c


 c  c

c
c
 cc

cc

c
c
c



c
 ccc cc c
c



cc



c

c !"c#c$% "&c

In Malaysia, as in many other developing countries, education has been considered to be

one of the imperative fields of economic growth and developments. Therefore, educational

reforms have taken places that are directed towards enhancing the quality of education. These

reforms are demanding greater performance and commitment from all parties involving

administration, management, instruction and supervision that are responsible for the performance

of students in schools. According to Rockoff (2004), supervision is a vital element of

professional growth and development. According to Segun (2004), the importance of school

supervision in today¶s educational system requires for a greater attention. Nowadays, people are

becoming more conscious than in the past about the significance of education and people are

getting more interested to get involved in school¶s system to ensure the achievement of the

school¶s instruction as well as to be part of the school¶s activities (Beesong & Ojong, 2009).

µSupervision¶ as defined by Mintzberg, (1979) which is a co-ordination by someone taking

responsibility for the work of others including planning, scheduling, allocating, instructing and

monitoring actions.¶
'c%%()(!%c#c*+()c

àespite of the importance of instructional supervision, not all schools in Malaysia could

implement it successfully, especially for the schools that are located at the remote area such as in

Sarawak. Most of school teachers are aware of the instructional planning ± who is to be taught,

what is to be taught and, how much is to be taught in their planning of instruction. Generally, the

teachers had a positive view of the syllabus. However, most of teachers, especially for the novice

teachers who have been sent to rural schools in Sarawak believe that it is impossible to deliver

the content of the whole syllabus within the specified time frame. In short what was written and

planned in the record books were not transferable to classroom teaching. Therefore, the quality

of teaching will be decrease from day to day. Here, instructional supervision plays a vital role in

ensuring the teachers always keep on improving and enhancing their knowledge and skills in

teaching. However, does it really work in schools? So, who should to be blamed on this matter?

Is it due to the lack of time, resources, teachers¶ motivation or the school management?

,c ($(-c*.(%/0(cc

Given this background, the aim of this study is as mentioned below:

1.c To examine the challenges of instructional supervision among secondary school

teachers at rural areas in Sarawak

2.c To identify the significance of instructional supervision towards students¶

performance

c c c
1c ($(-c2 ($%/!

This particular study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1.c What are the challenges in implementing instructional supervision at secondary

rural schools?

2.c What are the significance of instructional supervision towards students¶

performance?

3c/)/%%/!cc

This study is limited in a way it will only be carried out to three secondary schools in

district Sri Aman, Sarawak which are SMK St Luke, SMK Sri Aman and SMK Simanggang.

Generalizing the findings to the larger populations of other principals, teachers or schools may

be limited due to the demographic of sample of this study.

4c(+/)/%%/!c

àelimitation of this study; it is only applicable to three secondary schools in Sri Aman.

5c!+ $/!c

This chapter described the background and problem statement of study, research

objectives and questions, sample and populations as well as limitations and delimitations of

study.

c c c
 

c'c


cc



c

'c!%" %/!c

Malaysia¶s government believes that in order to survive in the competitive world

economy, quality of education is the most helpful and functional key. (Afolakemi O & àavid

O.,2006). Supervision could be seen as an interaction involving some kind of established

relationship between and among people, such that people influence people (Patrick, 2009). Such

interactions are greatly influenced by a predetermined programme of instruction. In this regard,

and according to Netzer and Kerey (1971), the systematization of the interaction of those

responsible for working within the structure of administration is called supervision. Thus, the

supervisor is anticipated in the course of his duty as well as to initiate several activities that will

lead to a successful combination of these two contexts in order to achieve harmony and

satisfaction (Patrick, 2009).c

''c"(+$c!"c(%-"$c#c 6(0/$/!c

Monroe (1913) reported the function of supervision previously is almost the same as

today. As described many years before, the term instructional supervision was invented, some

educational leaders had a vision for what later would become the study of instructional

supervision. Monroe (1913) also stated, ³The main function of supervision is to improve

teaching practice´ (p. 413). The following review examined various models of supervision

including the clinical, collaborative, developmental, and differentiated models of instructional

supervision. The intents of all models of instructional supervision appear to be the improvement

of teaching practices (Soelen, 2003).

c c c
 ''c+/!/+c 6(0/$/!c

The original clinical supervision model included a six-step cycle made up of conferences,

observations and pattern analysis merged in three distinct phases: the pre- observation

conference, the classroom observation, and the post-observation conference (Zepeda, 2003).

Moreover, Soelen (2003) claimed that clinical supervision is perceived as a direct method of

supervision due to the standard cycle with a predetermined number of conferences and

observations, regardless of the career stage and experience of the teacher. àirect supervision is

implemented when the teacher has a low level of abstraction. A low level of abstraction is where

the teacher has ³difficulty identifying instructional problems and generating alternative solutions;

they normally seek concrete advice from an expert´ (Glickman & Gordon, 1987, p.64).

