........................... zoaqazov 3 1293 00753 6380 LIBRARY W Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN INVESTIGATION To DETERMINE IF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIORS CAN IMPACT TEACHER EFFICACY presented by J. Mark Lubbers has been accepted towards fulfillment . of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration Majorrpoesfs DateJD') x 1?? MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES retun on or bdore die the. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE TEE 0 6 1“"? ‘- 1 l ‘ l l I i ’W ‘J msu leAnAl'flrmdive AdlonlEquel Opponunlty um Wynn! AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIORS CAN IMPACT TEACHER EFFICACY By J. Mark Lubbers A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1989 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIORS CAN IMPACT TEACHER EFFICACY By J. Mark Lubbers Evidence suggests there is a strong correlation between student achievement and a teacher's sense of efficacy. There is also evidence which indicates there is a relationship between principals who are viewed to be strong instructional leaders and student achievement. Theory dealing with both teacher efficacy and instructional leadership suggests that principal behaviors do influence teachers' sense of collective efficacy. This dissertation investigated the interaction between the behaviors of an instructional leader and the teachers' sense of teacher efficacy. Teachers in schools identified to be improving, stable, or declining in student achievement were asked to rate their principal in terms of frequency of identified behaviors. Questions were also asked which measure the teachers' sense of pedagogical efficacy and teaching efficacy. Teachers' views about their pedagogical and teaching efficacy were not significantly different among improving, stable, and declining schools. Principals in improving and stable schools were viewed by their faculties to be significantly stronger instructional leaders than the principals of declining schools. Certain principal behaviors were found to account for the variance in teachers' sense of pedagogical and teaching efficacy. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Lyndy, who was constantly at my side to celebrate the peaks of success and struggle through the valleys of frustration while working on this project. And to my two children, Jessie and Mitch, who helped me keep my perspective on what is important in life ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation was achieved through the help and support of several individuals and two organizations. I first would like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Lawrence Lezotte, who proved to be a good friend and valuable mentor. The suggestions and questions offered by Janet Alleman, Fred Ignatovich, and Michael Moore were also appreciated and forced me to stretch in my thinking. Completing a dissertation twelve hundred miles away from campus is not an easy undertaking. Dale Shaw and Dianna Suhr at the University of Northern Colorado were of tremendous assistance in the running and interpretation of the statistical analyses. Recognition also needs to be given to two organizations which provided financial support, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, USA. and the National Center for Effective Schools. TABLEOFCOVTENTS List of Tables List of Figures CHAPTER I Introduction Background Information Purpose Definition of Terms Student Achievement Improving Schools Stable Schools Declining Schools Teacher Efficacy Pedagogical Efficacy Teaching Efficacy Collective Efficacy Instructional Leadership Hypotheses Significance of the Study Assumptions and Limitations vi XV xvii 10 CHAPTER II Self-efficacy Theoretical Framework Sources of Information Description of Self-efficacy Incorporating Teachers Efficacy into a Model of Good Teaching Empirical Studies of Teacher Efficacy Collective Efficacy Summary— Teacher Efficacy Principal as Instructional Leader Theoretical Framework Impact of the Principal Behaviors of an Instructional Leader Summary- Instructional Leader Implications A Relationship- Theoretically Speaking CHAPTER III Design of the Study Population and Sample Schools Sample Size Data Collection Suggested Procedure for Mail Survey School Packet Formation Packet Mailing 12 12 13 14 15 18 21 22 23 23 26 27 31 31 33 38 38 38 40 41 41 42 43 School Follow-up Teacher ReSponse Teacher Demographic Data Changes in Student Population Instrumentation Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale Staff Assessment Questionaire Teacher Efficacy Scale Ethical Considerations Testable Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternate Hypothesis Symbolically Legend Hypothesis 2 Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternate Hypothesis Symbolically Legend Hypothesis 3 Null Hypothesis Symbolically viii 43 43 44 44 46 46 48 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 Alternate Hypothesis Symbolically Legend Hypothesis 4a Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternate Hypothesis Symbolically Legend Hypothesis 4b Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternate Hypothesis Symbolically Legend Hypothesis 5a Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternate Hypothesis Symbolically Legend Hypothesis 5b Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternate Hypothesis Symbolically 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 53 53 Legend Analysis Concurrent Validity Planned Multiple Comparisons Multiple Regression Summary CHAPTER IV Analysis of Subscales Form A: Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMR) Form B: Staff Assessment Questionnaire Pedagogical Efficacy Teaching Efficacy Analysis of Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: Pedagogical Efficacy Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternative Hypothesis Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Hypothesis 2: Teaching Efficacy Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternative Hypothesis 53 53 53 53 54 55 56 56 58 58 58 59 60 60 60 60 60 60 6O 63 63 63 63 63 Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Hypothesis 3: Instructional Managers Form A: Hallinger's PIMR Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternative Hypothesis Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Form B: Andrew's SAQ Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternative Hypothesis Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Hypothesis 4: Impact of Instructional Manager Behaviors on Pedagogical Efficacy Form A: Hallinger's PIMR Null Hypothesis Symbolically x i 63 63 64 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 68 70 7O 70 70 70 7O 71 71 73 73 73 73 Alternative Hypothesis Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Form B: Andrews' SAQ Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternative Hypothesis Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Hypothesis 5: Impact of Instructional Manager Behaviors on Teaching Efficacy Form A: Hallinger's PIMR Null Hypothesis Symbolically Alternative Hypothesis Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Form B: Andrews' SAQ Null Hypothesis Symbolically 73 73 73 74 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 77 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 80 81 81 81 81 Alternative Hypothesis Symbolically Planned Analysis Subsequent Analysis Decision Summary CHAPTER V Summary of Study Discussion Teacher Efficacy Instructional Leadership Pedagogical Efficacy and Instructional Leadership Pedagogical Efficacy Teaching Efficacy and Instructional Leadership Teaching Efficacy Conclusions Implications for Practice Recommendations for Further Research APPENDIX A Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale APPENDIX B Enhancing Collaboration and Support APPENDIX C Staff Assessment Questionnaire xiii 81 81 82 82 82 83 86 89 89 91 94 96 99 99 100 101 103 105 111 113 APPENDIX D Teacher Efficacy Scale APPENDIX E Form A - Questionnaire for Study APPENDIX F Form B - Questionnaire for Study APPENDIX G Cover Letter Sent to Principal APPENDIX H Demographic Card Sent to Principal APPENDIX I Reminder Card Sent to Teachers LIST OF REFERENCES xiv 120 123 132 141 143 145 147 LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Number of Schools Used in the Sample 3.2 Return Rate for Questionnaires 3.3 Teacher Demographics 4.1 Reliability Coefficients for the Subscales of the Principal Instructional Manager Rating Scale 4.2 Reliability Coefficients for the Subscales of the Staff Assessment Questionnaire 4.3 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Collective Pedagogical Efficacy 4.4 Analysis of Variance for Collective Pedagogical Efficacy 4.5 Subsequent Analysis of Variance for Pedagogical Efficacy 4.6 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Teaching Efficacy 4.7 Analysis of Variance for Teaching Efficacy 4.8 Subsequent Analysis for Teaching Efficacy 4.9 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Instructional Managers using PIMR XV 40 44 45 57 58 61 61 62 64 64 65 67 4.10 Analysis of Variance for Instructional Manager using the PIMR 4.11 Subsequent Analysis of Variance for Instructional Manager using PIMR 4.12 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Instructional Manager using SAQ 4.13 Analysis of Variance for Instructional Manager using SAQ 4.14 Subsequent Analysis of Variance for Instructional Manager using SAQ 4.15 Backward Regression of Instructional Manager Behaviors on to Collective Pedagogical Efficacy using PIMR 4.16 Backward Regression of Instructional Manager Behaviors on to Teacher Pedagogical Efficacy using PIMR 4.17 Backward Regression of Instructional Manager Behaviors on to Collective Pedagogical Efficacy using SAQ 4.18 Backward Regression of Instructional Manager Behaviors on to Teacher Pedagogical Efficacy using SAQ 4.19 Backward Regression of Instructional Manager Behaviors on to Collective Teaching Efficacy using PIMR xvi 67 69 70 71 72 74 75 77 78 80 4.20 Backward Regression of Instructional Manager Behaviors on to Teacher Teaching Efficacy using PIMR 81 5.1 Comparisons Between PIMR and SAQ with Teacher Efficacy 9 5 xvii UST OF FIGURES 2.1 Aston's (1984) Distinguishing Dimensions Between High and Low Teacher Efficacy 2.2 Modified version of Porter and BrOphy's Model of Factors Influencing Teachers‘ Instruction 2.3 Leithwood and Montgomery's Paradigm of the Principal's Role 2.4 Dimensions of Three Instructional Leadership Models 2.5 Proposed Relation Between Behaviors of an Instructional Leader and Sources of Information for Teacher Efficacy 2.6 Integration of Porter 8 Brophy's Model of Good Teaching with Leithwood 8. Montgomery's Paradigm of the Principal's Role 4.1 Study Highlights 4.2 Instructional Leader Behaviors Found to be Significant on Efficacy 5.1 Job Functions Related to Goals, Technology. and Outcomes xviii 16 17 25 32 36 37 84 85 94 5.2 Integration of Porter 8. Brophy's Model of Good Teaching with Leithwood 8 Montgomery's Paradigm of the Principal's Role using Behaviors that Relate to Pedagogical Efficacy 9 7 5.3 Job Functions Which Impact Collective Pedagogical Efficacy 9 8 xix CHAPTER I Introduction Both teacher efficacy and instructional leadership have been linked to student achievement. Very little, however, has been done to determine what impact, if any, the role of the principal as an instructional leader has on teachers' sense of efficacy. There is little theoretical or empirical knowledge regarding the concept of the principal as an instructional leader (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, 8 Lee, 1982; Leithwood 8. Montgomery, 1984). Edmonds (1979) argued that ”one of the most tangible and indispensable characteristics of effective schools is the strong administrative leadership, without which the disparate elements of good schooling could neither be brought together nor kept together" (p. 4). There is evidence which now supports Edmonds' statement. Andrews, Soder. and Jacoby (1986) found that student achievement in reading and mathematics, particularly for the low achieving students, can be impacted by the perceptions held by the teaching staff regarding the principal as an instructional leader. Teachers' sense of efficacy refers to ”the extent which teachers believe they can affect student learning," (Denbo 8 Gibson, 1985, p. 173). A strong correlation has been found regarding student achievement and a teacher's sense of efficacy (Armour et al., 1977; Brookover, Beady, Schweitzer, 8 Wisenbaker, 1979; Ashton, Webb, 8 Doda, 1982). The stronger the teacher's sense of efficacy the greater were student gains. Teacher efficacy has also been found to be beneficial in terms of implementing and continuing educational innovations. Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauley, and Zellman (1977) found that program continuation was Iikelier to continue when teachers felt efficacious. Background Information During 1987 Sally Kilgore was a guest speaker at a colloquium sponsored by the Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University. During the presentation, Kilgore posed the question, ”How do the policies and procedures of the school impinge on the actions and behaviors of the students?” A question that was unanswered leaving the colloquium was "How do the various values, beliefs, and actions of the principal impinge on the actions and behaviors of the teachers?” The issue between leadership and efficacy has been considered by Bennis and Nanus (1985) when they stated, ”For successful leadership to occur there has to be a fusion between positive self-regard and optimism about a desired outcome." (p. 79) indicates indebtedness to Bandura (1982) for his analysis on self-efficacy. The curiosity between teachers' sense of efficacy and the beliefs and actions of the building principal was intensified after reviewing two Rand studies. Teacher efficacy and the leadership role of the principal were found to be important factors in consistent reading gains of students In predominantly low income and minority areas in the Los Angeles area (Armour et al., 1976). These two factors were also found to play a significant role in the successful implementation, outcomes, and continuation of new programs introduced in a school (Berman et al., 1977). Because of these findings and the issues already raised. the question of interest became, "ng g9 mg penal-ms and acticns Q! the hllildiflu nE-n :0 I e e I . . 9' Purpose The purpose of this study, as a result of evidence which links both constructs - teacher efficacy and instructional leadership to student learning - was to determine (1) if collective teacher efficacy was different in schools based upon student achievement and (2) what behaviors of an instructional leader influenced teachers' sense of teacher efficacy. Teachers in selected Michigan elementary schools which were classified as improving, stable, or declining in student achievement based upon the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) were asked to (1) rate their principal in terms of frequency of identified behaviors and to (2) respond to a series of questions which measured their own level of teacher efficacy. A secondary purpose of this study was to determine which instrument did a better job of discriminating between effective and less effective instructional leaders. The two instruments in question were the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1984) and the Staff Assessment Questionnaire (Andrews et al. 1986). Definition of Terms StudenLAchIexemem Student achievement in this study was defined by the aggregate scores that schools had in reading and mathematics on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) which is administered in the fall to fourth-grade students. The MEAP identifies schools as improving, stable, and declining. The intent of these designations are to assist educators in following achievement trends (MEAP Handbook, ND, p. 23). The 'lmproving/Declining' designation is based upon the examination of three years of Michigan assessment results: the current year and the two preceding years. Each school is classified in reading and mathematics separately. (p. 23) Schools can receive the MEAP change classification of ”improving" if it meets the following criteria: (a) There has been an increase of 5% or more in students attaining more than 75% (top quartile) of the objectives tested by the MEAP. (b) There has been a 5% decrease or more in students who attain less than 25% (bottom quartile) of the objectives tested by the MEAP (c) The percentage of students in the top quartile was no lower in the middle year than in the preceding year. (d) The percentage of students in the bottom quartile was no higher in the middle year than in the preceding year. (If the percentage of students in the bottom quartile had been below 5% since the first of the three years, an improving school is identified by the increase of 5% or more in the percentage of students in the top quartile.) Schools can receive the MEAP change designation of ”declining" if it meets the following criteria: (a) There has been a 5% or more decrease in students attaining more than 75% (top quartile) of the objectives tested by the MEAP. (b) There has been a 5% or more increase in students who attain less than 25% (bottom quartile) of the objectives tested by the MEAP. (c) The percentage of students in the top quartile was no higher in the middle year than in the preceding year. (d) The percentage of students in the bottom quartile was no lower in the middle year than in the preceding year. Schools not designated by the MEAP as either improving or stable are classified as stable. WW5 Improving schools in this study were defined as those schools which had received the MEAP change classification of improving in both reading and mathematics for 1986 and had maintained the classification of improving in the 1987 MEAP results in at least one of the two content areas. We Stable schools for this investigation were defined as those schools which had the MEAP designation of stable in both reading and mathematics for 1986 and 1987. D I' . S I I Declining schools were defined as those schools which had the MEAP change designation of declining In mathematics, reading or in both areas in 1986 and the MEAP change designation for 1987 remained the same or had been altered to the status of stable. (The only way a school could be removed from this group in 1987 was for it to receive the change designation of improving in the area in which it had been classified as declining in 1986). W Teacher efficacy has two distinct theoretical factors (Gibson 8 Denbo, 1984). Ashton (1984) defined the general construct of teacher efficacy as the extent which a teacher believes he/she has the skills (pedagogical efficacy) to affect student performance (teaching efficacy). BedaamicaLEflicanx Pedagogical efficacy defined by Gibson and Denbo (1984) is the teacher's sense of responsibility and feeling that he or she has the skills and abilities to cause student Ieaming to occur as measured by the mean score taken from the Teacher Efficacy Scale. In this study pedagogical efficacy, is synonymous with personal teaching efficacy, which is the term Gibson and Denbo originally used. For purposes of clarity, pedagogical efficacy will be used to distinguish between the two factors (personal teaching efficacy and teaching efficacy) since the terms are similar. leachinafitficacx Teaching efficacy reflects the teacher's belief that this ability to cause learning to occur is not hampered by external factors beyond his control as measured by a mean score taken from the Teacher Efficacy Scale. Bandura (1977) labeled this as outcome expectancy. D II |' Eli' Bandura (1986) states there is individual efficacy and collective efficacy. f-Iow each person views his own abilities and the extent which the person feels his actions will produce the desired outcomes is individual efficacy. Collective efficacy deals with a group's view that they can solve their problems through concerted effort. "Individual" when used with pedagogical or teaching efficacy will refer to the teacher's own views. “Collective” teaching or pedagogical efficacy will be addressing the beliefs as a school. | | I' l | | | . Instructional leadership (which in this study is synonymous with instructional management) ”refers to actions undertaken [by the principal] with the intention of developing a productive and satisfying working environment for teachers and desirable learning conditions and outcomes for [all] children” (Greenfield, 1987, p. 60) as measured by an overall mean score obtained from the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1984) or the Staff Assessment Questionnaire (Andrews et al., 1986). Hypotheses Bandura's (1986) theory of self-efficacy plus evidence that correlates strong teacher efficacy with high student achievement (Armour et al. 1977; Ashton et al. 1982; and Gibson and Denbo, 1984) lead to the following two hypotheses regarding the collective efficacy of a school. Hypothesis 1: Teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy will be greater in the improving schools than in the stable and declining schools. Hypothesis 2: Teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy will be greater in the improving schools than in the stable and declining schools. The influence that the principal has on student achievement has been cited by Weber (1971); Armour et al. (1976); and Andrews et al. (1986). Berman et al. (1977) concluded that the principal was a factor concerning the speed at which school adopted an innovation. This evidence formed the basis for the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 3: The principal will be viewed as a stronger instructional leader in the improving schools than in the stable and declining schools. This last set of hypotheses resulted from the relationship that appears to exist among the four sources of information identified in Bandura's (1986) theory of self- efficacy; Denham and Michael's (1981) sources of information which they argue influence teacher efficacy; and Hallinger and Murphy's (1985) identified behaviors of an instructional leader. Leithwood and Montgomery's (1982) paradigm of the role of the principal integrates with Porter and Brophy's (1988) model of good teaching and lends support to the notion that instructional leaders can impact collective teacher efficacy. Hypothesis 4a: Instructional leader behaviors as measured by Hallinger's PIMR can be used to help explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical ‘r . efficacy. Hypothesis 4b: Instructional leader behaviors as measured by Andrews' SAQ can be used ‘ to help explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy. Hypothesis 53: Instructional leader behaviors as measured by Hallinger's PIMR can be used to help explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy. Hypothesis 5b: Instructional leader behaviors as measured by Andrews' SAQ can be used to help explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy. Significance of the Study To date, little documentation has occurred regarding the actual process that staffs in improving schools experience. Sergiovani (1987) aptly states that successful leaders invest power in those who have the technical skills to act. Frequently people possess the necessary skills but do not act because of a lack of judgement regarding their capabilities (Bandura, 1986). Bandura also states there is a greater propensity for action when there is a higher degree of perceived efficacy. This study has the potential of identifying those behaviors of an instructional leader that help positively to influence teachers' feelings about their ability to affect student learning. The call for an investigation between teacher efficacy and instructional leadership does not come only from the theoretical literature. Several studies which have examined teacher efficacy have made the suggestion that further research is needed. Berman et al. (1977) state: The powerful effect of a teacher's sense of efficacy raises the question of whether it might be possible to enhance it through various projects or activities. . . . In any event, given the important relationship between this teacher attribute and the success of innovations, further research on ways to enhance teachers' sense of efficacy would be appropriate (p. 138-139). Ashton et al. (1982) used a sample of two schools to study the effect of school organization on efficacy. The results showed a trend, although not significant, between the leadership of the principal and higher sense of efficacy among the teachers. Therefore, Ashton suggested that further research is warranted using a larger sample and a more reliable instrument. From the perspective of school improvement, Denbo and Gibson (1985) indicate that organizational factors do play a role in influencing teachers' sense of efficacy. They recommended further investigation into how such variables as administrative styles Impact teacher efficacy. Guskey (1986) cites several context variables that might have an affect on teacher efficacy and claims that ”few investigations have sought to determine the nature of these variables or their precise effects on measures of teacher efficacy” (p. 3). Empirical evidence is lacking regarding how the behaviors of the principal effect the collective efficacy of a school. Bandura (1986) advocated the need for research regarding how collective efficacy can decline, be sustained, or be enhanced. 