Teacher-In-Charge Supervision Practices as a Catalyst for Teacher Efficacy and Student Outcomes

This study investigated the relationship between academic supervision practices employed by Teachers-in-Charge (TICs) and teacher efficacy, and how this relationship influences student outcomes in public elementary schools. Employing an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, the study surveyed 54 respondents (11 TICs and 43 teachers) from 11 elementary schools in Cantilan District, Surigao del Sur, during SY 2025-2026. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data from semi-structured interviews underwent thematic analysis. Findings revealed that while TICs possessed greater experience and seniority, they lacked formal supervisory training compared to teachers, implying that tenure alone does not substitute for structured preparation in instructional leadership. Collaborative supervisory practices were rated highly practiced, whereas directive practices received lower ratings, suggesting that teachers respond more positively to participative supervision. Teacher efficacy was strongest in learning environment management but weakest in curriculum and planning. Six major challenges were identified: workload burden, resource constraints, leadership gaps, professional development limitations, psychosocial pressures, and student-centered challenges. The study concludes that effective supervision serves as a catalyst for teacher efficacy when it integrates structured guidance, collaborative development, and transformational leadership. The proposed SCOPE Framework provides a comprehensive model aligning PPSSH and PPST standards to enhance teacher efficacy and student outcomes.

academic supervision, teacher efficacy, teacher-in-charge, student outcomes

1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chen, H., Vorawattanachai, P., & Yang, F. (2025). A study of trait leaders and leadership effectiveness. African Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 157-168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2021). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Daigon, M. E., & Alcopra, A. R. (2024). Instructional supervision practices and efficacy of teachers. IJMRA, 7(8), 103-113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Eugenio, K. B. F. (2025). Instructional supervision on teaching practices, performance and learning outcomes. WJARR, 28(1), 227-244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Garcia, M. D., & Hernandez, M. P. (2021). Empowered to lead: Leadership practices, teacher burnout, and work performance. Psychology and Education, 53(4), 392-409. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Guamos, R. C., & Jalos, J. M. (2023). Instructional supervision and professional development. IJER, 11(6), 145-158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hsieh, C. C., Chen, Y. R., & Li, H. C. (2024). Impact of school leadership on teacher professional collaboration. JPCC, 9(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Israel, L. O., & Baguio, J. B. (2025). Conversion supervision practices and supportive classroom management. AJCR, 10(3), 67-77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Obuta, S. M., Salva, C. R., & Ferenal, E. S. (2023). School heads' instructional supervisory skills and teachers' performance. PGSJRT, 3(1), 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Oghuvbu, E. P. (2023). Academic supervision and teachers' pedagogical skills development. JEAP, 14(2), 45-59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Park, J. H., & Ham, S. H. (2016). Whose perception of principal instructional leadership? APJE, 36(3), 450-469. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Pressley, T., Marshall, D. T., Walter, H. L., & Ganey, K. (2025). Why teachers leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 157, 104887. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Santos, J. R., & Reyes, L. P. (2020). Empathetic leadership and supervisory approaches. IJER, 8(5), 101-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Sari, D. P., Widodo, W., & Supriyanto, S. (2025). The effect of integrative academic supervision. IJEMDS, 6(1), 112-128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Wahing, L. B. (2025). Potential of educational leadership. IJAMS, 5(7). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Zepeda, S. J. (2025). Instructional supervision (5th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study