Purse and Value of Survisry Leadership Prtis - Research Paper Example

From an educational standpoint, supervision has been defined as a leadership intervention that involves providing guidance and feedback on matters regarding personal, educational, and professional development (Kilminster et al., 2007). The act of supervision is often considered supervisory leadership. Sullivan and Glanz (2009) observe that supervisory leadership in the educational setting entails engaging in instructional dialogue with the main aim of increasing teaching and improving student performance (Sullivan and Glanz, 2009).

In this case, teachers and supervisors perform such supervisory leadership roles as instructional leadership, classroom mentoring, staff development, evaluation, and curriculum and instruction development (Abdulkareem, 2001). On the other hand, Okafor (n.d.) considers supervision as a function of leadership that involves coordination and management of activities concerned with learning. According to Rumsey (2013), supervisory leadership is behavior that allows the provision of guidance, support, and corrective feedback for members’ day-to-day activities.

This study seeks to explore supervisory leadership as a practice and process in educational settings that seeks to enhance the quality of teachers’ instruction and learning. Over the years, a number of studies have depicted that supervisory leadership can play a critical role in improving school performance, effectiveness, and outcomes (Al Nazer & Mohammad 2013; Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon 2007; Rico 2010). In their study, Glickman et al (2007) argue that supervisory leadership can enhance the quality of education.

Similarly, Rico (2010) argues that supervisory leadership can enhance work performance. Although supervisory leadership can be associated with positive outcomes, in its entirety it is a complex undertaking mediated by a number of factors, marred by a wide range of challenges, and whose value and purpose have been challenged. In this regard Alkrdem (2011) suggests that, supervisory practices may not be valued in some school contexts due to inconsistency, and biases and that supervisors lack the needed supervisory skills.

It is for these reasons that this study seeks to re-evaluate the role of a supervisor and establish measures that can be taken in order to improve supervisory leadership practices. This study will draw on the social exchange theory as a theoretical framework. Generally, the social exchange theory holds that, human interactions are transactional in nature, where parties trade off something from each other. (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Rost, 1993). Drawing on this theory, this study considers the relationship between supervisors and teachers to be transactional in nature where both parties must negotiate a position of mutual agreement so as to improve practice (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Zepeda 2007).

Theoretical Framework This study employs the social exchange theory as the main theoretical framework to look into the dynamics of supervision. Given that this study seeks to examine the value and purpose of supervisory leadership practices from the perspective of teachers and supervisors, it is essential to examine the dynamics of the relationship between teachers and supervisors and how it mediates the nature of supervisory practices used. The social exchange theory provides a suitable framework for exploring supervisory leadership practices with reference to their role in staff development, communication and relationship, observation and evaluation.

The main assertion of this theory is that, any interaction (including interaction between supervisors and teachers) is transactional in nature, where parties trade off something from each other. Therefore, an ongoing transaction occurs in the process of supervision between the supervisor and the teacher being supervised (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Rost, 1993). Alluding to this theory, this study regards the relationship between supervisors and teachers to be transactional in nature where both parties must negotiate a position of mutual agreement in order to practice (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Zepeda 2007).

Background Supervisory leadership within the Saudi Education system has undergone significant changes and development since its inception in the 1920s. This practice was instituted in Saudi Arabia in the 1920’s as part of educational reforms aimed at improving school performance and outcomes (Al-Salloom 1995). According to Alabdulkareem (2014), over the years supervisory leadership in Saudi school has undergone through four key development stages. These stages include; strict administrative inspection, educational inspection, direction, and supervision (Alabdulkareem, 2014).

The first stage began in 1957 and was characterised by strict administrative inspection. Inspectors would visit schools three times each year to enforce regulations and evaluate the administrative and instructional aspects of the schools. They would identify mistakes, direct teachers on what to do, issue orders and judge teacher’s practice. In this regard Al Nazer & Mohammad (2013) observes that during this stage the duty of supervisors involved inspection, control, searching for defects in performance and practice of retribution.

The second stage began in 1964 and mainly accentuated on educational inspection. In the course of this stage, the focus of inspection shifted from administrative aspects to educational and scientific aspects. Despite of this shift, many things remained the same as the nature of supervisor’s role still involved directing, ordering, judging, and identifying mistakes. In 1967, the Ministry of Education established districts’ educational directorates and later changed the title ‘inspectors’ to directors.

As a result, supervisory practices in Saudi schools entered the third phase i.e directing. As opposed to the previous stages where inspectors focused on judging, ordering and identifying mistakes made by teachers, in this stage they were encouraged to form good working relationships with teachers. In 1981, there was another notable development in supervisory practices in Saudi Arabia.