925501

research-article20202020
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244020925501SAGE OpenHoque et al.

Original Research

SAGE Open

Relationships Between Supervision and

April-June 2020: 1­–11
© The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2158244020925501
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020925501

Teachers’ Performance and Attitude in journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Secondary Schools in Malaysia

Kazi Enamul Hoque1 , Husaina Banu Bt Kenayathulla1 ,

Malar Vili D/O Subramaniam1, and Reazul Islam2

Abstract
This study was carried out to determine the relationships between supervision and teachers’ performance and attitude in
secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This is a quantitative study where the 5-point Likert-type-scale questionnaire was
used to analyze data using descriptive and inferential statistics. Simple random sampling was used to select the respondents.
This study entailed respondents from various schools in one of the districts in Kuala Lumpur which comprises 200 teachers
and 50 supervisors. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the status of supervision practices, teachers’ attitude toward
supervision, and teachers’ level of performance after supervision. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the relationships
between supervision (supervisory practices–directive, collaborative, and nondirective approach) and teachers’ performance and
attitude. The current status of supervisory practices, teachers’ attitude toward supervision, and teachers’ performance after
supervision is found at moderate level in secondary schools in Malaysia. As a whole, supervisory practices are not correlated
with teachers’ performance and attitude. But worthy to mention, directive supervision is positively and significantly related to
teachers’ performance and attitude. This study result will benefit the policy makers, school supervisors and headmasters to
choose the right kind of supervisory practices which can contribute to better teaching performance.

Keywords
supervisory practices, directive supervision, collaborative supervision, nondirective supervision, teachers’ attitude, teachers’
performance

Introduction
Education today is defined as the most important asset to an
individual which is known as a device to assist human
beings on how to think, how to work, and how to make deci-
sions. Looking into the importance of education today, the
government is taking education system in Malaysia into a
very crucial matter. This could be seen with the implementa-
tion of the Malaysian National Education Blueprint (2013–
2025) to prepare every student to be globally competitive.
One of the efforts taken to achieve this is to transform teach-
ing into profession of choice as quality teaching is the most
significant school-based process (Goldhaber, 2006). The
government is in the effort of providing the best teacher
training from the day they begin their teacher training pro-
grams till retirement (Malaysian National Education
Blueprint, 2013–2025). Thus, it is crucial for teachers to
develop themselves professionally to face the reforms and
fulfill the students’ needs.
In the effort of improving teaching, supervision can be
one of the strategies to enable teachers to achieve the goal.
According to Glanz et al. (2007), teachers are one of the key
inputs to education delivery; thus, the quality of education
partially depends on the way they are trained and supervised.
This is because supervision is genuinely concerned with the
growth and development of students. Besides, many
researchers claim that supervision has the capability to
improve classroom practices and lead to student success by
improving teachers’ professional growth and their work per-
formance (Baffour-Awuah, 2011; Kholid & Rohmatika,
2019). In these days, supervision does not aim to inspect or
evaluate the teachers’ performance but it moves its direction
into a technical process which is aiming for the continual
teachers’ development (Ahmad et al., 2013). Glickman
1
Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
School of Businesses and Social Sciences, Albukhary International
University, Alor Setar, Kedah, Malaysia
Corresponding Author:
Kazi Enamul Hoque, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, 50603
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email: tffr2011@yahoo.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
(1990) also found that the view of supervision has changed
from inspection to school-based collaborative process that
aims in improving instruction. It is a form of guidance for
teachers to enhance their teaching skills through various
methods such as classroom visits, educational workshops,
seminars, and training courses which help to meet teachers’
needs. Supervision provides equal importance to students,
and teachers by having constant interaction between the
supervisor and the teacher to improve teaching and learning
processes (Al-Saud, 2007).
Teachers’ continuous learning assists them to be more
efficient and effective. This can be achieved through super-
vision which is considered as a part of professional develop-
ment (Hoque, Alam, & Abdullah, 2010). Although few
studies mentioned above indicated that supervision improves
teaching performance, other studies reported teachers’
mixed reaction toward supervision (James & Massiah, 2019;
Khun-inkeeree et al., 2019). Though studies indicate that
supervision helps teachers to develop their teaching skills, it
is still arguable whether teachers can improve their teaching
performance in classroom. Thus, this study attempts to
address the impact of supervision on teachers’ performance
and attitude.
Background
There are various models of educational supervision such
as clinical, peer coaching, and developmental supervision.
Clinical supervision is a therapeutic process which aims to
improve professional competency among clients. The pio-
neer of this model Goldhammer (1969), and Cogan (1973)
defined supervision as an ongoing process where the most
experienced therapist will guide his or her less experienced
supervisee. A study on effectiveness of clinical supervision
in Turkey reported that it enhances learning and teaching
processes in schooling but takes long time to evaluate a
teacher (Kayıkçı1 et al., 2017). James and Massiah (2019)
also found clinical supervision as time-consuming, teach-
ers’ lack of training and competence, and distrust. Peer
coaching supervision involves two or more professional
colleagues who collaborate together to reflect their class-
room practices and solve the problem that occurs by guid-
ing each another and sharing ideas that facilitate in
developing new skills (Robbins, 1991). A study in Kuwait
context reported that though peer coaching fosters changes
in professional growth and influences classroom teaching
practices, team cooperation, self-confidence, supervisors
are concerned related to correspondence between peer
coaching strategy and ministry formal evaluation regula-
tions (Alsaleh et al., 2017). Scheduling of class observation
has been found as the main challenge of peer coaching in
Malaysia (Yee, 2016).
Developmental supervision aims to support teachers to
become autonomous in their educational practice. However,
this is not applicable for all teachers as their developmental
level; personal and professional skills may vary. The approach
should be adapted based on the teacher’s needs (Brunelle
et al., 1988). In another study, Brunelle et al. (1988) catego-
rize teachers into four types: First, teachers who are depen-
dent on their supervisor and want to be directed what they
should do to solve the problem; second, teachers who prefer
to collaborate with their supervisor in overcoming the prob-
lem; third, teachers who take their supervisors as theoretical
resources to solve the problem; finally, teachers who prefer to
enhance their teaching on their own through their experi-
ences. This shows that individual teacher’s needs are differ-
ent. These differences occur as teachers’ experiences vary
which entails different levels of professional development
needed in directing them (Glickman et al., 2001). In develop-
mental supervision, the supervisor uses directive assistance
when the teachers have low developmental level, expertise,
and commitment. Supervisor is responsible in solving prob-
lems faced by the teachers. Teachers who are at moderate
level of development, expertise, and commitment are com-
plemented with collaborative assistance. In collaborative
approach, teachers and supervisors work as a team in solving
problems. Nondirective approach is suitable for teachers who
are functioning at high level of developmental level and com-
mitment to teaching. Teachers who can find solutions to the
problems that they face in their teaching will experience this
type of assistance. Hence, the supervisory goals should
increase teachers’ abilities which lead them to develop their
thoughts in higher level (Glickman, 1990). Developmental
supervision encourages teachers to reflect their teaching for
self-improvement (Glickman, 1981, 1990). Similarly,
Glickman et al. (2001) claimed that this model known as
developmental model utilizes collaborative, nondirective, and
directive approaches that depend on individual teacher’s
developmental levels. Glickman et al. (2001) also defined
developmental model as “the match of initial supervisory
approach with the teacher or group’s developmental levels,
expertise, and commitment” (p. 190). Strieker et al. (2016) in
their studies reported the evidences of equal engagement in
directive, the collaborative, and the nondirective approach
which were inherently more collegial.
In general, it is true in many contexts where teachers around
the world have the perceptions that classroom observations can
cause stress, discomfort, and nervousness (Aubusson et al.,
2007; Borich, 2008). Besides, even though the main purpose of
classroom observation is to develop teachers’ professional
growth, in real it is more on evaluating than developing (Shah
& Al Harthi, 2014). It is considered incompetent and threaten-
ing as it is more to subjective, judgmental, and imprecise
(Mercer, 2006). Besides, school supervision is still underdevel-
oped in Malaysia. Principals as supervisors tend to ignore their
role as educational supervisors (Nek et al., 2000). Besides,
school management teams do not pay much attention toward
supervision (Suseela, 2007). Lack of attention can cause severe
impact to the entire practice of supervision as it can influence
the teachers, students, and the school as well. The comparative
Hoque et al. 3

