ASSESSMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL

SUPERVISION AMONG SCHOOL HEADS AND TEACHERS

A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
Cagayan State University
Aparri, Cagayan

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Education
Major in Educational Management

MICHAEL VERDYCK B. CALIJA

December 2021

i
 1

APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled “ASSESSMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION AMONG SCHOOL HEADS AND
TEACHERS” , prepared and submitted by MICHAEL VERDYCK B. CALIJA, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Education
Major in Educational Management, is hereby recommended for oral examination.

_______________________ MARK JOHN M. TAMANU, PhD

Date Adviser

Approved by the Panel on Oral Examination with a grade of

_______________________.

___________________________
Chairman

___________________________ ___________________________
Member Member

___________________________ ___________________________
Member Member

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in
Education Major in Educational Management.

___________________________ ___________________________
Campus Executive Officer Dean, Graduate School
 2

DEDICATION

The author wholeheartedly and gratefully dedicates this paper to all who made his

pursuit for educational advancement possible.

To his Creator, above all for His divine presence and guidance in whatever

undertaking he takes.

To his mother, Louella who is always the source of strength; whose presence is

always felt during times of melting down and rising.

To his father, Rogelio (+), who, even in his last days asked him as the eldest son

to take care of him and look after his siblings.

To his brothers, Ahrzival Janraye, Jerwin Anthony, Roymark Darwin (+) and

Shurwin Oliver, the silence and distance among us is the bind that makes us closer during

bad and good times.

To Chrizton, though the relationship we built is unacceptable, we still go on and

enjoy it.

To his nieces, Zoe and Kenken, little angels.

To both friends and foes for continuing making strong yet humbles.

To all of you, you are the greatest inspiration and to you I dedicate this piece of

work
 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher wishes to convey his profound and unending gratitude and

indebtedness to the following individuals whose assistance, guidance, encouragement,

patience and meticulous scrutiny to the successful conduct and realization of this study.

Dr. Nargloric Utanes for his ceaseless and incomparable concern and desire to

share his expertise especially in the statistical analysis and completion of the study.

Dr. John Mark M. Tamanu, his adviser for his friendly approach, accommodation,

unselfish suggestion and recommendation and for saying “YES” without hesitation.

To all the members of the panel for their substantial and unselfish asuggestions in

order to make the study more successful.

To all the professors in the graduate school for expanding the horizon on his

endeavor through their teachings and values inculcated in order to become the version of

himself.

Dr. Mary Ann C. Madrid, his principal, who, despite having rough relationship in

the beginning, never failed to support him and push him to uplift him professionally,

Mrs. Glenys C. Santiago, for always being a mother.

Mrs. Louella B. Calija, for always being a mother and beyond.

 4

To the principals and school heads, secondary and elementary teachers of BUGSS

districts who very cooperative, honest and patient answering and providing all the

necessary information.

Finally, to the the Creator, the giver of life and the ultimate provider of courage

and wisdom and guidance who has become his constant source of divine intervention,

patience and perseverance to go on face any adversity life brings.

 5

ABSTRACT

TITLE : ASSESSMENT ON THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION
AMONG SCHOOL HEADS AND
TEACHERS

RESEARCHER : MICHAEL VERDYCK B. CALIJA

DEGREE : DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MAJOR IN

EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT

INSTITUTION : CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY - APARRI

YEAR : 2022

ADVISER : MARK JOHN M. TAMANU, PhD

 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE

APPROVAL SHEET

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Chapter

1, THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Conceptual Framework

Paradigm of the Study

Statement of the Problem

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

Significance of the Study

Definition of Terms

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

 7

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

4. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

LITERATURE CITED

APENDICES

CURRICULUM VITAE
 8

LIST OF TABLES
 9

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Education is the main element that determines the progress of the nation.

Qualified human resources can only be achieved through good quality of education,

and excellent resources will enhance the development of the nation. The experience of

advanced countries shows that a country, even with minimal natural resources, can

become a developed country because it is supported by high-quality human resources.

High-quality human resources can be prepared through good education. One of the

main indicators of an excellent education is that student learning outcomes can be fully

achieved.

With the full-blown implementation of the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum,

the Department of Education had introduced various forms implementing procedures

in order to construe with its promise of globally competitive learners and graduates

one of which is the Result - based Performance Management System (RPMS).

The RPMS has been introduced in order to cater the needs of teachers that would

eventually transforms learners into what the department dreamed of through series of

activities and observations, both announced and unannounced.

 10

Instructional leadership rests at the foundation of school improvement and

increased student achievement. “Numerous research studies confirm that the most

important factor contributing to student success is the effectiveness of instruction”

(Bright, 2011).

Instructional supervision is the work of ensuring the implementation of the

educational mission of a school by overseeing, equipping, and empowering teachers

to provide meaningful learning experiences for students. This important work

requires facilitating collaborative strategic planning that involves all stakeholder,

including parents, board members, teachers, administrative staff and support staff.

During this strategic planning, S.M.A.R.T. goals (specific, measurable, attainable,

results-oriented, timely) should be developed. Then, professional support and training

that aligns with the clearly identified S.M.A.R.T. goals should be implemented. An

instructional supervisor should conduct frequent observations of classroom

instruction and provide feedback about instructional practices and its impact on

students. A strong instructional supervisor will not only look for teacher evidence of

best practice but also for student evidence of best practice. For example, an

instructional supervisor might note that the teacher is implementing the best practice

of organizing students into small groups for collaborative work, but if those students

are conversing about an off-task topic, the groups are ineffective. Effective

instructional supervision also necessitates prioritization of research and study into

 11

new discoveries surrounding best practice, and fostering growth mindset in educators,

students, and families. As an instructional supervisor learns of research-based best

practices, it is crucial that he or she shares that information with teachers in a form

that can be quickly digested and applied in the classroom in a practical way. A

successful instructional supervisor will foster a culture of openness and growth so that

everyone believes they can always learn more and grow more, and then feel

comfortable living out that belief. The principal or leader of the building should serve

as instructional leader and supervisor. However, other administrative and leadership

team members can also serve this role, including but not limited to such position titles

as instructional guide, dean of academics, lead teacher, or instructional coach. It is

important to have an instructional supervisor because we need to invest in educators

like we do other professionals. Teachers benefit from an outside perspective on their

practice and glean ideas for better instruction from the feedback of an instructional

supervisor. In the end, instructional supervision is about student growth. Teachers and

students alike need an instructional supervisor who can dig deeply into data about

student results and help teachers translate that data into strengths and weaknesses for

ongoing improvement of instruction that positively impacts all students.

 12

Conceptual Framework

Direct technique is a process of supervision between teachers and supervisors

communicating directly through teacher’s meetings, workshops, and trainings. Indirect

technique is a process of supervision activities using communication media; for

example supervision bulletin, job libraries, and many more.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

1. Profile of the respondents Performance Rating of
a. Personal
 Age school heads and teachers
 Gender
 Civil status  IPCRF (Teachers)
 Monthly family income
 OPCRF (School
b. Professional heads)
i. Learning Modality
ii. Major/Specialization
iii. Highest educational attainment
iv. Plantilla position
v. Status of Appointment
vi. Designation
vii. Number of years in service
viii. Webinars/Seminars attended along
specialization
ix. Eligibility

2. Problems encountered by the Improved Instructional

respondents in the implementation of Supervision
instructional supervision
 13

Statement of the Problem

The study will determine the problems and challenges encountered by school

heads and secondary teachers in the implementation of Remote Observation for the

school year 2021-2022 in the BUGSS District.

