European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.39 No.4 (2010), pp.589-605

© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2010
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and

Concerns for the School Head

Gurnam Kaur Sidhu

Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA
E-mail: gurnamsidhu213@yahoo.com
Tel: 019-2375826; Fax: 603-55227412

Chan Yuen Fook

Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA
E-mail:yuenfook@hotmail.com
Tel: 019-2375826; Fax: 603-55227412

Abstract

In today’s keen competitive global environment, schools and institutions of higher

learning are entrusted to produce quality human capital that is able to participate and cope
with the ever changing market demands. If quality teachers are to beget quality students,
then it is perhaps pertinent that we investigate the critical role of the school head as a
supervisor of the teaching and learning process. This paper highlights an exploratory study
that investigated the knowledge, understanding and practice of Malaysian primary school
heads on formative supervision. The sample of the study involved 29 primary school heads
from schools located in two states of Peninsular Malaysia, i.e. Kelantan and Selangor The
research instruments included questionnaires and semi structured interviews. The interview
sessions were conducted with 8 school heads and 10 school teachers from schools located
in the two identified states. The findings of the study indicated that formative supervision
left much to be desired among school heads. School heads possessed a limited knowledge
and understanding of formative clinical supervision. A majority could not tell the
difference between teacher evaluation and teacher supervision. Furthermore, there was a
mismatch between school heads’ and teachers’ perceptions in a number of aspects in the
formative supervision process. What is perhaps still happening in schools is teacher
evaluation and conventional supervision, leaving formative supervision being hardly
practiced in the Malaysian primary schools. The findings of this exploratory study imply
that there are a number of issues and concerns that school heads need to address before the
real benefits of formative supervision can be reaped by teachers for enhanced students
learning in Malaysian primary schools.

Keywords: Formative Supervision, Teaching and Learning, School Heads

1. Introduction
It is often said that school heads are ‘sense makers’ of learning organizations. In such an equation
school heads must ensure that improved student learning becomes the primary function of all schools.
Moreover instructional leaders ensure effective teaching takes place as quality teachers will beget
Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 590

quality students. Therefore, school heads must hold teachers accountable for providing quality
education that puts forward well-planned curricular and teaching strategies that take into consideration
the diverse needs of all kinds of learners in their classroom. This brings forth the role of the school
head as a teacher evaluator and supervisor of the teaching and learning process. The school head needs
to provide formative instructional supervision so that continuous and constructive feedback is
constantly communicated to teachers.
The word ‘supervise’ brings along with it various connotations such as to ‘watch over’,
‘oversee’ and direct. In the school environment the school head is often seen as the person responsible
for the supervision of not only the school teachers but also all other aspects of school administration. In
the teaching and learning agenda, the school supervisors are usually the school heads, senior assistants
to the school head, instructional lead teachers, department heads, and master teachers.
According to Komoski (1997), supervision is a leadership instructional act where the ultimate
aim is to improve classroom instruction. Besides helping to enhance the teaching and learning process,
is also seen as a process to ensure the formal curriculum is implemented in the classroom. More
importantly the supervisory process should provide teachers with constructive feedback leading to
increased teacher motivation. There is also no denying that the supervision process also helps school
heads evaluate teacher competency in terms of teacher knowledge, skills and attitudes. According to
Holland & Adams (2002:228), highlight that the right supervision supports teaching and professional
development, enhances “personal and collaborative enquiry, promotes critique, and contributes to an
evolving pedagogy”. To this Acheson and Gail (2003) highlight that supervision is not autocratic but
collaborative and interactive. Furthermore it is not directive but democratic. It is also more teacher-
centered rather than being an authoritative supervisor-centered activity. Olivia (1993: 478) puts it aptly
when she stresses that the supervisor can be seen as "a teacher of teachers".
According to Jackson (2001), one of the most difficult jobs of the school administrator is
supervision of the staff. He further adds that formative supervision is a process whereby the school
administrator assists the classroom teacher to improve his/her teaching instruction to enhance student
learning. School heads need to keep in mind that formative supervision is more than just routine
classroom visits and evaluation of the teaching and learning process. It includes aspects such as goal
setting, follow-up visits, mentoring and coaching, continuous feedback on progress and provision of
additional support to implement changes and professional development opportunities.
Glickman and Tamashiro (1980) outline that there are three main types of supervision:
directive, non-directive and collaborative. Directive supervision is an approach based on the belief that
teaching consists of technical skills with known standards and competencies for all teachers to be
effective. Therefore in such a context, the role of the supervisor is to inform, direct, model, and assess
those competencies. Such supervision is perhaps best applied to the novice teacher who needs more
guidance. In contrast to this, is non-directive supervision which is based on the premise that learning is
basically a private experience and hence teachers must have the ability to conduct self-reflection and
come up with their own strategies and solutions to improving their teaching and learning process. Here
the supervisor’s role is to listen and not be judgmental. Finally, collaborative supervision is based on
the belief that the teaching and learning process is a dynamic process requiring decision making and
problem solving skills. Hence two or more persons can jointly pose hypotheses to a problem,
experiment, and implement those teaching strategies that appear to be most relevant in their own
surroundings. Here the supervisor’s role is to be an active member of the interaction process and guide
the problem-solving process and help make teachers make decisions on their common problems.
Zepeda (2007) notes that though teacher evaluation is summative, it should at times be
downplayed in the merit rating card if the true benefits of formative supervision are to be reaped by all
teachers concerned. Therefore school heads must look into an approach that can help them evaluate
teachers and simultaneously avoid creating a psychological obstacle to their further development.
According to Sergiovanni and Starrat (2006) the answer lies in formative clinical supervision as
it is a "people-centered approach" and it postulates "kaizen" or continuous improvement. Cogan,
1973:9 one of the pioneers of clinical supervision, cited in Zepeda (2007) defines it as: "... the rationale
591 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook

and practice designed to improve the teacher's classroom performance. It takes its principal data from
the events of the classroom. The analysis of these data and the relationship between teacher and
supervisor form the basis of the program, procedures and strategies designed to improve the students'
learning by improving the teacher's classroom behavior." To this Gaies and Bowers (1993:168) add
that clinical supervision is an “on-going process of teacher development that is based on direct
observation of classroom teaching performance”. They add that the main aim of clinical supervision is
to promote effective teaching and to help teachers “reduce the discrepancy between actual teaching
behaviour and ideal teaching behaviour” (p.169). In the clinical supervision model, the supervisor is
seen as a facilitator, trainer and educator. Sidhu (2010) extended the three-phase clinical supervision of
planning conference with the teacher; classroom observation: and feedback conference to the
Humanistic Evaluation Model which involves five main stages presented in Figure 1.
At Stage 1 (Pre Conference) the supervisor in agreement with the teacher plans for a formal
observation. The Supervisor’s task is to understand what the trainee has in mind for the lesson to be
taught by asking probing and clarifying questions. During the classroom observation (Stage 2), the
supervisor focuses on the teacher’s performance in the classroom and records what is said by the
teacher and the students. The data is collected via the observation or through interviews, and document
analysis. All these data are the main sources of information that can help the supervisor identify a
teacher's competency. At Stage 3 (Evaluation) the supervisor’s task is to review the data collected and
identify the strengths and areas of concern that will have the greatest effect on student learning. At the
Post Conference (Stage 4), both supervisor and the teacher collaboratively review and analyze the
observed lesson focusing on both the strengths and areas of concern. It is important to note that a
collaborative conference is only effective when the teacher concerned is able to identify problem areas,
suggest solutions and be willing be listen to alternatives. Based on feedback the teacher should be able
to develop a plan of action with the supervisor and be ready and willing to grow professionally. Stage
5, the Post Mortem Session, marks the end of the guided conference where both supervisor and the
teacher agree upon the next plan of action and decide on reasonable time lines agreeable to both. At
this stage it is important for the supervisor to share with the teacher the support and monitoring
mechanisms that will be put in place for teacher development.

Figure 1: Clinical Supervision in the Humanistic Evaluation Model (Sidhu, 2010)

Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 592

Blasé & Blasé (2000) highlight that effective instructional leadership that postulates formative
supervision should exhibit effective and collegial dialogue at the post conference stage to encourage
teacher reflection and professional growth. They point out that that the following are some of the
strategies can be used:
• Talking with teachers to promote reflection.
• Make suggestions that are purposeful, appropriate, and non-threatening
• Give feedback that is specific to classroom observations and at the same time expressing
care, interest and providing praise.
• Model - Demonstrate teaching techniques in classrooms and during conferences as they are
impressive examples of instructional leadership.
• Use inquiry and solicit advice/opinions.
• Praise and focus on specific and concrete teaching behaviors.
Blasé & Blasé (2000) further stress that effective instructional supervisors “hold up a mirror,”
serve as “another set of eyes,” and are “critical friends” to teachers. They point out that school heads
that used the above strategies encouraged teacher reflection resulting in the increased teacher
motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy and sense of security. Fischer (2000) notes that the role
of a supervisor puts a critical demand on school heads’ competencies in skillfully analyzing teacher
performance and appropriate data. Besides that they must be skilled in the following areas: (a) what to
evaluate, (b) how to observe and analyze classroom observation information and other data, and (c)
how to translate the results of observations and the summary of data into meaningful conference
feedback that guides and encourages teachers to improve instruction. All these can have a profound
effect on the learning that occurs in each classroom.
Fischer (2000) reiterated that to enhance the professional effectiveness of the teaching staff,
administrators / supervisors must be skilled in the following areas: (a) what to evaluate, (b) how to
observe and analyze classroom observation information and other data, and (c) how to translate the
results of observations and the summary of data into meaningful conference feedback that guides and
encourages teachers to improve instruction. She also points out that “supervision of instruction must be
built on the observer's thorough understanding and in-depth knowledge of instructional theory, not on a
check list of what should be in a lesson.”
At this juncture it is perhaps important to note that in formative supervision teachers should not
be criticized or forced to teach in limited ways. Instead formative supervision should encourage
collaboration, peer coaching, inquiry, collegial study groups, and reflective to promote professional
dialogue (Blasé & Blasé, 2000). To this, McEwan (2002) add that formative supervision should
embrace growth and change and respect teachers’ knowledge and abilities.
In Malaysia, the Inspectorate of Schools (IOS) in the Ministry of Education is the body
responsible for inspecting schools and enhancing supervisory practices in schools to ensure that a high
standard of quality education is achieved. In 2001 the IOS introduced the Standard for High Quality
Education Assurance System to ensure continuous improvement in the quality of education in
Malaysian schools. In 2003 the instrument was reviewed and consequently the system was revised and
renamed SQEMS (Standard Quality Education Assurance System). To implement SQEMS, IOS
prepared 3 documents: SQEMS 1: Statements of Standards (SS), SQEMS 2: Standard Assurance
Instrument (SAI) and the SQEMS 3: School Improvement Plan (SIP). The SAI is used by the School
Inspectors during school inspections and schools are required to use SAI for self-evaluation to
determine performance standards.
At the school level all public schools are required to conduct self evaluation twice a year using
the instruments provided under the SQEMS (Standard Quality Education Assurance System). The
school head as the instructional leader is often viewed as the lead in teacher supervision. The school
head together with the school curriculum committees outline teacher evaluation and supervision. The
SAI may also be used by school heads to conduct monitoring and supervision in schools. Element 9 in
the SAI highlights the aspect of teaching and learning and it focuses on the following aspects: Yearly
Teaching Plan, Daily Lesson Plan, Set Induction, Presentation & Development of Lesson, Questioning
593 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook

Technique, Pupils’ Participation, Reinforcement, Exercises and Tasks, assessing Pupils’ Exercises and
Tasks, Closure, Pupils’ Work, Class Management, Teachers’ Personality. Today most state education
departments have developed their own teaching and learning instruments and schools are free to adapt
and adopt a suitable instrument for teacher evaluation and supervision to enhance the teaching and
learning process in their respective schools.