10 This study has the potential of addressing the recommendations that have been made by others and to provide empirical evidence to support the theories which will be discussed in the next chapter. Knowledge derived from this work will also help to explain how teachers in improving or declining schools view their ability to cause learning to occur for all students. Assumptions and Limitations The school samples that were used were not randomly taken from the school population. Schools used in this study were elementary schools in Michigan which were ' classified by the Michigan Education Assessment Program to be improving, stable, or declining. One of the criticisms of the effective schools research is the use of contrasted groups, where schools studied where judged to be either “effective” or "ineffective" (Rowan, Dwyer, 8 Bossert, 1982). Schools classified as stable were included in this study to address this criticism. A limitation of this study was the assumption that the change status assigned to each school using the Michigan Educational Assessment Program and based upon one grade level (fourth grade for the elementary level) would reflect the change status for the entire building. It was assumed fourth grade teachers at a building could not over the course of nine months make the gains that were evident in the improving schools if there were not support and help from the lower grades. Likewise, it was assumed consistent declines at the fourth-grade would not solely be the responsibility of the teachers at that grade level. An assumption was made that teachers will accurately reflect their perceptions regarding their sense of pedagogical efficacy and teaching efficacy. Bandura (1986) 11 stated that an individual's rating of efficacy will go down if under social pressure. Precautions to insure anonymity of responses will remove any undo social pressure. Collective efficacy for each school was derived by taking the mean for each building. Bandura (1986) warned that taking the mean of individuals' perceived efficacy may insufficiently represent the collective efficacy for the group. How the teacher views and rates the building principal may also be a limitation. Blumberg and Greenfield (1980) stated there tends to be more conflict in schools where the principal is a strong instructional leader. Such conflict may cause the teachers to rate the principal lower. The opposite effect, known as the halo effect, may exist in those buildings where the principal is not a strong instructional leader. Hallinger's PIMR addressed this limitation by asking the teachers to rate the frequency of behavior . instead of the quality of the behavior. In the next chapter, a review of the theoretical and empirical literature which deals with both t0pics will be provided as well as a discussion on how these two topics fit together. Chapter Three deals with the instrumentation used, how data was collected, and the statistical models which were used to test the stated hypothesis. Results of the data analysis will be presented in Chapter Four, which will include both the planned and subsequent analyses and the decisions concerning each of the hypotheses. Chapter Five will provide a summary of this study and will discuss the findings in view of the theoretical framework, present conclusions and implications for practice, and offer recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II Evidence exists both in the theoretical and empirical literature to suggest that a positive relationship may exist between behaviors of an instructional leader and teachers' sense of both personal and teaching efficacy. Theoretical and empirical literature dealing with efficacy will be reviewed first, followed by a discussion of the literature which pertains to the role of the principal as an instructional leader. The goal of this chapter is to show, theoretically, how these two components fit together. This chapter will conclude by highlighting the implications and similarities that appear to exist between the theories of instructional leadership and teacher efficacy. Self-efficacy W How a person performs not only depends upon the skills and knowledge which the individual has, but also upon the manner in which the individual views his capabilities to use the knowledge and skills to obtain a desired result. According to Bandura (1977), an individual's performance is determined by a belief that the: (a) desired outcome will occur because of the behavior and (b) individual has the capability of bringing about the desired outcome. Efficacy focuses upon the notion that individuals must continually use cognitive, social, and behavioral skills to test and devise alternative strategies that will enable the person to be successful (Bandura, 1986). Research supports Bandura's observation that individuals who possess both the view that 13 they do have the ability and a belief that the expected outcomes are a result of their efforts perform better (Locke, Frederick, Lee, 8 Bobko, 1984i Personal efficacy is comprised of two component: self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. ”Perceived self-efficacy is defined as people's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). The critical point does not deal with the types of skills the individual has but the individual's attitude regarding what he can accomplish with his skills. The idea represented by self-efficacy is the same as pedagogical efficacy. Pedagogical efficacy is the teacher's own judgment about his or her ability to use teaching skills to cause student learning to occur (Gibson 8 Denbo, 1984). Outcome expectancy is the other component of self-efficacy. This aspect of efficacy deals with the person's belief that the desired outcome will be the result of his or her behavior. Bandura (1977) defined outcome expectancy “as a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes" (p. 193). This dimension correlates with teaching efficacy: the teacher's general belief that all students can learn despite socio-economic factors, gender, or family background (Tracz 8 Gibson, 1986). SeumautJnfmnatieD Bandura (1977, 1986) proposed four sources where individuals can obtain information regarding their own efficacy. Performance accomplishment is the first and most Influential source. Successful experiences raise a person's efficacy appraisal while failure lowers it. Bandura states that an efficacious individual will not be strongly affected by failure since the individual will attribute the failure to lack of effort or poor strategy. Analyzing one's own successful performance has also been shown to improve later performance and strengthen beliefs about capabilities. 14 Observing others who are performing successfully or visualizing the correct behavior is a second way of enhancing efficacy appraisal. People tend to judge their own abilities by comparing them to the performance of others. Bandura (1986) suggests that the key to this source of information is in personal relevance. The person who is observing must see some similarity either in situation or ability levels. Verbal persuasion is a third source of information which can strengthen a person's self-efficacy. Consideration of who is giving the feedback, their credibility, and their knowledge level are all factors which will influence the chance of improving an individual's self-efficacy. Emotions which a person experiences are the fourth source. Bandura (1977, 1986) states that individuals can receive information regarding their feeling of efficacy through physiological arousal. Self-efficacy information can be obtained through such physical symptoms as fatigue, aches, and windedness. Fear and stress can impede an individual's performance level. Levels of anxiety cannot only lower the performance level but can also generate greater anxiety. People tend to expect success when the situation that is facing them has an anxiety level which is tolerable. Coping skills can be taught to individuals that can control emotional arousal which in turn enhances self- efticacy and improves performance (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986) gives an excellent description of both an efficacious individual and an inefficacious person. The differences between the two individuals highlights both aspects of efficacy. The inefficacious individual will shy away from difficult tasks. Effort will slacken when the task becomes difficult and failure will be due to lack of personal skills. This person dwells on his/her inability to perform. Low aspirations are held by this person. Credit for successful experiences is given to external factors. High levels of stress are experienced which helps to undermine the person's performance. 15 The efficacious individual sets realistic yet challenging goals and is not afraid of trying new and difficult tasks. An efficacious person not only has developed proficiency in skills, but believes in the ability to use and adapt his or her skills when needed. Effort is intensified when performance falls short of the expected outcome. Reasons for failure are due to lack of effort or other circumstances which indicate a success orientation. An efficacious person approaches threatening situations in a calm manner and usually experiences little stress during taxing times. Bandura (1986) succinctly summed up the description of an efficacious person: "Research shows that people who regard themselves as highly efficacious act, think, and feel differently from those who perceive themselves as inefficacious. They produce their own future rather than simply foretell it” (p. 395). Ashton (1984) provides examples of behaviors that a high efficacy and low efficacy teacher would exhibit in the following dimensions (see figure 2.1). Porter and Brophy (1988) proposed a model for teaching which highlights factors that influence the quality of instruction which a teacher provides. Porter and Brophy view good teaching as: tightly coupled rational process in which background and milieu factors influence teachers' development of professional pedagogical knowledge and routines. These in turn, influence the planning of instruction, which influences the nature of instruction that actually occurs. And this instruction (along with student aptitude and motivation factors) influences students' immediate responses to instruction and ultimately, its long-term outcomes. There is also a self- correcting mechanism: Good teachers reflect on the feedback that they get on the effects of their instruction. This reflection in turn enhances their professional knowledge and affects their future instructional planning (p.75). 16 Note that what Porter and Brophy labeled as ”Teachers' Knowledge and Convictions“ is what this study defines as pedagogical efficacy. Figure 2.1 Ashton's (1984) Distinguishing Dimensions Between High and Low Teacher Efficacy Il’II l Eff I I l EII‘ EmmaLAmmnlishmem Actions are meaningful and ols frustrated and discouraged Important oFeels that teaching does have a positive impact on learning Expectatmmritudems oExpects students to progress oExpects students to fail oStudents usually meet teacher Ability to learn is related to expectations factors outside the school E I B '| TI oBelieves that it is a teacher's oResponsibility for failure responsibility to teach rests with the student oExamines own performance when students fail SI | . I E l . . E I Has definite objectives and oLacks specific goals and goals as well as plans for plans for accomplishing goals accomplishing goals. E 'l' Ell | oFeels good about self and oFrustrated with teaching and teaching skills expresses discouragement SensecLQQDILQl ~Confident that they can oFeels there is a sense of influence student learning futility WWI: ~Feels involved in a joint oFeels that student goals are venture in opposition to their own goals D |' D . . II I' oFeels involved in the decisions oFeels that decisions are that are made imposed upon them olnvolves students in the decision Does not involve students in making process the decision making process 17 Rompsm 9.32.6: mcozoo .55 .0 28:6 _ 3:023. .383 _ y .0 3938.01 322...: T + co:m>:oE EcUEm «68...... 8.883% 33.. E233. imoaoooa .EoEou 6. 98:03:00 as... \ ea 8335. £58» .0 EoEfiaum new 9.sz cgmuoo . $.28. 3.32.8059 mfionwEooSo Econ—m E5. 9.3 02.8.2... .m :0 H: Who-UN flaw—X _ v m Eczoazmfi 9.55.3 u R w 3:80.». mum—Lows. 52.353 «:25... 855A. 3523.». 7 38.303. .2535 :03 o>==..uoom.oE $550. 320 _o gate—3.20 E255 35.393 .0 co=w>_u< .mciomo. . . 31.95 .2 85:5. can 09.2.8.8 32:92 E255 _o _coan.o>ou Eocene... 3.3.3 3386» 62.8 63 ea... 8...... 5 £33. 5:035... .9052: @5253... 820mm .0 .322 $385 Ba 8:8. .o 8.99, 3:32 ~.N 2%: 18 The box labeled "Teachers' perceptions of effects of their actions" could also be entitled "Teaching Efficacy" and is consistent with Bandura's (1977) description of highly efficacious individuals. From a conceptual view, there is a fit between teacher efficacy and good teaching. Theoretically, it appears that efficacious teachers are good teachers who (a) have a command of pedagogical skills, (b) who feel that their actions are productive, and (c) will intensity and or refine their efforts if they are not obtaining the desired results. E .. ISI l' [I l Ell’ Los Angeles Unified School District contracted with Rand Corporation to study twenty selected minority elementary schools (Armour, et al. 1976). Schools selected for this study had to exhibit either losses or gains in student achievement over a three -year period and have a student population of at least 400 students who were predominantly minority in low-income areas. Four aspects of schools were considered: (a) teacher attributes, (b) classroom setting, (c) curricular and instructional methods used, and (d) the implementation of the reading program. Eighty-one teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire. Two questions in the survey dealt with efficacy. They were: 1. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can't do much (because) most of a student's motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment. 2. If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students (p. 23). The first question dealt with what Bandura has labeled as outcome expectancy. Relating this concept to teaching, this question dealt with the teacher's belief concerning the effect that education has on children as a whole. The second question correlates with Bandura's notiOn of how individuals view their own skills and abilities and fits under the category of personal teaching efficacy. 19 lnfonnation obtained from the two questions was summarized into one measure of teaching efficacy. Although only two questions out of the survey addressed teacher efficacy, the results strongly and significantly showed that the more efficacious a teacher felt, the greater were the gains in reading achievement for students. A conclusion was drawn that high sense of efficacy was a needed and preliminary factor for effective teaching. The data "do not enable us to determine whether it is possible to raise teacher's feelings of classroom efficacy by providing more training, support, or supervision for those who wish it" (Armour et al., p. 24). A year later Berman et al. (1977) investigated factors which affect the implementation and continuation of federal programs which supported educational change. This study involved 100 superintendents, 171 principals, and 1072 teachers all who were involved with federally supported projects. This study included the same two questions that Armour et al. (1976) used. Again, the drawback concerns the issue that only two questions were used to measure the construct of efficacy even though almost one thousand more teachers responded to the questions. Results indicated that teachers' sense of efficacy was a strong positive variable which had an impact on the percentage of project goals accomplished, higher student performance, teacher change, and continuation of methods and materials advanced by the project. Berman et al. concluded: The teachers' sense of efficacy had a strong effect on project continuation. . . .The powerful effect of a teachers' sense of efficacy raises the question of whether it might be possible to enhance it through various project or school activities. . . . Our impression is, however, that it reflects teachers' school experiences as well as their personalities. If so, staff development strategies aimed at teachers and their environment might increase their sense of efficacy. In any event, given the important relationship between this teacher attribute and the success of innovations, further research on ways to enhance teachers' sense of efficacy would be appropriate (pp. 138-139). 20 Ashton et al. (1982) investigated teachers' sense of efficacy involving 48 high school basic-skills teachers. A significant correlation was found to exist between teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement based upon test scores using the Metropolitan Standardized Test (r = .78, p =.003 for math and r = .83, p, :02 for communication). These findings supported the results that Armour et al. (1976) and Berman et al. (1977) obtained. Ashton et al. also concluded from interviewing teachers that maintaining a sense of teacher efficacy was difficult for teachers because of the isolation of the classroom, the difficulty in assessing their effectiveness, and the lack of teacher collegiality and administrative support. Teachers also expressed a feeling of powerlessness due to the lack of collegial decision making. A uniqueness of the Ashton et al. (1982) study rests in the fact that an ethnographic study was conducted using two schools, one a middle school and the other a junior high school. Visiting with the principals and teachers of both buildings suggested that instructional leadership at each school may influence teachers' sense of efficacy. The inference made was based upon how each principal viewed the teachers with whom he worked. The principal of the school that had a generally higher measure of teacher efficacy viewed teachers as professionals who had valuable ideas to contribute. Their role was viewed as important in terms of addressing the needs and problems of the larger school picture. Teachers viewed the principal in this school as a co-worker. Teachers' ideas and suggestions were occasionally solicited by the principal of the scth which had a lower measure of efficacy. This principal expected less from the faculty, took a paternal attitude, and showed greater doubt in the teachers' ability to influence student learning. The attitude of this junior high principal was accurately reflected with a poster, "How can we soar like eagles when you've got to fly with a bunch of turkeys?” (Ashton et al., 1982, p. 86) 21 Gibson and Denbo (1984) attempted to address many shortcomings that plagued previous research concerning teacher efficacy. This study was divided into three parts. The first phase of the study asked the following questions: "What are the dimensions of teacher efficacy? How do these dimensions relate to Bandura's theory of self-efficacy?" (p. 570) The second phase dealt with the question: ”Does collection of data concerning teacher efficacy from different sources converge?” (p. 570) The last phase, which involved classroom observation, asked: "Do high- and low-efficacy teachers exhibit differential patterns of teacher behaviors in the classroom related to academic focus, feedback, and persistence in failure situations?" Results concluded from these three phases were the following. 1. The factorial analysis of the teacher efficacy scale suggests that two constructs are measured by the questionnaire which coincide with Bandura's theoretical constructs of self~efficacy. 2. Evidence exists that teacher efficacy does converge with two different sources of information provided by verbal ability and flexibility. 