Specifically, it will seek to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the school heads and teachers in terms of the following

variables?

a. Personal

i. Age

ii. Sex

iii. Civil status

iv. Monthly income

b. Professional

i Learning modality

ii. IPCRF/OPCRF rating

iii. Major/Specialization

iv. Highest educational attainment

v. Plantilla position

vi. Number of years in service

 14

vii. Webinars/Seminars attended along specialization

vii. Eligibility

2. What are the problems and challenges encountered in the implementation of

instructional supervision in terms of?

3.What is the IPCRF rating of the secondary and elementary teachers?

4. What is the OPCRF rating of secondary and elementary school heads?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the IPCRF rating of the secondary and

elementary teachers and their:

a. Profile

b. Problems and Challenges encountered by the school heads and secondary

teachers in the implementation of instructional supervision?

6. Is there a significant relationship between the OPCRF rating of the secondary and

elementary school heads and their:

a. Profile

b. Problems and Challenges encountered by the school heads and secondary

teachers in the implementation of instructional supervision?

7. Is there a significant relationship between the IPCRF of secondary and elementary

teacher and learning modality?

8 . What interventions can be deduced from the findings?

 15

Hypotheses

This study will test the following hypothesis

1. There is no significant relationship between the problems and challenges

encountered by the school heads and secondary teachers in the implementation of

instructional supervision and their profile.

2. There is no significant relationship between the instructional supervision rating

of the secondary teachers and their:

a. Profile

b. Problems and Challenges encountered by the school heads and secondary

teachers in the implementation of instructional supervision

3. There is no significant relationship between the OPCRF of secondary and

elementary school heads and IPCRF of secondary and elementary teacher and learning

modality?

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study aims to assess the challenges brought by the implementation of

instructional supervision The survey included assessing the profile of the school heads

and secondary and6 elementary teachers. This study will cover secondary and=schools in

the BUGGS District of SDO-Cagayan which includes the schools of the municipalities
 16

of Buguey, Gonzaga, Sta. Teresita, and Sta. Ana (BUGSS). The respondents will be

limited to school heads and school teachers in the elementary and secondary levels.

Questionnaires will be structured by the researcher based on experience, observations and

a modified RPMS tools used in the instructional supervision in the DepEd. The study will

be conducted from January to May 2022.

Definition of Terms

To have a better and clearer understanding of the terms and variables used, the

following terms are operationally defined

Age refers to the number of existence of the school head, teacher, or parent.

Civil Status is the marital status of the school head, teacher, or parent.

Covid-19 is an infectious disease which originated from China brought about by

corona virus.

Curriculum refers a set of courses offered by an educational institution.

Highest Educational Attainment refers to the highest educational level that the

respondent reached.

IPCRF refers to the rating of secondary and elementary school teachers

Learning Modality refers to whether on-line,synchronous and asynchronous

modular, printed or digital

New Normal means a situation where something not typical has become typical.
 17

OPCRF refers to the rating of secondary and elementary school heads

Pandemic is defined as an outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide

geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affects a

significant proportion of the population.

Plantilla Position refers to the working rank of the school head/ teacher.

Problems and Challenges refer to hindrances, issues and concerns met by the

teachers, school heads, and parents in the teaching-learning.

Relevant Trainings and Seminars Attended are the trainings and seminars

attended by the school head, teacher, and parent related to the new normal curriculum.

Remote Learning is delivered where the student and the educator, or information

source are not physically present in a traditional classroom environment. It is any

learning that occurs from home with students or teachers joining classes.

Remote observation is the process of observation utilizing open educational

resources like Zoom or Google Meet.

Remote – Online (Asynchronous) is the use of digital materials for instruction

purposes. Such materials will be distributed to students via the internet or digital storage

tools such as USB and the like. Use of asynchronous activities and digital materials is

considered due to limited internet connectivity .

Remote – Online (Synchronous) is optimizing internet connectivity and online

tools to deliver instruction.

 18

Sex is the classification of the school paper adviser whether male or female.
 19

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES]

This section includes discussions of present theories, principles, concepts,

research findings, insights, generalizations and ideas which aided the researcher.

Education is the main element that determines the progress of the nation.

Qualified human resources can only be achieved through good quality of education,

and excellent resources will enhance the development of the nation. The experience of

advanced countries shows that a country, even with minimal natural resources, can

become a developed country because it is supported by high-quality human resources.

High-quality human resources can be prepared through good education. One of the

main indicators of an excellent education is that student learning outcomes can be fully

achieved.(Bambang, et. al.,2021)

Through DepEd Number 42, s. 2017, Philippine Professional Standards for

Teachers (PPST) has been developed and nationally validated as part of reform

initiatives on teacher quality. PPST set the standards on what teachers should know,

be able to do and value to achieve competence, improved student learning outcomes

and eventually quality education. It also articulated what constitutes teacher quality

through well-defined domains, strands and indicators that provide measures of

professional accountability that could help teachers reflect on and assess their own

practices as they aspire for professional growth and development.Instructional

 20

supervision is the process of assisting teachers in the form of guidance, direction,

stimulation, or other development activities to develop and improve the teaching and

learning process and situation for a better one (Archibong, 2012). What is more, it is a

type of in-service education to improve teacher competence. The process of

implementing instructional supervision can be carried out using various supervision

techniques. In terms of the number of teachers being supervised, it can be divided into

two, namely group supervision and individual supervision techniques. Group

supervision techniques are applied when there is a large number of teachers who are

involved through trainings, workshops, upgrading programs, teacher meetings, and

others; while individual supervision develops a teacher individually. Some examples

of this technique are self-evaluation, self-reflection, independent development, and so

on. From the communication side, it can also be divided into two, namely direct and

indirect techniques. Direct technique is a process of supervision between teachers and

supervisors communicating directly through teacher’s meetings, workshops, and

trainings. Indirect technique is a process of supervision activities using

communication media; for example supervision bulletin, job libraries, and many

more.

While schools are focused on trying to bring students back into the classroom, it's safe to

say that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected nearly every aspect of our education system,
 21

including how to properly evaluate teachers in the classroom—or in a Zoom or Google

classroom setting.

Effective Instructional Supervision involves raising student achievement and

creating valuable educational opportunities for students.  This can be achieved by

the supervisor clearly defining goals for the teachers and facilitating opportunities

for the teachers to learn about local, state, and federal requirements.  A successful

supervisor would also provide support to teachers through not only workshops, but

also by being available to the teachers and fostering growth by completing

walkthroughs and clinical supervisions.  Furthermore, an instructional supervisor

would work with parents and teachers to keep current on the community’s needs in

order to help provide students with a meaningful educational experience that will

benefit them in various career paths.  Instructional supervisors are integral to every

school’s attainment of support, teacher success, and student achievement.

Wiyono, et. Al., 2021, stated that, the process of implementing supervision, it is

necessary to refer to certain principles. These principles include constructive,

democratic, creative, innovative, objective, professional, and purposeful. Supervisors

in carrying out supervision need to adhere to these principles. Supervisors should not

only find errors, but they also have to provide a lot of supports to improve or increase

teacher competence.
 22

The instructional supervision program is the best way of increasing teacher

competence, both in Indonesia and in the Philippines. Through the Regulation of the

Minister of Utilization and State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform Number 16 of

2009, one of the main tasks of teachers is to develop their skills sustainably. The main

activity for developing teacher teaching competencies is carried out through

instructional supervision.

Instructional supervision during pandemic

The current Coronavirus pandemic has pushed the boundaries for academic

institutions to be flexible in the delivery and management of education. As the

curriculum implementers, teachers are mandated to carry a huge responsibility for

delivering the Different Learning Modalities (LDMs). As DepEd firmly believes

education cannot exceed the quality of its teachers, our teaching professionals need to

be trained and honed to maximize their full potentials and be prepared for what is

ahead in this year’s educational process, Lapid, 2021.

