Teachers’ and Supervisors’ Perceptions of Supervision Practices in Public Secondary Schools in East Shoa Zone, Oromia Region

Teachers’ and Supervisors’ Perceptions of Supervision Practices in Public Secondary Schools in East Shoa Zone, Oromia Region

Loading document ...
Loading page ...


Author(s): Tadesse Abera

Download Full PDF Read Complete Article

DOI: 10.18483/ijSci.1219 1169 1138 18-27 Volume 6 - Apr 2017


The purpose of the study was to explore perceptions of public secondary school teachers and supervisors in East Shoa Zone in Oromia Region regarding school supervision practices. A descriptive survey research approach was used in this study. Teachers, secondary school supervisors assigned by woreda education offices, school principals, and department heads were included as sources of data. Purposive sampling, stratified and simple random sampling techniques were employed to select the zone, sample schools, and 256 participants for the study. The survey questionnaire consisted of 30 items, clustered around five dimensions of supervisory practice such as instruction (7 items), communication(6 items), staff development (7 items), evaluation (4 items), and classroom observation (6 items) were used by the researcher. Mann-Whitney U test—to identify if any significant differences exist between teachers’ and supervisors’ opinion on supervision practice dimension was deemed appropriate to analyse the survey data and were conducted using SPSS version 21. The findings from this study revealed that teachers and supervisors differed significantly on perceptions of different dimensions of supervisory practices such as instruction, communication, staff development, and evaluation. Classroom observation dimension of supervision practice was the only area, in which teachers’ and supervisors’ perceptions were very similar, i.e., teachers and supervisors seem to perceive these practices positively.