However, Acheson and Gall (1987) also supported the use of clinical supervision because it is,

³interactive rather than directive, democratic rather than authoritarian, teacher-centered rather

than supervisor-centered´.

'''c++*%/0(c$ 6(0/$/!c

Harris and Ovando (1992) defined that collaborative supervision is a ³process by which

people with diverse expertise such as teachers, principals, and supervisors work together with

equal status and share commitment in order to achieve mutually beneficial instructional goals´.

Instructional supervision of this kind can be achieved through a peer coaching or a peer

supervision model in which peers observe one another and provide feedback in a nonthreatening

manner (Manning, 1988). The distinguishing feature between peer coaching and peer supervision

is that coaching involves the ³development and practice of new teaching methods and skills in

both µworkshop¶ settings and under actual teaching conditions´ (Glatthorn, 1987, p. 32) and the

c c c
intent of peer supervision is to ³engage a colleague in focused discussion based upon observed

teaching practice´ (Goldsberry, 1998, p. 453).

'',c(0(+6)(!%+c$ 6(0/$/!c

àevelopmental supervision supports the teacher in taking a personal journey by

encouraging reflection on practice (Benin, 2006). àevelopmental supervision provides

individualized, client-centered guidance where the teacher and supervisor have a partnership in

inquiry (Blumberg, 1980) that leads to teacher self-direction (Glickman et al., 1998). The goal of

developmental supervision is to support teachers in becoming self-directing. There are several

stages to allow teachers to become self-directed. The stages leading to self-direction are: self-

directed, directive control, nondirective, and the collaborative approach. To support the

developmental process Glickman et al. (2001) stated, ³It provides teachers with as much primary

choice as they are ready to assume, then fosters teachers¶ decision-making capacity and

expanded choice over time´

c ''1c/##((!%/%("c$ 6(0/$/!c

As in Soelen (2003), Glatthorn (1997) defined differentiated supervision as ³an approach

to supervision that provides teachers with options about the types of supervisory and evaluative

services that they could receive.´. In depth, Glatthorn (1984, 1997) also proposed two

components of differentiated supervision: developmental options and evaluative options.

àifferentiated supervision recognizes and builds on the values of developmental supervision and

extends the individualization of the supervisory plan. Marczely (2001) believed that a goal of

c c c
differentiated supervision was to provide reasoned and meaningful supervision for every teacher.

The objective of the model is to assist instead of assessing the teacher.

',c
##(%/0(c/!$% %/!+c$ 6(0/$/!c

Poirier (2009) affirmed that one must comprehend the definition, effectiveness of

supervision process and kinds of instructional supervision. Andrews, Basom, and Basom (2001)

stated that the main purpose of instructional leadership is to improve and accomplish instruction

by utilizing supervision as a way to improve teachers¶ skills and abilities. Furthermore, Blasé and

Blasé (2004) also confirmed the importance of communication between principals and teachers

to develop reflection for the purpose of growth, especially through supervision. According to

Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (1998), supervision must be accepted to assist teachers in

order to improve as well as enhance their instructional skills and abilities.

'1c!(##(%/0(c/!$% %/!+c$ 6(0/$/!c

Supervision at its best should be a collaborative approach rather than ³inspection,

oversight, and judgment´ (Blasé & Blasé, 2004, p. 8). To add to ineffective supervision, Renihan

(2005) provided the p



  

as below



 
 





  










 




 





   

 




c c c
  

 





 


 

! 


  

"






# $


 



%


  








p




   
   

 



 & '

()'

In addition, ineffective or lousy supervision (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1989) can be described

as supervision that has taken more of a summative function, which means supervision is

³conducted merely for the purpose of developing records which can be used to justified

continuing or terminating the employment of the teacher´ (Rossow & Warner, 2000, p. 66).

Study of Poirier (2009) summarize the findings of Zepeda and Ponticell (1989) and Renihan

(2005), the common elements missing from the summative model of supervision are a lack of

purpose and reflection between teachers and principals, as well as inadequate knowledge of the

supervisory process.

'3c!+ $/!c

This chapter described the literature review of the study. It explains on the past

researches that have been done, related models and approaches in instructional supervisions as

well as the differences between effective and ineffective instructional supervision.

c c c
 

c,c


 c

 c

,c!%" %/!c

This chapter presents the research design used by the researchers in this study. It is

presented in terms of population, sample and the sample selection, data gathering instrument,

administration of the instrument and the data analysis process.

,'c ($(-c($/!c

This research will be of descriptive research since much of the data collected is based on

questionnaires. This study uses quantitative method, which has been designed to get some

reviews on principals and teachers on their perspective on the challenges of instructional

supervision at their schools.

The researchers designated a questionnaire consisting of a set of questions, which will be

divided into five sections. In section A, the researchers will obtain demographic data of the

sample. The other sections in this questionnaire will be about the three factors as challenges in

supervision. Section B will be regarding on teachers and principals perceptions towards

objectives of instructional supervision. In Section C will be discussing on teachers and

principals¶ perception towards sufficiency of school¶s resources / facilities factor in supervision.

