|Author||Chew-Goh, Geok Eng|
|Title||The influence of training on the performance of teacher supervisors.|
|Institute||Thesis (M.Ed.) National University of Singapore|
|Supervisor||Sim, Wong Kooi|
|Call no.||LB2822 Che|
The main aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of a training programme for supervisors of teachers. A one-group pretest-posttest I - posttest II pre-experimental design was adopted. The training programme was adapted from Supervisor Development Programmes by Turney and others (1982). Both videotaped and printed materials were used.
A secondary aim was to determine if any change in evaluative behaviour in assessing a post-observation conference had occurred at posttest I as a "side-effect" of the training programme.
The subjects were 30 experienced teachers enrolled in an in-service course at the Institute of Education.
A review of literature showed that there were few programmes for training supervisors of teachers when compared with training programmes for training of supervisors in industry. Some training programmes were compared and evaluative studies of some programmes were also reviewed. It was found that the main method of evaluating the supervisor was by evaluating his behaviour during the conference with the teacher.
Pretest and posttest I procedures included a microsupervision cycle consisting of the teaching of a lesson by a student teacher, conferencing, video playback of the conferencing session and evaluation of the conference by the trainee supervisor. The taped conference and the evaluation of the conference by the trainee supervisor were evaluated by trained raters using the Supervisor Role Analysis Instrument (adapted from the Supervisor Development Programmes) and the Evaluation of Microsupervision (Conferencing) Instrument respectively.
Posttest II procedures were carried out in schools and consisted of a conferencing session which was again rated using the Supervisor Role Analysis Instrument.
Results showed that there was a significant positive change in conferencing behaviour at posttest I and that this was related mainly to that part of the training programme on the Feedback Role. The results at posttest II showed an even more significant positive change in all roles. However, there was no significant change in evaluative behaviour.
Among some of the recommendations were that more 'hands on' training be given by employing training procedures having a high experience impact and that a control group be included.