Osman Ferda Beytekin, Sekibe Tas
4. Discussion And Conclusion
It is seen that teachers' answers to the definition of instructional supervision in the study are defined an improving and developing process. The conceptual knowledge of supervised and supervisor in instructional supervision affects the perspective and practices of the process. The supervised and supervisor who can not meet in the common payer can interfere with the efficiency in instructional supervision. In the qualitative study conducted by Beytekin and Tas (2017) in order to determine the opinions of the school principals about the instructional experience, the principals were asked about the concept of instructional supervision and the principals defined the concept of instructional supervision as regulatory, planned, interactive, cooperative, problem solving and professional development process . In this study, teachers' view of instructional supervision as a curative and developmental process shows that the supervised and the supervisor can form a common conceptual view.
Instructional supervision process was examined through preparation, application and feedback stages and opinions were received from each of the teachers. Teachers are talking about the fact that school principals are planning for supervision during the preparation phase, using the form for planning and informing the teacher about the application. They emphasize that during the course of
the practice there are often in-class observations and that these observations are limited to the evaluation of the curriculum. In the final phase of the feedback phase, the positive and negative aspects are shared with the teachers; guidance is given by teaching suggestions for those who are negative. The results of the study conducted by Aktepe and Uluc (2014) show that school principals can not help teachers adequately in the curriculum and the educational and teaching activities in the classroom environment. Teachers have stated that administrative tasks in school are preceded by educational affairs, which are inadequate in the management of curriculums and educational curriculum of the administrators.
Teachers indicate that the challenges they face most during instructional supervision are the lack of knowledge about the branches they supervised. In addition, teachers emphasize that the existence of an auditor within the class corrupts the class environment and goes beyond the normal course of the course, which negatively affects the supervision process. Boydak and Sener (2015) examined the teachers' perceptions of the supervision process with their work; this process has come to the conclusion that there are teachers with negative perceptions as well as teachers who perceive positively. Teachers with positive perception; assessing the work carried out by the supervisor, determining the deficiencies and eliminating these deficiencies, achieving the desired level of success, improving the disadvantages by providing process improvement and investing in the future to maintain the existence of the system. On the other hand, teachers with negative perceptions suggested that the supervision was conducted for explicit search and control purposes, which resulted in pressure and fear.
Teachers present solutions for the challenges they face in instructional supervision. First of all, the necessity of an expert supervisor suitable for each branch is emphasized. They are proposing a standard supervision, stating that each time they should be used, appropriate criteria and scales should be used. Supervision is not limited to only one lesson during the year, but it is recommended that the supervision must be conducted at regular intervals. Unlike these, a participant advised to perform the instructional supervision remotely so that the classroom functioning does not distort with the presence of any supervisor, and that a natural supervision will be made, and thus the frequency of supervision can be increased.
Although teachers have a specific definition of the concept of instructional supervision, all human resources involved in the supervisory process should be trained on theoretical and practical instructional supervision, and instructional supervision should be based on a scientific basis. In this way, an infrastructure related to instructional supervision can be formed, and methods and techniques aiming at the denial can be used through more reliable bases. In this direction, it is advised to teach supervision courses in undergraduate education and to eliminate the deficiency information that exists with in-service trainings.
Teacher and principal cooperation is great importance in instructional supervision. Despite the fact that there is still no consensus on how to carry out instructional supervision, studies are underway and various systems are being tested. The use of pre-tested scales and forms is recommended so that an objective assessment can be made in the process of implementing the supervision. All principals should plan what to do in the preparation, implementation and feedback phases through a common template at the beginning of the year and share it with the people to be supervised. According to the information obtained by Beytekin and Tas (2017), where information on the instructional supervision process is obtained, it is seen that in the preaparation stage of the principals, they have taken a way to collect information for preliminary preparation, to inform teachers about the process and to plan accordingly. In the application phase, they benefit from classroom observation; and more guidance / counseling activities in the feedback phase. In the direction of this data, the practices and opinions of the principals and teachers about the instructional supervision process are similar.
