AN ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISORY SYSTEM FOR GOVERNMENT BOYS’

HIGH SCHOOLS OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN

Submitted by

FAHIM JAN

Registration No. SU-13-01-064-020

In Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION

Supervised by

Prof. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal

PhD (Educational Administration) U.S.A.

Department of Education

Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Education

Sarhad University of Science and Information

Technology, Peshawar-Pakistan

Spring-2019

ii

Author’s Declaration

I, Fahim Jan hereby state that my PhD thesis titled “An Analysis of Supervisory

System for Government Boy’s High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan”

is my own work and has not been submitted previously by me for taking any degree

from Sarhad University of Science & Information Technology Peshawar or

anywhere else in country/world.

At any time, if my statement is found to be incorrect even, after I Graduate, the

University has the right to withdraw my PhD degree.

Fahim Jan

Dated: 12/03/2019

iii

Plagiarism Undertaking

I solemnly declare that research work presented in the thesis titled “An Analysis of

Supervisory System for Government Boy’s High Schools of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan” is solely my research work with no significant contribution

from any other person. Small contribution/held wherever taken has been duly

acknowledged and that complete thesis has been written by me.

I understand the zero tolerance policy of the HEC and Sarhad University of Science

& Information Technology Peshawar towards plagiarism. Therefore, I, as an Author

of the above titled thesis, declare that no portion of my thesis has been plagiarized and

any material used as reference is properly referred/cited.

I undertake that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled thesis

even after award of PhD degree, the University reserves the right to withdraw/revoke

my PhD degree and that HEC and the University have the right to publish my name on

the HEC/University Website on which names of students are placed who submitted

plagiarized theses.

Fahim Jan

iv

Certificate of Approval

This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis,

under title “An Analysis of Supervisory System for Government Boy’s High

Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan” was conducted by Mr. Fahim Jan

under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, Director Higher Studies

(SUIT). No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree.

This thesis is submitted to the Department of Education in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education.

Department of Education

University of Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar

Fahim Jan Signature & Date

Examination Committee

1. External Examiner 1: Signature & Date Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali

IER, University of Peshawar

2. External Examiner 2: Signature & Date Dr. Niaz Muhammad Aajiz

Assistant Professor of Education

Islamia College University, Peshawar

3. Internal Examiner: Signature & Date Dr. Wasal Khan

Associate Professor of Education

Sarhad University of Science and IT, Peshawar

Supervisor: Signature & Date

Prof. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal

Director Higher Studies and

In-Charge M.Phil/PhD Education Program

Dean/HoD Signature & Date

v

DEDICATION

The researcher dedicates this work to Ashab-e-

Suffah, the companions of the Holy Prophet Hazrat

Muhammad (P.B.U.H), who conveyed the message

of knowledge, peace and brotherhood to the world.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Almighty Allah is the fountain of all knowledge and He alone enables a person to acquire

knowledge and contribute to existing treasure of research. Therefore He deserves praises

for all humen achievements.

Thereafter, the researcher is indebted to his research advisor, Prof. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal,

who kept an eye on all details of the research and spared no effort to refine the report.

Professor Dr. Qamaruz Zaman, Chairman, Department of Statistics, Peshawar University

also deserves thanks for the validity of the tools and better outcomes of the study with the

help of statistical measures.

The researcher also places on record his gratitude to all his frinds and members of his family

for their encourgment and support.

Fahim Jan

vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACR Annual Confidential Report

ADEO Assistant District Officer

AEO Assistant Education Officer

ASDEO Assistant Sub Divisional Education Officer

A.V. Aids Audio-Visual Aids

BA Bachelor of Arts

B.Ed Bachelor of Education

BPS Basic Pay Scale

CT Certificate in Teaching

D.A Daily Allowance

DCMAs Data Collection and Monitoring Assistants

D.C.T.E Directorate of Curriculum and Training

DEO District Education Officer

Dy,DEO Deputy District Education Officer

E & SE Elementary & Secondary Education

EDEO Executive District Education Officer

F.A Faculty of Arts

F.Sc Faculty of Science

G.H.S Government High School

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur International zusammenarbeit

H.M Head Master

H.M.I Her Majesty Inspectors

IER Institute of Education and Research

IMU Independent Monitoring Unit

KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

LC Learning Coordinator

M.A Master of Arts

M.Ed. Master of Education

MOU Memorandum of understanding

MPA Member of Provincial Assembly

NEP National Education Policy

NGO Non-Government Organization

NORAD Norwegian agency for Development and corporation

NPM New Public Management

NTS National Testing Services

OECD Organization for Economic Corporation & Development

OESTED Office for standards in Education

PET Physical Education Teacher

P.I.T.E Provincial Institute of Teachers Education

R.I.T.E Regional Institute of Teachers Education

SB-CPD School- Based continuing Professional Development

SDEO Sub divisional Education Officer

SPSS Statistical Program for Social Science

T.A Travelling Allowance

USAID United States Agency for International Development

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preliminary Section Page No.

Title page ………………………………………………..……………i

Author’s Declaration …………………………………………………………….ii

Plagiarism Undertaking ……………………………………………………….....iii

Certificate of Approval ……………………………………………………..iv

Dedication …………………………………………………………......v

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………..............vi

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ……………………………………………..vii

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………..viii

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….xiii

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………xvii

Abstract ………………………………………………………………….......xviii

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION 1-13

1.1 Background of the Study ………………………………………………1

1.2 Supervision ………………………………………………………………..3

1.3 Importance of Supervision ………………………… ………………………3

1.4 Supervisory Structure of Secondary Schools ………………………………7

1.5 Rational of the Study ……………………………………………………….11

1.6 Problem Statement …………………………………………………………11

1.7 The Objectives of the Study ………………………………………………..11

1.8 Research Questions ………………………………………………………...12

1.9 Delimitation of the Study…………………………………………………...12

ix

1.10 Limitations of the Study ……………………………………………………12

1.11 Significance of the Research ……………………………………………….12

CHAPTER-2 LITRATURE REVIEW 14-46

2.1 Concepts of Supervision ………………………………………………...14

2.2 Modern Democratic Supervision …………………………………………..14

2.3 Personnel Responsible for School Supervision …………………………….16

2.4 Models of Supervision………………………………………………………16

2.4.1 Classical Supervision Model………………………………………..17

2.4.2 Democracy in Supervision………………………………………….17

2.4.3 Scientific Supervision……………………………………………….18

2.4.4 Supervision as Leadership………..…………………………………18

2.4.5 Clinical Supervision…….…………………………………………..19

2.4.6 Developmental Supervision………..……………………………….21

2.4.7 Model of Differentiated Supervision………………………….…...21

2.4.8 Collegial Supervision………………………………………….…....22

2.4.9 Central Control Model……………………...………………………22

2.4.10 Close to School Support Model………………….....………………24

2.4.11 School-Site Supervision Model…………………...………………. 26

2.5 Feed Back…………………………………………………………………..29

2.5.1 Directive Styles ………………………………………………..….. 30

2.5.2 Collaborative Feedback……………...……………………………. 31

2.5.2.1 Presenting……...…………………………………………. .31

x

2.5.2.2 Clarifying……………...…………………………………… 31

2.5.2.3 Listening…………………………………………….…….. 31

2.5.2.4 Problem Solving…………………………….…………….. 31

2.5.2.5 Negotiating…………………………….………………….. 31

2.5.3 Non-Directive Approach………..……………………………….. 32

2.6 Supervisor’s Characteristic and Supervisory Practices…………………………32

2.7 Listening………………………………………………………………………...33

2.8 Praise……………………………………………………………………………33

2.9 Planning for lesson Observation………………………………………………...34

2.10 Observing Lessons……………………………………………………………..34

2.11 Trust and Respect………………………………………………………………34

2.12 Promoting Collaboration and Collegiality……………………………………..35

2.13 Supervisors’ Support…………………………………………………………...36

2.14 Informal Visits…………………………………………………………………37

2.15 Supervisor and School Plan……………………………………………………37

2.16 School Leadership……………………………………………………………..38

2.17 School Culture…………………………………………………………………39

2.18 Cluster System…………………………………………………………………39

2.19 Learning Coordinators…………………………………………………………40

2.19.1 Causes of Failure of Learning Coordinators …………………………..41

2.20 Mentoring Program……………………………………………………………42

2.20.1 Causes of Failure of Mentoring………………………………………..42

2.21 Supervisory Program……………………………………………….…………42

xi

2.22 Brief Synthesis of Literature Review…………………………………………45

CHAPTER-3 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 47-51

3.1 Type of the Study………………………………………………………………..47

3.2 Population of the Study………………………………………………………….47

3.3 Sample of the Study………………… …………………………………….. 47

3.4 Data Collection Instruments………………………………………………….… 48

3.5 Sources of Data Collection………………………………………………………49

3.6 Pilot Study……………………………………………………………………….50

3.7 Establishment of Rapport with Participants……………………………………..50

3.8 Reliability and Validity of the Study…………………………………………….50

3.9 Use of Statistical Measures………………………………………………………51

CHAPTER-4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 52-97

4.1 Analysis………………………………………………………………………….52

4.2 Discussion…………………………………………………………………….....95

CHAPTER-5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 98-112

5.1 Summary ……………………………………………………………………..... 98

5.2 Findings……………………………………………………………………..…. 100

5.3 Section wise Findings of the Study……………………………………………..105

5.3.1 Visits and Training...……………………………………………….…105

5.3.2 Observations…………………………………………………………..105

5.3.3 Feedback………………………………………………………………106

5.3.4 Support………………………………………………………………. 106

xii

5.3.5 Records and Meetings……………………………………………….. 106

5.3.6 Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Supervision ………...…….……106

5.4 Discussion on Finding……………………………………………………..........106

5.5 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..109

5.6 Recommendations……………………………………………………………....111

References……………………………………………………………………..114-121

Appendices…………………………………………………………………….122-145

Appendix A: Questionnaire for District Officers………………………… 122

Appendix B: Questionnaire for Principals……………………………….... 127

Appendix C: Questionnaire for Teachers………………………………….. 132

Appendix D: List of Schools’ Heads………………………………………. 137

Appendix E: List of DEOs…………………………………………………. 140

Appendix F: List of Deputy DEOs……………………………………….…141

Appendix G: List of ASDEOs ……………………………………...………142

Appendix H: List of PhDs faculties……………………………...………… 143

Appendix I: Results of the Pilot Study…………………………………….. 144

Appendix J: Introductory Letter…………………………………………… 145

xiii

List of Tables

S.No Title of Table Page No

1.1 Supervisory Structure of Secondary Schools 7

3.1 District wise Number of Managers, Principals and Teachers

in Government Boys’ High Schools 48

4.1.1 Performance of Supervisory Role 52

4.1.2 Frequency of Visits in a Month/An Academic Session 53

4.1.3 Satisfaction of the Respondents Regarding Present

Frequency of Visits 53

4.1.4 Frequency of Visits Help in Improving Performance of the

Supervisees 54

4.1.5 Satisfaction of Supervisees with Supervision 54

4.1.6 Supervisors and Supervisees Satisfaction with Frequency of

Visits 55

4.1.7 Informal Visits in Supervision Context 56

4.1.8 Proper Training for Supervisors 56

4.1.9 In-Service Training about Supervision 57

4.1.10 Standardized Classroom Observation Sheet 57

4.1.11 Selection of Place in Classroom during Observation 58

4.1.12 Demonstration While Supervising the Class 58

4.1.13 Supply of Observation Sheet to Supervise after Supervision 59

4.1.14 Same Manner of Supervision 59

4.1.15 Assessment of Subject Matter Knowledge 60

xiv

4.1.16 Development of Cordial Relation with Supervisee by

Supervisor 60

4.1.17 Procedure of Supervision 61

4.1.18 Evaluation of Performance 61

4.1.19 Feedback of Supervisors to Supervisees 62

4.1.20 Type/Kind of Supervisors Feedback 62

4.1.21 Time Allocation for Feedback 63

4.1.22 Feedback Provided Before, During or After 63

4.1.23 Feedback Given in Class, Among Teachers or in Privacy 64

4.1.24 Extended Feedback 64

4.1.25 Irrelevant Feedback 65

4.1.26 Consensus among Supervisors and Supervisees 65

4.1.27 Clear and Impartial Manner of Feedback 66

4.1.28 Highlighting of Positive & Negative Aspects 66

4.1.29 Discussed Feedback Imposed on Supervisees 67

4.1.30 Supervisor Remarks Cover All Aspects of School Program 67

4.1.31 Appearance of Positive Change 68

4.32 Interval between Observations & Feedback 68

4.1.33 Consultation on Problems 69

4.1.34 Material Support 69

4.1.35 Finding Solution of the problems 70

4.1.36 Availability of Supervisors to Supervisees When Needed 71

xv

4.1.37 Suggestions for Management of School/How to Teach 71

4.1.38 Resolve on the Spot Issue/Problems that Appear During

Supervisory Process 72

4.1.39 Supervision Helpful in Timely Completion of Course 72

4.1.40 Maintenance of Record 73

4.1.41 Meeting about School Improvement Plan and to Develop

Lesson Plan 73

4.1.42 Arrangement for Group Meetings 74

4.1.43 Group Meetings in Academic Year 74

4.1.44 Appropriation of Supervisory System 75

4.1.45 Time Management 75

4.1.46 Use of Reflection Diary 76

4.1.47 Bringing Time Regularity 76

4.1.48 Reward & Punishment 77

4.1.49 Community Participation 77

4.1.50 Creation of Supervisory Cadre 78

4.1.51 Solve Based System 78

4.1.52 Linkage of Pass/Fail ratio to Supervisory System 79

4.1.53 Introduction of New Technology 80

4.1.54 Types of Reward & Punishment 80

4.1.55 Departmental guidelines 81

4.1.56 Challenges during Supervision 81

4.1.57 Length of Training 82

xvi

4.1.58 Record of Supervisory Visits 82

4.1.59 Follow the Particular Mechanism in Given Feedback 83

4.1.60 Record of Meeting 83

4.1.61 Report to High ups 84

4.1.62 TA/DA Facilities for Supervisors 84

4.1.63 In-Service Training 85

4.1.64 Job Description 86

4.1.65 Availability of Resources 87

4.1.66 Identification of Hurdles in Supervision 88

4.1.67 Suggestions for Improvement 90

4.1.68 Suggestions for the Improving of Supervisory System 91

4.1.69 Visits and Training in Supervision 92

4.1.70 Observation 93

4.1.71 Feedback 93

4.1.72 Support 94

4.1.73 Supervision Record and Meeting 94

4.1.74 Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Supervision 95

xvii

List of Figures

Figure Title Page No

1 TA/DA Facilities for Supervisors 85

2 In-Service Training 86

3 Job Description 87

xviii

ABSTRACT

This descriptive study aimed at analyzing supervisory system for government

boys’ high schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan. The research was

organized in seven districts of the Province, namely Abbottabad, Bannu, Buner,

D.I.Khan, Kohat, Mardan, and Peshawar. These districts were randomly picked from

respective divisions with a view to generalize the outcomes of the research to the whole

province. The rationale of the research was based on the fact that at the secondary level

quality of education in the province is deteriorating due to many reasons such as lack

of commitment of the Principals, Districts Managers, inadequate training, feedback and

support of supervisors to the teachers, to improve their productivity and effectiveness.

The core objectives of the study were to draw indicators for development of tools in the

light of identification and description of different supervisory concepts, models and

supervisory practices and analyze the existing supervisory system of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, for knowing the strengths and limitations to provide solution of the

problems.

The tools of the research consisted three questionnaires for teachers, principals

and districts managers. The items of the questionnaires were divided into six sections.

The tools of the research were made reliable by Cronbach’s Alpha test statistics,

objective approach and pilot study. The total sample population of the research in the

randomly selected seven districts was 6281 in which 5815 were male teachers, 445 were

male principals, and 25 were male DEO, DY, DEO and ASDEO each included. The

sample size was determined by Krejcie and Morgan formula, which came out to be

1332 in which 1219 teachers, 92 principals and 21 districts managers were included.

The data were obtained through questionnaires and tabulated. ANOVA and simple

percentage formula as well as cross tabulation procedures were used for the analysis of

the data.

Main findings of the research show that the supervisors did not support

supervisees to provide teaching and learning material, they were also not easily

available to supervisees to support, and suggest how to teach. The present supervisory

system did not help the teachers in the completion of courses in time and the system

also was not appropriate. The study recommends introduction of new technologies in

the present supervisory system, creation of supervisory cadre/unit and community

participation in the supervisory system is necessary to increasing the frequency of visits

and overcome the burden and challenges supervisors face. There is no systematic

system for instructional supervision by school heads in the secondary schools of the

province. It is the most important duty of school heads because the only concern of the

department is to promote learning through effective teaching practices. It is therefore

recommended that focus of the department should be on effective instructional

supervision.

1

Chapter-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The system of education of Pakistan has been divided into three tiers; Elementary

(Class 1 to 8th), Secondary (Class 9th to 12th) and tertiary education Degree and

postgraduate level. Secondary Education is supervised by principal, Deputy District

Education Officer (Dy; DEO) and District Education Officer (DEO). The prerequisite

of teachers working at high school is higher secondary school certificate (i.e. F.A) with

certificate of teaching (C.T) and B.A/B.Sc. with B.Ed. The Secondary Education plays

an intermediary role between Elementary Education and Higher Education. This phase

has its own importance as the learners are passing through the period of puberty and

getting influence of everything in their surroundings. They get aggressive due to

exceeding growth of hormones needing special treatment, however, in Pakistan it needs

special attention. The role of this stage is recognized as central to socio- economic uplift

of a country. This stage has its own significance in the progress of a nation. According

to NEP (1998-2010:37) the quality assurance at high level largely depends on the

quality of graduates at the secondary level, that is why the focus of attention in

developing countries is on improving secondary education.

Education Supervisory System in Pakistan is the inheritance of the British

colonial era. While the British supervisory system was planted in this part of the world,

it could not function properly due to inconsistencies of the government policies, law

and order situation, and paucity of funds and lack of good governance as well as

strategic geographical location of Pakistan. Since independence in 1947, efforts to

improve supervisory system, increase enrolment and improve literacy have been marred

by various factors. All the national education policies and plans have highlighted the

importance of secondary education for reason being that it plays intermediary role as it

is a getaway for employment and enrollment in higher education.

Being topic of the research, the secondary level is considered as special case

due to its significance, as it is the stage where students are being prepared to enter in to

practical life. If they are properly trained and educated they turn into a valuable human

resource for the country. They need supervision at this level. However unfortunately,

2

there is a lack of supervision even though supervisors are already present within the

institution (internal supervisors or Head Masters & Principals) as well as external

supervisors (District Managers). Yet, they are unaware or ignorant of their job

description and their supervisory role. Consequently, the cavity remains unfilled. That

is why we are unable to compete with the rest of the world to produce skilled human

resources. The results of the SSC (Secondary School Certificate) examination for the

year 2017 and 2018 of the BISEP shows that no student of the govt high school got

place in the top 20 positions (BISEP, 2017-18). This indicates that lack of proper

supervision adversely affected the performance of students. In this context, it is

important to provide training to supervisors to fill the gaps and to enhance the skills of

the students as per needs of time.

Supervisory system in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (Pakistan) is not only

restricted to schools but is applicable to all areas of education. Supervision of

educational activities becomes necessary for timely and effective achievement of the

objectives of education. In the secondary schools Assistant District Education Officer,

District Education Officer, Deputy District Education Officer, Principals and Director

are all the administrators who are working as supervisors at different levels

respectively. All of them are expected to supervise school related activities and provide

academic and professional support to the school professionals throughout the academic

year. Khan (2014) stated that it is generally agreed that secondary school teachers in

Pakistan especially in KP perform poorly in terms of teaching, despite the huge

investment made by the government and parents in education, in terms of human and

material resources. For effective performance of secondary students in public

examinations, there is a need for effective supervision of our secondary school teachers

in KP.

Supervisory system is not very successful in KP province because supervisors

are not properly proficient. On the other hand, they hardly spare time to visit schools

once a year. In these circumstances, the school based activities are not regularly and

effectively supervised due to weak supervisory system of schools which results in poor

quality of education. The current research therefore made an analysis of the supervisory

system in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to suggest implementable measures.

3

1.2 Supervision

According to Bhatti (2013:13) the purpose of supervision is to ensure the

pedagogical skills of educators by providing positive feedback to them for improving

classroom interactions.

1.3 Importance of Supervision

According to Bhatti (2013) the role of a supervisor is important in school

effectiveness. Following are some major importance of supervision.

1.3.1 Supervision Assist Teachers to Plan for Better Instruction

In the improvement of instruction, instructional planning is considered as the

first step. Instructional planning includes unit plans, year plans and lesson plans. It is

necessary that the principal should provide essential guidance in writing instructional

plans.

1.3.2 Supervision Facilitate Educators to Use Modern Techniques of Teaching

Teaching techniques are an integral component of presenting instruction to the

student in an effective way. Supervision facilitate educators in the use of modern

techniques of teaching.

1.3.3 Supervision Supports Teachers to Develop Collegial Relationship

Supervision is helpful in promoting collegial relationship among teachers.

There by enabling them to share their knowledge and experiences. Therefore teacher

must be brought together and their problems and issues be resolved. Through effective

supervision this task can be achieved.

1.3.4 Supervision Helps Teachers in Classroom Management

Discipline plays significant role in schools. Supervision helped the educators to

get skills of the management of classroom. It also solves all problems related to

classroom management and provide a healthy environment to students.

4

1.3.5 Supervision Support Teachers in Getting Proper Guidance from Expert

Teacher gets guidance from expert, specialist and from supervisors in different

school subjects. In many problems they need guidance and support. Supervisor provides

proper support and guidance for better teaching learning process to teachers.

1.3.6 Supervision is Indispensable for Planning and Guidance

In planning supervision provides necessary direction and guidance. Supervisors

are assisting educators in selection of strategies and resources. It also helping teachers

in lesson planning with proper evaluation techniques.

1.3.7 Prevention is better than Cure

Good supervisors improve the insight of teachers about the students’ problems

and assist them in solving the issues of their pupils. They also assists the educators to

meet situation successfully before they actually occur.

1.3.8 Supervision Helps in Time Management

Shah (2013:7) stated that time is finite. By labour we can find food and water.

But all of our labour will not find for us another hour. Therefore, creates Specific,

Measurable, Achievable, and Realistic and Timely (S.M.A.R.T) goals. Supervision

helps teachers in managing time during school hours and in daily life.

Wiles (1955) stated that supervision, is an instrumental in assisting educators to

perform a better role for reforming the instruction.

Supervision is the skill of guiding the actions of human beings according to their

job description or terms of reference. The business of education today is complex.

Therefore, it becomes necessary that students, parents, government and in fact, every

citizen should know the happenings in education sector, in order to find out whether

the objectives of education are being achieved at different levels. That is why

supervision has a significant place in the system of education.

Supervision is a procedure that requires struggles for pointing out problems and

their solution. Therefore, supervisor is a competent authority for organizing educators

to peep into their issues. Supervisors serve as a friend with the educators to enhance

their skills. It’s not compulsory that they were always correct but they act as helper for

solution of problems. They play their role in friendly atmosphere. They have to play

5

their interventional role as interactive rather than directive. Supervision is a process to

do duty effectively to enhance the achievements of the students.

Continuous and self-contained supervision is the basic factors for good

education programme. There should be a mechanism for implementation and

assessment of education programme. Supervision provides that mechanism.

Supervisors create a friendly improvement with the help of teachers in order to improve

their performance and growth.

The vital goal of supervision is to prepare learners with skills, aptitudes,

abilities, attitude and competencies which enable them to become a good citizen of a

country. It is therefore, supervision considered crucial for economic development of a

country and nation.

Parent and Government invest large amounts on education to improve quality

education. Quality of learning partially rests on how educators are coached and

observed. Supervision is one of the core factor of education system and it has the

potential to contribute to student success and to improve classroom practices through

the improvement of teachers and their professional growth.

According to Rashid (2000:150) Dewey described that education is multi-

dimensional development of the personality of individuals in order to help them to face

the environmental problems and responsibilities. This multi-dimensional development

of the personality of individuals need supervision for the active growth of learners in

cognitive, psycho- Moto and affective areas.

Duty of the supervisor should not be limited to school visit, writing logbooks

and checking about other works whether performed according to the set procedure or

not. The supervisor should act as a leader and lead all teachers for the betterment of

instructional process. It also encourages formal growth and progress of educators.

Supervision is distinct from evaluation. Evaluation may be formative or

summative, but supervision is a permanent procedure for development. In evaluation

the evaluator attempts to highlight area for improvement of teachers, but in educational

supervision, supervisor follow democratic approach instead of authoritative.

In Pakistan the number of educators in schools are increasing day by day but

the supervisors remain constant which badly affect the work of supervisors and teaching

6

learning process. The supervisors do not provide feedback, support and assistance after

and during the visit, which makes their part less credible. Teachers feel that supervisors

make superficial visits and collect incomplete information which makes the situation

worst. Moreover, supervisors make disparity between support and control as they

emphasis on control instead of support, but less competent teachers require support.

The supervisor prepare action plans and administrative reports very quickly as contrary

to the genuine duty of brining modification in teaching methodology and leadership

traits. This phenomenon not only exists in Pakistan but also in developed countries.

Barroux (2000:26-27) stated that a single supervisor in France supervised 240 teachers,

therefore supervision is far from perfect in many countries of the world.

