective supervision. The reason given by a majority of the responding principals for preferring a vice principal was that he would provide a more regular and more systematic supervision. The zonal superintendent of schools was preferred mainly because he would be objective. The investigator inferred from the reasons given for preferring the supervisory roles, that principals desired effective, regular, systematic, and ob- jective supervision in Anambra state schools. 178 The findings just discussed--preferences in responsi_ bility for supervision and the reasons for preferring them-- 1 They felt are in line with the views of Firth and Eiken. that if the supervisor is the administrator, the individual responsible for instructional supervision is enabled to act in a number of related areas and able to give clear and direct communication. The findings also supported Richard A. Gortan'szview that a supervisor should be an administra- tor. They disagreed with the views of Eye, Netzer, and Kney3, who felt that the supervisor did not need to be an administrator in order to have the authority to implement his recommendations. They argued that authority does not necessarily mean that one must impose his will upon another as specialized skills and knowledge may be so highly re- spected that in themselves, they constitute the authority. They concluded that authority is not of a police type when supervision is the topic of consideration. When a supervisor depends upon authoritar- ianism as the only means of influencing people rather than by the use of superior skills and knowledge, the conclusion can easily be reached that the compensation allocated to such a position is for in- competence rather than for competence. Peter F. Oliva4 did not feel that a supervisor could also be an administrator. He did not regard any person who has another function as his primary responsibility as a super— visor. 179 Frequency of Supervision Approximately 35 percent of the teachers indicated that their classes had not been observed by the supervisor during the last five years, and about 45 percent of the teachers reported that their classes had only been ob- served one time during the same period. Thus, approximately 80 percent of the teachers either had not been observed at all or had been observed only once during the last five years, (Table 11). This was not surprising because it was only three years ago that a committee appointed to restructure educa- tion in the state identified poor and infrequent super- vision as one of the major problems of the state's educa- tional system.5 What is surprising is that the state's supervisory program is organized in such a way that those who need supervision the most are relatively unsupervised. As shown in Table 12, 37.3 percent of inexperienced teachers, as against 33.9 percent experienced teachers, reported that their classes had not been observed during the last five years and 52.5 percent of inexperienced teachers, as against 41.8 percent of experienced teachers, reported that their classes had been observed once during the same period. While it is felt that every teacher needs supervision, inexperienced teachers need it more than experienced teach- ers. According to Harrington,6 Glickman,7 and Burden,8 180 inexperienced or beginning teachers are at the "survival stage" of their careers and need more frequent assistance in the form of supervision in many technical skills of teaching than experienced teachers. This finding of less frequent supervision for the beginning teachers in Anambra state contrasts with what is recommended in the literature. It suggests that weak foundations for discipline and academic achievement among students may be laid at the door of the State's educational hierarchy. Purpose of Supervision A majority of teachers and principals indicated that the primary purpose of supervision is to improve in- struction. Although no significant differences were found between the perceptions of teachers and principals, a greater percentage of the principals indicated that the purpose of supervision is to improve instruction while a greater percentage of the teachers indicated that the purpose of supervision is to protect children from in- competent teaching. Another finding with regard to the purpose of super— vision was that a majority of inexperienced and experienced teachers agreed that supervision is meant to improve class— room supervision, a significant difference was found among 181 the perceptions of teachers of different years of teaching experience. Over eighty percent of teachers with eight or more years experience, as against over sixty percent of teachers with less than eight years of teaching exper- ience, indicated that supervision is meant to improve class- room instruction. A greater percentage of teachers with less than eight years of teaching experience also indicated that supervision is meant to protect children from incom- petent teaching (Table 14). This finding about the perceptions of teachers with different years of teaching experience as regards the purpose of supervision tends to suggest that as teachers' years of teaching experience increase, the primary purpose of supervision becomes clearer to them. The investigator would, however, point out that the conclusion may be punc— tured by the fact that a greater percentage of teachers with over fifteen years of teaching experience, than those with eight to fifteen years experience, indicated that the pur— pose of supervision was to protect children from incompetent teaching. Applicability of Supervisory Processes Tables 16-21 indicate that of the 41 supervisory statements, a majority of both teachers and principals reported that 26 of them apply to Anambra State schools, while 15 of them do not apply. The greatest number of 182 supervisory statements that do not apply were in the area of procedures for classroom supervision where five out of the nine supervisory statements did not apply. As can be seen in Table 16, statements on pre— observational conferences, the classroom visit, and the post-observational conferences did not apply. This find— ing contrasted with what is available in the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Cogan9 warned seriously against skipping any of these important phases of clinical super- vision. Dunklebergerlo emphasized the need for the teacher to know what is expected of him and how he will be judged during classroom observation. The teachers and principals differed significantly concerning the applicability of the following supervisory statements in their schools. Significantly a greater percentage of the principals than the teachers agreed with the following: 1. Supervision is continual rather than occasional. 2. The supervisor and the teacher have enough time together to accomplish useful things. 3. The supervisor is enthusiastic about working with the teacher. Significantly a greater percentage of the teachers than the principals agreed with the following: 1. The supervisor is someone with whom the teacher can be honest. 2. The supervisor helps the teacher to assess his progress. 183 In addition to the above statistical differences, differences were found between the percentage responses of teachers and principals. As in those statements with sta- tistical differences, greater percentage of the principals said the statements applied while a greater percentage of the teachers said they did not apply. Taking into consideration both statistical and pro- portional differences between teachers' and principals' perceptions of the applicability of the supervisory state— ments, these findings were similar to results reported by Herrbolt,ll who found that teachers were not aware of the supervisory practices principals thought they were utili- zing to improve instruction in selected high schools at Montana. As regards inexperienced and experienced teachers' perceptions of the applicability of the supervisory state— ments in their schools, Tables 22-27 show that both groups of teachers disagreed. Significantly a greater proportion of the inexper- ienced than the experienced teachers agreed with the fol- lowing: 1. Classroom observations are scheduled and announced. 2. A pre—observation conference is held. 3. Both the supervisor and the teacher gain by working together. 4. The supervisor respects the teacher's competence as a professional. 184 5. There is continuity in the supervisor's work with the teacher. 6. The supervisor is enthusiastic about working with the teacher. Besides the above statistical differences, differ- ences were found between the percentage responses of in- experienced and experienced teachers. In both cases, a greater proportion of the inexperienced teachers reported that the statements applied while a greater proportion of the experienced teachers reported that they did not apply. Thus inexperienced and experienced teachers did not agree on which supervisory statements applied in Anambra schools. This finding is similar to what is found in the literature on supervision. According to Glickman,12 teachers within the same school have different perceptions of dif- ferent aspects of supervision. The reason for these dif- ferences, according to Glickman, is because teachers dif- fer in their stage of development and this leads to dif- ferences in their concerns and needs. Degree of Importance of Supervisory Process Of the 41 supervisory statements, a majority of both teachers and principals reported that three statements were not important. 185 1. Classroom observations by supervisors are scheduled and announced. 2. A pre-observational conference is held between the teacher and the supervisor. 3. During the pre-observation conference the supervisor discusses with the teacher what he will be looking for during the classroom observation. Of the remaining 30 supervisory statements, between 25 percent and 40 percent of the teachers felt that seven of them were either not important or somewhat important. The same percentage of the principals felt that six of them were either not important or somewhat important. An explanation of what influences the way teachers and principals rate a supervisory statement can be obtained by comparing Tables 16-21 and Tables 28-33. A look at Tables 46-51 is also useful for explanation. By comparing the tables under reference, it will be seen that both teachers and principals tended to rate the supervisory statements that did not apply to their schools lower than those that did apply. Tables 34-39 show that the teachers and principals differed significantly concerning their perceptions of the degree of importance of the following statements. Significantly a greater proportion of the principals than the teachers attached more importance to the following: 186 1. Supervision is continual rather than occasional. 2. The supervisor knows a great deal about teaching. 3. The supervisor maintains high professional standards in working with the teacher. 4. The supervisor is confident of his/her professional ability. Significantly a greater proportion of the teachers than principals attached more importance to the following statement: 1. The supervisor is generally available when the teacher wants to work with him/her. Although no definite trend was identified with re- gard to whether teachers or principals attached greater importance to the other supervisory statements, differences were found between teachers' and principals' mean indices of importance for the supervisory statements. This finding of both statistical and proportionate differences between teachers' and principals' perceptions of the degree of importance of the supervisory statements in the improvement of instruction is similar to results reported by Ritz and Cashell.l3 In their study, teachers and supervisors held different views regarding supervisory 187 effectiveness. Strachaa'sl4 study in the Geelong region of the Victorian Education Department in Australia also confirmed that teachers and supervisors differed in their perceptions of effective supervisory methods. The trend toward attaching lower importance to a supervisory statement when it did not apply, and greater importance when it did apply, has been reported. It is of interest to note that whether a statement applied or not did not have a substantial effect on the congruence of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the importance of the statements as a whole. This can be seen from Tables 46-51 where the perceptions of teachers and principals who said the statements do not apply and the perceptions of teachers and principals who said they apply are analyzed separately. Thus, the effect of whether a statement ap- plied or not was minimal on the congruence of teachers' and principals' perceptions. For those teachers and principals who said the statements did apply, five statements showed some tenden- cies for, or significant differences. Six supervisory statements also showed tendencies for or significant dif- ferences. Statistically and proportionately, inexperienced and experienced teachers differed in their perceptions of the degree of importance of the supervisory statements. No definite trend was identified in these differences be— cause inexperienced teachers attached more importance to 188 some supervisory statements while experienced teachers at- tached greater importance to others. Tables 40 to 45 show that tendencies for, or signi- ficant differences, were found between inexperienced and experienced teachers' perceptions of the degree of impor— tance for the improvement of instruction of the supervisory statements below. 1. Supervision is continual rather than occasional. 2. A pre-observational conference is held between the teacher and supervisor. 3. A post-observational conference is held between the supervisor and teacher to discuss and analyze the data collected during observation. 4. During post-observation conference, the super- visor emphasized both the teacher's weaknesses and strengths. 5. The supervisor thinks things out well before he works with the teacher. 6. The supervisor makes suggestions that the teacher finds useful. 7. The supervisor encourages the teacher to de— velop his own personal style of teaching. 8. The supervisor respects the teacher's com- petence as a professional. 9. The supervisor is willing to raise difficult issues if he/she feels resolving them is im- portant. The area of greatest disagreement between inexper— ienced and experienced teachers was in the area of proced- ures for classroom supervision. The finding as a whole, confirmed what was available in the literature about the differing concerns and needs of teachers at different stages of their teaching experience. 189 Other Research Questions As was shown in Table 15, the 41 supervisory state- ments were grouped into six factor categories using factor analysis. Teachers' and principals' perceptions of the applicability and degree of importance of the supervisory statements were then analyzed according to these six fac- tors. Table 52 shows that teachers and principals dif- fered in their perceptions of whether teachers are in— volved in the supervision process in Anambra State schools. A greater proportion of principals than teachers felt that teachers are involved in the supervisory process. Herrboldt's15 study is confirmed by this finding. Teachers in Anambra were not aware of the supervisory processes principals thought they were applying to improve instruction. The data also showed that a supervisor's exercise of technical skills received greater attention while the supervisor's establishment and maintenance of interpersonal relationships is most neglected in Anambra State schools. The investigator was not surprised at the results of the mean indices of importance for six factors of super- visory statements for teachers and principals as shown in Table 53. The factors that obtained low mean indices of importance were the factors to which most of the super- visory statements did not apply. Thus, the three lowest— rated factors among the supervisory statements were: 190 l. supervisor's enthusiasm for teacher involvement in the supervisory process. 2. procedures for classroom supervision. 3. supervisor's encouragement of teacher self- evaluation. When teachers' and principals' perceptions were com— pared, a significant difference was found in the area of supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher (exercise of technical skills). A greater proportion of the princi- pals than the teachers attached importance to this factor. When the teachers' and principals' mean indices of impor- tance for the three most highly rated factors were ranked, they correlated significantly. The ranking of the teachers' perceptions was as follows: 1. supervisor's competence in assisting the teacher. 2. supervisor's working relationship with the teacher. 3. supervisor's establishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher. The ranking of the principals' perceptions was as follows: 1. supervisor' competence in assisting the teacher. 2. supervisor' establishment and maintenance of rapport with the teacher. 3. supervisor's working relationship with the teacher. 191 Although both teachers and principals perceived the super- visor's exercise of technical skills as the most important, the teachers' mean for this factor was almost equal to the mean of the principal's second-rated factor. This finding that the supervisors attach greatest importance to the supervisor's exercise of technical skills was similar to what is available in the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. The teachers attaching greatest importance to technical skills is contrary to what issavailable. Ac- cording to the literature, teachers attach greatest impor- tance to the supervisor's establishment and maintenance of interpersonal relations while supervisors attach greatest importance to the supervisor's exercise of technical skills. Differences not only existed between teachers' and principals' perceptions, they also existed in the teachers' and principals' perceptions among different aspects of supervision process. Thus the importance teachers or prin- cipals attached to one aspect of supervision process dif- fered from the importance they attached to another aspect of supervision process. As shown in Table 53, an analysis of variance for repeated measures for teachers and principals indicated that significant differences existed in both teachers' and principals' perceptions among the six factors of super- visory process considered in this study. 192 Summary In the first part of this chapter, data were analy- zed on the basis of the research questions posed; findings were reported by means of discussion and tables were used to present appropriate frequencies, percentages, chi square results, T—tests results and analysis of variance results for each of the indices of the study. The second part of the chapter presented a discussion of the findings, which included references to previous research. A summary and conclusions follow in Chapter Five. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter deals with the summary, implications and conclusions of the study on teachers' and principals' perceptions of the supervisory process. It is presented in three sections: the summary, the implications of the findings, and the conclusions. Summary The Purpose and Significance of the Study The purpose of this study was to discover which supervisory processes were being used in Anambra State schools and determine which ones teachers and principals perceived to be important in the improvement of learning— teaching tasks. A knowledge of the supervisory processes used, and the ones perceived to be important, is essential for effective supervision of teachers. It is also essen— tial to the State Schools Management Board and the Ministry of Education for the establishment of effective supervisory programs in the state. This study adds to the sparse Nigerian literature on supervision and the results will 193 194 assist teacher educators in developing positive teaching attitudes and confidence among student teachers doing practice teaching. Literature Review A review of the literature and researcn related to the topic of this study was made, including the purpose of supervision, the need for supervision, improvement of supervisory process, and the perceptions of supervisory process. The literature reviewed dealt mainly with studies done in U.S. schools. The literature agreed that the purpose of supervision is to improve the quality of classroom instruction for the benefit of the learner and that this can be achieved if the teacher, the learner, the supervisor and the parents grow continually. It reported that teachers do not graduate from their preservice programs as finished products and stressed that the social objectives of the schools can be met if the educational process is properly supervised. As regards improvement of supervisory process, the literature identified the following five broad guidelines: (1) the supervisor functions in a non—evaluative manner, (2) the supervisor maintains adequate environment and com- munication, (3) involves teachers in the process of super- vision, (4) varies supervisory approach to suit the individ- ual, place and circumstance, and (5) supervises teachers 195 clinically by helping them improve their performance through the analysis and feedback of observed events in the class— room. Besides the five broad ways of improving supervisory process, the literature suggested that teachers' percep- tions are among the important factors that influence the effectiveness of the supervisory process and recommended taking teachers' perceptions into consideration during supervision. Methodology and Design The study subjects consisted of 212 teachers and 69 principals selected from thirty-four secondary schools of Enugu, Onitsha, Uzo-Uwani, and Anambra local government areas of Anambra State, of Nigeria. The sample contained males and females, rural and urban teachers and principals. The level of education of the teachers' sample included National Certificate of Education, (58 percent), Bachelor's degree (40 percent) and Master's degree (2 percent). The major research instrument was a questionnaire containing mainly closed-ended questions administered by four research assistants selected from each of the four randomly selected local government areas. A pilot test was conducted to ensure minimum error and bias in the in— strument. The study was designed to determine which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra schools and which ones 196 are perceived by teachers and principals to be important in the improvement of instruction. Thus seventeen quest- tions were formulated to serve as focal points for the study. who actually supervises teachers in Anambra (Nigeria)? who do principals think should be responsible for instructional supervision? what are the reasons for the principals' views as regards who should be responsible for instructional supervision? how frequently are teachers supervised in Anambra State? are teachers in urban areas more frequently supervised than teachers in rural areas? are inexperienced teachers more frequently supervised than experienced teachers? what is the primary purpose of supervision in Anambra State of Nigeria? do teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision differ from those of the prin- cipals? do inexperienced teachers' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision differ from those of the experienced teachers? which supervisory processes are being used in Anambra State schools? do the supervisory processes perceived by the teachers as being used in the state differ from those of the principals? do the supervisory processes perceived by inexperienced teachers as being used in the state differ from those of the experienced teachers? 