Lapid, 2021 further noted, It is not only the learning must continue amid the

pandemic, but the Instructional Supervision (IS) for teachers as well. The IS serves as

a mechanism to evaluate and validate teachers’ performance of the expected

professional competence, especially in this time of pandemic where the delivery of

quality education must persist. It is a perfect way of monitoring how teachers deliver

instruction, perform pedagogies, and provide innovation or intervention in their

 23

respective classes. It also provides an effective feedback mechanism to improve

teaching and learning performances. As stipulated in DO 42, s. 2017, teachers must

be provided with continuous technical assistance to achieve proficiency levels in their

practice.

Adapting to changes, the IS during the pandemic will mostly facilitate via

asynchronous (not requiring real-time interaction) and synchronous (requiring real-

time interaction) sessions. Manalili-Hernandez (2020) also pointed out, most of the

professional development endeavors for teachers are conducted online or via social

media platforms. Educators need to be flexible in delivering quality education while

making themselves competent and adaptive to the changing needs of times and

situations. Providing continuing professional development amidst the pandemic is a

useful gateway for exchanging ideas and information integral in securing the general

educational welfare of the learners and the soundness of deliverables in education.

The physical closure of schools and subsequent online delivery systems

created a critical issue for educational leaders and their role as instructional

supervisors. For school leaders, providing instructional supervision in an online

learning world proved to be formidable, as such a world required campus leaders “to

supervise a vastly different delivery of instruction than schools traditionally offer”

(Farley, 2010, p. 7). As educational leaders responded to the physical closing of

school campuses for the remainder of the spring 2020 semester, they had to
 24

immediately implement moving to an online learning delivery system. For students,

some of the most pressing concerns have involved mental and physical health,

accessibility to technological devices, accountability associated with completing

assignments, and the negative impact on educational attainment and academic

outcomes similar to those associated with summer learning loss (Kuhfeld &

Tarasawa, 2020). These concerns not only revealed and widened equity gaps across

ethnic groups and socio-economic classes, but also created new gaps within sub-

student populations. Scholars and practitioners were worried that the COVID-19

crisis has become “a social crisis that will have long-lasting consequences” (Van

Lancker & Parolin, 2020, p. 243). Not only have K–12 educational leaders had to

learn through experience but have realized that engaging in instructional supervision

during what has been called an unprecedented crisis has not been easy. What does

Brock et al., 2021 Journal of Educational Research and Practice 170 this crisis mean

for instructional supervisors? Instructional supervision, as described by Beach and

Reinhartz (2000), is a complex process that involves working with teachers and other

educators in a collegial, collaborative relationship to enhance the quality of teaching

and learning within schools. Supervision is contextual … and supervisors serve as a

bridge that supports and sustains efforts, leading to achieving personal and

professional objectives. (pp. 8–9)

 25

Due to COVID-19, many states, districts, and schools are having to

reconceptualize K–12 education and are balancing between ensuring the safety of

students, staff members, and families, while also delivering high-quality learning

experiences that ensure equitable outcomes for all students. To address these

challenges, schools are selecting from a range of multiple learning environments,

including in-person classes, hybrid models with part-time in-person and virtual, and

virtual learning only. For many K–12 teachers, teaching in a virtual context is new.

Few educator preparation programs prepare teachers to teach in a virtual environment

(Archambault, 2011; Kennedy & Archambault, 2012; Dawley, Rice, & Hinck, 2010),

and yet, more than ever, teachers will need professional development, support, and

feedback on how to navigate the transition from in-person to virtual learning.

Developments in virtual live-streaming technology continue to influence

conventional methods of classroom observation whereby student teachers can be

observed by teacher educators in real time through digital networks without the need

to physically visit schools. There are significant advantages to this approach including

reduced travel, time, expense and reactivity, with a simultaneous increase in the

frequency and flexibility of observations (Bolton 2010; Liang 2015). Additionally,

virtual classroom observation can moderate the level of subjective judgement by

increasing the number of observers and a variety of feedback sources, enabling

professional dialogue and support for the ongoing professional learning of student
 26

teachers and teacher educators (Mac Mahon, Ó Grádaigh, and Ní Ghuidhir 2019).

Fendi, et. Al, 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, supervision was conducted online

based on various types of online tools such as Google Meet, Zoom, Google duo and

WhatsApp. However, the principals experienced several obstacles in conducting

online-based academic supervision due to the absence of standard applications

provided by the government to facilitate the process of supervision. Also many

teachers did not master the use of information technology (IT).

Challenges include permission and privacy concerns, technological issues and the

limited perspective of the camera (Dyke, Harding, and Liddon 2008; Marsh and

Mitchell 2014; Van Boxtel 2017).

Although virtual schools and online learning have been growing in all part of the

world pre-pandemic (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019; Evergreen Education

Group, 2015), there is still limited research and examples of teacher evaluation

and observations for virtual learning (Patrick & Powell, 2009). In addition, other

aspects of teaching and learning will require greater priority in evaluation and

feedback and support to teachers—specifically, a focus on social-emotional learning,

relationship building, and student engagement.

These challenges were then spotlighted during the physical closure of schools

because many educational policies in the K–12 setting fail to keep up with new

technologies (Panigrahi et al., 2018; Simpson, 2020). Therefore, it came as no

 27

surprise that the challenges and successes varied from state to state and school to

school, as schools made the transition from face-to-face learning to online teaching

and learning (Abuhammad, 2020; Bansak & Starr, 2021; Simpson, 2020). Plans for

delivering online learning instruction often felt like the process was evolving minute-

by-minute. For teachers and supervisors alike, the switch to the new delivery of

lessons within a short time frame often proved difficult, not only in the preparation of

learning activities and experiences, but in the students’ understanding and use of the

technology.

The physical closure of schools and subsequent online delivery systems created a

critical issue for educational leaders and their role as instructional supervisors. For

school leaders, providing instructional supervision in an online learning world proved

to be formidable, as such a world required campus leaders “to supervise a vastly

different delivery of instruction than schools traditionally offer” (Farley, 2010, p. 7).

As educational leaders responded to the physical closing of school campuses for the

remainder of the spring 2020 semester, they had to immediately implement moving to

an online learning delivery system. For students, some of the most pressing concerns

have involved mental and physical health, accessibility to technological devices,

accountability associated with completing assignments, and the negative impact on

educational attainment and academic outcomes similar to those associated with

summer learning loss (Kuhfeld & Tarasawa, 2020). These concerns not only revealed
 28

and widened equity gaps across ethnic groups and socio-economic classes, but also

created new gaps within sub-student populations. Scholars and practitioners were

worried that the COVID-19 crisis has become “a social crisis that will have long-

lasting consequences” (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020, p. 243).

Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership rests at the foundation of school improvement and

increased student achievement. “Numerous research studies confirm that the most

important factor contributing to student success is the effectiveness of instruction”

(Bright, 2011,). Principals need to fully understand the instructional processes within

the schools through direct observation. Downey et al. (2004) stated, “administrators

must come to view their primary role as one of an instructional leader promoting

improved student achievement”.

The literature supports the idea that principals who know about effective

education practices make schools more successful. Marzano et al. (2005) emphasized

the strong correlation between effective principal leadership and improved student

achievement scores. A primary role of a principal should be a focus on teaching and

learning. Marzano et al. (2011) discussed the importance of principal focus when
 29

observing classrooms: “Improving a teacher’s strategies and behaviors in the

classroom should be the primary focus of supervision and evaluation”.

Schools, like all organizations, must continually adapt to shifting environmental

demands to remain effective (Levitt and March, 1988; Cohen and Levinthal,

1990; Dodgson, 1993). Indeed, schools have long been called upon to become

“learning organizations” in which educators are pushed to continually change and

learn ( Giles and Hargreaves, 2006 for a review). In this context, organizational

learning is defined as “the development of new insights and understandings that have

potential to influence behavior” (Hesbol, 2019, p. 35). This includes, according

to Marsick and Watkins (1999), system-level learning that is continuous and

facilitates enhanced knowledge, skills, and performance. One key outcome associated

with schools operating as learning organizations is their ability to best serve students’

evolving needs and facilitate their success in our changing society and world

(Schlechty, 2009).

