A Development of Research Supervision Model for an Enhancement on Instructional Research Competency of Language Lecturers

Main Article Content

Bundit ANUYAHONG

Abstract

the purposes of this research were to develop instructional research supervision model to enhance research competency of language lecturers and to assess the effects of the use of research supervision model as following methods: 1) to assess the competency in research supervision of mentors, 2) to assess knowledge and understanding about instructional research of the language lecturers, 3) to assess knowledge and understanding about research supervision of the mentors, 4) to assess instructional research competency of language lecturers, 5) to assess the language lecturers’ satisfaction towards instructional research supervision model, 6) to assess the instructional research report’s quality of the language lecturers, and 7) to follow up efficiency of lecturer’s instructional research from a number of  research published in international conference/national conference or a journal.


The population was 50 language lecturers at College of General Education and Languages, Thai-Nichi Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. The samples were 10 language lecturers derived through volunteer random sampling techniques. The research instruments comprised of tests, questionnaire, observation forms, interview forms, and assessment forms. Data were analysed in terms of percentage, means, standard deviation, t-test, and content analysis.


Research findings were found as follows: 1) the instructional research supervision model to enhance research competency of language lecturers was proved to be effective and verified as by experts. 2) The empirical data that supported the effectiveness of the instructional research supervision model were as follows: 1) regarding to the mentors, they demonstrated a very high level of competency in instructional research supervision and their knowledge on instructional research before and after the implementation of the supervision model were statistically significant different at the .05 level whereas the average scores of knowledge on  the instructional research after the implementation of the supervision model were higher than the prior one. 2) Regarding to language lecturers, their knowledge on instructional research supervision before and after the implementation of the supervision model were statistically significant different at the .05 level whereas the average scores of knowledge and on supervision after the implementation of the supervision model were higher than before the implementation of the supervision model. The language lecturers who were supervised also demonstrated a very high level of competency on instructional research. They were satisfied with the supervision model at the highest level. 3) Regarding to the quality of research report, it was found that a number of research reports which were verified from experts were at good level. 4) Regarding to follow up efficiency of lecturer’s instructional research from a number of researches published in international conference/national conference or a journal, it was found that there were 8 research papers (out of 10) which were published in international conference after the implementation of the supervision model.


 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Research Article

References

L. Darling-Hammond, “Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education,” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 300–314, May 2006.

Freeman D., “Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know,” K. Bailey & D. Nunan (eds.), Voices from the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Nunan D., Research methods in language learning, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

D. Hopkins, A teacher's guide to classroom reasearch, Open University Press, Philadelphia, 1985.

M. Cochran-Smith and S. L. Lytle, “The Teacher Research Movement: A Decade Later,” Educational Researcher, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 15–25, Oct. 1999.

L. Darling-Hammond, “Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education,” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 300–314, May 2006.

Lo Castro, V., “Teachers helping themselves: Classroom research and action research”. The Language Teacher Vol. 18(2), pp. 4-7, 1994.

Butterworth, T. & Faugier, J., Clinical Supervision and Mentorship in Nursing. London: Chapman and Hall, 1992.

Freeman D., “Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know,” K. Bailey & D. Nunan (eds.), Voices from the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Butterworth, T. & Faugier, J., Clinical Supervision and Mentorship in Nursing. London: Chapman and Hall, 1992.

“Proctor, B. (1986) Supervision: A Co-Operative Exercise in Accountability. In: Marken, M. and Payn, M., Eds., Enabling and Ensuring: Supervision in Practice, National Bureau and Council for Education and Training in Youth and Community Work, Leicester, 21-23. - References - Scientific Research Publish.” [Online]. Available: https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45 teexjx455 qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1547577.

M. Cochran-Smith and S. L. Lytle, “The Teacher Research Movement: A Decade Later,” Educational Researcher, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 15–25, Oct. 1999.

Bailey, K. M.., Language teacher supervision., Burns and J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second Language teacher education , New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 269-278.

Kincheloe, J. L.,Getting Beyond the Facts: Teaching Social Studies/Social Sciences in the Twenty-first Century. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

Remenyi, D. & Money, A., Research Supervision: For Supervisors and Their Students. London: Academic Conferences Limited.

A. G. Shannon, “Research Degree Supervision,” Australian Universities’ Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 12–15, 1995.

Dewey, J., Experience and Education. New York: Library of Congress in Publication Data, 1988.

Dewey, J., Experience and Education. New York: Library of Congress in Publication Data, 1988.