197 5.0 which supervisory processes are considered important in improving instruction in Anambra State schools? 5.1 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by teachers differ from those of the principals? 5.2 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by inexperienced teachers differ from those of the experienced teachers? 5.3 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by teachers who say they apply to the schools differ from those of the principals who say they apply? 5.4 do the supervisory processes perceived to be important by teachers who say they do not apply to the schools differ from those of the prin- cipals who say they do not apply? The responses from the subjects were analyzed on the basis of the research questions and the chi square or t-test or Analysis of Variance was applied to examine sub- group or variable differences. Data were presented in tables showing frequencies, percentages, and chi square test or t-test or Analysis of Variance test results. Analysis of the Data and the Findings The 41 closed-ended questions were submitted to factor analysis using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences. Data were analyzed and discussed according to the six factor categories that resulted from this analy- sis. 198 The analysis of data was discussed in reference to tables presenting variable frequencies, percentages and chi square or t—test or Analysis of Variance results. The major findings are enumerated below. 1.0 1.1 Teachers reported that the principal was the major source of supervision. Principals thought the principal of a school should be responsible for supervision. Signi- ficant differences were found between teachers' perceptions of the major source of supervision and the principals' perceptions of who should supervise. Principals preferred the principal of a school to be responsible for supervision because he would use his authority as the head of the school to supervise more effectively than the zonal superintendent of schools and the vice principal. Abouteighty percent of teachers reported one or no observations during the preceeding five years. No significant differences were found between the frequency of supervision of urban and rural teachers. Experienced teachers were more frequently super— vised than the inexperienced teachers. A signi— ficant difference was found among the frequencies of supervision for teachers of different years of teaching experience. Both teachers and principals felt that the primary purpose of supervision was to improve classroom instruction. No significant difference was found between teachers' and principals' perceptions of the primary purpose of supervision. Significantly more of the experienced teachers perceived the primary purpose of supervision to be that of improving classroom instruction. A majority of both teachers and principals re- ported that 26 of the 41 supervisory statements were being used in the schools. 4.1 199 Significantly more of the principals reported that five of the supervisory statements applied, while more of the teachers reported that they did not apply. The percentages showed that more of the principals and fewer of the teachers re— ported that majority of the 41 supervisory state- ments applied. Thus teachers and principals did not agree on the applicability of the supervisory statements. Significantly more of the inexperienced teachers reported that six of the statements applied while more of the experienced teachers reported that they did not apply. The percentage also showed that more of the inexperienced teachers and fewer of the experienced teachers reported that a majority of the 41 supervisory statements ap— plied. It was thus concluded that inexperienced and experienced teachers differed in their per- ceptions of the applicability of the supervisory statements. A majority of both teachers and principals con- sidered 38 of the 41 supervisory statements either important or very important. A tendency for significant differences and significant differences were found between teachers' and principals' perceptions of the degree of importance of five supervisory statements. Percentages also showed differ- ences between the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the degree of importance of majority of the supervisory statements. Thus teachers and principals did not agree in their perceptions of the degree of importance of the supervisory statements. Inexperienced and experienced teachers differed significantly in nine of the supervisory state- ments and differed also in their percentage responses of the degree of importance of a majority of the 41 supervisory statements. Thus inexperienced and experienced teachers did not agree in their perceptions of the degree of importance of the supervisory statements. Teachers and principals who said the statements applied differed significantly or near signifi- cantly in five of the supervisory statements. 200 5.4 Teachers and principals who said the statements did not apply differed significantly or near significantly for six of the supervisory state- ments. From index measures 5.3 and 5.4, it can be concluded that teachers and principals dif- fered in their perceptions of the degree of im- portance of the supervisory statements, ir- respective of whether they said that the state- ments applied or not. 6.0 Significantly more of the principals reported that supervisory statements in the area of the supervisor's enthusiasm for teacher involvement in the supervision process applied to the schools. 6.1 The most neglected area of supervision process in Anambra State was found to be the supervisor's establishment and maintenance of interpersonal relationships. 6.2 Teachers and principals did not agree in their perceptions of the degree of importance in the improvements of instruction of the supervisory statements relating to the supervisor's com- petence in assisting the teachers. 6.3 Both teachers and principals attached signi— ficantly more importance to certain aspects of supervision process than others. 6.4 The supervisor's exercise of technical skills was seen as most important in the improvement of instruction by both teachers and principals. Implications of the Findings The study was done in the hope that its results would be useful to, among others, the principal or super— visor, the State Schools' Management Board, and the teacher education institutions. The following is a discussion of the implications of the findings for these educational personnel and organizations. 201 For the Principal or Supervisor l. The findings of this study regarding the fre- quency of supervision in Anambra State schools revealed that about eighty percent of the teachers were either ob- served once or not observed at all during the last five years. Principals or supervisors should make an effort to observe classes more often than they do at present. To ensure that each teacher is observed at least once or twice during an academic year, principals or supervisors should schedule one class period a day for the purpose of observing teachers. 2. This study revealed that experienced teachers were more frequently supervised than inexperienced teachers. Although every teacher needs help in the form of super- vision, inexperienced teachers need more supervision than experienced teachers. Principals or supervisors should plan their supervisory activities or assignments so that when it is not possible to supervise every teacher, those who need supervision most are supervised. This planning should involvercollecting data about the teachers' perfor- mance in the area of one's supervisory influence. 3. Many of the findings in this study suggest the need for utilizing the supervisory statements during the supervisory process. It is recommended that principals or supervisors should: (a) go through a systematic process 202 of supervision including pre-conference, data collection and analysis, and post-conference, essential for productive classroom supervision, (b) encourage teacher self-evaluation. The principal or supervisor should ask how the teacher feels about a lesson presented, rather than playing God and telling the teacher how it should have been done and lead the teacher to the appropriate conclusions through interaction rather than through lecturing, (c) involve teachers in the super- vision process; if teachers have little input into the supervision process, they become defensive and a climate that is not conducive to modifying one's teaching behavior is created. 4. The demographic data of this study revealed that teachers in Anambra State are better prepared now than in the past. This implies that they are becoming more intolerant of authoritarian philosophy and supervision and that the traditional methods of supervision are becoming increasingly inadequate. For more productive supervision, principals or supervisors should upgrade their supervision skills and practices because teachers do not look upon a person in supervisory position as being effective when they are continually advising and informing. 5. As suggested by the open-ended statements of the teachers, supervision in Anambra State is a threatening experience. .For teachers to accept and appreciate a super- visor's personal interaction, supervisors should approach the teachers more positively and non-threateningly. 203 6. This study confirmed the fact that teachers and supervisors differ in their perceptions of the supervisory process. A principal or supervisor who wishes to influence teachers' classroom practices and encourage their professional growth must take into consideration teachers' perceptions of the supervisory process. As discrepancies between teachers' and supervisors' perceptions always exist, a principal or a supervisor should always aim at reducing them. Super- vising teachers quite differently from the way they per- ceive supervision will not bring about needed improvement in the teaching-learning task. For the State Schools Management Board 1. This study revealed that the zonal superintend- ent of schools is not the major source of teacher super- vision. As this supervisory role is meant to be respon- sible for effective supervision, a superintendent of schools should be appointed for each local government area, instead of the present ineffective practice of appointing one for several local government areas grouped in a zone. An attractive alternative is to appoint master teachers as supervisors in each school. A given supervisor should be solely responsible for supervision in each school. He should report to the zonal superintendent of schools through the principal. 