As highlighted by Harris and Jones (2018), the conceptualization of schools as

learning organizations finds its origins in the 1980s, with Argyris's (1982) focus on

the process of organizational learning, and double-loop learning specifically, as a key

mechanism for ensuring organizational efficiency and effectiveness. With the work

of Senge (1990), this framing—that part of the essential work of schools is to support

the adults therein (e.g., administrators and teachers) in collectively learning how to
 30

enhance their practice—gained popularity and prevalence (Paraschiva et al., 2019). It

also produced detractors, with some arguing the concept is too broad and/or

amorphous (Field, 2019), as well as those questioning whether the concept adequately

attends to the more informal relationships and social networks shown to be necessary

conditions for learning and change (Giles and Hargreaves, 2006). However, and

despite what some may consider unresolved questions regarding these critiques, the

concept of schools as learning organizations has again recently gained traction in

research and practice alike (Kools and Stoll, 2016; Harris and Jones, 2018) and, as we

argue here, can be useful in thinking about the work of schools in adapting to

changing environmental conditions generally, and in crisis situations like that of

COVID-19, in particular (Wooten and James, 2008; Smith and Riley, 2012).

One of the most dominant variables that determines student learning outcomes is

the teacher. Therefore to improve student achievement, it is necessary to improve

teacher competence. The main program to improve teacher competence is

instructional supervision though its effectiveness is still questionable, Wiyono, et, al,

2021.

Further, In addition, learning is a system. The success of transforming input into

the most favorable output depends on the components of the learning system. One of

the components that determines student learning outcomes is the teacher because
 31

teachers are one of the main cores in the teaching-learning process in order to achieve

the goals education and above, student achievement.

According to Lapid, 2021, instructional supervisors such as school heads, master

teachers, head teachers, and other seasoned teachers are expected to be dynamic and

flexible in responding to the instructional needs and deficiencies of teachers. They are

expected to provide collaboration and facilitate Professional Learning Communities

(PLCs) through In-Service Training (INSET), Learning Action Cell (LAC), and other

similar professional development undertakings.

Further, Instructional supervisors such as school heads, master teachers, head

teachers, and other seasoned teachers are expected to be dynamic and flexible in

responding to the instructional needs and deficiencies of teachers. They are expected

to provide collaboration and facilitate Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)

through In-Service Training (INSET), Learning Action Cell (LAC), and other similar

professional development undertakings.

Manalili-Hernandez (2020) also pointed out, most of the professional

development endeavors for teachers are conducted online or via social media

platforms. Educators need to be flexible in delivering quality education while making

themselves competent and adaptive to the changing needs of times and situations.

Providing continuing professional development amidst the pandemic is a useful

 32

gateway for exchanging ideas and information integral in securing the general

educational welfare of the learners and the soundness of deliverables in education.

As a result of the physical closures, schools were tasked with creating online

learning experiences for students. It is important to note that the concept of online

learning is not new (Singh & Thurman, 2019). Online learning has been classified as

a sub-category under the distance learning umbrella (Stern, n.d.). Distance learning is

broadly defined as “an organized instructional program in which teacher and learners

are physically separated” (Newby et al., 2000, p. 210). However, online learning

specifically refers to “education that takes place over the Internet” (Stern, n.d., para.

3). Schools faced many challenges regarding online learning services, including, but

not limited to, low technological literacy among students and faculty, lack of

technological resources such as computers and internet, technology-based problems,

assessment and evaluation techniques, creating and maintaining support systems

(Anderson, 2008). Franklin et al. (2015) noted that while, “online learning currently

reaches millions of K–12 learners and its annual growth has been exponential” (p. 1),

nothing could have prepared teachers and campus leaders for the rapid transition to

all teaching and learning being online.

Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

Effective leaders use their knowledge to help provide guidance and support to

classroom teachers. Elmore (2000) emphasized how critical it is for an instructional

 33

leader to understand effective practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment and

the ability to work with teachers on the day-to-day problems related to these topics.

The building leader plays an important role in regards to expectations. “The Principal

must still set the expectations for student learning” (Nidus & Sadder, 2011). The

principal must have an academic focus to help assist and guide teachers to the

implementation of new instructional practices. Danielson and McGreal (2000) wrote

in their book entitled Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice, “School

staff lack the time . . . to become knowledgeable about the best evidence emerging

from the research on teaching.” If teachers lack the time to learn independently,

schools must provide a structure for teachers to engage in dialogue with school

leaders and colleagues to develop knowledge regarding instructional practices.

 34

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes how the study will be conducted. Thus, research design,

respondents or subject of the study, instrumentation, data gathering procedure, and

data analysis are presented and discussed.

Research Design

This will utilize the quantitative methods employing descriptive-correlational

design. It described the profile of the respondents as well as the challenges in the

implementation of instructional supervision to further education. It also described the

challenges experienced by the respondents in terms the instructional supervision. Further,

test of differences and correlations among these variables was employed, hence, also

correlational in nature.

Locale of the Study

This study is situated among the public secondary and elementary schools of the

First Congressional District of the Province of Cagayan, Region 2 (Cagayan Valley

Region). It covered public secondary and elementary schools from the municipalities of

Buguey, Gonzaga, Sta. Teresita, and Sta. Ana (BUGSS). Due to the pandemic, the
 35

researcher chose the adjacent district schools from the point of origin for safety reasons

and proximity.

Cagayan lies in the northeastern part of mainland Luzon, occupying the lower

basin of the Cagayan River. Tuguegarao (now a component city), its capital is 483

kilometers north of Manila, about one hour by air travel, and ten hours by land, through

the Maharlika Highway, Region 02's trunkline road, which runs parallel to the Cagayan

River. For administration purposes, Cagayan is divided into three congressional districts.

The First District sits on the western part of the province which includes the towns

Camalaniugan, Lallo, Aparri, Baggao, Alcala and Gattaran.

The following schools are;

Buguey District Licerion Antiporda Sr. National HS – Dalaya Annex

Licerion Antiporda Sr. National HS – Sta. Isabel Annex
Licerion Antiporda Sr. National HS – Main
Buguey Sounth Central School
Maddaalero ES
Fula ES
Gonzaga District Baua National High School
Rebecca National High School
Gonzaga National High School
North Central School
South Central School
Minanga ES
Sta. Teresita District Sta, Teresita National High School
Luga National High School
Sta Teresita Central School
Simpatuyo ES
Mission ES
Sta. Ana District Casambalangan Nationah High School
Sta Ana Fisheries National High School
 36

Sta Ana Central School

Marede ES
Racat ES

Respondents and Sampling Procedure

The respondents of this study were the school heads and secondary and

elementary who have undergone and conducted remote observation.

The school heads and secondary and elementary teachers of the aforementioned

schools were identified using the Lynch formula.

Data Gathering Procedure

A written request was sent to ask permission for the conduct of the study will be

asked first from the Office of the Schools Division Superintendent. Upon approval, a

similar letter will be made to the Public Schools District Supervisors and to the different

school heads for the data collection.

The researcher personally gathered the data from the respondents through

questionnaires and by the initiative of the school head on how to help the researcher since

observing the restrictions of DOH and IATF guidelines. Collected data will be organized

in a tally sheet made in Microsoft Excel for more efficient and accurate statistical

analysis. The statistical software used in the analysis of the data was SPSS version 20.
 37

Research Instrument

This study used a four-part research instrument for the collection of necessary

data. These were the:

1. The Profile Survey Questionnaire consisting of supply type, multiple choice and

multiple response set items will elicit the profile data of the respondents.

