Okafor (2007) presents that depending on the particulate domains on which one is practicing, the responsibilities of a supervisor are distinct and multi-faceted. The scholar notes that supervision functions on human relation curriculum decisions, instructional strategies, personnel enrichment, and development, as well as evaluation, among other aspects. He further expresses that in a learning or educational environment, supervision is a general function that harmonizes and manages the activities pertaining to learning.”
Glickman (1990) defines Instructional supervision as a process that is adopted in the means to improve instruction for the benefit of students. This model in teaching practice evolved from the clinical supervision model in the 1960s, which according to Glickman (1990), entails a low-risk step by step and somewhat elementary process in achieving set educational goals and objectives. The scholar notes that in the practice of clinical supervision, there is an allowance for a variety of supervisory approaches deemed feasible for the accomplishments of set academic or education objectives and goals.
The thrust of instructional supervision is focused on the growth of education practitioners such as educators instead of mere compliance, which characterizes clinical supervision. The thrust is also based on teacher collaboration which is distinguishable by continuous and reflective inquiry. (Dull L.W; 1981)The theoretical and conceptual domain instructional has evolved from clinical supervision be reach and packed framework embracing aspects such technical skills of the supervision process, assessment, planning, research, and observation. The domain also enlists aspects of program evaluation as well educator evaluation. From another angle, Cogan, M.L. (1973) notes that the evolution from clinical instructional practice has seen the development of associative aspects such as direct assistance, peer coaching, and group development as well as action research as inalienable and hallmarks of the education theoretical evolution.
Clinical supervision is an approach in which the supervisor is involved in a close and helping relationship. In education, confines supervision entails the reception of information by a teacher from a colleague who has observed the teacher’s performance functioning as a reflection from the teacher may critically evaluate and likely modify their professional practice. Glickman (1990), in the typical premise of the foregoing, concepts and ideas are shared, and assistance is off red to improve or enhance the teacher’s ability through, and evaluation of objective data gathered in the course of an observation. The characteristics of clinical supervision and its evolution into instructional supervision can be well deciphered in consideration of the etymology of the terminology. The terms were coined by Goldhammer and Cogan, who borrowed the term medicinal practice. The terms had been in the use of years, denoting a process entailed in the perfecting of specialized skills and knowledge techniques for professional practitioners.
Blumberg, A. (1980) advances that the evolution of clinical supervision to instructional supervision saw the development and the recognition of the critical links across the aspect of supervision, staff development, and evaluation as well as the integration of the foregoing with other learning dimensions and opportunities. In instructional supervision, the foregoing aspect is unified.
The resonating notions in academic modeling and theories analyses circles are that emergent instructional supervision in the transformation of the primary clinical supervision in tandem with Andragogical models of education is more effective in ensuring student involvement, motivation and hence ensuring academic success. It is perceived and presented that andragogical approaches have a lot to offer in tapping participants contribution and active involvement in the learning process and hence boost students motivation, whilst the conventional pedagogical theories have been criticized for relegating educators and learners to passive roles in the learning process and thus resulting in de-motivation and learning process failure. (Blumberg 1980)
Researches conducted in the subject supervision in the domains of second language acquisition and socio-educational models have spurred the intent into a detailed probing of motivation as a significant contributing factor in learning paradigms. According to Bondi J et al. (1991), the studies presented a valuable conceptual confluence of the merits of student involvement in social integration endeavors in multi-cultural learning environments. In the conceptual and theoretical precinct within which cited, studies were conducted, motivation is defined as the student’s inclination with regard to the goal of learning or acquiring new knowledge. Cited studies have taken particulate thrusts in exploring the dynamics and aspects of the motivation factor in, for instance, in multi-cultural domains where second language acquisition is a major feature for students in culturally diverse learning environs, which constitute multi-faceted instructional supervision linguistics.
Hudson G. (2000) notes that in instructional supervision, educational domains as well as in language studies, motivation denotes the educators’ propensities or orientations with regard to the goal of acquiring new knowledge. According to the scholar, motivation in the mentioned study and bodies of knowledge can be dissected into two key types, which are integrative and instrumental motivation. The scholar presents that Integrative Motivation entails the learner’s positive attitudes and disposition in the direction of the language group as well as the desire to integrate into the desired knowledge community. (Hudson G. 2000) The scholar further outlines that instrumental motivation underpins the intent to appropriate some social or economic reward after knowledge acquisition, and thus the definition relates to the more functional sources of motivation for the learning endeavors in various learning processes. The consulted studies present a particulate relationship between certain forms of participants’ motivation and learning process success.