204 2. The findings of this study indicate that the supervisory program of the state is so ill-planned and unorganized that experienced teachers were more frequently supervised than inexperienced teachers. The State's School Management Board should reorganize its supervision system in such a way that it better indicates who should be super- vised and thereby improves the teaching-learning task. 3. The findings of this study suggested the ten- dency for principals or supervisors to rate lower any supervisory statement that was not being used in the schools. This finding calls for the State Schools Management Board to offer inservice courses on important supervisory prac- tices to all principals and supervisors in the state. In- service courses on classroom observation procedures should also be offered. For Teacher Education Institutions 1. This study, as already pointed out, revealed that principals' and teachers' basis for attaching importance to a supervisory practice was whether or not it is being used in the schools. To avoid this, teacher education institutions, especially the universities, should develop courses in supervision and make them mandatory for the completion of Bachelor of Education program. 2. The Institutes of Education of the universities should plan and develop summer inservice programs for 205 supervision. Principals and supervisors should be required to participate in these programs during the long vacation periods. 3. Teacher education institutions should place greater emphasis on the supervisory role of a secondary school principal. Implications for Further Research l. The study was an exploratory examination of the broad areas of teachers' and principals' perceptions of supervisory process in one state in Nigeria. Its findings provide a stepping stone for further research in this area, during which particular aspects of supervision could be singled out for specific research. 2. This study revealed that teachers and principals perceived the primary purpose of supervision to be that of improving classroom instruction. Another study is necessary to discover whether the teachers' and principals' percep— tions were what the primary purpose of supervision ought to be or whether their perceptions were what the primary purpose of supervision is in Anambra State. 3. An important finding of this study was that the principal was the major source of supervision. As being the major source of supervision may not necessarily mean being the most influential in affecting teachers' behavior 206 with respect to the outcomes of their teaching, another study is necessary to discover the supervisory roles perceived by teachers as influential. 4. The findings of the study confirmed that ten- sions exist between teachers and supervisors. A study is needed to find whether such tensions are high or low and whether they justify concluding that "cold war" exist or does not exist between teachers and supervisors in Anambra. 5. The sample in this study was limited to sixty- nine principals and 212 teachers. A profile of teachers' and principals' perceptions of the supervisory process based on a larger sample of principals and teachers could confirm these results and provide an empirically established basis upon which to build further research into the pro— cess of supervision in Nigeria. Conclusions Subject to the conditions and limitations of this study, several conclusions appear warranted: l. The principal, and not the zonal superintendent of schools, is the major source of supervision in Anambra schools. 2. Principals in Anambra desire a well-organized supervisory program which is aimed at providng regular, systematic, and objective supervision in schools. 207 3. Teachers in Anambra state schools are not ade- quately supervised. 4. Teachers and principals were in agreement about the purpose of supervision. Both groups felt that the primary purpose of supervision is the improvement of class- room instruction. 5. A majority of the supervisory statements re- lated to the procedures for classroom supervision and to teacher involvement in the supervisory process are not used in Anambra schools. Thus traditional methods of classroom supervision are still in vogue and teachers have little or no input into the supervision process. 6. Teachers and principals did not agree on the applicability of the supervisory statements investigated. While principals felt that a majority of the statements applied to the schools, teachers felt they did not. 7. Teachers and principals differed on the degree of importance for the improvement of classroom instruction of the supervisory statements. 8. Experienced teachers identified more with the principals in their perceptions of the applicability and degree of importance of the supervisory statements. 9. The supervision program which exists in Anambra places primary emphasis on supervisors' exercise of tech- nical skills but neglects supervisor's orientations to interpersonal skills. Generally speaking, therefore, 208 adequate attention is not paid to supervision in Anambra state schools. Educational expansion, as is now going on in Nigeria, demands a good supervisory program to ensure that expansion does not lead to inferior education. Better education in Anambra State is not possible solely by pro- ducing more graduate teachers or increasing salaries of teachers. A well planned and well executed supervisory program is also essential in leading the states' schools toward better education. FOOTNOTES FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER ONE 1Ben M. Harris, "Need for Research on Instructional Supervision," Educational Leadership (November, 1963): 129-130. 2James B. McDonald, "Knowledge about Supervision: Rationalization or Rationale?" Educational Leadership (November, 1965): 161-163. 3Richard F. Neville, "The Supervisor We Need," Educational Leadership (May, 1966): 637. 4Everett L. Waldon, "The Credibility Gap in Super- vision," Colorado Education Review (October, 1968): ll. 5Robert L. Heichberger and James M. Young Jr., "Teacher Perceptions of Supervision and Evaluation," Phi Delta Kappan (November, 1975): 210. 6John T. Lovell and Margaret S. Phelps, "Supervision in Tennessee as Perceived by Teachers, Principals, and Supervisors,'I Educational Leadership (December, 1977): 226-228. 7James R. Ogletree, "Changing Supervision in a Changing Era," Educational Leadership (March, 1972): 507- 508. FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER TWO 1William 8. Gray, "Methods of Improving the Techni- ques of Teaching," Elementary School Journal (December, 1919): 265. 2Arthur S. Gist, The Administration of Supervision (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934), pp.85-101. 209 210 3Thomas H. Briggs and Joseph Justman, Improving Instruction through Supervision (New York: MacMillan Company, 1952), pp. 4-12. 4William H. Burton and Leo J. Brueckner, Supervision: A Social Process. 3rd ed. (New York: Appleton-Century— Crofts, 1955), pp. 85-88. 5Mildred E. Swearington, Supervision of Instruction: Foundations and Dimensions (New York: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962), pp. 42-44. 6Ben M. Harris, Supervisory Behavior in Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963), p.39. 7Ross L. Neagley and N. Dean Evans, Handbook for Effective Supervision of Instruction (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964), p.17. 8Willard S. Elsbree, Harold J. McNally, and Richard Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, 3rd ed. (New York: American Book Company, 1967), pp. 143-144. 9Thomas J. Watman, "Supervision for Growth," Clearing House (May, 1972): 567. 10Jack Klotz and Ken Simmon, "Supervision in Today's Labor Management Crisis," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (December, 1974): 24. llArthur Blumberg, Supervisor Interaction as Seen by Supervisors and Teachers (New York: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Associa— tion, February, 1967) p.1. 12John T. Lovell, "A Perspective for Viewing In- structional Supervisory Behavior," Supervision Perspectives and Propositions, editor William H. Lucio (Washington, D.C., 1967) pp. 14-15. 13John F. Ohles, "Supervision: Essential and Bene- ficial," Clearing House (November, 1969): 135. 211 14Glen G. Eye, "Supervisory Skills: The Evolution of the Art," Journal of Educational Research (September, 1975): 16. 15Peter F. Oliva, Supervision for Today's Schools (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1976), p.7. 16Robert J. Alfonso, Gerald R. Firth, and Richard F. Neville, Instructional Supervision, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981), p.4. 17A. Gray Thompson and Russell H. Ziemer, "Super- vision of Instruction: Dying or Dead," Clearing House (May, 1982): 394. 18Harl R. Douglas, Rudyard K. Bent, and Charles W. Boardman, Democratic Supervision in Secondary Schools (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), pp. 7-9. 19Donald C. Manlove, "The Principal's Role in Im- proving Instruction," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (December, 1962): 1. 20Pat W. Wear, "Supervisor: Coordinator of Multiple Consultations," Educational Leadership (May, 1966): 652. lRaymond H. Harrison, Supervisory Leadership in Education (New York, American Book Company, 1968): p.15. 22Ohles, p. 134. 23I.T. Johnson, "Why Supervise Teachers?", School Management (October, 1971): 34. 24John D. McNeil, "Supervision of Instruction: The Relationship of Theory and Practice to Accountability," Paper Presented at the Supervision of Instruction Symposium 3: Accountability and Supervision (April 13, 1972): 2. 25Charles L. Bright,"Effective Supervision Leads to Teacher Growth," Business Education Forum (May, 1973): 33. 26Kimball Wiles and John T. Lovell, Supervision for Better Schools (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1975), pp. 294-295. 212 27Oliva, pp. 22-23. 28 . . . . Jones L. Nwaogu, A Guide to Effective SuperViSion of Instruction in Nigerian Schools (Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension Publishers, 1980), pp. 9-10. 29Kareen R. Gillespie, Creative Supervision (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1981), pp. 3-4. 30Henry Antell, "Teachers Appraise Supervision," Journal of Educational Research (April, 1945): 608. 31P.M. Bail, "Do Teachers Receive the Kind of Super— vision They Desire?", Journal of Educational Research (May, 1947): 713-716. 32Wayne Palmer, "A Study of Existing and Desired Supervisory Services in the Indianapolis Public Schools," (Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, 1955). 33C.R. Rogers, "The Characteristics of a Helping Relationship," Personnel and Guidance Journal (September 1958): 6—16. 34Chris Argyris, "Explorations in Consulting—Client Relationships," Human Organization (Fall, 1961): 121-133. 35J.R. Cribb, ”Is Help Helpful?", Association Forum and Section Journals of the Association of Secretaries of the YMCA (February, 1964): 25-27. 36Helene Northcutt, "Guidelines for the Improvement of Instruction through Supervision," Montana Education (September, 1965): 14-15. 