3. Significant differences between teachers (n=8) were found in the amount of time used in small-group instruction. High efficacy teachers spent less time in small group instruction and more time monitoring students' work. Low efficacy teachers tended to give more feedback to students that involved criticism. A trend was reported in the amount of teacher persistence (defined as a ratio between student failure and teacher cuing or asking a different question) observed. ”Low efficacy teachers were more likely to go on by giving the answer, asking another student, or allowing another student to call out before a student gave the correct response” (Gibson 8 Denbo, 1984, p. 577) E || |' fill The theory of efficacy thus far has dealt with the individual. Bandura expands this construct to include collective efficacy which he feels is rooted in individual efficacy. ”Perceived collective efficacy is reflected in judgments about group 22 capabilities to make decisions, to enlist supporters, and to withstand failures and reprisals" (Bandura, 1986, p. 451). Factors which undermine collective efficacy are (a) the layers of bureaucratic structures which help to diffuse participant responsibility and (b) the Increasing dependence on technical specialization. Bandura (1986) argues: The strength of groups, organizations, and even nations lies partly in people's sense of collective efficacy that they can solve their problems and improve their lives through concerted efforts (p. 449). Achievement of collective efficacy requires cogent means of relating factional interests to shared purposes. The unifying purpose must be explicit and obtainable through concerted effort. Because success calls for sustained effort over a long time, proximal subgoals are needed to provide incentives and evidence of progress along the way (p.453). W The discussion so far has focused upon the theoretical and empirical literature dealing with self-efficacy in general and more specifically with the concept of teacher- efficacy. Evidence suggests that teacher-efficacy is comprised of two parts: (1) pedagogical efficacy which deals with a teacher's belief about his own teaching skills and abilities and (2) teaching efficacy which addresses a teacher's beliefs about the impact that his efforts have on all students. Conclusions from the studies presented show there is a strong correlation between teacher efficacy and student achievement. These studies also suggested that the leadership of the building and the organizational structure of the school could have an effect upon teacher efficacy. An examination of the research which pertains to the principal's role as an instructional leader will now be conducted. 23 Principal as Instructional Leader Ihecreticalflammrk Presenting a concise theoretical framework for basing the hypothesis regarding what an instructional leader does is difficult because of several factors. Greenfield (1982) addresses this problem: ”There has been little research that contributes to the development of significant policy or powerful theoretical frameworks . . ." (p.4). Greenfield cites the following reasons for this situation. 1. There has been a lack of criteria to differentiate good from poor administrative behavior. 2. Concepts have been lacking which describe administrative behavior. 3. There have been difficulties in observing on the job behavior of principals. 4. Administrative behaviors required differ from one setting to another. 5. It is difficult to quantify large amounts of data dealing with the principalship. It is important to point out that Greenfield indicates that research is beginning to provide descriptions of what principals really do in specific administrative situations. The term instructional leadership ”refers to actions undertaken [by the principal] with the intention of developing a productive and satisfying working environment for teachers and desirable learning conditions and outcomes for [all] children (Greenfield, 1987, p.60). Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) defined "change, or program 'improvement' as the realization of valued outcomes by students" (pp.310-311) and view principal effectiveness "in terms of effects on student learning either directly or through mediating variables" (p.311). The assumption that undergirds the theory for instructional leadership is that innovation is continually needed to promote self-renewing change. The force which promotes the acceptance and management of Innovation rests with the school's leader - the principal (Bruining 8 Van der Vegt, 1987). 24 Since an instructional leader is an individual concentrating on continual improvement, the principal must promote problem-solving within the school by being an information processor (Leithwood 8 Montgomery, 1984). Teachers are better able to resolve problems and overcome obstacles when information is made available. Leithwood and Montgomery suggest that the effectiveness of the principal can be explained in how information is processed and how problems are solved. Differences between principals' impact upon the schools which they are assigned can be explained by: 1. The nature and clarity of goals. 2. Existence and depth of knowledge regarding factors that may influence the goals. 3. Knowledge of actions or W which will alter the status of the factors. 4. Different ways in which W is used in developing the goals, identifying the factors, and selecting the strategies. Leithwood and Montgomery (1984) offer the following paradigm (Figure 2.3) to describe the principal's role. The figure presented was modified for this study to show an outcome culture, or a system that is data driven as compared to a process culture which relies upon the carrying out of the strategies or procedures and fails to monitor the results. This modification was derived from Bolman and Deal's (1984) conclusion that goal clarity is important both in terms of management and effective organizations. As indicated by figure 2.3, the goals held by the principal and the school help to determine what strategies will be used to alter either school or classroom- related factors. Bossert et al. (1982) proposed a similar paradigm. Their framework includes external factors (personal characteristics, district characteristics, and external characteristics) which can also influence the principal. Flexibility is a strength of this instruCtional leadership framework and addresses what Deal (1987) calls the human resource view and the formal structure view. The human resource perspective emphasizes the importance of utilizing the skills and 25 «m.mem\.mm...ou§o Egan 5.8.9.3. 02.2m..o 329...... .5280. EoEcmmcmE Egan—woos... 85300... mscoao. E... 65986. 4.58383. «8508. new 23.2.5. .058. o... .0 20323 .228:..m.... ".3an a... 829.8 5.8.... Scone. 2:. thjwm. 28¢me «c2633.... 9.2.36. 9.6.3.5.... «.22....» 9.0.0.}. 85.. a 2...; 5.5.8 .53 .m. is 8.3.3.8 5.; 8.58.50... :8 9.2.... 8220.53... 3.32.2. REESE. v.8 .a_8...8m..xw. £5.58 5.; 8.58.5.0... 89:36. 30.1.... new 5.252. awesome can—:1. «906...... $52.0. mm0h0=oE Eopam 9825 928°C wco=om A/f :2: .o $09.0 .0 2238.2. 9550.3... m_mom\meoo_:o EonEm .Ec. mac; . c I I . BEBEE. .mEpUBm 957.. .0 E3313 “Em 9..me :2va 3.6925 Eczuaamfi .8_._>__o£ accuum uoccmE 8332 E355 86251.. 7 02350029.: 3.530. .5535 3.7....“mb .o acaw>=u< t + gaze-a co=oo=9 3:80» 3825 .8338": mvoo: :5an .3388 .2250 no. 230350 vcm cave—265. {gosh 02.0mm...“ {ozone 59.2% .825 A “9203 352-3059 2205”. fiEoiw 38532 .2337. $6. 35o .o «9.2.305.ch 6:282 $3.65 8. 3552 .o .coanfisbu «.5503... . t- . . n . one cc 2398 .2092. {Beach 20m pages... as .o Egumaa m.>.oEom.:oE a. 30356.. 5.3 9.208% coco .o .282 «.3;ch a 5.5m .0 E2552... ON 23?. CHAPTER III Design of the Study A blueprint is an accurate description of this chapter. The content of this chapter deals with the population from which the sample for this study was derived, the manner in which the data was collected, and describes the instrumentation that was used. Ethical considerations are also addressed, testable hypotheses stated, and a description provided regarding the statistical procedures used. Population and Sample Schools Elementary schools in the state of Michigan comprised the population from which the sample was taken. The following procedure was used for selecting the schools that would be used in the sample. 1. Schools were first selected if the fourth grade enrollment for the years 1980, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 had fifty or more students. This information was obtained from the 1986 and 1987 MEAP (Michigan Educational Assessment Program) results. Six hundred eighty-five schools met this criteria. This requirement was used to help minimize the influence of one-track schools. 39 2. The 685 schools were then classified as improving, stable, or declining based upon the 1986 fourth grade MEAP results using the change definitions found in the Michigan Educational Assessment Handbook (N.D.). Schools classified as improving had to have the MEAP change classification of ”improving“ in both reading and math. Eighty-eight schools out of the 685 met this criteria. Schools classified as stable schools had to have the MEAP change classification of ”stable” and the MEAP status classification of "moderate needs" in both reading and math. Out of the 685 schools, 48 were classified as stable schools. Schools classified as declining had to have the MEAP change classification . of ”declining” in reading, math, or both. A total of twenty schools met this criteria out of the 685 schools. 3. The 149 schools identified in the preceeding step were then classified a second time using the 1987 fourth grade MEAP results and the MEAP change designations. In order for schools which had been assigned to the improving group to remain in the improving group for this study, schools had again to receive the MEAP change designation of "improving” in at least one of the two areas (math or reading). Twenty—eight schools out of the eighty-eight schools met this criteria. Schools which continued to receive the MEAP change designation of stable and the MEAP status designation of moderate needs in both reading and math remained in the stable group for the study. Twenty-two schools out of the 48 identified in the 1986 MEAP results were classified as stable schools. Schools which had been classified as declining in the 1986 MEAP results were grouped as declining schools if the 1987 MEAP change designation continued to be “declining“ or had changed to "stable.” The only way a school could be removed from this cohort for this study was to obtain the MEAP change 4O designation of “improving” during the 1987 MEAP results. Eighteen of the twenty schools classified as declining in the 1986 MEAP results continued to have the designation of declining. 4. Length of time the principal had been assigned to the building was also a criteria. This criteria was not addressed until the packets were sent to the schools. The cover letter that the principal received provided instructions for the return of all the questionnaires if it was the principal's first year at the school. This selection process resulted in sixty-eight schools total; twenty-eight schools were labeled as improving schools, twenty-two schools were labeled as stable schools, and eighteen schools were deemed as declining schools. The principals and faculties of all 68 schools were sent a packet of materials and asked to participate in this study. W Forty-one of the sixty-eight schools that were contacted participated by having teachers reply to one of the two questionnaires. Table 3.1 provides a summary of how schools participated. Table 3.1 Number of Schools Used in the Sample Improving Stable Declining Total Schools contacted 28 22 18 68 Schools that returned at least one questionnaire and principal card 19 12 1O 41 (67.8%) (54.5%) (55.5%) (60.2%) Schools that did not participate 9 1 0 8 27 (32.2%) (45.5%) (44.5%) (39.8%) 41 Principals new to buildings accounted for five of the twenty-seven schools that did not participate. Of these five, two were in improving schools, one was in a stable school, and two were in declining schools. One school did respond although it was the principal‘s first year at the school. The decision was to include this school in the study. Data Collection W The procedure advocated by Dillman, Christenson, Carpenter. and Brooks (1974) for increasing the response rate for a mail survey was followed. Dillman et al. advocate the use of a cover letter that uses a letterhead of some type. The National Center for Effective Schools' letterhead was used for the cover letters that were sent to both the principals and the teachers (See Appendices E, F, and G). Dillman et al. stress the importance of having the letters as personal as possible for each of the participants. One strategy is to have each letter hand signed in blue ink so that it is less obvious that the letter was mass produced. Each of the cover letters to principals and teachers were hand signed in blue ink. The providing of a self-addressed and self-stamped enveloped also increases the likelihood of individuals responding. All questionnaires had attached a self-addressed and self-stamped envelope. The self-addressed and self-stamped envelope was also to ensure confidentiality and to minimize any risk that a teacher might have about rating the building principal. 42 Some form of reminder was also found to be important based upon the work of Dillman et al. Two weeks after the questionnaires had been sent to each school, reminders were sent with a note asking that the reminders be distributed to the teachers (Appendix I). Phone calls to the principals began a week after the reminders had been sent asking that each principal encourage the faculties to complete and return the quesfionnahes. Two procedures advocated by Dillman et al. (1974) were not followed: 1) phone contacts with each teacher and 2) a second mailing of the questionnaires. The individual phone contacts were not possible since there was no access to teacher names for each of the buildings involved in the study. A secondary mailing was not possible since there was no control which teacher got which form in the first mailing. Hence, there was no way of ensuring that the teachers would get the same questionnaire version on the second mailing. ScmeEaclseLEcnnaticn The number of teachers surveys that were sent to each building were calculated on a full time teacher equivalency of 20 students for every one teacher. Quantities of the teacher surveys for each school were calculated by dividing the enrollment listed for each school in the Michigan Education Directory by twenty. Four extra questionnaires were added to each school for the following positions: physical education, music, art, and special education. Each packet contained (1) a cover letter to the principal (Appendix G) which explained the purpose of the study and gave directions regarding the distribution of the teacher surveys; (2) a response card (Appendix H) for the principal to return; and (3) both forms of the teacher survey (Appendices E and F) including a cover letter. The two versions of the questionnaires were mixed in an altering manner before being placed in the mailing envelope. 43 E I I II .I. All the packets were sent to the schools via the United States Mail. School addresses and the names of the principals were obtained from the Michigan Educational Directory. Wilma Two weeks after the questionnaire packets were sent a packet of follow-up reminders (Appendix I) were sent to each school. The number of reminders sent were the same as the number of questionnaires that had been sent. Each packet had a note requesting that the reminders be distributed to the teachers. Phone contacts to each principal were made one week after the reminders had been sent. Principals were asked to please encourage the teachers to return their questionnaires in the selfoaddressed and self-stamped envelopes. Principals were also asked to respond to the information which was on their card if the card had not yet been returned. W Of the 2342 questionnaires that were initially sent to teachers in the 68 schools. 237 unused questionnaires were returned. This resulted in 2105 questionnaires that potentially were placed in teachers’ hands. The total number of both surveys returned by teachers totaled 396 (18.9% return). Of the surveys returned, 28 were not usable because the school name was not included or because the teacher returned a blank questionnaire. Table 3.2 summarizes the return rate for each of the forms used. 44 Table 3.2 Return Rate for Questionnaires Number Number Number Percent Sent Returned Used Returned Form A (Hallinger) 1052 190 174 18.0% Form B (Andrews) 1053 206 194 19.5% W An analysis of the demographic data suggests that a similar sample of teachers was surveyed on both forms in respect to teaching experience, teaching assignment. and years with their current principal. Any differences that might be found between the two forms would be attributed to factors other than the teacher demographics identified. Comparisons of these characteristics in Table 4.3 support the conclusion that both samples came from the same population. El . SI I I E I I. Thirty-three of the 41 schools (82.5%) responded that since 1984 no significant changes (30% or more) had occurred in the nature of clients that the school serves in terms of socio-economic or minority factors. One school refused to respond to this question. The remaining 17.5% said that significant changes had taken place. Table 3.3 Teacher Demographics 45 (Numbers indicate percentage of teachers who responded) W Years Form A (Hallinger) 1-2 5.2 3-4 5.8 5-9 10.4 10-15 28.3 15+ 50.3 Emma-AW Form A Level (Hallinger) K-1 23.8 2-3 23.8 4-6 23.1 Sp. Ed. 18.1 Specials 1 1.3 (Art, P.E., Music) WW Form A (Hallinger) 1-2 27.2 3-4 29.5 5—9 20.2 10-15 13.3 15+ 9.8 Form B (Andrews) 5.7 4.1 10.4 20.7 59.1 Form B Andrews) 26.1 20.7 22.8 15.2 15.2 Form B (Andrews) 27.8 26.8 21.6 14.4 9.3 46 Instrumentation Instruments which have been used to measure the instructional leadership of a principal or teachers' sense of efficacy were selected for this study's primary purpose of trying to determine if the variance in collective efficacy could be explained by the behaviors of the instructional leader. Investigating the discriminating ability of Hallinger's (1984) Principal Instructional Management Rating scale (PIMR) and Andrews' (1986) Staff Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) on instructional leadership was a secondary purpose. Therefore two questionnaires were sent to each building: half of the teachers completing Form A and the other half completing Form B. Form A was Hallinger's (1984) PIMR and Form B consisted of Andrews' et al. (1986) SAQ. In both forms were sixteen questions: nine of which measured pedagogical efficacy and seven which measured teaching efficacy, taken from Gibson's Teacher Efficacy Scale (found in Gibson and Denbo, 1984). Four questions dealing with collaboration and problem- solving developed by Azumi and Madhere (1982) were added to Hallinger's PIMR only. E"l|||l III IBI'SI The Instructional Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1984) uses a Likert five point scale which goes from "Almost Never" to “Almost Always." This rating scale has fifty questions which deal with specific job behaviors or practices based upon research investigating the instructional leadership functions (Hallinger 8. Murphy, 1987). It is divided into ten subsections: (a) Frame the School Goals, (b) Communicating the School Goals, (c) Supervise and Evaluate, (d) Coordinate the Curriculum, (e) Monitor Student Progress, (f) Protect Instructional Time, (9) Maintain High Visibility, (h) Provide Incentives for Teachers, (i) Promote Professional Development, and (j) Provide Incentives for Learning. Each section provides a representative sample of behaviors 47 which a principal must engage in if providing instructional leadership (Hallinger 8 Murphy, 1987). (See Appendix A) Hallinger and Murphy (1987) cite three studies which have shown this instrument to meet both professional and legal standards for reliability and validity. More specifically, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) tested the reliability and validity of this questionnaire using five different tests. 1. Only those items which achieved a minimum average of .80 by a group of raters where assigned to a subscale to ensure content validity. 2. A reliability coefficient of at least .75 (Cronbach's alpha) was achieved for each subscale which shows internal consistency. 3. At a significance level of p=.05, the variance in principal ratings within schools was less than the variance between schools. 4. The items in each subscale correlated more strongly with other items in the subscale than with items in other subscales. 5. Other observations of the instructional management behavior of the principal resulted in data similar to the information obtained from the questionnaire. Hallinger's scale has a weakness since it does not directly address specific principal behaviors which promote collaboration and support among the teachers in the building. To measure these behaviors, four questions were modified from Azumi and Madhere's (1982) work. All four questions came from their organizational variables of structure and processes. One question dealt with structure and the other three questions focused upon communication processes. One additional question was added which was not part of Azumi and Madhere’s questionnaire. This question deals with the amount of information which the principal shares with the faculty. A four-point Likert scale was originally used, which ranged from “strongly agree“ to "strongly disagree.” Since these questions were modified, reliability was checked and an alpha level of r - .91 was obtained, n - 165, p :05. (See Appendix B) 48 SI [I E I Q I. . The Staff Assessment Questionnaire (Andrews et al., 1986) uses a Likert five- point scale, which ranges from "Strongly Agree“ to " Strongly Disagree.” The questionnaire has 94 items which measure the following nine characteristics: (a) Strong Leadership, 19 items; (b) Dedicated Staff, 13 items; (0) High Expectations, 8 items; (d) Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress, 7 items; (e) Early Identification of Student Learning Problems, 4 items; (f) Positive Learning Climate, 22 items; (9) Curriculum Continuity, 5 items; (h) Multicultural Education, 9 items; and (i) Sex Equity, 4 items (Andrews, Soder. Jacoby, Rosovsky, and Bamburg, 1987). Although this instrument is designed to assess the total school, its “Strong Leadership" component provided evidence which suggested the relationship between the behavior of building principal and student achievement (Andrews et al., 1986). It is for this reason that this questionnaire was selected. The dimension of instructional leadership consists of four subdimensions; resource provider, instructional resource, communicator, and visible presence (see Chapter Two for further discussion). Internal consistency estimates for Strong Leadership were calculated for four groups which had a sample size ranging from 125 to 1,241 teachers. Alpha for these groups ranged from .92 to .97 with the standard error of measure ranging from 2.94 to 5.30. Reliability for this section has an alpha of .73 and a standard error of measure of 4.86. The stability of this instrument is evident using teacher responses over a three- year period in 82 schools. Means for the three-year period were 70.34, 71.74, and 70.08 while the standard error of measure for these three years were 9.98, 9.82, and 10.75. In an attempt to keep the questionnaires relatively equal in term of items, 18 questions were removed and replaced with the teacher efficacy questions. These 18 questions pertain to (a) sex equity, (b) multicultural education, and (0) curriculum continuity. Although important, these three groups do not pertain to this investigation 49 and their removal should not impact the study. (See Appendix C). Items with an asterisk are those which will be replaced with the teacher efficacy questions.) W Gibson and Denbo (1984) developed the instrument which was used to assess the teachers' sense of efficacy (see Appendix D). This questionnaire uses a Likert six-point rating scale which ranges from ”Strongly Disagree” to ”Strongly Agree." The Teacher Efficacy Scale uses thirty questions to measure two factors: the first being the pedagogical efficacy factor--the teacher's belief that he/she has the skills and abilities to teach; the second factor being the teacher's sense of teaching efficacy- that education can produce a change. Not all thirty questions will be used to measure the two factors related to teacher efficacy. Sixteen of the thirty questions had a factorial loading greater than or equal to .45 (Gibson 8 Denbo, 1984). Nine of these questions measure the pedagogical efficacy factor while the remaining seven address the teaching efficacy factor. Gibson and Denbo (1984) reported an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .78 for the pedagogical efficacy factor and .75 for the teaching efficacy factor. Gibson and Denbo argue that the two factors measured by the Teacher Efficacy Scale have content validity by comparing it with Bandura's (1977) conceptualization of self-efficacy and Ashton and Webb's (1982) teacher efficacy model. Ethical Considerations Consideration was given to ensure that participants of this study were treated in a manner which is in accordance with the American Psychological Association's (1985) EmicaLEdncinlaanJheficnductbLBeseaLcmmuumanflnicinants. Teachers involved in this study were at minimal risk regarding mental discomfort. Physical risk in terms of employability for the teachers was minimized by having each teacher return 50 their survey via the US. Mail with a provided self-addressed envelope. Participants were asked to complete either a seventy-one item questionnaire or a ninety-two item questionnaire. Information provided by the participants was compiled by school and remained confidential. Testable Hypotheses The following hypotheses were addressed by this study. mmmmu. W No difference will be found in the means of teachers' pedagogical efficacy as measured by the teacher efficacy scale between teachers in improving, stable, and declining schools. 