2. Inventory questionnaire for the Challenges Encountered instructional

supervision crafted by the researcher based on experiences, preliminary interviews

and observations. The tool adapted the IPCRF modifying its key result areas.

Since the questionnaires are researcher-made, they will be subjected to reliability

analysis and content validity to elicit reliable and valid data for the study. Further,

informal interviews was conducted to triangulate the data obtained by the questionnaires.

Statistical Tools

For the descriptive part of the study, frequency counts, means, standard deviations

will used. These will be used in analyzing the profiles of the respondents.

The problems encountered during remote observation will described using three-

point Likert scale and weighted means. The interpretations were following descriptive

values.
 38

Scales Statistical Limits Interpretation

1 1.0 Always

2 2.0 Rarely

3 3.0 Occasionally

4 4.0 Never

Furthermore, the inferential statistics part of this study will use analysis of

variance for test of differences and bivariate correlation analysis to identify any

correlations between the variables contained in this study. For the purposes of this study,

all hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance.

 39

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Profile of the Teachers and School Heads

Age

The table shows the age of teachers and school heads in the BUGGS districts

whereby 49 teacher respondents belong to age bracket 31 - 35 or 26.6 per cent. This

means that teachers are already matured and age- ready in teaching.

According to Chiang, 2014, the maturated-age group presents a promising source

of potential teachers. An empirical study in the U.S. shows that older novice teachers,

who were older than the age of 25, were less likely to leave low-income schools

compared to their younger counterparts.

Further, Chiang added, empirically, this mature-aged group distinguished itself

from the relative young group in the potential to be a good teacher.

On the other hand, majority school heads belong to the age bracket 51 -55. This

shows that majority of the school head respondents belong to the middle - age and

parallel to the nature of their job.  Leadership positions are now held by older people

more frequently than ever before. Psychological research has suggested that older leaders

have some distinctive qualities compared to younger leaders.

 40

According to Truxillo and Burlaku, 2015,  age of a leader or subordinate can

significantly impact how they view and interact with one another.

 Liden et al.,1996, reported that older leaders, or school heads and principals,

were able to produce superior objective performance among their subordinates compared

to younger leaders.

Table 1. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of age

Teachers School Heads
Age (in years)
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
56 to 60 2 1.1 1 4.5
51 to 55 5 2.7 8 36.4
46 to 50 23 12.5 7 31.8
41 to 45 31 16.8 3 13.6
36 to 40 41 22.3 3 13.6
31 to 35 49 26.6 - -
25 to 30 33 17.9 - -
Mean 37.50 years old 48.00 years old
S.D. 7.32 5.56

Sex

The table shows that majority of the teacher and school head - respondents are

female,148 teacher - respondents or 80 per cent and 18 school head - respondents or 81.8

per cent. This implies that education sector is a female dominated sector especially in

teaching and supervision.

 41

Being a woman is not a prerequisite to being a great teacher. But it’s undeniable

that the traits and behaviors that society encourages women to display are assets in the

classroom. This can make things very difficult for male teachers, especially of young

children, who face suspicion, disrespect, and uncertainty in their chosen field.

According to Dhal, 2021 one of the starting points of high feminization lies in the

enrolments of teacher trainees at entry points into the teaching profession, and appears to

be based more on choice. Overall the initial implication is that comparably, more women

than men apply or 'choose' to become teachers. It seems that there is also a perception

that some women were confined to teaching due to no other alternative. Women also

professed a love for the profession and a desire to work with small children. It is

generally easier to secure employment in teaching than other professions.

According to Bush, 2011 , nowadays, it is quite evident that diversity in terms of

gender becomes more noticeable with women to increasingly gain ground in (education)

posts.Implying that women continuously holding positions especially in education, where

they guide and influence the actions of others in order to accomplish specific purposes.

Table 2. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of sex

Teachers School Heads
Sex
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
Female 148 80.4 18 81.8
Male 36 19.6 4 18.2
 42

Civil status

As shown from the table, 134 teacher respondents or 72.8 per cent and 21 or 95.5

per cent school head respondents are married.

According to Symeonidis, 2015, teacher status is related to aspects of quality

education and, more specifically, to socio-cultural and economic contexts, job security,

salaries and working conditions, teachers’ professional development, representation of

the teaching profession, professional autonomy, social dialogue, and involvement in

decision-making.

Further, according to Oselumese, 2016, teachers that is from an organized and

stabilized home is more likely to develop students into full fledged humans able to

discover their academic strength and other attribute.

Table 3. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of civil status
Teachers School Heads
Civil Status
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
Married 134 72.8 21 95.5
Single 48 26.1 1 4.5
Widow 2 1.1 - -

Monthly family income

 43

The table shows that 102 or 55.4 per cent of the teacher respondents belong to the

lower middle earning family. This means that they are professionals who are educated

and stably employed.

According to Adrian, 2022, individuals in the lower-middle class tend to hold

low status professional or white collar jobs, such as school teacher, nurse, or paralegal.

These types of occupations usually require some education but generally do not require a

graduate degree. Lower-middle class occupations usually provide comfortable salaries,

but put individuals beneath the top third of incomes. While 8 or 36.4 of the school head

respondents belong to the middle class family. Meaning they can afford better education

for their family and can provide their family better way of living

The middle class is crucial in society. With better educational attainment and

savings, middle-class workers hold critical roles in higher value-added sectors,

particularly in services (Doepke and Zilibotti 2005, 2007). They are also willing to pay

for better quality products and services, and their demands encourage investments in

production and marketing, raising general income levels (Murphy et al. 1989).

The middle class is also key to enhancing human capital given their large

investments in education and health care (Banerjee and Duflo 2008; Albert et al. 2015).

They also play a role in the improvements in public services, not only as a source

of public revenues via taxes but also as agents of change (Huntington 1991).

Table 4. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of monthly family income
 44

Monthly Family Income Teachers School Heads

(in Ph Pesos) F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
P51, 000.00 and above 6 3.3 8 36.4
P41, 000.00 – P50, 000.00 9 4.9 7 31.8
P31, 000.00 – P40, 000.00 61 33.2 7 31.8
P21, 000.00 – P30, 000.00 102 55.4 - -
P11, 000.00 – P20, 000.00 5 2.7 - -
P10, 000.00 and below 1 0.5 - -
Mean Php30,402.17 Php45,954.55
S.D. 7928.04 8438.73

Educational attainment

The tables shows that 150 or 81.5 of the teacher respondents are Master’s Degree

holder, this implies that teachers with this degree have more they have better chance to

optimize student’s potential.

According to Llego, 2022, a master’s degree equips teachers with an advanced

technical understanding of their subject matter of choice. Additionally, this degree can

improve an educator’s teaching skills, translating to higher average test scores and

boosted graduation rates. 

On the hand, 15 0r 68.8 per cent of school head - respondents are PhD holders,

meaning majority on the school heads achieved the highest degree in the field of

education. As such,they are qualified for a range of educational leadership opportunities

in both the public and private sectors. 

 45

Table 5. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of educational attainment
Teachers School Heads
Educational Attainment
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
Doctorate graduate 4 2.2 15 68.2
Master's graduate 150 81.5 6 27.3
Bachelor's graduate 30 16.3 - -

Plantilla position

The table shows that 132 or 71.7 of the teacher respondents are Teacher III. This

implies that the respondents reached the highest position in teaching and expected to

facilitate teaching - learning process.

According to the Civil Service Commission manual, Teachers I - III are expected

to facilitate learning in secondary and elementary learners through functional lesson. In

addition, monitor and evaluate pupils/students’ progress, maintain updated

pupils/students progress regularly and counsels and guide pupils/students.

The same table shows that 13 or 59.1 of school head respondents reached the

position of Principal III. This implies that they have already expanded further to include

the responsibility for leading school reform that would raise student achievement.

According to Sergiovanni, 2001, Principals are responsible for the overall

operation of their schools.

 46

Seyfarth, 1999, further stressed, With schools facing increased pressure to

improve teaching and learning, the duties and responsibilities of principals expanded

further to include the responsibility for leading school reform that would raise student

achievement. Success in leading reforms to increase student achievement often hinged

upon a principal's ability to create a shared vision within the school community and

success in implementing new organizational structures that engage teachers in shared

decision-making. Principals have discovered that engaging the entire school staff in

making decisions results in more commitment to school reform initiatives.

Principals are also responsible for facilitating their school's interactions with

parents and others in the school community. This responsibility includes working with

parents when disciplinary issues arise, when students are not succeeding academically,

and when parents have concerns. Principals also interact with parents who serve on

school advisory boards, parent/teacher organizations, and booster clubs.

Table 6. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of plantilla position
Teachers School Heads
Plantilla Position
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
Principal III 13 59.1
Principal II 3 13.6
Principal I 3 13.6
Head Teacher 2 9.1
Master Teacher II 2 1.1 1 4.5
 47

Master Teacher I 9 4.9

Teacher III 132 71.7
Teacher II 22 12.0
Teacher I 19 10.3

Length of service

The table shows that 52 or 28.3 per cent teacher respondents has been in the

service 11 -15 years while 10 or 45.5 per cent jas been in the service for 16 - 20 years.

In study conducted by Mislang and Junio in 2019, it revealed that, school heads

and teachers are serving the public for less than 10 years and 10 to 30 years. This implies

that both teacher and school head respondents already gained experience in teaching in

instructional leadership.

Kini and Podolsky, 2016, found out in their study that, Teaching and supervision

experience is positively associated with student achievement gains throughout a teacher’s

career. 

 As teachers gain experience, their students are more likely to do better on other
measures of success beyond test scores, such as school attendance.

 Teachers make greater gains in their effectiveness when they teach in a supportive
and collegial working environment, or accumulate experience in the same grade
level, subject, or district.

 More experienced teachers confer benefits to their colleagues, their students, and
to the school as a whole.
 48

Table 7. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of length of service
Teachers School Heads
Length of Service (in years)
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
More than 30 1 0.5 - -
26 to 30 5 2.7 3 13.6
21 to 25 21 11.4 7 31.8
16 to 20 43 23.4 10 45.5
11 to 15 52 28.3 2 9.1
5 to 10 51 27.7 - -
Less than 5 11 6.0 - -
Mean 13.67 years 20.5 years
S.D. 6.35 4.3

Eligibility

As manifested in the table, 153 or 83.2 per cent of teacher - respondents are

licensed under Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET) and 31 or 16.8 are

under the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET).

Majority of the teacher - respondents are professionalized under Presidential

Decree No. 1006 s. 1976 or the Provision for the Professionalization of Teachers,

Regulating their Practice in the Philippines and for other Purposes. This means that

teacher - respondents has been in the service for than 20 years, thus, highly skilled in

facilitating teaching and learning process.

 49

On the other hand, teachers were professionalized under the LET and under

Republic Act 7836 or otherwise known as the “Philippine Teachers Professionalization

Act of 1994” on December 16, 1994.

Teachers who used to rely on textbooks have now begun to innovate their own

teaching methods and strategies. The emphasis on continuing professional education

(CPE), or taking the masteral and doctorate degrees, has now been more pursued by

teachers who didn’t want to get left behind on the educational changes happening around

them. Having more confidence in their teaching skill, teachers perform better and so do

their students.

On the school heads side, 16 or 72. 7 per cent were professionalized under PBET

and 6 or 27.3 were professionalized under LET. This means that school heads served as

classroom teachers before taking the position of principal or school head.

Twenty or 90.9 school heads were NQESH qualifiers and taking hold of principal

position. This means that school heads are equip with leadership and supervisory skills

to overlook to the overall operation of the school.

Ubben, et. Al., 2021, principals are responsible for the overall operation of their

schools. Some of their duties and responsibilities are delineated in state statutes. States

and school districts have also set expectations for principals through their principal

evaluation criteria and procedures. During the latter part of the twentieth century, as

schools began to be held more accountable for the performance of their students on
 50

national and state assessments, the duties and responsibilities of principals changed.

Principals became more responsible for teaching and learning in their schools. In

particular, their duty to monitor instruction increased along with their responsibility to

help teachers improve their teaching. With this change in responsibilities, principals

discovered the need to more effectively evaluate instruction and assist teachers as they

worked to improve their instructional techniques. The principal's duty to improve the

school instructional program is mandated by legislation in some states. Some state

legislation requires the removal of principals when schools are classified as low

performing (students do not meet achievement expectations) for a specified period of

time.

Table 8. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of eligibility

Teachers School Heads
Eligibility
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
Licensure Examination for
31 16.8 6 27.3
Teachers (LET)
Professional Board Examination
153 83.2 16 72.7
for Teachers (PBET)
National Qualifying Examination
20 90.9
for School Heads (NQESH)
Civil Service Eligibility 2 9.1

Modality used in remote teaching

From the table below, 111 or 60.3 per cent of the teacher respondents are under

the modular distance learning modality while 73 or 39.7 are under blended learning
 51

modality. This means that learners are provided with self - learning modules in all the

subject and therefore study for themselves.

Anzaldo in her study in 2021, online learning is implemented especially for the

high schools and colleges but for those living in rural areas or provinces where internet

connection is only available for only few, Modular Distance Learning is implemented.

Modular Distance Learning is the use of Modules made by teachers with different tasks

and learning activities based from the essential learning competencies.

According to Dealagnon, 2021, modular learning is the current learning modality

in both primary and secondary education in the Philippines where the traditional teacher -

student learning has been shifted to parent - student learning, therefore, parents have the

critical role in their child’s progress. More so, this is applicable on all subjects.

Table 9. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of modality used in
teaching
Teachers School Heads
Modality
F (n=184) % F (n=22) %
Modular distance learning 111 60.3 *
Blended learning 73 39.7 *
Online distance learning - - *
*not applicable for school heads

Webinars/Seminars attended along specialization

The table shows that 164 teacher respondents attended virtual In - service

Training (VInSET) which ranked 1 and PRiMaLS ranked 2nd with 54 teacher -
 52

respondents attended. Also, 22 school head - respondents attended VInSET while 7

attended PRiMaLS.

In- service Training were attended by both teachers and school heads all over the

country. According to Alfaidi and Elhassen, 2020, most of in-service training programs

focused on a single side of teachers’ development related to the teachers’ specialization

or profession and update school heads with trends in education other leadership and

supervisory skills. But during pandemic, the InSET was transformed to VInSET.

According to Secretary Briones, 2021, education must continue amidst the global

battle against a fatal virus. With the whys and what ifs of the people, DepEd offered a

wide menu of options for learners and parents. Leaders continue to share their knowledge

and expertise through Virtaul In-Service Training for Teachers (VINSET) to ensure the

continuity of learning and to support learners’ needs.

Further,  INSET is the right avenue for re-skilling and upskilling of teachers for

the new normal in education. It equipped teachers with adequate new knowledge and

skills on how to face and overcome challenges. The undying support of education leaders

for teachers, learners, and parents and the long-term impact of Virtual INSET manifests a

clear future ahead. INSET is proof that no global crisis can stop education from soaring

and prospering the education sector.