2. The Study
With formative supervision having so much to offer for professional teacher development and
improved student learning, this explorative study investigated the knowledge, understanding and
practice of Malaysian primary school heads on formative supervision. Besides that, the study also
examined the the main issues and concerns surrounding formative supervision in Malaysian schools.
The sample of the study involved school heads and teachers from two randomly selected states
– i.e. Selangor and Kelantan. Selangor is a state located on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia
whilst Kelantan is located on the east coast. The final sample consisted of 29 primary school heads out
of which 10 were attending an undergraduate degree course in a local public university. Out of these 29
school heads, 14 were from Kelantan whilst the remaining 15 were from Selangor. Besides the school
heads the study also involved a total of 60 randomly selected primary school teachers from three
schools in Kelantan and three schools located in Selangor.
The research instruments included questionnaires and semi structured interviews. The interview
sessions were conducted with 8 school heads and 10 school teachers from the identified schools in
Kelantan and Selangor. In this study the school heads from Kelantan are referred to as SHK1, SHK2,
SHK3 and SHK4 whereas the teachers are referred to as TK1, TK2, TK3, TK4 and TK5. Likewise the
school heads from Selangor are referred to as SHS1, SHS2, SHS3 and SHS4 whereas the teachers are
referred to as TS1, TS2, TS3, TS4 and TS5. A pilot study of the questionnaire was carried out with that
of the interview questions in one of the schools in Selangor. The main purpose was to check the
reliability and content validity of the items. The internal consistency of the items of the Questionnaire
was validated with the Cronbach Alpha Reliability Test. The reliability coefficient for the
questionnaire was at the acceptable level (r = 0.78) and both the questionnaire and interview questions
were having high content validity.
The quantitative data was analyzed by using SPSS version 15 for statistical analysis. Frequency
analysis was employed to describe the demographic factors of the respondents and the knowledge,
practices, perceptions and opinions of the respondents identified in the research questions. In terms of
the qualitative data, the data was coded, categorized and then elaborated based on the feedback given.
The data obtained from all the various sources was constantly compared and contrasted before any
conclusions were drawn.

4. Findings
A total of 60 teachers and 29 school heads responded to the questionnaire. The data presented in Table
1 indicates the frequency distribution and percentage of the respondents according to variables such as
gender, age, teaching experience and qualifications. The data revealed that the majority of the teachers
(75%) and the school heads (62.1%) were females. This is a growing trend in Malaysia and a number
of countries all around the globe. A majority of the teachers (48.3%) were in the 31-39 age group
whereas a majority of the school heads were in the 40-50 age group. Data obtained also revealed that
86.7% of the school heads and 71.1 % of the teachers possessed a Diploma of Education. A large
majority – i.e. 93.2% of the school heads have more than 16 years of experience teaching while 58.4 %
of the teachers have between 6 to 15 years of teaching experience.
Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 594
Table 1: Respondents’ Demographic Profile

Teachers (N=60) School Heads (N=29)

Variable
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 15 25 11 37.9
Female 45 75 18 62.1
Age Group
Below 30 12 20 - -
31-39 29 48.3 4 13.6
40 – 50 16 26.7 18 62.1
Above 50 3 5 7 24.1
Qualifications
Diploma / Certificate of Education 43 71.7 25 86.2
First Degree 15 25 4 13.8
Post Graduate Degree 2 33.3 - -
Teaching Experience
<5 8 13.3 - -
6-10 23 38.4 - -
11-15 12 20 4 13.8
16-20 8 13.3 9 31.1
>20 9 15 18 62.1

4.1. Knowledge and Understanding of Formative Supervision

One of the main issues of concern was the schools heads’ and teachers’ knowledge and understanding
of formative supervision. The questions in Section B of the questionnaire specifically examined their
knowledge of the differences between conventional and formative supervision. Respondents were
given ten statements and were required to respond based on a dichotomous scale of true and false. The
results are presented in Table 2 below.
595 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook
Table 2: Knowledge of Formative Supervision

Teachers (N=60) School Heads (N=29)

Dichotomous Scale (True/False)
(No - Correct) (No - Correct)
Aim / Purpose / objective
The main aim and purpose of formative supervision is to enhance 23 (38.3%) 17 (58.6%)
the teaching and learning process (True)
Approach
In conventional teacher evaluation the supervision observes the
26 (43.3%) 12 (41.4%)
lesson, teacher personality & characteristics and the overall T&L
climate (True)
Initiator of Observation
The initiator of classroom observation should be the supervisor 30 (50%) 10 (34.5%)
(False)
Time for Observation
Formative supervision is more time consuming compared to 21(35%) 15 (51.7%)
conventional supervision (True)
Structure of Observation
Formative supervision is highly structured compared to 12 (20%) 10 (34.5%)
conventional supervision (True)
Perspective of Observation
Formative supervision is more global in comparison to conventional
17 (28.3%) 13 (38.9%)
supervision which is more focussed and specific on a certain issue /
concern (False)
Responsibility of Supervisor
The responsibility of the supervisor in formative supervision is to
27 (45%) 17 (58.6%)
observe a teacher and locate the strengths and areas of concerns of
the teacher (True)
Communication during Supervision
Communication during the process of formative supervision is very 39 (65%) 20 (68.9%)
encouraging, motivating and collaborative. (True)
Effect of Supervision
The effect of formative supervision is more global compared to 35 (58.3%) 10 (34.5%)
conventional supervision which is focussed and specific (True)
Role of Supervisor / Evaluator
In formative supervision the role of the supervisor is that of an 35 (58.3%) 15 (51.7%)
evaluator first and then mentor, coach and counsellor (False)
Overall Mean 45.8% 47.9%