59mm Ho: wpe=uspe=udpe AW]; The mean of teachers' pedagogical efficacy in the improving schools as measured by the teacher efficacy scale will exceed the mean of teachers' pedagogical efficacy in the stable and declining schools. SmmmflLHCWm>mm lls pa > ltd P8 Legend. pi pe - Improving schools' pedagogical efficacy mean; lls pe - Stable schools' pedagogical efficacy mean; pd pe - Declining schools' pedagogical efficacy mean. mmmmu_ W No difference will be found in the means of teachers' teaching efficacy as measured by the teacher efficacy scale between teachers in improving, stable. and declining schools. $mMMflLHmwm=mm=wm 51 W The mean of teachers' teaching efficacy in the improving schools as measured by the teacher efficacy scale will exceed the mean of teachers' teaching efficacy in the stable and declining schools. WU.- H1:|.1ite>llste Its 19 > lid to Legend. in te - Improving schools' teaching efficacy; us te - Stable schools' teaching efficacy; and pa (9 - Declining schools' teaching efficacy. amnesia}. W No difference will be found in the means of principals as instructional managers as measured by the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale or the Staff Assessment Questionaire between improving, stable, and declining schools. wall. He: uiim=llsim=lldim Wis. The instructional manager mean for principals in the improving schools will exceed the instructional manager mean of the principals in the stable and declining schools. W. H1: niim>llsim |J.s im > Ltd im Legend. ui im - Instructional manager mean in improving schools; us im - Instructional manager mean in stable school; and ya im - Instructional manager mean in declining schools. 8199111951142 W. The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. Sxthllcallx. Ho: 82y.1,2,...,11 -= 0 52 AW The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. Will. H1: R2y.1,2 ..... 11 at 0 Legend, Y - Teachers' sense of personal teaching efficacy; 1,2,...,11 - the eleven job functions of an instructional leader. W W. The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. W1. Ho: 82y.1,2,...,11 = 0 W- The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. WW1. H1: R2y.1,2,...,11 at 0 Legend, Y - Teachers' sense of personal teaching efficacy; 1,2,...,11 - the eleven job functions of an instructional leader. mm Wheat; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. Sxmhalicallx. Ho: R2y.1,2,...,11 - 0 W The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. WU]... H1 : R2y.1,2,...,11 at 0 53 Legeng, Y - Teachers' sense of personal teaching efficacy; 1,2,...,11 - the eleven job functions of an instructional leader. W W The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers‘ sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. Will. Ho: R2y.1,2,...,11 . 0 W5. The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. Will. H1: RZy.1,2,...,11 :9 0 Legend, Y - Teachers' sense of personal teaching efficacy; 1,2,...,11 - the eleven job functions of an instructional leader. Analysis G I I! I. H A secondary purpose of this study was to see if the same conclusions could be made regarding the impact instructional leaders have on student achievement and teacher efficacy using Hallinger's PIMR and Andrews' SAQ. El I II II. I G . Testing for the first three hypotheses used a priori contrasts. Individual mean scores were computed by averaging together the teachers' responses to the questions which pertained to each of the three factors: pedagogical efficacy, teaching efficacy, and principal instructional manager behaviors by school. A "grand mean” for each of the three factors was calculated for improving, stable, and declining schools. Statistical 54 differences between the schools' means for each factor were determined using Tukey's Method of Multiple Comparison. A significance level of n = .05 was be used for testing the first three hypotheses. It appeared that the three groups of teachers, those in improving, stable, and declining schools met the three assumptions needed to use this test statistic. It can be argued that teachers in these schools came from a population which has a normal distribution and homogeneity of variance since each of them was were hired out of a common pool of applicants. The third assumption dealt with the independence of observations. Teachers within the participating schools were asked to complete either form of the questionnaire without discussing questions with others. I! II. I B . Multiple regression was used to test the last two hypotheses based upon the following considerations advocated by Pedhazur (1982). 1. Analysis of variance cannot investigate the interactions among attributes. The interaction between variables can be tested using multiple regression. 2. Since little has been done in investigating the relationship between the behaviors of principals and teachers' beliefs, it is appropriate to study patterns that may exist in the data. Again, multiple regression is an appropriate model to use in attempting to explain any variation that may exist. A mean for the dependent variable and for each independent variable was computed for each school when either collective pedagogical or teaching efficacy was analyzed. Means for the independent variables and the dependent variable were calculated by teacher when individual pedagogical and teaching efficacy was tested. These means were then used in backward elimination regression equations. The independent variables for hypotheses IV and V were the job functions identified by each of the two questionnaires. The dependent variable in hypothesis IV was pedagogical efficacy. For hypothesis V the dependent variable was teaching efficacy. 55 Summary A description has been provided how this study was conducted. Teachers in improving, stable, and declining schools were asked to answer questions regarding their perceptions about (a) pedagogical efficacy, (b) teaching efficacy, and (c) the frequency of identified instructional leader behaviors using a five-point Likert scale. Statistical analysis for the first three hypotheses used Tukey's Method of Multiple Comparison. Backward elimination regression was used to test the last two hypotheses. CHAPTER IV Presentation of the results from the analysis will be made in Chapter Four. The analysis of the subscales for the instruments used will be presented first. Results of the planned and subsequent analysis by hypothesis will follow. Analysis of Subscales Reliability analysis was conducted on each of the subscales identified in Form A and Form B as well as for the constructs of pedagogical and teaching efficacy. Alpha levels were also calculated for each subscale with the deletion of each question to see if a stronger alpha could be obtained. Each subscale had a higher alpha level with all questions included. E E'E"l|| I. III IBI' SllEIIIB] An overall reliability coefficient of .96 (Cronbach's alpha) was found for the fifty-five questions of the PIMR. The lowest reliability coefficient found for the eleven subscales identified in the PIMR was .73 (Cronbach's alpha). (Please note that the PIMR has ten subscales and that the subscale A collaboration and problem-solving was added for this study. See Chapter Three under Instrumentation). This alpha level was for "Protecting Instructional Time." Hallinger (1985) states that a reliability coefficient of at least .75 (Cronbach's alpha) was achieved for each of the subscales. Table 4.1 lists the alpha coefficients for each of the eleven subscales of the PIMR. 57 Table 4.1 BI'I'I'I 0 If" If II SI I III E"IIII' lll IBI'SI Subscale N Alpha Framing goals 163 .91 Communicating goals 163 .88 Supervising and evaluating instruction 164 .87 Coordinating curriculum 156 .90 Monitoring student progress 161 . 82 Protecting instructional time 147 .73 Promoting professional development 1 65 .86 Maintaining visibility 163 .78 Providing incentives for teachers 1 52 .90 Providing incentives for Ieaming 149 .85 Collaboration and problem-solving 165 .91 58 E E“ Slit! ID I. . {SEE} A reliability coefficient of .96 was obtained for the questions that dealt with leadership in the Staff Assessment Questionnaire. Reliability coefficients for the four subscales under leadership ranged from .83 to .92 (Cronbach's alpha). Table 4.2 shows the internal consistency for each of the subscales. Table. 4.2 El'l'l'l C It" I! I SI I [II SI it E I Q I. . Subscale N Alpha Resource provider 181 .88 Instructional resource 177 .83 Communications 176 .92 Visibility 183 .83 E I . lEll' A sample of 333 teachers responded to all nine (9) questions which addressed pedagogical efficacy. A reliability coefficient of .75 was obtained for this scale. Gibson and Denbo (1984) reported for this construct an internal reliability of .78. I I . Elf The reliability coefficient obtained for teaching efficacy was .70 and was based upon 340 teachers who responded to all seven (7) of the questions. For comparison, Gibson and Denbo reported a reliability factor of .75. 59 All the instruments used for this study obtained reliability coefficients which were similar to those found by the developers of the three instruments. Analysis of the Hypotheses The planned statistical tests described in Chapter Three were followed for each of the five hypotheses. For the sake of clarity, each hypothesis will be restated, followed by a description of the test used including identification of both the dependent and independent variable. The results of the analysis will then be given. Any subsequent analysis will then be presented. Finally a decision will be made based upon the data either to reject or retain the null hypothesis. During the planned analysis, a question arose regarding the groups. This question resulted from trends found while conducting the planned analysis. From a statistical viewpoint, thought was given to the fact that the design was losing sensitivity because of the categorical groupings. To address this concern, a continuous variable was developed using the scores instead of the classifications assigned to schools (improving, stable, or declining) through the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). The continuous variable used in the subsequent analysis was developed using the following procedure: 1) Each yearly MEAP change designation in reading and mathematics is based upon the present year and the two preceding years. 1980 is also included as a baseline year. The 1986 MEAP results list 1980, 1984, 1985, and 1986. Likewise, the 1987 MEAP results list 1980, 1985, 1986, and 1987. The data for all five years (1980, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987) were used in calculating the continuous variable. 2) The MEAP report also lists the percentage of students who mastered the objectives for reading and mathematics by quartiles. The slope for reading, math, and 60 the interaction of reading x mathematics was calculated based upon the percentage of students in the top quartile for each of the five years for every school. The value of the slope then became the continuous variable used to measure change in terms of improvement, stability. or decline. Hypothesis 1: Pedagogical Efficacy W No difference will be found in the means of teachers' pedagogical efficacy as measured by the teacher efficacy scale between teachers in improving, stable, and declining schools. 52mm Ho: llipe=llspe=l1dpe WW5; The mean of teachers' pedagogical efficacy in improving schools as measured by the teacher efficacy scale will exceed the mean of teachers' pedagogical efficacy in stable and declining schools. M2111; H1: in pa > Us pe Its P9 > lid Pa ElanneiAnelyejs; All forty-one schools were included in this test and were grouped according to the classification of improving, stable, or declining. The dependent variable for this hypothesis is pedagogical efficacy and the independent variable is the classification of school. A mean for each classification group was computed by averaging together each school's mean for pedagogical efficacy. Tukey's Method of Multiple Comparison obtained an £(2,38) = 1.24, n =.302. Table 4.3 provides the means and standard deviations for the three groups and Table 4.4 gives the ANOVA table. Whats; The secondary analysis used the mathematics sl0pe, reading slope, and interaction slope between mathematics and reading as the independent variable. The dependent variable was pedagogical efficacy. The means were figured for 61 the dependent variable from both forms for each school. Analyses of variance obtained the following: math, E(1,71) - .055, p_ -.815; reading, E(1,71) x .001, e :97; and the interaction between mathematics and reading, E(1,71) = .076, p -.783. (Table 4.5) Table 4.3 E II I SI I I D . I. l C II I. E I . I Elf Group N Mean SD Improving schools 19 3.85 0.13 Stable schools 12 3.95 0.15 Declining schools 10 3.91 0.20 Table 4.4 El'lll' [CIII'EI 'lEll' Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 2 0.069 0.034 1.24 0.30 Error 38 1 .076 0.028 Corrected Total 40 1.146 62 Table 4.5 SI IEI' [1!' [El 'lElli .Matbfilcneaslndenendamxaflable— Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 .003 .003 .055 0.8 1 5 Error 71 3.978 .056 Corrected Total 72 3.981 B I. SI I I I II! . II Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 .000 .000 .001 .971 Error 71 3.981 .056 Corrected Total 72 3.981 E I. -ll|ll| I. SI II IIII'II Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 .004 .004 .076 .7 8 3 Error 71 3.977 .056 Corrected Total 72 3.981 63 Deejsjom Based upon these data the decision is not to reject the null hypothesis- there is no difference between teachers' pedagogical efficacy scores in improving, stable, or declining schools. Data from the secondary analyses also supports this decision. Hypothesis 2: Teaching Efficacy W No difference will be found in the means of teachers' teaching efficacy as measured by the teacher efficacy scale between teachers in improving, stable, and declining schools. W H01 llite=llste=lldte Wis The mean of teachers' teaching efficacy in the improving schools as measured by the teaching efficacy scale will exceed the teachers' teaching efficacy mean of the stable and declining schools. W H1: ulte>llste us te > ltd te ElannesLAnelysje; The dependent variable in this hypothesis is teaching efficacy and the independent variable is the classification of schools. A mean for each classification was computed by averaging together the respective schools' teaching efficacy means. The independent variable was the school classification of improving, stable, and declining. The dependent variable was teaching efficacy. Analysis of variance using Tukey resulted in an E(2,38) = 0.26, e =.77. Table 4.6 provides the means and standard deviations for the improving, stable, and declining schools and Table 4.7 is the ANOVA table. 64 Table4.6 G M ISI I ID .I. I I I. Elf Group N Mean SD Improving schools 19 2.91 0.33 Stable schools 12 2.96 0.41 Declining schools 10 3.00 0.23 Table 4.7 EI'II!’ lIl'Ell' Source DF Sum of '. Mean F Value PR F Squares ' r)/ Square i Model 2 0.084 f 0.032 0.25 0.77 Error 38 4.688 0.123 Corrected Total 40 4.475 t Sunseguentenajysjs The secondary analysis used the mathematics slope, reading slope, and interaction slope between mathematics and reading as the independent variable. The dependent variable was teaching efficacy. The means were figured for the dependent variable from both forms for each school. Analysis of variance obtained the following: math, E(1,71) :- 2.48, p, - .119; reading, E(1,71) .. .54, n - .540: and the interaction between mathematics and reading, E(1,71) = .188, p = .666. 65 Qeejeign; The results of both the planned and subsequent tests led to the decision not to reject the null hypothesis which states there is no difference in teachers' teaching efficacy scores between improving, stable, and declining schools. Table4.8 SI IEI' III. [I I. Ell. Mathilmlndmndenflaflable Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 .398 .398 2.480 0.1 19 Error 71 11.408 .160 Corrected Total 72 11.806 B |' El I I I I I! . I I Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 .062 .062 .379 0.540 Error 71 1 1 .743 .165 Corrected Total 72 11.806 8 I'-II||| 'SI II III'II Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 .031 .031 .188 0.666 Error 71 1 1 .775 .165 Corrected Total 72 11.806 66 Hypothesis 3: Instructional Managers This hypothesis used two different forms to see if both would discriminate strong instructional leaders from less able leaders. So, two sets of data will be presented. W No difference will be found in ratings of principals as instructional managers as measured by the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale between improving, stable, and declining schools. 5101058128111; Ho: uiim=usim=udim We; The instructional manager mean for principals in the improving schools will exceed the instructional manager mean of principals in the stable and declining schools. SubsenuenLAnalxsis: H1: in im > its im lls im > ltd im flannedAnalysie; Schools that had only one teacher questionnaire returned were removed resulting in a sample size of 35 schools. A mean for each classification was computed by averaging together the respective schools' instructional manager means. Analysis of variance employing the Tukey test was used. The E(2,32) = 4.98', p =.013. Table 4.9 gives the size, mean, and standard deviation for each group. Table 4.10 provides the ANOVA table for the PIMR. 67 Table 4.9 G I! ISI I ID . I. I I I I. III . EIIIB Group N Mean SD Improving schools 17 3.25 0.38 Stable schools 11 3.32 0.32 Declining schools 7 2.71 0.63 Table 4.10 EI'III' [III' III 'EIIIB Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 2 1.828 0.914 4.985' 0.01 3 Error 32 5.867 0.183 Corrected Total 34 7.695 SubeeguemAnelysjs; To address the concerns that were mentioned at the start of this section, a second analysis of variance was conducted. The independent variable was the mean obtained at each building for the instructional manager. The dependent variable 68 became the slope for reading, math, and the interaction between reading and mathematics for each building. The following ANOVA's were obtained using the PIMR: for reading, E(1,33) =4.523', p, =.041; math, E(1,33) - 1.067, n =.309; and the reading- mathematics interaction,_E(1,33) - 5.363‘, n =.026. Table 4.11 provides the ANOVA tables for each of these analysis. Deejejen; These findings led to the decision of rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternate hypothesis. Two combinations of schools had differences at the 0.05 level. Instructional managers in the improving group had higher scores than did leaders in the declining schools. Instructional leaders of stable schools also had a higher mean than instructional leaders of declining schools. The mean for stable school instructional leaders was slightly above the mean for instructional leaders of improving schools. Data from the secondary analysis also showed that the PIMR could discriminate between schools identified by the achievement slope in reading and reading/mathematics interaction. 69 Table 4.11 S I I E I . l I! . l I I I. III II' II EIIIB B I. SI D I I I! . I I Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 49.042 49.042 4.523‘ 0.041 Error 33 357.788 1 0.842 Corrected Total 34 406.830 W Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 12.886 12.886 1.067 0.309 Error 33 398.527 1 2.076 Corrected Total 34 411.414 B l'-ll|l|| I. D IIII'II Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 93.191 93.191 5.363‘ 0.026 Error 33 573.431 17.376 Corrected Total 34 666.623 70 We; No difference will be found in ratings of principals as instructional managers as measured by the Staff Assessment Questionnaire between improving, stable, and declining schools. W12. HO: lliim=llsim=lldim W The instructional manager mean for principals in the improving schools will exceed the instructional manager mean of principals in the stable and declining schools as measured by the Staff Assessment Questionnaire. W11: H1: uiim>usim Its im > ltd im flannecLAnelyeis; Schools that had one teacher questionnaire returned were removed resulting in a sample size of 38 schools. A mean for each category was computed by averaging together the respective schools' instructional manager means. The independent variable was the category of school. Instructional manager was the dependent variable. Analysis of variance employing the Tukey test was used, resulting in E(2,35) = .197, n =.821. Table 4.12 gives the means for each group and Table 4.13 provides the ANOVA table. Table 4.12 Group Means and Standard Deviations for Instruction Manager using SAQ Group N Mean SD Improving schools 18 3.596 0.6 70 Stable schools 11 3.456 0.796 Declining schools 9 3.459 0.524 71 Table4.13 El'l1!° llll'lll 'SEQ Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 2 0.182 0.091 0.197 0.821 Error 35 1 6.182 0.462 Corrected Total 37 16.365 SubseguenLAnalysis: The same procedures that were used in the subsequent analysis of the PIMR were used with the SAQ. The following Anova values were obtained using the SAQ as the independent variable: for reading, E(1,36) = 0.0, n =.999; for math, E(1,36) - .253, n =.617; and reading-mathematics interaction, E(1,36) = .058, n =.810. Table 4.14 provides the ANOVA tables for each of these analyses. Qeeisjen; Findings from the planned comparison led to the decision to retain the null hypothesis which states there is no difference in the means of instructional managers of improving, stable, and declining schools. The results of the secondary analysis supports the decision to retain the null hypothesis. The different findings that were obtained between the two instruments lead to the conclusion that Hallinger's PIMR can discriminate between the leadership in the different categorical types while Andrews' SAQ cannot. 