SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri / 2014 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 5

The Implementation and Evaluation of a Clinical Supervision Model in Teacher Education in Turkey:Is It an Effective Method?

NERMİN BULUNUZ
ESİM GÜRSOY
John KESNER
ŞEHNAZ BALTACI GÖKTALAY
Umut M. SALİHOĞLU
Pages
1823–1834
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)

The results indicated a significantly higher score on both the first and second videotaped teaching for the CSM group compared to that for the control group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Implementation of the standards established by the Higher Education Council (HEC) has shown great variation between universities, between departments and even between supervisors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A TUBITAK (111K162)-EVRENA project designed to develop a “teaching practice program” using a Clinical Supervision Model (CSM) was conducted.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicated a significantly higher score on both the first and second videotaped teaching for the CSM group compared to that for the control group.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Implementation of the standards established by the Higher Education Council (HEC) has shown great variation between universities, between departments and even between supervisors. A TUBITAK (111K162)-EVRENA project designed to develop a “teaching practice program” using a Clinical Supervision Model (CSM) was conducted. The present study examines the effectiveness of CSM implementation on teacher trainee performance. An experimental model was utilized to compare the teaching performance of teacher trainees in a group that used the CSM (experimental group) and a group that used the traditional method (control group). Independent raters scored videotaped teaching performances. These scores were compared using t-tests and analysis of variance. The results indicated a significantly higher score on both the first and second videotaped teaching for the CSM group compared to that for the control group. Both groups increased their scores between the first and second video; however, a mixed model, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant difference in the increase in scores for each group. The experimental group had consistently higher teaching scores, and the lack of a significant difference in the increase was most likely the result of the limited time spent using the CSM

🔖

Cite This Article

BULUNUZ, N., GÜRSOY, E., KESNER, J., GÖKTALAY, Ş. B., SALİHOĞLU, U. M. (2014). The Implementation and Evaluation of a Clinical Supervision Model in Teacher Education in Turkey:Is It an Effective Method?. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 5, 1823–1834. https://ajindex.com/articles/346197

References (9)

  1. Aseltine, J. M., Faryniarz, J. O., & Rigazio-DiGilio, A. J. (2006). Supervision for learning: A performance-based approach to teacher development and school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Azar, A. (2003). Okul deneyimi ve öğretmenlik uygulaması derslerine ilişkin görüşlerinin yansımaları. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 159, 181-194.
  2. Bates, A. J., Ramirez, L., & Drits, D. (2009). Connecting university supervision and critical reflection: Mentoring and modeling. The Teacher Educator, 44(2), 90-112.
  3. Clifford, J. R., Macy, M. G., Albi, L. D., Bricker, D. D., & Rahn, N. L. (2005). A model of clinical supervision for preservice professionals in early intervention and early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25(3), 167–176.
  4. Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314.
  5. Ekiz, D. (2006). Mentoring primary school student teachers in Turkey: Seeing it from the perspectives of student teachers and mentors. International Education Journal, 7(7), 924-934.
  6. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll) (3rd ed.) London: Sage. Gebhard, J. G. (1984). Models of supervision: Choices. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 501-514.
  7. Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gordon, S. P., & Maxey, S. (2000) How to help beginning teachers succeed? (2nd ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kiraz, E. (2003). The impact of supervising teachers: Are they really competent in providing assistance to teacher candidates’ professional growth? Reflections from Turkey. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 8, 75-93.
  8. Krajewski, R., & Anderson, R. (1980). Goldhammer’s clinical supervision a decade later. Educational Leadership, 37, 420-423.
  9. Miller, S. P. (1994). Self-evaluation, effective feedback, and goal-setting: An integrated approach to clinical supervision. The Teacher Educator, 30(1), 2-14. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Paja