Research methodology
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction
This chapter presents literature about the objectives of the study with a focus on support supervision and teacher competence.
2.1 Mentorship and teacher knowledge competence in mathematics teaching
From the beginning of teacher education to senior leadership development, mentoring was employed in several educational contexts around the world and was seen as a crucial professional learning technique (Pomphery & Burley, 2012). Sorensen, (2014) stated that mentoring has become a global catchphrase within teacher education due to its pervasiveness.
Teacher knowledge was critical to the teaching of a particular domain. A study by Leys and Marx (2002) on mentorship and teacher knowledge of educational technology found that mentorship increased the teacher content knowledge subsequently improving the instruction quality of the teachers. Leys and Marx employed a quasi-ethnographic interview process that involved six participants. Although the study looked at mentorship, it did not look at mathematics as an instruction domain. Moreover, the study was limited to only six participants which makes it hard to generalize. It was, therefore, necessary that a study using a bigger sample in an African setting like Kamuge Sub County be conducted for application to improve teacher knowledge competence and mentorship.
In an experimental study (Mather et al. 2009), on mentorship and teacher literacy knowledge, the findings suggest that teachers can improve their concerning explicit reading instruction and the new knowledge contributes to students’ growth in readings. The teacher sample for the study consisted of four teachers in the first and second grades. The study was done in a community with significantly high socio-economic demographics. The study poses gaps in the number of participants, the settings, and the subject content area. The current study was proposed in a rural setting of the Kamuge sub-county, with a bigger sample.
Examining the mentorship process between the teachers and the support supervisors in a primary teacher program in the Netherlands, the study by (Mena et al., 2017), illustrated that mentors tend to use a more directive mentoring approach and that they dominate the dialogue, suggesting a need for reconsideration of the mentor. The mixed methodology study indicates the need to apply the dynamics of support supervision where the mentee was helped to explore and give suggestions to their gaps in knowledge.
A case study by (Saye et al., 2012) examined how mentoring experiences might encourage teachers’ consideration and adoption of the problem-based historical inquiry framework to boost their subject knowledge. In their study emphasis was put on peer mentoring of other teachers. Results from the study suggest promise for modeling and scaffolding to assist teachers in linking theory to practice. The study intimated that teachers must ground the given support in their own experience before they become fully competent. The findings of this study support claims that mentoring and collaboration may encourage teachers to de-privatize their knowledge and use each other as resources (Milton et al., 2022). This study however fails to link the gain of knowledge by teachers to any subject, especially to mathematics that suffers a negative attitude by most teachers.
In search for qualities of a good mentor, Ellis et al (2020) reviewed and analyzed seventy publications to come up with standards that describe the key elements of a mentor. They describe a good mentor as a “wise advisor.” A good mentor should collaborate with the university, develop a disposition and professional knowledge in mentoring, establish an effective relationship; facilitate the PST’s learning, model effective teaching and make connections between theory and practice, provide direction and support, and adopt a progressive mindset and support the PST to nurture the teaching identity (Ellis, eta l., 2020).
2.2: Coaching on instructional competence of mathematics among lower primary teachers
One very strong element of supervision was coaching. Coaching done well can dramatically improve human performance, while coaching done poorly can be ineffective, wasteful, and sometimes even destructive (Knight, Elford, Hock, Dunekack, Bradley, Deshler, & Knight, 2015). Coaches support teachers to plan instruction aligned to curriculum, rigorous standards, and effective research-based teaching practices. While conducting supervision, coaches continuously observe and provide feedback to teachers on their instructional practices with the focus of ensuring equitable outcomes for the teacher supervisee. Coaches support teachers in analyzing and interpreting evidence of learning among learners strategically planning, and adjusting instruction that is aligned to standards, and planning to scaffold instruction as they meet the needs of every learner. Kim (2019) asserts that coaching and feedback interventions, with an emphasis on actual performance or practices, an effective means to alter setting irregularities
Costa and Garmston’s (1994) model of cognitive coaching proposes teachers’ thought processes and beliefs to determine their instructional behavior. According to the cognitive coaching model, to effect changes in practice, instructional coaching should focus on eliciting and examining the thoughts and decisions that a teacher makes in the context of teaching. Coaching, then, was organized around a theory of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, &Newman, 1989; Dennen, 2004). It was possible that instructional coaching could facilitate a change in teachers’ beliefs about their levels of instructional competency. As mentioned previously, Cognitive Coaching is a type of coaching that focuses on “planning teaching, reflecting on teaching or problem-solving” (Marzano & Simms, 2013). Several studies by Dutton, (1990); Edwards, Green, Lyons, Rogers, & Swords, (1998), have shown coaching increases teacher efficacy and job satisfaction.