Perceptions, Supervision practices, Public secondary schools


  1. Acheson, K.A., & Gail, M.D. (2003). Clinical supervision and teacher development: Preservice and inservice applications (5th ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  2. Acheson, K.A., & Waite, D.E. (1998). Foundations in supervision. In F. Gerald & E. Pajak
  3. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 177-180). NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
  4. Anderson, G. (2000). Fundamentals of Educational Research. New York: Routledge.
  5. Anderson, R.H. & Snyder, K.J. (1998). Functions of school supervision. In F. Gerald, &
  6. E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 341-373). NY:Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
  7. Andrews, R. L., Basom, M. R., & Basom, M. (1991). Instructional leadership: Supervision that makes a difference. Theory into Practice, 30, 97-101.
  8. Badiali, B. J. (1998). Teaching of supervision. In F. Gerald & E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of
  9. research on school supervision (pp. 957-967). NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
  10. Basit, T.N. (2010). Conducting Research in Educational Contexts. London: Continuum.
  11. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals
  12. promote teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oak, California: Corwin Press.
  13. Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors & teachers: A private cold war. Berkeley: McCutchan.
  14. Bogdan, R.C., and Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  15. Bogdan, R.C., and Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  16. Bryman, A. (1988). Quality and Quantity in Social Research. London: Allen and Unwin.
  17. Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Carter, S. C. (2001). No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools. Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.
  19. Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  20. Clark, V.L.P. and Creswell, J.W. (2008). The Mixed Methods Reader. London: Sage.
  21. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routeledge and Kegan Paul.
  22. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York, USA: Routledge Falmer.
  23. Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2003). School accountability and professional job responsibilities: A perspective from secondary principals. National Association of Secondary Principal’s Bulletin, 87, 10-25.
  24. Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, & evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  25. Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Volume 1 to 3. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  26. Dessler, G., Munro, C.R., & Cole, N.D. (2011). Management of human resources (3rd Can.ed.).
  27. Toronto, Canada: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  28. Dollansky, T. D. (1997). Rural Saskatchewan elementary K-6 teachers’ perceptions of supervision and professional development. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universityof Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
  29. Duffy, F. M. (1998). The ideology of supervision. In F. Gerald & E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 181-199). NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
  30. Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An
  31. investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 18(2), 110-141.
  32. Firth, G. R. (1997). Governance of school supervision. In Gerald Firth & Edward Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of Research on School Supervision. New York: Macmillan.
  33. Fuhrman, S. H. & Odden, A. (2001). A Kappan special section on school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 59-62.
  34. Fullan, M. (2002). Leadership and sustainability. Principal Leadership, 3, 14-17.
  35. Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their after-math: A “historical” sketch of research and teaching since 1989. Educational Research, 18, 4-10.
  36. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  37. Garmston, R. J., Lipton, L. E. & Kaiser, K. (1998). The psychology of supervision. In F. Gerald
  38. & E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp.242 - 286). NY:
  39. Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
  40. Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Englewood: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
  41. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The
  42. Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
  43. Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated Supervision. Washington(2nd ed.). Association for
  44. Supervision & Curriculum Development.
  45. Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for helping teachers
  46. improve instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
  47. Development.
  48. Glickman, C. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  49. Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision of instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  50. Glickman C.D, Gordon S.P. & Ross-Gordon J.M. (2001). Supervision and Instructional
  51. Leadership: A Developmental Approach, 5th edn. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.
  52. Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  53. Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. H., & Krajewski, R. J. (1980). Clinical supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
  54. Gordon, S. P., & Nicely, R. F. (1998). Supervision and staff development. In G. R. Firth & E. F.
  55. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 801-841). New York:
  56. Simon & Schuster Macmillian.
  57. Grant, B., M. (2005). Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, (3), 337-354.
  58. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Fourth generation evaluation as an alternative. Educational Horizons, 63, 139-141.
  59. Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.
  60. Haileselassie, W. (2001). Current expectations from educational supervision in the Ethiopian
  61. system. Material presented for training of trainers workshop. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:Ministry of Education.
  62. Harris, B. (1998). Paradigms and parameters of supervision in education. In G. R. Firth &
  63. E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp.1-34). NY: Simon and Schuster.
  64. Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  65. Iwanicki, E. F. (1998). Evaluation in supervision. In F. Gerald & E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of
  66. research on school supervision (pp.138-175). NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
  67. Joshi, R.D. & Verspoor, A. (2013). Secondary Education in Ethiopia: Supporting Growth and Transformation. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  68. Koops, J. B. & Winsor, K. A. (2005). Creating a professional learning culture through faculty evaluation. Journal of Education, 186, 61-70.
  69. Kosmoski GJ (1997) Supervision. Mequon, WI: Stylex.
  70. Langton. N., Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2011). Fundamentals of organizational behaviour (4th Can. ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  71. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163- 214). London: Sage publications.
  72. Lovell, J., & Wiles, K. (1985). Supervision for better schools. (5 th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc.
  73. Maykut, P., and Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research-A Philosophic and Practical Guide. London: Falmer.
  74. Maynard, M. (1994). Methods, Practice and Epistemology: The Debate about Feminism and
  75. Research. Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis.
  76. Ministry of Education, (1994). Educational Supervision Manual and Practice, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, 4(4): 21-26.
  77. Mischler, E.G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  78. MOE (2012). Ethiopian National Professional Standards Framework for School Supervisors. Addis Ababa.
  79. Nolan, J. F. & Hoover, L. A. (2008). Teacher supervision & evaluation: Theory into practice. (2nd edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son.
  80. Oliva, P. F. & Pawlas, G., E. (2001). Supervision for today’s school (6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  81. Oliva, P.F. & Pawlas, G.E. (2004) Supervision For Today’s Schools, (7th ed.). Hoboken, NY:
  82. Wiley. Pajak, E. (1990). Dimensions of supervision. Educational Leadership. 48 (1) pp. 7881.
  83. Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 29(9), 5-9.
  84. Pool, W. L. (1994). Removing the “super” from supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. 9 (3) pp. 284309.
  85. Prase, L. E. (2005). Refocusing the Purpose of Teacher Supervision. In F. W. English (Ed.), The sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 430-462). London: Sage Publications.
  86. Scriven, M. (1988). Evaluating teachers as professionals: The duties-based approach. In S. J.
  87. Stanley & W. J. Popham (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success (pp. 110-142). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  88. Seidman, I. (1990). Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press.
  89. Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw- Hill.
  90. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  91. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
  92. Spradley, J.P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  93. Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2000). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases from the field. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. 15 (3), 21235.
  94. Teddlie, C., and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating
  95. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioural Sciences. London: Sage.
  96. Ukeje, B. O., Akabogu, G. C. & Ndu, A. (1992). Educational administration. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing co., Ltd.
  97. Waite, D. (1995). Rethinking instructional supervision: Notes on its language and culture. London: The Falmer Press.
  98. Walker, R. (1985). Doing Research: A Handbook for Teachers. London: Routledge.
  99. Zepeda, S. J. (2006). High stakes supervision: We must do more. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9, (1), 61-73
  100. Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (2"d ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Cite this Article:

International Journal of Sciences is Open Access Journal.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Author(s) retain the copyrights of this article, though, publication rights are with Alkhaer Publications.

Search Articles

Issue June 2023

Volume 12, June 2023

Table of Contents

World-wide Delivery is FREE

Share this Issue with Friends:

Submit your Paper