SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL) / 2020 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4

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

Ünal DENİZ
Mehmet Akif ERDENER
Pages
1038–1081
Publication Date
2020-12-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Within the scope of the study, it is recommended that the current practice regarding the instructional supervision should be provided in a way that will recognize the teachers in the process of providing feedback to teaching and teachers and benefit from these teachers in this process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Instructional supervisory authority beginning with the 2015-2016 academic year in Turkey was given as a responsibility to school principals.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, 1237 teachers working in primary, middle and high schools in Balıkesir and Bursa provinces were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Within the scope of the study, it is recommended that the current practice regarding the instructional supervision should be provided in a way that will recognize the teachers in the process of providing feedback to teaching and teachers and benefit from these teachers in this process.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2015-2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:: instructional leadership · instructional supervision · classroom supervision

Abstract

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

🔖

Cite This Article

DENİZ, Ü., ERDENER, M. A. (2020). Levels of School Administrators Exhibiting Instructional Supervision Behaviors: Teachers’ Perspectives. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4, 1038–1081. https://ajindex.com/articles/139151

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akgün, N. (2001). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderliği (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu. Aydın, İ. (2016). Öğretimde denetim: Durum saptama değerlendirme ve geliştirme (6st ed.). Ankara:
  2. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. Aydın, M. (2014). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi (6st ed.). Ankara:
  3. Gazi Kitabevi.
  4. Başar, H. (1995). Öğretmenlerin değerlendirilmesi (2st ed.). Ankara:
  5. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. Başar, H. (2000). Eğitim denetçisi (2st ed.). Ankara:
  6. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. Başaran, İ. E. (2000). Eğitim yönetimi (4st ed.). Ankara:
  7. Feryal Matbaası. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
  8. Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519 535. Çelik, V. (2015). Eğitimsel liderlik (8st ed.) Ankara:
  9. Pegem Akademi. Chao, C. Y., & Dugger, J. C. (1996). A total quality management model for instructional supervision in vocational technical programs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33, 23-35.
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Creemers, B. P., & Scheerens, J. (1994). Developments in the educational effectiveness research programme. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(2), 125-140.
  11. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance. Retrieved March 29 2018, from http://www.csaionline.com/sites/default/files/resource/imported/AchievingWithData.pdf
  12. De Bevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 14-20.
  13. Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2011). Türk Eğitim Sistemi’nde bir alt sistem olan denetim sisteminin seçilmiş bazı ülkelerin denetim sistemleri ile karşılaştırılması. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(2), 23-48.
  14. Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2018). The role of abusive supervision in predicting teachers’ withdrawal and revenge responses / El papel de la supervisión abusiva en la predicción de las respuestas de venganza y abandono de los docents. Cultura y Educación, 30(4), 693-729. DuFour,