Instructional Supervision

Instructional supervision is a structured process where teachers are supported and evaluated by peers or administrators to enhance teaching effectiveness and student learning. Often conducted through peer-review sessions, this supervision includes observing classroom practices, assessing lesson plans, and providing constructive feedback. Historically, the evolution of instructional supervision has seen shifts from informal methods to more standardized practices, particularly since the mid-20th century. While many educators appreciate the mentoring aspect of supervision, some express concerns about its bureaucratic nature and the pressure of high-stakes testing, which can detract from teaching focus.

Successful instructional supervision emphasizes collaboration between supervisors and teachers, with roles framed as supportive “change agents” rather than evaluative bosses. This approach encourages professional development and offers opportunities for teachers to continuously improve their skills. Effective supervision is often backed by clear evaluation criteria, ensuring fairness and consistency. Diverse models of supervision exist globally, reflecting different cultural and educational contexts, highlighting the importance of understanding various frameworks for effective discussions and improved outcomes in education. Ultimately, the goal of instructional supervision is to foster an environment of growth, leading to enhanced teaching practices and better student achievement.

Published in: 2021

By: Hahn, Allison, PhD

Subject Terms

Instructional Supervision

Abstract

Instructional supervision is the process whereby a teacher is supervised by either another teacher or an administrator. Supervision often occurs in sessions known as peer-review. During these sessions, a teacher is observed working in the classroom and then given feedback by the supervisor. The supervisor may also supervise lesson plans, the grading of student work, and/or interactions with parents or other stakeholders. Researchers have focused on how to best encourage instructional supervision in a way that does not take up too much time and provides useful feedback to students.

Overview

Historically, instructional supervision occurred in many different ways. American theorists sometimes point to the types of supervision that occurred in the late nineteenth century when school bureaucracy systems began to appear. As a result of these bureaucratic structures, supervision was formalized and began to occur more frequently. However, it was not until the mid-1950s that the field of instructional supervision was professionalized and an effort was made to standardize the supervision process. Much of the early literature reports that teachers enjoyed the supervision process, which often worked to improve teacher education and training (Glanz, 2018). Some teachers resisted the supervision process as another type of bureaucracy that teachers had to contend with. These teachers argued that the supervision took too much of their time, was biased, or otherwise impeded or misjudged their work as teachers.

Some teachers contend that they are already being monitored in other ways, such as through the use of high stakes testing, which is used to determine their level of success through their student’s test scores (Croft, Roberts & Stenhouse, 2015). Croft’s research team argues that the combination of teacher supervision and high stakes testing has made it difficult for teachers to focus on actually teaching in the classroom. Instead, much of their preparation focuses on ensuring that they impress the evaluators and testers. In order to combat this perception, schools have worked hard to improve instructional supervision particularly to ensure that it is viewed as a friendly mentoring process rather than one designed to catch and fire new or untrained teachers.

To make instructional supervision more palatable to their teachers, many schools began to think of their supervisors as “change agents” rather than bosses. This popular transition encouraged supervisors to think about the ways that they might work as a go-between for teachers and the larger school bureaucracy, aiming to make all aspects of the school function more smoothly. The transition to change agents required that schools reconsider the functions of leadership in the school. Previously, there was a clear hierarchy, of the dean or principal and then teachers. In this revised method of supervision, particularly where senior teachers were used as supervisors, it was necessary to consider how senior teachers functioned as leaders within the school. Their participation had to be both encouraged and respected. This move toward supervision would have failed if senior teachers were asked to provide supervision and leadership and then none of their suggestions were taken up by principals or the larger school bureaucracy.

Studies and manuals for instructional supervision focus on who should be considered as a supervisor, how often supervision should occur, and how supervision reports should function in the hiring and promotion process. Many scholars suggest that the supervisor should be considered to be more of a helper than a boss or manager. The supervisor’s role is not to make firm hiring or firing decisions. Instead, the goal should be to help the instructor to think through the course, identify any potential problems, and think through ways in which a course can run smoother and work processes can be optimized.

Many instructor’s contracts indicate how much supervision should occur every week, semester, or year. These contracts aim to ensure that the instructors improve over a period of time. They also stipulate what should happen after an evaluation. Some argue that a positive evaluation should result in increased pay, a bonus, or other type of reward. Others focus on the negative side of evaluations, thinking through the implications of poor evaluations. For both positive and negative implications of a supervision session, scholars such as Odden (2014) argue that the terms need to be clearly stipulated and made available to teachers well before their evaluation. However, some critics have indicated even with a clear evaluation rubric, supervision is not always successful because the supervisors do not have proper training in what to look for in the classroom or have little experience in the classroom. While many supervisors are themselves older or more experienced teachers, some have been out of the classroom for so long they may be uninformed in the current teaching techniques or classroom norms. Additionally, in many schools different supervisors evaluate a teacher each year. This means that the teacher’s evaluations can change dramatically from year to year, not necessarily because the teacher has become better or worse but because the rubric is applied in different manners and with different interpretations of what constitutes good or successful teaching.