The findings revealed that both teachers and school heads possessed a moderate level of
knowledge of formative supervision with the teachers achieving a mean of 45.8% whilst the school
heads obtained a mean of 47.9%. The school heads were more knowledgeable (m=58.6%) than the
teachers (m=38.3%) of the aim and purpose of formative supervision (to enhance the teaching and
learning process). Both groups also exhibited that they possessed rather limited knowledge of the
approach used in formative supervision as 43.3% the teachers and 41.4 % of the school heads gave the
correct responses. Teachers also indicated limited knowledge with regards to time for formative
supervision (35%), structure (20%) and perspective of formative supervision (28.3%) and the
responsibility of the supervisor (45%).
Meanwhile the school heads exhibited only moderate knowledge with regards to aspects such
as the approach (41.4%) structure (3.5%) and perspective (38.9%) of formative supervision. A majority
of the school heads (65.5%) are of the opinion that the supervisor should be the initiator of classroom
observation. This is indicative of the fact that supervision in these schools is rather conventional as it is
still hierarchical. Interview sessions further revealed that school heads viewed classroom observation
leading to teacher supervision as one of their core responsibility and hence were of the opinion that
supervision should also be imitated by them According to school head SHK2 from Kelantan,
“supervision is our main role and as a school head it is my, my PK1 (senior Assistant) and by panel
heads to observe and guide teachers. . . I feel we have to initiate supervision.” To this school SHS3
Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 596

from Selangor added, “. . . sorry until now no teacher has come to me and said, ‘please come and
observe me’ . . . so I feel it is my duty to observe and supervise, I must initiate.” Meanwhile teacher
TKS4 form a suburban school in Selangor felt that “supervision is only for problem teachers and these
teachers are identified by top school management.”
Both school heads (68.9%) and teachers (65%) indicated that they were aware of the
importance of effective communication during formative supervision. Communication has to be a two-
way process that is encouraging and motivating. Both parties also indicated that they were only
moderately aware that the role of the supervisor in formative supervision is to be a mentor, coach and
counsellor and not that of an evaluator. Slightly more teachers (58.3%) than school heads (51.7%) were
aware of this role. Nevertheless slightly more school heads (58.6%) than teachers (45%) were
knowledgeable of the responsibility of the supervisor, which is to observe a teacher and locate the
strengths and areas of concerns of the teacher.
It is interesting to note that even though all respondents answered all items posed in the
questionnaire, interview sessions revealed that all 8 primary school heads and 10 teachers could not
articulate the difference between traditional and formative supervision. Seven out of the eight school
heads and 80% of the teachers admitted that they had never heard of the term ‘formative supervision’.
Upon further questioning it was found that a majority of the school heads (6=75%) equated formative
supervision to teacher evaluation. School head SHK1 from Kelantan said that “I have never heard of
formative supervision but I do supervise my teachers based on teacher evaluation conducted twice a
year.” School head SHS4 from Selangor further elaborated that he evaluated his teachers based on the
instrument provided by the School Inspectorate body – the SQEMS (Standard For Quality Education In
Malaysian Schools) and based on teacher evaluation he did sometimes get the ‘senior teachers to
mentor the problem and new teachers.”

4.2. Purpose of Supervision

Results presented in Table 2 indicated that school heads (58.6%) revealed a better understanding of the
aim and objective of formative supervision than teachers (38.3%). This purpose was further explored
and the results are displayed in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Purpose of Formative Supervision

Teachers School Head

The Purpose of formative supervision is. . . (N=60) (N=29)
Mean SD Mean SD
ensure formal curriculum is implemented in T&L process 3.67 .67 3.89 .87
ascertain teacher’s knowledge, attitudes and skills 3.56 .64 3.68 .88
enhance T&L process for teacher development 2.45 .71 3.76 .98
enhance T&L for student achievement 2.34 .61 3.56 .87
help make decisions on general job performance 3.20 .76 3.87 .67
help make decisions on merit, pay and promotion 2.15 .75 3.98 .76
provide motivation to teachers 2.13 .71 3.50 .73
Overall Mean 2.71 3.75
Scale: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly Agree

The findings exhibited that the school heads were more aware (mean = 3.75) than the teachers
(mean=2.71) of the purpose of supervision. The school heads responses revealed that they were
convinced that the purpose of supervision was to ensure that formal curriculum is implemented in
teaching and learning process (m=3.89), establish a teacher’s knowledge, attitudes and skills (m=3.68)
so that it could help them make decisions on general teacher performance (m=3.87) in order to enhance
teacher development (m=3.76) and student achievement (m=3.56). School heads were also convinced
597 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook

that supervision could help make decisions on merit, pay and promotion (m=3.98) and in the long run
motivate teachers (m=3.50).
On the other hand teachers too agreed that supervision was a mechanism to ensure that formal
curriculum is implemented in teaching and learning process (m=3.67), ascertain a teacher’s knowledge,
attitudes and skills (m=3.56) and helped one to make decisions on general job performance (m=3.2).
These teachers were however not convinced that supervision could enhance the teaching and learning
process for teacher development (m=2.5) and student learning (m=2.34). Teachers were also of the
opinion that it did not help make decisions on merit, pay and promotion (m=2.15) nor did it provide
motivation to teachers (m=2.13).
Interview sessions with school heads revealed that they were very optimistic of the purpose of
supervision. All eight school heads interviewed affirmed the importance of supervision to guide
teachers for both teacher development and student learning.
According to school head SHS3 from Selangor, “supervision is very important as it helps me
identify the good teachers and the teachers that need help... with classroom observation I can also
identify what kind of help I need to give to these teachers.” Teacher TS2 from Selangor highlighted
that formative supervision had its merits but at the same time stressed that it ‘cannot be used as the one
and only yardstick for teacher performance.”

4.3. Teachers’ and School Heads’ Perceptions and Opinions on the Formative Supervision
Process
Findings in the study also revealed that there was a mismatch between both school heads’ and teachers’
opinions and perceptions on some of the practices in the formative supervision process. In this study
the views from both parties were obtained with regards to the three main stages of supervision – i.e.
pre, while and post classroom observations. Given below in Table 4, are their perceptions of the
formative supervision process at Stage 1 – i.e. before the classroom observation.