Meanwhile, Section à will be concerning on teachers and principals perceptions towards

efficiency of management factor in supervision. Finally, Section E teachers and principals

perceptions towards organizational structure factor in supervision.

c c c
,,c)6+($c!"c6 +%/!c

The target population of this study is the principals and teachers of SMK St Luke, SMK

Sri Aman and SMK Simanggang. There will be about 3 principals and 60 teachers as

respondents for this study. The sample for this study will be selected by using random sampling.

Stratified sampling is a procedure used to obtain a greater degree of representativeness while

decreasing probable sampling error.

,1c!$% )(!%%/!c

The instrument that will be used to conduct this study is questionnaire which comprises

of 30 questions in five major sections. A pilot study of this questionnaire will be carried out with

the researcher¶s supervisor in order to check the validity of the items. The consistency of items

will be validated with the Cronbach Alpha Reliability Test.

,1c(%/!c c()6-/c%c

In section A, the questionnaire investigates on the respondents demographic data.

There are five questions asked in this section which are age, gender, job position,

qualification level, teaching experience and teaching subject. By the end of this section,

the researchers insist respondents to state which school they are teaching.

,1'c(%/!c c((6%/!$c!c*.(%/0($c#c$ 6(0/$/!c

In this section, the respondents will be asked on their perceptions on objectives of

supervision. This section is to determine whether school teachers and principals agree on

the objectives of implementation of instructional supervision in school.

c c c
 ,1,c(%/!c c((6%/!$c!c$ ##//(!&c#c$-+c($ ($c7c#/+/%/($cc

In section C will investigate on teachers and principals perceptions as well as

awareness of sufficiency of their school resource / facilities that could affect on their

mark during supervision. This could be involved with financial and material resources.

,11c(%/!c c((6%/!$c!c(##//(!&c#c$-+c)!()(!%c

In section à will seek on efficiency of school management react to the

supervision as not all of schools understand the real needs of instructional supervision

and practice it in order to satisfy the ministry¶s command rather than to improve the

teaching performance.

,3c%c++(%/!c(" (c

The respondents will be required to answer the Likert-Scale questions based on their

preference. Basically, the questionnaire is a straight forward task where respondents would only

answer about 30 questions that only take approximately 10 - 15 minutes to complete it. Each

questionnaire will be attached with instructions that clearly explain the purposes of the study and

the questionnaires will be returned to the respective researchers as soon as it is completed

answered by the respondents. In addition, the respondents will be informed about the objective of

completing the questionnaires, the confidentiality of their responses and that the data would only

be utilized for the academic purposes.

c c c
,4c%c!+&$/$c

From the completed questionnaires, the data will be analyzed by using SPSS. Frequency

analysis will be carried out to describe the demographic factors of the respondents.

,5c!+ $/!c

This chapter described the research design used in this study. It explains on the

population, sample and sample selection, data gathering instrument, data collection method as

well as the data analysis process. It is hoped that this chapter has provided a clearer picture on

the tabulated data.

c c c




c

Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. à. (1987). „ 

*„+  

!„
(2nd
Ed.). White Plains, Ny: Longman.

Bessong And Felix Ojong (2009) Supervision ,

 , *
  ! „ -  
%

+.
„  p .'%. /
0
!% 


1
  Vol 8, No.1&2, 2009: 15-20

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). 2

!*

 

 2
 

 p  

p

„, (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.

Glickman, C. à., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998).   


 ! *
 
 ,

,
(4th Ed.) Needham, Ma: Allyn And Bacon.

Glatthorn, A.A. (1984).     


. Alexandria, Va: Association For Supervision
And Curriculum àevelopment.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1997).     


 (2nd Ed). Alexandria, Va: Association For
Supervision And Curriculumàevelopment.

Goldsberry, L. F. (1998). Teacher Involvement In Supervision. In F. Gerald & E. Pajak (Eds.),

2

 ! 1
  ! 

   

 (p. 428-462). Ny: Simon And Schuster
Macmillan

Harris, B., & Ovando, M. (1992). Collaborative Supervision And The àevelopmental Evaluation
Of Teaching. 0
!

,
 

,


! 3
$45$12-18

Marczely, B. (2001).   

 * % 
 ,   ,
 6 
p

. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen.

Monroe, P. (1913). ,+
!% 
'New York: Macmillan.

Poirier O. à. (2009)',p  "

„
"p  





*
 

 ,+
 
!

' University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Canada

Rossow, L. F., & Warner, L. S. (2000). „ p  

  

 * *
 


 (2nd Ed.). àurham, Nc: Carolina Academic Press.

Segun, O., (2004). % 
   

 p
 , p  *  ' *7 *



Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At Cross-Purposes: What ào Teachers Need, Want, And
Get From Supervision? 0
!+   ,  

$8((1), 68-87

c c c