It is worth making nuances of the work on Gardner, who has made valuable contributions in the subject of the evolution of clinical supervision to instructional supervision. The scholar advances that a supervision process participant’s success when learning may be ascribed to the profound inclination and desire to gain identity within the knowledge family enclosure and then to the broader knowledge community. (Alston M et al. 2003) The underlying perception is that in concurrence with Gardner’s perspectives, who went on to probe the aspect of motivation as a significant influencing factor in knowledge acquisition, primary education learning processes and concepts desire can be analyzed in light of the bearing the similar aspects have on for instance; L2 acquisition. Considerations have been made on the paradigm of the social or cultural milieu. The dimension is key to the concepts and scope of the educations process’s success as it denotes the context where-in the individual learning process is located. Benson, M.J. (1991) concurs that this has a bearing on the individual’s beliefs about other cultures and languages. This is particularly relevant to the research intent, which seeks to explore the motivation factor in knowledge acquisition (Berwick, R., & Ross, S 1989)
From a management perspective, details drawn from the research around the education design modeling must be incorporated molded into the education-based organizational theories. It seems self-evident that feasible education management would have a critical impact on academic achievement for the participants whose entire success is based built on the key factor of motivation and involvement as well their abilities and enthusiasm have everything to do with the success of the learning processes. From the classroom to the administration offices, the performance of individual educators and even learners impacts the institution’s overall performance. However, educators and students cannot be expected to perform to the highest standard without competent management. Education management, which encompasses both formal performance evaluation and compensation strategies and informal leadership practices and techniques, is one of the determining factors in education process players’ morale and the resulting academic output quality.
Educational modeling and design and HRM motivation and theoretical concepts and tenets can not be explored in isolation of other organizational aspects. To administer requisite changes in the educational, organizational leadership, and management as illumined by the outcomes of this research, there is a need for the consideration of the appropriate organizational leadership theories which are perceived to enable and facilitate the implementation of the paradigmatic shift from ineffective or rather less effective pro-pedagogical clinical supervision education models to pro-motivation and involvement andragogical and instructional supervision educational models which have proved to be more effective.
Bass, B. M. (1985) posits that in transformational leadership thrusts, individuals will follow someone who is inspirational to them. He notes that “A team leader with vision and passion has a lot to achieve since the feasible way of getting things efficiently done is to infuse enthusiasm and energy to team members and the team will function effectively ad a unit.”
Legge, Karen (2004) presents that transformational leadership, which is largely inclined to the process and demands of organizational change, makes the teamwork experience a great and uplifting experience. He notes, “Transformational leaders will ensure that team members function with their full support and that everyone operates with passion and energy in all tasks. Transformational leaders want their followers to succeed in what they are undertaking”. Education stakeholders must consider the merits of the transformational leadership model for the facilitation of a needed shift and transition to feasible education theories and systems, which among other things, will enhance education process players’ success through ensuring motivation, involvement, and retention in the education process and domains and enable the meeting of set goals and objectives.
References
Cooper J.M., ed., (1984) Developing Skills for Instructional Supervision, NY Longman Inc., New York.
Hunter M., Educational Leadership (1980). Six Types of Supervisory Conferences (p.408).
Goldhammer, R., (1969).Clinical Supervision (Special for the supervision of Teachers). NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., New York.
Glickman, C.D, Gordon S. P., & Ross-Gordon J. M., (2001). SuperVision And InstructionalLeadership (A developmental Approach), NY: Pearson New York.
Acheson, K.A. & Gall, M.D. (2003). Clinical Supervision and Teacher Development (5th Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Anderson, R.H & Goldhammer, R. & Krajewski, R.J. (1980). Clinical Supervision: Special Methods for the Supervision of Teachers (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barr, A.S. & Burton, W.H. & Brueckner, L.J. (1947). Supervision. Democratic Leadership in the Improvement of Learning. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc.
Beach, D.M., & Reinhartz, J. (2000). Supervisory Leadership Focus on Instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berman, L.M. & Usery, M.L. (1966). Personalized Supervision: sources and insights. Washington, D.C: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA.
Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors & Teachers: A Private Cold War. Berkely, CA:McCutchen Publishing Company.
Bondi, J. & Wiles, J. (1991). Supervision: A Guide to Practice (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.
Burnham, R.M. & King, M.L. (1961). Supervision in Action. Washington D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calabrese, R.L. & Zepeda, S.J. (1997). The Reflective Supervisor. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Cogan, M.L. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghlin Mifflin Company.
Dull, L.W. (1981). Supervision: School Leadership Handbook. Columbus, OH: Bell & Howell Company.
Evans, N.D. & Neagley R.L. (1964). Handbook for Effective Supervision of Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Evans, N.D. & Neagley, R.L. (1980). Handbook for Effective Supervision of Instruction.(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Eye, G.G. & Netzer, L.A. (1965). Supervision of Instruction. New York: Harper & Row,Publishers.
Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Gwynn, J.M. (1961). Theory and practice of supervision. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Company.
Harris, B.M. (1975). Supervisory behavior in education (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hazi, H.M. (1998). Policy and legal considerations in supervision. In G. R. Firth an E.F. Pajak (Eds.). Handbook of research on school supervision, pp. 968-986. New York: Macmillian.
Marczely, B. (2001). Supervision in education. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Oliva, P.F. & Pawlas, G.E. (1997). Supervision for today’s schools (5th Ed.). White Planes, NY: Longman Publishers USA.
Starratt, R.J. & Howells, M.L. (1998). Supervision as a moral agency. In G. R. Firth and E.F. Pajak (Eds.). Handbook of research on school supervision, pp. 987-1005. New York: Macmillian.
Stoller, N. (1987). Supervision and the improvement of instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Education Technology Publications, Inc.
Swearingen, M.E. (1962). Supervision of instruction: Foundation and dimensions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Wilhelms, F.T. (1973). Supervision in a new key. Washington D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zepeda, S.J. (2003). Instructional supervision. Applying tools and concepts. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.