study by Izham et al. (2013) found that teachers were not really
satisfied with the supervision practices carried out in secondary
schools in Kuala Lumpur. As they are not satisfied, it can affect
their work performance too. Sharma et al. (2011) also found
that the process of supervision is not carried out efficiently in
three Asian countries including Malaysia. It is proven through
teachers’ responses where they claimed that supervisors are
more intent to find their faults than help them improve their
performances. Moreover, they felt they are being insulted as
they do not agree with the way supervision is conducted. In his
study, Mohd Zaki (2001) found that principals ignore their task
to supervise the teachers and if they do so their approach is
more on hierarchical, bureaucratic, and autocratic. Even though
the role of supervision has moved from evaluating teachers’
ability to providing support and encouragement for improve- Figure 1.  Conceptual framework of the study.
ment, it is still superficial that teacher can improve their perfor-
mance through supervision.
Teachers in school may have different perceptions on performance. Therefore, the study conceptualized assuming
their supervisor’s technique used to improve their instruc- the relationships between the independent variables of
tional supervision. This is due to the teachers’ developmental development supervision (directive, collaborative, and non-
level, expertise, and commitment. This can influence their directive) and dependent variables teachers’ awareness, atti-
attitude toward supervision that they experience which ulti- tude, and performance (Figure 1).
mately influences their performance. Supervisors are there to Thus, this study addresses the following research
develop the intention of supervision by applying different questions:
approaches and strategies on different teachers. This is
because teachers as adult learners may vary in terms of their 1. Research Question 1: What is the current status of
backgrounds, experiences gained, abilities, and level of con- supervisory practices in schools in Malaysia?
cern for others (Beach & Reinhartz, 2000; Wiles & Bondi, 2. Research Question 2: What are teachers’ attitudes
1996; Glickman et al., 1998). A recent study in Malaysia toward the supervisory practices?
shows mixed result in which knowledge and technical skills 3. Research Question 3: Does supervision have impact
of teachers are found related to positive attitude to supervi- on teachers’ attitude?
sion, while interpersonal skills were the barriers (Khun- 4. Research Question 4: Does supervision have impact
inkeeree et al., 2019). Thus, it is important to link supervision on teachers’ performance?
to evaluation into a seamless process to be more effective
(Hvidston et al., 2019).
Research Design
On the contrary, Nadeem et al. (2011) found that a num-
ber of factors affect teachers’ performance and one of them This was a survey conducted to understand the current status
is working relation to staff and head teacher. In another of the supervisory practices in secondary schools in Malaysia.
study, Smith (1996) also pointed that support from other The purpose of using survey was to collect data from a large
staff at all levels can influence teachers’ performance. sample of teachers and supervisors so that the findings could
Besides, teachers’ attitudes and perceptions toward supervi- be generalized to similar other conditions.
sion bring great impact on teachers’ learning and job devel-
opment (Fraser, 1980). Studies show that supervision
Population and Sample
activities cannot be separated from teaching achievement
and profession (Aldaihani, 2017; Ayandoja et al., 2017). As There are 97 secondary schools in the city of Kuala Lumpur
teachers fail to understand that supervision facilitates pro- located under three districts, namely, Pudu Bangsar,
fessional growth and improving students’ learning, the Keramat, and Sentul. The target population for this study
notion of supervision can be detrimental. This reveals that was supervisors and teachers from secondary schools from
teachers’ attitude toward supervision is an important aspect Pudu district. This district was chosen for this study as it
that needs to be concerned. A proper supervisory approach consists of the most number of secondary schools (51
is fundamental to change their perception which can influ- schools). As this district had the highest number of schools,
ence their attitudes. the sample selection for this study was simple random sam-
Therefore, this study is carried out to reveal if develop- pling. Simple random sampling is used when the entire data
mental supervision can enhance teachers’ classroom set is not compulsory and it is known to be expensive in
4 SAGE Open
terms of time response or resource usage (Frank & Doron,
1986). To avoid the difficulties or issues that occur if spe-
cific schools are selected, the respondents were selected by
simple random sampling based on teachers’ list from district
office. Accordingly, school address of selected teachers was
collected and then the researchers reached there to collect
face-to-face data. As the total population was unknown, the
following formula was used to determine the right sample
size: n = Z2 × pq/e2 where n = sample size, Z is the value
on Z table at 95% confidence level 1.96, e = sample error at
5% (0.05), p = maximum variability at the population at
50%, that is, (0.5):
n = (1.96 ) * 0.5 * (1 − 0.5) / 0.05 = 384.16
2 tested in due process. To measure the validity and reliabil-
In this study, the sample size was 400, which was more
than 384. Thus, it can be said that the selected sample repre-
sents the entire population. The sample referred to 300 teach-
ers and 100 supervisors including male and female.
Instruments
Two set of questionnaires were used as instruments to col-
lect data. Each set of questionnaire was divided into sub-
sections. The first set of questionnaire was aimed at
gathering data to comprehend how supervisors carry out
developmental approach to supervise teachers. It was
divided into four sections as the first section focused on
the demography information of the school where the study
was conducted, the second section consisted of respon-
dent’s profile information, the third section focused on
supervisors’ awareness of supervisory tasks, and items in
the fourth section focused on developmental approach
consisting subtopics with directive approach, collaborative
approach, and nondirective approach. Section 1 consisted
of four items to collect information regarding school back-
ground, Section 2 consisted of eight items to gather infor-
mation regarding the respondents, Section 3 consisted of
13 items, while Section 4 was divided into three subtopics
containing five items each.
The second set of questionnaire was designed for
teachers to gather information on how supervision influ-
ences teachers’ performance in schools. It was divided
into five sections. In the first section, three items were
developed on school background information; second
section contained eight items about respondents’ profile
information; the third section on teachers’ awareness on
supervision included 14 items; fourth section was about
teachers’ attitude toward supervision with 17 items; and
the last section of the questionnaire was on teachers’ per-
formance with 12 items. The respondents were asked to
read each statement carefully in the questionnaire and
indicate one response that best described their feelings.
5-point Likert-type scales: strongly disagree (SD),
­disagree (D), not sure (N), agree (A), and strongly
agree (SA) were used against each statement of the
questionnaire.
Validity and Reliability of the Instruments
It is crucial to consider the reliability and validity of a
study. Reliability is defined as the degree to which an
assessment tool provides stable and consistent results
(Phelan & Wren, 2005), whereas validity refers to tool
measures what it sets out to measure (Twycross & Shields,
2005). The validity and reliability of the instruments were
ity of the developed questionnaire, a pilot test was carried
out which involved 30 respondents. They were selected
randomly from the secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur to
answer. These 30 respondents were excluded from the
main study. The pilot study was conducted by distributing
the questionnaire for supervisors to randomly selected
vice principals and senior teachers who had experience in
supervising teachers. Random sampling was used to
ensure every element in the population having an equal
chance of being selected as a subject (Cavana et al., 2001).
They were asked to answer the questions and give some
comments by looking at their understanding of the needs of
the questions. Cronbach’s alpha measurement was tested to
check the reliability of the questionnaire in the pilot study.
Cronbach’s alpha value for the instrument designed for
teachers was .854 with the number of items tested being 42.
A few changes were made to the questionnaire for giving
more understandable meaning of the questions to the respon-
dents such as the instruction in the questionnaire was restruc-
tured to ensure the respondents’ understandability. Next,
some teachers found difficulties to understand the term
“supervision”; thus, the meaning was added in the question-
naire so that they could have a better understanding. Five
supervisors were selected who had sufficient experience in
supervising teachers to answer the questions which consists
of 28 items. All the supervisors were able to answer the ques-
tionnaire without facing any difficulties.
Data Collection Procedure
A few procedures were followed to collect the data from
respondents for this study. In total, 300 sets of questionnaire
were distributed to teachers and 100 sets of questionnaire
were distributed to supervisors. As the first step, permission
was granted from supervisor together with the permission let-
ter from faculty. The approved sets of questionnaire were
given to the Ministry of Education to get approval to conduct
this study in schools. Then, approval was obtained from
school administrators to distribute the survey questionnaire to
the teachers and supervisors. Once the approval was granted,
Hoque et al. 5

