How EFL Teachers Want to be Supervised
Abstract
This paper provides a literature review of the field of teacher supervision with a focus on teachers’ voices and how they want to be supervised. The aim is to contribute to the literature on teacher supervision by reviewing studies in which teachers have articulated their beliefs and expectations regarding supervisory systems. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, the focus is on instructional leaders and what teachers expect from them. In the second part, the focus is on teacher involvement in the supervisory system and the importance of teacher feedback for improving supervisory systems. The paper ends with some practical considerations about making changes in supervisory systems based on teachers’ perspectives.
References
Abdul Rehman, A., & Al-Bargi, A. (2014). Teachers' perspectives on post observation conferences: A study at a Saudi Arabian university. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1558-1568.
Arredondo-Rucinski, D., & Hazi, H. M. (2008). Supervision as mandated help: A policy review of professional development initiatives in selected states. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision : A case-based approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
Blumberg, A., & Jonas, R. S. (1987). Permitting access: The teacher's control over supervision. Educational Leadership, 44, 58-62.
Breedlove, P. H. (2011). Teacher evaluation in North Carolina: Teacher perceptions during a time of change (Doctoral dissertation).
Bulach, C., & Peterson, T. (1999). Levels of openness and trust: Do principals walk the talk? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, NC.
Caughlan, S., & Jiang, H. (2014). Observation and teacher quality: Critical analysis of observational instruments in preservice teacher performance assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 375-388.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: Multiple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 219-225.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational leadership, 58(5), 12-15.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Davis, D. R., Pool, J. E., & Mits-Cash, M. (2000). Issues in implementing a new teacher assessment system in a large urban school district: Results of a qualitative field study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4), 285-306.
Elliott, B., & Calderhead, J. (1995). Mentoring for teacher development possibilities and caveats. In T. Kerry, & S. Mayes (Eds.), Issues in mentoring (pp.11-24). London, England: Open University Press.
Garman, N. B. (1990). Theories embedded in the events of clinical supervision: A hermeneutic approach. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5, 201-213.
Gebhard, J.G. (1990). Models of supervision: Choice. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp.156-166). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Glanz, J. (2007). On vulnerability and transformative leadership: An imperative for leaders of supervision. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(2), 115-135. doi: 10.1080/13603120601097462
Goldsberry, L. F. (1984). Reality--really? A response to McFaul and Cooper. Educational Leadership, 41(7), 10-11.
Hazi, H. M., & Arredondo Rucinski, D. (2009). Teacher evaluation as policy target: Viable reform venue or just another tap dance? ERS Spectrum, 27(3), 31-40.
oerr, T. R. (1998). A case for merit pay. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(4), 326.
Kelly, C. L. (2006). Teacher evaluation and its relationship to teacher practice and student achievement in a successful urban middle school: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3237735)
Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lansman, R. R. (2006). A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high-achieving urban elementary school (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3233791)
Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education. doi: 10.1177/0022487114533386
Marshall, K. (2005). The why’s and how’s of teacher evaluation rubrics. Edge, 2(1), 2–19.
Marshall, K. (2008). Is supervising the heck out of teachers the answer? Education Week, 27(36), 23–25.
Milanowski, A. T., & Heneman III, H. G. (2001). Assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: A pilot study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 193-212.
Murdoch, G. (2000). Introducing a teacher-supportive evaluation system. ELT Journal, 54(1), 54-64. doi: 10.1093/elt/54.1.54
Nicholson–Goodman, J., & Garman, N. B. (2007). Mapping practitioner perceptions of ‘It’s research based’: Scientific discourse, speech acts and the use and abuse of research. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 283-299. doi: 10.1080/13603120701257297
Pizzi, J. D. (2009). Urban secondary teachers’ perceptions of a standards-based teacher evaluation system (Doctoral dissertation).
Protheroe, N. (2002). Improving instruction through teacher observation. Principal, 82(1), 48-51.
Retrieved from http://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:101691/datastream/PDF/view
Robles F (2007) Veteran teachers’ perspectives on teacher evaluation and how they want to be evaluated. EdD thesis, University of the Pacific.
Sahakian, P., & Stockton, J. (1996). Opening doors: Teacher guided observations. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 50-53.
Schumacher, G. T. (2004). Perceptions of the impact of a standards-based teacher evaluation system, based on the Danielson 'framework for teaching' model, on teaching and student learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3128070)
Shinkfield, A. J., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1996). Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Smyth, J. (1988). A "critical" perspective for clinical supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(2), 136-156.
Toch, T. (2008). Fixing Teacher Evaluation. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 32-37.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Education Sector Reports. Education Sector. Retrieved from http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment_ES_Jan08.pdf
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Education Sector Reports. Education Sector. Retrieved from http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment_ES_Jan08.pdf
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP BULLETIN, 95(1), 5-30. doi:10.1177/0192636511404062
Waintroob, A. R. (1995). Remediating and dismissing the incompetent teacher. School Administrator, 52(5), 20–24.
Wang, W., & Day, C. (2002). Issues and concerns about classroom observation: Teachers' perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), St. Louis, MO.
Welsh-Treglia, A. M. (2002). An analysis of perceptions of secondary teachers with respect to performance feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3069407)
Zimmerman, S., & Deckert-Pelton, M. (2003). Evaluating the evaluators: Teachers' perceptions of the principal's role in professional evaluation. NASSP BULLETIN, 87(636), 28-37.
Copyright (c) 2018 Adil Abdul Rehman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).