37W.C. Ritz and H.T. Stackpole, "Non-Evaluative Classroom Observation-Discussion Guide," Strategies for Teacher-Consultant Cooperation (Syracuse: Eastern Regional Institute for Education, Inc., 1970). 38William Goldstein, "An Enlightened Approach to Supervising Teachers,” The Clearing House (March, 1972): 391. 39 Ibid, p.392. 213 40Harold Harty and William C. Ritz, "A Non-Evaluative Helping Relationship: An Approach to Classroom—Oriented Supervision," Educational Perspectives (May, 1976): 15. 41Ibid, pp. 16-17. 42Robert L. Shrigley, "Science Supervisor Character— istics that Influence Their Credibility with Elementary School Teachers," Journal of Research in Science Teaching (March, 1980): 161—166. 43Una Mae Lange Reck, "Viewing Supervision through an Existential Lens," Contemporary Education (Winter, 1982): 63-69. 44Thompson and Ziemer, p. 395. 45R.L. Abrell, "The Humanistic Supervisor Enhances Growth and Improves Instruction," Educational Leadership (December, 1974): 212-216. 46P.J. Beatty, ”Dialogic Communication in the Super- vision Process: A Humanistic Approach," Education (Spring, 1977): 226—232. 47Roger E. Jones, "The Supervisor and the Teacher: An Effective Model of Communication," The Clearing House (May, 1980): 433. 48Ibid, p. 433-434. 491bid, p. 436. 50Arthur Blumberg, Supervisors and Teachers: A Private Cold War (Berkely, California: McCutchan Publishing Cor- poration, 1974), p.151. 51Charles A. Reavis, "Clinical Supervision: A Timely Approach," Educational Leadership (February, 1976): 360— 363. 52Robert J. Alfonso, "Will Peer Supervision Work?" Educational Leadership, (May, 1977), 594—601. 214 53Elmer C. Ellis, Joseph T. Smith, and William Harold Abbott, Jr., "Peer Observation: A Means for Supervisory Acceptance," Educational Leadership (March, 1979): 424. 54Ibid, p.426. 55W.E. Harrington, "First Year Teachers and Super— vision," Ohio School Journal (February, 1961): 32-33. 56 James R. Marks, Emery Stoops, and Joyce King Stoops, Handbook of Educational Supervision (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), pp. 223-225. 57 Carl D. Glickman, "The Developmental Approach to Supervision," Educational Leadership (November, 1980): 178-180. 58 Carl D. Glickman, Developmental Supervision: Alternative Practices for Helping Teachers Improve Instruction (Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981): p.61. 59Paul R. Burden, "Developmental Supervision: Re- ducing Teacher Stress at Different Career Stages," A Paper Presented at the Association of Teacher Educators National Conference at Phoenix (February 15, 1982). 6OMorris Cogan, Clinical Supervision (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 19737: ix. 61Robert Goldhammer, Clinical Supervision (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), p.54. 621bid, p.55. 63Ibid, pp. 56-72. 64Cogan, p.9. 6SIbid, pp. 10-12. 66Reavis, p. 360. 67Thomas J. Sergiovanni, Handbook for Effective De- partment Leadership (Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977), p. 373. 215 68Gordon Cawelti, "Effective Instructional Leadership Produces Greater Learning," Thrust (January, 1980): 8-10. 9Karolyn J. Snyder, "Clinical Supervision in the 19803,” Educational Leadership (April, 1981): 521. 7OIbid, p.524. 71Arthur Blumberg, "Supervisor-Teacher Relationships: A Look at the Supervisory Conference," Administrator's Notebook (September, 1970): 72Bruce Gordon, "Teachers Evaluate Supervisory Be- havior in the Individual Conference," The Clearing House (January, 1976): 231-233. 73Stanley C. Diamond, "Toward Effective Supervision of Classroom Instruction," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (May, 1978): 89-97. 74Jerry Valentine, "The Supervisory Process - A Practi- cal Look," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (December, 19787: 55-59. 75Madeline Hunter, "Six Types of Supervisory Confer- ences," Educational Leadership (February, 1980): 408-412. 76Jim Sweeney, "Improving the Post-Observation Con- ference," National Association of Secondary School Princi- pals Bulletin (December, 1982): 38-40. 77Karen Shuma, "Changes Effectuated by a Clinical Supervisor's Relationship which Emphasizes a Helping Re- lationship and a Conference Format Made Congruent with the Establishment and Maintenance of the Helping Relationship." (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1971). 78Robert E. Baker, "An Analysis of the Clinical Super- visory Process as Perceived by Selected Teachers and Ad— ministrators" (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tenn- essee, 1972). 79 . . . . . Charles ReaVis, "A Test of the Clinical SuperViSion Model," Journal of Educational Research (July-August, 1977): 311-315. 216 80Karen Shuma, op. cit. 81Noreen Garman, "A Study of Clinical Supervision as a Resource for College Teachers of English." (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1973). 82N.D. Skarak, "The Application of Immediate Secondary Reinforcement to Classroom Teaching Observations in Clinical Supervision." (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pitts- burgh, 1973). 83Arthur Blumberg and Edmund Amidon, "Teacher Per- ceptions of Supervisor-Teacher Interaction," Administrator's Notebook (September, 1965). 84Arthur Blumberg (1974), pp. 15-16. 5James M. Young and Robert L. Heichberger, "Teachers' Perceptions of an Effective School Supervision and Evalua- tion Program," Education (Fall, 1975): 10-14. 86Edwin O. McCaskill, Edward H. Seifert, and Jerry Nelly, A Research Study about Teachers' Perceptions of Job Satisfaction (San Marcos, Texas: Department of Education, Wouthwest Texas State University, November, 1979). 87Dayton Benjamin, "How Principals Can Improve In- struction,” American School Board Journal (May, 1956): 37- 39. 88H.M. Harmes, "Improving Teaching through Super- vision: How Is It Working?" Educational Administration and Supervision (May, 1959): 169-172. 9Carolyn Guss, "How Is Supervision Perceived?" Supervision: Emerging Profession (Washington, D.C.: Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1961), pp. 83-86. 90John C. Croft, "The Principal as Supervisor: Some Descriptive Findings and Important Questions," The Journal of Educational Administration (October, 1968): 162. 91Alva Leon Sibbit, "Principals' and Teachers' Per- ceptions of Supervisory Practices in Selected Small Public High Schools 87 ndiana." (Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana UniverSity, 1 2 : 407-408, 217 92Donald John Gornowich, "The Relationship between Attitudes of Teachers and Principals Concerning Supervisory Methods and Procedures in Selected Minnesota Schools." (Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1972): 53-71. 93Gordon, p.232. 94Lovell and Phelps, p.228. 95William C. Ritz and Jane G. Cashell,"'Cold War' between Supervisors and Teachers?" Educational Leadership (October, 1980): 77-78. 96Jillian L. Strachaa, "Instructional Supervision and Teacher Development,‘I The Australian Administrator (April, 1981): 1-4. 97Reck, p.65. 98 . Thompson and Ziemer, p.395. 99Llewellyn G. Parsons, "Effective Supervision: Teachers' Views of Supervisory Roles in School Systems," Monographs in Education No. 10 (Newfoundland: St. John's Memorial University, 1972), p.43. 100George A. Churukian and John R. Cryan, "Inter- personal Perceptions as a Factor in Teacher Perceptions of Supervisory Style," A Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Chicago (April, 1972). lOlCogan, p.56. lo2Willis D. Copeland and Donald Atkinson, "Student Teachers' Perceptions of Directive and Nondirective Super- visory Behavior," The Journal of Educational Research (January/February, 1978): 123-126. 103Jones, p.436. 104Richard Kindsvatter and William W. Wilen, "The Conference Category System Helps Supervisors Analyze Their Conferences with Teachers," Educational Leadership (April, 1981): 526. 218 FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER THREE 1The People of Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Con- stitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Apapa, Lagos: Times Press, 1978), p.102. 2The following questionnaires were studied: (a) Diag- nostic Instrument of Supervision (DIOS) developed by Seager in 1965 to collect evaluations of selected elements of the teaching-learning process from pupils, teachers, and super- visors; (b) Questionnaire on Principals' and Teachers' Perceptions of Supervisory Practices in Selected Small Public High Schools of Indiana used by Alva Leon Sibbit, Jr., in 1972; (c) Supervisory Process Assessment (SPA) Instrument developed by Larry Arthus Clever in 1974; (d) Survey of Principals' Perceptions of Supervisory Practices in Selected High Schools of Montana used by Allen Albert Herrboldt in 1975. 3Richard C. Erickson and Tim L. Wentling, Measuring Student Growth (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976), p._224. 4Larry Arthur Clever, "Development of an Instrument for Measuring Teachers' Perceptions of the Supervisory Process" (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1974): 104—106. 5A close-ended question is one in which the individ- ual is offered a choice of alternatives while the open- ended question does not provide any choice. 6There is a conflict of opinion whether the color of the paper helps to elicit higher response rates. Erickson and Wentling claimed that research has indicated the use of colored paper produced a difference in response rate of over 15 percent. See Tim L. Wentling and Tom E. Lawson, Evaluating Occupational Education and Training Programs (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975), p. 131-132. On the other hand, Christopher Scott of the British Government Social Survey reported that the use of colored paper is one factor that did not make a difference in response rates. See A.N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966). 7Fred Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), p.414. 219 8William Wiersma, Research Methods in Education (Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1975) p. 144. FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER FOUR 1 Gerald R.Firth and Keith P. Eiken, "Impact of the Schools Bureaucractic Structure on Supervision," Super- vision of Teaching (Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982), p. 156. 2Richard A. Gorton, School Administration and Super- vision (Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1972), p. 212. 3Glen G. Eye, Lanore A. Netzer, and Robert D. Kney Supervision of Instruction (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1971). 4Peter F. Oliva, Supervision for Today's Schools (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1976). 5The Government of Anambra State of Nigeria. Govern- ment White Paper On The Report of the Committee On The Restructure of Education in Anambra State (Enugu: The Government Printer, 1980), p.3. 6W.E. Harrington, "First Year Teachers and Supervision," Ohio School Journal (February, 1961): 32-33. 7Carl D. Glickman, "The Developmental Supervision," Educational Leadership (November, 1980): 178-180. Paul R. Burden, "Developmental Supervision: Re- ducing Teacher Stress at Different Career Stages," A Paper Presented at the Association of Teacher Educatars National Conference at Phoenix (February 15, 1982). 9Morris Cogan, Clinical Supervision (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1973): 10-12. 10Gary E. Dunkleberger, "Classroom Observations--What Should Principals Look For?" National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (December, 1982): 9-15. 220 11Allen Albert Herrboldt, "The Relationship Between the Perceptions of Principals and Teachers Concerning Supervisory Practices in Selected High Schools of Montana" (Doctoral Dissertation, Montana State University, 1975). 12Glickman, p. 178. 13William C. Ritz and Jane G. Cashell, "Cold War Be- tween Supervisors and Teachers," Educational Leadership (October, 1980): 77. l4Jillian L. Strachaa, and Teacher Development," (April, 1981): 1-4. "Instructional Supervision The Australian Administrator 15Herrboldt, p. 293. APPENDICES APPENDIX A NAMES OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS STUDIED ®m\IO)U1obWNH O WWNNNNNNNNNNHHF—‘HHHHHHH HoomqmmbWNI-‘OKDCJQOAUWDWNHO 0000000000. 00000000 0 00 32. 33. 34. 221 APPENDIX A NAMES OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS STUDIED College of Immaculate Conception, Enugu Uwani Secondary School, Enugu Girls High School, Awkunanaw Boys High School, Awkunanaw Queen's School, Enugu Dennis Memorial Grammar Sch1., Onitsha Girls Sec. School, Onitsha Fed. Govt. Girls College, Onitsha Ado Girls Sec. Sch1., Onitsha Metu Memorial Sec. School,Onitsha Modebe Memorial Sec. School, Onitsha Boys High School, Onitsha New Era Girls Sec. School, Onitsha Queen of the Rosary College, Onitsha Comprehensive Sec. School, Onitsha Christ the King College, Onitsha Metropolitan Sec. School, Onitsha Washington Memorial Sec. School, Onitsha Uzo-Uwani Sec. School, Adani Community Boys' Sec. School, Ifite-ngari Adada Sec. School, Nkpologu Community Sec. School, Omor AttaMemorial High School, Adaba Girls High School, Nteje Girls High School, Umuleri Girls High School, Nkwelle-Ezunaka Boys Sec. School, Nkwelle-Ezunaka Girls High School, Umunya Boys High School, Umunya Joseph Memorial High School, Aguleri Boys High School, Ogbunike Boys Sec. School, Awkuzu Community Boys School, Nnado Community Sec. School, Umueza-Anam APPENDIX B ANAMBRA STATE SHOWING URBAN AND RURAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS STUDIED 222 ANAMBRA STATE SHOWING URBAN AND _R1)RAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS STUDIED .1’F1 \. f. \I _. .’.'/ "‘ \\ / ANAMBRA WITHN NIGERIA :Z’ .,../'\ j I..- _ \ “-4 SCALE 112000000 _,.-1 H.100 0 100 200 300 £00 hi:— .r....\- , w. -" \‘n . OkPa “ [I \ ((3- ¢% r I)“ ). Q-\~ n y: MEI-£71“ 9U \~\ _) <0 IKQCO ._ /' Q~ /" \\ ’I Q4 ,z" 16 J’WH'!"-"'“'—d ’Mo\ SCALE 1.1..600000 ./' 0 )6 3 4% 64KM APPENDIX C TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR TEACHERS 223 Department of Administration and Curriculum College of Education, Room 412 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 November 8, 1982 Dear Colleague: Ybu have been chosen to represent several thousand edu— cators like yourself in a study that will help to find ways of improving the quality of education in Anambra State of Nigeria. This study is being conducted through the Department of Administration and Curriculum at Michigan State University. The study concerns secondary school teachers' and principals' perceptions of the supervisory process. Ybur response to a series of questions will be used to determine how best to supervise teachers in order to improve the quality of instruction in Anambra State Schools. Representatives of secondary school teachers in Anambra State of Nigeria are included in this study. In order to obtain a true picture, it is important that a high percentage of responses from teachers be received. YOur support and cooperation are requested in helping to make this study a success. Ybur answers will be kept in strict confidence. Both you and your school will remain anonymous. Ybur name is not requested on the questionnaire. The name of the school is requested on the questionnaire only for the purpose of deter- mining the number of secondary schools participating in this study. Sincerely yours, Stanley E. Hecker, Professor Administration and Curriculum APPENDIX D TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR PRINCIPALS 224 Department of Administration and Curriculum College of Education, Rggm 412 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 November 8, 1982 Dear Principal: Will you please give a few minutes of your time to indi- cate how to improve the quality of education in Anambra State of Nigeria. This study is being conducted through The Department of Administration and Curriculum at Michigan State University. The study concerns secondary school principals' and teachers' perceptions of the supervisory process. Data from this study will be used to determine which supervisory processes are perceived by principals and teachers to be very important in the improvement of instruction. Representatives of secondary school principals and vice principals in Anambra State are included in this study. In order to obtain a true picture, it is important that a high percentage of responses from principals and vice-principals be received. YOur support and cooperation are requested in helping to make this study a success. Ybur answers will be kept in strict confidence. Both you and your school will remain anonymous. Sincerely yours, #/ jr/ 2. 71.42... Stanley E. Hecker, Professor Administration and Curriculum APPENDIX E RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 225 EW TEACHERS SURVEY Part I. In order to properly evaluate your responses, it is necessary to collect certain information regarding the school, the background and experiences of the respondent. Please check the following items as appropriate. 1. Name of School: 2. Local Government Area of School: 3. Location of School: ( ) Urban Area ( ) Rural Area 4. Population of School: ( ) Under 300 ( ) 900 - 1.199 ( ) 300 - 599 ( ) 1.200 - 1.499 ( ) 600 - 899 ( ) 1,500 + 5. Number of teachers in your school: ( ) Under 10 ( ) 30 - 39 ( ) 10 - 19 ( ) 40 + ( ) 20 - 29 6. Your Sex: ( ) Male ( ) Female 7. Total years of teaching experience: ( ) 3 years or less ( ) 4 - 7 years ( ) 8 - 11 years ( ‘) 12 - 15 years ( ) Over 15 years 8. Level of Education: ( ) National Certificate of Education ( ) Bachelors \O 10. 11. 226 ( ) Bachelors + NCE ( ) Masters ( ) Doctorate Person responsible for supervision in the school (Check only 91?): ( ) School Principal ( ) Vice Principal ( ) Zonal Superintendent of Schools ( ) Other Number of times your classes were observed by the prin- cipal, vice principal or zonal superintendent of schools (Check All). ( ) Within the last 5 academic years ( ) within the last 2 academic years ( ) Within the last academic year (1981/82) ( ) Jithin this academic year (1982/83) Teaching subject area: ( ) Languages (Foreign and Nigerian) ( ) Vocational Subjects (Agriculture, Business. Home Economics, and Technical/Industrial) Moral and Religious Instruction Physical Education Mathematics Art and Music Science AAAAAA VVVVVV Social Studies * PLEASE CONTINUE TO PART II * 227 SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE PRINCIPALS SURVEY Part I. In order to properly evaluate your responses. it is necessary to collect certain information regarding the school, the background and experiences of the respondent. Please check the following items as appropriate. 1. 2. Local Government Area of School: Location of School: ( ) Urban Area ( ) Rural Area Population of School: ( ) Under 300 ( ) 900-1.199 ( ) 300-599 ( ) 1,200-1,499 ( ) 600-899 ( ) 1,500 + Number of teachers in your school: ( ) Under 10 ( ) 30-39 ( ) 10-19 ( ) 40 + ( ) 20-29 Your sex: ( ) Kale ( ) Female Total years of teaching experience before becoming a principal or vice principal: ( ) 3 years or less ( ) 3-6 years ( ) 7-10 years ( ) Over 10 years Total years of experience as a principal or vice principal (include this year as one): ( ) 3 years or less ( ) 3-6 years 228 ( ) 7 - 10 years ( ) Over 10 years 8. Please check whom you think should be responsible for instructional supervision in your school: ) School Principal ) Vice Principal ) Zonal Superintendent of Schools ) Other AAAA 0. Please give reasons why you feel that the person you checked in "8" is the most suitable person to assume the responsibility of instructional supervision in your school: * PLEASE CONTINUE TO PART II * 229 PART II: SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS DIRECTIONS: Please read the direction for both Column I and Column 11 before starting this part of the ques- tionnaire. The term "Supervisor" refers to the person or persons responsible for supervision in your school. He/She may be the vice principal, the principal, the superintendent of schools or all of them. Column 1: Indicate whether each supervisory statement applies to your school. Circle "1" if it does and "2" if does not apply. Column 11: Whether or not the statement applies ("Yes" or "No" in Colunn 1) indicate your opinion of the importance of the statement in the improvement of quality of teaching. Please circle only one response for each supervisory statement listed under this Column using the scale below. * RATING SCALE FOR COLUMN II * HOT IKPORTANT SOHENHAT IMPORTANT IkPORTANT VERY IKPCRTANT 4?me Ill) Z30 Example: COLUMN I (COLUMN II Does Degree of statement importance SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS apply to in improving your quality of school? teaching 1 2 1 2 3 4 Yes No 2 g3 g o s E‘ r: a- g '8 '4 E! a: H‘ E! 8 m d- S *o d- g 'o o o 8 P1 d- H d- B d- 3 ‘8 '3’: d- H c: 53’ 4- 1. Supervision is continual g 2 1 2 3 @- rather than occasional. 2. Experienced teachers are also 1 (:) 1 2 (:) 4 supervised. } ) In the examples above. the respondent indicated that supervision is continual in his school (Column 1) and that in his opinion continual supervision is very important in the improvement of quality of teaching (Column II). The respondent also indicated that experienced teachers are not supervised in his school (Column I) but in his opinion super- vising experienced teachers is important in the improvement of quality of teaching (Column II). 231 COLUMN I COLUMN II 3 Does Dgree of 1 statement importance SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS T apply to in improving (your quality of gschool? teaching v% 1 2 l 2 3 4 Yes No '2: g H g3 0 B S H d- g '8 ‘4 :4 a: H E! 5 o d- 5 'o c: g 'o o o 8 E1 4. H d- 3 d- 9} o g d’ H d- E 4' l. Supervision is continual l 2 l 2 3 4 rather than occasional. 2. Experienced teachers are also 1 2 , 1 2 3 4 supervised. g 3. Classroom observations by l 2 i 1 2 3 4 supervisors are scheduled and 1 announced. 1 i 4. A pre-observation conference 1 2 ‘ l 2 3 4 is held between the teacher and supervisor. 5. During the pre—observation 1 2 l 2 3 4 conference the supervisor discusses with the teacher what he will be looking for during the classroom observation. : 6. During classroom observation 1 2 E l 2 3 4 the supervisor enters the room before the period begins, and does not leave until the ‘ class period has ended. 7. The supervisor takes written 1 2 1 2 3 4 notes during the classroom e observation. I 232 COLUMN 1 ) COLUMN II Does Degree of statement importance SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS apply to in improving your quality of school? teaching 1 2 l 2 3 4 YesNo m < :2 o :H o o E E3 H d-(D'd‘4 2 o s: :r 3 p4 BNdB *o c: g r: o o H :4 c+ 4 d5 d- 30 g a- H d d~ ‘3’: _A d- 8. A post-observation conference 1 2 1 2 3 4 is held between the super- visor and teacher to discuss and analyze the data collected during the observation. 9. During the post observation 1 2 l 2 3 4 conference. the supervisor emphasizes both the teacher's weaknesses and strengths. 10. The supervisor thinks things 1 2 l 2 3 4 out well before he works with the teacher. 11. The supervisor encourages r 1 2 1 2 3 4 the teacher to develop his own personal style of tea- ching. 12. The things the supervisor l 2 l 2 3 4 and the teacher do together help improve students' learn- ing. 13. The supervisor and the 1 2 1 2 3 4 teacher decide together how ) the supervisor can be most ‘ helpful. : T 233 COLUMN I COLUMN II Does Degree of . statement , importance SUPERVISORY STATEKENTS apply to in improving your quality of school? teaching 1 2 l 2 3 ‘4 Yes 1:0 :2 g) H g: o s s H d- o *d ‘4 2 o p: 5' H s: B m d B p d- g *o o o H e: d- H d-fii c+ 9’: o 9’: d- H d- 53’ a: 14. The teacher enjoys working 1 2 l 2 3 4 with the supervisor. 15. The supervisor and the 1 2 1 2 3 4 teacher have enough time together to accomplish useful things. 16. The supervisor knows a great 1 2 l 2 3 4 deal about teaching. 17. The supervisor and the 1 2 l 2 3 4 teacher work on objectives that are important to the teacher. 18. The supervisor stimulates 1 2 1 2 3 4 the teacher to do his best. 19. The supervisor helps the 1 2 1 2 3 4 teacher to assess his prog- ress. 20. The teacher respects the l 2 l 2 3 4 supervisor's competence. 21. There is continuity in the l 2 1 2 3 4 supervisor's work with the teacher. 22. The teacher understands what 1 2 l 2 3 4 the supervisor means. 234 COLUMN I COLUMN II Does Degree of statement importance SLTERVISCRY STATEILLIH apply to in improving your quality of school? teaching 1 2 l 2 3 4 Yes Io 2 g’ H 3: ° : e :2 a» s o , ET 3‘ H H 3 s m d- S I '13 d' g '13 . o o E H P: d- H . d-.§ d ! g o 9; g d- H d i d- : 3 l A, d 23. The supervisor is enthusias- i l 2 l 2 3 4 tic about working with the ; teacher. 3 24. The supervisor suggests ‘ l 2 l 2 3 4 useful thin gs for discussion with the teacher. 25. The supervisor understands 1 2 1 2 3 4 the needs of the teacher's pupils. , 26. The supervisor helps the L l 2 l 2 3 4 teacher set goals for improving his teaching. 1 27. The supervisor maintains highT 1 2 1 2 3 4 professional standards in 2 working with the teacher. , 28. The supervisor and the 1 2 1 2 3 4 teacher work together as partners in the improvement of teaching and learning. a 29. Both the supervisor and the l 2 * l 2 3 4 teacher gain from working together. 235 COLUMN I COLUMN 11 Does Degree of statement importance SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS apply to in improving your quality of school? teaching 1 2 1 2 3 4 YesNo 7(6),...5‘. 22:3” 50k: E4 5' H TH earn: 0 go as“: g: 93 d’ H c+ if d- 30. The supervisor helps the l 2 1 2 3 4 teacher develop long term plans for his teaching. 31. The supervisor lets the l 2 1 2 3 4 teacher know his/her feelings about the teacher's teaching. 32. The supervisor respects the 1 2 1 2 3 4 teacher's competence as a professional. 33. The supervisor encourages the 1 2 l 2 3 4 teacher to evaluate his teaching. 34. The supervisor and the 1 2 l 2 3 4 teacher work comfortably together. 35. The supervisor is generally 1 2 l 2 3 4 available when the teacher wants to work with him/her. 36. The supervisor shows the l 2 l 2 3 4 teacher new ways to look at his teaching. 37. The supervisor is honest with 1 2 l 2 3 4 the teacher. 236 COLUMN 1' ; COLUMN II t Does f Degree of statement I importance SUPERVISORY STATEMENTS apply to l in improving your quality of school? teaching 1 2 g 1 2 3 4 Yes No :2 g) H 3: 3. R S «'4‘ 2 0 E4 5' H P: B A) d- '5 T3 c+ g 'o o o H :4 d» H d-.§ c+ g o '3’: d- H c+ if d- The supervisor is confident 1 2 l 2 3 4 of his/her professional ability. The supervisor makes sugges-i 1 2 1 2 3 4 tions that the teacher finds useful. The supervisor is willing to 1 2 l 2 3 4 raise difficult issues if he/She feels resolving them is important. The supervisor is someone I 2 . 1 2 3 4 with whom the teacher can be honest. ’ i Please indicate what you think is the primary purpose of supervision (CHECK ONLY ONE). ( ) To grant approval for opening a school. ( ) To take a decision about the promotion of a teacher. ( ) To decide on the upgrading of a school. ( ) To improve instruction in the classroom. ( ) To protect children from incompetent teaching. _ 10- 237 CCKKENTS: - Any comments you might have concerning supervision in general will be appreciated. -11.. APPENDIX F CODES FOR PART I OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 238 APPENDIX F Codes for Part I of the Research Instrument Question Column Var. Number Text Number Subject Identification 1-4 1000 = Principals 2000 = Teachers 1 Y-l* Name of School 5/7 100 = Enugu Local Govt Area 200 = Onitsha Local Govt Area 300 = Uzo-Uwani Local Govt Area 400 = Anambra Local Govt Area 101 = College of Immaculate Conception, Enugu 102 = Uwani Sec. School, Enugu 103 = Girls High School, Awkunanaw 104 = Boys High School, Awkunanaw 105 = Queen's School, Enugu 201 = Dennis Mem. Gram. School, Onitsha 202 = Girls Sec. Schl. Onitsha 203 = Fed. Govt Girls College, Onitsha 204 = Ado Girls Sec. Schl.,Onitsha 205 = Metu Mem. Sec. Schl, Onitsha 206 = Modebe Mem. Sec. Schl, Onitsha 207 = Boys High School, Onitsha 208 = New Era Girls Sec. Schl., Onitsha 209 = Queen of the Rosary College, Onitsha 210 = Comprehensive Sec. Schl, Onitsha 211 = Christ the King College,Onitsha 212 = Metropolitan Sec. Schl, Onitsha 213 = Washington Memorial Sec. Schl, Onitsha 301 = Uzo-Uwani Sec.Sch., Adani 302 = Community Boys' Sec. Schl., Ifite-ngari 303 = Adada Sec. Schl, Nkpologu 304 = Community Sec. Schl. Omor 305 = Atta Mem. High Schl., Adaba 401 = Girls High School, Nteje" 402 = Girls High School, Umuleri *Teachers Questionnaire 239 Question Column Var. Number Text Number 403 = Girls High School, Nkwelle-Ezunaka 404 = Boys Sec. Schl, Nkwelle- Ezunaka 405 = Girls High School, Umunya 406 = Boys High School, Umunya 407 = Joseph Memorial High Schl., Aguleri 408 = Boys High School, Ogbunike 409 = Boys Sec. Schl., Awkuzu 410 = Community Boys Schl., Nnado 411 = Community Sec. Schl, Umueze- Anam 2 Y—2/R-1* Local Government Area 8 l = Enugu 2 = Onitsha 3 = Uzo-Uwani 4 = Anambra 3 Y-3/R-2 Location of School 9 1 = Urban 2 = Rural 4 Y-4/R-3 Population School 10 l = Under 300 2 = 300—599 3 = 600-899 4 = 900-l,l99 5 = 1,200-l,499 6 = 1,500+ 5 Y—S/R—4 Number of Teachers 11 l = Under 10 2 = 10-19 3 = 20-29 4 = 30-39 5 = 40+ 6 Y-6/R—5 Sex 12 1 = Male 2 = Female *Principals Questionnaire 240 Var. 10 ll 12 Question Number Y-7 Y—9/R—8 Column Text Number Years of Teaching Experience 13 UlnbLUND-J II II II II II 3 years or less 4-7 years 8-11 years 12-15 years 15 years+ Pre-Administrative Teaching 14 Experience ubUJNF-J 3 years or less 3-6 years 7-10 years 10 yearsi Administrative Experience 15 vaJNH II II II II 3 years or less 3-6 years 7—10 years 10 years+ Level of Education 16 ...-v UT-bUUN llllll = National Certificate of Education (NCE) Bachelors Bachelors + NCE Masters Doctorate Persons Responsible for Supervision l7 \IO‘U'iuwaH I II II II Number School Principal: Vice Principal Zonal Superintendent of Schools Subjects Heads Checked l + 2 + 3 Checked l + 2 Checked 1 + 3 of Times Supervised 18 — None within the last 5 academic years Once within the last 5 academic years 241 Question Column Var. Number Text Number 12 Cont 3 = 2 times within the last 5 academic years 4 = 3 times within the last 5 academic years 5 = 4 times within the last 5 academic years 6 = 5 times within the last 5 academic years 13 Y-ll-l Languages (Foreign and Nigerian) 19 b = Blank or No 1 = Yes 14 Y-ll—2 Vocational Subjects 20 b = Blank or No l = Yes 15 Y—11-3 Moral and Religious Instruction 21 b = Blank or No l = Yes 16 Y—ll-4 Physical Education 22 b = Blank or No l = Yes 17 Y-ll-S Mathematics 23 b = Blank or No l = Yes 18 Y-ll-6 Art and Music 24 b = Blank or No l = Yes 19 Y-ll-7 Science 25 b = Blank or No 1 = Yes 20 Y-11-8 Social Studies 26 b = Blank or No l = Yes 242 Question Column Var. Number Text Number 21 R—9 Reason for being most suitable to 27-28 supervise 10. Principal "No further reason" 11. His authority will make him supervise better. 12. Knows the students and the teachers better. 13. Provides a more regular and a more systematic supervision than the superintendent of schools. 20. Vice Principal "No further reason" 21. Provides a more regular and systematic supervision than the principal and the super- intendent of schools. 22. Closer to students than the principal and superintendent of schools. 30. Superintendent of schools "No further reason" 31. Gives a mroe objective assessment 32. Supplements internal supervision 33. Commands greater respect than the principal. 40. Head of departments/Dean of studies "No further reason” 41. Greater knowledge of the subject area. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrell, R.L. "The Humanistic Supervisor Enhances Growth and Improves Instruction.v Educational Leadership (December, 1974): 212-216. Alfonso, Robert J; Firth, Gerald R.; and Neville, Richard F. Instructional Supervision. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981. Alfonso, Robert J. "Will Peer Supervision Work?" Educational Leadership (May, 1977): 594-601. Antell, Henry. "Teachers Appraise Supervision.” Journal of Educational Research (April, 1945): 606-611. Argyris, Chris. "Explorations in Consulting--Client Re- lationships." Human Organization (Fall, 1961): 121-133. Bail, P.M. "Do Teachers Receive the Kind of Supervision They Desire?"Journalof Educational Research (May,1947):713-716. Beatty, P.J. "Dialogic Communication in the Supervision Process: A Humanistic Approach." Education (Spring, 1977): 226-232. Benjamin, Dayton, "How Principals Can Improve Instruction," American School Board Journal (May, 1956): 37-39. Blumberg, Arthur. Supervisors and Teachers: A Private Cold War. Berkely, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974. , Supervisor Interaction as Seen by Super- visors and Teachers. New York: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Re- search Association, 1967. , "Supervisor—Teacher Relationships: A Look at the Supervisory Conference." Administrator's Notebook (September, 1970): Blumberg, Arthur, and Amidon, Edmund. "Teacher Perceptions and Supervisor Teacher Interaction." Administrator's Notebook, (September, 1965). 243 244 Briggs, Thomas H., and Justman, Joseph. Improving Instruc- tion Through Supervision. New York: Macmillan Company, 1952. Bright, Charles L. "Effective Supervision Leads to Teacher Growth." Business Education Forum (May, 1973): 33-35. Burden, Paul R. "Developmental Supervision: Producing Teacher Stress at Different Career Stages." A Paper Presented at the Association of Teacher Educators National Conference at Phoenix (February 15, 1982). Burton, William H., and Brueckner, Leo J. Supervision: A Social Process. 3rd ed. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1955. Cawelti, Gordon. "Effective Instructional Leadership Pro- duces Greater Learning." Thrust (January, 1980): 8-10 0 Churukian, George A.; and Cryan, John R. "Interpersonal Perceptions as a Factor in Teacher Perceptions of Supervisory Style." A Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa— tion, Chicago. (April, 1972). Clever, Larry Arthur. "Development of an Instrument for Measuring Teachers' Perceptions of the Supervisory Process." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1974. Cogan, Morris. Clinical Supervision. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. Copeland, Willis D., and Atkinson, Donald R. "Student Teachers' Perceptions of Directive and Nondirective Supervisory Behavior." The Journal of Educational Research (January/February, 1978): 123-126. Croft, John C. "The Principal as Supervisor: Some Des- criptive Findings and Important Questions." The Journal of Educational Administration (October, 1968): 162-172. Diamond, Stanley C. "Toward Effective Supervision of Class- room Instruction." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. (May, 1978): 89—97. Douglas, Harl R.; Bent, Rudyard K.; and Boardman, Charles W. Democratic Supervision in Secondary Schools. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. 245 Baker, Robert E. "An Analysis of the Clinical Supervisory Process as Perceived by Selected Teachers and Ad- ministrators." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1972. Ellis, Elmer; Smith, Joseph; and Abbott, Harold. "Peer Supervision: A Means for Supervisory Acceptance." Educational Leadership (March, 1979): 423-426. Elsbree, Willard S.; McNally, Harold J; and Wynn, Richard. Elementary School Administration and Supervision. New York: American Book Company, 1967. Erickson, Richard C. and Wentling, Tim L. Measuring Student Growth. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Eye, Glen G. "Supervisory Skills: The Evolution of the Art." Journal of Educational Research (September, 1975): 14-19. Garman, Noreen. "A Study of Clinical Supervision as a Resource for College Teachers of English." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1973. Gibb, J.R. "Is Help Helpful?" Association Forum and Section Journal of the Association of Secretaries of the YMCA. (February, 1964): 25-27. Gillespie, Kareen R. Creative Supervision. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1981. Gist, Arthur S. The Administration of Supervision. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934. Glickman, Carl D. Developmental Supervision: Alternative Practices for Helping Teachers Improve Instruction. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981. . "The Developmental Approach to Super— vision." Educational Leadership. (November, 1980): 178—180. Goldhammer, Robert. Clinical Supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Goldstein, William. "An Enlightened Approach to Supervising Teachers." The Clearing House (March, 1972): 391- 394. Gordon, Bruce. "Teachers Evaluate Supervisory Behavior in the Individual Conference." The Clearing House (January, 1976): 231-233. 246 Gornowich, Donald John. "The Relationship Between Attitudes of Teachers and Principals Concerning Supervisory Methods and Procedures in Selected Minnesota Schools." Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1972. Gray, William 5. ”Methods of Improving the Techniques of Teaching." Elementary School Journal. (December, 1919): 265. Guss, Carolyn. ”How Is Supervision Perceived?" Supervision: Emerging Profession. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1961. Harmes, H.M. ”Improving Teaching Through Supervision: How Is It Working?" Educational Administration and Supervision (May, 1959): 169-172. Harrington, W.E. "First Year Teachers and Supervision." Ohio School Journal (February, 1961): 32-33. Harris, Ben M. "Need for Research on Instructional Super- vision." Educational Leadership (November, 1963): 129-130. . Supervisory Behavior in Education. Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963. Harrison, Raymond H. Supervisory Leadership in Education; New York: American Book Company, 1968. Harty, Harold and Ritz, William C. "A Non—Evaluative Helping Relationship: An Approach to Classroom- Oriented Supervision." Educational Perspectives (May, 1976): 15-21. Heichberger, Robert L., and Young, James M., Jr., "Teacher Perceptions of Supervision and Evaluation." Phi Delta Kappan (November, 1975): 210. Hunter, Madeline. "Six Types of Supervisory Conferences." Educational Leadership. (February, 1980): 408-412. Jones, Roger B. "The Supervisor and the Teacher: An Effective Model of Communication." The Clearing House. (May, 1980): 433-437. Johnson, I.T. "Why Supervise Teachers?" School Management (October, 1971): 344. Kerlinger, Fred. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. 247 Kindsvatter, Richard, and Wilen, William W. "The Conference Category Systems Helps Supervisors Analyze Their Conferences With Teachers." Educational Leadership (April, 1981): 525-529. Klotz, Jack and Simmon, Ken. "Supervision in Today's Labor Management Crisis." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. (December, 1974): 20-24. Leeper, Robert R., ed., Supervision: Emerging Profession: Readings From Educational Leadership. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969. Lovell, John T., "A Perspective for Viewing Instructional Supervisory Behavior." Supervisory Perspectives and Propositions, editor William H. Lucio, Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1967. Lovell, John T., and Phelps, Margaret S. "Supervision in Tennessee as Perceived by Teachers, Principals, and Supervisors." Educational Leadership. (December, 1977): 226—228. Manlove, Donald C. "The Principal's Role in Improving Instruction." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (December, 1962): 1-5. Marks, James; Stoops, Emery; and Stoops, Joyce King. Handbook of Educational Supervision. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. McCaskill, Edwin; Seifert, Edward; and Nelly, Jerry. A Research Study About Teachers' Perceptions of Job Satisfaction. San Marcos, Texas: Department of Education Southwest Texas State University, 1979. McDonald, James B. "Knowledge About Supervision: Rational— ization or Rationale?" Educational Leadership (November, 1965): 161-163. McNeil, John D. "Supervision of Instruction: The Re- lationship of Theory and Practice to Accountability." Paper Presented at the Supervision of Instruction Symposium 3: Accountability and Supervision (April 13, 1972). Heagley, Ross L., and Evans, N. Dean. Handbook for Effective Supervision of Instruction. New Jersey: Prentice— Hall, Inc., 1964. 248 Neville, Richard F. "The Supervision We Need." Educational Leadership (May, 1966): 634-640. Northcutt, Helene. "Guidelines for the Improvement of Instruction Through Supervision." Montana Education (September, 1965): 14-15. Nwaogu, Jones I. A Guide to Effective Supervision of Instruction in Nigerian Schools. Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension Publishers, 1980. Ogletree, James R. "Changing Supervision in a Changing Era". Educational Leadership (March, 1972): 507- 510. Ohles, John F. "Supervision: Essential and Beneficial." Clearing House (November, 1969): 134-136. Oliva, Peter F. Supervision for Today's Schools. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1976. Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measure- ment. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966. Palmer, Wayne. "A Study of Existing and Desired Supervisory Services in the Indianapolis Public Schools." Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, 1955. Parsons, Llewellyn G. "Effective Supervision: Teachers' Views of Supervisory Roles in School Systems." Monographs in Education No. 10. Newfoundland: St. John's Memorial University, 1972. Reavis, Charles. "A Test of the Clinical Supervision Model." Journal of Educational Research. (July- August, 1977): 311-315. Reavis, Charles A. "Clinical Supervision: A Timely Ap- proach." Educational Leadership (February, 1976) 360-363. Reck, Una Mae Lange. "Viewing Supervision Through an Existential Lens." Contemporary Education (Winter, 1982): 65-69. Ritz, William C. and Cashell, Jane G. "'Cold War' Between Supervisors and Teachers?" Educational Leadership (October, 1980): 77-78. Ritz, W.C., and Stackpole, H.T. "Non-Evaluative Classroom Observation--Discussion Guide." Strategies for Teacher-Consultant COOperation. Syracuse: Eastern Regional Institute for Education, Inc., 1970. 249 Rogers, C.R. "The Characteristics of a Helping Relationship." Personnel and Guidance Journal (September, 1958): 6-16. Rue, Leslie W.; and Byars, Lloyd L. Supervision: Key Link to Productivity. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1982. Seager, G. Bradley, Jr. "Development of a Diagnostic In- strument of Supervision." Unpublished Ed. D. Disser- tation, Harvard University, 1965. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. Handbook for Effective Department Leadership. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977. . Professional Supervision for Pro- fessional Teachers. Alexandria, Virginia: Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1975. Sergiovanni, Thomas J., ed., Supervision of Teaching. Anexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982. Shrigley, Robert L. "Science Supervisor Characteristics that Influence Their Credibility With Elementary School Teachers.” Jounal of Research in Science Teaching (March, 1980): 161-166. Shuma, Karen. "Changes Effectuated by a Clinical Super- visor's Relationship Which Emphasizes a Helping Relationship and Conference Format Made Congruent With the Establishment and Maintenance of the Helping Relationship." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1971. Sibbit, Jr., Alva Leon. "Principals' and Teachers' Per- ceptions of Supervisory Practices in Selected Small Public High Schools of Indiana." Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, 1972. Skarak, N.D. "The Application of Immediate Secondary Reinforcement to Classroom Teaching Observations in Clinical Supervision." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1973. Synder, Karolyn J. "Clinical Supervision in the 19805." Educational Leadership (April 1981): 521-524. Strachaa, Jillian L. "Instructional Supervision and Teacher Deve10pment." The Australian Administrator (April 1981): 1-4. 250 Swearington, Mildred E. Supervision of Instruction: Foundations and Dimensions. New York: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962. Sweeney, Jim. "Improving Post-Observation Conference." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. (December, 1982): 38-40. The People of Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Apapa, Lagos: Times Press, 1978. Thompson, A.Gray, and Ziemer, Russell H. "Supervision of Instruction: Dying or Dead." Clearing House (May, 1982): 394-396. Valentine, Jerry. "The Supervisory Process--A Practical Look." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (December, 1978): 55-59. Walden, Everett L. "The Credibility Gap in Supervision." Colorado Education Review (October, 1968): ll. Watman, Thomas J. "Supervision for Growth." Clearing House. (May, 1972): 567-568. Wear, Pat W. "Supervisor: Coordinator of Multiple Consultations." Educational Leadership (May, 1966): 652-655. Wentling, Tim L. and Lawson, Tom B. Evaluating Occupational Education and Training Programs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975. Wiersma, William. Research Methods in Education. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1975. Wiles, Kimball and Lovell, John T. Supervision for Better Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1975. Wilhelms, Fred T. Supervision in a New Key. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1973. Wood, Charles; Nicholson, Everett; and Findley, Dale. The Secondary School Principal. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1979.