Table 1.  Teachers’ Experience. study were having sufficient experience in teaching. Table 1
shows that, 60 (30.0%) teachers were having more than 10
Frequency Percent
years’ experience, whereas 39 (19.5%) teachers were consid-
Experience (years) T S T S ered as novice teachers with the lowest percentage of 19.5%.
Meanwhile, 59 (29.5%) of the respondents were having 4 to
1–3 39 6 19.5 12.0
6 years’ experience and 42 (21.0%) were having 7 to 9 years’
4–6 59 12 29.5 24.5
7–9 42 19 21.0 38.0
experience in teaching.
More than 10 60 13 30.0 26.0 Supervisors were also asked regarding their experience
Total 200 50 100.0 100.0 and 19 (38%) out of 50 were having experience from the
  100.0 range of 7 to 9 years as this range is the highest frequency
shown in the table. Besides, 13 respondents were having
more than 10 years experience which carries 24% from the
teachers and supervisors were selected based on simple ran- total number of respondents, whereas six of them were still
dom sampling method. Respondents were personally handed new to this post as they were having the least experience as
in the questionnaire and given sufficient time to answer the a supervisor as shown in the table.
questions. They were given a week to answer and the
answered questionnaires were collected immediately. Supervisory Practices
Challenges still occurred in collecting questionnaires as
supervisors were occupied with their administrative tasks and According to Table 2, for Item 1, the mean value is 4.02
teachers were busy in preparing their teaching materials, and this shows that most of the supervisors in schools have
marking students’ books, exam papers, and other co-curricu- the high level of awareness of their task. For Item 2, the
lar activities in schools. Both the supervisors and teachers had mean is 2.90 and this shows that they have much less
difficulties in completing the questionnaire. Due to this, the supervisory training, and thus, it could be said that super-
estimated amount of questionnaires could not be obtained visors need to be sent for courses so they can acquire the
from the respondents. For teachers, instead of getting 300 skills to observe teachers. The mean value 3.78 for Item 3
respondents, only 200 respondents returned the question- shows that they are busy at their administrative work at
naire. This was the same for supervisors as this study designed moderate level. It can be described that most of the super-
for 100 supervisors and at the end only 50 questionnaires visors are occupied with their admin work more than
were returned. supervisory in schools. The mean value for Item 4 is 3.22
and this indicates that a moderate level of discussion is
held by supervisors with their teachers. The mean range of
Data Analysis Items 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 is between 3.22 and 3.88
In the effort of answering the developed research questions, which refers to moderate level of supervisory practices in
the collected data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 20) for terms of checking teachers’ scheme of work, lesson plan,
Windows software program and descriptive and inferential helping teachers in times of need, informing teachers on
statistics were used to reveal the result. The central tendency the purpose of supervision, having discussion on the mis-
and the dispersion of the data were checked; the reliability of take, and giving post supervision feedback. The mean
the measures were tested using Cronbach’s alpha. To analyze value for Item 7 shows the low level of informal supervi-
the collected data, descriptive analysis was used to find the sion. It means most supervisors inform the teachers before
current practices and multiple regression analysis was used they are supervised. The standard deviation range (0.02–
to establish the relationships between dependent and inde- 0.58) indicates very less variation of respondents’ reply.
pendent variables. The multiple regression analysis was used Overall, most of the supervisory practices are at moderate
in the study as one of the methods to describe the relationship level which should be improved. Another vital issue is that
between one dependent variable and multiple independent supervisors’ themselves have very low tendency of attend-
variables (Jomnonkwao et al., 2020; Tahtali, 2019). For ing training before supervision.
descriptive analysis, mean value in between 1 and 2.99 is
considered low, 3 and 3.99 is moderate, and 4 and 5 is high. Directive Supervision Practices
Table 3 exposes the moderate level (M = 3.46–3.88) of
Findings directive supervision practices in the areas of providing
alternatives for teachers to improve their teaching, assist-
Respondents’ Experience
ing teachers finding solution to solve the problem, guiding
Experience is one of the important items included to support teachers to overcome encountered problems, and guiding
this study. Most of the teachers who are involved in this new teachers who seek help. The status of collaborative
6 SAGE Open