Taking into account the difficulties with regard to instructional supervision, it seems that school principals who assume the role of supervisor are obstacles to efficient control of work intensity. In this respect, it is proposed to make some regulations in the legislation so that the supervisor's authority can be used to other persons or the workload of principals is reduced. As a result of an instructional supervision study conducted with elementary school teachers, it has been seen that primary school
teachers mostly commented on the supervision of course supervision. As a justification for the withdrawal of the lecture supervision, they stated that the evaluation in the short term would not be a complete assessment and that the supervision of non-specialists in the field (not in the same branch) would be lacking. It is another finding of this research that teachers do not see school principals as specialists in fulfilling the duty of course supervision. Participants did not see the school administrators as experts in course supervision, nor did they want the supervision of the course to be done by inspectors (Koybasi et al., 2017). Within these problems, it seems that the problems related to the concept of supervision, the problem of implementation arising from the fact that the concept is unknown, and the disconnection between the supervisor and the teacher are also reached in this study.
It is thought that this study can be applied in the form of remote control with the use of technology, not the intervention of instructional supervision. It is proposed that a system to be established should periodically monitor and evaluate the current nature of the classes without deterioration and to develop a system in which audiences will supervise their own areas of expertise.
In addition, it is important for auditors to follow and read domestic and international publications in terms of personal and professional development.
5. References
Aktepe V. ve Buluc, B. (2014). Sinif Ogretmenlerinin Algilarina Gore Okul Yoneticilerinin Ogretim Liderligi Ozelliklerinin Degerlendirilmesi. GEFAD / GUJGEF 34(2). 227-247.
Arslan, H. (2018). An Introduction to Education. London: Cambridge Scholars Publications.
Beytekin, O.F. ve Tas, S. (2017). Okul Mudurlerinin Ogretimsel Denetime Iliskin Goruslerinin Incelenmesi. Turkish Studies Journal. 12(33).115-128.
Boydak Ozan, M. ve Sener ,G. (2015). Sinif Ogretmenlerinin Denetim Surecine Iliskin Algi ve Beklentilerinin Metaforlar Araciligi ile Belirlenmesi. Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 41.19-33.
Erdem, A.R. (2006). Ogretimin Denetiminde Yeni Bakis Acisi: “Surekli Gelistirme” Temeline Dayali Ogretimin Denetimi. Selcuk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 275-
294.
G. Rata, P. Luciana Runcan and H. Arslan. (2013). Applied Social Science: Educational Sciences.
London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kapusuzoglu, S. (2008). Okula dayali yonetimde denetim sisteminin islevselligi ve katkisinin degerlendirilmesi, Abant Izzet Baysal Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 1(16),143-155.
Koklu, M. (1996). Egitim Denetimi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi Dergisi 2(2).259-268.
Koybasi, F., Ugurlu, C.T., Bakir Agiroglu, A. ve Karakus, B. (2017). Ilkokullarda Ders Denetimine Iliskin Ogretmen Gorusleri. 12 (4). 327-344.
MEB, (2011). Ogretmen Denetim Rehberi. Milli Egitim Bakanligi Rehberlik ve Denetim Baskanligi.
Ankara.
Memduhoglu, H.B. (2012). Ogretmen, Yonetici, Denetmen ve Ogretim Uyelerinin Goruslerine Gore Turkiye’de Egitim Denetimi Sorunsali. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim 12(1). 135-156.
Memduhoglu, H.B. ve Zengin, M. (2012). Cagdas Egitim Denetimi Modeli Olarak Ogretimsel Denetimin Turk Egitim Sisteminde Uygulanabilirligi. Kuramsal Egitimbilim Dergisi,5(1),131-142.
Rata, G., Arslan, H., Runcan, P., & Akdemir, A.(2014). Interdisciplinary perspectives on social sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Yildirim, A. ve Simsek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Arastirma Yontemleri (6. Baski). Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik.
Yilmaz, K. (2009). Okul Mudurlerinin Denetim Gorevi. Inonu Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi.
10(1).19-35.
Zepeda, S. J. (2016). Ogretim Denetimi (3. Baski). A. Balci ve C. Apaydin, Cev., Ankara: Pegem Akademi.