Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 PhD in TEFL, ELT Lecturer, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

Abstract

Although supervision is an integral component of EFL teacher professional development, there have not been enough studies on language teacher supervision and EFL teachers’ attitudes toward supervision. The present study investigated EFL teachers’ attitudes toward supervision in Iranian language schools. To this end, 218 EFL teachers who received supervision were selected and asked to complete a teacher supervision questionnaire (Moradi, Sepehrifar, & Khadiv, 2014) to elicit their attitudes, feelings, and experiences toward supervision. The questionnaire consisted of five subcategories: teachers’ evaluation of supervision, their attitudes toward the mode of supervision, the contributions of teacher-supervision to their development, and the process before, during, and after supervision. The findings revealed that a great number of the participants harbored this view that the current supervision is useful for them and necessary for novice teachers. However, some held negative attitudes toward supervision as it puts them under pressure, creates anxiety, and damages their confidence and motivation. They found their supervisors’ feedback unsatisfactory mainly done for paperwork formalities. To improve the ongoing supervisory practices, they suggested the need for the development of transparent criteria and rubrics for supervision and called for discontinuation of unannounced and sudden supervisory observations.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

بررسی دیدگاه های معلمان زبان انگلیسی نسبت به نظارت بر معلمان در موسسات ایرانی آموزش زبان

Authors [Persian]

  • دکتر شیوا عزیزپور 1
  • دکتر جواد غلامی 2

1 دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی و مدرس در گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران

Abstract [Persian]

اگرچه نظارت بر معلمان زبان بخش جدایی ناپذیری از تجربیات حرفه ای معلمان ایرانی آموزشی زبان انگلیسی است، مطالعه کافی در زمینه نظارت بر معلمان و در ارتباط با بررسی دیدگاه های معلمان زبان انگلیسی نسبت به نظارت بر معلمان ایرانی آموزش زبان انجام نشده است. هدف این تحقیق، بررسی دیدگاه های معلمان زبان انگلیسی در مورد نظارت بر معلمان در موسسات ایرانی  آموزش زبان انگلیسی است. از این رو، محققان 218 معلم ایرانی آموزش زبان انگلیسی را انتخاب کردند که دارای سابقه ی تدریس در آموزشگاه هایی باشند که ناظر کیفی دارد. سپس، شرکت کنندگان پرسشنامه ای (مرادی، سپهری فر، و خدیو، 2014) را با هدف اعلام دیدگاه ها، احساسات، و تجربیات خود نسبت به نظارت بر معلمان تکمیل نمودند. این پرسشنامه شامل پنج بخش است از جمله: ارزیابی معلمان از نظارت، دیدگاه های آنها در مورد نحوه نظارت بر معلمان، نقش نظارت بر رشد آنها، و فرآیندهایی که قبل، حین، و پس از نظارت صورت میگیرد. بر اساس نتایج این تحقیق، تعداد زیادی از شرکت کنندگان اظهار داشتند که نظارت بر معلمان برای آنان مفید، و برای معلمان تازه کار ضروری است. اما از سوی دیگر، بیشتر معلمان دیدگاه منفی نسبت به نظارت داشتند. آنها مدعی بودند که بازخورد ناطران کیفی، آنان را مضطرب ساخته، تحت فشار قرار داده، و اعتماد به نفس و انگیزه آنها را از بین میبرد. بر اساس دیدگاه معلمان، بازخورد ناظران کیفی آنها رضایت بخش نبوده و بیشتر جنبه ی رفع تکلیف در اجرای قوانین آموزشگاه و کاغذ بازی های اداری را داشته است. معلمان به لزوم ایجاد معیارهای شفاف و مشخص در راستای بهبود فعالیت های نظارتی ناظران کیفی اشاره کردند و افزودند ناظران کیفی باید به مشاهده ی غیر منتظره و بدون هماهنگی کلاس های آنان خاتمه دهند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • معلمان آموزش زبان انگلیسی
  • موسسات زبان
  • ناظران کیفی موسسات آموزش زبان
  • نظارت
  • نظارت بر معلمان زبان
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1997). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Pre-service and in-service applications. New York: Longman.
Amini, S., & Gholami, J. (2018). Professional development of EFL teachers through rotatory peer supervision. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(2), 101-117.
Azizpour, S., & Gholami, J. (2021a). Iranian languageschool managers’ attitudes towards EFL teacher supervision. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research9(35), 53-69.
Azizpour, S., & Gholami, J. (2021b). EFL teacher-supervisors’ attitudes toward supervision in Iranian language schools. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes10(1), 16-34.
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors and teachers: A private cold war (2nd ed.). Berkeley: Mc Cutchan Publishing.
Bolin, F. S., & Panaritis, P. (1992). Searching for a common purpose: A perspective on history of supervision. In C. D. Glickman (Ed.). Supervision in transition (pp. 30-43). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brandon, J., Hollweck, T., Donlevy, J. K., & Whalen, C. (2018). Teacher supervision and evaluation challenges: Canadian perspectives on overall instructional leadership. Teachers and teaching24(3), 263-280.
Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2020). A framework for naming the scope and nature of teacher candidate supervision in clinically-based teacher preparation: Tasks, high-leverage practices, and pedagogical routines of practice. The Teacher Educator55(2), 214-238.
Chamberlin, C. R. (2000). Nonverbal behaviors and initial impressions of trustworthiness in teacher‐supervisor relationships. Communication Education49(4), 352-364.
Chen, C. W. Y., & Cheng, Y. S. (2013). The supervisory process of EFL teachers: A case   study. TESL-EJ17(1), 1-21.
Dangel, J. R., & Tanguay, C. (2014). “Don't leave us out there alone”: A framework for supporting supervisors. Action in Teacher Education, 36(1), 3-19.
Daresh, J. C. (2001). Supervision as proactive leadership. Illinois: Waveland PressInc.
Diacopoulos, M. M., & Butler, B. M. (2020). What do we supervise for? A self-study of learning teacher candidate supervision. Studying Teacher Education16(1), 66-83.
Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York: Random House.
Freeman, D. (1982). Observing teachers: Three approaches to in‐service training and development. Tesol Quarterly, 16(1), 21-28.
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL quarterly23(1), 27-45.
Garver, R., & Maloney, T. (2020). Redefining supervision: A joint inquiry into preparing school-based leaders to supervise for equity. Journal of Research on Leadership Education15(4), 330-355.
Gholaminejad, R. (2020). When the evil pops in: exploring the unheard voices of teachers working in private language schools in Iran concerning supervisory observation. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-24. doi:10.1080/13603124.2020.1740795.
Glanz, J. (1995). Exploring supervision history: An invitation and agenda. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(2), 95-113.
Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision for the millennium: A retrospective and prospective. Focus on Education44(1), 9-16.
Gordon, S. P. (1990). Developmental supervision: An exploratory study of a promising model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision5(4), 293-307.
Hazi, H. M. (1994). The teacher evaluation-supervision dilemma: A case of entanglements and irreconcilable differences. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(2), 195–216.
Higgins, M., Morton, A. E., & Wolkenhauer, R. (2018). (Re)conceptualizing preservice teacher supervision through duoethnography: Reflecting, supporting, and collaborating with and for each other. Teaching and Teacher Education69(1), 75-84.
Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long range planning, 30(1), 46-52.
Hoque, K. E., Bt Kenayathulla, H. B., Subramaniam, M. V., & Islam, R. (2020). Relationships between supervision and teachers’ performance and attitude in secondary schools in Malaysia. SAGE Open10(2), 1-11.
Horn, I. S. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: learning from colleagues in a mathematics teacher community. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 225-259.
Janssens, F. J., & Van Amelsvoort, G. H. (2008). School self-evaluations and school inspections in Europe: An exploratory study. Studies in Educational Evaluation34(1), 15-23.
Johnson, D. A., Ivers, N. N., Avera, J. A., & Frazee, M. (2020). Supervision guidelines for fostering state-mindfulness among supervisees. The Clinical Supervisor39(1), 128-145.
Kapusuzoglu, S., & Dilekci, U. (2017). Development of the artistic supervision model scale (ASMS). Universal Journal of Educational Research5(7), 1192-1200.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public opinion quarterly24(2), 163-204.
Kayaoglu, M. N. (2012). Dictating or facilitating: The supervisory process for language teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(10), 103-117.
Kutsyuruba, V. (2003). Instructional supervision: Perceptions of Canadian and Ukrainian beginning high-school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saskatchewan University.
Lam, S. F. (2001). Educators’ opinions on classroom observation as a practice of staff development and appraisal. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 161-173.
Mette, I., Aguilar, I., & Wieczorek, D. (2020). A thirty state analysis of teacher supervision and evaluation systems in the ESSA era. Journal of Educational Supervision3(2), 105-135.
Moradi, K., Sepehrifar, S., & Khadiv, T. P. (2014). Exploring Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions on supervision. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1), 1214-1223.
Phillips, A., & Rogers, M. (2020). Examining the tensions between rapport with pre-service teachers and authority in becoming a teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 16(3), 1-21.
Roberson, S., & Roberson, R. (2009). The role and practice of the principal in developing novice first-year teachers. The Clearing House, 82(3), 113-118.
Rokeach, M. (1971). Long-range experimental modification of values, attitudes, and behavior. American psychologist26(5), 453-459.
Salih, A. R. A. (2013). Peer evaluation of teaching or "fear" evaluation: In search of compatibility. Higher Education Studies3(2), 102-114.
Siddiek, A. G. (2012). The effective role of language supervisor in the enhancement of foreign language education in developing countries. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(1), 39.
Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Tesfaw, T. A., & Hofman, R. H. (2014). Relationship between instructional supervision and professional development. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 13(1), 82-99.
Watkins, P. (2005). The principal’s role in attracting, retaining, and developing new teachers: Three strategies for collaboration and support. The Clearing House, 79(2), 83-87.
Wiles, K., & Lovell, J. (1975). Supervision for better schools. USA: Prentice Hall.
Zepeda, S. J. (2012). Instructional supervision. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Zepeda, S. J. (2017). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.