A Situational Analysis of Educational Supervision in the Turkish Educational System
pp. 56-70 | Published Online: November 2015 | DOI: 10.12973/edupij.2015.412.5
Tuncay Yavuz Ozdemir, Ramazan Yirci
The purpose of this study is to conduct a situational analysis on the educational supervisions carried out within the Turkish educational system. Content analysis was used in this study, which is one of the qualitative research methods. An interview form was prepared by the researchers in accordance with the study purpose and expert opinion sought to ensure content and face validity. Findings of the study show that; supervision is necessary for an increase in educational quality, sustainability of educational worker development, determination and elimination of possible deficiencies, to ensure not falling behind developments in the educational system, and to collaborate within the school. It has been determined that the agents who carry out the supervision should have professional competencies, should be able to enter into effective communication, should be able to spare enough time for supervision and follow the principles of equality. In addition, the importance of effective and sufficient guidance and parental participation was highlighted. In a change to the Turkish educational system in 2014, the authority and responsibility of supervision was assigned to the school principals. Because it would decrease the psychological pressure that supervision imposes on educational workers, and enable a positive atmosphere for communication over a prolonged period, this change was believed to be beneficial overall. According to another standpoint, because school principals lack professional competencies regarding educational supervision and do not follow the principles of equality, this change instead was believed to be unfavorable.
Keywords: educational supervision, supervision, inspector, effective supervisionReferences
Aksit, F. (2006). Teachers’ opinions about performance evaluation (Sample of Bigadiç Primary School Teachers), Social Sciences Research Journal, 2, 76-101.
Allemann, J. (2006). Links between teacher evaluation / supervision and student achievement: A case study of a successful urban elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Aslanargun, E. (2009). The performance appraisal of teachers and multiple appraisal. Journal of National Education, 38(183), 239-259.
Aydin M. (1998). Educational Administration. Hatipoglu Publishing: Ankara.
Baffour-Awuah, P. (2011). Supervision of instruction in public primary schools in Ghana: Teachers’ and head teachers’ perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University, Australia.
Balci, A., Aydin, I., Yilmaz, K., Memduhoglu, H. B., & Apaydin, C. (2007). Management and supervision of primary education in Turkish education system: current situation and new perspectives. The fundamental problems of the primary and preschool education system in Turkey and solutions. Turkish Education Association Publications: Ankara.
Basaran, I. E. (2000). Educational Administration. Kadioglu Publishing, Ankara.
Boydak Ozan, M., & Ozdemir, T. Y. (2010). Psychological pressure of inspection on teachers, 2. International Participatory Congress on Educational Supervision, 23-25 June, 2010, Dumlupinar University and Temsen, Kutahya.
Burlington School District. (2007). Differentiated teacher supervision and evaluation system. http://www.nctq.org/docs/69-07.pdf Accessed on: 17.05.2015.
Bursalioglu, Z. (2003). Theory and Practice in Educational Administration. Pegem A Publications: Ankara.
Can, N. (2004). Supervision of the primary teachers and their problems, Journal of National Education, 161.
Daresh, J. C. (2001). Supervision as Proactive Leadership. Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Demirtas, Z., Kahveci, G., Yirci, R., Sanli, O., & Kartal, S. E. (2011). The ethical principles that inspectors are expected to obey, 3. International Participatory Congress on Educational Supervision, 22-24 June, 2011, Mersin.
Dongel, A. (2006). The views of primary education inspectors on the improvement of supervision and performance evaluation activities on the web. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
Drysdale, L., Goode, H., & Gurr, D. (2009). An Australian Model of Successful School Leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 697-708.
EARGED, (2002). School Performance Management Model. Ministry of National Education (MoNE), Department of Training, Research and Development Publications: Ankara.
Earley, P. (1998). School improvement after inspection? School and LEA responses. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Erden, M. (2004). Introduction to Teaching Profession. Istanbul: Alkim Publications,
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2007). Supervision and instructional leadership - a developmental approach. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Gokalp, S. (2010). Analysis of elementary school teachers? Perceptions about the degree at which elementary school supervisors perform their assignments related to supervising teachers (Mersin sample). Unpublished master’s thesis, Mersin University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Mersin.
Ilgan, A. (2008). Primary School Supervisors’ and Primary School Teachers’ Perceptions on Receptivity and Applicability of Differentiated Supervision in Primary Schools. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 14(55).
Karakose, T., Aslan, A., & Kilic, L. (2009). The problems that primary school inspectors face during the inspection of the teachers and the institutions and suggestions for solving these problems. 1. International Participatory Congress on Educational Supervision, Ankara: TEMSEN.