4.3.1. Pre Observation

The findings revealed that both parties agreed (teachers, m=3.66; school heads, m=3.87) that the
teacher was informed when the classroom observation would take place and in the supervision process
the teacher was a willing partner (teachers, m=3.10; school heads, m=3.54). Furthermore both teachers
(m=3.2) and school heads (m=3.67) felt this was communicated effectively. Both parties also admitted
(teachers, m=1.32; school heads, m=2.22) that they did not have a pre-conference prior to the
observation and therefore teachers, (m=2.45) and school heads (m=2.78) revealed that they did not
discuss aspects that the observation would need to focus on by the supervisor.
The mismatch was however, seen in a number of other aspects. For instance teachers did not
feel (m=2.13) that a suitable time was agreed upon by both parties. Interview sessions with teachers
indicated that in most instances an observation schedule was drawn up by the school top management
and all teachers had to adhere to it. Teachers also pointed out that the supervisor did not go through the
lesson plan (m=2.34) before the observation but the school heads indicated otherwise (m=3.25).
Furthermore, these teachers felt their supervisors were not very successful in establishing a trusting
climate (m=2.57) and some felt the supervisors did not ensure confidentiality (m=2.15). Moreover
these teachers also felt that their supervisor was not a skilled mentor (m=2.78). On the other hand, the
school heads indicated that they were successful in establishing a trusting climate (m=3.88), were
skilled mentors (m=3.56) and ensured confidentiality (3.89) at all times. Both parties’ views and
opinions were further corroborated during the interview sessions. School heads stressed that they were
‘skilled and experienced instructional leaders’ (SHS1), were flexible in arranging observation times
(SHK4) and were understanding and willing to give and take where classroom observation was
concerned (SHS2). School head SHS3 stressed that he was a person who could be trusted as he ‘kept
all the strengths and weaknesses of each teachers a private business’. On the other hand, some teachers
felt otherwise. For instance teachers TK3 from Kelantan and TS5 from Selangor felt that sometimes
Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 598

the supervisors shared classroom observations with their friends in school. Teacher TS5 felt that
“confidentiality was at stake” and she “found it difficult to trust the supervisor”.

Table 4: Self-report on the Pre Observation Process in Formative Supervision.

Teachers Supervisors
Before Classroom Observation
(N=60) (N=29)
Respond based on 4-point Liket scale given below
Mean SD Mean SD
Teacher was informed of the classroom observation 3.66 .67 3.87 .72
Both parties had a pre conference before observation 1.32 .64 2.22 .69
Discussed aspects that teacher would like to work on 2.45 .71 2.78 .68
Supervisor went through lesson plan 2.34 .61 3.25 .73
Supervisor communicated purpose and ideas clearly 3.20 .76 3.67 .73
Supervisor ensured confidentiality 2.15 .75 3.89 .75
Both parties agreed upon a suitable time for a classroom visit 2.13 .71 3.78 .67
Supervisor established a trusting climate 2.57 .54 3.88 .66
The teacher was viewed as a willing partner: 3.10 .65 3.54 .65
The supervisor was viewed as a skilled mentor 2.78 .71 3.56 .63
Overall mean
Scale: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly Agree

4.3.2. During Observation

Both parties’ perceptions were also sought as to what transpired during observation sessions. The
findings are exhibited in Table 5. Both teachers and the school heads agreed that the supervisor was
punctual and observed the whole lesson. They also agreed that the supervisor sat in a strategic position.
Interview sessions revealed that in most cases the supervisor sat at the back of the class so that they
could be able to get a good view of both teacher and students in action. Even though school heads
highlighted that they paid attention to the whole class in action (m=3.55) and collected various forms
of data including teacher characteristics (m=3.23) using field notes (m=3.05), the teachers begged to
differ. Teachers felt that supervisors did not pay sufficient attention as to what transpired in the
classroom (m=2.34) did not collect sufficient data (m=2.3) and failed to record relevant data using field
notes (m=2.21). Interview sessions with teachers revealed that only a few supervisors made field notes
as a majority of them were evaluated using the forms provided either by the State Education
Department or the Inspectorate Division of the Ministry of Education. Both teachers and school heads
also admitted that supervisors did not audio/video tape classroom observations or conduct any
verbatim note taking activities to collect data on classroom observation.
Interview sessions with school heads revealed that supervisors did not conduct such data
collection activities due to time constraints. School head SHS2 from Selangor highlighted that he had a
large enrolment of teachers and time did not permit him to conduct such activities. Teacher TK3 from
Kelantan and teachers TS1 and TS5 from Selangor felt that if ‘good qualitative data’ was collected by
supervisors and shown to teachers, it would lend credibility to their feedback. Teacher TS3 added that
“data speaks volumes” so teachers need to see it. Nevertheless a majority of the teachers interviewed
said it would be good if video tapping facilities were made available in schools. Teacher TS1 from
Selangor highlighted that with such facilities in place ‘teachers would be more self-reflective and in the
long run help in teacher development.”
599 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook
Table 5: Teachers’ and School Heads’ Perceptions on the During Observation Process

Teachers Supervisors
During Classroom Observation
(N=60) (N=29)
(Dichotomous Scale - Yes/No)
Mean SD Mean SD
The supervisor observed the whole lesson 3.13 .65 3.89 .72
The supervisor was punctual and spend sufficient time in the classroom 3.25 .66 3.95 .77
Supervisor sat at a strategic location 3.02 .71 3.78 .69
Supervisor paid attention to what is happening in groups in the class
2.34 .67 3.55 .72
and to the personal interaction between the pupils
Supervisor collected data on T&L process including teacher
2.34 .62 3.23 .65
characteristics
Supervisor record relevant data using field notes 2.21 .59 3.05 .63
Supervisor conducted ‘verbatim note taking’ to ensure all teacher-
1.30 .63 2.35 .76
student interactions are recorded
Supervisor audio / video record T&L session 1.02. .61 1.20 .77
Scale: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly Agree