In a study on developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching, Vogt (2009), teachers receiving coaching increased their adaptive teaching competence about planning and their students showed a higher learning outcome compared to the control group. Similarly, Kilnbumrung & Surpare (2021) found that the performance of teachers on the coaching model showed that the learning process and learning achievement were higher than 75% and that the learners’ satisfaction with the developed learning and teaching process was at a high level at a mean equaled 4.38. These two studies indicate that teacher coaching does not only improve teacher performance but also learner performance. The two studies however are conducted among teachers at higher levels of learning, i.e. secondary and university. There was a need to establish whether the same benefits could be attained at lower primary in an up-country setting like the Kamuge sub-country.
A mentoring-coaching action research study by Dewi (2021) indicated that the teacher pedagogic was able to raise using the mentoring coaching technique, although not all subjects were successful in being improved. The other significant findings of the study were the principals’ consistency in applying the chosen approach and teachers’ ability to identify their need for improvement. This implies that the study out to ensure that teachers identify their need to improve beforehand and also the need for consistency in the coaching processes.
2.3: Relationship between support supervision and lower primary class teacher competence
The professional support that a teacher receives influences their competence. According to Khan and Abdullah (2019), the more frequently teachers receive support, the more skilled they become, which in turn increases their performance. A person’s level of performance is influenced by their level of competence as well as other elements that support it (Babanyako, 2011).
A study carried out on support supervision and performance of primary school teachers in Uganda by Okia (2021), established the relationship between democratic support supervision, directive support supervision, non-directive support supervision, and teacher performance, results indicated a moderate positive relationship ( r(2) = 0.382, p ˂ 0.01) exhausted between direct support supervision and teacher performance, moderate positive relationship ( r(2) = 0.295, p˂0.01), moderate positive relationship (r (2) = 0.382, p ˂ 0.01). The above relationship results indicate a relationship between teacher support supervision and teacher performance with differences favouring more democratic support supervision. This study however falls short on the specifics, especially on the levels of teachers who formed the respondents. There was a need to differentiate the two known levels of primary education as lower and upper primary classes and teaching are different in the dynamics of teaching. The current study was specifically focused on lower primary and particularly on teacher performance in mathematics.
The findings by Maritasari (2020) demonstrate a link between teacher support supervision and teacher competence by showing that the teacher competence variable can moderate the impact of the supervision variable (X2) on the teacher performance variable (Y). The findings showed that the Supervwasion Variable (X2) had a substantial effect on the Teacher Performance Variable (Y) through Teacher Competence. The p-value was smaller than the value of (0.021 0.05), according to variable (Z). The results are significant and favorable when the pathway’s sensitivity value (beta) is positive. This finding shows that for teachers to compete and be effective in enhancing the quality of education, schools use supervision to support the development of their invention and creativity (Khun-inkeeree., et al. 2019).
A study by (Daud et al., 2018) found a significant positive relationship between confidence in the supervisor with teachers’ attitude towards supervision (β = .451, t = 3.159, p =.002), supervisor support towards teaching (β = .290, t = 2.304, p = .022). similarly, a study by (Kartini, et al.,2020) on the influence of a Principal’s leadership, academic supervision, and professional competence on teachers’ performance found a significant relationship between a principal’s academic supervision and teachers’ professional competence (β = 0.575. t = 7.891, p = 0.000). The study misses out on the relationship between supervision knowledge competence and instructional competence as this study looks at general professional competence.
In examining the relationship between training and supervision on teacher performance through teacher competence as a mediating variable in primary schools through an experimental study, Maritasari (2020) found a significant and positive influence of supervision on teacher (competence (β = .843, t = 12.679, p = .000. the study though doesn’t indicate the area in which the competence applies.