Kartal, S. E., Karakose, T., Ozdemir, T. Y., & Yirci, R. (2011). Teachers’ views regarding the ethical principles that school inspectors should possess, 3. International Participatory Congress on Educational Supervision, 22-24 June, 2011, Mersin.
Katz, D., & Kahn R. I. (2013). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kazak, E. (2013). Teachers’ opinions about the variance of course supervision practice. Anatolian Journal of Educational Leadership and Instruction, 1(1), 15-26.
Kilminster, S. M., & Jolly, B. C. (2000). Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: a literature review, Medical Education, 34(10), 827-840.
Kovats, S. M. (2006). The impact of the teacher evaluation process on teacher practice and student achievement in an urban school: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, California.
Kudisch, J. D., Fortunato, V., & Smith, A. (2006). Contextual and Individual Difference Factors Predicting Individuals’ Desire to Provide Upward Feedback, Group & Organizational Management, 31(4).
Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The supervisory working alliance, trainee self-efficacy, and satisfaction, Journal of Counseling and Development, 77(4), 447-455.
MacBeath, J. (2006). School Inspection & Self-Evaluation: Working with the New Relationship. London: Routledge.
Marshall, K. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation, Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1).
Marvasti, A. B. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayring, P. (2000). Einfuhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung, Weinheim, Psychologie Verlags Union. (Translated by Adnan Gumus & M. Sezai Durgun), Adana: Baki Publishing,
McNicol, S. (2004). Incorporating library provision in school self-evaluation. Educational Review, 56(3).
Memduhoglu, H. B. (2012). The Issue of Education supervision in Turkey in the Views of Teachers, Administrators, Supervisors and Lecturers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1).
Memduhoglu, H. B., & Taymur, A. (2014). A Model Proposal Regarding to Reconstruction of Subsystem of Education Supervision in Turkey. Pegem Journal of Education & Instruction, 4(2).
Memduhoglu, H. B., & Zengin, M. (2012). Implementability of Instructional Supervision as a Contemporary Educational Supervision Model in Turkish Education System. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 5(1), 131-142.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications.
MoNE (2014). Regulation about the head of National Education, guidance and supervision. http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/maarifmuf_0/maarifmuf_1.html. Accessed on: 28.06.2015.
Munemo, E., & Tom, T. (2013). The Effectiveness of Supervision of Specialist Teachers in Special Schools and Resource Units in Mashonaland East and Harare Provinces (Zimbabwe), Greener Journal of Educational Research, 3(3).
Obiweluozor, N., Momoh, U., & Ogbonnaya, N. O. (2013). Supervision and Inspection for Effective Primary Education in Nigeria. Strategies for Improvement, Academic Research International, 4(4), 586-594.
Ozdemir, T. Y., Boydak Ozan, M., & Akgun, M. (2011). The issues that the teachers are satisfied and dissatisfied during the guidance and inspection process. 3. International Participatory Congress on Educational Supervision, 22-24 June, 2011, Mersin.
Pajak, E. (2010). The history and future of instructional supervision in the United States. 2. International Participatory Congress on Educational Supervision, 23-25 June, 2010. Dumlupinar University and Temsen, Kutahya.
Reynolds, D., Muijs, D., & Treharne, D. (2003). Teacher evaluation and teacher effectiveness in United Kingdom. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 83-100.
Saban, A. (2004). Entry level prospective classroom teachers’ metaphors about the concept of “teacher”. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 2, 135-155.
Sagir, M. (2011). Educational leadership roles of primary school administrators and problems they face. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Institute of Social Sciences, Bolu.
Schein, E. H. (2003) Prozessberatung fur die Organisation der Zukunft- [Gelecegin Orgutleri icin Surec Danismanligi]. Translated by Isabella Bruckmaier. (2nd ed.). Bergisch Gladbach: EHP Verlag.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition (7th ed.). Mc Graw Hill: New York.
Silverman, D. (2004). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques. California: Corwin Press Inc.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Taymaz, H. (1995). Problems during inspections and solutions. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 1(1).
Taymaz, H. (2002). Inspection in the education system: concepts, principles and methods. Pegem A Publications: Ankara.
Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360-degree feedback: How to Leverage performance evaluations for top productivity, TX Gulf: Houston Publishing Company.
Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2005). Developing leadership in context. In M. J. Coles & G. Southworth (Eds.), Developing leadership: Creating the schools of tomorrow. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Yavuz, M., & Yildirim, A. (2010). Teachers’ views regarding selection and appointing of the primary school inspections. 1. International Participatory Congress on Educational Supervision, Ankara: TEM-SEN.
Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford Press.
Zepada, S. J. (2006). Supervision. In F. W. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 978-980), California: Sage.