72 Table4.14 EI'III' [III'III 'SEQ B I. SI D I I I! . I I Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 .000 .000 0.000 0.999 Error 36 408.642 11 .351 Corrected Total 37 408.642 W Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 3.114 4.114 0.253 0.617 Error 36 442.573 12.293 Corrected Total 37 445.687 8 I. -ll|l|| I. S! D IIII'II Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Model 1 1.120 1.120 0.058 0.810 Error 36 693.748 1 9.270 Corrected Total 37 694.868 73 Hypothesis 4: Impact of Instructional Manager Behaviors on Pedagogical Efficacy WW3 We; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. 5101122098118: Ho: R2y.1.2....11 = 0 Aflemetflymtnesje; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. W H1: R2y.1.2....11 $0 Elannngnelysje; Thirty-five of the forty-one schools were used for this test, with the school as the unit of analysis. (Schools which had only one teacher survey returned were removed.) The dependent variable in the regression equation is pedagogical efficacy and the independent variables are the eleven behaviors identified in the PIMR scale. Backward elimination regression was used. When all eleven variables were entered, an R2 .. .445 was obtained with f_(11,23) a 1.68, n =.15. Eight of the eleven variables - framing goals, communicating goals, monitoring student progress, protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and providing incentives for learning resulted in an R2 = .44 and E(8,26) = 2.61‘, n -.0306. The best fitting regression equation resulted from three behaviorsmsmmmwm W These three behaviors achieved an R2 = .388 and_E(3,31) . 6.55", p, .0015, (See Table 4.15) 74 Table 4.15 B I I B . I I I I. I II E I . I 0 II I. E I . lElf I! . EIIIB Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 3 0.801 0.267 6.55“ 0.0015 Error 31 1 .263 0.040 Total 34 2.064 R2 0.388 SupeeguenLAnelxeie; This analysis focused on the teacher as the unit of interest. Means for instructional manager behaviors and pedagogical efficacy were calculated by teacher instead of by building. The variables remained the same: pedagogical efficacy was the dependent variable and instructional manager behaviors the independent variables. Backward elimination regression was used on the secondary analysis. All eleven of the variables related to instructional manager were entered into the regression equation resulting with E(11,154) = 3.06', p_=.001 and an R2 = .179. The best fitting equation was obtained by the variables; EmmjngfineelfiealLEmiding Warning. These three variables resulted in E(3,162) s 9.38', n =.0001 and R2 = .147. Table 4.16 gives the complete regression tables for these two equations. 75 Table 4.16 Bl IE . [II I. III Bl' II I El 'lEll' ll' EIIIB AW Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 1 1 7.774 0.706 3.06' 0.0 01 0 Error 154 35.581 0.231 Total 165 43.356 R2 0.179 E . S I I E I E . I. I I. l I I l E . I. I I. I I . E I I Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 3 6.416 2.138 9.38‘ 0.0 0 01 Error 162 36.939 0.228 Total 1 65 43.356 R2 0.147 76 Qeeieign; The evidence presented here resulted in the decision to reject the null hypothesis. Behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR can be used to explain the variation in both teachers' sense of collective and individual pedagogical efficacy. We; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. W Ho: R2y.1.2.3.4 = 0 Afiernatejyngjneeje; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. Weill; H1: R2y.1.2.3.4 at 0 Ejenned_Anejyeje; Thirty-eight of the forty-one schools were used for this test, with the school as the unit of analysis. (Schools with only one teacher questionnaire were removed.) The dependent variable in the regression equation is collective pedagogical efficacy and the independent variables are the four behaviors identified in the SAQ. Backward elimination regression was used. When all four variables were entered, an R2 - .144 was obtained with E(4,33) = 1.40, p :25. The best regression equation was obtained (R2 =.13, E(1,36) = 5.82‘, p 2.021) when only the independent variable ”communication” was entered. 77 Table 4.17 E I I E . l I I I. I II E I . I D II I. E I . IEIfi II. SEQ Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 1 0.265 0.265 5.82' 0.021 Error 36 1 .638 0.044 Total 37 2.064 R2 0.139 SunseguenLAnajyeje; This analysis focused on the teacher as the unit of interest. Means for instructional manager behaviors and pedagogical efficacy were calculated by teacher instead of by building. The variables remained the same: pedagogical efficacy was the dependent variable and instructional manager behaviors the independent variables. Backward regression with all four of the variables associated with the SAQ resulted in an £(4,182) = 2.09, p, =.08 and an R2 = .044. The best fit was obtained with only the variable Resource Provider, which achieved £0,185) = 7.03', n -.008 with an R2 -= .036. Although a significance level was achieved, the amount of variation that can be explained is extremely small. Table 4.18 shows the regression tables for these two equations. Table 4.18 El IB 'flII'Ill Bl' IIIEI 'lElfi ”.3” 78 Alljenaxicrsjmered Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 4 1.783 0.445 2.09 0.083 Error 182 38.741 0.212 Total 1 86 40.524 R2 0.044 BescurcajmidaLEnteLed Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 1 1.484 1 .484 7.03' 0.008 Error 185 39.040 0.21 1 Total 1 86 40.524 R2 0.036 79 Deejeien; One of the four instructional leadership behaviors (communication) as measured by the SAQ can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy. The instructional leadership behavior called resource provider as measured by the SAQ can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of individual pedagogical efficacy. The amount of variation in the dependent variable that can be accounted for by the model is small enough not to warrant further consideration. The decision, then, would be to reject the null hypothesis, realizing that little has been gained. Hypothesis 5: Impact of Instructional Manager Behaviors on Teaching Efficacy We; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. 51mm Ho: R2y.1.2.3....11 = 0 Wheels; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. W11: H1: R2y.1.2.3....11 ¢ 0 flennecLAnejxeie; Thirty-five of the forty-one schools were used in this analysis (single response schools were removed). Backward elimination regression was used. The dependent variable was teaching efficacy and the independent variables were the eleven behavior groups in the PIMR. All eleven variables were entered first and achieved an R2=.244 with E(11,34) - .68, p, -.74. The best fitting regression equation resulted when the 80 following two variables were entered: Framing School Goals and Coordinating Curriculum. This achieved an R2 -.11 and E(2,32) - 2.10, n =.13. Table 4.19 summarizes the best fitting model for this regression equation. Table 4.19 =-e..-o::.0‘ no I 0|. u-l-O‘ 3'1-0 no 01" '- I'n Elf ll . EIIIB Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 2 0.845 0.422 2.10 0.139 Error 32 6.439 0.201 Total 34 7.285 R2 0.115 SupeeguenLAnajxejs; In this analysis the means were calculated by teacher. Teaching efficacy was the dependent variable and instructional manager behaviors the independent variable. Backward elimination regression was used. The best equation that could be achieved between using the PIMR involved the variables Framing School Goals and Coordinating Curriculum. With these two variables E(2,163) = 2.75, n = .06 and an R2 - .03. Table 4.20 shows the regression table for the variables that produced the best fit. 81 Table 4.20 Backward Regression of Instructional Manager Behaviors onto Teacher Teaching Efficacy Using PIMR E'SIIEIIDI'I'E'IEII Source DF Sum of Mean F Value PR F Squares Square Regression 2 2.487 1 .243 2.75 0.066 Error 163 73.575 0.451 Total 165 76.063 R2 0.032 Decjsjen; The best fitting equation did not reach 9 =05. Therefore the decision was not to reject the null hypothesis--the behaviors of the building principal as measured by Hallinger's PIMR provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of either collective or individual teaching efficacy. W Ngthygetheejs; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ provides no information in explaining the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. W111; Ho: R2y.1.2.3.4 = 0 Anemeteflygemeeje; The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy as measured by the Teaching Efficacy Scale. Symbolicallxz H1: R2y.1.2.3.4 ¢ 0 82 WW3; Thirty-eight of the forty-one schools were used in this analysis (single-response schools were removed). Backward elimination regression was used. The dependent variable was collective teaching efficacy and the independent variables were the four behavior groups in the SAQ. An E(4,33) - 2.72', p_-.—.046 was achieved when all four variables were entered into the regression equation. These four variables together accounted for 24.8% of the variation in the variable teaching efficacy. The variable communication alone achieved an E_(1,36) a 9.82‘, n =.003 and accounted for 21.4% of the variation in teaching efficacy. Wang; In this analysis the mean for individual teaching efficacy was calculated by teachers. All four of the variables measured by the SAQ when entered into the backward elimination regression equation achieved a significance level of E(4,182) - 4.23‘, p, -.027 and R2 = .085. Most of the variation in teaching efficacy can be explained by the variable Resource Provider, which alone, achieved E(1,185) = 14.80', p, =.0002 and R2 - .07. _Deejeig_n; The decision would be to reject the null hypothesis. The behaviors of the building principal as measured by Andrews' SAQ can be used to explain the variation in teachers' sense of both collective and individual teaching efficacy. 83 Summary Chapter Four has presented the data from both the planned analysis and the subsequent analysis. Rationale for the need of the secondary analysis was also given. Figure 4.1 highlights the findings derived from this study. Figure 4.2 provides a summary of which instructional behaviors could account for the variation in pedagogical and teaching efficacy. Chapter Five will provide a summary of the study, discuss these findings in relation to the theoretical framework that has been presented, and suggest implications that these findings might have for practitioners. 84 Figure 4.1 Study Highlights Pedagogical Efficacy Retain the null hypothesis. There is no difference among teachers' pedagogical efficacy scores in improving, stable, and declining schools. Teaching Efficacy Retain the null hypothesis. There is no difference among teachers' teaching efficacy scores in improving, stable. and declining schools. PIMR SAQ Instructional Leadership Reject the null hypothesis using the Retain the null hypothesis using the PIMR. Instructional leaders in both SAQ. There was no difference in the the improving and stable schools had means among instructional leaders in higher scores than did instructional improving, stable. and declining leaders in the declining schools. schools. Instructional Leadership and Pedagogical Efficacy Reject the null hypothesis. Eight Reject the null hypothesis. One of behaviors principal behaviors the four principal aspects measured measured by the PIMR can be used by the SAQ can be used to explain to explain 44% of the teachers' sense 13.9% of the variation in teachers' of collective pedagogical efficacy. sense of collective pedagogical efficacy. All eleven principal behaviors One of the four principal aspects measured by the PIMR can be used to measured by the SAQ can be used to explain 17.9% of the variation in explain 3.6% of the variance in teachers' sense of individual teaching teachers' sense of individual efficacy. pedagogical effiacy. Instructional Leadership and Teacher Efficacy Retain the null hypothesis. Principal Reject the null hypothesis. All four of behaviors as measured by the PIMR can the principal aspects measured by the not account for the variation in teachers' SAQ can be used to explain 24.8% of senes of collective and individual teaching the variation in teachers' sense of efficacy. collective teaching efficacy. All four of the principal aspects measured by the SAQ can be used to explain 8.5% of the variation in teachers' sense of teaching efficacy. 85 Figure 4.2 Instructional Leader Behaviors Found to be Significant on Efficacy Pedagogical Efficacy Teacher Efficacy Collective Individual Collective Individual Behaviors measured by the PIMR . Framing goals X Communicating goals X' Supervise and evaluate instruction Coordinate curriculum Monitor student progress X Protect instructional time X Promote professional development X X X 0 Maintain visibility Provide incentives for teachers Provide incentives for Ieaming X' X' X 0 X XX XXXX XX Collaboration and problem- solving R2 . .44;p_. .03 R2: .17;p_-.- .001 'R2 . 38;; a .0015 ’R2-= -14:n.= .0001 Behaviors measured by the SAQ Resource provider X X Instructional resource X x. X Communications X Visibility R2=.13;p_=.021 R2=.036;g_=.008 R2=.24;g=.04 R2=.07;g=.0002 'R2=.21;g=.003 CHAPTERV Summary of Study The origin of this study came from the work of Bennis and Nanus (1985) when they stated ”for successful leadership [instructional leadership] to occur there has to be a fusion between positive self-regard and optimism [teacher efficacy] about a desired outcome" (p. 79). Bennis and Nanus based their work on Bandura's (1982) theory of self-efficacy and argued that effective leaders energize people to act in a manner that advances the organization's goals. Both instructional leadership and teacher efficacy have received attention in terms of impacting student achievement. Edmonds (1979) argued that the factors needed for schools to operate effectively could not be brought together nor kept together without strong instructional leadership. Andrews, Soder. and Jacoby (1986) found that student achievement in reading and math, particularly for the low-achieving students could be impacted by strong instructional leadership. Teacher efficacy or ”the extent to which teachers believe they can affect student learning” (Denbo 8 Gibson, 1985, p. 173) has also been shown to correlate with student learning (Armour et al., 1977; Brookover et al., 1979; and Ashton et al., 1982). The stronger the teacher's sense of efficacy, the greater were student gains. Teacher efficacy has also been found to be beneficial in terms of the implementation or continuation of educational innovations (Berman et al., 1977). Lacking has been evidence which would address the question, ”How do the behaviors and actions of the building principal impinge on the teachers' sense of efficacy?" Denbo and Gibson (1985), Guskey (1986), and Bandura (1986) have cited 87 the need for investigating how the behaviors of a leader impact employee efficacy. The purpose of this study was to determine (1) if collective teacher efficacy was different in schools identified by student achievement and (2) what behaviors of an instructional leader influence teachers' sense of both collective and individual efficacy. The following questions became the bases for the hypotheses: 1. Is teachers' sense of pedagogical efficacy significantly greater in improving schools than in stable or declining schools? 2. Is teachers' sense of teaching efficacy significantly greater in improving schools than in stable or declining schools? 3. Will the principals of improving schools be viewed as stronger instructional leaders than the principals of stable or declining schools? 4. Can the behaviors of an instructional leader account for the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy? 5. Can instructional leader behaviors account for the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy? A secondary purpose of the study was to determine which instrument-the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMR) (Hallinger, 1984) or the Staff Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) (Andrews' et al., 1986)--was the better predictor of instructional leader behaviors. Elementary schools in Michigan were identified as either improving, stable, or declining, based upon the change classifications given by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). Stable schools were included in this study to address the criticism in the effective schools research of using contrasted groups, in which schools were judged as ”effective“ or “ineffective“ (Rowan, Bossert, and Dwyer, 1982). Fourth grade MEAP scores for 1986 and 1987 in reading and mathematics were used in the selection process. Forty-one schools were involved in the study. Analysis of variance and multiple regression techniques were employed in the testing of the hypotheses. 88 The following decisions were made for the five questions which this study addressed based on the data analyses: 1. Teachers' sense of pedagogical efficacy was not significantly greater in the improving schools than in the stable or declining schools. 2. Teachers' sense of teaching efficacy was not significantly greater in the improving schools than in the stable or declining schools 3. It was found using the PIMR that principals of both improving and stable schools were viewed by their faculties as significantly stronger instructional leaders than the principals of the declining schools. The SAQ did not find significant differences between instructional leaders of improving, stable, and declining schools. Hallinger's PIMR appeared to discriminate instructional leader behaviors better than Andrews' SAQ based upon the results obtained for question three. 4. Eight of the eleven behaviors measured by the PIMR seem to explain 44% of the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy between improving, stable, and declining schools. All eleven behaviors measured by the PIMR could account for 17.9% of the variation in teachers' sense of individual teaching efficacy. Instructional leader behaviors measured by the SAQ accounted for 13.9% of the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy and 3.6% of the variation in teachers' sense of individual pedagogical efficacy. 5. Instructional leader behaviors as measured by the PIMR could not significantly account for the variation in teachers' sense of collective and individual teaching efficacy. Instructional leader behaviors as measured by the SAQ accounted for 24.8% of the variation in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy and 8.5% of the variation in teachers' sense of individual teaching efficacy. 89 Discussion W Teacher efficacy is comprised of two constructs. Pedagogical efficacy is how a teacher judges his/her own teaching skills and the ability to organize and execute courses of action. The second component, teaching efficacy, deals with the person's judgement that the desired outcome will be the result of his/her actions. It was hypothesized that teachers in improving schools would have stronger views regarding both their teaching skills (pedagogical efficacy) and the impact that their actions have on students (teaching efficacy). Findings for both pedagogical and teaching efficacy were not statistically different between improving, stable, and declining schools,_E(2,38) . 1.24, n =.302 and E(2,38) = .026, p =.77 respectively. These findings were unexpected considering previous empirical evidence. Armour et al. (1976) asked eighty-one teachers two questions which dealt specifically with teacher efficacy: one question addressing teaching efficacy and the other with pedagogical efficacy. The responses from these two questions strongly and significantly showed that the more efficacious a teacher felt, the greater were the gains in reading achievement for students. Berman et al. (1977) used the same two questions while investigating the implementation and continuation of federal programs. Results indicated that teachers' sense of efficacy was a strong positive variable which had an impact on the percentage of project goals accomplished, improved student learning, teacher change, and continuation of method and materials advanced by the project. 90 Ashton, Webb, and Doda (1982) reported a correlation between teacher efficacy and mathematics of r = .78, p_ =.003 and a correlation of r = .83, p :02 between teacher efficacy and communication based upon the Metropolitan Standardized Test. Gibson and Denbo (1984) after administering their own scale observed teachers in the classroom. Their field observations led them to conclude that highly efficacious teachers used certain teacher behaviors in the classroom which have shown to yield positive achievement gains. The conclusion, then, is to treat the findings of this study with caution. Two reasons are offered for the discrepancy between these findings and the results of others. The first deals with the manner in which schools were selected. Gibson and Denbo (1984) stated that teacher efficacy is likely to be situation specific and may not generalize to other aspects of teaching. All the studies cited had teacher involvement that was related to a specific program or content area. School selection for this study was based upon one point, fourth grade MEAP scores over a two-year period. An assumption was made that any change happening at this point would be indicative of change throughout the school. Teachers were not asked to respond with a particular subject such as reading or mathematics in mind. A second possibility for not finding a significant difference may be due to what Cervone and Peake (1986) refer to as social demand: the pressure individuals experience because of the organization's performance expectations. Cervone and Peake also state In high social demand situations individuals will become overly conservative in their self-appraisals. Schools that are instructionally effective tend to have a higher level of social demand for performance (Brookover and Lezotte, 1977). It is possible, then, that teachers in the improving schools rated themselves more conservatively than the teachers in the stable and declining schools. 