Instructional supervision also suffers because conditions are inevitably somewhat artificial. While the supervisor is in the classroom to observe the students, students play a major role in the success of a supervised session. If the teacher is not popular with the students it will be difficult for the supervisor to determine if it is the teacher’s skills that need improving, or if it is the relationship between the instructor and students that needs to be improved. While some would argue that a poor relation between instructor and students is indicative that the teacher is unqualified, there are times when teachers are assigned to students who do not want to be in a course, are underprepared for the course, or otherwise are opposed to both the learning experience and the teacher. The teacher may be able to cue the supervisor in on this situation before an evaluation and ask for helpful feedback afterward. However, this is not always possible if the supervisor and junior teacher do not know each other, or if they do not have a close enough relationship in which the junior teacher feels free enough to discuss problems in the classroom. Because these situations are often unknown to the supervisor, but can radically effect an observation, the supervisor must work hard to fully understand the dynamics of the classroom before giving useful feedback to the instructor.

The success of instructor supervision is often judged by student achievement. This could be achievement improvements that that have occurred over one semester, or by comparing one year to the next. As mentioned previously, this can also be determined by combining a teacher’s evaluation alongside student test scores. Regardless of what evaluative criteria is used, the instructor and supervisor need to be clear about what skills should be achieved, when the next supervision will occur, and what is expected to happen during the next supervision visitation.

To overcome difficulties in supervising instruction, many educators have pushed for supervisors to be trained in what to look for during a class, what to comment on, and how feedback should be given. They have asked that supervisors be instructed through a rubric, and that an outside authority be tasked with ensuring that the rubric is equitably applied throughout all evaluations. They also have asked that supervisors be assigned on a rotation to minimize the risk of bias or favoritism.

Supervisors and instructors have the most success when they have access to a set of materials that will improve the instructor’s work, or will continue to develop the instructor’s skill set. This might be textual resources, education programing, and/or workshops. For example, a mentor might suggest that the teacher participate in training in how to reach special demographics in the classroom. Research has shown that when teachers are offered these opportunities, such as special training in how to work with gifted children (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell & Hardin, 2014) they are more willing to differentiate their modes of instruction, resulting in better teaching and better evaluations. After a training session, teachers can be asked to discuss what they have learned with other teachers, or to show how the new information has been implemented in the classroom. This assures accountability, but also sends the message to teachers that extra training is not a punishment. Instead it is designed to improve the teacher’s skills and overall classroom experience. These activities will be most successful when they are fine-tuned to address a specific problem the instructor is facing. Successful supervisors might also be available to the instructor to discuss classroom issues, provide support, and continue future supervision.

Applications

Instructional supervision can take many forms; however, all of them should follow the SMART goals (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and timely). Through frequent and consistent supervisory visits and meetings, instructors can become very knowledgeable about what is expected of them, and can work to maintain and improve their teaching skills. Once they know about the ways that they will be evaluated, and have practiced the evaluation themselves, teachers are often well versed in what steps they have received high marks in and which steps they need to work on to improve their skills. This training often occurs in a teaching college as new teachers prepare for their first assignment. However, to be successful, supervision needs to continue to occur throughout a teacher’s career.

Even when an instructor is well educated and prepared for their job, it is still necessary to have good supervision and training. This is because as technology changes, instructors need to update their skills and be prepared for new challenges. Also, as researchers investigate the best ways to conduct educational activities, instructors need to be informed and well practiced in the best and newest teaching skills. Supervisors who encourage constant training and refreshing of skills are both preparing the instructor to be successful and ensuring that their own supervisory work will be easier, because supervisor and instructor have the same background knowledge.

In both K-12 schools and universities, instructional supervision occurs for instructors who lead a classroom as well as for other members of an instructional team such as coaches, tutors, department leaders, and deans. These many levels of supervision take a good deal of time, which means that time and effort need to be devoted to ensuring that supervision occurs in a successful way. Additionally, when there are many different people conducting supervision, it is necessary that the school have a standardized system for evaluating teachers and scoring their instruction. This might happen with a well-prepared rubric, or through a series of guided questions that are answered with an essay. Either way, to maximize the effects of instructional supervision, it is necessary that each teacher feels he or she has been properly observed in a fair way (Wang, Ren, Duan, Zhang & Sun, 2017).

Viewpoints

Internationally, there is a wide range of supervision models and standards. Knowing about these differences is important, even if a student or teacher only plans on studying in one country. This is because many teachers and families are moving around the world and bring with them a collection of past experiences, potentially in very different systems of education. Knowing about these differences can help facilitate better discussions and result in stronger learning outcomes for students. Even within one school system, the methods of supervision and reflection can be different, though the goal of student achievement remains the same. For example, in a study of Indonesian middle schools, Soehirman, Imron, Arifin, and Kusmintardjo (2016) found differences between three schools in the same district. These differences included the ways in which supervisors were assigned, and whether the supervisors were external supervisors, department heads, principals, or senior teachers. This difference in who supervises affects the supervision process as the observed teacher may feel a closer connection to the senior teachers who are often in the same offices and schools than the principal who is seen less frequently.

Commonalities are frequently found between different methods of instructional supervision. For example, Iroegbu and Etudor-Eyo (2016) studied the ways that instructional supervision by principals affected educational outcomes in Nigeria. They interviewed and surveyed 201 teachers and 14 principals regarding their methods and opinions about instructional supervision. The results of this study reveal many details about the supervision process. For example, when the supervisor and the teacher meet after the observation, the teacher is more likely to improve their performance if they are presented with specific data about student learning rather than if they are presented with a summary of opinions or activities. This quest for more detailed analysis is echoed in Ilgan, Parylo, and Sungu (2015), a study which argues that Turkish teachers have great job satisfaction and success when they have successful, data-based instructional supervision. Educational scholars and schools are interested in this type of research because it ensures that instructional supervision will result in instructional improvement.

Terms & Concepts

Change Agents: A person working in the school or school system who promotes and enables change to occur in either theory or practice.

High Stakes Testing: Exams given at the end of all grades, or at the end of certain grades, which measure student proficiency in core subject areas. Collective scores may be used as a measure of the school’s instructional quality, thereby affecting enrollment and, potentially, funding. Some tests may be used to pass a student to the next grade level or allow a student to graduate.

Peer Review of Teaching: The processes of evaluation and review of teaching that occurs during a class period. The reviewing teacher is often a senior member of the staff who serves as a mentor for the staff member who is observed.

Rubric: A statement of grading or evaluative criteria. This is used to ensure that all participants in a class or evaluation are graded equally on the same criteria and standards.

Senior Teachers: Those teachers who have been employed longest, or who have advanced qualifications are often referred to as senior teachers and are tasked with observing and mentoring junior teachers.

Teacher Effectiveness: While all schools want to ensure that their teachers work to the highest standards, there are debates about how to evaluate teacher effectiveness. Some schools determine this by student test scores, others by student improvement or by peer review and student feedback.

Bibliography

Croft, S. J., Roberts, M. A., & Stenhouse, V. L. (2015). The perfect storm of education reform: High-stakes testing and teacher evaluation. Social Justice, 70–92. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=111363325&site=ehost-live

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111–127. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=95913386&site=ehost-live

Glanz, J. (2018). Chronicling perspectives about the state of instructional supervision by eight prominent scholars of supervision. Journal of Educational Supervision, 1(1), 1.

Ilgan, A., Parylo, O., & Sungu, H. (2015). Predicting teacher job satisfaction based on principals’ instructional supervision behaviours: A study of Turkish teachers. Irish Educational Studies, 34(1), 69–88.

Iroegbu, E. E., & Etudor-Eyo, E. (2016). Principals’ instructional supervision and teachers’ effectiveness. British Journal of Education, 4(7), 99–109. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=101516867&site=ehost-live

Odden, A. (2014). Lessons learned about standards-based teacher evaluation systems. In Assessing Teacher, Classroom, and School Effects. (pp. 130–141). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Soehirman, S. M., Imron, A., Arifin, I., & Kusmintardjo, K. (2016). Integrated participative team based instructional supervision management at middle schools in Blitar, East Java, Indonesia: A multisite study. Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 212–228.

Wang, D., Ren, W., Duan, G., Zhang, Y., & Sun, Y. (2017). Application and assessment of the standard score in instructional supervision. Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research, 16(3), 239–242.

Instructional Supervision

On this Page

Subject Terms

Instructional Supervision

Abstract

Overview

Applications

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading