Relationship between Instructional Supervision and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

  • H. M. Lalitha Kumari Senior Lecturer, Department of Social Science Education, Faculty of Education, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
Keywords: Instructional supervision, Secondary Schools, Relationship, job satisfaction

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to find out the extent to which instructional supervision by internal supervisory teams’ was associated to teachers’’ job satisfaction. In order to achieve the purpose three specific objectives were guided; find out demographic characteristics of the secondary teachers, identify supervisory practices used by school internal supervisory teams particularly during the COVID 19 Pandemic and describe relationships between components of supervision and teachers’ job satisfaction. The study was carried out in association with three hundred sample units of secondary level teacher targeting to answer the research questions that were built. An online survey method was adopted in this study. A Google form questionnaire was used as data collection instruments. The data collected through the google form were presented by using percentages, tables and graphs, standard deviation and correlation coefficient. Results revealed that more than 78% percent of secondary level teachers’ instruction was not observed by their internal supervisory teams during year 2020 to 2021. In addition, a significant number of secondary level teachers (90%) had not participated in pre-observation conference and post observation conference with their supervisory teams. It was concluded that a significant number of secondary level teachers in Sri Lanka were neither supervised nor evaluated during COVID 19 Pandemic.  Further, it was found that the most important components of supervision which included instructional observation, pre-observation conference and post-observation conference, assistance from supervisory teams in terms of lesson planning were not useful factors of secondary level teachers’ job satisfaction. It is, therefore, recommended that, the school principals must motivate their internal supervisory teams in order to adopt alternative methodologies such as online instructional supervisory approach particularly during a pandemic situation.

References

1. Anderson, R. H., & Snyder, K. J. (Eds.). (1993). Clinical supervision: Coaching for higher performance. Lancaster, PA: Techomic.
2. Anderson, R. H., Goldhammer, R. A., & Krajewski, R. J. (1980). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
3. Blair, J. (2000, May). Honored teachers want more pay and respect. Education Week, 19(36), 11.
4. Boe, E. E., & Gilford, D. M. (1992). Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy issues, models and databases. In E. E. Boe &
5. Cano, J., & Miller, G. (1992). A gender analysis of job satisfaction, job satisfier factors of agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(3), 40-
6. Cogan, M. (1962). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2008). Research methods in education. London: Taylor & Francis.
8. Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9. Gross, H., & Billingsley, B. S. (1994). Testing a model of special educators’ intent to stay in teaching. Exceptional Children, 60(5). 411-421
10. Hedges, L. E. (2018). Supervising the beginning teacher. Danville, IL: The Interstate Publishers and Printers.
11. Knoll, M. K. (2016). Supervision for better instruction: Practical techniques for improving staff performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Kumari, H.M.L. (2019) A Study on Instructional Supervision by Principals in Type 1C and Type 2 Schools in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Social Sciences: PEOPLE 5 (3) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
13. Kumari, H. M. L. (2021a). A study on instructional supervision by principals in Type 2 and Type 3 schools in the Colombo District, Sri Lanka. International Research Symposium 2021Interdisciplinary Research in Education, PROCEEDINGS (1), 176-185 https://edu.cmb.ac.lk/proceedings-irs-2021/
14. Kumari, H. M. L. (2021b), A Study on Distributed Leadership Practices and its Impact on Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning: PUPIL 5(1), 55-72 https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2021.51.5572
15. Kumari, H.M.L. (2022c). Study on Instructional Supervision by Principals in Type 2 and Type 3 Schools in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Education (IJIE) 1 (1), 73-88
16. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). Supervision: A redefinition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
17. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition. Boston, MA: McGrawHill.
18. Spaulding, S. (2001). Supervision and support services in Asia. Comparative Education Review, 45(2), 280-283.
19. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. www.eyeoneducation.com/
Published
2023-03-29
How to Cite
[1]
Kumari, H.M.L. 2023. Relationship between Instructional Supervision and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. International Journal on Integrated Education. 6, 3 (Mar. 2023), 282-287. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17605/ijie.v6i3.4206.