91 I I I. I I I I . A significant difference in the behaviors of instructional leaders of improving, stable, and declining schools was another issue which this investigation addressed. Using Hallinger's PIMR, it was found that a significance difference does exist E(2,32) = 4.98, n =.013) among the three groups of schools. Improving schools and stable schools were significantly different from declining schools. There was not a significant difference between improving and stable schools however (n = 17, x = 3.25 and n = 11, x = 3.32 respectively). Obtaining a higher instructional leader mean for the stable schools using the PIMR over the improving schools was not anticipated. The level of conflict that exists in the schools offers an explanation for this unexpected finding. Schools that are instructionally effective tend to have more conflict (Blumberg and Greenfield, 1980, and Brookover and Lezotte, 1977). Problems in the more instructionally effective schools are addressed openly and more quickly, resulting in the faculties, experiencing anxiety and/or frustration. If there is a tendency to have more conflict in the improving schools, then it is likely that teachers would rate the principal lower. Likewise, less conflict in the stable schools would lead to the teachers rating the principal higher. This is known as the halo effect. The data generated by Andrews' SAQ failed to discriminate among the principals of improving, stable, and declining schools and therefore failed to support the hypothesis. The mean for the improving group was higher than the mean for either the stable or declining groups but it was not significant (Refer to table 4.15). This was unexpected since the SAQ had been used to correlate instructional leader behaviors with student achievement (Andrews et al., 1986). Hallinger’s PIMR appears to be a more sensitive instrument. Three reasons are offered in support of this conclusion: (a) method of school selection, (b) specificity of identified principal behaviors, and (c) instrument design. 92 The manner of school selection is the first reason. Andrews et al. calculated individual gain scores using normal curve equivalents for each student and aggregated these scores within the schools by ethnicity and free-lunch status. By aggregating gain scores at the school, Andrews was able to capture a very specific picture of how students were or were not benefiting from instruction. This investigation, on the other hand, did not study schools pupil by pupil but took a more general view of student achievement by using the learning gains over time based on the number of students who were scoring in the top quartile on the MEAP. Schools were also placed into one of three categories (improving, stable, or declining). Such a classification loses the subtleties that may have existed in the Andrews et al. study. A second reason, which is related to the instrument sensitivity issue, centers on the number of questions used by each instrument. The SAQ used only eighteen questions while the PIMR used 55 questions, five questions for each of the eleven job functions. The design of the instruments is the third reason. Hallinger's PIMR is based upon a behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) and was developed following the procedures outlined by Latham and Wexley (1981). A BARS scale relies on critical job related behaviors. Raters can base their appraisal of the individual's performance on the type and frequency of the behavior. The SAQ on the other hand asked the rater to express a level of agreement regarding what the principal does. Latham and Wexley maintain that more reliable ratings will occur using a behaviorally anchored rating scale. Results obtained using the PIMR are congruent with the findings from other studies. Weber (1971) found strong instructional leadership in four inner-city schools that had exceptionally strong reading scores. Armour et al. (1976) concluded after studying twenty elementary schools in the Los Angeles area that the leadership role of the principal was one of the most important factors in those schools judged to be successful. After a three-year study, Andrews et al. (1986) concluded that students 93 who attended schools administered by strong instructional leaders exhibited significantly better gain scores than students who attended schools which had average or weak instructional leaders. With evidence suggesting there is a relationship between instructional behaviors and student achievement, the question becomes: ”Which behaviors have the greatest impact on student learning?" Six of the ten job functions identified by the PIMR (an eleventh function was added for this study: collaboration and problem-solving) obtained a significance level of p <.05 for distinguishing between improving, stable, and declining schools. Those six job functions are: W15, E(2,32) = 5.12, _p =.011; WW E(2.32) - 4.34. 0 --014: W000 103000000. 59.32) - 3-76. 0 --034: Wm £9.32) - 9-48. 0 -0006; MW E(2,32) . 3.45, 0 3.044; and Emjemmg MW, fi(2,32) = 5.73, p, =.0075. Hallinger (1985, p. 220) states. “Research on effective schools suggests that principals in instructionally effective schools maintain tighter coupling among the goals, technology, and outcomes of schooling.” It is interesting to see that all six of the job functions which discriminated among improving, stable, and declining schools fit into one of the three categories mentioned. 94 Figure 5.1. W Goals. 100000.100! 0010011185. oFraming School -Supervising and Monitoring Student Goals Evaluating Progress Instruction ~Communicating oProtect Instructional School Goals Time .Coordinate Curriculum Figure 5.1 is congruent with Leithwood and Montgomery's (1984) Paradigm of a Principal's Role discussed in Chapter Two. Effective instructional leaders monitor both classroom-related factors and school-related factors and utilize different strategies to ensure that the goals of the school are being met. El 'IElf III I. II II. Table 5.1 provides a comparison of how instructional leader behaviors as measured by the PIMR and the SAQ can account for the variation in collective and individual pedagogical and teaching efficacy. Although the results of both instruments are included in this discussion, the primary emphasis of the discussion will focus upon Hallinger's PIMR. The rationale for this is twofold. First, it was the PIMR that discriminated between the leadership in improving, stable, and declining schools. Second, the PIMR breaks the behaviors of an instructional leader into eleven groups as compared to the four groups found in the SAQ. 95 Table 5.1 Q . BI EIIIB ISED 'III I Elli Pedagogical Efficacy Teaching Efficacy Collective Individual Collective Individual PIMR R2: .44 R2= .17 R2: .115 R2: .032 n = .03 p, = .001 I2 = .139 Q = .06 SAQ R2- .13 R2- .036 R2:- .248 R2= .07 n = .02 n = .008 a 8 .046 n: .0002 A significant relationship was found among the behaviors of the instructional leader as measured by the PIMR and the collective pedagogical efficacy of the school. Eight of the eleven behaviors WW “I ...- ..- . .H' .n_ “”4 I.” ..'.- . .I. _ . ._ I_ ”m. ..- .H. 0. ”Hm .I. .. '.. . .I. . . Ieaming) explained 44% of the variance between schools regarding teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy (E(8,26) = 2.61, n - .03). Of the eight behaviors, 0.0"“ 1.: |: loo .0. “one 0‘. 00,0- .leoo'e-I ‘n' 0 1900006 accounted for 38% of the variation between schools. Also found was a significant relationship between individual pedagogical efficacy and the behaviors of instructional leaders (E(11,154) . 3.06, p, - .001). All eleven behaviors could account for 17.9% of the variation in teachers' sense of pedagogical efficacy. 96 The instructional leader aspect of communication measured by the SAQ accounted for 13% of the variation in teachers' sense of collective pedagogical efficacy. Only 3.6% of the variation in teachers' sense of individual pedagogical efficacy was accounted for by the SAQ aspect called resource provider. WW Both instruments reflected the same pattern: a lower percentage of variation in individual pedagogical efficacy which could be accounted for by principal behavior. These findings seem reasonable when one considers all the factors that can affect a teacher's view of his pedagogical skills (personal experiences, professional training, professional experiences, etc.). In Figure 5.2, ”Principal Strategies” directly affect both ”external factors” and "teachers' knowledge.” This suggests that the behaviors a strong instructional leader performs impacts the teacher's perception of their pedagogical efficacy both directly and indirectly through school related factors. 97 $002.... 303000000 02.00.30 0. 0.0.0. 0.0.0.00 :0 5.3 0E0: 20:00 .8080 2.55.... A .8858 8.8868 .3655... 5. 28¢ 085%.. .805... ..< 852 2.288.398 05 5.88.8 3.500. .0. 005:8... 035...... .:0Eco.0>0.o 38.30.20 0.9.00.4... 80:000. .0. 00228:. 00.3.0. 2.3.4... 5... 59:02. 0E.. .0:0.00..w:_ 80.0.0. 3050... 30.5.0 .03—.05. 60.32.50 0.050.000 5.6.52. 0.00.05 0 00.2096 0.000 0.00.:0EE00. 2.8.. .85... Ea... 8.8.2.0 8.8.... :05 .0 0.00..0 .5000. 6:000 :0..0>..0E .o 303000.00 i'r—i . .0. ... i— .cocam 0.02000... * .6850 .8898... 0000: .8030 $000000: ufiouioEooSo ..:0.:oo .0. 0:303:00 3000.... E0. 9.0.. 0:0... 0:0 0000.305. a..0:000h .0 30.53.00 0:0 - 2.5.2. 8.8% 0. 0. . 02.00.02. - .2535 €020.52. 0550... 8.2.8. 08888 3283 ‘ , 0:300 0050.: - 00.00:...» 03.50055 00:..00. EOE...“ 820.358 .0 :0..0>..0< .. w j 828.? guani— 05:000. ++ .228. 8.4.2-860. 0.300.. .0595 . 000.0 .0 8.3.0.0005. 4' 3005000. 9:03? rad. - iiril .1. .8). i. . 0:0 8:08.98 63.0.6 .0. 005.00. .0 3088.050 90:000.. .88.... 8.88.8. o. 222 .5... 22.5.50 8.8.8. com 8.805... o... .o 5.85.. 4.8.898: a 835.3 5.; 2.5....» Boo .o .832 8.2.8.0 0 .25.. .o 8.6.8.... ~.m 0591.. 3:00.00 {0:000h To enhance collective efficacy one must bring together the diverse interests of all the participants into a common goal and reorganize the structure of the institution so that different performances can be obtained from the same participants (Bandura, 1986). Findings from this study lend support to Bandura's theory. The eight job functions that were found to be significantly related to collective pedagogical efficacy all relate to either focusing upon a common goal or promoting the chance for different behaviors to develop (see Figure 5.3). Figure 5.3. IIE l' Illl'll ID" |' El 'lEtf Winnie.— lnstructinnaLleadar_. “.fl. ll' oFocusing on common goal oPromoting different behaviors oFraming school's goals -Communicating school's goals oMonitor student progress oProtect instructional time oMaintain high visibility oProvide incentives for teachers oPromote professional development oProvide incentives for learning 99 The variation in discrepancy between the impact that a principal has on individual pedagogical efficacy and collective pedagogical efficacy also lends support to Bandura's argument. Strong instructional leaders work at bringing together the diverse interests of several teachers (as can be seen in their own views regarding pedagogical efficacy) through specific goals that are articulated; being involved in instructional issues; and recognizing and encouraging good work. Through framing and communicating explicit goals. monitoring outcomes, and adjusting the technologies which are available, a strong instructional leader can influence the group's judgement regarding its capability to make group decisions, utilize resources, and devise strategies which will result in the group's attaining its established goals. I I' Elf III I' II II' The percent of variation in either collective or individual teaching efficacy that could be accounted for by the behaviors of the principal as measured by the PIMR did not reach significance. Although not significant, the amount of variance was 11.5% and 3.2% respectively. The results, therefore, did not support the stated hypothesis. One of the four instructional-leader behavior aspects measured by the SAQ accounted for 21 .4% of the variance in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy. All four of the instructional-leader behavior aspects of the SAQ accounted for 24.8% of the variance in teachers' sense of collective teaching efficacy. The amount of variance accounted for in teachers' sense of individual teaching efficacy using the SAQ's aspect of “resource provider" was 7%. I I . Elf Porter and Brophy's (1988)_M9_deLoj_GQQd_Ieagmng along with Leithwood and Montgomery's (1982) We helps to explain these findings from a conceptual point (Figure 5.2). The integration of these two models (as proposed in Chapter Two) suggests that principal behaviors have more of a direct impact on pedagogical efficacy or ”teachers knowledge and convictions“ and an indirect impact on 100 teaching efficacy or ”teacher's perceptions.” The schematic also suggests that ”teacher's perceptions" or teaching efficacy is more influenced by students' immediate responses and long-term student outcomes. This seems plausible since teachers receive direct feedback from students on a daily basis by the work that is performed in the classroom. Feedback on student achievement that a principal provides a teacher is more indirect and not as frequent. The finding regarding teaching efficacy (outcome expectancy) can also be explained by teachers' general belief dealing with external factors. Ashton (1984, p. 30) points out that "a dramatic change in performance [is] required before teachers assume responsibility for the students' performance.” Teachers tend to attribute student learning to factors such as ability, socio-economic characteristics, and parental support instead of their own pedagogical skills. Conclusions The quality of leadership that is exhibited by the principal does influence how the school will function. This conclusion is congruent with the findings of Likert (1967), Weber (1971), Armour et al. (1976), and Andrews et al. (1986). Based upon the results obtained in this study, it can be argued that teachers in schools experiencing a decline in student learning have a leader who is not focusing the group, monitoring the outcomes, or working at adjusting the instructional technologies to which they have access. The stronger instructional leader maintains a clearer focus which is communicated to the faculty and works with the teachers to achieve the identified goals. Evidence found in this study appears to support the theoretical relationship between leadership and efficacy that was advocated in Chapter Two. A positive relationship seems to exist between the behaviors of an instructional leader and both 101 individual and collective pedagogical efficacy. While an instructional leader can, to a certain extent, influence an individual teacher's perception of his/her own pedagogical efficacy, an instructional leader does play an important role in altering the collective pedagogical efficacy perceptions held by a faculty. In other words, the instructional leader is vital in helping a faculty to organize and utilize the expertise which exists within itself to execute a concerted course of action. Behaviors that Bandura advocated were the sources of information which influence efficacy are the same behaviors which have been attributed to strong instructional leaders. Hallinger's (1984) Principal Instructional Manager Rating Scale (PIMR) appears to discriminate better among schools than does Andrews et al. (1986) Staff Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). The findings that Andrews obtained were not replicated in this study. Implications for Practice From empirical evidence cited and from the findings of this study, it is important for school districts to look closely at the behaviors exhibited by individuals who are principals or who are aspiring to be principals. One of the most critical components of successful schools is the role that the person who is filling the position of principal takes. Principals play a vital role in the change and improvement process that schools experience. Therefore it is necessary to coach and help refine the skills of existing principals. Bossert et al. (1982) suggest four broad categories (goals and production, power and decision making, organization and coordination, and human relations) which address the same job functions used in the PIMR. One way to help existing principals is to incorporate these job functions into the principal evaluation that the district uses. A second approach is to see that discussion takes place concerning the gains or lack of gains 102 that each building is making in relation to the district's goals (provided the district's goals are explicit and articulated). Selection of new principals should also concentrate on identifying those individuals who have skills and abilities in these job funcflons. For school improvement to occur, the unit of change has to be the school. The key to success centers on the fact that the group has a common purpose, holds the perception that the group indeed has the skills and capabilities to devise a plan and can execute it in an efficient manner. The unifying purposes must be explicit and attainable through concerted effort. Because success calls for sustained effort over a long time, proximal subgoals are needed to provide incentives and evidence of progress along the way (p.453). A sense of collective efficacy is difficult to develop and to sustain when the effects of group effort are not so noticeable (Bandura, 1986, p.451). It is only the school that can tap into the expertise that exists within the faculty and it is the instructional leader who can orchestrate the actions so that the group begins to work together. Schools in which a perception of collective efficacy is not developed will view themselves as helpless and unable to improve their situation through a concerted effort. Recently there has been considerable discussion regarding school-based decision making. The success or failure of the notion of school-based decision making could rest on how groups view their ability to improve the existing situation. For some schools, it may be very difficult to implement the concept of site-based decision making because of certain underminers as dependence on technologies that govern their actions and layers of bureaucratic structures (Bandura, 1986). Care will be needed to insure that a school faculty is given the skills to problem-solve cooperatively and make decisions. Goodlad (1975) stated that teachers have been in a subordinate role so long that assuming a greater role in decision making will be difficult. 103 Recommendations for Further Research If this study was to be replicated, the recommendation would be made that some form of personal contact be made with each school. A response rate greater than 20% would enhance the credibility of the conclusions drawn from this study. Attempts to overcome this problem were made by following Dillman's (1974) suggestions for conducting mail survey questionnaires. (The procedure used was discussed in Chapter 3). Goodlad (1975) suggested that teachers see little value in research and data collection and therefore choose not to participate. At any rate, a face-to-face interaction would help to increase the return rate. One of the problems with this study was that teachers were not asked to respond to the questions regarding pedagogical and teaching efficacy with a particular focus. It was suggested that this flaw is what contributed to the fact that neither efficacy construct discriminated among the three types of schools. For this reason, it is suggested that further study be conducted between instructional leadership and teacher efficacy focusing on a specific area such as reading or math. The two questions used in the studies by Armour et al. (1976) and Berman et al. (1977) which found a significant relationship between teacher efficacy and student learning should also be included besides the questions developed by Gibson and Denbo (1984). There was no difference found between the leadership of improving and stable schools. One of the explanations offered suggested that this could be due to the level of conflict that exists in improving schools. Research that centers on instructional leadership in improving, stable, and declining schools should also include some measure for the level of conflict which exists in the buildings. 104 Research dealing with collective efficacy is minimal. As Bandura (1986) suggests, great gains in understanding this concept could be made if organizations were studied where collective efficacy was developing, declining, or where it had been restored. Not only would this add to the understanding of the theory of efficacy but would also contribute to the understanding of the school improvement process. This study used a state criterion referenced text for school selection. It would be desirable if additional forms of student performance were used in classifying schools as either improving, stable, or declining. APPENDICES 105 APPENDIX A Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale 106 Appendix A Prinicipal Instructional Management Rating Scale (Used with permission from Philip Hallinger) Almost Almost Never Always W 1. To what extent does your principal develop a focused set of annual school-wide goals? 1 2 3 4 5 2. To what extent does your principal frame the school's goals in terms of staff responsibilities for meeting them? 1 2 3 4 5 3. To what extent does your principal use needs assessments or other systematic methods to secure staff input on goal development? 1 2 3 4 5 . 4. To what extent does your principal use data on student academic performance when developing the school's academic goals? 1 2 3 4 5 5. To what extent does your principal develop goals that are easily translated into classroom objectives by teachers? 1 2 3 4 5 W 6. To what extent does your principal communicate the school's mission effectively to members of the school community? 1 2 3 4 5 7. To what extent does your principal discuss the school's academic goals with teachers at faculty meetings? 1 2 3 4 5 8. To what extent does your principal refer to the school's academic goals when making curricular decisions with teachers? 1 2 3 4 5 9. To what extent does your principal ensure that the school's academic goals are reflected in highly visible displays in the school (e.g. posters or bulletin boards emphasizing reading or math)? 1 2 3 4 5 10. To what extent does your principal refer to the school's goals in student assemblies? 1 2 3 4 5 107 Almost Almost Never Always W 11. To what extent does your principal ensure that the classroom priorities of teachers are consistent with the stated goals of the school? 1 2 3 4 5 12. To what extent does your principal review work products when evaluating classroom instruction? 1 2 3 4 5 13. To what extent does your principal conduct informal observations in classrooms on a regular basis (informal observations are unscheduled, last at least 5 minutes, and may or may not involve written feedback or a formal conference)? 1 2 3 4 5 14. To what extent does your principal point out specific strengths in teacher instructional practices in post observation feedback (e.g., in conferences or written evaluations)? 1 2 3 4 5 15. To what extent does your principal point out weaknesses in teacher instructional practices in post observation feedback (e.g., in conferences or in written evaluations)? 1 2 3 4 5 WM 16. To what extent does your principal make clear who is responsible for coordinating the curriculum across grade levels (e.g., the principal, the vice principal or teacher-leader)? 1 2 3 4 5 17. To what extent does your principal draw upon the results of school-wide testing when making curricular decisions? 1 2 3 4 5 18. To what extent does your principal monitor the classroom curriculum to see that it covers the school's curricular objectives? 1 2 3 4 5 19. To what extent does your principal assess the overlap between the school's curricular objectives and the school's achievement tests? 1 2 3 4 5 20. To what extent does your principal practice actively in the review of curriculum materials? 