Action Research as Instructional Supervision: Suggestions for Principals

Abstract

Supervision based on collaboration, participative decision making, and reflective practice is the hallmark of a viable school improvement program that is designed to promote teaching and learning. Action research has gradually emerged as an important form of instructional supervision to engage teachers in reflective practice about their teaching and to examinefactors that aim to promote student achievement. This article examines supervision as it has evolved and moved toward action research advocacy and presents two case studies that show how action research improves teaching and learning. Practical guidelines for implementing action research as instructional improvement are provided for principals.

Supervision and evaluation: The Wyoming perspective

“…These ten responses more closely align with Glatthorn's (1984) concept of differentiated supervision despite the fact that placement on the tracks was primarily determined by experience. The inclusion of action research as one of the tiers has been described as a promising professional growth model because teachers focus on solving job-embedded problems (Glanz 2005;Zepeda 2007).…”

Teachers’ and Supervisors’ Views on Clinical Supervision: A Case Study from Lebanon

“…Both are important supports for beginning teachers and decrease principals' supervisory load (Ebmeier & Nicklaus, 1999). Action research encourages teachers to refl ect on, improve, and refi ne teaching and consequently must be a component of any instructional supervision program (Glanz, 2005;Wanzare & Da Costa, 2000). Through this process, teachers may identify classroom issues they need to investigate, then collaborate with supervisors or academics from the university to collect and analyze relevant data, devise and implement interventions, and refl ect on results and improvement.…”

“…Teachers wondered whether the purpose of such detailed documentation was to evaluate their performance rather than help them improve. Though Díaz-Maggioli (2004) insisted that most supervision activities include direct or indirect evaluation, Glanz (2005) noted that for clinical supervision to work, it must be separated from evaluation.…”

Untitled

“…Breaking such stereotypical thinking based on erroneous assumptions and beliefs is difficult, although not impossible. The many attempts to involve teachers and principals in action research projects attest to its efficacy (see, e.g., Glanz, 2005;Gordon, 2008a;Gordon, Stiegelbauer, & Diehl, 2008).…”