According to Lugaz and De Grauwe (2006), to assess the impact of supervision

is very difficult because the studies conducted on supervision are based on data

collection and the number of visits of supervisors to schools and ignores the purpose

and nature of such visits on such aspects. And on the other hand supervision based on

the evaluator perception. These are against teacher professionalism. The supervision

may be a good instrument of external evaluation but the administrations are needed to

be improved and modernized according to existing situation.

There is a cavity between external supervision and the classroom or the school.

Due to this reason many programs for quality enhancement have been enforced from

top authorities and have collapsed, which suggests that quality improvement cannot be

imposed from outside. Improvement comes through principals and teachers. Therefore

they should be motivated and inspired to develop the quality of their educational

activities. Very little will happen without the commitment of principals and teachers.

We can classify supervision under two complimentary but different tasks. The

first is, provide advice and support to supervisees and the second is to evaluate and

control them. Improving the teachers and learners interaction in the classroom is the

ultimate objective of the school supervision but in practices it covers all activities which

are taking place in the schools. Supervision assists and checks curriculum

implementation. Inspection and supervision are different but complimentary actions.

Not only in Pakistan but also throughout the world, improvement in the

achievement of students and quality of schools remain a priority. For this purpose, the

authorities rely on supervisory system. However, the educational supervisory system of

7

Pakistan has not been properly structured and enacted to check the quality of schools

and students achievement properly due to lack of resources, inefficient and insufficient

management, an ambiguity about its main function and the unrealistic organizational

structure.

1.4 Supervisory Structure of Secondary Schools

Secondary School

District Education Officer

↓

Deputy District Education Officer

↓

Headmaster/Principal

↓

Teacher

The given hierarchy shows the formal supervisory relationship in secondary

schools. The external superior of secondary schools are DEOs of PBS 19 who regularly

inspect the schools, check the maintenance and repair of buildings, write annual report

ACR / PER of their districts, posting and appointment of secondary and primary

teachers. Helps DECTE / RITE / PITE in service training programs. Selected

secondary schools of large enrolment and well reputation are labeled comprehensive

schools having principals of BPS 19 or 18 respectively. Both are supervised by DEO

because the heads of these institution do not recognize the supervisory authority less

than DEO. Secondary teachers are in BPS 15 or 16 which are at least two level below

than that of titled head. School teaching in Pakistan is unstructured and poor paid

profession. Prouty et al, (1993:85-92) stated that teachers supervision should be the

specific responsibility of schools heads. They recommended this on the findings of

their study in Zaire, Thailand and Burundi. According to Farah (1996) the potential of

the head as a leader in Pakistan’s schools has been underscored.

SDEO in BPS 17, ASDEO in BPS 16 and head teacher in BPS 15 supervise

primary schools. All the primary teachers have BPS 12 and SPST BPS 14. Head

teachers of BPS 15 are formally accountable for the supervision of other educators in

8

their schools. Warwick and Reimer (1995:91) highlighted the vague character of the

head teacher in primary schools of Pakistan.

DEO from teacher cadre are nominated on the basis they have worked in

education as principal in BPS 19 and have voice in education department and also have

political favour. The principals who restrict themselves to classrooms or school office

and have no political favour, cannot enjoy such supervisory role. It was also noticed

during the data collection for the study that an ASDEO was transferred by a politician

for not supplying vacant posts and not visiting his office. The head masters or principals

are not in a position to order staff to act upon their advice / instructions. Even he cannot

transfer a supporting staff or teachers until she / he does not have political or DEO’s

support. Leithwood et al, (1994:5) and Chapman and Burchfield (1994:401) stated that

in teacher development and support heads of schools play a basic role in the present

system of education. However in Pakistan DEO’s are exercising and enjoying more

power over teachers’ appointments and transfers and do not want to hand over these

powers to the heads of the schools. Therefore Heads of school cannot be held

accountable for the poor performance of teachers and students in their schools. The

DEO should share powers with Heads of school, to create a mutual accountability

system among different stack holders.

Pakistan is a developing country due to which the number of teachers is

increasing day by day and the number of supervisors has not really increased, with the

passage of time the workload is increasing for the supervisors. When this phenomena

is combined with the lack of financial and material recourses then it becomes difficult

to manage. Several problems belong to training, recruitment, selection, career

development, support, evaluation and incentives for supervisors.

There are a number of institutions responsible for providing quality training to

teachers and supervisors but they failed in fulfilling their responsibility in the past.

Now, these institutions are paying attention and have conducted some supervisory

training sessions and are gradually expanding circle to all districts of KP.

Smith el al (1988) noted and Ahmad and Ali (1989) also documented that in

past, supervision and delivery of quality education was badly affected by the MPA’s

quota in recruitment because they used to recommend such candidates who were their

voter whether they deserved or not, no merit was observed. Political influence in

9

posting and transfer on key posts (Supervisory posts) was another drawback. Officers

used to pay hand some bribe and gifts to secure their positions. Hence, they could not

pay attention to supervision and quality education because they were not so trained and

capable of supervision. There is no coordination between the DEOs, Principals, and

Directorate or among the other government and non-government organization that what

courses should be offered to school teachers and supervisors during their services.

In the absence of systematic analysis of teacher, principal & officer professional

needs, all the government organization, NGOs and donor agency are guided by the

personal views of decision makers, instead to do a research and analyze the above

mentioned personnel needs. In the light of Education Policy 2009, the teaching and

management cadres were separated and management personnel were selected through

public service commission but the politicians again played their role because they were

not satisfied from management cadre due to which the old system re-installed which

was supported by the politicians. During the survey, a teacher also commented that the

supervisor cannot demote a teacher due to which he is not afraid of his supervisor’s

visits. On the other hand, supervisors, officers or teachers with strong political

attachment can replace by their own will and the affected cannot do anything if even

he/she is professionally competent.

Unions in education is another hurdle in the way of improvement. The officers

do not take any actions due to union and political intervention. Political intervention is

never used to make education but mar it. It so bad that those who have strong political

holds, opens more than one school just within a short distance of one kilometer. But the

needy areas are neglected intentionally while, the DEOs and P&D section also avoid

their responsibility in these cases. Another reason of poor supervisory education system

is that the principals enjoy examination duties and paper checking due to which they do

not take any interest to improve quality of education and to play positive supervisory

role. Selection must be made on competency and those who qualify the merit should be

given priority. It is noticed that PITE and DCTE are those institutions which became

attractive for education personnel. It is suggested that these institutions must be

provided permanent staff on pure merit to discourage such practices so that they show

good results. The main Directorate is also one of those place where teacher is roughly

treated.

10

Satisfied and competent teachers, principals and officers are necessary for

positive change in the schools. Supportive and vigilante community is also an important

factors for positive change. One of the reason of low quality education is low salaries

and nominal fringe benefits provided to teachers, principals and officers, due to which

they have to work part time, that is Taxi driving, teaching as a private tutor, working

on lands or sales man ship etc., which obviously disturb them and they cannot perform

efficiently due to mental depression and meager income.

Now a days new teachers’ are recruited in education department of KP through

NTS. For appointment of Secondary school teachers FA + CT are compulsory and the

appointment will be schools based.

Farah (1997) stated that in service training is not available to all but just for a

specific area which is funded by NGOs for this purpose. Some teachers avail the

training repeatedly while others may never avail in-service training throughout their

teaching career. But such trainings do not bring change in teacher’s understanding of

subject and in their practices.

In other parts of the world, Gaps of teacher subject matter is well documented.

In Pakistan this matter is not analyzed. Teacher’s instructional styles are a little bit

changed from last few years. Primary and secondary educators usually start reading

aloud and ask students also to read the certain paragraph loudly. After explaining, the

teachers write questions / answers on board to copy it. Then students are asked to

memorize the same which means the lesson is learnt by students.

According to Bureau Report of the daily DAWN October 17, 2016 the role and

responsibility of Independent Monitoring Unit (IMU) is to check the attendance of

teachers, support staff and students in all schools of KP, each month by Data Collection

and Monitoring Assistants (DCMAs). The Unit reports the Elementary and Secondary

Education department about condition of schools, missing basic facilities, enrollment

of students, shortage of teachers, dropout, Parent Teacher Council and its funds. IMU

identifies the nonfunctional schools across the province. Annual school census was

conducted by IMU last year which helped school improvement plan. The role and

responsibility of IMU is partially related to limited aspects of supervision because here

the focus is on ensuring attendance of teachers in schools and collection of data

11

regarding schools for information of District Steering Committee and DEO for

necessary action.

1.5 Rationale of the Study

There is a genuine need to improve the standard of education by improving its

quality and effectiveness through professional feedback by supervisors that justify the

study on supervisory system. There are gaps in the current supervisory system such as

lack of commitment of Head Masters/Principals and District level education officers,

inadequate training facilities for teachers to ensure their professional growth and

increase their productivity as well as inadequate feedback to teachers is also affecting

teaching learning process. It is generally considered that there is inadequate support of

supervisors to the teachers to improve their effectiveness because students’ success

depend on the quality and success of teachers.

It is therefore, needed to carry out an analysis of the supervisory system at

Government Boy’s high Schools Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to find out solution for

improvement of the supervisory role of Head Masters and external supervisory for

effective teaching and learning process.

1.6 Problem Statement

The problem that was addressed in this study was deficient supervisory system

of Government Boys’ Secondary Schools due to inadequate teacher training, absence

of feedback to teachers, teachers’ absenteeism and poor quality of teaching. It was

therefore expedient to carry out a systematic study for improvement of the current

system after analysis of the supervisory system of Government Boys’ High Schools in

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan.

1.7 The Objectives of the Study were to:

1. Analyze the existing supervision system of Govt. Boys’ High Schools of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

2. Identify strengths and weaknesses of the existing supervisory system of Govt.

Boys’ High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

3. Suggest implementable recommendations for improvement of the system.

12

1.8 Research Questions

1. What is the current status of the supervisory system of Govt. Boys’ High

Schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current supervisory system?

3. What recommendations this research can offer for improving the system?

1.9 Delimitation of the Study

The current research has contracted the scope by restricting it to Seven Districts

in Seven Divisions. Those districts were selected randomly from seven divisions of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

1.10 Limitations of the Study

Education is a vast academic field and there is an array of problems that have to

be addressed for their solutions. The researcher found himself to find out suitable

problems for this research. Then there was the problem of designing the study. The

problem of selection of schools was also faced by the researcher. The study could not

include the total population of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for data collection. The selection

of suitable methodology, procedure as well as analysis of data posed problems to the

researcher.

The report of the study could have been deferred due to limitation of resources

and time, late delivery of questionnaires. The research could have been delayed due to

law and order condition and load shedding of electricity in the province. However,

despite all these obstructions, the research was effectively accomplished in the given

time. There were too many items in the questionnaire which may create some

disadvantages. Although, the large number of items in the questionnaires affects the

rate and quality of responses, but this did not affect this study.

In the current study multiple one way ANOVA was carry out. But someone can

also carry out a simple MANOVA rather than several one way ANOVA.

1.11 Significance of the Research

The research was important and required because there are gaps in the

supervisory system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa such as inadequate teacher training,

absence of feedback to teachers, poor annual results, cheating in examinations,

teachers’ absenteeism and poor quality of teaching. The present study attempted to

13

analyze the existing supervisory system and find out its strengths and weaknesses for

making valuable and implementable recommendations to improve the system.

This study would improve the effectiveness of the teachers and would also save

loss of money, time and other resources of students, parents and government of Khyber

Puthunkhwa, besides students would be able to compete in the market of economy

nationally and internationally. Supervision is very important in local and global

perspective but there is paucity of research in this area in Pakistan. This study would

open door for other researchers to conduct their research work in this area.

This study would improve the supervisory role of the Principals and Education

Supevisors which would lead to effective support, feedback, teaching and learning

process. This study would facilitate and ensure professional growth of teachers and

increase their productivity as well as improve working relationship among teachers and

supervisors.

The above paragraphs show the utility of this research. It is therefore, needed

to carry out an analysis of the supervisory system for Government Boy’s high Schools

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to find out solution for improvement of the supervisory role of

the Head Masters/Principals to enhance the quality of education at the secondary level

in the province.

This study is very important for the audiences of supervision and educational

administration of Pakistan namely teacher educator, supervisors, experts, teachers if

provided recommendations of the study are implemented by concerned agencies and

government of the KP, province.

14

Chapter-2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review, in this study, took stock of the concepts, models and best

practices of supervision in local and global perspectives. The different sources for

review included perusal of books, journals, thesis and other available sources.

2.1 Concepts of Supervision

Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon (2004) represented dictionary definition

of supervision which includes that supervision is directing, overseeing and watching.

Hoy and Forsyth (1986) reported that the objectives of supervision did not aim a judge

of teachers’ skills nor it was intend to control them, rather it was a strategy to work with

teacher cooperation.

2.2 Modern Democratic Supervision

Katozai (2005: 218-219) stated that supervision is a technical term and it

requires the professional development of teachers in order to make them efficient and

knowledgeable. Supervision concerns itself with sharing supporting and assisting.

Modern supervision is democratic in nature. Its aim is to develop the total teachers and

students interaction rather than the limited and narrow aim of improving teachers in

services. Modern democratic supervision requires constant efforts to cooperate, guide

and stimulate the continued growth of educators in a school, both collectively and

individually for good effective performance and understanding of all activities of

teaching so that they may be able to guide and stimulate the continued growth of

students toward the finest and sensible contribution in present democratic society.

Modern democratic supervision not only visits the classrooms, it focuses on critical

thinking, cooperation, social interaction and communication among teachers. The

relationship of the supervisor among all personnel is friendly, open and informal. It

discourages biased opinion and flattering.

William (2004:25) stated that supervision is a process common to all

professions and has unambiguously become an essential part of any organization set up

including the educational system. Afianmabon (2007:27) stated that instructional

supervision is supporting the educators to develop their skills of teaching so as to enrich

15

successful demonstration of teachers. A good educator can upgrade his or her

instructional activities.

Fisher (2008:26) suggested that supervision of instruction is necessary because

of the following considerations:

Not all teachers are vibrant and experienced, this means that supervision

is necessary so as to enable these categories of teachers to be improved.

Teachers require to be skilled and well-informed about their work and

this can done when teachers are supervised consistently.

Supervision is necessary for safety and security reasons as well as

orderliness in the school system. Thus, supervision helps in setting up

school rules and regulation which forms the genesis of culture in school

such as attendance, respect of the national constitution etc.

Teachers are not finished products that do not require improvement.

Some teachers possess some hidden potential that needs to be

developed.

There is certain policy guideline that needs to be applied to supervision.

Therefore, there is need to ensure that all policy guidelines are followed

in letter and spirit.

Supervision is for all teachers whether new, old and even unexperienced.

During supervision, new teachers are assisted with the norms of the new

school so that they can become acquainted with school operations and

they are also informed about the school ethics while the old teachers are

assisted with the new concepts and ideas. Furthermore, all teachers need

to be evaluated and assessed for the purpose of advancement.

According to Ofojebe (2007:26) supervision is a process of helping, guiding,

stimulating and motivation teachers to enhance teaching and learning process in

education institutions. Afianmabon (2007:27) viewed supervision of instruction is a

process of helping the educator to develop himself and his instruction capabilities so as

to improve the teachers and learners interaction.

Chiagba (2009:27) in her delineation of the nature of supervision discussed that

supervision is all struggles of nominated officers regarding leadership to the instructors

towards stimulating their professional growth and evaluating instruction and

curriculum.

16

Nolan and Francis (1992:44) noted that Supervision give a procedure to

supervisors and teachers to enhance their perception about instructors and students

interaction through collective inquiry with other works.

2.3 Personnel Responsible for School Supervision

De Grauwe, (2001:28) stated that in different countries of the world supervision

are placed under two categories as external and internal. The role of external

supervisors are restructure to four levels: central, regional, district and local/school

level. Usually supervisors include departments’ heads, head teachers, coaches,

principals and directors. The internal supervision are made by heads of institutions.

According to Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2004) it is the role

performed the supervisors which is responsibilities and not the person title who

supervise the work of teachers. Glanz, Shulman, & Sullivan, (2007) reported that

supervisors are given different names in different countries, sometime a supervisor may

be school head and sometime a senior teacher is given this role.

Glanz et al (2007) described that educators support the supervisors in

performance of their roles. Hawk & Hill, (2003) viewed that there appears to be

difference between the role of a coach and supervisor. Glanz and his colleagues (2007)

documented that coach is a person who is well verse in the subject training of teachers.

2.4 Models of Supervision

Supervision is conducted in numerous types, which may be official or

unofficial, clinical and some of the modify forms of clinical supervisory model.

Supervision models represent a specific period which supervision was manipulated by

societies with the passage of time in education. The history was traced in terms of

models from 19th century to the present day. Its usefulness is a means of developing

instructions based on the capability of education leader to remain representative to the

requirements of educators and pupils. Various models of supervision are inspection

(pre-1900), social efficiency (1900-1919), democracy (1920s), scientific (1930-1950s),

leadership (1960s) Clinical (1970-1980s), developmental, Differentiated, Collegial,

Classical supervision, Central control model, School site supervision model, Close to

school support model.

17

2.4.1 Classical Supervision Model

De Grauwe (2001) stated that support is provided in administrative and

pedagogical areas by this model given global coverage, where for each school and

teacher due right had been reserved or could be made under supervision in most

advanced countries. This model is practicing in French and British dominated countries.

Tanzania is a better example among many other. In this model strong emphasis is placed

on external supervision.

Obviously this is a bureaucratic model, where the educators are considered

answerable to his/her owner. By this body minister of education may sure control

through the representative of ministerial agent that is inspectors.

According to Baffour (2011: 28-39) the traditional form of supervision is also

called inspection. In 19th Century, inspection as supervision was the famous mode for

administers of the schools. The inspectors inspected the teacher practices for errors, and

teacher consider as deficient. The activities of teachers were control, direct and oversee

through supervisors, confirm that educators did their tasks as imagined. Supervisors

used most of their time and concentration to dig out what is incorrect and what

educators are performing in their classrooms. Supervisors in this model are inclined to

recommend what and how educators should teach. In their view teachers (mostly

female) were bedraggled troop incompetent and backward in outlook. But, if teacher

knew much more than the students, then this thinking will be doubtful. The supervisor

in this model has the duty to intervene promptly in the task of teachers to improve

defective areas. In the earliest period of formal schooling in the USA, education

supervisor as inspector was very popular.

2.4.2 Democracy in Supervision

Democracy in supervision penetrate in 1920s as against to classical or

bureaucratic supervisory model. Sullivan and Glanz (2000:15) noted that organization

of school must invite the teacher to participate in the course development. What and

who to teach, this decision should be taken by the teacher and supervisor together.

Collaboration among teacher and supervisor should be introduced through democracy

in supervision. This model ensures co-operation and respect of teachers in supervisory

process. Democracy in supervision assumed that supervisors, curriculum experts and

teachers co-operate to improve instruction. It was not wise and useful for supervisors

18

to be bureaucratic. To make supervision more democrat process, attempts were made

from 1920s to 940s.

In the beginning of 20th century supervision as social efficiency was introduced.

This is due to technological advancement of the time. The scientific principles of

business management and industry influenced supervision of that time. The aim was to

make teaching more efficient. Supervisory member must coordinate the labour of all.

The difference between inspections and social efficiency is the attempt to present

depersonalize scientific approaches in the activities of administration. In supervision

grading system was developed to eradicate the personal component from it, and

supervision become synonymous with teacher’s rating.

2.4.3 Scientific Supervision

This model remained in vogue during the first half of the nineteen century.

Sullivan and Glanz (2000) stated that rating cards were used as a systematic instrument

for supervision of educators. To determine the quality of instruction, measurement

instrument should be used. Supervisors must have skills in both the subject of teachers

training and educating pupils. They should have the capability to scrutinize teaching

conditions and to uncover the roots of weak performance. Reasons of weak work could

be discovered by utilization of tests, grading scales and observation.

Teaching is an ability, where teachers bring their belief, emotions, skills,

perception, creativity, individuals’ relation and judgment into the learning situation.

Therefore, to depend on prerequisites criteria of instructing did not helpful for

supervisors and instructors. However, supervisory process may help as a leader to hold

some instructors (nonprofessionals and beginning educators) on right path.

2.4.4 Supervision as Leadership

In 1960s, supervision emerged as leadership. This model removed weaknesses

from supervisory practices of the past. In this model the supervisors must maintain

democratic relations with teachers. The supervisors should provide leadership in five

ways: promoting professional leadership, promoting research into educational

problems, improving classroom instructions, cooperative and democratic methods of

supervision and developing mutually acceptable goals.

19

2.4.5 Clinical Supervision

This model was established in1970s. Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1970)

were the pioneers of this model. This model which was developed on the bases of

contemporary views and the unsatisfactory position of the traditional model. According

to them emphasis of supervision should be on the tutor as an dynamic colleague in the

teaching learning process. The central objective of this model to develop teacher by

such way who can analyze his/her duty professionally and the educator became self-

directed and open-minded. In clinical supervision the educator and supervisor meet

directly to enhance teacher and students interaction. The eight phases of clinical

supervision proposed by Cogan (1973:10-12) are as under:

Phase I: Confirming the educator-supervisory relationship

The supervisor make connection with teacher. It assists the teacher to attain

some general perceptions about clinical supervision and thus the teacher introduce to

new function.

Phase II: Planning with the educator

Teacher and supervisor design a lesson to gather and take into account the

problems of instruction and anticipated outcomes, strategies and teaching materials

are shared. Learning practices, feedback provision and assessment are also discussed

with each other.

Phase III: Planning the strategy for observation

The teacher and supervisor decide the objectives, process and features of

observation to be gathered and the roles are specified clearly of the supervisor in the

observation process.

Phase IV: Observing teaching

In this phase supervisor watches the real teachers and students interaction in

classroom and files it,

Phase V: Analysis of instructing learning activities

The educator and supervisor examine the procedures that took place in the

classroom. With vigilant respect to teacher`s developing and requirements. Decisions

are made about the procedures.

20

Phase VI: Designing the approach of the meeting

The supervisor alone evolves the plan but with the passage of time planning is

carried out jointly.

Phase VII: The conference

The teacher and supervisor see to analysis the observed informations.

Phase VIII: Renovated planning

The teacher and supervisor determine regarding any kind of change to be useful

in the educator’s classroom activities. After decision both the supervisor and the teacher

start to design next lesson. The teacher with the changed plan, will make his attempt to

facilitate the students. Glickman (1990:280-285) described five phases.

Phase I: Pre-conference with teacher

The supervisor holds meeting with the teacher and offers to her / him the aim

and objective of observation and discusses with her / him the method. The supervisor

discuss the time for post conference and observation.

Phase II: Observation of class

In this phase the supervisor describes the events which he observes during

teaching learning process, but does not interpret them. Techniques of observation may

comprise, physical indicators, participant observation, focused questionnaire, space

utilization, open ended narrative and categorical frequencies.

Phase III: scrutinizing and explaining observation and deciding conference procedure

The supervisor carries out the analysis and interpretation alone as he/she leaves

the classroom.

Phase IV: Post observation meeting with educator

The teacher and supervisor discuss the observation and make a procedure for

teaching development.

Phase V: Preview of the preceding four actions

The teacher and supervisor review procedure and plan in the meeting to

determine whether they were satisfied and whether there was the requirement for

change and put a procedure in the place to start the cycle.

21

Miller and Miller (1987:18-22) documented that this model has merits over

Clinical supervision because it allows objective feedback. If it is given in time, it will

proceed to better consequences. It also detects teaching issues and offers appreciated

data. In this model wide range of data collection instrument for solution of teacher’s

problems could employed by supervisors. Evaluating procedure and pre-determined

rating scales are also inherent parts of the scientific supervision.

2.4.6 Developmental Supervision

In developmental supervisory model the supervisor selects a methodology,

which suits the educator’s developmental level and characteristics. The underline

conception of this model is that each individual is constantly maturing “in fits and

starts” in growth spurts and patterns. When working with teacher, the supervisor may

select to use non- directive or directive approach. Supervisors’ behavior changes as

they gain experience of developmental supervision that can be divided in to beginning,

intermediate and advanced level. At each stage of growth, the tendency starts in a

shallow, inflexible, uninspired and shifts for more self-sufficiency, self-confidence and

competence. New teachers may rest on the supervisor to detect pupils’ conduct and

make procedure for remediation. Middle teachers would rely on supervisors for

knowing problematic students and also give some time for suggestions. Advanced level

supervisees function independently, when appropriate consultation is available, and

they feel liable for their strong and weak results.

2.4.7 Model of Differentiated Supervision

This is changed form of clinical model of supervision. Sergiovanni (2009:281)

positively stated that there is no best-way procedure, set of procedures or model for

supervision which creates sense except differentiated supervision. He documented that

differentiated model of supervision needs personal characteristics, professional

commitments and interest of teacher.

Each institution should establish its specific model which will be reactive to its

resources and needs. Clinical supervision may be appropriate for some instructors but

not for all. Instead of utilizing the same procedure to supervise all teachers,

differentiated supervision presented to the teachers to choose from menu of evaluative

22

and supervisory procedures. To assess and assist individual teachers, informal visit of

class room is also involved in this model.

2.4.8 Collegial Supervision

Another offspring of clinical supervision is collegial model of supervision.

Sergiovanni and Starratt (1993: 103) documented that collegial supervision refers to the

reality of high level of relationship between supervisees and principals and among

teachers. The characteristics of this model are shared work values, mutual respect,

specific conversations and co-operation regarding teaching and learning process.

Collegial supervision is a co-operative professional development process for

swift teacher’s development through systematic collaboration with peers. In this

process we can include variety of approaches such as curriculum development,

professional dialogue, action research, feedback and peer’s observations.

In collegial supervision instructors are engaged in frequently continued and

gradually solid conversation about instructing practices, provided useful critique of

their teaching practice and frequently observe one another. It also provides opportunity

for teachers to plan research, design, evaluate and prepare teaching materials together.

2.4.9 Central Control Model

According to Fiske and Ladd (2001: 633-650), Simola et al (2002: 247-264) the

non-professionals play significant role in this model. They exercised too much

autonomy in the term of financial and managerial matters. This lead to the de-

professionalizing of the teaching community. Audits were introduced in many republics

as well as in Guyana and Malaysia. These countries keep a classical supervision model

in which Principals focus more on support than control. The audit purpose has been

fixed for re-enforcing assessment of school and giving it official shape. More deep audit

reports requires which, however, remained classified and in contrast to the condition

in England. This model has the following advantages.

Controlling the institution through sample role of the supervisory, through a

comprehensive manner, it covers all administration, management and

pedagogical aspects. The review office or inspectors do not confront the

contradictory tasks because they did not require to give any suggestion.

23

It makes easy to exercise integrated control than to be disseminated in minor

workplaces. It also makes a sample of the organization of inspections services.

Schools are made responsible for their development by making plan in which

assessment play important role.

Following are some glaring weaknesses of this model.

Cusack (1992: 6-8), Ferguson (1998) stated that Principals of school come

under enormous pressure, who usually protest about assuming more work due

to the fact that they are at the end, particularity in administrative work at the

price of educational role.

School receives too little support. This is harmful for weak schools.

The publication of analytical and inspection report may make a vicious circle

and may cause the failure of the institution. Before visit, the arrangement

generates nervousness, causing dispute among educators which bring harm than

excellent. The teacher expresses great concern about the veracity of supervisory

report, which place theirs character at high stake. Many researchers (Wilcox,

2000; Burns, 2000; Osler, 2001; Watson, 2001) also stated that the employees

of school have showed uneasiness about the accuracy of observation report.

According to De Grauwe (2006) Scotland implemented several basic feature of

this model, such as central inspection unit, Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI),

avoiding sharp criticism leveled at Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)

in England.

The best balance between control and support is the key point of this model

because of two features.

One feature is the grass root level elected authorities having a key education unit,

which shows strong interest in the less successful schools in particular and provides

support to them in general.

The Second feature is relationship among the school teachers, Principals and external

supervisory staff suffers which from all the weaknesses and problems offering more

place for support and dialogue, which is more useful.

There is one task of supervision that is control. It is not suitable for supervisor to

associate control and support. Two domains make this model ineffective. It is not only

preventive in nature but also expensive. Huge and effectively functioning bureaucracy

24

is the characteristic of this model. The time gap is increased between the follow up

action and visits and the several small offices recommendation at deferent levels,

decreases effectiveness.

The players at school level (the teacher, head of school, the board, the parent

council) are responsible for the school improvement. Therefore institution development

cannot be only attained through external supervisor. The school growth serves as a

motivation. In several Anglo Saxon countries, this model is still in practice, particularly

in Wales, New Zealand and England. In this model the main supervisory tools are report

and inspection visits. At central level to conduct examinations and tests, accountably of

local authorities and result performance of schools are also key factors of this model.

According to Burns (2000) two kind of accountability that is public and

contractual accountability can be seen. The ministry and employer do not directly

interference but have control through a sovereign organization upon the school and

teachers, who are answerable to ministry and employer. The schools and teachers are

accountable to the community.

2.4.10 Close to School Support Model

Avalos (2004: 67-85) reported that to care for the management and keep time

for supervision and use it on educational activities, a special unit of executive

supervisors may be established. The traditionalist system of this model was established

in Chili after Pinochet regime assumed power by democratic government although the

education system showed good results under the Pinochet regime on the whole

situation. The scheme was spoiled due to rise in disparities. By paying attention to

parity, the elected government struggled to support its legality. The equity based

policies not only guided the social policies in overall contacts but also the supervision

policies. Some policies could not be eliminated for example the parents have allowed

to select any of the school which functioned anti equity policy.

Govinda and tapan (1999) documented that visits are essential monitoring

instruments of supervision. This model having different form of characters from the

previous model. The supervisors carefully select the schools to develop close

relationship. In these visits the classroom observation and dialog with all educators

were included, with aims of developing plans and projects functioning. The core

philosophy of this model is to integrate an unrigged development oriented help to the

25

most advantage institutions. Supervisor works with school staff on the improvement

plan and an identifying its weak and strong points.

In this model the exterior supervisor assists the school to assume its own

appraisal while in the central control model self-assessment assists the external

examiners to do their inspections. Examination has its own important role to play and

the supervisory services to ear-mark the institutions to concentrate on the elimination

of differences. In the preceding model where parents utilize the examination grades in

selecting a school was very different from this role.

In close to school support model two perceptions of answerability have been

incorporated that is contractual accountability and professional accountability. The

school employee is answerable to the supervisors who are reps of the ministry. It is

called contractual accountability. Second concept is professional accountability, the

participation of the schooling staff in school improvement process and self-evaluation

indicates a sense of answerability towards their associates. In this model role of

supervisor changes from an autocratic person to a democratic adviser expresses a wish

to install a sense of professional accountability. Even in most disadvantaged schools it

enhances the capacity of teachers by emphasis on professional accountability and

engage teachers in a process of self-development and thus reinforces their

professionalism. This model have the following good points.

It makes easier to undertake regular visits as most of personnel are in the nearby

locality of the workplaces which make the structure like a paramedic.

To achieve focus on crucial work in term of control and support, the

administrative work load has been detached from supervision.

By assuming itself to the features of schools, supervision becomes a flexible

service. Active schools are independent enough to keep on their effectiveness

while the less effective schools are needed to be monitored and supervised

efficiently.

The central control model and classical model contain the following limitations

as compare to close to school support model.

All schools are regarded alike units in this model. Under this supervisory system

all schools are given equal and same procedures are used to all, but every school has

unique features in respect of educators, students, parents, environment and material

resources. Therefore they have various requirements. Due to inherent strength, good

26

accomplishing schools can work without external help of supervisors, where this is not

in the case of weak schools. Constant pedagogical support is not only required but

control is also needed in this model. The key function of supervisor is to provide

assistance to weak schools, giving them guidance and advice for improvement. The

requirements of all school should always be in the mind of supervisors. Therefore all

school is needed to be considered differently during supervision.

Covering all schools in the classical model without distinction, fails to give

proper support and devotion to needy institutions. This supervisory system has some

implication due to the point, that supervisors are close to the schools and they are

appointed on central as well as provincial bases. But they rarely visit the schools, they

are controller of policy formulation and trainings.

2.4.11 School-Site Supervision Model

According to De-Grauwe (2001: 45-46) the Ministry of Education in Namibia,

Botswana, Zanibar, Tanzania realized that, for supervisors, it has become difficult to

monitor effectively what is going on in schools and to provide consistent support to

teachers. It has nearly become impossible for a supervisor to spend enough time in each

single school due to large number of schools, teachers per supervisor and poor

communication. Moreover it is believed that, for good performance and quality, the

schools need to take more responsibility for promoting internal supervision. Thus, a

culture of quality assurance can be developed. Supervision can be brought close to

schools by developing support and by handing over some supervision tasks to

community.

This model did not establish due to the inadequacies of the classical model but

due to some features of the republics with the following qualities. A community trust

in teachering, society with few disparities, well-motivated teacher and huge uniformity.

The local community and the teachers may be finest supervisors of the quality and

function of the school due to their closeness to the school and have a good influence on

the instruction process. There is intense confidence that the instructing employee has

the professional conscience and skill to do self-assessment without external supervision

and the local community is competent and willing to use some influence over the

schools. Decentralization is the main theme of this model but center interference is

required either to confirm the respect of countrywide standards and curriculum or to

27

address disparities. This is due to low level of disparities, social and cultural

homogeneity. In other words, it is not required for the minister of education to organize

formal supervisory service.

According Duru-Bellat and Meuret (2001: 173-221), Favre (2001: 614-631),

Strittmatter (2001: 111-129) countries where this model exists exhibit a high level of

school sovereignty. The Scandinavian countries and also some States in the USA and

Canada and some Cantons in Switzerland are the countries in which this model is used.

According to Webb et al (2004: 85-107), Webb and Vulliamy (1998: 539-557) the self-

evaluation can be depend on the personal interest of the educators, very informal,

without much organization and structure or being in charge of one or more schools, It

may be the duty of a particular constitution such as school governing body. At local

level different scenarios can exist. There are key instruments to monitors the institutes

for example indicator systems, assessment and evaluation grades. They are operating

due to the absence of external supervision. Classical example of this model is Finland.

Eurydice (2004: 31-32) documented that outer inspection provision stopped in

1991. The assistances from external inspection were marginal due to high level skill

and expertise of educators. In 1994, the decision makers replaced the authoritarian

national curriculum by much lighter frame work in the same manner. But who to carry

it out, no national policy or procedures were established. The evaluation undertake by

the schools themselves. Many of the schools were evaluating by the municipality.

Allowing too much freedom to schools in their self-assessment does not denote that the

federal Government is not bothered with the function and quality of school. This can

be explain by two methods.

Frist: Ministry organized the purpose, evaluation procedure, and option

achievement test and development national performance indicators for the schools

working at the municipal level.

Second: Appraising the education structure via, for example, analyzing the

function of educational units. A federal panel of schooling has been setup with

indicators and norms that permit by the government. The elimination of the supervisory

facility and of the federal curriculum was counter balanced by the preparing of frame

work and by comparison between schools.

Strittmatter (2001: 111-129) referred to schools in Switzerland where weak

schools faced several challenges as they did not have means internally for development

purpose. Due to non-availability of government support and control system and also

28

due to deficiency of internal schools capability, they failed to develop an evaluation

system, some school had serious constraints even in some developed countries. This

situation could be taken as the breaking down of all the external supervision and

abundance of responsibility. If the balance of supervision system is well composed by

other appraisal procedure: that is test and examinations, comprehensive and

consistently upgraded indicators procedure as well as by better frame work, this model

will do well to enhance supported operational supervision approach is a complicated

issue.

If there is no external control on what happens in institutions and class then the

national policy objectives may be under threat and a risk in the multi-cultural countries

which have several differences, this problem might be much more critical. But a country

like Finland which characterized by great homogeneity and few disparities, there will

be no such risk and threaten. The most important menace of this model is the deep

dependence on teacher’s readiness to perform in self-assessment which may result in

the educators’ segregation and self-contentment in the evaluation, methodological

weaknesses and compliance may be moved by the lack of exterior observation and a

procedure of conversation between institutions. The question may be raised regarding

detecting the exact balance between external and internal assessment, even where the

teachers have high professional competencies. In country where different nations exists,

it may be quite dangerous to establish codes of fruitful supervision reforms. However,

several general and expectantly positive facts, can be given as under.

A balance may be created between the mandates given to supervisory service,

in the shape of individuals, financial and materials at their behalf. It should not be

anticipated that more means would be available when imbalance arise between the

mandates.

The mandate should be defined actions, trainings and evaluations, the staff

profile and recruitments, service and organizational structures, with the assignment of

a clear mandate. It will be suitable to allocate the supervision activities nearby the

school to have a devolved facilities with such a profile which allow them to act in a

helping style and must be appraised with the progress of school. Their activities such

as the school visit and exchange of ideas must have broader spectrum.

Taking in to account the strong point and know-how of teachers and Principals,

the more successful supervisory system can be established through right balance

between control and support.

29

The only one individual that is the supervisor who engage in the school

improvement activities along with school employees. When supervisors are facing

resource constraint, it is important to put their intervention in perspective with those

which others can carry out precisely.

Quality improvement can come from the school themselves and there is also a

rising verdict that straighten of school’s side supervisors such as Principal

empowerment can make schools reactive to their surrounding and to the demands of

their pupils. To bring supervision closer to the school several attempts are required; that

is the establishment of school clusters and resource centre, decentralization of service

and the creation of special category of master teachers. How supervision models and

reorganization will originate an influence upon the sharing of authority in education

institutions. This require an examination and analysis of different supervisory models

and reforms. Attention should be given to the power of different actors. Where there

are slight differences between schools and parents, then this fortify the part of these

alliances and wide disparities will not occur. Another key factor is the government

itself. The new public management precepts influenced the government authority in

some cases. But the government has the only and core player which has the capability

to address difference between institutions.

2.5 Feed Back

Ferguson (2013), Schartel (2012) and Thurlings (2013) stated that feedback

provides an invaluable tool for improving practice and plays a critical role in learning.

Jones (2005) stated that feedback should help learners in a specific activity.

Hattie and Timperley (2007:81) noted that feedback may be explained as data

delivered by a person about features of one’s working or perception. McPherson

(1998:47) documented that feedback may be presented in the form of suggestions,

statements and questions and “might focus on the limitation or weakness and or the

strengths of an aspect of a learner’s prediction or performance”.

One of the major role of supervisors is to provide feedback after classroom visit.

Feedback provide reflection to teacher regarding what originally appeared in the teacher

and students interaction. It work as leader for teaching development, when it is provided

actually. Feedback should be based on observation rather than perspectives, whether

oral, formal, informal or written. Efficient Principals given positive feedback to

teachers regarding the observed lessons. Different styles of feedback are directive, non-

30

directive, creative and alternative collaborative. A supervisor must use a mixture of

these styles or any one of these styles.

2.5.1 Directive Styles

Oliva & Pawlas (2004) noted that clinical supervision is established on the

supposition that without direction and support, educators are not capable to alter and

enhance themselves.

In directive styles the supervisors think that instruction contains of competences

and abilities with recognized benchmarks for all educators to be useful in their teaching

learning process. The roles of supervisors in this approach are to assess and direct the

educator on the action plan to be taken and show the proper instructing approaches,

show their own view point on what data were to be assembled and how it will be

gathered.

According to Holland (2005), Van et al (2008) and Sadler (1989) feedback

should be related to a set of standards, objectives or goals and criteria. According to

Brown (2007) feedback is perceived as critical to learning.

The supervisor is considered that he has more knowledge about instructional

strategies and procedures than teacher and in terms of instructional improvement

supervisor decisions are more effective than those of teachers. Every educators are

considered to be at the same level at the same time and are supposed to apply alike

method / styles in tradition model of supervision. In clinical supervision the use of

directive approach is a renaissance of the tradition form of supervision. This approach

is useful when supervisor are dealing with new, inexperienced teachers, who are

unskilled in existing classroom situations.

Glickman (1990: 83) stated, “To-protect the pupils by keeping the coach from

sinking in the sea of vain practice” this style is employed when educator have no

knowledge.

Directive control and directive informational are two forms of directive

approach. In both forms, the teacher and supervisor proceed by the clinical supervisory

stages. The supervisor provides detail about what the teacher has to do, in directive

control approach. But in informational approach, the supervisor instead of telling the

teacher what action to take, provides substitute recommendations from which the

educator can select. The ideas come from the supervisor but he does not straightly

31

finalize what action a teacher should take. The supervisor should avoid the directive

control if teacher has little expertise and knowledge about an issue.

2.5.2 Collaborative Feedback

In this approach supervisor considers that teaching is problem solving. The

supervisor guide the problem solving process in this style of feedback. The educator

and supervisor jointly approve the procedure, criteria and structures for subsequent

teaching development, also negotiate and finalize the plan of action.

Glickman (1990:147) stated that the final product of the collaborative is an

agreement among supervisor and teacher and they carry out that agreement as combined

obligation in the following way.

2.5.2.1 Presenting

The supervisor provokes the educator with his / her views of the instructional

area requiring development.

2.5.2.2 Clarifying

The supervisor asks for the teacher’s opinions of the instructional area in

question.

2.5.2.3 Listening

The leader listens to teachers’ perceptions.

2.5.2.4 Problem Solving

For improvement both the teacher and supervisor propose alternative action

supervisor does not impose plan on instructor.

2.5.2.5 Negotiating

According to Abiddin (2008), Acheson, Gall (1980) and Goldhammer (1969)

clinical supervision focuses on a direct contact between the supervisor and teacher with

the intention of improving teaching and increasing the teacher’s professional growth.

Brookhart (2008) stated that the learner may “filtered” the information.

32

The teacher and supervisor talk over the choices and modify purposed actions

until the teacher and supervisor make a joint plan. The assumption of this approach is

that the teachers and supervisors consider each other as a valuable partners, which

establish a sense of respect and trust between the two groups. Therefore the supervisee

does not feel helpless in chase of his / her teaching practices and would be welcome the

observational procedures.

This approach is useful when both supervisor and supervisee have round about

the same level of know-how on a problem under consideration to resolve. Therefore the

receiver and sender of feedback must work as allies.

2.5.3 Non-Directive Approach

Okafor (2012) stated that by vigilant and logical observation analysis and

conversation with the supervisor, good teaching can be ensured as well as development

in educator’s educational skills. This style is established on the assumption that

supervisees have the capability to solve and analyze their teaching issues. The

supervisor serves as facilitator and gives guidance or little bit tips to prepare a strategy

for their teaching. In this approach the supervisor did not use the basic five stage of

clinical supervision. The supervisor behave with their supervisees to guide, encourage

and motivate them for self-recovery and should simply observe the supervisee without

interpreting and analyzing, listen without giving suggestion. He was only provided the

needed resources and materials rather than engaging him in trainings. This approach

may be employed when a group of teachers or a teacher has most of the expertise and

knowledge about an issue as compare to supervisor.

2.6 Supervisor Characteristic and Supervisory Practices

Characteristics refer to personal features that supervisors have and show during

the course of action that includes their skills and proficiency, attitude, behavior and

knowledge of content towards teachers. In practices include the technique they employ

and activities they go through while performing their roles as instructional supervisors.

Pansiri (2008: 471-491) stated that in Botswana the government primary school

educators who included in his research confide in their supervisors. Continued

attendance of supervisor at post service training assists him / her to be able to give

33

fruitful support, feedback and assistance to educators and by their developed the trust

that instructors have in him / her.

Rous (2004: 266-283) documented that those educational supervisors who

showed esteem for families, children, staff and exhibited caring for teacher and

children, expedited teaching learning process in classroom. Educators included in this

research stated that their instructional leaders neither press their supervisees to teach in

restricted ways nor they were criticized by their instructional supervisors for initiating

new teaching strategies and new approaches.

2.7 Listening

One of the responsibilities of supervisor is to listen the needs of teacher. Blasé

and Blasé (1999: 349-378) stated that a model of active principal originate from data

(findings) consisted of two main ideas.

Negotiation with teachers to develop professional growth and to promote

reflection. Active Principals value discussion that inspired teachers to analytically

reflect on their knowledge and professional teaching by the following approaches:

Creation of ideas, modelling, giving praise, soliciting advice and views. They

argued that active Principals practice six approaches to enhance professional

development of teachers. Using the doctrines of adult education, encouraging and

assisting, redesigning of programs, developing coaching relation-ship among

educators, stressing the study of educators and pupils’ interaction and assisting

coordination forces among teachers. Carry out action research to ensure enhancement

and growth of all phases of staff development.

The supervisors listen to their supervisees and try to help them in any possible

way. One respondent stated that leader has shared upcoming sections with him and

regularly presented extra concepts to develop his lessons.

2.8 Praise

Blasé and Blasé (1999) stated that admiring appreciably influences educators’

self-reverence, efficiency, motivation and promotes teacher’s reflective behavior by

strengthening instructing approaches, innovation and take a chance.

34

2.9 Planning for Lesson Observation

Cogan and Goldhammer stated that the supervisor should not enter the

classroom unexpectedly. The supervisor and the teacher should mutually plan lesson

observation.

2.10 Observing Lessons

Glickman (1990) noted that one of the major functions of supervisor is lesson

observation. It is through this tool that he assesses teachers’ competency and their

content knowledge in instructional practices, so that he provides necessary assistance

to the teachers to enhance teaching. In lesson observation it is necessary for the

supervisor to concentrate on agreed procedure.

2.11 Trust and Respect

Cranston (2011) stated that the requirement for establishing an optimistic school

culture is trust and in many ways trust is the glue that binds a community of learners.

According to Zepeda (2016:12) maintaining trust evolves over time. Several questions

must ask a leader from himself, such as:

Do the teachers have confidence on me and in my action?

Do my actions and words have harmony?

Do teachers considered that supervisors given due respect to them?

In the past what behaviours have battered confidence in the management of the

institution?

These key questions help the supervisor to discover himself. It also assists him in

establishing the design of trust and the activities required to make more trust worthy

contacts with instructors. Without trust, teachers will not collaborative with leaders or

with one another.

The supervisees have confidence and trust in a supervisor who is expert and

knowledgeable and who provide assistance and support to them. In the supervisory

process, teachers’ confidence in the leader’s abilities to support and assist them in their

teaching learning process when necessary. The supervisors must be honest to their

supervisees and be amicable to discussion and should have a working knowledge of the

pedagogy and curriculum.

35

2.12 Promoting Collaboration and Collegiality

Dufour (2004) documented that to promote teachers collaboration with one

another the supervisors should provide time and opportunities for teachers. It will also

improve their instructional strategies and skills. Collaboration is a logical approach in

which instructors act together to analyze and carry out their classroom practices and to

enhance teaching learning process. Throughout the academic year, the teachers must

have time to meet on week day. For the betterment of school, collaboration among

teachers is very important. Collaboration develops teacher self-esteem, efficiency

reflective behaviour creativity, motivation and risk taking are necessary for successful

teaching learning process. The supervisors should encourage teachers to visit other

teachers, even in other schools, to observe their programs and classrooms. Interaction

among staff members through meetings are very useful as it increases creativity in

teachers’ instructions. Such meeting provide chance for educators to participate in the

decision making about problems that can improve their teaching learning process. The

internal self-evaluation exists in every institution informally. Self -evaluation cannot be

ignored and the participation of the teachers is the basic part.

The supervisors should develop collaborative and collegial relationship with

and among teachers. According to Pink (2011: 73), “Human beings have an innate inner

drive to be self-determined, autonomous and connected to one another”

McLaughlin et al (2007: 79) noted that collaboration could reduce duplication

of efforts, reducing overload and increasing efficiency. It could lead to the improvement

of teaching, through teachers’ learning together, through their learning from one

another and reflections stimulated by dialogues among them. Hargreaves (1997: 68)

documented that teachers and leaders will not likely be willing to “learn from

mistakes”, to take risks and make public their practices.

The Principal or Head Master of secondary school is responsible for internal

supervision in educational supervisory system of Pakistan but he cannot exercise his

official power if he has no strong social and political background. In such case if the

Principal wishes to exercise his official power then the teachers and supporting staff

starts struggle to transfer themselves from that school by giving gift / bribe to concerned

authorities and also use politicians for this purpose. Therefore the Principals are not

capable to carry out their obligations properly and thus they did not take action against

instructors due to these reasons. Therefore the Principals consider themselves as

36

gatekeepers or accountants but not administrators/supervisors. In such situation their

interest come down in the school activities.

The supervisor should keep in mind the supervisee subject matter knowledge,

educational knowledge, social knowledge and the environment in which the teacher

teaches. Without supportive and vigilant society and competent Principal/Head Master,

supervision cannot be improved. The problem of poor teaching in Pakistan cannot be

solved without good supervisory system. The present supervisory system requires

direction and re-conceptualization. The re-conceptualization of existing supervisory

system is impossible without knowing the subject matter knowledge of instructors and

supervisors. The resources such as material, financial and human resources should be

delivered with appropriate exercise to the supervisors and teachers.

According to Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (2009)

the function and role of schools is changing across the globe, therefore teachers

constantly need to update skill in order to remain effective.

The Principal should be responsible for student achievements as well as for

teachers teaching in their schools. They should teach to some classes and also under

take teacher education as part of their role. As internal supervisor they should encourage

and be responsible for collaboration among teachers for observation each other’s lesson

and to make joint planning for improvement of teaching learning process. They should

play leadership role to broaden the teacher thinking beyond the limit of classroom, for

this purpose they should arrange workshop, coaching, individual and group meeting,

team work, micro teaching, computer assisting teaching etc. The principals should

establish working relationship with their high-ups, clusters school teachers, local

community, other individual and institutions for information, resources, and exchange

of ideas as well as for making fool proof security plan for their schools. They should

spare time to make use of the learning opportunities for teacher.

2.13 Supervisors’ Support

The support may be direct and indirect. Zepeda (2016) stated that formal and

informal classroom observation and development as well as differentiated approaches

to extend instructional supervision, peer coaching, action research, induction and

mentoring, and so forth are included in indirect supports. Building healthy and positive

37

norms and school culture which provides foundation to instructional supervision as it

is enacted by school leaders, are included in indirect supports.

The direct and indirect supports collectively reinforce the need for leaders to

spend time working with teachers before, during and after classroom observations.

Classrooms are the epic center of the school. Weber (2010) stated that “Fate of our

country won’t be decided on a battle field it will be determined in a classroom.’’

Teachers are the most important resource in any given buildings and it is critical for

school leaders to support and nurture them. According to Duncan (2009: 9) we need

great teachers and leaders.

2.14 Informal Visits

Rous (2004) stated that informal visits are generally not planed. It put the

educators on the alert. The supervisor helps and assist the teacher when need.

Supervisors frequently visit classroom and make principals presence in the school. Lack

of contact between supervisor and teacher negatively affects instructional practices.

Informal visits energize, improve teachers time on task, motivating teachers and

improving efficiency, equity and accountably of education delivery.

2.15 Supervisor and School Plan

Gray (1995:1-18) viewed that implementation of reform in the area of

supervision is a big challenge in the developing countries because it requires resources.

The developed countries executed the changes but novel type of obstacle were faced by

them. The teachers’ community remain confused due to opinion differences between

pedagogical advisors and instructors.

De Grauwe (2005: 269-287) documented that the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development countries evolved a better strategy for internal

evaluation of the activities of the schools in their countries. The supervisor is taking

supervision as a whole not separately in first response in institution. To manage

meetings with all school employees and make school development plan are now the

duty of supervisors. In countries like South Africa centralized evaluation process was

practiced but the consequences were quite disappointing.

Hendricks et al (2001: 595-612) described that in Netherland since 1998 it was

the responsibility of schools under the law to prepare annual plan of project in

38

anticipation of highlighting the aims of the school by involving the parents and public

complaints. Some lacuna exists in implementation program and policy due to the

following issues:

Little incentives are provided to teachers to take part and teaches not gave due

importance because, they are conscious whatever the recommendation may be, no

resources will be available for implementation.

Thrupp (1998: 195-209) apprised that the principals do not have the needed

status as well as authority to follow up the process because they are held accountable

for the achievement of the objective of schools.

Mintrop et al (2001: 197-218) stated that it was not that easy to maintain balance

between genuine school improvement that occurs and in the supervisors. The same

trend followed by the Sri Lankans.

Levin (1998: 131) described that not a single school model have been

developed despite implementation of reforms.

The practice and thinking of almost all the countries through new public

management has admittedly influenced so intensely that some writers deem it as a

wide-ranging guidelines, which could proceed to the verdict that the teaching have no

alternate strategy but deep study showed that the existence of glaring differences in

school supervision services are different in different areas.

Barroso et al (2002: 73) stated that the supervision can be connected to two main

things that are the NPM policy and school base-accountability.

Supervision is the amalgamation of three parts: support, control and link

between the ministry and schools, where each part has two aspects, administration and

pedagogical. In principle, the supervisors, should take interest in education system, as

a whole and in schools as institution. Emphasis has been given on control and support

when each supervisory system is analyzed.

2.16 School Leadership

Honig et al (2010) and MacNeil et al (2009) documented that on student

achievements school leadership has substantial impact. Davis (2013: 3) noted that

enhancing teaching quality and falling the inconsistency within that quality is a basic

duty of school district leaders. For this purpose the leaders must work continuously to

bring change dramatically.

39

According to Wallace foundation (2009 : 7-8) Principals spend 30 percent of

their time focusing on the instructional program for example observing educators,

providing feedback and taking part in professional enhancement with teachers and

about 67 percent of their time is spent focusing on administration duties, for example

dealing with discipline. This study conducted in USA.

In Pakistan it is common practice that the Principals, Teachers and Districts

Mangers perform all the other duties like polio, election, census, all of the BISE and

university examinations duties but they leave or ignore one, that is principal’s post

which demands justice.

The Principals, Districts Mangers and teaches have no sense of responsibility

and also do not own their institutions and offices to play their role effectively. This was

pointed by researcher during the course of distribution and collection of questionnaires.

There are also lack of coherence in supervisory system of education in Pakistan.

According to Buchman and floden (1991: 65) “what is coherent is supposed to have

direction, systematic relations and intelligible meaning”.

Hatch (2015 : 105) stated that “ common understanding and coherence grows

out of the relationships and connections among people that facilitate the flow of

information, knowledge and resources” and that this “makes it possible for individuals

and groups to coordinate their activities and develop a common sense of what they are

supposed to be doing and why they are doing.’’

2.17 School Culture

Culture according to Bustamante et al (2009: 796) is a learned system of shared

customs, behaviors, symbol, artifacts norms, values and beliefs that members of a group

use to make sense of their words and faster a sense of community and identity.

Positive school culture can serve to improve instruction and to stimulate

teachers. Leonard (2002: 4) noted that in positive culture the teachers and managers

exchange their ideas, knowledge and make plans for the purpose of obtaining

organizational and educational aims.

2.18 Cluster System

Dutereq (2000: 143-171) stated that in Mozambique the most fruitful sample

cluster system was established, where the Principals grouped themselves and organized

40

visits with few directorate personnel to visits their cluster schools. This reduced the

gaps among organizations and also strengthen the linkages among the schools. This

procedure made the school team to be gratified of their attainments and be more

responsible. But financial restraint is the key hurdle in applying this arrangement. Many

supervisors and Principals recommended empowerment of these groups because they

have no powers.

In year 2011 all primary schools in district Peshawar were group into school

cluster. Each school cluster consisted of about six or five primary schools within a

defined perimeter. Each school cluster was attached with one high schools within that

schools cluster. The primary school cluster handed over to high school, some Principals

with senior teachers started visits to their cluster schools. But primary schools teacher

did not accept this and started resistance against this change. Then they started agitation

against cluster system, on the other hand most of the Principals did not accept this

system due to the following reasons.

They were of the view that they are compelled to be overburdened.

They were also of the view that they should be compensated with some sort of

honoraria for doing this additional duty.

Therefore due to the above situation cluster school system was winded up by

the education authorities before it started its functions. The use of resources, to facilitate

the development between schools, to overcome the workload of DEOs offices and to

make regular visits to primary schools of secondary school Principal as supervisor was

the main purposes of this arrangement.

According to Behlol (2011:29) the system of education in Pakistan is divided

into four phases: Primary (grade 1-5), Middle (grade 6-8), Secondary (grade 9-12), and

tertiary education (13-16, PhD). The supervisory system was made available in primary

schools in the form of Learning Coordinators.

2.19 Learning Coordinators

After the failure of the policies and five years programs, it was felt that some

initiatives should be taken for the Supervisory system and academic improvement of

the students and professional development of the teachers. According to Ali (1998:8-9)

the first primary project, a new tier of education officials for external supervision of

primary school was financed by World Bank in 1979. Learning coordinators (LCs) were

selected among the PTC teacher with an experience of 10 years’ service and on the

41

basis of higher qualification to provide on job instructional support to primary teachers

but the merit was exploited and most of LCs were appointed on the basis of favoritism.

It is seen that some LCs have availed one type of training while some other type, and

the rest were provided no training. The job description of these LCs was to observe the

teaching methodology of the teachers on the basis of training they were provided and

to find the grey areas in their teaching and rectify them, checking enrollment and

collecting information about schools building. LCs were appointed in selected Districts

of all four provinces. LCs not showed results in teacher’s professional development and

academic improvement of students. Many of them paid few visits to schools due to

which they were not able to have influence on teachers to change their instructional

styles. Many of them visited the school once a month. Teachers forget their suggestions

despite the fact that they like to change their classroom practice when they are suggested

to do.

Learning Coordinators avoided to instruct teachers about classroom

improvement. They focused on monitoring teacher’s attendance and school records.

Supervisors and their practices made no improvement in schools. Where the LCs were

appointed, the absence of teachers was reduced in selected Districts of all four

provinces of Pakistan.

2.19.1 Causes of Failure of Learning Coordinators

Among the many factors of the failure of this setup, the major factor was the

authoritative approach of the learning coordinators. They used to visit the schools and

after checking the attendance register, they put irrelevant question to the teachers and

Head Teacher, just occupied the chair, sipped tea and gossiped for some time and left

the school. They neither observed the classrooms nor did they advise the teachers to

improve and develop their proficiency.

They were provided a proper tool to observe the class and note their remarks.

But as mentioned earlier, they were not sincere towards their job description and

therefore the setup bore no fruit. They began to act as an authority and not as a

counselor. These learning coordinators were awarded with grade (11) despite of (07)

yet no TA/DA was admissible for them. Since no incentives were involved therefore

there was a lack of interest. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province the setup was rolled back

42

by the sitting education director with his remarks “There is no part of LCs in the

department anymore” in July, 2001.

2.20 Mentoring Program

It was realized that teacher still needs training and counseling but neither it was

possible for the department to provide training to the all teachers of the province nor

they had enough resources. Therefore a Norrwegian Non Governmental Organization,

Norwegian Agency for development cooperation (NORAD) purposely signed a MoU

with the Govt: of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to train some teachers as Mentors to assist the

teachers in schools and try to minimize the lack of proficiency. This was a successful

program and a great improvement and development was witnessed in the teacher’s and

student’s achievements. In this set up the mentors were provided observational tools

which were to be filled during the teaching session of a teacher. At the end of the

session the mentor had to give feedback to the teacher and if found necessary he had to

give a model lesson to show where teacher needed to pay attention to his teaching.

They helped the teacher to develop their proficiency in very friendly manner. Functions

of the mentor’s:

Teachers and mentors exchange their views regarding a particular problem.

Coached the mentoree on a specific expertise.

Enable the mentoree’s development by allocating resources.

Test the mentoree to take steps beyond his or her comfort zone.

Establish a protected learning setting for removing risks.

Concentrate on the mentoree’s whole improvement.

2.20.1 Causes of Failure of Mentoring

The only reason behind the failure of this program was paucity of funds and no

interest of the department.

2.21 Supervisory Program

After the mentoring program came to an unexpected end, the Govt of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa was fully aware of the gap for teacher professional development and with

the coordination of Deutsche Gesellschaft fur International zusammenarbeit (GTZ)

started Supervisory system in five selected districts (Abbottabad, Battagram, Buner,

43

Peshawar and Swat). The lead trainers were selected through interview and sent to

Islamabad for skill development workshop for six days in two separate sessions. Later

on they were trained by special consultants for six days in Islamabad.

The lead trainers then delivered same in Pearl continental Hotel to supervisors

who were selected by the ASDEOs as per their efficiency basis. It was a six days

training. The supervision began in the above noted five districts and continued

successfully till 2015. The schools were divided in professional development unit

(PDU) consisting of maximum 25 teacher or 5 schools.

A very systematic and scientific tool was developed to observe the teaching of

teachers. A code of conduct was set for the supervisors. The supervisors were bound

to obey the code of conduct. The supervision system was the most successful program

for the academic nourishment of the students and professional grooming of the teachers.

The above quoted NGO conducted some studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the

program and declared it as a successful program and handed it over to the Government.

Now P I T E (Provincial Institute for Teacher’s Education) is responsible to run the

same program. The Government made some changes in the program to save the funds

that were provided for TA/DA to be paid to supervisors.

The new setup is called SB-CPD (school Based Continuing Professional

Development) and Head Teachers have been nominated as supervisors. It is noticed

that almost all the Head Teachers do not seem to be qualified for this duty and not take

interest. It is recommended that all those supervisors may be reappointed as supervisors

for the reason that the quality of training they received was far better than that of Head

Teacher received. The supervisors were more efficient and competent those were

selected by the ASDEO.

Supervisors must work with spirit and as a team, without these qualities they

cannot establish comprehensive relationship between supervisors and educational

institutions. Through these activities external supervision can help, effect and steer the

internal supervision procedure. Three basic tools available to monitor the efficiency and

functioning of schools are the school internal evaluation, examination and tests and the

external supervision. Relative importance of these tools are different. Specific attention

should be given to the relation between external and internal supervision.

Niemi, Hannele (1999:211-228) stressed that in recent year opposite

explanation of the concept have been created in professional development. Activists

emphasized teacher’s empowerment where, is entrepreneurs give preference to

44

obligation and prefer public accountability in the climate of education systems. The

instructor is accountable to the people in his duties. Contractual accountability and

profession accountability play important role in supervisory system.

Javed (2015: 266) stated that administration is one of the important area in any

educational organization. The mismanagement is flawed in administration cause

deterioration in quality of education. Lack of supervisory visits proceed to poor

performance of teachers.

There were many draw backs and flaws in education supervisory system in

Pakistan, in generally and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in particular. However, with the

passage of time, various modifications took place regularly, with three levels of

manager an inspector centered approach established, in the earlier days, assistants

district inspectors, district and divisional inspectors. The system replaced the role of

mangers who were hence responsible for the supervision of schools. The principal was

made accountable to AEO and the teachers were made accountable to principal. Later

on, in the new system the hierarchy was the creation of posts of DEO, Deputy DEO at

district level. The Director Education was held responsible to control the education

officers. He was answerable to director public instruction who, in-turn, was answerable

to the Secretary of Education. In province the Secretary Education was accountable to

Minister of Education. Additional alteration took place for making progress and solving

various issues in education system. Administrative structure was redesigned at

divisional level into five stage. Provincial minister of education, Secretary Education,

Director, DEO. With the passage of time the changes continued in 1973 the ranks and

function of different officers reorganized.

The rank of Assistant Education Officer was introduced in 1979. The function

and duties at divisional level were transferred to district level officers. In the school

administration many changes were made during the last two decades. In Martial Law

regime of Pervez Musharraf the post of EDEO at district level was introduced under

executive district education officer, district education officer male and district

education officer female served. Now in the present setup district education officer

Elementary and Secondary Education for both male and female, deputy district

education officer (male and female) serving separately, under the NEP 2009, the

management and teaching cadres were separated in KPK province in 2010 and the

policy was implemented, but however in 2012 both the cadres were merged again due

45

to political and teachers cadre officers intervention, where merit in system was totally

ignored.

In Pakistan federal ministry of education has been abolished after passing 18th

constitutional amendments in the year 2010, education became provincial subject.

Schools and higher education are two separate departments, working at the provincial

level. These departments are headed by separate provincial education ministers. They

are supported by their education secretaries, additional secretaries, deputy secretaries

planning officers and ministerial staff. At secretariat level this hierarchy exists.

Both the departments have directors at provincial level. They are assisted by

additional, deputy and assistant directors as well as ministerial staff. DEOs

(male/female), Dy, DEOs (male/female) and all others officers responsible to the

Director of Education.

Aziz (2004:10) noted that education sector is mistreated in Pakistan from the

independence till to date. Spending of public fund on education fell during 1990-1991

from 2.6% of GDP to1.8% in 2002-2003. This shows that this sector is never a

priority to any of our government.

2.22 Brief Synthesis of Literature Review

An exhaustive review of relevant literature on supervisory system was made

both in local and global perspectives. The literature review, in this study, took

cognizance of different dimensions of supervision. First of all concepts of supervision

and definitions of supervision were discussed. Modern democratic supervision and the

staff responsible for school supervision were also highlighted. In order to fit the

problem in theory, different types of supervision were stated which included scientific

supervision, developmental supervision, collegial supervision and clinical supervision.

The review highlighted different characteristics of supervisor and supervisory

practices. These included planning for class room observation, observing lesson,

developing trust and respect for teachers based on the element of collegiality, school

culture and some other important areas of supervision. The basic elements of

supervision such as formal, informal visits, supports, approaches of feedback such as

directive, collaborative and non-directive were debated comprehensively.

A brief note on the earlier system of learning coordinators was also added. In

addition a brief note on the mentor program in the scenario of school was also given.

46

The literature review explored that supervisory system never remained priority for any

Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Therefore this study conducted for

improvement of the supervisory system for Government Boys’ High School of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

The review facilitated the researcher to draw indicators for preparation of tools.

The review considerably benefited the researcher to know different aspects and

approaches for development of a suitable supervisory system for Government Boys’

High School of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

47

Chapter-3

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

3.1 Type of the Study

As a descriptive study, quantitative research design was used. The data were

given statistical treatment by using simple figure and percentage as well as ANOVA

tests. The quantitative design suited this study as the data obtained were used on the

responses and perceptions of three categories of subjects, which included Teachers,

Principals and Districts Managers of Secondary Schools. These three categories of

officials were mostly involved in the process of supervision.

3.2 Population of the Study

All the teachers, Principals of Government Boys’ High Schools of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, District Education Officers (Male), Deputy District Education Officers

(Male) and Assistant District Education Officers (Male) Establishment constituted the

target population. The target population included 1351 secondary boys’ schools,17469

different categories of male teachers, 1351 male Principals as well as, 25 DEOs (Male),

25 Dy: DEOs (Male) and 25 ADEOs (Male) Establishment in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Province of Pakistan.

3.3 Sample of the Study

Out of 25 districts, seven districts were randomly selected for research. Each

district was selected randomly from seven administrative divisions so as to give

representation to all the seven administrative divisions of the province. The sample size

was adequate as per the formula of Krejcie and Morgan (1970: 607-610). The total

sample size was 1332 respondents. The schools were picked randomly from the

randomly selected districts. The breakdown of the category-wise sample and sample

population from which the sample was drawn in randomly selected districts as given

below:

48

Table-3.1 District wise Number of Managers, Principals and Teachers in

Government Boys’ High Schools

Districts District Management Principals Teachers

No of

Boys

High

Schools

DEO Dy;

DEO

ADO Total

Population

Sample Total

population

Sample

Abbott

abad

66 1 1 1 66 14 950 199

Bannu 56 1 1 1 56 11 768 161

Buner 50 1 1 1 50 10 543 114

D.I.Khan 71 1 1 1 71 15 811 170

Kohat 47 1 1 1 47 10 603 126

Mardan 76 1 1 1 76 16 1128 237

Peshawar 79 1 1 1 79 16 1012 212

Total 445 7 7 7 445 92 5815 1219

Source: Govt of KP, E&S Edu Department Provincial EMIS “Annual Statistical Report Government

Schools (2013-14)”.

3.4 Data Collection Instruments

For collection of data from the respondents, the following tools were used:

1. Questionnaire for teachers.

2. Questionnaire for schools heads.

3. Questionnaire for district managers of Government Boys’ High Schools

of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The questionnaires of Teachers, Principals and District Managers were

developed from literature review. They contained 55, 62 & 67 items respectively. These

were validated by statistical experts. The suggestions and amendments pointed out by

experts were included in the questionnaires. Each questionnaires contained six sections,

which included visit & training, observations, feedback, support, recording and

meetings, and miscellaneous questions regarding supervisions for obtaining

perceptions of respondents. These six sections are the variables of the study. Section

one and two consisted of nine questions, section three comprised of 14 questions,

section four included six questions and section six contained 11 questions.

The questionnaires for principals and district managers had more questions than

teachers’ questionnaire as they were more accountable and responsible for their job

description and duties. Most items of the questionnaires of teachers, principals and

district managers were interlinked. The items of the questionnaires included

supervisory role, visits, frequency of visits, observations, observation sheets, teachers

49

subject matter knowledge, informal visits, in-service training, demonstrations, lesson

observations, attitudes of supervisors, mechanism of supervisions, frequency of

supervisors visits and their influence on the working of teachers. These also consisted

of time of feedback, plans of feedback, support, record, meetings, appropriateness of

supervisory system, new technology of supervision, community participation in

supervisory system, regularity of teachers, creation of supervisory cadre, reflection

dairy, problems relating teachers learning process, training of supervisors, teachers and

district managers etc. Clear instructions for completing questionnaires were given to

the respondents and comprehensive language was used to the respondents. All the three

questionnaires are in appendices.

3.5 Sources of Data Collection

Primary data were obtained on the basis of three sets of uniform questionnaires,

floated to Teachers, Principals and District Managers of Government Boys’ High

Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan. An introductory letter was

obtained from the thesis supervisor for facilitating the researcher in collection of data.

The District Education Officers and Deputy Education Officers of randomly selected

seven districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan were contacted before the

commencement of the study. The principals / head masters of the schools who

participated in study were informed beforehand.

The District Mangers of Education were requested to instruct secondary school

heads to provide the researcher possible help on his arrival in the schools. The

questionnaires were personally delivered and received from respondents during actual

and pilot study. Enough time was allowed to the respondents to study and respond

appropriately. All respondents were informed that all identities would be concealed in

reporting results of the research. A total of 1450 questionnaires were distributed.

Complete responses were obtained from 1332 respondents. Therefore, 92% of the

questionnaires were retuned in complete form. The secondary data were collected from

the office documents and other sources.

50

3.6 Pilot Study

The tools were pilot tested on 30 teachers, 10 principals and 6 district managers

of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan, who are not included in the actual study.

The results of the pilot study are given in Appendix I. The results of the pilot test were

satisfactory, therefore, no changes were made in the instruments of the study.

3.7 Establishment of Rapport with Participants

Being an employee of Elementary and Secondary Education department of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, it was not difficult to establish rapport with the

respondents. This was further facilitated by an introductory letter given to the

researcher, which explained purpose of the visits. Moreover the questionnaires were

personally distributed and the importance of the research was explained to the

respondents. This also provided the opportunity for the researcher to develop

collegiality and rapport with the respondents. The rationale of the study was clarified

to the respondents on the spot.

3.8 Reliability and Validity of the Study

Kothari (2011) stated that validity as a criteria which indicates the level to which

a tool measures, what it is supposed to measure. It was essential to obtain validity of

the instrument used to collect data so that the research findings could be reliable.

Reliability means to create consistency within the measures repeatedly. Consistency

shows the similarity of data and drawing the same outcomes by utilizing the same

procedures in the current study as previously used by other researchers.

The reliability of the instruments used, was enhanced through multiple

techniques. It is being carried out with a view to confirm that the respondents have

similar experiences concerning completion of survey items. The edifice of survey items

was based on reliability derived from literature review, facilitating the researchers to

evolve specific items for asking potential respondents. Every survey incorporated clear

and concise direction for evoking respondents. Eventually, response groups for survey

items were to comprehend and complete. The items of questionnaires were designed by

comprehensive manner and kept in mind the language and status of respondents.

Respondents have similarly experiences about the completion of survey items possibly

included.

51

Validity means the correction of accuracy of the measurements. The researcher

designed and formulated the questionnaires that could easily be understood. The survey

items are so constructed in such a way that they could be easily comprehensible and

answerable. Easily and consistently understandable questions were framed by the

researcher. In order to make it easy for the respondents the views of the study were

elucidated to them. Additionally, statistical methods were used. The reliability of the

tools were tested by Cronbach’s Alpha test statistics. A reliable instrument should have

more than 0.70 value by Cronbach’s Alpha test statistics. In this research the value was

found 0.858% which is an ideal value for a research instrument. The data were gathered

not only from teachers but also from principals and district managers, thus triangulated

approach/method was used as a measure. This makes the data more reliable.

To ascertain content and face validity, and for scrutiny and advice, the

questionnaires were presented to ten PhD, faculty of different universities. Most of

these teaching and research faculty belonged to Institute of Education and Research,

University of Peshawar, Pakistan. To ensure the content and face validity some of the

items were slightly modified and combined into different constructs instead of

individual items on the basis of their suggestions.

3.9 Use of Statistical Measures

Borg and Gall (1989: 336-7) stated that Inferential and descriptive statistic are

two main types of statistic. Summary statistic is called descriptive statistic. Descriptive

statistic are used to describe the collected data. The mean, median and standard

deviation are three main descriptive statistic. It uses to show the average score and

flexibility of scores of sample. The merit of descriptive statistic is that they allow the

researcher to use one or two numbers to represent all of the individual scores of subject

in the sample.

It was a descriptive study, quantitative methods was used and for that reason it

require application of statistical measures. This study used simple statistics of figures

and percentages as well as ANOVA which analyzed variance in responses of three

categories of respondents. The use of these statistical tools were approved by the

experts in the statistic field.

52

Chapter-4

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Analysis

The data were presented both in numerical and qualitative. Analysis and its

discussion for drawing results are important steps in educational research as well as in

others studies in social sciences. The data received in the form of responses of subjects

in any form are subjected to analysis. In this study the data have been presented in the

form of tables for which descriptive and inferential statistics have been used. After

collection and punching data, the researcher presented the data to statistical experts who

advised that ANOVA will be better test statistic to be used. Therefore the data have

been interpreted with help of cross tabulation, percentage and ANOVA. The data were

given both quantitative and qualitative treatment. The data in this study were obtained

from three categories of subjects; Districts Mangers, Principals and Teachers. Data

were collected through questionnaires in which uniformity was also maintained. Data

were collected in seven randomly selected districts. The data analysis was facilitated

with the use of statistical packages for social science (SPSS), a computer package. The

following tables presents the data with the statistical analysis.

Responses of all three categories of subjects.

Table 4.1.1 Performance of Supervisory Role

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

1.833 2 0.916 5.124 0.006

Within

Groups

237.687 1329 0.179

Total 239.520 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.124 and the P-

value as 0.006. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

53

Table reveals that P-value is found as less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.006 <0.05). Thus it is

concluded that there is a significant difference among the perspectives of the

respondents regarding the supervisory role of district managers and principals in

government boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.2 Frequency of Visits in a Month/an Academic Session

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

value

Between

Groups

15.678 2 7.839 11.565 0.000

Within

Groups

900.852 1329 0.678

Total 916.531 1331

In order to check out the significant value among the three groups that is

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 11.565 and the P-value as 0.000.

The analysis of data reflected the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is a

significant difference among teachers, principals and managers about frequency of

visits in a month in government boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.3 Satisfaction of the Respondents Regarding Present Frequency of

Visits

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

1.533 2 0.766 2.157 0.116

Within

Groups

472.266 1329 0.355

Total 473.799 1331

In order to check out the significant variance among the three groups that is

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 2.157 and the P-value as 0.116.

54

The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.116>0.05). Thus, it is clinched that there is no

significant difference in responses of three groups about satisfaction with the frequency

of visits.

Table 4.1.4 Frequency of Visits Help in Improving Performance of the

Supervisees

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significant

Value

Between

Groups

2.018 2 1.009 3.191 0.041

Within

Groups

420.012 1329 0.316

Total 422.030 1331

In order to dig out the major dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 3.191 and the P-

value as 0.041. The analysis of data shows the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.041<0.05). Thus, it is decided that there

is a significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers regarding

frequency of visits help in improving of performance.

Table 4.1.5 Satisfaction of Supervisees with Supervision

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significant

Value

Between

Groups

1.283 2 0.641 1.888 0.152

Within

Groups

451.392 1329 0.340

Total 452.675 1331

In order to dig out the substantial difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

55

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.888 and the P-

value as 0.152. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table portrays that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.152>0.05). Thus, it is determine

that there is no significant difference in responses of three groups about satisfaction of

supervisees with the supervision.

Table 4.1.6 Supervisors and Supervisees Satisfaction with Frequency of Visits

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

4.295 2 2.147 5.594 0.004

Within

Groups

510.170 1329 0.384

Total 514.465 1331

In order to check out the important variance among the three groups that is

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.594 and the P-value as 0.004.

The analysis of the data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals

that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.004<0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is a

significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers of government

boys’ high school of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan about satisfaction with

frequency of visits.

56

Table 4.1.7 Informal Visits in Supervision Context

In order to dig out the major dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.478 and the P-

value as 0.228. The analysis of data illustrated the output of one way ANOVA. The

above Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 that is (0.228>0.05). Thus, it is

decided that there is no significant dissimilarity in the perspectives of the respondents

of three groups regarding Informal visits in supervision.

Table 4.1.8 Proper Training for Supervisors

In order to discover the noteworthy difference among the three groups that is

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 6.801 and the P-value as 0.001.

The analysis of data reflected the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.00<0.05). Thus, it is decided that there is a significant

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

1.507 2 0.754 1.478 0.228

Within

Groups

677.418 1329 0.510

Total 678.925 1331

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

5.576 2 2.788 6.801 0.001

Within

Groups

544.889 1329 0.410

Total 550.465 1331

57

difference among teachers, principals and districts managers regarding proper training

for supervisors of government boy’s high school.

Table 4.1.9 In-Service Training about Supervision

In order to dig out the substantial variance among the three groups of that is

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 2.141 and the P-value as 0.118.

The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.118>0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is no

significant difference in response of three groups about In-service training in

supervision.

Table 4.1.10 Standardized Classroom Observation Sheet

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.799 2 2.400 3.353 0.035

Within

Groups

951.059 1329 0.716

Total 955.858 1331

In order to check out the major dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA) performed. The value of the F-statistic was found as 3.353

and the P-value as 0.035. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA.

The Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.035<0.05). Thus, it is

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

3.294 2 1.647 2.141 0.118

Within

Groups

1022.325 1329 0.769

Total 1025.619 1331

58

concluded that there is significant difference in responses of three groups about

standardized classroom observation sheet.

Table 4.1.11 Selection of Place in Classroom during Observation

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

10.731 2 5.365 3.567 0.029

Within

Groups

1998.945 1329 1.504

Total 2009.676 1331

In order to discover the significance value among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA) performed. The value of the F-statistic was found as 3.567

and the P-value as 0.029. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA.

The Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.029<0.05). Thus, it is

concluded that there is significant difference in responses of three groups regarding

selection of place in classroom during observation.

Table 4.1.12 Demonstration While Supervising the Class

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

2.071 2 1.036 1.728 0.178

Within

Groups

796.297 1329 0.599

Total 798.369 1331

In order to dig out the substantial variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.728 and the P-

value as 0.178. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.178>0.05). Thus, it is concluded

59

that there is no significant difference in responses of three groups regarding

demonstration while supervising the class.

Table 4.1.13 Supply of Observation Sheet to Supervise after Supervision

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

.720 2 0.360 0.672 0.511

Within

Groups

711.509 1329 0.536

Total 712.228 1331

In order to check out the important dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.672 and the P-

value as 0.511. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.511>0.05). Thus, it is concluded that

there is no significant difference in responses of three groups about supply of

observation sheet to supervisees after supervision.

Table 4.1.14 Same Manner of Supervision

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

14.543 2 7.271 13.416 0.000

Within

Groups

720.310 1329 0.542

Total 734.853 1331

In order to dig out the noteworthy variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 13.416 and the P-

value as 0.000. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

60

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and managers regarding

same manner of supervision in govt boys’ high school.

Table 4.1.15 Assessment of Subject Matter Knowledge

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.401 2 2.201 4.441 0.012

Within

Groups

658.572 1329 0.496

Total 662.973 1331

In order to discovered the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 4.441 and the P-

value as 0.012. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.012<.05). Thus, it is clinched that

there is substantial variance in the responses of three groups about Assessment of

subject matter knowledge.

Table 4.1.16 Development of Cordial Relation with Supervisee by Supervisor

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

6.799 2 3.399 5.681 0.003

Within

Groups

795.275 1329 0.598

Total 802.074 1331

In order to check out the important variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.681 and the P-

value as 0.003. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.003<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

61

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and districts managers

regarding development of Cordial relation with supervisees by supervisors in govt

boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.17 Procedure of Supervision

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

8.687 2 4.344 4.510 0.011

Within

Groups

1279.915 1329 0.963

Total 1288.603 1331

In order to dig out the noteworthy dissimilarity among the three groups that is

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 4.510 and the P-value as 0.011.

The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.011<0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is

significant difference in responses of three groups about Procedure of supervision.

Table 4.1.18 Evaluation of Performance

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

3.087 2 1.544 2.858 0.058

Within

Groups

717.744 1329 0.540

Total 720.831 1331

In order to find out the substantial variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 2.858 and the P-

value as 0.058. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.058>0.05). Thus, it is concluded

62

that there is no significant difference in responses of three groups regarding evaluation

of performance.

Table 4.1.19 Feedback of Supervisors to Supervisees

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

7.894 2 3.947 6.818 0.001

Within

Groups

769.349 1329 0.579

Total 777.243 1331

In order to discovered the important dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 6.818 and the P-

value as 0.001. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.001<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and districts managers

about feedback of supervisors to supervisees in govt boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.20 Type/Kind of Supervisors Feedback

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.720 2 2.360 2.407 0.090

Within

Groups

1301.882 1329 0.980

Total 1306.601 1331

In order to find out the major dissimilarity among the three groups of that is

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use 0f variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 2.407 and the P-value as 0.090.

The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA.

63

The Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.090>0.05). Thus, it

is concluded that there is no significant difference in the responses of three groups about

Type/Kind of supervisors’ feedback.

Table4.1.21 Time Allocation for Feedback

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

7.314 2 3.657 5.241 0.005

Within

Groups

927.361 1329 0.698

Total 934.675 1331

In order to dig out the important variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.241 and the P-

value as 0.005. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.005<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and managers regarding

time allocation for feedbacks in government boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.22 Feedback Provided Before, During or After

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

5.104 2 2.552 5.156 0.006

Within

Groups

657.794 1329 0.495

Total 662.898 1331

In order to check out the substantial dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.156 and the P-

value as 0.006. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA.

64

The Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05(i.e. 0.006<0.05). Thus, it is

concluded that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and managers

about feedback provide by supervisors before, during or after observation.

Table 4.1.23 Feedback Given in Class, Among Teachers or in Privacy

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

10.397 2 5.198 8.609 0.000

Within

Groups

802.494 1329 0.604

Total 812.891 1331

In order to dig out the major variance among the three groups of respondents;

Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 8.609 and the P-value as 0.000.

The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is a

significant difference among teachers, principals and managers regarding supervisors’

selection for place of feedback in govt boys’ high school.

Table 4.1.24 Extended Feedback

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.410 2 2.205 3.614 0.027

Within

Groups

810.895 1329 0.610

Total 815.306 1331

In order to discover the substantial dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 3.614 and the P-

value as 0.027. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

65

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.027<0.05). Thus, it concluded that

there is significance difference in the responses of three groups about extended

feedback.

Table 4.1.25 Irrelevant Feedback

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

11.729 2 5.865 7.821 0.000

Within

Groups

996.601 1329 0.750

Total 1008.330 1331

In order to dig out the significant value among the three groups of respondents;

Teachers, Principals and Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance

(ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 7.821 and the P-value as 0.000.

The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is a

significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about irrelevant

feedback.

Table 4.1.26 Consensus among Supervisors and Supervisees

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.744 2 2.372 4.677 0.009

Within

Groups

674.013 1329 0.507

Total 678.757 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 4.677 and the P-

value as 0.009. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

66

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.009<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers regarding

consensus among supervisors and supervisees of government secondary schools.

Table 4.1.27 Clear and Impartial Manner of Feedback

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

3.538 2 1.769 5.857 0.003

Within

Groups

401.450 1329 0.302

Total 404.988 1331

In order to discovered the substantial variance among the three groups of

respondent; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use

of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.857 and the P-value

as 0.003. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

revealed that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.003<0.05). Thus, it is concluded that

there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about clear and

impartial manner of feedback in government boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.28 Highlighting of Positive & Negative Aspects

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

3.645 2 1.822 4.790 0.008

Within

Groups

505.239 1329 0.380

Total 508.884 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 4.790 and the P-

value as 0.008. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

67

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.008<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers regarding

highlighting of positive and negative aspects of supervisees by supervisors.

Table 4.1.29 Discussed Feedback Imposed on Supervisees

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

18.263 2 9.131 12.937 0.000

Within

Groups

937.338 1329 0.706

Total 955.600 1331

In order to dig out the major dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 12.937 and the P-

value as 0.000. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about

imposition of discussed feedback on supervisees.

Table 4.1.30 Supervisor Remarks Cover All Aspects of School Program

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

.428 2 0.214 0.485 0.616

Within

Groups

586.025 1329 0.441

Total 586.453 1331

In order to check out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.485 and the P-

value as 0.616. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

68

Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.616>0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among respondents about supervisors’ remarks

cover all aspects of school program.

Table 4.1.31 Appearance of Positive Change

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

7.589 2 3.794 10.015 0.000

Within

Groups

503.139 1329 0.379

Total 510.727 1331

In order to discover the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 10.015 and the P-

value as 0.000. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers regarding

remembrance any event that brought positive change in the teaching of supervisees as

a result of supervisors’ supervision in govt boys’ high schools of KP.

Table 4.1.32 Interval between Observations & Feedback

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

2.231 2 1.115 1.985 0.138

Within

Groups

746.721 1329 0.562

Total 748.952 1331

In order to check out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.985 and the P-

69

value as 0.138. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.138>0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about

interval between observations and feedback.

Table 4.1.33 Consultation on Problems

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

6.782 2 3.391 11.447 0.000

Within

Groups

393.404 1329 0.296

Total 400.186 1331

In order to dig out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis of

variance (ANOVA) performed. The value of the F-statistic was found as 11.447 and

the P-value as 0.000. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA.

The Table illustrated that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is

determined that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers

regarding consultation of supervisees with supervisors on problems they face in

government boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.34 Material Support

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.642 2 2.321 6.067 0.002

Within

Groups

508.070 1329 0.383

Total 512.712 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 6.067 and the P-

70

value as 0.002. The analysis of data reflected the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

shows that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.002<0.05). Thus, it is established that

there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about providing

teaching learning material support to supervisees by supervisors in government boy’s

high schools.

Table 4.1.35 Finding Solution of the problems

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

.657 2 0.328 1.561 0.210

Within

Groups

279.529 1329 0.210

Total 280.186 1331

In order to discover the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.561 and the P-

value as 0.210. The analysis of data presented the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.210>0.05). Thus, it is decided

that there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers regarding

finding solution to the problems that supervisees face in government boys’ high

schools.

71

Table 4.1.36 Availability of Supervisors to Supervisees When Needed

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.661 2 2.331 5.809 0.003

Within

Groups

533.197 1329 0.401

Total 537.858 1331

In order to find out the significance difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.809 and the P-

value as 0.003. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table illustrated that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e.0.003<0.05). Thus, it is found that

there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about

availability of supervisors to supervisees when needed.

Table 4.1.37 Suggestions for Management of School/How to Teach

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

3.269 2 1.634 3.792 0.023

Within

Groups

572.812 1329 0.431

Total 576.081 1331

In order to discover the important variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 3.792 and the P-

value as 0.023. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reflects that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.023<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and districts managers

regarding supervisors suggest to supervisees for management of school/how to

teach.

72

Table 4.1.38 Resolve on the Spot Issue/Problems that Appear During

Supervisory Process

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.337 2 0.168 0.387 0.679

Within

Groups

578.395 1329 0.436

Total 578.732 1331

In order to find out the noteworthy dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA).The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.387 and the P-

value as 0.679. The analysis of data shows the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

illustrates that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.679>0.05). Thus, it is decided that

there is no significant difference among tree groups of respondents regarding to resolve

issues/problems on the spot that appear during supervisory process in government boys’

high school.

Table 4.1.39 Supervision Helpful in Timely Completion of Course

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

15.813 2 7.906 18.523 0.000

Within

Groups

567.268 1329 0.427

Total 583.081 1331

In order to check out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA).The value of the F-statistic was found as 18.523 and the P-

value as 0.000. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and managers opinions

73

about supervisory system helpful in timely completion of course in government boys’

high school.

Table 4.1.40 Maintenance of Record

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.249 2 0.124 0.216 0.805

Within

Groups

763.484 1329 0.575

Total 763.733 1331

In order to dig out the substantial variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.216 and the P-

value as 0.805. The analysis of data illustrated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reflects that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.805>0.05). Thus, it is decided

that there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and districts managers’

views about maintenance of supervision and feedback record.

Table 4.1.41 Meeting about School Improvement Plan and to Develop Lesson

Plan

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.360 2 0.180 0.366 0.694

Within

Groups

654.473 1329 0.493

Total 654.834 1331

In order to discovered the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.366 and the P-

value as 0.694. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

74

Table portray that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.694>0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is no significant difference in the perspective of respondents regarding

meetings about school improvement plan and to develop Lesson Plan.

Table 4.1.42 Arrangement for Group Meetings

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

2.302 2 1.151 3.031 0.049

Within

Groups

504.637 1329 0.380

Total 506.939 1331

In order to discover the substantial variance among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 3.031 and the P-

value as 0.049. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.049<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference in the views of the respondents regarding

arrangement for group Meetings.

Table 4.1.43 Group Meetings in Academic Year

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

48.544 2 24.272 43.632 0.000

Within

Groups

739.320 1329 0.556

Total 787.864 1331

In order to dig out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 43.632 and the P-

value as 0.000. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

75

that there is a significant difference in the opinions of the respondents about group

meetings in academic year.

Table 4.1.44 Appropriation of Supervisory System

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.679 2 2.340 4.314 0.014

Within

Groups

720.849 1329 0.542

Total 725.529 1331

In order to discover the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 4.314 and the P-

value as 0.014. The analysis of data illustrated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.014<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about

appropriation of supervisory system in government boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.45 Time Management

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.582 2 0.291 0.695 0.499

Within

Groups

556.381 1329 0.419

Total 556.963 1331

In order to dig out the major dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.695 and the P-

value as 0.499. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.499>0.05). Thus, it is decided that

76

there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about time

management.

Table 4.1.46 Use of Reflection Diary

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

11.467 2 5.734 7.876 0.000

Within

Groups

967.566 1329 0.728

Total 979.033 1331

In order to discover the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 7.876 and the P-

value as 0.000. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.000<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers regarding

the use of reflection diary by teachers and principals.

Table 4.1.47 Bringing Time Regularity

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

1.260 2 0.630 1.499 0.224

Within

Groups

558.460 1329 0.420

Total 559.720 1331

In order to discover the weighty dissimilarity among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.499 and the P-

value as 0.224. The analysis of data reflected the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

77

shows that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.224>0.05). Thus, it is determined that

there is no significant difference in the views of three groups of respondents regarding

the present supervisory system help in bringing time regularity among supervisees.

Table 4.1.48 Reward & Punishment

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

7.075 2 3.538 5.048 0.007

Within

Groups

931.431 1329 0.701

Total 938.507 1331

In order to discover the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.048 and the P-

value as 0.007. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.007<0.05). Thus, it is concluded that

there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers about reward

& punishment system on the basis of supervisors remarks in Government Boys’ High

School of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Table 4.1.49 Community Participation

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.712 2 0.356 0.581 0.559

Within

Groups

813.626 1329 0.613

Total 814.338 1331

In order to check out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

78

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.581 and the P-

value as 0.559. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table shows that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.559>0.05). Thus, it is decided

that there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and mangers

regarding community participation in the existing supervisory system of government

boys’ high schools.

Table 4.1.50 Creation of Supervisory Cadre

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.113 2 0.056 0.106 0.0899

Within

Groups

706.935 1329 0.532

Total 707.047 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.106 and the P-

value as 0.0899. The analysis of data illustrated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.0899>0.05). Thus, it is decided

that there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and districts managers’

opinions regarding creation of supervisory Cadre. The respondents favour the creation

of supervisory Cadre in education department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Table 4.1.51 Solve Based System

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.954 2 0.477 0.921 0.398

Within

Groups

688.676 1329 0.518

Total 689.630 1331

79

In order to discover the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.921 and the P-

value as 0.398. The analysis of data reflected the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

portray that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.398>0.05). Thus, it is decided that there

is no substantial variance in the opinions of respondents about the present supervisor

system is helpful in solving issues related to teaching-learnings process in Government

Boys’ High School.

Table 4.1.52 Linkage of Pass/Fail ratio to Supervisory System

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

4.137 2 2.068 3.157 0.043

Within

Groups

870.860 1329 0.655

Total 874.997 1331

In order to uncover the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 3.157 and the P-

value as 0.043. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.043<0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is a significant difference among teachers, principals and managers about the

present pass/fail ratio of students in Governments Boys’ High Schools is link to the

supervisory system.

80

Table 4.1.53 Introduction of New Technology

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

0.008 2 0.004 0.013 0.987

Within

Groups

408.019 1329 0.307

Total 408.027 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 0.013 and the P-

value as 0.987. The analysis of data illustrated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table shows that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.987>0.05). Thus, it is concluded

that there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and districts managers

opinions’ regarding introduction of new technology will facilitate supervisory system

of Government Boys’ High Schools.

Table 4.1.54 Types of Reward & Punishment

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

2.240 2 1.120 1.592 0.204

Within

Groups

935.031 1329 0.704

Total 937.270 1331

In order to discover the significant difference among the three groups

respondents; Teachers, Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the

use of variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.592 and the P-

value as 0.204. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The

Table reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.204>0.05). Thus, it is decided

81

that there is no significant difference among teachers, principals and districts managers’

views about types of reward & punishment that is promotion/demotion financial

benefits stopping of increments and posting transfer in Government Boys’ High

Schools.

Table 4.1.55 Departmental guidelines

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statisti

c

Significance

Value

Betwe

en

Groups

.508 1 .508 .849 .359

Within

Groups

66.430 111 .598

Total 66.938 112

In order to discover the major dissimilarity between the respondents; Principals

and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance (ANOVA). The value

of the F-statistic was found as .849 and the P-value as 0.359. The analysis of data

indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that the P-value is more

than 0.05 (i.e. 0.359>0.05). Thus, it is decided that there is no significant difference

between principals and managers about departmental policy or guidelines to

supervisors for supervision in Government Boys’ High Schools.

Table 4.1.56 Challenges during Supervision

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

.104 1 .104 .264 .609

Within

Groups

43.966 111 .396

Total 44.071 112

82

In order to discover the significant difference between the respondents;

Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance (ANOVA).

The value of the F-statistic was found as .264 and the P-value as 0.609. The analysis of

data shows the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reflects that the P-value is more

than 0.05 (i.e. 0.609>0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant difference

among teachers, principals and mangers regarding facing challenges in the conducting

of supervision by supervisory in Government Boys’ High Schools.

Table 4.1.57 Length of Training

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

.043 1 .043 .076 .784

Within

Groups

63.072 111 .568

Total 63.115 112

In order to check out the significant difference between the respondents that is

Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance (ANOVA).

The value of the F-statistic was found as .076 and the P-value as 0.784. The analysis of

data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that the P-value is

more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.784>0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant

difference between principals and districts managers about length of supervisory

training.

Table 4.1.58 Record of Supervisory Visits

Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Square

F-

statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

.961 1 .961 1.778 .185

Within

Groups

59.977 111 .540

Total 60.938 112

83

In order to discover the substantial variance between the respondents; Principals

and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance (ANOVA). The value

of the F-statistic was found as 1.778 and the P-value as 0.185. The analysis of data

indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that the P-value is more

than 0.05 (i.e. 0.185>0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant difference

among teachers, principals and mangers regarding record of supervisory visits in

Government Boy’s High Schools.

Table 4.1.59 Follow the Particular Mechanism in Given Feedback

Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

.206 1 .206 .418 .519

Within

Groups

54.679 111 .493

Total 54.885 112

In order to discover the noteworthy variance between the respondents;

Principals and Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance (ANOVA).

The value of the F-statistic was found as .418 and the P-value as 0.519. The analysis of

data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that the P-value is

more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.519>0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant

difference between principals and managers about follow a particular mechanism in

given feedback to supervisees in Government Boys’ High Schools.

Table 4.1.60 Record of Meeting

Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

.100 1 .100 .173 .678

Within

Groups

64.431 111 .580

Total 64.531 112

84

To dig out the substantial variance between the respondents; Principals and

Districts Managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance (ANOVA). The value of

the F-statistic was found as .173 and the P-value as 0.678. The analysis of data reflected

the output of one way ANOVA. The Table illustrates that the P-value is more than 0.05

(i.e. 0.678>0.05). Thus, it is decided that there is no significant difference regarding

meetings record.

Table 4.1.61 Report to High ups

Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom

Mean

Square

F-

statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

.003 1 .003 .005 .943

Within

Groups

66.723 111 .601

Total 66.726 112

In order to discover the significant difference between the respondents that is

principals and managers, one way of analysis is the use of variance (ANOVA). The

value of the F-statistic was found as .005 and the P-value as 0.943. The analysis of data

indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that the P-value is more

than 0.05 (i.e. 0.943>0.05). Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant difference

between principals and managers views regarding supervision report to high ups.

Table 4.1.62 TA/DA Facilities for Supervisors

Frequency Percentage

Yes 17 81%

No 4 19%

Total 21 100%

It is usually thought that external supervision without TA/DA services were not

possible to the schools situated in remote parts of the province. Therefore a question

about TA/DA put in front of respondents. The above Table reveals that most of the

85

respondents that is 81% were claimed that they received the above mentioned facilities.

Only 19% of district mangers viewed that they did not avail this facilities. The results

obtained are also diagrammatically presented in figure 1.

Figure 1: TA/DA Facilities for Supervisors.

Table 4.1.63 In-Service Training

Frequency Percentage

Yes 4 19%

To Some Extent 13 62%

No 4 19%

Total 21 100%

There appear no arrangement for the training and orientation of supervisors

which appear to be primary reason for the unsatisfactory performance of supervisors.

The above Table indicates that 62% of respondents are of the opinion that in-services

trainings were imparted to supervisors for the role of supervision to some extent while

19% responded to yes and 19% to No. The results of analysis are further described in

figure 2.

Frequency

Yes No Total

86

Figure 2: in-Service Training.

Table 4.1.64 Job Description

Frequency Percentage

Yes 9 43%

To Some Extent 11 52%

No 1 5%

Total 21 100%

It is generally believed that the supervisors were not pleased with their job

description due to many reason such as overburden and limitation of funds. The above

Table shows that 43%respondents were agreed with their job description while 52%

respondents were agree to some extent and only 5% were not agreed to their job

description. The analysis of the data achieved and the outcomes were further explained

with the help of figure 3.

Frequency

Yes To Some Extent No Total

87

Figure 3: Job Description.

Table 4.1.65 Availability of Resources

S.

No

Suggestions

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 Separate

Supervision

Section

8 4 3 3

3

38% 19% 14% 14% 14%

2 Clerical

Staff

3 3 8 5 2 14% 14% 38% 24% 10%

3 Computer &

KPO

4 8 2 5 2 19% 38% 10% 24% 10%

4 Office

Material

2 2 7 5 5 10% 10% 33% 24% 24%

5 Trained

Supervisee

Staff

4 4 1 3 9 19% 19% 5% 14% 42%

It is commonly assumed that for supervising the schools no funds were available

which created obstacles in bring advancement in the existing supervisory system. The

above Table reflects that 38% of respondents gave first importance to distinct

supervision unit. 38% respondents gave third significance to provision of clerical staff.

The facility of computer and Key Punch Operator was given second primacy by the

38% of respondents. Moreover 33% of respondents gave third priority to the facility of

Frequency

Yes To Some Extent No Total

88

office material. lastly 19% of respondents gave first and second significance to the

employment of skilled supervisory team.

Table 4.1.66 Identification of Hurdles in Supervision

S.N

o

Suggesti

ons

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Over

Burden

7 1 4 3 2 2 2 33

%

5% 19

%

14

%

10

%

10

%

10

%

2 Non

availabil

ity of

Staff

1 4 7 4 3 1 1 5% 19

%

33

%

19

%

14

%

5% 5%

3 No

availabil

ity of

resource

s

1 2 5 5 4 3 1 5% 10

%

24

%

24

%

19

%

14

%

5%

4 Law and

order

situation

4

7 1 4 1 2 2

19

%

33

%

5% 19

%

5% 10

%

10

%

5 Lack of

Supervis

ors

interest

3 5 2 1 3 5 2 14

%

24

%

10

%

5% 14

%

24

%

10

%

6 Lack of

Transpor

t Facility

2 1 1 2 2 5 8 10

%

5% 5% 10

%

10

%

24

%

38

%

7 Un-

trained

Staff

3 1 1 2 6 3 5 14

%

5% 5% 10

%

29

%

14

%

24

%

8 Any

others

Total

89

It is commonly assumed that overburden, lack of supervisors’ interest, law and

order situation and non-availability of staff are the core hurdles as showed in the table.

The Table illustrates that 33% of the respondents identified overburden as first hurdles.

33% respondents recognized non availability of staff as second third hurdle. Non

availability of resources was ascertained as third hurdles by 24% of respondents. Law

and order situation was pinpointed as second hurdles by 33% of the respondents. The

fifth hurdles that was discovered by 24% of the respondents was the lack of supervisors’

interest. The sixth hurdle that was detected by 38% of the respondents was the lack of

transport facilities while untrained staff was found as fifth hurdles by 29% respondents.

90

Table 4.1.67 Suggestions for Improvement

S.

No

Suggestio

ns

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Availabili

ty of

Separate

Supervisi

on Section

8 1 4 2 1 2 3 38% 5

%

19

%

10

%

5

%

10

%

14

%

2 Availabili

ty of

Sufficient

Trained

Staff

4 1

0

3 1 1 1 1 19% 4

8

14

%

5

%

5 5

%

5

%

3 Provision

of

resources

4 2 5 3 2 3 2 19% 1

0

24

%

14

%

1

0

14

%

10

%

4 Provision

of

Computer

s & KPOs

1 5 2 5 3 3 2 5% 2

4

10

%

24

%

1

4

14

%

10

%

5 Empower

ment of

Supervisi

on

2 1 4 3 5 4 2 10%

%

5 19

%

14

%

2

4

19

%

10

%

6 Provision

of

Transport

Facilities

1 1 2 4 6 3 4 5% 5 10

%

19

%

2

9

14

%

19

%

7 In-service

Training

1 1 1 3 3 5 7 5% 5 5

%

14

%

1

4

24

%

33

%

8 Mention

any other

Total

91

It is common perception that for bringing improvement in the existing scenario

of supervisory system of Government Boy’s High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,

the facilities may be provided to supervisors as presented in the table. The Table

reflects that 38% of the respondents recommend and emphasis on availability of

separate unit of supervision. 48% of respondents considered that availability of

sufficient trained staff is essential for improvement of supervisory system and they gave

second priority to it.

Table 4.1.68 Suggestions for the Improving of Supervisory System

S.

N

o

Suggesti

ons

No. of respondents Percentage

Teacher Principle Teacher Principle

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1 To

increase

the

frequenc

y of visits

397 2

8

3

1

8

2

3

5

7

8 1

1

29 44 33

%

2

3

%

15

%

29

%

7

%

12

%

32

%

48

%

2 Availabil

ity of

resources

349 4

4

5

3

0

6

1

1

9

1

3

2

3

32 24 29

%

3

6

25 10

%

14

%

25

%

35

%

26

%

3 In-

service

trainings

for

Supervis

or

290 2

6

8

3

2

0

3

4

1

3

8

3

4

15 5 23

%

2

2

%

26

%

28

%

41

%

37

%

16

%

5

%

4 Sufficien

t staff for

Supervis

or

183 2

2

3

4

1

1

4

0

2

3

3

2

4

16 19 15

%

1

8

%

34

%

33

%

36

%

26

%

17

%

21

%

5 Any

other

Total

92

The above Table illustrates that 33% of the teacher respondents gave first

importance to increase the frequency of visits while 48% of principal’s respondents

gave it fourth significance. Another 29% of teacher’s respondents gave first urgency to

availability of resources. 35% of principals gave third priority to this option. The in-

services trainings for supervisors was given forth priority by the 28% teachers’

respondents and 37% of principals gave second priority to it. Finally 34% of teachers

and 36% of principals gave third and first priority respectively to the sufficient staff for

supervisors.

Section wise Analysis

In this part of the chapter cumulative reflection of different constructs or parts

of responses are provided to reach an outcome that would be meaningful for

conclusions and recommendations.

Table 4.1.69 Visits and Training in Supervision

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

36.961 2 18.480 1.701 .183

Within

Groups

14428.115 1329 10.865

Total 14465.076 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents that is teachers, principals and managers, one way of analysis is the use of

variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 1.701 and the P-value

as.183. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

reveals that the P-value is more than 0.05 (i.e.0.1830>.05), so it is concluded that there

is no significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers of

Government Boy’s High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regarding Visits and

Training in Supervision.

93

Table 4.1.70 Observation

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

92.597 2 46.299 5.910 .003

Within

Groups

10403.625 1329 7.834

Total 10496.222 1331

In order to dig out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents that is teachers, principals and managers, one way of analysis is the use of

variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.910 and the P-value as

.003. The analysis of data reflected the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals

that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. .003<0.05), so it is decided that there is a

significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers of government

boys’ high schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regarding observation

Table 4.1.71 Feedback

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

10.299 2 5.149 .386 .680

Within

Groups

17666.470 1329 13.333

Total 17676.768 1331

In order to discovered the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents that is teachers, principals and managers, one way of analysis is the use of

variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as .386 and the P-value as.

.680 The analysis of data illustrated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table shows

that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.680>0.05), so it is determined that there is no

94

significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers of Government

Boy’s High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regarding feedback

Table 4.1.72 Support

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

133.723 2 66.861 8.944 .000

Within

Groups

9913.060 1329 7.476

Total 10046.783 1331

In order to dig out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents that is teachers, principals and managers, one way of analysis is the use of

variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 8.944 and the P-value as

the analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals that

the P-value is.000 less than 0.05 (i.e. .000<0.05), so it is concluded that there is a

significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers of Government

boy’s High schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regarding support

Table 4.1.73 Supervision Record and Meeting

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic

Significance

Value

Between

Groups

73.315 2 36.657 13.940 .000

Within

Groups

3489.605 1329 2.630

Total 3562.920 1331

In order to check out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents that is teachers, principals and managers, one way of analysis is the use of

variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as13.940 and the P-value

as.000. The analysis of data portray the output of one way ANOVA. The Table

95

describes that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. .000<0.05), so it is concluded that there

is a significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers of

Government boy’s High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regarding supervision record

and meeting.

Table 4.1.74 Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Supervision

Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square F-statistic Significance Value

Between

Groups

195.950 2 97.975 5.754 .003

Within

Groups

22612.774 1329 17.028

Total 22808.724 1331

In order to find out the significant difference among the three groups of

respondents that is teachers, principals and managers, one way of analysis is the use of

variance (ANOVA). The value of the F-statistic was found as 5.754 and the P-value as

0.003. The analysis of data indicated the output of one way ANOVA. The Table reveals

that the P-value is less than 0.05 (i.e. .003<0.05), so it is concluded that there is a

significant difference among teachers, principals and districts mangers of Government

Boy’s High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regarding miscellaneous questions

Regarding Supervision.

4.2 Discussion

In supervisory structure of secondary schools, the DEO and Dy DEO play the

role of external supervisor. Regular supervision of schools are included in their job

description. They check all records of the schools and supervise the Principles, Head

Masters and teachers of the schools in the District. They also help the training

institutions and NGOs in providing training to teachers and schools heads. The

Principals are responsible to act as internal supervisors of teachers as the supervision

of teachers are included in their job description. Teachers serve as supervisees in

present education system. Therefore the researcher develops questionnaires for

teachers, Districts officers and School Heads. The responses of these three groups are

analyzed and compared to study the existing supervision system and Identify strengths

96

and weaknesses of the present supervisory system of Govt. Boys’ High Schools of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The whole research process and analyses concluded useful objectives of the

research which are elaborated in the subsequent paragraphs. The analyses of data

revealed that present supervisory system did not help the teachers in the completion of

courses in time and the system was also found inappropriate. There is a need to

introduce new technologies and modern trends in supervisory system as well as

establishment of independent supervisory cadre and unit. It was also reported that

involvement of learned community in school based decisions were also needed in

present supervisory system. Supervisors are over loaded, mostly engaged in

administrative duties and ignored instructional supervision. The basic components of

supervision are visits, observation, observation sheet, feedback, support, meetings and

trainings.

The study identified that the supervisors did not support supervisees to provide

teaching learning materials and there is no concept of accountability based on

performance. Supervisors were also not easily available to teachers for support and to

suggest how to teach. Supervisors were needed to be trained in the different aspects of

supervision. Supervisors did not have standardized classroom observation sheets.

Teachers were not having reflection diary for their day to day academic activities.

Supervisors make surprise visits to schools and classrooms but unsatisfactory

improvement can be seen, because supervisors are not properly trained to perform their

duties effectively. Supervisory visits are paid from time to time. Though supervisors

provide feedback to teachers and maintain record of it, but it could not be implemented.

The study explored that supervisor’s remarks cover all aspects of school

programs but as a result there appeared to be no positive changes in improvement of

teaching techniques. It was dig out that supervisors hold meetings to supervisees to help

them in the preparation of lesson plans and school improvement plans. They also

discuss time management with them. But they did not evaluate the implementation of

the lesson in schools. The respondents thought it was necessary to find solution for the

problems that were faced by the supervisees. Principals and Districts Mangers agreed,

to some extent, to their job descriptions. The current supervisory system was found

97

helpful in regularizing the attendance of teachers, checking their absenteeism, and solve

issues related to teaching learning process.

98

Chapter-5

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

It was a descriptive research, which carried out an analysis of supervisory

system of public boys’ high schools. The research was carried out in seven districts of

the Province. These districts were Abbottabad, Bannu, Buner, D.I.Khan, Kohat,

Mardan, and Peshawar, which were randomly picked from seven administrative

divisions with an intent to generalize the outcomes of the research to the whole

province.

The poor quality of education at the secondary level is owing many reasons

among those one is inadequate supervision of schools by the supervisors who are

expected to frequently visits to schools and provide feedback both to teachers and

students as was done before the independence of Pakistan and thereafter. There is

inadequate support of supervisors to the teachers to improve their effectiveness because

the students’ success depends on the quality and success of teachers. It is therefore,

needed to make an analysis of the supervisory system at Government Boys’ High

Schools to find out gaps and suggest remedial solutions for improvement of the

supervisory role of Head Masters/Principals and District level Education Officers for

effective teaching and learning process.

The objectives of the study included an analysis of the existing supervisory

system of Government Boys’ High Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for identification

of strengths and weaknesses and to make recommendations for development of the

system. The indicators for development of instruments were drawn from relevant

literature.

The sample population of the research in the randomly selected seven districts

was 6281 in which 5815 male teachers, 445 male principals, and 25 male DEO, DY,

DEO and ASDEO each. The sample size was determined by Krejcie and Morgan

formula, which came out to 1332 in which 1219 teachers, 92 principals and 21 districts

managers. The primary data were collected from teachers, principals and districts

managers of Government Boys’ High Schools. The secondary data were collected from

magazines, books, research papers and office documents.

99

The data were obtained through three sets of questionnaires developed for

teachers, principals and districts managers of Government Boys’ High School of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Clear instructions for completing questionnaires were given to

the respondents and comprehensive language was used for the understanding of the

respondents.

Analysis of the data were done with the help of complex and sample statistical

measures such as cross tabulation, percentage and ANOVA were used for appraising

and correlation. The gaps identified by the study were that the supervisors did not

support supervisees to provide teaching learning materials. They were also not easily

available to teachers for support and to suggest how to teach. The present supervisory

system did not help the teachers in the completion of courses in time and the system

was also found inappropriate. Supervisors are over loaded, mostly engaged in

administrative duties and ignored instructional supervision. Supervisors were needed

to be trained in the different aspects of supervision. Supervisors did not have

standardized classroom observation sheets. Teachers were not having reflection diary

for their day to day academic activities and there is no concept of accountability based

on performance.

The major recommendations of the study included introduction of new

technologies in present supervisory system, creation of supervisory cadre/ unit and

community participation in present supervisory system were necessary, overcome the

burden and challenges faced by supervisors. There is no system for instructional

supervision by school heads in the secondary schools of the province. It is the most

important duty of school heads because the only concern of the department is to

promote learning through effective teaching practices. It is therefore recommended that

focus of the department should be on effective instructional supervision.

The key questions of the study were also answered. The current supervisory

system was analyzed. The strengths and weakness of the existing supervisory system

were also explored and for improvement of supervisory system of Government Boys’

High Schools appropriate recommendations were made. The implication of the study

will be positive and deep rooted impact on the supervisory system and practices in

vogue in the E&SE department of KP. Where after the implementation of

recommendations of this research will improve the supervisory system from its

100

foundations, improving the achievements of both teachers and students as well as of the

supervisors.

5.2 Findings

The following findings of the study are based on three sets of questionnaires,

administered to 1219 Teachers, 92 Principals and 21 District Mangers of Govt Boys’

High Schools in seven different randomly selected districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Province of Pakistan.

1. It was found that the supervisors did not play supervisory role properly in Govt

Boys High Schools of KP Pakistan. (Table-4.1.1)

2. There was significant difference regarding frequency of visits. (Table-4.1.2)

3. The respondents expressed satisfaction about the present frequency of visits.

(Table-4.1.3)

4. Analysis of the data indicated that the respondents did not subscribe to the view

that frequency of supervisors visits help in improving performance of the

supervisees. (Table-4.1.4)

5. An overwhelming majority of all the three categories of respondents supported

that the supervisees were satisfied with the supervisions of supervisors.

(Table-4.1.5)

6. Significant difference was found regarding satisfactions with frequency of

visits. (Table-4.1.6)

7. It was found that respondents supported the questions regarding supervisors that

they make informal visits to the Govt Boys High Schools. (Table-4.1.7)

8. The study unfolded that supervisors were not fully aware of their functions and

required training. (Table-4.1.8)

9. The respondents acknowledged that they received in-service training.

(Table-4.1.9)

10. The study diagnosed that the supervisors did not use a standardized classroom

observation sheet to supervise teaching learning process in classrooms.

(Table-4.1.10)

101

11. It was found that no consensus existed between the supervisors and supervisees

regarding where the supervisor should sit in the classroom, while observing

teaching learning process. (Table-4.1.11)

12. All the respondents viewed that the supervisors should demonstrate the method

of teaching while supervising the class. (Table-4.1.12)

13. The respondents viewed that after supervision a copy of observation sheet

should be provided to supervisees. (Table-4.1.13)

14. It was found that the supervisors did not pursue all the supervisees in the same

manner. (Table-4.1.14)

15. It was found that the supervisors did not assess the subject matter knowledge of

the supervisees. (Table-4.1.15)

16. Based on responses of all respondents that supervisors did not develop cordial

relation with supervisees before supervisions. (Table-4.1.16)

17. Analysis of the data revealed that the respondents have no consensus regarding

procedure of supervision. (Table-4.1.17)

18. It was found that the supervisors evaluated the performance of teachers by

percentage of pass students. (Table-4.1.18)

19. The study revealed that there was substantial diversity among the opinion of the

respondents about the provision of feedback of the supervisors to supervisees.

(Table-4.1.19)

20. It was found that there was no expressive variance in the responses of three

subjects about type of supervisions. (Table-4.1.20)

21. Analysis of the data reflected that there was meaningful variation in the

opinions of respondents about time allocations for feedback of supervisors to

supervisees. (Table-4.1.21)

22. The study unfolded that there was no agreement on the time frame of feedback

to be given by supervisors. (Table-4.1.22)

23. The respondents did not agree about whether the feedback should be given to

supervisees by supervisors in classroom, among teachers or in privacy.

102

(Table-4.1.23)

24. The study indicated that supervisors did not provide extended feedback to

supervisees. (Table-4.1.24)

25. Most of the respondents were of the views that the supervisors did not provide

relevant feedback on the observe lesson. (Table-4.1.25)

26. The respondents were of the view that consensus did not necessary among

supervisors and supervisees. (Table-4.1.26)

27. The study unfolded that there was noteworthy divergence in the opinions of the

respondents about clarity and impartial feedback by the supervisors.

(Table-4.1.27)

28. There was significant difference about high lighting the positive and negative

aspects of supervisees teaching. (Table-4.128)

29. The study revealed that the supervisors did not impose feedback given to

supervisees for implementation. (Table-4.1.29)

30. It came to limelight that respondents claimed that supervisor’s remarks covered

all aspects of school program. (Table-4.1.30)

31. The study uncovered that the supervision of supervisors did not bring change in

the teaching of supervisees. (Table-4.1.31)

32. The study revealed that respondents favoured interval between teachers’

observation and feedback. (Table-4.1.32)

33. The study unfolded that supervisees did not consult supervisors about their

problems. (Table-4.1.33)

34. It was found that teachers were not provided A.V Aid for effective teaching

learning process. (Table-4.1.34)

35. All the respondents unanimously held the view that it was necessary to find

solution to the problems of teachers. (Table-4.1.35)

36. It was discovered that supervisors were not easily available to supervisees to

support and advice when required. (Table-4.1.36)

103

37. The respondents were indecisive about the role of supervisors to suggest

supervisees how to teach and manage the school. (Table-4.1.37)

38. The study found that supervisors should resolve problems on the spot which

appeared during supervisory process. (Table-4.1.38)

39. It was found that the present supervisory system did not help the supervisees in

the completion of course in time. (Table-4.1.39)

40. The study revealed that supervisors maintained record of supervision and

provided feedback to supervisees. (Table-4.1.40)

41. It was reported by respondents that the supervisors held meetings with the

supervisees to develop lesson plan for teaching and for school improvement

plan. (Table-4.1.41)

42. The study uncovered that the supervisors did not arrange group meetings with

supervisees. (Table-4.1.42)

43. It came to light that there were significant differences in the opinion of the

respondents regarding numbers of group meeting in an academic year.

(Table-4.1.43)

44. The respondents were of the view that the prevailing supervisory system is

inappropriate. (Table-4.1.44)

45. The study showed that majority of the respondents including teachers,

principals and districts mangers were of the opinion that the supervisees

received advice from supervisors regarding time management. (Table-4.1.45)

46. The respondents were of the view that supervisors and supervisees did not use

self-reflection diary. (Table-4.1.46)

47. Majority of the respondents were of the views that the present supervisory

system helped in the regularity of teachers. (Table-4.1.47)

48. The research showed that the respondents were of the view that on the basis of

remarks of supervisors no reward and punishment system existed.

(Table-4.1.48)

104

49. The analysis of data described that most of the respondents were in favour of

community participation in supervisory system. (Table-4.1.49)

50. The research revealed that majority of the respondents were in favour of the

creation of supervisory cadre. (Table-4.1.50)

51. The research detected that most of the respondents assumed that the current

supervisory system is helpful in solving issues related to the teaching-learning

process. (Table-4.1.51)

52. The study revealed that the respondents including teachers, principal and

districts managers viewed that the present pass fail ratio of the students in

Government Boys’ High Schools has no link with the supervisory system.

(Table-4.1.52)

53. The study found that mostly all the respondents including teachers, principals

and districts mangers were of the view that introduction of new technology will

facilitate supervisory system of the schools. (Table-4.1.53)

54. There were significant differences regarding types of reward and punishment

system on the basis of supervision. (Table-4.1.54)

55. The analysis of data revealed that the respondents including teachers, principals

and districts managers were of the opinion that departmental guides lines are

provided to them for supervision of schools. (Table-4.1.55)

56. The respondents were of the view that they did not face challenges in conducting

supervision. (Table-4.1.56)

57. The study revealed that there were no significant difference regarding the length

of supervisory training. (Table-4.1.57)

58. The supervisors reported that they kept proper record of supervisory visits.

(Table-4.1.58)

59. It came to light that supervisors followed a particular mechanism in giving

feedback to the supervisees. (Table-4.1.59)

60. The analysis of data showed that supervisors had record of supervisees’ group

meetings. (Table-4.1.60)

105

61. Supervisors reported to their high ups regarding their observation recorded after

supervision. (Table-4.1.61)

62. The study revealed that supervisors received TA/DA facilities for supervision.

(Table-4.1.62)

63. The Districts Mangers were of the view that the supervisors were occasionally

given orientation on the role of supervision. (Table-4.1.63)

64. The study indicated that supervisors were satisfied with their job description to

some extent. (Table-4.1.64)

65. The analysis of the data revealed that 38% respondents give first priority to

separate section, second priority to computer and key punch operator and third

priority to clerical staff. (Table-4.1.65)

66. The study highlighted the overburdened state of supervisors. (Table-4.1.66)

67. The study discovered that the majority of respondents suggested separate

supervision section, availability of sufficient trained staff and provision of

resources as first, second and third priority for the improvement of supervisory

system. (Table-4.1.67)

5.3 Section wise Findings of the Study

The following are the brief findings by sections.

5.3.1 Visits and Training

The analysis of the responses of the three groups of respondents indicate that

supervisors occasionally play supervisory role in Government Boy’s High School of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. (Table-4.1.69)

5.3.2 Observations

The crux of the responses of all the three categories of respondents revealed that

supervisors did not properly observe the supervisees of Government Boy’s High

Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. (Table-4.1.70)

106

5.3.3 Feedback

The study found that the supervisors provide feedback to the supervisees.

(Table-4.171)

5.3.4 Support

The data illustrated that most of the respondents considered that supervisors did

not give support to supervisees of Govt Boy’s High School KP. Pakistan. (Table-4.1.72)

5.3.5 Records and Meetings

The study found significant difference in responses of the three groups of

respondents regarding record maintenance and meetings of supervision. (Table-4.1.73)

5.3.6 Miscellaneous Questions regarding Supervision

Miscellaneous question regarding supervision, comprised on eleven questions.

When the data were analyzed by ANOVA significant difference was found in opinions.

(Table-4.1.74)

5.4 Discussion on Findings

It is a strong aspect of the existing supervisory system that supervisory visits

are made from time to time. This result is in line with the Clinical Supervision

developed by Cogan (1970). It is also in line with Classical Supervision Model. This

model was in vogue in British and French dominated countries. Supervisory System of

Education in Pakistan is the legacy of the British colonial era. The characteristics of

British supervisory system is still reflected in Pakistan. It could not function properly

due to inconsistencies in government policies, law and order situation, paucity of funds,

lack of good governance as well as strategic geographical location of Pakistan. In this

model strong emphasis is placed on external supervision. This is a bureaucratic model,

where the educators are considered answerable to her/his owner.

Baffour (2011: 28-39) stated that the traditional form of supervision is also

called inspection. The supervisor in this model has the duty to intervene promptly in

the task of teachers to improve defective areas.

It has been noted through this study that supervisors do not observe the teaching

learning process in proper manner as they are not properly trained and they do not have

a proper observation tool to record their observation and gray areas of the teaching

107

learning process. But according to Glickman, the most necessary part of supervision is

“lesson observation”, so this is in contrast to the Glickman’s views.

It is also a fact that after the observation, the supervisors provide feedback to

the supervisees as required and needed. In terms of feedback Ferguson (2013) stated

that feedback is unavoidable instrument of supervisory process. The study has

highlighted both strong and weak points of the current supervisory system.

The supervisor are not so trained to provide support to supervisees through

model lessons or other means of support. It is also declared in Central Control Model

that lack of support is a harmful aspect of the model. Hence this finding is quite in line

with weakness of the central control model. Teachers are the most important resource

in any school, therefore it is critical for school leaders to support and nurture them.

According to Duncan (2009:9) we need great teachers and leaders.

Through findings of the thesis it came to light that the supervisors do not use

any standardized observation sheet (observation tool) which should consist of all

teacher standards notified by the government. In Scientific Supervision a proper

observation tool is required for an authentic and reliable results of observation.

The respondents favoured community participation in supervisory system

which is in line with School Site Supervisory Model. Society with few disparities, well-

motivated teachers are the characteristics of this model. The local community and

teachers are the finest supervisors to ensure quality and function of the school because

of their closeness to the school and have a good influence on the instructional process.

According to Favre (2001:614-631), countries where this model exists, exhibit a high

level of school sovereignty. Classical example of this model is Finland.

Respondents’ also favoured supervisory cadre and suggested separate

supervisory unite. These are in line with Close to School Support Model. The

traditionalist arrangement of this model was established in Chili after Pinochet regime

assumed power by democratic government.

The study revealed that supervisors are overburdened. This is in line with

Central Control Model. In several Anglo Saxon countries, this model is still in practice,

particularly in Wales, New Zealand and England. In this model the main supervisory

tools are report and inspection visits. Dufour (2004) stated that to promote teachers

108

collaboration with one another the supervisors should provide time and opportunities

for teachers. This will improve their instructional strategies and skills.

Pakistan is a developing country due to which the number of teachers is

increasing day by day and the number of supervisors has not really increased. Similarly

the workload is increasing for the supervisors. When this phenomena is combined with

the lack of financial and other recourses then it becomes difficult to manage the schools

supervision.

109

5.5 Conclusions

Based on the findings of the research, the conclusions are as under.

1. Supervisory visits are paid from time to time.

2. Principals and Districts Mangers agreed, to some extent, to their job descriptions.

3. Supervisors make surprise visits to schools and classrooms but unsatisfactory

improvement can be seen, because supervisors are not properly trained to perform their

duties effectively.

4. Though supervisors provide feedback to teachers and maintain record of it, but it

could not be implemented.

5. The study explored that supervisor’s remarks cover all aspects of school programs

but as a result there appeared to be no positive changes in improvement of teaching

learning process.

6. The respondents thought it was necessary to find solution for the problems that were

faced by the supervisees.

7. It was found that supervisors held meetings with supervisees to help them in the

preparation of lesson plans and school improvement plans. They also discuss time

management with them. But they did not evaluate the implementation of the lesson in

schools.

8. The current supervisory system was found helpful in regularizing the attendance of

teachers, checking their absenteeism, and solve issues related to teaching learning

process.

9. The present supervisory system is not appropriate to improve teaching learning

process in schools. Following gaps are found in the system:-

(a) Supervisors are overburdened, mostly engaged in administrative duties and

ignored importance of instructional supervision. Supervisors need to be trained in

different aspects of supervision.

(b) Supervisors are not trained in the art of supervision therefore, they could not

perform supervisory tasks to the satisfaction of teachers and principals. They also

110

do not develop cordial relations with teachers and do not assess their subject matter

knowledge.

(c) What they demonstrate to teachers such as preparation of lesson planning is not

subsequently checked wither those implemented.

(d) The non-availability of supervisors for professional advice and support to

educators.

(e) Most of supervisors did not consider themselves empowered.

(f) Supervisors did not support and help teachers in availability of A.V aids to help

them in effective teaching practices. As such there were no A.V aids available

in schools and no funds were arranged for this purpose.

(g) Non availability of A.V aids on account of non-provision of funds has adversely

affected teacher learning process.

(h) Teachers did not consult the supervisors for the problems they face.

(i) Supervisors did not have standardized classroom observation sheets even

though they have got in service training on giving demonstrations in the

classrooms and evaluating the performance of teachers.

(j) Supervisors did not bother a jot when teachers did not complete course work

within the stipulated time.

(k) Teachers were not having reflection diary for their day to day activities and there

were no concept of incentive and decentive based on performance.

(l) There is a requirement to introduce new technologies and modern trends in

supervisory system as well as establishment of independent supervisory cadre and unit.

(m) It was also reported that involvement of learned community in school based

decisions were also needed in present supervisory system, to increase the frequency of

visits, overcome the burdens, challenges of supervisors and to inculcate sense of

responsibility and own their institutions and offices to play their role effectively.

111

5.6 Recommendations

Based on the conclusions and outcomes of the research, following

recommendations were made for improvement of supervisory system:

1. There is no system for instructional supervision by school heads in the secondary

schools of the province. It is the most important duty of school heads because the only

concern of the department is to promote learning through effective teaching practices.

It is therefore recommended that focus of the department should be on effective

instructional supervision.

2. An independent and dedicated unit should be established at DCTE / PITE / DEO

office / Directorate levels to carry out supervisory activities at the secondary schools

and it should be active and functional, not dormant.

3. Before establishment of independent unit, its function and modus operandi should be

shared with Principals as well as teachers and other concerned officers.

4. The DEO is overburdened. So it is suggested that DEO academic should be

established.

5. It will be more useful if modern technologies are introduced for supervision of

schools.

6. Supervisors should observe the teaching of teachers, and insert their remarks in the

proforma, a uniform observation sheet should be developed and used throughout the

province. Both the weak and strong sides must be discussed.

7. All District officers, Principals and Head Masters of Government Boys High Schools

of KP, need comprehensive job oriented trainings and refresher courses for their

capacity building, as to enhance their attitude and skills in handling electronic devices

of supervision and to perform their duties as supporters, friends, motivators, leaders

,managers, administrators and facilitator of the team.

8. Government should develop national performance indicators for teachers, principals,

officers and schools. Quality assurance test (QAT) for them should be initiated, on the

basis of which they should be considered for transfers and promotions.

9. The trainings and refresher courses needs Training Need Assessment (TNA) to the

supervisors, officers as well as teachers.

112

10. The continuing professional development (CPD) should be initiated in the province

for Government Boys’ High Schools of KP or on job trainings through

Principal/Headmaster should be initiated.

11. A viable system of accountability should be introduced in the department providing

system of reward & punishment which should be based on performance and good

governance.

12. Teachers should maintain their dairies for recording all their academic activities,

which should be checked by supervisors for feedback and they should also check

teachers group meeting register during their visits to the schools.

13. It should be made mandatory that secondary schools head should meet the staff at

least once in a month for taking appropriate decisions about school problems and share

their experiences.

14. The department should devise a procedure for on-line meetings with the schools

head.

15. There should be a follow up study of every training given to teachers, Principals

as well as Officers to see the impact of that training on their performance.

16. The teaching learning process is badly affected by the involvement of teachers and

schools heads in duties other than those for which they are responsible in schools. It is

therefore recommended that student should not suffer on account of their repeated

nonappearance from schools.

17. School heads should, as for as possible, be involved in school based decisions

pertaining to appointment of teachers. They should be empowered and provided

institutionalized leadership, by demanding better performance from teachers in the

school and establish a conducive environment for them to do so.

18. At present there is multi-dimensional system for monitoring the school based

activities which includes Bio- matric system, IMU and the principal himself. This has

created a lot of confusion and wastage of resources. It is therefore recommended that

the bio- matric system should be connected to central server and main offices as well

as A.G office, so that all the concerned would be informed on the spot and quick actions

would be possible.

19. In order to strengthen the supervisory system of the schools by external school

supervisors. It is suggest that a separate cadre should be introduced for supervisors so

113

that they should focus only on supervision of schools and promote other things that

enhance teacher learning program.

20. It is recommend that involvement of learned community in school based decision

is the need of time in present supervisory system.

114

References

Abiddin, N. Z. (2008). Exploring Clinical Supervision to Facilitate the Creative Process

of Supervision. Journal of International Social Research, 1(3), 5-33.

Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1980). Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of

Teachers. Preservice and Inservice Applications. Longman, Inc.

Afianmabon (2007). Clinical supervision and teacher effectiveness in school.

International journal of educational planning and administration 2007.

Ahmed, W., & Ali, M. (1989). Primary Education Management: NWFP & Baluchistan.

Islamabad.

Ali, M. A. (1998). Supervision for teacher development: A proposal for Pakistan.

Unesco, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Avalos, B. (2004). Teacher regulatory forces and accountability policies in Chile: From

public servants to accountable professionals. Research papers in education,

19(1), 67-85.

Aziz, S. (2004). Role of Education. Dawn, 6 January 2004, Islamabad, Pakistan. P-10

Baffour-Awuah, P. (2011). Supervision of instruction in public primary schools in

Ghana: Teacher's and head teacher’s perspectives (Doctoral dissertation,

Murdoch University).

Barroso, Joao, Afonso, Natércio, Bajomi, Ivan et al. (2002), Systèmes éducatifs, modes

de régulation et d’évaluation Scolaires et Politiques de Lutte Eontre les

inégalités en Angleterre, Belgique, France,

Barroux, Rémi. (2000), Le Monde de l’éducation, mars. Vers un corps unique

d’inspecteurs p.26-27

Behlol, M.G., Yousuf, M. I., Parveen, Q., & Kayani, M. M. (2011) Concept of

Supervision and Supervisory Practices at Primary Level in Pakistan.

International Education Studies, 4(4), 28-35.

Bhatti, A, A, (2013). School Supervision and Internal Efficiency. A presentation deliver

at Academy of Educational Planning and Management.4th Four week National

Training Program on “Educational Leadership and Institutional Management’’

(September 16 to October 11, 2013 at AEPAM, Islamabad)

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher

development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational administration quarterly,

35(3), 349-378.

BISEP. (2017-18). Results’ Statistics of Board of Intermediate and Secondary

Examination Peshawar, Pakistan.

Borg, W.R and Gall,D. (1989). Education research and introduction (Fifth Edition):

Longman. 336-337.

115

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria,

VA: ASCD. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108019.aspx Retrieved

November, 10, 2014.

Brown, S. (2007). Feedback and feed-forward. Higher Education Academy Centre for

Bioscience Bulletin No. 22, 22(1).

http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/bulletin.aspx Retrieved

January, 1, 2016.

Buchman, M., & Floden, R. E. (1991). Programme coherence in teacher education: A

view from the USA. Oxford Review of Education, 17(1), 65-72.

Bureau Report. (2016, October 17). Automated management system launched for

schools. The daily Dawn, Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com

Burns, J. (2000). 'Improvement through Inspection’? An Investigation of Teachers'

Perceptions of OFSTED as a Vehicle for Improvement. Trentham.

Bustamante, R. M., Nelson, J. A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). Assessing schoolwide

cultural competence: Implications for school leadership preparation.

Educational administration quarterly, 45(5), 793-827.

Chapman, D. W., & Burchfield, S. A. (1994). How headmasters perceive their role: A

case study in Botswana. International Review of Education, 40(6), 401-419.

Chiagba, G. (2009). Nature and scope of supervision. Lecturer note, UNN

Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cranston, J. (2011). Relational trust: The glue that binds a professional learning

community. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(1), 59-72.

Cusack, B. O. (1992). An end to school inspection: The New Zealand experience.

Management in Education, 6(2), 6-8.

Davis, T. (2013). McRel’s research-based teacher evaluation system: The CUES

framework.

De Grauwe, A. (2001). School Supervision in Four African Countries. Volume I:

Challenges and Reforms. Trends in School Supervision. United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, International Inst. for

Educational Planning, 7-9 rue Eugene-Delacroix, 75116 Paris, France. Web

site: http://www. unesco. Org/iiep. Retrieved August, 1, 2016.

De Grauwe, A. (2005). Improving the quality of education through school-based

management: Learning from international experiences. International review of

education, 51(4), 269-287.

De Grauwe, A. (2006). L'Etat et l'inspection scolaire: analyse des relations et modèles

d'action (Doctoral dissertation, Paris, Institut d'études politiques).

116

DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as Learning Communities Pages 6-11. Educational

leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

Duncan, A. (2009). The race to the top begins: Remarks by Secretary Arne Duncan.

Retrieved August, 1, 2013.

Duru-Bellat, Marie, Meuret, Denis. (2001), Nouvelles formes de régulation dans les

système éducatifs étrangers : autonomie et choix des établissements. Revue

Française de Pédagogie, 135, p.173-221.

Dutercq, Y. (2000). Note de synthèse [Administration de l'éducation: nouveau contexte,

nouvelles perspectives]. Revue française de pédagogie, 130(1), 143-170.

Eurydice. L(2004).’évaluation des établissements d’enseignement obligatoire en

Europe. Bruxelles : Commission Européenne,

Farah, I., Mehmood, T., Miles, M. B., Hunte, P., & Chesterfield, R. (1996). Roads to

success: self-sustaining primary school change in rural Pakistan. Institute for

Educational Development, Aga Khan University.

Farah, I. (1997). Roads to success (RTS) Phase 2: stakeholder consultation on how

primary schools change in rural Pakistan. Unpublished report, World Bank.

Favre, B. (2001). Analyse de fonctionnement, évaluation et auto-évaluation des écoles:

le cas des écoles primaires genevoises. Perspectives, 31(4), 614-631.

.Ferguson, V. (1998). Supervision for the self-managing school: the New Zealand

experience. International Institute for Educational Planning.

Ferguson, P. (2013). Assessment, feedback and reporting. In R. Churchill, P. Ferguson.

Fisher (2008). Educational administration-theory research and practice (12th ed) New

York; USA

Fiske, E., & Ladd, H. (2001). Les écoles autonomes et le devoir de rendre des comptes

en Nouvelle Zélande. Perspectives, 31(4), 633-650.

Glanz, J., Shulman, V., & Sullivan, S. (2007). Impact of Instructional Supervision on

Student Achievement: Can We Make the Connection? Online Submission.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd

Ed.). Boston: Allan and Bacon.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical Supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Inc. (l969).

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd

Ed.). Boston: Allan and Bacon.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2004). SuperVision and

instructional leadership: A developmental approach (6th Ed.). New York:

Pearson Education Inc.

117

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ghana News Agency (August 20th, 2008). GES upgrades Inspectorate Division

for efficiency. Retrieved from

http:/news.myjoyonline.com/education/200808/19588.asp. Retrieved

November, 11, 2016.

Government of Pakistan (2009). National Education Policy 2009. Islamabad: ministry

of Education.

Government of KP, E&S Education department provincial EMIS Annual Statistical

report 2013-214.

Govinda, Rangachar, Tapan, Shahjahan. 1999. Quality education through school-based

Supervision and support: the case of GSS primary schools in Bangladesh. Paris:

IIPE,

Gray, J., & Wilcox, B. (1995). In the aftermath of inspection: the nature and fate of

inspection report recommendations. Research Papers in Education, 10(1), 1-18.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). Cultures of teaching and educational change. In International

handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1297-1319). Springer Netherlands.

Hatch, T. (2015). Connection, coherence and common understanding in the common

core. In J.A Supoviz, and Spillane, J.P (Ed.), Challenging standards: Navigating

conflect and building capacity in the era of the common core (pp.103-111).

Laham, MA: Rowman &Littlefield.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational

research, 77(1), 81-112.

Hawk, K., & Hill, J. (2003, December). Coaching teachers: Effective professional

development but difficult to achieve. In Auckland: Paper presented for

AARE/NZARE conference.

Hendriks, Maria, Doolaard, Simone, Bosker, Roel J. L(2001), auto-évaluation

Scolaires aux Pays-Bas: processus d’élaboration de la méthode Zebo.

Perspectives, 31(4), p.595-612’

Holland, P. (2005). The case for expanding standards for teacher evaluation to include

an instructional supervision perspective. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in

Education, 18(1), 67-77.

Honig, M. I., Copland, M. A., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. A., & Newton, M. (2010). School

district central office transformation for teaching and learning improvement. A

report to the Wallace Foundation. Seattle, WA: The Center for the Study of

Teaching and Policy.

Hoy, W. K. & Forsyth, P. D. (1986). Effective supervision: Theory into practice. New

York: Random House.

Javed, M. (2015). Causes of Deterioration of Quality in Secondary Education in Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Department of Education Faculty of Arts, Education

118

and Social Sciences, Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology,

Peshawar, Pakistan. P-266

Jones, C. A. (2005). Assessment for learning. London: Learning Skills and

Development Agency.

Katozai, A.M. (2005). A Comprehensive study of Education. University Publisher,

Afghan Market and Dogger Book Peshawar, Pakistan.

Khan, H. (2014). Impact of computer-based instruction on the academic achievements

of secondary school students in district Peshawar (Pakistan). (Unpublished

Doctoral thesis). Qurtuba University Peshawar.

Kothari, C.R. (2011). Research Methodology. Methods and Technology. 2nd Edition.

Neage, New Delhi International Publisher Ltd.

Krejcie and Morgan (1970). Determining sample size for research activities Education

& psychological measurement 30,607-610

Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, J. (1994). ‘The nature, causes and consequences

of principals’ practices: an agenda for future research’. In: Journal of

Educational Administration, 28 (4), pp. 5-31.

Levin, Ben. (1998), an epidemic of education policy: (what) can we learn from each

other? Comparative education, 34(2), p.131

Leonard, L. J. (2002). Schools as Professional Communities: Addressing the

Collaborative Challenge, 6 (17). IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for

Leadership in Learning, 6

Lugaz, C., De Grauwe, A., & Balde, D. (2006). Ecole et décentralisation. Expériences

et défis en Afrique francophone. Paris: UNESCO.

MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and

climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 12(1), 73-84.

McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K., McIntyre, D., & Townsend, A. (2007).

Networking practitioner research. Routledge.

McPherson, K. (1998). Feedback on oral performance: Some insights from adult

learners. PROSPECT-ADELAIDE-, 13, 47-62.

Miller, R., & Miller, K. (1987). Clinical supervision: History, practice, perspective.

NASSP bulletin, 71(503), 18-22.

Mintrop, H., MacLellan, A. M., & Quintero, M. F. (2001). School improvement plans

in schools on probation: A comparative content analysis across three

accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197-218.

119

Niemi, H. (1999). Moving horizons in education. International transformations and

challenges of democracy. Helsinki: University Department of Education, p.

211-228.

Nolan, J., & Francis, P. (1992). Changing Perspectives in Curriculum and Instruction.

In C. D. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in Transition, (pp. 44-60): 1992 Yearbook

of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 125 N. West Street,

Ofojebe, W. N. (2007). Supervisory competence needed by primary school supervisors

in Anambra State. A challenge for universal basic education. Nigerian Journal

of Educational Management, 6, 39-48.

Okafor, P. (2012). Leadership in Instructional S upervision: Aspect of Clinical

Supervision in the Education System. [On Line] available

http/www.patrickokafor.come/files/clinical supervision. Pdf. Retrieved

December 14, 2015.

Oliva, P.F., & pawlas, G.E (2004). Supervision for Today’s Schools (7th ed). USA:

Willis Publishing Inc.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). Creating effective

teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. OECD.

Osler, Audrey. L(2001)....’inspection des établissements et l’inégalité raciale. In:

Evanno, Jean-Noël, dir. Le « New Labour » et education: la « troisième voie »

mis à l’essai. Rennes: Presses Universitaires, p.103113

Pakistan, Federal Mistry of Education. (2008), Draft of National Education Policy

[online]. Available from: w.w.w.moe.Gov.Pk.pdf [Accessed Jan 8th.2009]

Pansiri, N. O. (2008). Instructional leadership for quality learning: An assessment of

the impact of the primary school management development project in

Botswana. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(4), 471-

494. doi: 10.1177/1741143208095789

Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin

Prouty, R., Eisemon, T., & Schwille, J. (1993). ‘Teacher appraisal: the case for a

development approach’. In: Educational Research, 33 (2), pp. 85-92.

Rashid, M. (2000). Allied Material of Foundations of Education (course code-831)

Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad Pakistan. NBF 2nd Reprent-2000. P-

150.

Rous, B. (2004). Perspectives of teachers about instructional supervision and behaviors

that influence preschool instruction. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(4), 266-

283.doi:10.1177/105381510402600403

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.

Instructional science, 18(2), 119-144.

120

Schartel, S. A. (2012). Giving feedback–An integral part of education. Best practice &

research Clinical anaesthesiology, 26(1), 77-87

Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. (1993). Supervision: A redefinition. New York:

McGraw- Hill.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice approach. Boston,

MA: Pearson Educational Inc.

Shah, I. (2013). Techniques for Managing Time Effectively. A presentation deliver at

Academy of Educational Planning and Management.4th Four week National

Training Program on “Educational Leadership and Institutional Management

(September 16 to October 11, 2013 at AEPAM, Islamabad)

Simola, H., Rinne, R., & Kivirauma, J. (2002). Abdication of the education state or just

shifting responsibilities? The appearance of a new system of reason in

constructing educational governance and social exclusion/inclusion in Finland.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 247-264.

Strittmatter, A. (2001). L’auto-évaluation dans les établissements scolaires et le rôle

des autorités scolaires. DEMAILLY, Lise éd. Evaluer les politiques éducatives:

sens, enjeux, pratiques. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université, 111-129.

Smith, R., Hough, J., Thomson, G., & Underwood, M. (1988). Pakistan teacher training

survey. The British Council, Islamabad.

Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and

techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.

Thrupp, M. (1998). Exploring the politics of blame: School inspection and its

contestation in New Zealand and England. Comparative education, 34(2), 195-

209.

Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding

feedback: A learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9, 1-

15.

Van de Redder, J. M., Stokking, K. M., McGaghie, W. C., & Ten Cate, O. T. J. (2008).

What is feedback in clinical education? Medical education, 42(2), 189-197.

Wallace Foundation (2009). Assessing the effectiveness of school leader: New

direction and new process, A Wallace Foundation perspective, 7-8. New York,

NY: Wallace Foundation, Author. Retrieved from http:// www. Wallace

Foundation. Org/ knowledge-center/ school-leadership / principle-evaluation/

Documents/Assessing-the-Effectiveness-of-school-Leader.Pdf Retrieved

September, 21, 2017.

Watson, J. (2001). OFSTED's Spiritual Dimension: an analytical audit of inspection

reports. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(2), 205-219.

Warwick, D. P., & Reimers, F. (1995). Hope or despair? Learning in Pakistan's primary

schools. Greenwood Publishing Group.

121

Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Häkkinen, K., & Hämäläinen, S. (1998). External inspection

or school self‐evaluation? A comparative analysis of policy and practice in

primary schools in England and Finland. British educational research journal,

24(5), 539-556.

Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Hämäläinen, S., Sarja, A., Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R.

(2004). A comparative analysis of primary teacher professionalism in England

and Finland. Comparative education, 40(1), 83-107.

Weber, K. (Ed.). (2010). Waiting for"" SUPERMAN"": How We Can Save America's

Failing Public Schools. PublicAffairs.

Wilcox, B. (2000). Making school inspection visits more effective: the English

experience. Unesco, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Wiles, K. (1955). Supervision for Better Schools. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

William, P. (2004). Administration and supervision of public education, London; UK:

Hopkins university press.

Zepeda, S. J. (2016). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. Taylor &

Francis. New York and London.

122

Appendix-A

Questionnaire for district level education officers of government boys’ high

schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Profile of respondent:

Name of respondent: _________________________Designation_________________

Qualification (1) Academic: ______________________________________________

(2) Professional: ___________________________________________

Experience in Years: Teaching ____________ Administration__________________

District: _______________________

This questionnaire contains a number of questions requiring your response on items

relevant to your supervisory role. I shall be grateful, if you spare some of your precious

time and Tick mark ( ) the appropriate columns.

Section I: Visits and Training in supervision

1. Do you play supervisory role in government Boys High Schools?

Yes To Some Extent No

2. How many times do you visit Government Boys’ High schools in a month?

Less than 10 10 – 14 15-18 19-More

3. Are the principals/headmasters satisfied with the frequency of your visits?

Yes To Some Extent No

4. Do you think this frequency helps in improving the performance of

Principals/Headmasters?

Yes To Some Extent No

5. Are the principals/headmasters satisfied with your supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

6. Are you satisfied with the frequency of your visits?

Yes To Some Extent No

7. Do you make any informal visit to the government Boys High School in the context

of supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

8. Are you properly trained for the role of Supervision of Schools?

Yes To Some Extent No

9. Were you provided any in-service training about supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section II: Observation

10. Do you practice a standardized classroom observation sheet to supervise

instruction?

Yes To Some Extent No

11. Where do you sit in the class while observing teaching-learning process?

In the front of the class In the midst of the class at the back bench

12. Do you think that you should demonstrate while supervising the class?

Yes To Some Extent No

123

13. Do you think that a copy of checklist/observation sheet should be provided to the

supervisee after supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

14. Do you supervise all the supervisees in the same manner?

Yes To Some Extent No

15. Do you assess the teacher’s subject matter knowledge?

Yes To Some Extent No

16. Do you develop cordial relation with the supervisees before supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

17. Which of the following procedures do you follow during supervision?

Nominal

Checking

Partial

Checking

Proper

Checking

Standardized checking

18. How do you evaluate the performance of Principals/Headmasters?

By (%) of pass

students

By course completion By attendance record of Principal

Section III: Feedback

19. Do you provide feedback to supervisees after supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

20. What type of supervisory role do you perform?

Directive Collaborative Creative Alternative Non Directive

21. How much time do you take to provide feedback to supervisee?

10-15 Minutes 15-20 Minutes More than 20 Minutes

22. When do you provide feedback to your supervisees?

Before observation During observation After observation

23. Where do you give feedback to supervisees?

In class Among teachers In privacy

24. Do you provide extended feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

25. Do you provide irrelevant feedback on the observed lesson?

Yes To Some Extent No

26. Is it necessary that there should be consensus between the Principals/Headmasters

and supervisor?

Yes To Some Extent No

27. Is it necessary that feedback should be given in a clear and impartial manner?

Yes To Some Extent No

28. Do you think that both the positive and negative aspects of your supervisees should

be highlighted?

Yes To Some Extent No

29. Do you impose your feedback discussed with supervisees?

Yes To Some Extent No

30. Do your remarks cover all aspects of school program?

Yes To Some Extent No

124

31. Do you remember any event that brought positive change in the teaching of

supervisees as a result of your supervision?

Yes No

32. Do you think that there should be interval between teacher observation and

feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section IV: Support

33. Whether Principals/Headmasters consult you regarding the problems they faced?

Yes No Few

34. Do you support Principals/Headmasters in providing teaching and learning material

for classroom?

Yes To Some Extent No

35. Is it necessary to find solution to problems that Principals/Headmasters face?

Yes To Some Extent No

36. Are you easily available to Principals/Headmasters to support and provide advice

when required?

Yes To Some Extent No

37. Do you suggest to Principals/Headmasters how to manage the school?

Yes To Some Extent No

38. Do you resolve on the spot issues/problems that appear during supervisory process?

Yes To Some Extent No

39. Do you think supervision is helpful for completing the course timely?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section V: Supervision Record and Meeting

40. Do you maintain record of your supervision and feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

41. Do you hold meetings with the Principals/Headmasters to develop School

Improvement Plan?

Yes To Some Extent No

42. Do you arrange group meetings with Principals/Headmasters?

Yes Some Times No

43. How many group meetings of Principals/Headmasters do you call in an academic

year?

Fortnightly Monthly At random

Section VI: Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Supervision

44. Do you think that the present supervisory system is appropriate?

Yes To Some Extent No

45. Do you cultivate in the supervisees how to manage the time?

Yes To Some Extent No

46. Do the Principals/Headmasters use their reflection diary?

Yes To Some Extent No

47. Does the present supervisory system help in the regularity of teachers?

125

Yes To Some Extent No

48. Is there any reward and punishment system on the basis of your remarks about

Principals/Headmasters?

Yes To Some Extent No

49. Do you favour community participation in the existing supervisory system?

Yes To Some Extent No

50. Do you favour the creation of supervisory cadre?

Yes To Some Extent No

51. Do you think that the present supervisory system is helpful in solving issues related

to teaching-learning process?

Yes To Some Extent No

52. Do you think that the present pass/ fail ratio of students of Government boys’ high

schools is linked to the supervisory system?

Yes To Some Extent No

53. Do you think that the introduction of new technologies will facilitate Supervisory

system of Government Boys’ High schools in KPK?

Yes To Some Extent No

54. Types of reward and punishment system on the basis of Supervision.

Promotions/Demotion Financial Benefits/Stopping

increments

Posting transfer

55. Is there any departmental policy or guidelines provided to you for the supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

56. Do you face challenges in the conduct of supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

57. What should be the length of supervisory training?

One week Two weeks More than Two weeks

58. Do you keep proper record of supervisory visits?

Yes To Some Extent No

59. Do you follow a particular mechanism in giving feedback to your supervisees?

Yes To Some Extent No

60. Do you have record of Principals/Headmasters Group meetings?

Yes To Some Extent No

61. Do you report to Education Directorate regarding your supervision?

Yes No At Times

62. Are you provided transport or TA/DA facilities for supervision?

Yes No

63. Have you imparted adequate in-service training to Principals/Headmaster for the

role of supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

64. Do you agree with your job description?

Yes To Some Extent No

126

65. What kinds of resources are available for effective supervision of Government

Boys’ High schools? (Write numbers on the basis of priority)

Separate

Supervision

Section

Clerical Staff Computer

& KPO

Office

Material

Trained

Supervisee

Staff

66. Identify the main hurdles in supervision of Government Boys’ High schools of

KPK. (Write numbers on the basis of priority)

Over

Burden

Non

availability

of Staff

. Non

availability

of

resources

Law and

order

situation

Lack of

Supervisors’

Interest

Lack of

Transport

Facility

Un-trained

Staff

Any Others

67. Your suggestions for improvement of existing supervisory system of Government

Boys’ High Schools in KPK are? (Write numbers on the basis of priority)

Availability

of

Separate

Supervision

Section

Availability

of

Sufficient

Trained

Staff

Provision

of

resources

Provision

of

Computers

& KPOs

Empowerment

of Supervisor

Provision of

Transport

Facilities

In-service

Training

Mention Any Other

Any Comments

Thank you Sir.

Signature of the Respondent

127

Appendix-B

Questionnaire for principals of government boys’ high schools of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Profile of respondent:

Name: _________________________Name of School.______________________

Qualification (1) Academic: _______________________________________

(2) Professional: _______________________________________

Experience in Years: Teaching ___________ Administration _____________

District: ________________ Tehsil: _________ Urban Rural

This questionnaire contains a number of questions requiring your response on items

relevant to the supervisory role as principal. I shall be grateful, if you spare some of

your precious time and tick mark ( ) the appropriate columns.

Section I: Visits and Training in Supervision

1. Do you play supervisory role in your institution?

Yes To Some Extent No

2. How many Times do you visit classrooms in a month?

1-4 5-8 9-12

3. Are the teachers satisfied with the frequency of your visits?

Yes To Some Extent No

4. Do you think this frequency helps in improving the performance of

teachers?

Yes To Some Extent No

5. Are the supervisees satisfied with your supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

6. Are you satisfied with the frequency of your visits?

Yes To Some Extent No

7. Do you make any informal visits to the class in the context of supervision?

Yes To Some

Extent

No

8. Are you properly trained for the role of Supervision of School?

Yes To Some Extent No

9. Were you provided any in-service training about supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section II: Observation in Classrooms

10. Do you practice a standardized classroom observation sheet to supervise

instruction?

Yes To Some Extent No

11. Where do you sit in the class while observing teaching-learning process?

In the front of the

class

In the midst of the

class

at the back bench

128

12. Do you think that you should demonstrate while supervising the class?

Yes To Some Extent No

13. Do you think that a copy of checklist/observation sheet should be provided

to the supervisee after supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

14. Do you supervise all the supervisees in the same manner?

Yes To Some Extent No

15. Do you assess the teachers’ subject matter knowledge?

Yes To Some Extent No

16. Do you develop cordial relation with the supervisees before supervision?

Yes To Some

Extent

No

17. Which of the following procedures do you follow during supervision?

Nominal

Checking

Partial Checking Proper Checking Standardized

checking

18. How do you evaluate the performance of teachers?

By (%) of pass students By course completion By attendance record of

teachers

Section III: Feedback

19. Do you provide feedback to supervisees after supervision?

Yes To Some

Extent

No

20. What type of supervisory role do you perform?

Directive Collaborative Creative Alternative Non

Directive

21. How much time do you take to provide feedback to supervisee?

10-15 Minutes 15-20 Minutes More than 20 Minutes

22. When do you provide feedback to your supervisees?

Before observation During observation After observation

23. Where do you give feedback to your supervisees?

In class Among teachers In privacy

24. Do you provide extended feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

25. Do you provide irrelevant feedback on the observed lesson?

Yes To Some Extent No

26. Is it necessary that there should be consensus between the teacher and

supervisor?

Yes To Some Extent No

27. Is it necessary that feedback should be given in a clear and impartial

manner?

Yes To Some Extent No

28. Do you think that both the positive and negative aspects of your

supervisees should be highlighted?

Yes To Some Extent No

129

29. Do you impose your feedback discussed with supervisees?

Yes To Some Extent No

30. Do your remarks cover all aspects of school program?

Yes To Some Extent No

31. Do you remember any event that brought positive change in the teaching

of supervisees as a result of your supervision?

Yes No

32. Do you think that there should be interval between teacher observation and

feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section IV: Support

33. Whether teachers consult you regarding the problems they faced?

Yes No Few

34. Do you support the teachers in providing teaching and learning material

for classroom?

Yes To Some

Extent

No

35. Is it necessary to find solution to problems that teachers face?

Yes To Some Extent No

36. Are you easily available to teachers to support and provide advice when

required?

Yes To Some

Extent

No

37. Do you suggest to teachers how to teach?

Yes No To Some Extent

38. Do you resolve on the spot issues/problems that appear during supervisory

process?

Yes To Some Extent No

39. Do you think supervision is helpful for completing the course timely?

Yes No To Some Extent

Section V: Supervision Record and Meeting

40. Do you maintain record of your supervision and feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

41. Do you hold meetings with the teachers to develop lesson plan for

teaching?

Yes To Some

Extent

No

42. Do you arrange group meeting with teachers?

Yes No Some Times

43. How many group meetings of teachers do you call in an academic year?

Fortnightly Monthly At random

130

Section VI: Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Supervision

44. Do you think that the present supervisory system is appropriate?

Yes To Some Extent No

45. Do you cultivate in the supervisees how to manage the time?

Yes To Some Extent No

46. Do teachers use their reflection diary?

Yes To Some Extent No

47. Does the present supervisory system help in the regularity of teachers?

Yes No To Some Extent

48. Is there any reward and punishment system on the basis of your remarks

about the teachers?

Yes To Some Extent No

49. Do you favour community participation in the existing supervisory

system?

Yes To Some Extent No

50. Do you favour the creation of supervisory cadre?

Yes To Some Extent No

51. Do you think that the present supervisory system is helpful in solving

issues related to the teaching and learning process?

Yes To Some Extent No

52. Do you think that present pass/ fail ratio of students of Government boys’

high schools is linked to the supervisory system?

Yes To Some Extent No

53. Do you think that the introduction of new technologies will facilitate

supervisory system of Government Boys’ High schools in KPK?

Yes To Some Extent No

54. Types of reward and punishment system on the basis of Supervisory.

Promotions/Demotion Financial Benefits/Stopping

increments

Posting transfer

55. Is there any departmental policy or guidelines provided to you for the

supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

56. Do you face challenges in the conduct of supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

57. What should be the length of supervisory training?

One week Two weeks More than Two

weeks

58. Do you keep proper record of supervisory visits?

Yes To Some Extent No

59. Do you follow a particular mechanism in giving feedback to your

supervisees?

Yes To Some Extent No

131

60. Do you have record of Teacher Group meetings?

Yes To Some Extent No

61. Do you report to District officer regarding your supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

62. Mark your suggestions that can improve the Supervisory system. (Write

numbers on the basis of priority)

To

increase

the

frequency

of visits

Availability

of

resources

In-service

trainings

for

Supervisors

Sufficient

staff for

Supervision

Any

other

Any comments

Thanks

Signature of the respondent

132

Appendix-C

Questionnaire for Teachers Of Government Boys’ High Schools Of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS OF GOVERNMENT BOYS’ HIGH

SCHOOLS OF KHYBER PUKHTUNKHWA

Profile of respondent:

Name: ___________________ Name of School ___________________________

Qualification (1) Academic: __________________________________________

(2) Professional: _______________________

Experience in years: Teaching ________________ Administration ____________

District: _______________ Tehsil: ____________ Urban Rural

This questionnaire contains a number of questions requiring your response. I shall be

grateful, if you spare some of your precious time and tick mark ( ) the appropriate

columns.

Section I: Visits and Training in Supervision

1. Does your Principal/ Headmaster perform supervisory role?

Yes To Some Extent No

2. How many times your supervisor visit classrooms in a month?

1-4 5-8 9-12

3. Are you satisfied with this frequency of supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

4. Do you think that this visit frequency helps in improving the performance

of teachers?

Yes To Some Extent No

5. Are you satisfied with the supervision of your supervisor?

Yes To Some Extent No

6. Are you satisfied with the visit frequency of your supervisor?

Yes To Some Extent No

7. Does your supervisor make any informal visits to the class in the context

of supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

8. Is your supervisor properly trained for the role of supervision of the

school?

Yes To Some Extent No

133

9. Were you provided any in-service training?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section II: Observation

10. Does your supervisor use a proper checklist/observation sheet for

supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

11. Where your supervisors sit while observing teaching and learning process?

In the front of the class In the midst of the class at back bench

12. Do you think that your supervisor should demonstrate while supervising

your class?

Yes To Some Extent No

13. Do you think that a copy of observation sheet should be provided to

teachers after supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

14. Does your principal/headmaster supervise all the teachers in the same

manner?

Yes To Some Extent No

15. Does your supervisor assess the teachers’ subject matter knowledge?

Yes To Some Extent No

16. Does your supervisor develop cordial relation with the supervisees before

supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

17. Which of the following procedures are followed by your supervisor during

Supervision?

Nominal Checking Partial Checking Proper Checking Standardized

Checking

18. How Principal/Headmaster evaluate the performance of teachers?

By (%) of pass students By course completion By attendance record of

teachers

Section III: Feedback

19. Do you get feedback of your performance from the Principal/Headmaster

after supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

20. What type of supervisory role does supervisor perform?

Directive Collaborative Creative Alternative Non Directive

21. How much time your supervisor take for feedback?

134

10-15 Minutes 15-20 Minutes More than 20

Minutes

22. When does your supervisor provide you feedback?

Before observation During observation After observation

23. Where does your supervisor give you feedback?

In class Among teachers In privacy

24. Does your supervisor provide extended feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

25. Does your supervisor provide irrelevant feedback on the observed lesson?

Yes To Some Extent No

26. Are you of the view that there should be consensus between supervisor and

teacher?

Yes To Some Extent No

27. Is the feedback that your supervisor gives you should be clear and

impartial?

Yes To Some Extent No

28. Do you think that both the positive and negative aspects of your teaching

should be highlighted?

Yes To Some Extent No

29. Does the principal impose his feedback discussed with you?

Yes To Some Extent No

30. Do you think that Principal/Headmaster remarks cover all aspects of

school program?

Yes To Some Extent No

31. Are you remembering any event of Supervision which brought positive

change in your teaching?

Yes To Some Extent No

32. Do you think that there should be interval between teacher observation and

feedback?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section IV: Support

33. Do you consult your supervisor for the problems that you face?

Yes To Some Extent No

34. Does your supervisor support you in providing teaching and learning

material for classroom?

Yes To Some Extent No

135

35. Is it necessary to find solution to problems that teachers face?

Yes To Some Extent No

36. Is supervisor easily available to teachers to support and for advice when

required?

Yes To Some Extent No

37. Does your principal suggest to teachers how to teach?

Yes To Some Extent No

38. Does your supervisor resolve the issues/problems on the spot that appear

during the supervision?

Yes To Some Extent No

39. Do you think that the present supervisory system helps the teachers in the

completion of courses on time?

Yes To Some Extent No

Section V: Supervision Record and Meeting

40. Do you maintain record of the feedback given by Supervisor?

Yes To Some Extent No

41. Does your supervisor hold meetings with the teachers to develop lesson

plan for teaching?

Yes To Some Extent No

42. Do you participate in group meetings of teachers?

Yes To Some Extent No

43. How many group meetings of teachers do you attend in an academic year?

9 18 36

Section VI: Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Supervision

44. Do you think that the present Supervisory system is appropriate?

Yes To Some Extent No

45. Do you receive advice from supervisor regarding time management?

Yes To Some Extent No

46. Do you use teacher reflection diary?

Yes To Some Extent No

47. Does the present supervisory system helps in making teachers punctual?

Yes To Some Extent No

48. Is there any reward and punishment system on the basis of Supervisor

remarks?

Yes To Some Extent No

49. Do you favour community participation in Supervisory system?

Yes To Some Extent No

50. Do you favour the creation of Supervisory cadre?

Yes To Some Extent No

136

51. Do you think that the present supervisory system is helpful in solving

issues related to the teaching-learning process?

Yes To Some Extent No

52. Do you think that the present pass fail ratio of the students in Government

Boys’ High schools is linked to the supervisory system?

Yes To Some Extent No

53. Do you think that the introduction of new technologies will facilitate

Supervisory system of Government Boys’ High schools in KPK?

Yes To Some Extent No

54. Types of reward and punishment system on the basis of Supervisory.

Promotions/Demotion Financial Benefits/Stopping increments Posting

transfer

55. Suggest improvement for the Supervisory system. (Write numbers on the

basis of priority).

To

increase

the

frequency

of visits

Availability

of

resources

In-service

trainings for

Supervisors

Sufficient

staff for

Supervision

Any other

Any Comments

Thanks

Signature of the respondent

137

Appendix-D

List of Schools’ Heads

District Abbottabad

S.No Name Name of School Qualification

1 Munsif Khan G.H.S Chamhad M.A M.Phil

2 Obaid ur Rehman G.H.S Kasala M.A M.Ed

3 Zahid Hussain G.H.S Jabrian M.Sc M.Ed

4 Muhammad Zubair G.H.S Kanthiali M.A M.Ed

5 Manzoor Ahmed G.H.S Pattan Kalan M.A B.Ed.

6 Bashir Ahmad G.H.S Keri Raiki M.A B.Ed.

7 Zia Shahid G.H.S No. 3 M Phil(statistcs) B.Ed.

8 Abdus salam G.H.S No.4 M.Sc M.Ed

9 Abdul Aziz G.H.S No.1 M.A M.Ed

10 Gulshan Ali G.H.S Mayhuhan M.Sc MPhil (Edu)

11 Sadaqat Taj Abbasi G.H.S Bakote M.A B.Ed.

12 Muhammad Javed G.H.S Kuthiala M.Sc M.Ed

13 Muhammad Saleem G.H.S Sherioan M.A B.Ed.

14 Muhammad Javed G.H.S Krairagali M.A (Edu)

District Bannue

1 Abdul Hamed G.H.S No.1 M.Sc M.A M.Ed

2 Wali Ayaz G.H.S Dheri Asian M.A M.Ed

3 Muhammad Rauf G.H.S Bakir Ahmad

Khan

M.A B.Ed.

4 Umar Qiaz Khan G.H.S Hinjel Noorbaz M.A

(pol.Sc,History)M.Ed

5 Sadin Ullah G.H.S FS Metha Khel M.A M.Ed

6 Saeed Ullah Jan G.H.S Kinger Jan

Bahader

MPhil M.Ed

7 Habibullah G.H.S Bahadar Manak

Khel

M.A M.Ed

8 Muhammd Qasim G.H.S No. 3 MPhil M.Sc. M.Ed.

9 Dilawar Khan G.H.S No.2 M.A B.Ed.

10 Abdul Qayyam G.H.S Borlashte M.A M.Ed

11 Gul Baz Jan G.C.M.H.S No.4 M.Ed

District Bunner

1 Noor ul Jamil G.H.S Dherai M.A M.ED

2 Abdul Manaf G.H.S Cheena MPhil M.Ed

3 Muhammad saeed G.H.S Hisar M.A M.Ed

4 SabiurRahman G.H.S Elai M.A M.Ed

5 Sahib Zada G.H.S No.2 Daggar PhD(Islamic Study)

M.Ed

6 Perwaiz Khan G.H.S Dewana Baba M.Sc M.Ed

7 Shams ul Hadi G.H.S Chanar M.A M.Ed L.L.B

8 Bakht Sher Hussain G.H.S Sawari M.Sc M.Ed

9 Ali Muhammad G.H.S Karapa M.Sc B.Ed

10 Liaqat Hussain G.C.M.H.S M.Sc M.A M.Ed

138

District D.I.Khan

1 Muhammad Nisar Khan G.H.S No.5 M.A M.Ed

2 Muhammad Iqbal G.H.S Dinpur M.A M.Ed

3 Muhammad Iqbal G.H.S Bilot Sharif M.A M.Ed

4 Mazhar Shah G.H.S Kotla Saidan M.A M.Ed

5 Mian Ahamad Hussain G.H.S Maudhra Saidan M.A(Islamyat,Pol

Sc,History) M.Ed

6 Asmatullah G.H.S No.6 M.A B.Ed

7 Sakhi Zaman G.H.S Diyal M.Sc(Hons) B.Ed

8 Muhammad Alam G.H.S Ratta Kulachi M.A M.ED

9 Nazir Ahmad G.H.S Bahadry M.A M.Ed

10 Nawab Khan G.H.S Paniala M.A M.Ed

11 Khadim Rasool G.H.S Wanda Muazam M.A M.Ed

12 Muhammad Alam G.H.S Giloti M.A B.Ed

13 Jamal Ahmed Mirza G.H.S Behari Colony B.A M.Ed

14 Muhammad Ismail Shah G.C.M.H.S No.1 M.Sc B.Ed

15 Attaullah G.H.S Maddi M.A M.Ed

District Kohat

1 Syed Latif Shah G.C.M.H.S No.4 M.Sc M.Ed

2 Syed Badshah G.H.S Jarma M.A M.Ed

3 Abdul Qayum G.H.S Kaghzai M.A M.Ed

4 Hussam ul Haq G.H.S No.3 M.A M.Ed

5 Dilawar Khan G.H.S No.2 M.Sc M.Ed

6 Abdul Khliq G.H.S Tappi M.A M.Ed

7 Muhammad Tahir G.C.H.S Kohat M.A MSc M.Ed

8 Shahram Khan G.H.S Kharmatoo B.A B.Ed

9 Muhammad Ilyas G.H.S Muhammad Zai M.A M.Phil

10 Hammad Khan G.H.S Behzadi

Chikerkat

M.A B.Ed

District Mardan

1 Khurshid Khan G.H.S Takht Bhai M.A M.Phil

2 Zia Ullah G.H.S Sharqi Hoti M.A M.Ed

3 Muhammad Khan G.H.S No.2 Bicket Gunj M.A (Eco,pol.sc)

M.Ed.

4 Usman Ghani G.H.S Jehanger Abad M.Sc M.Ed

5 Sher Muhammad G.H.S Sikandari M.A M.Ed

6 Ijaz Ahmad G.H.S Sari Bahlol M.A M.Ed

7 Rashid Ahmad G.H.S Pati Bala M.A M.Ed

8 Lais Muhammad G.C.M.H.S No.3 M.Sc M.Phil

9 Subhan Ullah G.H.S Labour Colony M.A B.Ed

10 Nasir Muhammad G.H.S No.1Bicket Gung M.Sc M.Ed

11 Farid Ullah Shah G.H.S Farman Koroona M.A M.Ed

12 Niaz Ali Khan G.H.S Kas Koroona M.Sc M.Ed

13 Gul Nazir G.H.S Machi M.Sc M.Ed

14 Siraj ul Haq G.C.M.H.S Bank Road M.A M.Ed

15 Muhammad Haneef G.H.S Tambulak M.A M.Ed

16 Noor Bacha G.H.S Jalala M.Sc M.Ed

139

District Peshawar

1 Masal Khan G.H.S Pushtakhara

Payan

M.Sc M.Ed

2 Muhammad Ayaz G.H.S Larama M.Sc M.Ed

3 Sharif Gul G.H.S Surizai M.A M.Ed

4 Jehanger G.H.S PAF Shaheen

Camp M.A M.Ed

5 Arshad Javeed G.H.S Jogiwara M.A M.Phil

6 Shams ul Islam G.H.S Kandi Kalo Khel M.A M.Phil

7 Muhammd Shuaib G.H.S Hasan Ghari M.A M.Ed

8 Ghandal Khan G.H.S Masho Khel M.A M.Ed

9 Habib ur Rahman G.H.S Gulozai M.A M.Ed

10 Ghani ur Rahman G.H.S Tela Band M.A M.A(Ed)

11 Muhammad Naiz G.H.S Haji Muammad

Noor Killi M.A M.Ed

12 Raz Muhammad G.H.S Pahri poora M.A(Eng,Isla) M.Ed.

13 Muhammad Ilyas G.H.S Salwan M.A(Pol.Sc,History)

M.Ed

14 Panda Khan G.H.S Din Bahar Colony M.A M.Ed

15 Shafi Gul G.H.S Nouthia M.A M.Ed

16 Abdul Saeed G.H.S No.3 Cannt M.Sc M.Ed LLB

140

Appendix-E

List of DEOs

S.No Name District Qualification

1 Zia U Din Abbottabad M.Phil M.A (Ed)

2 Imtaiz Khan Bannu M.A M.Ed

3 Hanifur Rehman Buner M.Sc M.Ed

4 Nazir Khan D.I. Khan M.A M.Ed

5 Roz Wali Khan Kohat M.A M.Ed

6 Zahid Mardan M.Sc M.Ed

7 Abdul Basit Peshawer M.A M.Phil

141

Appendix-F

List of Deputy DEOs

S.No Name District Qualification

1 Muhammad Ashraf Abbottabad M.A M.Ed

2 Noor Khan Bannu M.A M.Ed

3 Sheraz Ahmad Buner M.Sc M.Ed

4 Rambail Khan D.I.Khan M.Sc M.Ed

5 Shiraz Khan Kohat M.A M.Ed

6 Hanif Ullah Mardan M.Sc M.Ed

7 Muhammad Azam Khan Peshawar M.A M.Sc M.Phil(Edu)

142

Appendix-G

List of ADEOs

S.No Name District Qualification

1 Syed Mehmood-ul-Hassan Abbottabad M.Sc M.Ed

2 Rajab Ali Bannu M.A M.Ed

3 Sarmast Khan Buner M.A M.Ed

4 Abdul Hafeez D.I. Khan M.Phil(Eco) M.Phil(Edu)

5 Abid Hussain Kohat M.Sc M.Ed

6 Wazir Zada Mardan M.A M.Ed LLB

7 Zai ur Rehman Peshawar M.A B.Ed

143

Appendix-H

List of PhD faculties

S.No Name University

1 Prof. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal SUIT Peshawar

2 Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali IER, University of

Peshawar

3 Dr. Syed Muneer Ahmad IER, University of

Peshawar

4 Dr .Shafaqat Parveen IER, University of

Peshawar

5 Dr. Muhammad Raiuf IER, University of

Peshawar

6 Dr. Haneef Ullah Qurtaba University

Peshawar

7 Dr. Raheem Qurtaba University

Peshawar

8 Dr .Jangreez City University Peshawar

9 Dr. Iqbal Khan Deputy Director E&SE

KP.

10 Dr. Younas Principal E&SE Deptt:

KP.

144

Appendix-I

Results of the Pilot Study

Visits and Training

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups .354 2 .177 3.130 .054

Within Groups 2.435 43 .057

Total 2.789 45

Observation

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups .044 2 .022 .240 .787

Within Groups 3.929 43 .091

Total 3.973 45

Feedback

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups .131 2 .066 1.109 .339

Within Groups 2.543 43 .059

Total 2.674 45

Support

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups .446 2 .223 1.431 .250

Within Groups 6.696 43 .156

Total 7.142 45

Supervision Record and Meeting

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups .027 2 .013 .060 .942

Within Groups 9.588 43 .223

Total 9.614 45

Miscellaneous Questions Regarding Supervision

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between Groups .083 2 .042 .396 .675

Within Groups 4.505 43 .105

Total 4.588 45

145

Appendix-J