 53

Table 10. Distribution of the teachers and school heads in terms of webinars/seminars
attended along specialization
Teachers School Heads
Webinars/Seminars*
Freq. Rank Freq. Rank
In-Service Trainings 164 1 22 1
PRiMaLS 54 2 7 2
Leadership and Management 2 3 3 3
None at all 18 (9.8%) - -
*multiple response set
 54

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 55

LITERATURE CITED

Abuhammad, S. (2020). Barriers to distance learning during the COVID-19 outbreak:

A qualitative review from parents’ perspective. Heliyon, 6(11), e05482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05482

Anzaldo, G., 2021, Modular Distance Learning in the New Normal Education
Amidst Covid-19 , May 2021
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
351547626_Modular_Distance_Learning_in_the_New_Normal_Education_Am
idst_Covid-19

Archambault, L. M. (2011). The practitioner’s perspective on teacher education:

Preparing for the online classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
19(1), 73–91.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organizational.

San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Banerjee, A. and E. Duflo. 2008. What is middle class about the middle classes
around the world? Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(2):3–28.

Bolton, M. 2010. “Fly on the Wall: Using Teleconferencing to Supervise Student

Teacher Performance.” Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning 14

Bright, N. (2011, October). Five habits of highly effective teachers: A role for
administrators. The School Administrator, 68(9), 33-35.

Bush, T. (2011). Theories of Educational Leadership & Management (4th. ed.).

London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Chang, S. and Wang, L., 2014. Age Matters? Insights from Maturated-Age Teacher
Candidates in the Teaching Profession

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional

practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
 56

Dealagnon, T. 2021, Modular Learning: Struggles and Coping Mechanism for

Mothers Not Speaking Mother Tongue

Dhal, Pravat Kumar ,2021, Women and Teaching Profession Women and Teaching
Profession, Magadh University

Doepke, M. and F. Zilibotti. 2005. Social class and the spirit of capitalism. Journal of
the European Economic Association 3(2–3):516–524.

Doepke, M. and F. Zilibotti. 2007. Occupational choice and the spirit of capitalism.
IZA Discussion Paper No. 2949. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
https://doi .org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.747 (accessed on August 28, 2018).

Downey, C., Steffy, B., English, F., Frase, L., & Poston, W. (2004). The three-minute
classroom walkthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Dyke, M., A. Harding, and S. Liddon. 2008. “How Can Online Observation Support

the Assessment and Feedback, on Classroom Performance, to Trainee Teachers at
a Distance and in Real Time?” Journal of Further and Higher Education 32
(1): 37–46. doi:10.1080/03098770701781432

Fendi, H., et al, 2021, Online Based Academic Supervision during the Covid – 19
Pandemic, J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 1779 012027

Field, L. (2019). Schools as learning organizations: hollow rhetoric or attainable

reality? Int. J. Educ. Manag. 33, 1106–1115. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-05-2018-0165

Franklin, T. O., Burdette, P., East, T., & Mellard, D. F. (2015). Differential Access to
Online Learning Within and Across Districts: State Education Agency Forum
Proceedings Series. (Report No. 8). Lawrence,
KS: Center on Online Instruction and Students with Disabilities, University of
Kansas.https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/

Giles, C., and Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as

learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized
reform. Educ. Admin. Q. 42, 124–156. doi: 10.1177/0013161X05278189

Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., Hadfield, M., Hargreaves, A., and Chapman, C.
(2013). Effective Leadership for School Improvement. London: Routledge.
 57

Hesbol, K. A. (2019). Principal self-efficacy and learning organizations: influencing

school improvement. Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Preparat. 14, 33–51.
Huntington, S. 1991. The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century.
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press

Kini, T. and Podolsky, A,, 2016, Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher
Effectiveness? A Review of the Research
/https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/brief-does-teaching-experience-increase-
teacher-effectiveness-review-research

Kuhfeld, M., & Tarasawa, B. (2020). The COVID-19 slide: What summer learning
loss can tell us about the potential impact of school closures on student academic
achievement [White paper]. The Collaborative for Student Growth at NWEA.
https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Collaborative-Brief_Covid19-Slide-
APR20.pdf

Kools, M., and Stoll, L. (2016). “What makes a school a learning

organisation?” OECD Education Working Papers (Paris), 137.

Lapid, J., 2021, Instructional Supervision under the new normal in education: Tenets
of job-embedded learning,

Levitt, B., and March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14,
319–338. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535

Liden, R. C., Stilwell, D., and Ferris, G. R. (1996). The effects of supervisor and
subordinate age on objective performance and subjective performance
ratings. Hum. Relat. 49, 327–347. doi: 10.1177/001872679604900304

Llego, M,A, 2022, 5 Reasons Why Teachers Should Pursue a Master’s Degree in
Education, @TEACHERPH.com

Mac Mahon, B., S. Ó Grádaigh, and S. Ní Ghuidhir. 2019. “Super Vision: The Role

of Remote Observation in The Professional Learning of Student Teachers and
Novice Placement Tutors.” TechTrends 63 (6): 703–710. doi:10.1007/s11528-
019-00432-z. 
 58

Manalili-Hernandez, C. (2020, July). Science master teachers’ clinical supervision

vis-à-vis teachers’ competence in the public secondary schools: Input for job-
embedded learning and development program. Unpublished dissertation, Guagua
National Colleges, Guagua, Pampanga.

Marsick, V. J., and Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating Learning Organizations:

Making Learning Count. Aldershot: Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision,

supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandria: ASCD.

Mislang-Sison, D., & Junio, A. (2019). School Heads’ Supervision Practices and
Teachers’ Instructional Performance: Basis for a Proposed Mentoring
Program. ASEAN Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 3(1). Retrieved from
https://paressu.org/online/index.php/aseanmrj/article/view/237

Murphy, K., A. Shleifer, and R.W. Vishny. 1989. Industrialization and the big push.
Journal of Political Economy 97(5):1003–1026

Oselumese, I. et. Al., 2016, Marital Status and Teachers’ Job Performance in Public
Secondary Schools in Edo State,
https://ijournals.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/5.4902-Blessing.compressed.pdf

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (2000). Instruction
technology for teaching and learning. Merrill

Paraschiva, G. A., Draghici, A., and Mihaila, C.-V. (2019). A research on schools as
learning organizations: a theoretical approach. Int. J. Manag. Knowledge Learn.
8, 159–178.

Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption,
continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal
of Information Management, 43, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.005

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A
systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018).
American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4),289–306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082
 59

Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: building learning organizations. Sloan

Manage. Rev. 32, 7–23.
Sergiovanni, Thomas J. 2001. The Principalship: A Reflective Practice
Perspective, 4th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Seyfarth, John t. 1999. The Principalship: New Leadership for New

Challenges. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Seham Defallah Ali Alfaidi and Fatma Ahmed Mohamed Elhassan,2020, The Role
of In-Service Training Programs in Teachers Development, International Journal of
Learning and Teaching Vol. 6, No. 3, September 2020

Schlechty, P. C. (2009). Leading for Learning: How to Transform Schools into

Learning Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Stern, J. (n.d.). Introduction to online teaching and learning, West Los Angeles
College. http://www.wlac.edu/online/documents/otl.pdf

Truxillo, D. M., and Burlacu, G., 2015. “Does age matter to LMX and its outcomes?
A review and future research directions,” in Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford
Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange, eds T. N. Bauer and B. Erdogan
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), 397–411.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199326174.013.0014

Ubben, Gerald c.; Hughes, Larry W.; and Norris, Cynthia j. 2001. The Principal:

Creative Leadership for Effective Schools, 4th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Van Lancker, W., & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child
poverty: A social crisis in the making. Lancet Public Health,
5(5), e243–e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0

Walters, K. N., and Diab, D. L. (2016). Humble leadership: implications for

psychological safety and follower engagement. J. Leadersh. Stud. 10, 7–18. doi:
10.1002/jls.21434

https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1835/Classroom-Observation.html
 60

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1962232

Questionnaire for School Heads

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. Teachers did not apply knowledge across and within curriculum
2. Teachers did not use range of teaching strategies to develop critical
thinking.
3. Teachers did not use range of teaching strategies to develop creative
thinking.
4. Teachers did not use range of teaching strategies to develop higher order
thinking skill.
5. The teachers did not communicate clear expectations of student
performance in line with the unit standards and competencies

6. The teachers did not monitor and check on students’ learning and
attainment of the unit standards and competencies by conducting
varied forms of assessments during class discussion.