Table 2.  Mean Value of Supervisory Practices.

No. Items M SD Status

1 I am aware of my task as a supervisor. 4.02 0.58 High
2 I have attended supervisory training before 2.90 0.54 Low
3 I am always busy with my admin work 3.78 0.34 Moderate
4 I often talk to my teachers about supervision of school and classroom instruction. 3.22 −0.22 Moderate
5 I regularly check on weekly basis teacher’s scheme of work, lesson plan and student’s notes. 3.22 −0.22 Moderate
6 I help my teachers when they need my assistance 3.76 0.22 Moderate
7 I informally visit my teachers in their respective classes during classroom instruction 2.92 −0.52 Low
8 I supervise my teachers on a regular basis inside the classroom during instruction. 3.12 −0.32 Moderate
9 I inform my teachers in advance on the purpose of the observation. 3.12 −0.32 Moderate
10 Before observing, I always make sure the teachers are ready with scheme of work, lesson plan and 3.72 0.28 Moderate
register.
11 I choose the most appropriate instructional approach that suits the teacher’s developmental level. 3.46 0.02 Moderate
12 I have discussion with my teacher to point out their mistakes during the observation. 3.88 0.44 Moderate
13 After classroom observation, I have post-conference session teacher to give him/her feedback on 3.66 0.22 Moderate
what I observed during the lesson.

Table 3.  Status of Directive, Collaborative, and Nondirective Supervision Practices.

No. Items M SD Status

Directive
 1 I provide suggestions to improve teaching and ensure the teacher follow them. 3.88 0.24 Moderate
 2 During the discussion with the observed teacher, I make the final decision on what needs to 3.76 0.12 Moderate
be improved.
 3 I find the solutions for the teacher to solve the problem 3.46 −0.18 Moderate
 4 I tell the teacher what he or she has to do to improve their teaching. 3.46 −0.18 Moderate
 5 I apply this approach to supervise new teachers and those seek help for improvement. 3.64 0.00 Moderate
Collaborative
 6 I listen and accept my teacher’s suggestions for improvement. 3.82 0.00 Moderate
 7 I accept disagreement from the teacher while discussing. 3.58 −0.24 Moderate
 8 I share decision making responsibility with the teacher to select best teaching practices. 3.78 −0.04 Moderate
 9 I work as a team with my teachers to overcome issues on classroom teaching. 3.94 0.12 Moderate
 10 I use this approach to teachers who suggest solutions to improve their classroom teaching. 4.02 0.20 High
Nondirective
 11 I allow my teachers to find the best practice to solve the problem in their classroom teaching. 3.88 0.00 Moderate
 12 I let my teachers explore and generate variety alternatives and choose the most appropriate 3.78 −0.10 Moderate
plan for them.
 13 I encourage my teachers to be creative and innovative in their classroom teaching. 4.10 0.22 Moderate
 14 I support my teacher’s suggestions to improve classroom teaching. 3.90 0.02 Moderate
 15 I use this approach to teachers who can solve problems independently. 3.78 −0.10 Moderate

supervision practices is also found at moderate level (M =
3.54–3.98) in which supervisors listen and accept teachers’
suggestion and disagreement, share decision-making
responsibility to choose best teaching practices, work as a
team, and practice collaborative approach. The status of
nondirective supervision practices is also found at moder-
ate level (M = 3.78–390) in which supervisors allow their
teachers to find the best practice for their classroom, let
teachers explore and generate variety alternatives and
choose the most appropriate plan for them, support teach-
er’s suggestions, and use this approach to teachers who can
solve problems independently. But the practices of encour-
aging teachers to be creative and innovative are found at a
slightly high level (4.01). In all cases, the SD value is in an
acceptable range which shows very less differences of the
responses.
Teachers’ Attitude
Table 4 shows teachers attitude toward supervision. The
mean value of most of the items shows moderate level of
attitude of teachers toward supervision in the areas of
Hoque et al. 7

Table 4.  Teachers’ Attitude Toward Supervision.

No. Items M SD Status

1 Classroom observation allows me to think creatively to conduct the lesson. 3.79 0.46 Moderate
2 Supervision focuses more on my mistakes in teaching and learning. 2.95 −0.38 Low
3 I feel relaxed while I am being supervised. 2.44 −0.89 Low
4 I feel supervision is inspection than a collaborative process. 3.35 0.02 Moderate
5 I prefer to be observed as I can develop my teaching skills. 3.04 −0.33 Moderate
6 I always consult my supervisor after being supervised for improvement. 3.62 0.29 Moderate
7 I feel anxious and uncomfortable when my supervisor observes me. 3.51 0.18 Moderate
8 I don’t prefer to be supervised as I am being judged. 3.24 −0.11 Moderate
9 After being supervised, I am willing to spend my time to discuss my difficulties with my head teacher. 3.77 0.44 Moderate
10 There are changes in my behavior after I have been supervised. 3.38 0.05 High
11 The feedbacks given by my supervisor is very clear during the discussion. 3.52 0.19 Moderate
12 I am given chance to provide suggestions for future improvement 3.44 0.11 Moderate
13 I learn new teaching techniques from my supervisor. 3.35 0.02 Moderate
14 My behaviors toward teaching has changed 3.21 −0.12 Moderate
15 Regular supervision reduces my anxiety of being supervised. 2.98 −0.35 Low
16 After being regularly supervised, I improve my classroom instruction and management. 3.44 0.11 Moderate
17 I prefer using my own method of teaching. 3.70 0.47 Moderate

Table 5.  Teachers’ Performance.

No. Items M SD Status

1 I improve my classroom instruction in order to deliver the lesson successfully. 3.79 0.43 Moderate
2 My teaching becomes more creative and interesting with the guidance from my supervisor. 3.36 0.00 Moderate
3 I have good classroom management after I have been supervised by the supervisor. 3.36 0.00 Moderate
4 I do better in my teaching without receiving any guidance from my supervisor. 3.22 0.14 Moderate
5 There is an improvement in my teaching after I have been supervised. 3.46 0.10 Moderate
6 I improve my teaching practices as I often follow my supervisor’s suggestions or feedbacks. 3.46 0.10 Moderate
7 Students enjoy my improved teaching style. 3.50 0.14 Moderate
8 I have good classroom control after being supervised. 3.46 0.10 Moderate
9 My students are more attentive in my class after I have been supervised. 3.25 0.11 Moderate
10 My students perform well in exams as I change my teaching style after being supervised. 3.18 0.18 Moderate
11 I can’t teach well if I am being supervised. 2.95 −0.41 Low

“supervision as inspection than a collaborative process,” Teachers’ Performance

“teachers’ preference to be observed,” “consultation with
their supervisor to get feedback to improve their teaching,”
“fearing while being observed,” “preference level to be
observed,” “spending quality time with supervisor to
improve,” “feeling different being supervised and not super-
vised,” and so on. It indicates that teachers’ attitude is not
highly positive toward supervision. But teachers are posi-
tive toward supervision as the mean value of Items 16 and
17 is 2.95 and 2.44 indicates that most of the teachers do not
think that the intention of supervision is to find mistakes and
thus teachers feel relaxed. The mean of Item 15 shows that
teachers do not think regular supervision reduces their anxi-
ety of being supervised. However, overall result shows that
supervision help teachers in good classroom management
and having effective teaching. Even though teachers opin-
ionate that they can learn teaching strategies from their
supervisor, they still prefer to use their own.
Table 5 shows teachers opinion of their performance when
they are supervised. According to the data above, mean val-
ues shows moderate level of satisfaction in majority of areas
including “improved classroom instructions,” “more creative
teaching,” “improved classroom management,” “improved
teaching without guidance,” “improved teaching after super-
visor guidance,” “better teaching practices following sugges-
tions,” “improved teaching style,” “better classroom control,”
“more attentive students,” and “improved exam results.”
These data show mixed feelings of teachers toward their per-
formance because of changes caused by supervision. The
majority of data show that teacher thinks mostly positively
toward their performance changes caused by supervision.
Another positive data vouching for supervision would be
Question 11 which had a low mean to the opinion: “I can’t
teach well if I am being supervised.” Overall, the data show
8 SAGE Open

Table 6.  Impact of Supervisory Practices on Teachers’ Attitude.

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient  

Model SE β t p
(Constant) 0.172 85.805 .000
Directive 0.034 0.304 1.996 .052
Collaborative 0.040 −0.004 −0.023 .982
Nondirective 0.047 −0.039 −0.227 .821

Note. SE = standard error.

ΔR2= .086 (8%, F= .242), p ≥ .05.

Table 7.  Impact of Supervisory Practices on Teachers’ Performance.

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient  

Model SE β T Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.593 7.591 .000
Directive 0.104 0.172 1.111 .272
Collaborative −0.145 −0.235 −1.315 .195
Nondirective 0.075 0.101 0.580 .565

Note. SE = standard error.

ΔR2= .050 (8%, F = .499), p ≥ .05.

most teachers believe that supervision in most conditions
helps improve their performance but at the same time too
much guidance is an irritant (Question 5).
Supervision and Teachers’ Attitude
The multiple regression analysis has been performed to find
out the impact of supervision (directive, collaborative, and
nondirective) on teachers’ attitude. The results of the analysis
are presented in Table 6.
The results show that supervisory practices did not sig-
nificantly impact teachers’ attitude. As a whole, supervisory
practices have no impact on teachers’ attitude (ΔR2 = .86, F
= .242, p ≥ .05). The coefficient table shows the impact of
every independent variable on the teachers’ attitude. The β
value of directive supervision (β = 0.304, p ≤ .05) shows
that there is a significant impact of it on teachers’ attitude.
But collaborative (β = −0.004, p ≥ .05) and nondirective (β
= −0.227, p ≥ .05) supervisions have been found to have no
significant impact on teachers’ attitude.
The Impact of Supervision on Teachers’
Performance
The multiple regression analysis has been performed to find
out the impact of supervision (directive, collaborative, and
nondirective) on teachers’ attitude. The results of the analysis
are presented in Table 7.
The results show that supervisory practices did not sig-
nificantly impact teachers’ performance. As shown in the
table, supervisory practices have no impact on teachers’ per-
formance (ΔR2 = .50, F= .499, p ≥ .05). The coefficient
table shows the impact of every independent variable on the
teachers’ performance. The β value of directive supervision
(β = 0.172, p ≥ .05) shows that there is no significant impact
of it on teachers’ performance. The results for other two
independent variables also show that there is no significant
impact on teachers’ performance as their results, respec-
tively, collaborative (β = −0.235, p ≥ .05) and nondirective
(β = −0.101, p ≥ .05), have been found to have no signifi-
cant impact on teachers’ attitude.
Discussion
This study focused on the three supervisory practices which
are under developmental supervision. Descriptive finding
shows that the supervisors use directive approach to new
teachers, collaborative approach to teachers who can be able
to suggest solutions to solve problems, and nondirective
approach to teachers who could solve problems independently.
This finding is in line with the developmental approach which
needs to identify the teachers’ current developmental level and
provide feedback and support appropriately and facilitate
them to develop themselves to the next level (James &
Massiah, 2019; Littrell et al., 1979; Loganbill et al., 1982;
Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987).
In terms of teachers’ attitude, the results of this study con-
trast to the previous findings as supervision does affect
teachers’ attitude either positively or negatively. A study
done by Rahmany et al. (2014) showed that teachers who had
Hoque et al. 9
experience less than 5 years had positive attitude toward
supervision that they experienced. In contrast, studies done
by Kayaoglu (2012) in Turkey and Acheson and Gall (1980)
in Zimbabwe found that teachers have negative attitude
toward supervision. Rahmany et al. (2014) found that teach-
ers who had experience between 5 and 10 years had negative
attitude toward supervision. Some recent studies also
reported both positive and negative attitudes of teachers
toward supervision (Khun-inkeeree et al., 2019; Hvidston
et al., 2019). Although collaborative and nondirective super-
visory practices were not associated with teachers’ attitude,
directive approach was influential. This finding is similar to
Gordon (1997) and Khun-inkeeree et al. (2019) who claimed
that even though American teachers have positive percep-
tions toward all three supervisory approaches, directive, col-
laborative, and nondirective, they were less positive with
nondirective. This indicated that directive approach is still
being the choice of teachers in schools.
The Impact of Supervisory Practices on Teachers’
Performance
Several literatures have discussed the role of supervision to
enhance teachers’ performance which contrasts to the current
study. Previous studies found supervision enabling the teachers
to develop their professionalism and teaching performance
(Mohd Zaki, 2001; Veloo et al., 2013; Ayandoja et al., 2017).
Sullivan and Glanz (2000) also claimed that teachers need to
have proper guidance to improve their teaching method to
ensure improvement in their performance. This provides a clear
view that supervision has impact on teachers’ performance and
plays important role in teaching. But the current study indicated
no impact of supervision on teaching performance. In this study,
most of the respondents (refer to Table 5: Item 11) claimed that
teachers could not teach well when they were being observed by
their supervisors. They felt nervous as they were being watched
by someone on their teaching performance. This is similar to
Harris (1985) and Aldaihani (2017) who claimed that teachers
likely related supervision as fault-finding process. They also
mentioned that teachers usually become anxious and have bitter
feelings toward the process of supervision. Even though this
study found that teachers’ were aware of the role of supervision
in their professional development, their view on observation as
the platform for supervisors to find mistakes on them causes the
teachers to be negative toward supervision (Beach & Reinhartz,
1989; Tshabalala, 2013). Besides, most of the teachers (refer
Table 4.16: Item 31) claimed that they preferred to use their own
method of teaching. From this finding, it could be inferred that
teachers were comfortable of following their own teaching tech-
niques as they were not restricted to the suggested method of
teaching by their supervisors. This enables them to explore to
new way of teaching independently without receiving guidance
from their supervisor which ultimately improves their perfor-
mance on teaching. Thus, teachers feel that supervision does not
bring impact on their performance.
Limitations
The sample size of the study is limited to teachers and
supervisors from one of the districts in Kuala Lumpur. The
sample of the study can be extended by including teachers
from other districts and other states. Moreover, the schools
selected in this study were from urban area. They may have
the opportunity to have experienced supervisors. It will not
be the same for the schools in rural area. The future study
might focus on rural schools as it is necessary to find out if
teachers in rural area are exposed to supervision and if they
are given proper assistance from their supervisors. Besides,
this study only focused on one of the states in Malaysia.
Studies on supervision need to be carried out in other
schools as well. As this is a quantitative study, to get a pre-
cise response from the supervisor, qualitative study would
be more appropriate to find out how supervisors practice
developmental approaches on their teachers.
Concluding Remarks
This research reveals that developmental supervisory prac-
tices do not bring impact on teachers’ attitude except direc-
tive approach. This illustrates that if teachers are not
motivated enough by supervision, the result will be more
negative, and if teachers do not accept supervision from
their heart, they will be resentful toward the process of
supervision. Moreover, they do not perceive supervision as
the process of improvement. Thus, teachers’ attitude might
change before supervision is being practiced. Directive
supervision has impact on teachers’ attitude because teach-
ers in schools prefer to be guided by someone as the nature
of directive is to assist teachers on their teaching. Some
teachers are used to being directed especially novice teach-
ers who seek help from other teachers or senior teachers.
Therefore, they prefer to be guided by their supervisors to
improve their teaching.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Kazi Enamul Hoque https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8152-9250
Husaina Banu Bt Kenayathulla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6685-6878
References
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, D. (1980). Techniques in the supervision
of teachers. Longman.
10 SAGE Open
Ahmad, A., & Farley, A. (2013). Federal government funding
reforms: Issues and challenges facing malaysian public uni-
versities. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(1),
282–298.
Aldaihani, S. G. (2017). Effect of prevalent supervisory styles on
teaching performance in Kuwaiti high schools. Asian Social
Science, 13(4), 25–36.
Al-Saud, R. (2007). Educational supervision, modern trends (2nd
ed.). Dar Wa’el.
Alsaleh, A., Alabdulhadi, M., & Alrwaished, N. (2017). Impact
of peer coaching strategy on pre-service teachers’ profes-
sional development growth in Kuwait. International Journal
of Educational Research, 86, 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2017.07.011
Aubusson, P., Steele, F., Brady, L., & Dinham, S. (2007). Action
learning in teacher learning community formation: Informative
or transformative? Teacher Development, 11, 133–148.
Ayandoja, A. C., Aina, B. C., & Idowu, A. F. (2017). Academic
supervision as a correlate of students’ academic performance in
secondary schools in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International Journal
of Educational Policy Research and Review, 4(1), 8–13.
Baffour-Awuah, P. (2011). Supervision of instruction in public
primary schools in Ghana: Teachers’ and head teachers’ per-
spectives (Professional doctorate thesis). Murdock University.
Beach, D. B., & Reinhartz, J. (1989). Supervision: Focus on super-
vision. Harper & Row.
Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (2000). Supervisory leadership:
Focus on instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
Borich, G. D. (2008). Observation skills for effective teaching.
Prentice Hall.
Brunelle, J., Drouin, D., Godbout, P., & Tousignant, M. (1988).
Supervision of the physical activity intervention. Montreal:
Gaetan Morin Publisher.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied busi-
ness research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. John Wiley.
Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Frank, O., & Doron, R. (1986). Simple random sampling from
relational databases. In Proceedings of the 12th international
conference on very large databases (pp. 160–169). Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers.
Fraser, K. P. (1980). Supervisory behaviour and teacher satisfac-
tion. Journal of Educational Administration, 18(2), 224–231.
Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., & Frank, L. D. (2007).
Nutrition environment measure survey in stores (NEMS-S):
Development and evaluation. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 32(4), 282–289.
Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative
practices for helping teachers improve instruction. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A development
approach. Allyn & Bacon.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998).
Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (4th
ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Glickman, D. C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001).
Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental
approach. Allyn & Bacon.
Goldhaber, D. (2006). National board teachers are more effective,
but are they in the classrooms where they’re needed the most?
Education Finance and Policy, 1(3), 372–382.
Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods
for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Gordon, S. P. (1997) Has the field of supervision evolved to a point
that it should be called something else? In J. Glanz & R. F.
Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues,
and controversies (pp. 114–123). Christopher-Gordon.
Harris, R. J. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics (2nd ed.).
New York: Academic Press.
Hoque, K. E., Alam, G. M., & Abdullah A. G. K. (2010). Impact
of teacher professional development on school improvement
an analysis at Bangladesh standpoint. Asia Pacific Education
Review. doi:101007/12564-010- 9107-Z
Hvidston, D. J., Range, B., Anderson, J., & Quirk, B. (2019). An
explanation of the supervisory model used by elementary prin-
cipal supervisors in the State of Missouri. School Leadership
Review, 14(1). https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol14/iss1/4
Izham, M., Wei, Y., Ahmad, J., Hanim, A., & Mansor, A. N. (2013).
Supervision practices and teachers’ satisfaction in public sec-
ondary schools: Malaysia and China. International Education
Studies, 6(8), 92.
James, F., & Massiah, A. (2019, September 4). Using clinical super-
vision as a professional development mechanism: Capabilities,
concerns and challenges [Paper presentation]. A paper pre-
sented in ECER 2019 organized by European Educational
Research Association. https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/
conference/24/contribution/47916/
Jomnonkwao, S., Uttra, S., & Ratanavaharaha, V. (2020).
Forecasting road traffic deaths in Thailand: Applications of
time-series, curve estimation, multiple linear regression, and
path analysis models. Sustainability, 12(1), 395. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su12010395
Kayaoglu, M. N. (2012). Dictating or facilitating: The supervisory
process for language teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(10), 103–117.
Kayıkçı1, K., Yılmaz, O., & Şahin, A. (2017). The views of educa-
tional supervisors on clinical supervision. Journal of Education
and Practice, 8(21), 159–168.
Kholid, I., & Rohmatika, R. V. (2019). Integrated clinical super-
vision model: Efforts to increase teacher’s performance of
Madrasah Aliyah. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
1155, 012091.
Khun-inkeeree, H., Dali, P. D., Daud, Y., Fauzee, M. S. O., & Khalid,
R. (2019). Effects of teaching and learning supervision on teach-
ers attitudes to supervision at secondary school in Kubang Pasu
District, Kedah. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1),
1335–1350. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12185a
Littrell, J. M. Lee-Borden, N. A., Developmental Framework for
Counseling & Lorenz, J. R. A. (1979). Counseling supervision.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 19, 129–136.
Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A
conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 3–42.
Mercer, J. (2006). Appraising higher education faculty in the Middle
East: Leadership lessons from a different world. Management
in Education, 20(1), 17–18.
Mohd Zaki, Z. (2001). The practice of principals as supervisors
in schools and their impact on teachers’ attitudes on teaching
supervision (Master’s project paper). University of Malaya.
Nadeem, M., Rana, S. M., Lone, H. A., Maqbool, S., Naz, K., &
Ali, A. (2011). Teacher’s competencies and factors affecting
Hoque et al. 11
the performance of female teachers in Bahawalpur (Southern
Punjab) Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 2(19), 486–497.
Nek, K. Y. Y., Jamal, N. Y., & Salomawati, I. (2000). The school
principals’ roles in teaching supervision in selected schools in
Perak, Malaysia. Asian Journal of Business and Management
Sciences, 1(2), 50–55.
Phelan, C., & Wren, J. (2005). Exploring reliability in academic
assessment. Graduate Assistants, UNI Office of Academic
Assessment.
Rahmany, R., Hasani, M. T., & Parhoodeh, K. (2014). EFL teach-
ers’ attitudes towards being supervised in an EFL context.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(2), 348–359.
Robbins, P. (1991). How to plan and implement a peer coach-
ing program. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Shah, SR., & Al Harthi, K. (2014). TESOL classroom observations: A
boon or a bane? An exploratory study at a Saudi Arabian University.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1593–1602.
Sharma, S., Yusoff, M., Kannan, S., & Binti Baba, S. (2011).
Concerns of teachers and principals on instructional supervi-
sion in three Asian Countries. International Journal of Social
Science and Humanity, 1(3), 214–217.
Smith, B. D. (1996). Teacher decision-making in the adult ESL
classroom. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher
learning in language teaching (pp. 197–216). Cambridge
University Press.
Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counsellors
and therapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strieker, T., Adams, M., Cone, N., Hubbard, D., & Lim, W. (2016).
Supervision matters: Collegial, developmental and reflec-
tive approaches to supervision of teacher candidates. Cogent
Education, 3(1), 1251075. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311
86X.2016.1251075
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teach-
ing, strategies and techniques. Corwin Press.
Suseela, M. (2007). Teacher learning in Malaysia: Problems and
possibilities of reform. University of Malaya.
Tahtali, Y. (2019). Use of factor scores in multiple regression
analysis for estimation of body weight by certain body mea-
surements in Romanov Lambs. PeerJ, 7, e7434. http://doi.
org/10.7717/peerj.7434
Tshabalala, T. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions towards classroom
instructional supervision: A case study of Nkayi District in
Zimbabwe. International Journal of Education and Social
Science Research, 4(1), 25–32.
Twycross, A., & Shields, L. (2004). Validity and reliability –
What’s it all about? Part 2 – Issues relating to quantitative
studies, Paediatric Nursing, 16(10), 36.
Veloo, A., Komuji, M. M. A., & Khalid, R. (2013). The effects of
clinical supervision on the teaching performance of secondary
school teachers. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
93, 35–39.
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1996). Supervision: A guide to practice.
Prentice Hall.
Yee, L. W. (2016). Peer coaching for improvement of teaching and
learning. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education,
6(1), 64–70.