Does the Principals’ Model of Supervision Improve Instruction in the Classroom? Jill Karp Juli Mulcahy Dowling College

Purpose of the Study To determine the relationship among two supervisory models (developmental, clinical), two supervisory strategies (peer coaching, professional growth plan) and instructional improvement. This study also examined the influence of the principal’s supervisory model and strategies on instructional improvement in the classroom.

Research Questions What is the relationship among the two models of supervision (developmental, clinical), two supervisory strategies (peer coaching, professional growth plan) and instructional improvement in the classroom? How does a principals’ supervisory model and strategies influence instructional improvement in the classroom?

Independent Variables Clinical Supervision Clinical supervision includes a pre- observation conference between the administrator and teacher, a scheduled classroom observation where the principal annotates what he/she has observed and a post-observation conference during which the teacher and supervisor discuss what occurred in the classroom (Kramer, p. 7-8, 2007).

Independent Variables Developmental Supervision A “diagnostic phase when the principal analyzes the teacher’s developmental stage and chooses an appropriate model of supervision, a tactical phase during which the principal works with the teacher utilizing the appropriate model of supervision to solve problems and improve classroom instruction, and a strategic phase when the principal adjusts his/her mode of supervision based upon the growth of the teacher” (Kramer, 2007, p. 8).

Independent Variables Peer Coaching “the pairing of teachers to observe each others’ lessons, collaboratively reflect upon instruction, and offer feedback regarding improvement of instruction” (Kramer, 2007, p. 8). Professional Growth Plan A professional growth plan involves teachers writing goals for their professional growth and the steps that will be taken to reach these goals. Teachers may work collaboratively with peers and/or supervisors when writing their goals (Kramer, 2007).

Data Sources Elementary Teacher Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Instructional Supervision – (Kramer, 2007) 96 teachers, 37 elementary schools, Westchester, NY 3-part survey Supervisory Behavior Chart -supervision styles -perceptions of supervision -2 open-ended questions

Results Correlation coefficients were computed among five variables 7 out of 10 correlations were significant Clinical model only had a weak correlation with the developmental model The developmental model had a moderately strong relationship on teacher improvement A path analysis was conducted to determine influences on instructional improvement The developmental model had the most influence on instructional improvement

ClinicalDevelopmental Peer Coaching Professional Growth Plan ClinicalPearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) DevelopmentalPearson Correlation.278(**) Sig. (2-tailed).008 Peer Coaching Pearson Correlation (**) Sig. (2-tailed) Professional Growth Plan Pearson Correlation (**).082 Sig. (2-tailed) Instructional Improvement Pearson Correlation.288(**).491(**).311(**).318(**) Sig. (2-tailed) Table 1: Relationships between Supervision Models and Instructional Improvement (n=96)

r =.28 R 2 =.26 Improvement Clinical Peer Coaching Growth Plan β=.18 other R 2 =.29 Developmental error β=.46 β=.37 r =.09 r =.14 β=.37 r =.15 Figure 1: Structural Equation Model (SEM): Interrelationship of Variables on Instructional Improvement and the Developmental Model.

Discussion The clinical model does not affect teacher instructional improvement alone. The variables peer-coaching and professional growth plan does not influence instructional improvement alone. The developmental model does have an impact on instructional improvement. When the clinical model is used along with developmental model it impacts instructional improvement. When peer coaching and professional growth plan is part of the developmental model it impacts instructional improvement.