7. The teachers did not provide appropriate feedback to enable

students in attaining the unit standards and competencies
8. The teachers did not manage the virtual classroom environment and
time in a way that supports student learning and the achievement
of the unit standards and competencies.
9. The teachers did not processes students’ understanding by asking
clarifying or critical thinking questions related to the unit
standards or competencies.
10. The teachers did not provide appropriate interventions to enable
students in attaining the unit standards and competencies

Problems encountered in the implementation of Instructional Supervision

1- never 2- rarely 3 - occasionally 4 - always

A. Content Knowledge and Pedagogy

 61

B. Learning Environment and Diversity of Learners

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. Teachers did not manage classroom structure to engage learners, individually
or in groups in meaningful exploration and discovery
2. Teachers did not manage learners’ behavior constructively by applying
positive discipline to ensure learning - focused environment
3. Teachers did not manage learners’ behavior constructively by non-violent
positive discipline to ensure learning - focused environment
4. Teachers did not use differentiated, developmentally learning experience to
address learners’ gender, needs, strength, interests, and experiences.
5. The teachers did not monitor and check on students’ learning and attainment
of the unit standards and competencies by conducting varied forms of
assessments virtual discussion
6. Teachers did not introduce the learning objectives
7. Teachers did not use positive reinforcement to encourage student participation
8. Teachers did not treat students with respect
9. Teachers did not provide clear standards are set for instructor response and
availability
10. Teachers did not integrate 21st century skills in their achievement of the unit
standards and competencies.
 62

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. Teachers did not participate in collegial discussion that use teachers’ feedback
to enrich learning practice.
2. Teachers did not participate in collegial discussion that use learners’ feedback
to enrich learning practice.
3. Teachers did not select appropriate teaching and learning resources including
ICT to address learning goals
4.. Teachers did not develop appropriate teaching and learning resources
including ICT to address learning goals
5. Teachers did not organize appropriate teaching and learning resources
including ICT to address learning goals
5. Teachers did not implement school project to address academic inequities.
7Teachers did not conduct action research to address least mastered competencies
8Teachers did not conduct home visitation to learners at risk.
9. Teachers did not distribute self-learning modules to learners under the modular
dstance learning.
10Teachers did not demonstrate during LAC session
C. Curriculum and Planning

D. Assessment and Reporting

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. Teachers did not design diagnostic, formative and summative assessment
strategies consistent with curriculum requirement
2. Teachers did not select diagnostic, formative and summative assessment
strategies consistent with curriculum requirement
3. Teachers did not organize diagnostic, formative and summative assessment
strategies consistent with curriculum requirement
4. Teachers did not use diagnostic assessment strategies consistent with
curriculum requirement
5. Teachers did not monitor learner progress and achievement using attainment
data
6. Teachers did not evaluate learner progress and achievement using attainment
data
7. Teachers did not communicate promptly the learners’ needs, progress and
achievement to key stakeholders, including parents/guardian
8.Teachers did not use formative assessment strategies consistent with
curriculum requirement
9Teachers did not use summative assessment strategies consistent with
curriculum requirement
10 Teachers did not conduct action research to address and arrest least mastered
competencies

Indicators 1 2 3 4
 63

1. Teachers did not perform various related works/activities that contribute to the
teaching-learning process
2. Teachers are not enrolled in the graduate studies
3. Teachers did not attend massive online open courses
4. Teachers did not develop strategic intervention material to further learners’
achievement
5. Teachers didi not join contests or competition to enhance learner’s skill
6.Teachers did not join in community intiative
7Teachers are not writers of self-learning modules
8Teachers did not serve in the SBM group
9.Teachers did not publish article(s) in academic and educational journal
10.Teachers did not serve as speakers, trainers, and presenters during webinars.
E. Plus Factor
 64

Questionnaire for Teachers

Problems encountered in the implementation of Instructional Supervision

1- never 2- rarely 3 - occasionally 4 - always

A. Content Knowledge and Pedagogy

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. I do not apply knowledge across and within curriculum
2. I do not use range of teaching strategies to develop critical thinking.
3. I do not use range of teaching strategies to develop creative thinking.
4. I do not use range of teaching strategies to develop higher order thinking skill.
5. I do not communicate clear expectations of student performance in line with
the unit standards and competencies
6. I do not monitor and check on students’ learning and attainment of the unit
standards and competencies by conducting varied forms of assessments during
class discussion.
7. I do not provide appropriate feedback to enable students in attaining the unit
standards and competencies
8. I do not manage the virtual classroom environment and time in a way that
supports student learning and the achievement of the unit standards and
competencies.
9. I do not process students’ understanding by asking clarifying or critical
thinking questions related to the unit standards or competencies.
10. I do not provide appropriate interventions to enable students in attaining the
unit standards and competencies

B. Learning Environment and Diversity of Learners

 65

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. I do not manage classroom structure to engage learners, individually or in
groups in meaningful exploration and discovery
2. I do not manage learners’ behavior constructively by applying positive
discipline to ensure learning - focused environment
3. I do not manage learners’ behavior constructively by non-violent positive
discipline to ensure learning - focused environment
4. I do not use differentiated, developmentally learning experience to address
learners’ gender, needs, strength, interests, and experiences.
5. I do not monitor and check on students’ learning and attainment of the unit
standards and competencies by conducting varied forms of assessments virtual
discussion
6. I do not introduce the learning objectives
7. I do not use positive reinforcement to encourage student participation
8. I do not treat students with respect
9. I do not provide clear standards are set for instructor response and availability
10. I do not integrate 21st century skills in their achievement of the unit standards
and competencies.

C. Curriculum and Planning

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. I do not participate in collegial discussion that use teachers’ feedback to
enrich learning practice.
2. I do not participate in collegial discussion that use learners’ feedback to enrich
learning practice.
3. I do not select appropriate teaching and learning resources including ICT to
address learning goals
4.. I do not develop appropriate teaching and learning resources including ICT to
address learning goals
5. Ido not organize appropriate teaching and learning resources including ICT to
address learning goals
6. I do not implement school project to address academic inequities.
7 I do not conduct action research to address least mastered competencies
8 I do not conduct home visitation to learners at risk.
9I do not distribute self-learning modules to learners under the modular distance
learning.
10.I do not demonstrate during LAC session

D. Assessment and Reporting

Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. I do not design diagnostic, formative and summative assessment strategies
 66

consistent with curriculum requirement

2. I do not select diagnostic, formative and summative assessment strategies
consistent with curriculum requirement
3. I do not organize diagnostic, formative and summative assessment strategies
consistent with curriculum requirement
4. I do not use diagnostic assessment strategies consistent with curriculum
requirement
5. I do not monitor learner progress and achievement using attainment data
6. I do not evaluate learner progress and achievement using attainment data
7. I do not communicate promptly the learners’ needs, progress and achievement
to key stakeholders, including parents/guardian
8.I do not use formative assessment strategies consistent with curriculum
requirement
9I do not use summative assessment strategies consistent with curriculum
requirement
10.I do not conduct action research to address and arrest least mastered
competencies

E. Plus Factor
Indicators 1 2 3 4
1. I do not perform various related works/activities that contribute to the
teaching-learning process
2. I do not enroll in the graduate studies
3. I do not attend massive online open courses
4. I do not develop strategic intervention material to further learners’
achievement
5. I do not join contests or competition to enhance learner’s skill
6.I do not join in community intiative
7.I am not a writer of self-learning modules
8.I don’t served in the SBM group
9.I don’t publish article(s) in academic and educational journal
10.I never served as speaker, trainer, and presenter during webinars.
67
68