1 2 3 4 5 108 Almost Almost Never Always MW 21. To what extent does your principal meet individually with teachers to discuss student academic progress 1 2 3 4 5 22. To what extent does your principal discuss the item analysis of tests with the faculty to identify curricular strengths and weaknesses? 1 2 3 4 5 23. To what extent does your principal use test results to assess progress toward school goals? 1 2 3 4 5 24. To what extent does your principal inform teachers of the school's performance results in written form (e.g., in a memo or newsletter)? 1 2 3 4 5 25. To what extent does your principal inform students of school's test results? 1 2 3 4 5 W 26. To what extent does your principal limit interruptions of instructional time by public address announcements? 1 2 3 4 5 27. To what extent does your principal ensure that students are not called to the office during instructional time? 1 2 3 4 5 28. To what extent does your principal ensure that tardy and truant students suffer specific consequences for missing instructional time? 1 2 3 4 5 29. To what extent does your principal encourage teachers to use instructional time for teaching and practicing new skills and concepts? 1 2 3 4 5 30. To what extent does your principal limit the intrusion of extra- and co-curricular activities on instructional time? 1 2 3 4 5 W 31. To what extent does your principal take time to talk with students and teachers during recess and breaks? 1 2 3 4 5 109 Almost Almost Never Always 32. To what extent does your principal visit classrooms to discuss school issues with teachers and students? 1 2 3 4 5 33. To what extent does your principal attend/participate in extra- and co-curricular activities? 1 2 3 4 5 34. To what extent does your principal cover a class for teachers until a late or substitute teacher arrives? 1 2 3 4 5 35. To what extent does your principal tutor students or provide direct instruction to class? 1 2 3 4 5 W 36. To what extent does your principal reinforce superior performance by teachers in staff . meetings, newsletters, and/or memos? 1 2 3 4 5 37. To what extent does your principal compliment teachers privately for their efforts or performance? 1 2 3 4 5 38. To what extent does your principal acknowledge teachers' exceptional performance by writing memos for their personnel files? 1 2 3 4 5 39. To what extent does your principal reward special efforts by teachers with opportunities for professional recognition? 1 2 3 4 5 40. To what extent does your principal create professional growth opportunities for teachers as a reward for special contributions to the school? 1 2 3 4 5 W 41. To what extent does your principal ensure that in-service activities attended by the staff are consistent with the school's academic goals? 1 2 3 4 5 42. To what extent does your principal actively support the use of skills acquired during' in-service training in the classroom? 1 2 3 4 5 110 Almost Almost Never Always 43. To what extent does your principal obtain the participation of the whole staff in important in-service activities? 1 2 3 4 5 44. To what extent does your principal lead or attend teacher in-service activities concerned with instruction? 1 2 3 4 5 45. To what extent does your principal set aside time at faculty meetings for teachers to share ideas or information from in-service activities? 1 2 3 4 5 W 46. To what extent does your principal recognize students who do superior academic work with formal rewards such as an honor roll or mention in the principal's newsletter? 1 2 3 4 5 47. To what extend does your principal use assemblies to honor students for academic accomplishments or behavior or citizenship? 1 2 3 4 5 48. To what extent does your principal recognize superior student achievement or improvement by seeing students in the office with their work? 1 2 3 4 5 49. To what extent does your principal contact parents to communicate improved or exemplary student performance or contributions? 1 2 3 4 5 50. To what extent does your principal support teachers actively in their recognition and/or reward of student contributions to and accomplishments in class? 1 2 3 4 5 111 APPENDIX B Enhancing Collaboration and Support 1. Appendix B Enhancing Collaboration and Support (Adapted from Azumi and Madhere, 1982) To what extent does your principal seek teacher input concerning changes which affect their job? 2. To what extent does your principal encourage and promote the sharing of ideas among teachers? 3. To what extent does your principal utilize a team oriented approach to problem solving? 4. To what extent does your principal communicate so that effective two-way exchanges occur between administrators and teachers? 5. To what extent does your principal share information with teachers which assists them in their own problem solving? Almost Never 1 2 Almost Always 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 113 APPENDIX C Staff Assessment Questionnaire Appendix C Staff Assessment Questionaire (Used with permission from Richard Andrews) 1. 'District-adopted textbooks guide my planning of instruction. 2. ‘Our school provides its students with a strong multiethnic-multicultural education. 3. ’I teach basically the same content that is taught in other classes at the same grade or same course in my school. 4. ‘Staff members of our school are sensitive to the needs and concerns of both sexes. 5. ‘Staff at our school have the same expectations of academic achievement for both female and male students 6. Criterion-referenced tests are used to assess basic skills throughout the school. 7. ‘The curriculum of our school is multiethnic and multicultural. 8. Student assessment information (such as criterion- referenced tests, skill checklists. etc.) is used regularly to give specific student feedback and plan appropriate instruction. 9. My school has effective programs for students who are in need of remediation. 10. 'Our school's staff examines instructional materials for ethnic and racial bias. 11. ‘Assemblies and special activities at our school reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity in the community. 12. The principal uses test results to recommend changes in the instructional program. 13. My school has effective procedures for identifying students with special learning needs. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 14. ‘The teaching styles in our school are sensitive to the needs and concerns of both sexes. 15. Multiple assessment methods are used to assess student progress in basic skills (e.g., criterion- referenced tests, work samples, mastery checklists, etc.). 16. Teachers in my school frequently assess the progress of students in basic skills. 17. The principal in my school is aware of student progress in relation to instructional objectives. 18. ‘What I teach in my class contributes to the content of the grade or course that follows it. 19. ‘Our school's curriculum helps students view ideas from diverse ethnic perspectives and points of view. 20. ‘Staff members of our school are sensitive to ethnic and cultural differences. 21. My school is responsive to students with special Ieaming needs. 22. Staff review and analyze test results to plan instructional program changes. 23. Students with special learning needs in my class are not receiving the instructional program they need. 24. ‘The teaching styles in our school are sensitive to the ethnic and cultural diversity of our students. 25. ‘District curriculum documents guide my planning of instruction. 26. ‘The atmosphere of our school is responsive to cultural, ethnic and language differences. 27. ‘Procedures used to motivate students are fair to both sexes. ' Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 ' 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 28. ‘What I teach in my class builds upon the content of the grade or course that precedes it. 29. ‘Bulletin boards and other displays in our school reflect ethnic and cultural pluralism. 30. People in my school are willing to listen to the ideas and feelings of others, even when they disagree. 31. Most students in my school will perform at about the national average in academic achievement. 32. Students cut a lot of classes. 33. No challenge is too tough for our staff. 34. My principal leads formal discussions concerning instruction and student achievement. 35. Many of my students will probably leave school before high school graduation. 36. Most students in my school are capable of mastering grade-level academic objectives. 37. Vandalism is a problem in my school. 38. People in our building seek out training experiences that increase their ability to educate students. 39. Teachers in my school turn to the principal with instructional concerns or problems. 40. Teachers know and treat students as individuals. 41. I would transfer to another school if I could. 42. My principal provides frequent feedback regarding my classroom performance. 43. Teachers in my school generally believe most students are able t master the basic reading/math skills. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 117 44. I expect that most students in my school will perform above the national average in academic achievement. 45. Our staff holds itself to the highest professional standards. 46. My principal assist faculty in interpreting test results. 47. We are committed to working together as a faculty. 48. Nearly all of my students will be at or above grade level by the end of the year. 49. Drug and alcohol abuse are problems in this school. 50. My principal is an effective disciplinarian. 51. People in our building work hard to maintain good relations with parents. 52. Discipline is fair and related to violations of agreed-upon rules. 53. Teacher in other schools would rate my school's level of academic achievement as good. 54. Stealing is a problem in this school. 55. My principal is an important instructional resource in our school. 56. A positive feeling permeates this school. 57. I am satisfied with the variety of extracurricular activities at this school. 58. My principal promotes staff development activities for faculty. 59. My principal communicates clearly to me regarding instructional matters. 60. Teachers and staff members take a real interest in their students' future. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 118 61. Staff in our building have a great deal of trust. 62. My principal is accessible to discuss matters dealing with instruction. 63. My principal encourages the use of different instructional strategies. 64. I enjoy working at this school. 65. Student behavior is generally positive at this school. 66. Most of my students will show at least one year's growth in academic achievement this year. 67. My principal mobilizes support to help achieve academic goals. 68. Discussions with my principal result in improved instructional practice. 69. If a person in the building runs into trouble, someone helps him or her out. 70. The academic ability of students in my school compares favorably with students in other schools. 71. I expect most students in my school will perform below the national average in academic achievement. 72. My principal makes frequent classroom observations. 73. Most of the students in my school will ultimately graduate from high school. 74. My principal is knowledgeable about instructional resources. 75. Students can count on staff members to listen to their side of the story and be fair. 76. The district can count on us to give our best. 77. My principal's evaluation of my performance helps me improve my teaching. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5- 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 78. Students in my school abide by school rules. 1 2 3 4 5 79. My principal is a strong instructional leader. 1 2 3 4 5 80. My school building is neat, bright, clean and comfortable. 1 2 3 4 5 81. Staff in our school are proud of what they do. 1 2 3 4 5 82. My principal is an active participant in staff development. 1 2 3 4 5 83. We are ready to learn to do our jobs in a new way if it will meet the needs of students. 1 2 3 4 5 84. Staff and students do not view security as an issue in my school. 1 2 3 4 5 85. Staff in this school really care about how much ‘ students learn. 1 2 3 4 5 86. This school makes students enthusiastic about learning. 1 2 3 4 5 87. My principal is a “visible presence“ in our building to both staff and students. 1 2 3 4 5 88. Whatever it takes. people in our building solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5 89. I feel there are procedures open to me to go to a higher authority if a decision has been made that seems unfair. 1 2 3 4 5 90. My principal uses clearly communicated criteria for judging my performance. 1 2 3 4 5 91. My principal provides a clear vision of what our school is all about. 1 2 3 4 5 92. The physical condition of my school is generally pleasant and well-kept. 1 2 3 4 5 93. Problems in this school are recognized and worked on. 1 2 3 4 5 94. People in this building are willing to help out wherever they are needed. 1 2 3 4 5 120 APPENDIX D Teacher Efficacy Scale 121 Appendix D Teacher Efficacy Scale (Used with permission from Sherri Gibson) Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree W 1. If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept. 1 2 3 4 5 2. When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found more effective teaching approaches. 1 2 3 4 5 3. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 4. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson. 1 2 3 4 5 5. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort. 1 2 3 4 5 6. If a student in my classroom becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect him/her quickly. 1 2 3 4 5 7. If one of my students could not do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty. 1 2 3 4 5 8. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment. I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level. 1 2 3 4 5 9. When a student gets a better grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teaching that student. 1 2 3 4 5 W 10. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement. 1 2 3 4 5 122 11. If students are not disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any discipline. 12. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment. 13. The amount that a student can learn is primarily related to family background. 14. The influence of a student's home experience can be overcome by good teaching. 15. If parents would do more with their children, I could do more. 16. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students. Stongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 123 APPENDIX E Form A - Questionnaire for Study 124 National Center For Effective Schools Research and Development 2199 Jolly Road, Suite #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517)349-8841 Dear Teacher, Thank you for taking approximately 20 minutes out of your busy schedule to complete this questionnaire. This study is being conducted under the supervision of Michigan State University and is being funded in part by the National Center for Effective Schools. Please notice that there is no place for your name on this questionnaire. All responses will be treated with strict confidence and you will remain anonymous in the findings. All results will be reported by groups. Findings of this study will be made available to participants on request using the above guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to see if a relationship exists between the behaviors of the building principal and beliefs about teaching held by teachers. This questionnaire is designed to provide a profile of principal instructional leadership as well as give you the opportunity to express your views on some beliefs held by teachers. There are no right or wrong answers, so please do not hesitate to respond frankly. ' Read each statement carefully. Then circle the number that indicates your feelings. 5 represents “Almost Always”, 4 represents ”Always”, 3 represents “Sometimes”, 2 represents 'Seldom', and 1 represents “Almost Never“. PLEASE DO NOT OMIT ANY ITEMS. After completing the questionnaire, slip it into the envelope provided, seal it, and return it to the school secretary. The sealed envelopes will then be returned to the National Center for Effective Schools. Questions or concerns that you might have by participating in the study can be answered by contacting the National Center for Effective Schools. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. (A) School Name: (B) Years working with the current principal at the end of this school year: _1-2 _3-4 _5-9 _10-15 _ more than 15 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (C) Years experience as a teacher at the end of this school year: _1-2 _3-4 _5-9 _10-15 _ more than 15 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (D) Grade level you teach: _ K-1 _2-3 4-6 __ Special Education _ Specials (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Thank you. 125 I. FRAMETHESCHOOLGOALS 1. To what extent does your principal develop a focused set of annual school-wide goals? 2. To what extent does your principal frame the school's goals in terms of staff responsibilities for meeting them? 3. To what extent does your principal use needs assessments or other systematic methods to secure staff input on goal development? 4. To what extent does your principal use data on student academic performance when developing the school's academic goals? 5. To what extent does your principal develop goals that are easily translated into classroom objectives by teachers? II. COMMUNICATE THE SCHOOL GOALS 6. To what extent does your principal communicate the school's mission effectively to members of the school community? 7. To what extent does your principal discuss the school's academic goals with teachers at faculty meetings? 8. To what extent does your principal refer to the school's academic goals when making curricular decisions with teachers? 9. To what extent does your principal ensure that the school's academic goals are reflected in highly visible displays in the school (e.g. posters or bulletin boards emphasizing reading or math)? 10. To what extent does your principal refer to the school's goals in student assemblies? Almost Never 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Almost Always 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 126 Ill. SUPERVISE 8: EVALUATE INSTRUCTION 11. To what extent does your principal ensure that the classroom priorities of teachers are consistent with the stated goals of the school? 12. To what extent does your principal review work products when evaluating classroom instruction? 13. To what extent does your principal conduct informal observations in classrooms on a regular basis (informal observations are unscheduled, last at least 5 minutes, and may or may not involve written feedback or a formal conference)? 14. To what extent does your principal point out specific strengths in teacher instructional practices in post observation feedback (e.g., in conferences or written evaluations)? 15. To what extent does your principal point out weaknesses in teacher instructional practices in post observation feedback (e.g., in conferences or in written evaluations)? IV. COORDINATE THE CURRICULUM 16. To what extent does your principal make clear who is responsible for coordinating the curriculum across grade levels (e.g., the principal, the vice principal or teacher-leader)? 17. To what extent does your principal draw upon the results of school-wide testing when making curricular decisions? 18. To what extent does your principal monitor the classroom curriculum to see that it covers the school's curricular objectives? 19. To what extent does your principal assess the overlap between the school's curricular objectives and the school's achievement tests? Almost Never 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Almost Always 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 127 20. To what extent does your principal practice actively in the review of curriculum materials? V. MONITOR STUDENT PROGRESS 21. To what extent does your principal meet individually with teachers to discuss student academic progress 22. To what extent does your principal discuss the item analysis of tests with the faculty to identify curricular strengths and weaknesses? 23. To what extent does your principal use test results to assess progress toward school goals? 24. To what extent does your principal inform teachers of the school's performance results in written form (e.g.,in a memo or newsletter)? 25. To what extent does your principal inform students of school's test results? VI. PROTECT INSTRUCTIONAL TIME 26. To what extent does your principal limit interruptions of instructional time by public address announcements? 27. To what extent does your principal ensure that students are not called to the office during instructional time? 28. To what extent does your principal ensure that tardy and truant students sufler specific consequences for missing instructional time? 29. To what extent does your principal encourage teachers to use instructional time for teaching and practicing new skills and concepts? 30. To what extent does your principal limit the intrusion of extra- and co-curricular activities on instructional time? Almost Never 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Almost Always 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 128 VII. MAINTAIN HIGH VISIBILITY 31. To what extent does your principal take time to talk with students and teachers during recess and breaks? 32. To what extent does your principal visit classrooms to discuss school issues with teachers and students? 33. To what extent does your principal attend/participate in extra- and co-curricular activities? 34. To what extent does your principal cover a class for teachers until a late or substitute teacher arrives? 35. To what extent does your principal tutor students or provide direct instruction to class? VIII. PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHERS 36. To what extent does your principal reinforce superior performance by teachers in staff meetings, newsletters, and/or memos? 37. To what extent does your principal compliment teachers privately for their efforts or performance? 38. To what extent does your principal acknowledge teachers' exceptional performance by writing memos for their personnel files? 39. To what extent does your principal reward special efforts by teachers with opportunities for professional recognition? 40. To what extent does your principal create professional growth opportunities for teachers as a reward for special contributions to the school? Almost Never 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Almost Always 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 129 IX. PROMOTE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 41. To what extent does your principal ensure that in-service activities attended by the staff are consistent with the school's academic goals? 42. To what extent does your principal actively support the use of skills acquired during in-service training in the classroom? 43. To what extent does your principal obtain the participation of the whole staff in important in-service activities? 44. To what extent does your principal lead or attend teacher in-service activities concerned with instruction? 45. To what extent does your principal set aside time at faculty meetings for teachers to share ideas or information from in-service activities? X. PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR LEARNING 46. To what extent does your principal recognize students who do superior academic work with formal rewards such as an honor roll or mention in the principal's newsletter? 47. To what extend does your principal use assemblies to honor students for academic accomplishments or behavior or citizenship? 48. To what extent does your principal recognize superior student achievement or improvement by seeing students in the office with their work? 49. To what extent does your principal contact parents to communicate improved or exemplary student performance or contributions? 50. To what extent does your principal support teachers actively in their recognition arid/or reward of student contributions to and accomplishments in class? Almost Never 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Almost Always 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 130 Almost Almost Never Always XI. COLLABORATION AND PROBLEM-SOLVING 51. To what extent does your principal seek teacher input concerning changes which affect their job? 1 2 3 4 5 52. To what extent does your principal encourage and promote the sharing of ideas among teachers? 1 2 3 4 5 53. To what extent does your principal utilize a team oriented approach to problem solving? 1 2 3 4 5 54. To what extent does your principal communicate so that effective two-way exchanges occur between administrators and teachers? 1 2 3 4 5 55. To what extent does your principal share information with teachers which assists them in their own problem solving? 1 2 3 4 5 The following statements deal with beliefs held by most teachers. Please respond to each statement by marking how strongly you agree or disagree. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Xll. TEACHER BELIEFS 56. If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept. 1 2 3 4 5 57. When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found more effective teaching approaches. 1 2 3 4 5 58. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 59. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson. 1 2 3 4 5 60. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort. 1 2 3 4 5 131 61. If a student in my classroom becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect him/her quickly. 62. If one of my students could not do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty. 63. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level. 64. When a student gets a better grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teaching that student. 65. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement. 66. If students are not disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any discipline. 67. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment. 68. The amount that a student can learn is primarily related to family background. 69. The influence of a student's home experience can be overcome by good teaching. 70. If parents would do more with their children, I could do more. 71. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 132 APPENDIX F Form B - Questionnaire for Study 133 National Center For Effective Schools Research and Development 2199 Jolly Road, Suite #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517)349-8841 Dear Teacher, Thank you for taking approximately 20 minutes out of your busy schedule to complete this questionnaire. This study is being conducted under the supervision of Michigan State University and is being funded in part by the National Center for Effective Schools. Please notice that there is no place for your name on this questionnaire. All responses will be treated with strict confidence and you will remain anonymous in the findings. All results will be reported by groups. Findings of this study will be made available to participants on request using the above guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to see if a relationship exists between the behaviors of the building principal and beliefs about teaching held by teachers. This questionnaire is designed to provide a profile of principal instructional leadership as well as give you the opportunity to express your views on some beliefs held by teachers. There are no right or wrong answers, so please do not hesitate to respond frankly. Read each statement carefully. Then circle the number that indicates your feelings. 5 represents “Strongly Agree“, 4 represents “Agree“, 3 represents ”Undecided”, 2 represents 'Disagree', and 1 represents “Strongly Disagree“. PLEASE DO NOT OMIT ANY ITEMS. After completing the questionnaire, slip it into the envelope provided, seal it, and return it to the school secretary. The sealed envelopes will then be returned to the National Center for Effective Schools. Questions or concerns that you might have by participating in the study can be answered by contacting the National Center for Effective Schools. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. (A) School Name: (B) Years working with the current principal at the end of this school year: _1-2 _3-4 _5-9 _10-15 _ more than 15 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (C) Years experience as a teacher at the end of this school year: 1-2 3-4 5-9 _10-15 _ more than 15 77) 75)- (3) (4) (5) (D) Grade level you teach: K-1 _2-3 _4-6 _Special Education Specials (1 I (2) (3) (4) (5) Thank you 134 1. If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept. 2. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement. 3. When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found more effective teaching approaches. 4. If students are not disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any discipline. 5. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students. 6. Criterion-referenced tests are used to assess basic skills throughout the school. 7. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment. 8. Student assessment information (such as criterion- referenced tests, skill checklists, etc.) is used regularly to give specific student feedback and plan appropriate instruction. 9. My school has effective programs for students who are in need of remediation. 10. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson. 11. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort. 12. The principal uses test results to recommend changes in the instructional program. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 135 13. My school has effective procedures for identifying students with special Ieaming needs. 14. If a student in my classroom becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect him/her quickly. 15. Multiple assessment methods are used to assess student progress in basic skills (e.g., criterion- referenced tests, work samples, mastery checklists, etc). 16. Teachers in my school frequently assess the progress of students in basic skills. 17. The principal in my school is aware of student progress in relation to instructional objectives. 18. The amount that a student can learn is primarily related to family background. 19. If one of my students could not do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty. 20. The influence of a student's home experience can be overcome by good teaching. 21. My school is responsive to students with special Ieaming needs. 22. Staff review and analyze test results to plan instructional program changes. 23. Students with special learning needs in my class are not receiving the instructional program they need. 24. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level. 25. If parents would do more with their children, I could do more. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 136 26. When a student gets a better grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teaching that student. 27. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students. 28. People in my scth are willing to listen to the ideas and feelings of others, even when they disagree. 29. Most students in my school will perform at about the national average in academic achievement. 30. Students cut a lot of classes. 31 . No challenge is too tough for our staff. 32. My principal leads formal discussions concerning instruction and student achievement. 33. Many of my students will probably leave school before high school graduation. 34. Most students in my school are capable of mastering grade-level academic objectives. 35. Vandalism is a problem in my school. 36. People in our building seek out training experiences that increase their ability to educate students. 37. Teachers in my school turn to the principal with instructional concerns or problems. 38. Teachers know and treat students as individuals. 39. I would transfer to another school if I could. 40. My principal provides frequent feedback regarding my classroom performance. 41. Teachers in my school generally believe most students are able 1 master the basic reading/math skills. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 137 42. I expect that most students in my school will perform above the national average in academic achievement. 43. Our staff holds itself to the highest professional standards. 44. My principal assist faculty in interpreting test resuhs. 45. We are committed to working together as a faculty. 46. Nearly all of my students will be at or above grade level by the end of the year. 47. Drug and alcohol abuse are problems in this school. 48. My principal is an effective disciplinarian. 49. People in our building work hard to maintain good relations with parents. 50. Discipline is fair and related to violations of agreed-upon rules. 51. Teacher in other schools would rate my school's level of academic achievement as good. 52. Stealing is a problem in this school. 53. My principal is an important instructional resource in our school. 54. A positive feeling permeates this school. 55. I am satisfied with the variety of extracurricular activities at this school. 56. My principal promotes staff development activities for faculty. 57. My principal communicates clearly to me regarding instructional matters. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 ’5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 138 58. Teachers and staff members take a real interest in their students' future. 59. Staff in our building have a great deal of trust. 60. My principal is accessible to discuss matters dealing with instruction. 61. My principal encourages the use of different instructional strategies. 62. I enjoy working at this school. 63. Student behavior is generally positive at this school. 64. Most of my students will show at least one year's growth in academic achievement this year. 65. My principal mobilizes support to help achieve academic goals. 66. Discussions with my principal result in improved instructional practice. 67. If a person in the building runs into trouble, someone helps him or her out. 68. The academic ability of students in my school compares favorably with students in other schools. 69. I expect most students in my school will perform below the national average in academic achievment. 70. My principal makes frequent classroom observations. 71. Most of the students in my school will ultimately graduate from high school. 72. My principal is knowledgeable about instructional resources. 73. Students can count on staff members to listen to their side of the story and be fair. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 . 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 139 74. The district can count on us to give our best. 75. My principal's evaluation of my performance helps me improve my teaching. 76. Students in my scth abide by school rules. 77. My principal is a strong instructional leader. 78. My school building is neat, bright, clean and comfortable. 79. Staff in our school are proud of what they do. 80. My principal is an active participant in staff development. 81. We are ready to learn to do our jobs in a new way if it will meet the needs of students. 82. Staff and students do not view security as an issue in my school. 83. Staff in this school really care about how much students learn. 84. This school makes students enthusiastic about learning. 85. My principal is a "visible presence" in our building to both staff and students. 86. Whatever it takes, people in our building solve problems. 87. I feel there are procedures open to me to go to a higher authority if a decision has been made that seems unfair. 88. My principal uses clearly communicated criteria for judging my performance. 89. My principal provides a clear vision of what our school is all about. Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Strongly Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 ‘ 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 140 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 90. The physical condition of my school is generally pleasant and well-kept. 1 2 3 4 5 91. Problems in this school are recognized and worked on. 1 2 3 4 5 92. People in this building are willing to help out wherever they are needed. 1 2 3 4 5 141 APPENDIX G Cover Letter Sent to Principal 142 National Center For Effective Schools Research and Development 2199 Jolly Road, Suite #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517)349-8841 Dear . I am requesting your help and cooperation by allowing the teachers at your school to participate in this study which is being conducted under the supervision of Michigan State University and is being funded in part by the National Center for Effective Schools. As a building principal myself, I realize that this request is one more thing to do. That is why the study has been designed so there is minimal work for you. I also recognize the importance of confidentiality and anonymity. Responses from each school will be treated with strict confidence and all participants will remain anonymous. Your name, the teachers' names, nor the school name will not be used in the findings. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a relationship exists between the behaviors exhibited by principals and beliefs about teaching held by most teachers. There are no right or wrong answers to the items on the questionaires (there are two different forms to the questionaire). ‘ Your involvement will consist of the following: 1) Complete the two questions on the enclosed card and return it with the teacher questionnaires. (If this is your first year at this building, please return the questionnaires in the box provided to the National Center for Effective Schools.) 2) Ask the school secretary if she/he would collect the sealed envelopes from the teachers, package them in the box provided and return the completed questionnaires to the National Center. 3) Distribute to each teacher an envelope and questionnaire. (I would be grateful if this could be done at the end of one of your faculty meetings.) In recognition of you and your staff's professional efforts, your school will receive a complimentary sample of the Effective School Abstracts upon return of the completed questionaires. These abstracts review current articles related to instruction, curriculum, and school improvement. Results of the study will also be available to participating schools upon request. Thank you for your time and effort. I truly appreciate your cooperation in this venture. Sincerely, 143 APPENDIX H Demographic Card Sent to Principal 144 PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: A. SCHOOL NAME B. At the end of this school year, how many years have you served as principal for this school? 1 2-4 5-9 10—15 15+ C. At the end of this school year, how many years of experience will you have as a building principal? 1 2-4 5-9 10—15 15+ D. Has this school experienced any significant changes (30% or more) since 1984 in the nature of clients (828, minority, etc.) which the school serves? NO YES If so, please describe those changes: E. Vbuld you like a summary report of this study‘s findings? I NO YES 145 APPENDIX I Reminder Card Sent to Teachers 146 .vouuuuounao nuuuouu aw nouuuuuaoou use» .Howunovuunou awn-on nag: can uuouuonla on. doacoanuu uao» .oo oaov mucous. you use: so» ma ouuuaaouunuae use» «nuns-cu cu unusual row a cane vacuum - $5.444 36 S .»o>u=a use» arduauuu van scandalou accouuo c>og so» an ac» sauna .uvaua Hauouuoe a non uuuoaaouuaoaa a eosuouuu so» can once tow < . ss. $3.: UST OF REFERENCES 147 UST OF REFERENCES American Psychological Association. (1985). Ethical principles of psychologists InniredemeLAIneueamEsxcheleeists. Washington DC Andrews, R, Soder. R. Jacoby, D., Rosovsky,C., 88amburg,J. (1987). Iechjcal ManuaL_SdIeeLSelf_Asssssmem_lnstrumems. University ofWasltlneton College of Education. Seattle Washington. Andrews, R., Soder. R., 8. Jacoby. D. (.1986) W I-. I00 - . Io . 0 II . I: :II I . II 'I on Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. Armour, D., Conry- -Orsegaera, P., Cox, M., King, N, McDonnell, L., Pascal, A. Pauly, E &Zellman G (1976) Analysis_d_the_SeheeLBLe1eLLsd_Beadine_EmeLam_in Weds. Rand Corporation Santa Monica CA Ashton, P., Webb, R., 8. Doda, N. (1982a). A study of teachers' sense of efficacy: Final report (Vol. 1). Florida University. Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, N. (1982b). A study of teachers' sense of efficacy: Final report (Vol. 2). Florida University. Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. .IeumaLd.IeaeheLEdueatien. 35(5)=28-32- Azumi J-. &Madltere S (1982) EmiessienahsmzeeueLandmerfeLmaneeJne OIII0°=I‘-I oOII.I oi: 0|. -— I‘ OIOIOII «1' CI W Paper presented at American Educational Research Association conference, Montreal, Canada. Bandura, A. (1977). Self- efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. EsxeheleeieaLBsxiem 84(2):-191215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Esxeheleeisl. 37(2)=122-147. Bandura, A. (1986). Self effIcacy In A. Bandura, Sedaljeundatjensfilneuemjnd Adien;_A_§eeiaLQeenitiILe_IneenI. Prentice Hall lllC 148 Bandura, A., 8 Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic Interest through proximal self-motivation. WW W101. 41(3) 586598. Bennis. W.. & Nanus. B. (1985). Leaders:_lhs_Stralegies_fer_Ialslne_QnaLge. Harper& Row. Berman, P., McLaughlin, W. Bass, G., Pauley, E., 8 Zellman, G. (1977). were on .n cool|o o ,. 0.. .10: o o .1 '0 WW Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership. The teacher's perSPective AmefleanjdueatienaLBeseaLetLJeumal. 24(4) 589 610 Blumberg. A., 8 Greenfield, W. (1980). WWO Win, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Bolman L &Deal T (1984) MedemAeereaehesJeugdeLstaneianLManadne Qmanizatiens. Jossey Bass Publishers. San Francisco. Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., 8 Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal EducatienaLAdministLatixLQuanerlx. 18(3) :-34 64 Brookover, W., Beady, Schweitzer, 8 Wisenbaker. (1979). Warning SmeenLAehIemnenLjehedsQaeMalseamfeLenee. Praeger Publisher New York. Brookover W.. & Lezotte. L (1977) W W College of Urban Development, Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. Bruining, G., 8 Van der Vegt, R. (1987). Implementing complex innovation: Design considerations for an educational intervention. In K. Leithwood and R. Van der Vegt (eds) WWW London: Croom Helm. Cervone, D., 8 Peake, P. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action. The influence of judgement heuristics on self-efficacy judgements and behavior. mam EersenaIILandMaLEsxchelegy. 50(3) :-492 501 Corooran.T. 8- Wilson 8 (1986) W Wm Research for Better Schools. Philadelphia, PA. Deal, T. (1987). Effective school principals: Counselors, engineers, pawnbrokers, poets... .or instructional leader? In W. Greenfield, ed. Wm, W Allyn and Bacon Boston 149 Denbo, M., 8 Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. W 86(2):173-184. Denham, C., 8 Michael, J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model for further research. WW 6:39-63. Dillman, D. Christensen, J., Carpenter, E., 8 Brooks, R. (1974). Increasing mail questionnaire responses: A four state comparison. .Ameueanfiedeleoieal Belfast. 39(5) 7:44 756. Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work and more can. SociaLEQljgy, 9:1-4. Gibson, 8., 8 Denbo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy. A construct validation. JeumaLQf EducatienaLEsyeheleex. 76(4) 569582 GIBSS. G., 3- HOPkins. K- (1934)- W 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Goodlad, J. (1975). WWW McGraw-Hill. New York. Greenfield W (1982) W W. Paper presented at the National Conference on the Principalship. Greenfield, W. (1987). Moral imagination and interpersonal competence: Antecedents to instructional leadership. In W. Greenfield, ed. Warship; WW Allyn and Bacon Boston Guskey. T. (1985). _QentextxaflaemthaLAffeeLMeasureeeLIeaeheLEflieacx. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. Hallinger P (ND) W W Leading Development. Colonel Green Road, RFD. #1, Yorktown Heights, NY. Hallinger, P., 8 Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behaviors of principals. MW 86(2Iz218-247- Hallinger, P., 8 Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership EduealienaLLeadeLshie. 45(2) '-54 61 Latham. G.. 8 Wexley. K. (1981). Ingmasing EtedIIetiIIim Ihreuon Barf: ,1 ML Addison Wesley Publishing Co. Menlo Park, CA. Leithwood, K., 8 Montgomery, 0. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in school improvement. WWW 52(3) :-309 339. 150 Leimw°°d1 K-I 3' M°ni9°m9lvr 0- (1984). WWW effectiveness. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. Likert. Ft. (1967). Ine_l:luman_.QLganizatien;_lts_ManaeemenLane_¥alue. McGraw Hill. Locke, E., Frederick, E. Lee, C., 8 Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on total performance. JeumaLeLAppljedjsychelegx, 69(2 ):22¢ 251. MiehmamEdueatienaLAssessmenLEmetamfianebeels. (N-D-I- Michigan Department of Education. Lansing, Michigan. 48909. MiemgaLEdueatietLDiLeetenLandjuxeCsfiuide. (1988l- Michigan Department of Education. Lansing, Michigan. 48912. Murphy, J. 8 Hallinger, P. (1987). New directions in the professional development of school administrators: A synthesis and suggestions for improvement. In J. Murphy and P Hallinger (eds-I AeereaenesJLAdministLatiILelrainmm Educatm State University of New York Press. Pedhazur. E. (1982). WWW Eredjetjen. 2nd Ed. Holt, Rhinehart, 8 Winston. New York. Porter, A. C. 8 Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Willi). 45(8). 74- 85. Rowan, B., Bossert, S., 8 Dwyer, D. (1983). Research on effective schools. A cautionary note. EducatienaLBeseaLeneL. 12(4I‘24- -31 Bowan B Dwyer D & Bossert S (1982) Metneddeeiealfiensideratiensunfitueies W Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, New York, NY. Sergiovani. T. (1987). Forward. In W. Greenfield, ed. WWI”; Qeneeetsdssuescandmntrexersies. Allyn and Bacon. Inc.. Boston. Tracz. 8.. Gibson. S. (1986). EtieetLeLEtfieaeLeLAeademeAeniexement. Paper presented at the California Educational Research Association Conference. WebortG- (1971). InneLQIty_QnildLen_QatiBe_IaugnLte_Beaez_EeuL$uecesstul $909915. Council for Basic Education. Occasional paper number eighteen. "IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII