Relationship between instructional supervision and professional development

Tadele Akalu Tesfaw, Roelande H. Hofman


The main purpose of this study was to examine the existing perceptions of teachers toward instructional supervision in secondary schools of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It also explore if there were differences between beginner and experienced teachers in their attitudes toward and satisfaction with supervisory practices and (possible) relationships with perceived professional development, with a sample of 200 teachers using independent sample t-test, correlation and regression analyses. The results reveal that except for peer coaching and portfolios, the selected supervisory approaches were less frequently practiced in private and government schools. No significant differences were found between beginner and experienced teachers in their attitudes and satisfaction toward supervisory processes practiced at their schools. Moreover, significant weak to moderate positive relationships were found of the actual supervisory approaches, teachers’ attitudes and satisfaction with professional development. However, regression analysis showed that teachers’ attitudes and teachers’ satisfaction are the most important contributors to professional development.


Instructional supervision; professional development; satisfaction; attitude; teachers’ perception

Full Text:



Alemayehu, G. O. (2008). The current practices and problems of subject-area instructional supervision in secondary schools of Addis Ababa City Administration (Unpublished master’s thesis). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.

Alfonso, R. J., & Firth, G. (1990). Supervision: Needed research. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(2), 181-188.

Arong, F. E., & Ogbandu, M. A. (2010). Major Causes of Declining Quality of Education in Nigeria Administrative Perspective: A Case Study of Dekina Local Government Area. Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 61-76.

Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (2000). Supervisory leadership: Focus on instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Beycioglu, K., & Donmez, B. (2009). Rethinking educational supervision. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(2), 71-93.

Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors and teachers: A private cold war. Berkeley: McCutchan.

Brandt, R. S. (1996). On a new direction for teacher evaluation: A conservation with Tom McGreal. Educational Leadership, 53, 30-33.

Burant, S. E. (2009). The relationship of instructional supervision and professional learning communities as catalysts for authentic professional growth: A study of one school division (Master’s thesis). Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan. [Online] 165813/unrestricted/Burant_Thesis_FINAL_August_2009.pdf. [2011, April, 15]

Burke, P. J., & Fessler, R. (1983). A collaborative approach to supervision. The Clearing House, 53(3), 107-110.

Clarke, V. B. (1995). Teacher evaluation Policy: Impacts study. The Canadian School Executive, 14(7), 8-13.

Fraser, K. (1980). Supervisory behaviour and teacher satisfaction. Journal of Education Administration, 18(2), 224-227.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R., & Karjewski, R. (1980). Clinical supervion: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York, NY: Rinehart, and Winston.

Grauwe, A. (2007). Transforming school supervision in to a tool for quality improvement. International Review of Education, 53, 709-714.

Haileselassie, W. (1997). Educational supervision. Teaching Material. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University.

Johnson, H. R. (2001). Administrators and mentors: Keys in the success of beginning teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(1), 44-49.

Kapfunde, C. L. (1990). Clinical supervision in the Zimbabwean context. Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House.

Kutsyuruba, B. (2003). Instructional Supervision: Perceptions of Canadian and Ukrainian Beginning High-School Teachers (Master’s thesis). Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan. [Online] [2010, November, 21]

Lee, J. C., Ding, D., & Song, H. (2008). School supervision and evaluation in China: The Shanghai perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 148-163.

McQuarre, F. O. J., & Wood, F. H. (1991). Supervision, staff development and evaluation connections. Theory in to Practice, 30, 91-96.

Murray, S., & Mazur, X. J. (2009). Effect of peer coaching on teachers’ collaborative interactions and students’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 203-212.

Nolan, J. F., & Hoover, L. A. (2008). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory in to practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Oliva, P. F. (1976). Supervision for Today’s Schools. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Painter, B. (2001). Using teaching portfolios. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 31-34.

Poole, W. L. (1994). Removing the “super” from supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(3), 284-309.

Reis N. K., & Villaume S. K. (2002). The benefits, tensions, and visions of portfolios as a wide- scale assessment for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education 23, 10-17.

Renihan, P. (2002). Supervision for the improvement of instruction. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.

Riggs, I. M., & Sandlin, R. A. (2000). Teaching portfolios for support of teachers’ professional growth. NASSP Bulletin, 84(618), 22-27.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision: A redefinition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.

Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2008). Locating supervision-A reflective framework for negotiating tensions within conceptual and procedural foci for teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1502-1515.

Sullivan, C. G. (1997). Is staff development supervision: Yes. In J. Glanz & L. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers.

Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching. Thousand Oaks: Crowin Press.

Tyagi, R. S. (2010). School-based instructional supervision and the effective professional development of teachers. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 111-125.

Uzat, S. L. (1998). Cognitive coaching and self-reflection: Looking in the mirror while looking through the window. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid- South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Wilcox, B., & Gray, J. (1996). Inspecting schools: holding to account and helping schools to improve. Buckingham, UK/Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At cross-purpose: What do teachers need, want, and get from supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(1), 68- 87.

Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. [Online] [2011, February, 25]