4.3.3. Post Observation

The final aspect in the formative supervision process looked into the post observation practices of
supervisors. The perceptions of both teachers and school heads are displayed in Table 6 below. School
heads indicated that they held a post conference (m=3.89) after the observation and feedback was
provided within 24 hours (m=3.65). The teachers however indicated that feedback was not provided
within 24 hours (m=1.78). Nevertheless, both teachers and school heads felt that feedback provided
during post observation focussed on both the teachers’ strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, both
parties agreed that the feedback given focussed more on the act of teaching and not the person
(teachers, m=3.02; school head, m=3.65).
Even though both parties agreed that communication during the post observation conference
was a two-way process (teachers, m=3.12; school heads, m=3.87), teachers felt that they were not
provided with ample opportunities to express their thoughts (m=2.67) nor were they given the chance
to pose questions (m=2.3). The school heads however felt differently. They emphasized that in
formative supervision teachers are given the chance to air their views (m=3.79) and the opportunity to
pose questions (m=3.56). School heads also highlighted that consensus were reached by both parties as
to the need for change (m=3.67) and for this realistic steps and remedies were discussed to promote
continuing professional growth for teachers (m=3.69). The school heads also felt that they emphasised
on the instruction and guidance towards true educative teaching (m=3.64) and at the end of the post
conference discussion teachers knew what needed to be done (m=3.25). The teachers however felt that
supervisors did not make decisions based on consensus (m=2.5) and suggestions given were not that
realistic (m=2.3) and at the end of the post observation teachers they were not very sure what needed to
be worked upon (m=2.45). Both school heads and teachers admitted that teachers were not told of the
next observation. Interview sessions confirmed this and a school head from Selangor (SHS4)
highlighted that this was not possible due to heavy workload and they could observe teachers only
twice a year.
Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 600
Table 6: Teachers’ and School Heads’ Perceptions on the Post Observation Process

Teachers Supervisors
After Classroom Observation (N=60) (N=29)
Mean SD Mean SD
A post mortem conference was held 2.78 .651 3.89 .728
Immediate feedback was communicated to the teacher (within 24 hours) 1.78 .773 3.65 .737
Feedback focussed on the act of teaching, rather than on the person of
3.02 .692 3.89 .769
the teacher
Feedback focussed on both strengths and limitations 3.22 .672 3.87 .712
Consensus were reached by both parties as to the need for change, and
2.54 .668 3.67 .649
how to bring these about
Realistic steps and remedies were discussed to promote continuing
2.30 .651 3.69 .676
professional growth
The discussion emphasised on the instruction and guidance towards true
2.45 .773 3.64 .731
educative teaching.
The post conference was a two-way communication process 3.12 .612 3.87 .669
Teacher was provided opportunities to express thoughts and opinions
2.67 .674 3.79 .687
including disagreements
Teacher was given a chance to pose questions 2.34 .652 3.56 .632
At the post conference teacher was told of the next observation 2.12 .692 2.56 .772
At the end of the post conference teacher knew what needed to be
2.45 .721 3.25 .637
worked on
Scale: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly Agree

4.4. Teachers’ and School Heads’ Perceptions of Supervisors

This study also investigated the teachers’ opinions of their supervisors during classroom observation.
The findings obtained are presented in Table 7 below. The teachers indicated that their supervisors
were still very autocratic (m=3.13) and hence not very democratic (m=2.78) giving little leeway for a
participatory relationship (m=2.33) during the supervision process. With supervisors having such a
hierarchical stance probably resulted in teachers viewing their supervisors more as evaluators (m=3.56)
instead of being coaches and mentors of the teaching and learning process (m=2.33). This is also
probably why the teachers did not view supervisors as collaborative partners (m=2.33) and supportive
colleagues (m=2.56) in the teaching and learning process. Moreover teachers also felt that their
supervisors were not experts in teaching and learning (m=2.5) and therefore could little to act as their
motivators (m=2.35). Nevertheless teachers in this study agreed that their supervisors were good
listeners (m=3.0).

Table 7: Teachers’ Perceptions of Supervisors

Teachers
Do you perceive your supervisor as ______?
(N=60)
(Dichotomous Scale - Yes/No)
Mean SD
an autocratic head 3.13 .65
a democratic colleague 2.78 .67
a participatory leader 2.33 .59
an expert in T&L 2.45 .63
a motivator 2.35 .62
a good coach & mentor for T&L 2.33 .72
a good listener 3.0 .69
a collaborative partner in T&L 2.33 .61
a supportive colleague in T&L 2.56 71
an evaluator of T&L 3.56 .66
Scale: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly Agree
601 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook

Another aspect explored was the teachers and the school heads perceptions’ on the whole
supervision process. The results are displayed in Table 8 below. It is interesting to note that school
heads as supervisors viewed themesleves very postively and highlighted that they conducted
supervison in a collaborative manner (m=3.53) that was interactive (m=3.26) and democratic (m=3.68).
Furthermore they felt they were more teacher centred (m=3.22) and dialogic rather than didactic
(m=3.39). they also felt they provided descritive rather than judgemental feedback (m=3.71) and
viewed themselves as being supportive rather than punitive (m=3.86).

Table 8: Teachers’ and School Heads’ Perceptions on the Supervision Process

Teacher Supervisors
The supervision process was. . . (N=60) (N=29)
Mean SD Mean SD
collaborative rather than hierarchical 2.35 .66 3.53 .77
interactive rather than directive 2.13 .72 3.26 .75
democratic rather than authoritarian 2.32 .56 3.68 .67
teacher-centered rather than supervisor-centered 2.34 .67 3.22 .75
dialogic versus didactic 2.43 .69 3.39 .69
descriptive rather than judgemental 3.0 .65 3.71 .66
supportive rather than punitive 3.0 .71 3.86 .77
Scale: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly Agree

In contrast to the schoolheads’ positive attitude, he teachers portrayed a different picture.

Teachers felt that the supervsion process was more hierarchial (m=2.35), directive (m=2.13) and rather
authoritatrian (m=2.32). Teachers also viewed the process as being more supervisor-centred (m=2.34)
being more didactic rather than dialogic (m=2.43). Nevertheless teachers agreed that feedback
provided was descritive rather than judgemental (m=3.0) and the supervison process on the whole was
supportive (m=3.0). Feedback from interviews sessions also corroborated findings from the survey.
The school heads stressed that as supervisors they played a very positive role in the supervsion process.
For instance school head SHK3 from Kelantan highlighted that he was now ‘more open and willing to
listen to teachers’ point of view before presenting my (his) views”. School head SHS5 from Selangor
further reiterated that the whole supervison process had ‘changed’ in her school since she attended
supervisory courses that highlighted the importance of colloboration and dialogic approach.
In contrast to this, interview sessions with teachers revelaed that the whole supervison process
was rather convential in schools. Teachers TK4 and TK5 from Kelantan pointed out that their
supervisors were more negative and ‘fault-finders’ instead of being supportive. Teacher TS3 from
Selangor added that she did not like the whole process became more evaluative rather than supportive.
Teachers indicated that formative supervsion was hardly practiced in their schools as the whole was
management centred with “teachers having little say” added teacher TS5 from Selangor.

4.5. Readiness for Formative Supervision

Another finding that emerged from both the survey and the interview sessions was teacher and school
head readiness for formative supervision. Here again contrasting views were obtained from both
parties. For instance 75% (45) of the teachers claimed they were not ready for continuous and
formative supervision / observation while another 25% admitted they did not like being observed. The
following were some of the main reasons cited by the ten teachers during the interview session with the
researchers:
• The whole teacher evaluation and supervision process was rather threatening as it was
hierarchical and autocratic with supervisors being didactic and ‘talking down’ to teachers.
• Teachers felt the process exposed their weakness and some felt like they were treated like novices
when they were being observed.
Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 602

• Feedback provided by supervisors was too generic and of little practical help in the teaching and
learning process in their respective classrooms.
• Teachers did not have much trust and respect for the supervisor due to confidentiality issues.
• Some felt there was a lack of transparency over the use of observation findings.
• The whole process gave teachers additional stress and tension to an already stressful profession.
Nevertheless, 20 % (n=12) of the respondents were confident of been observed at any time
without being told. Besides that 43.3% (n=26) of the respondents indicated that they preferred to be
observed by school administrations while the remaining 56.7% (n=34) preferred to be observed by
their peers like the Head of Subject Panel, Excellent teachers, senior teachers and their fellow
colleagues. Interview sessions further indicated that they would like peer supervision as they taught
similar subjects and were confronted with similar problems. Teachers TK1 and TK4 from Kelantan
and TS2, TS3 and TS5 from Selangor felt they should be given the liberty to choose their supervisor.
They emphasized that in most schools the supervisor was decided by the senior assistant and in some
cases the supervision was not a person in their field of specialization. In such a situation teacher TS5
felt that any suggestions given to her by her supervisor was of little use to her. She felt that the whole
process was not “tidak berguna...hanya membuang masa sahaja” (translated meaning - ‘not useful and
was a sheer waste of time’)
On the other hand, quite an opposite perspective was obtained from the school heads. They
presented a more optimistic view and felt that their schools and they themselves were ready for
formative supervision. In fact, findings indicated that 93.1% (n=27) of the school heads claimed they
are ready for structured and formative supervision to be carried out in their schools. Nonetheless
approximately 65.5% (n=19) of them admitted that formative supervision was not very feasible in the
Malaysian schools. The following are some of the main reasons cited by school heads during the
interview sessions:
• There is a lack of exposure and training to formative supervision for both school heads and
administrators
• Top management need to be clear and have a good understanding of the concept and how it
can be implemented.
• There is a need to change mind set of teachers towards supervision
• Formative supervision would be time consuming due to large teacher enrolment in most
public schools
• It would result in an increased work load for both teachers and school administrators
• It could also increase stress among teachers and administrators who are already in a
stressful situation
School heads were required to rate their organizational readiness for formative supervision
based on a Likert scale of 1-4 (1= very low, 4= very high). The results obtained are shown in Table 9
below.

Table 9: Organisational Readiness for Formative Supervision

School Heads
Rate the readiness for formative supervision for the following aspects
(N=29)
Top Management readiness (School head, PK1, PK2 etc) 3.76 .76
Middle management readiness (head of panel etc) 3.45 .84
Teacher readiness 2.78 .78
Reliability of instruments used 3.21 .83
Validity of instruments used 3.59 .76
Training provided to supervisors 3.12 .79
Organization readiness for formative supervision 3.86 .85
Scale: 1= Very Low, 2=Low, 3=High, 4= Very High
603 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook

The results indicated that school heads perceived their overall readiness for teacher supervision
as high (3.86). They also felt that top management (m=3.76) and middle management (3.45) was ready
for formative supervision. School heads also articulated that training (m=3.12) had been provided to
their top management with regards to effective supervision. They however felt that teacher readiness
was not very high (2.78). According to a school head, SHS2 from Selangor some teachers view
supervision negatively whilst some felt intimidated. he further elaborated that this could be due to
either the supervisor being on a ‘fault-finding’ mission or perhaps the teacher possessed a number of
weaknesses and hence ‘did not like being told about them’ (the weaknesses).
Nonetheless school heads felt the reliability (m=3.21) and the validity of the instruments they
used was high. They felt it was high because a majority of them used the instrument provided by the
School Inspectorate Division. School heads, SHS2 and SHS4 highlighted that their respective districts
had come up with a modified version of the instrument which was ‘more friendly’ and ‘easy to use’.

Concluding Thoughts
This study sought out to investigate the issues and concerns in the implementation of formative
supervision in Malaysian public schools. In the limited sample size involving 29 school heads and 60
teachers, this study has put forward some pertinent issues and concerns for the elementary school
heads.
First and foremost, this study revealed that both school heads and teachers possess low to
moderate understanding and knowledge of formative supervision. What is happening in most schools is
teacher evaluation and not teacher supervision. Therefore teachers are confusing teacher evaluation
with formative supervision. Besides that teachers are not well informed as to benefits of supervision
and classroom observation. For effective supervision to take place both parties especially school heads
as instructional leaders must be informed as to the difference between traditional and formative
supervision. School heads need to make teachers of the benefits of formative supervision so that they
do not feel anxious or threatened by formative supervision classroom observations. Such articulation is
important so that school leaders can disseminate correct information to their staff. When both parties
have a similar and shared understanding and interpretation only then can formative supervision be
implemented. Therefore effective training and more articulation between the two groups is of utmost
importance.
Secondly, this study exhibited that there was a mismatch between the perceptions of school
heads and teachers’ with regards to the supervisory procedures. School heads painted a rosy picture of
what they did for the pre, during and post conference for classroom observations but the teachers felt
differently on a number of aspects. Teachers highlighted that school heads did not have a pre
conference prior to classroom observations and therefore teachers had no idea of what the classroom
observation would be focused on. Furthermore, teachers voiced concern over supervisors’ data
collection techniques resulting in them having doubts on feedback provided at the end of classroom
observations. Besides that, teachers drew attention to the fact that some supervisors did not have a post
observation conference and feedback was not communicated within 24 hours. Moreover teachers
pointed out that there was no clear articulation of what would happen next and what aspect teachers
needed to work on. Teachers felt that supervisors were not able to establish a trusting climate leaving
teachers suspicious of the whole process and due to this confidentiality issues and biasness became
issues of concern for teachers.
Literature (Neville & Garmen, 1998) highlights that effective supervision should be a
collaborative and collective effort based on the belief that teaching is primarily problem solving for
effective student learning and teacher development. In such a situation, the supervisor’s role is to guide
the problem-solving process and to be an active member of the interaction to keep the teachers focused
on their common problems. Findings in this study however indicated that the supervisory process was
more hierarchical than collaborative, more directive than interactive resulting in the supervisor being
more didactic than dialogic. Besides that, teachers saw the process as being more supervisor-centred.
Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head 604

Consequently, the supervisor was viewed as an autocratic head (m=3.13) who was rather undemocratic
(m=2.78) and viewed more as an evaluator instead of being a mentor, a coach and supportive
colleague.
Another mismatch was seen in the aspect of readiness for formative supervision. School heads
seem to be more receptive towards the idea but a majority of the teachers (75%) in this study felt
otherwise. They viewed it as a threatening experience and felt it was unnecessary and should only be
for the novice or ‘problematic’ teachers. This is most probably because teachers have not experienced
the true benefits of supervision in the most ‘beautiful’ form which according to Glickman (1998) is
collaborative rather than hierarchical, dialogic rather than didactic, descriptive rather than judgemental
and supportive rather than punitive.
This exploratory study indicates that both school principlals and teachers have a limited
understanding and knowlege of formative supervisoon. School heads in this study have also been
unsuccessful in putting across the benefits of formative supervisory practices. Furthermore though
school heads see themselves as being open, democratic, flexible and willing to listen and teacher-
centred teachers beg to differ. They see the supervisor as being autocratic, hierarchical, didactic and
supervisor –centred.
All these findings suggests that supervsion and mentoring still has a long way to go in the
Malaysian elemenatry schools. In many cases teacher evaluation has been equated to teacher
supervison and therefore first and foremost the articulation of concepts need to be addressed. Next the
relevant authorities concerned need to provide heads with the necessary training where they can
acquire the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary in supervising and/or mentoring teachers in order
to improve classroom instruction. Once they are equipped with this knowledge school heads can move
on to empower their teachers to collaborate with their peers as well as take leadership positions in
mentoring and coaching not only the novice teachers but also their peers. Supervision should be
viewed as a process of observing, nurturing and giving feedback to on the professional activity (T&L)
to the staff. If we want to bring about such a paradigm change the school heads must take the lead and
bring about a positive change.
School heads need to see themselves as the collegial school instructional leaders who are
willing and knowledgeable enough to share their experiences and talk frequently about issues in
classroom instruction. According to Cangelosi (1991) they must strive to develop cooperative, non-
threatening teacher-supervisor partnerships characterized by trust and openness where there is a willing
on all parties to provide feedback, make suggestions, and provide advice and opinions about instruction
in an inquiry-oriented approach. More importantly, school heads need to include teachers in the loop of
training and supervison in order to create cultures of collaboration, inquiry and reflection in order to
enhance the teaching and learning process in schools
605 Gurnam Kaur Sidhu and Chan Yuen Fook

References
[1] Acheson, K. A. & Gall, M. D. (2003). Clinical supervision and teacher development:
Preservice and inservice applications (5th ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2] Blasé, J. & Blasé, J. (2000). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do (2nd. ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
[3] Cangelosi, J.S. (1991). Evaluating classroom instruction. New York: Longman.
[4] Cogan, M.L. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghlin Mifflin Company.
[5] Fischer, C.F. (2000). Supervision for instruction. Retrieved on 20 Jan 2009 from
http://www.stanswartz.com/adminbook/chap3.htm.
[6] Gaies, S. & Bowers, R. (1993). Clinical supervision of language teaching: The supervisor as
trainer and educator. In Jack C. Richards & David Nunan (eds). Second Language Teacher
Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Glickman, C. D. (1989). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
[8] Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2007). SuperVision and Instructional
Leadership: A Developmental Approach (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
[9] Glickman,C.D. & Tamashiro, R.T. (1980). Determining One's Beliefs Regarding Teacher
Supervision. NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 64, No. 440, 74-81 (1980).
[10] Holland, P.E. & Adams, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional
supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, Volume 5, Issue 3 September 2002, p. 227 – 247.
[11] Jackson,P. (2001). Supervision and Evaluation of Classroom Teachers. Retrieved on 21 Jan
2009 from Teacherebook.com https://umdrive.memphis.edu/esndrslw/.
[12] Kosmoski, G.J. (1997). Supervision. Mequon, WI: Stylex.
[13] Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 129-51.JSD Winter, 2001 National Staff
Development Council 25.
[14] McEwan, E. K. (2002). 10 traits of highly effective teachers: How to hire, coach, and mentor
successful teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
[15] Neville, R.F. & Garmen, N.B. (1998). The philosophical perspective on supervision. In G. R.
Firth and E.F. Pajak (Eds.). Handbook of research on school supervision, pp. 200-241. New
York: Macmillian.
[16] Olivia, P.H. (1993). Supervision in today’s schools (4th. Edition). New York: Longman.
[17] Sergiovanni, T. & Starrat, R. (2006). Supervision: A Redefinition. NY: McGraw Hill.
[18] Sidhu, G.K. (2010). Enhancing Teaching Practicum Internship Programme Using The
Humanistic Evaluation Model. JELT, Vol. 1 (in Press).
[19] Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts. Second edition.
NY: Larchmont.