MA, a
....a.
V‘nwx‘
. x.~.

. ...~
..|1{r~"

.'

L\'~.l ..afi
-~-...~.L
-»

mu... -.. .- ..
m. ML‘S ’

,t-ui‘

Fink

 

. « Lia.

 

-‘. .1 \.
..A._'V~.T.
.v..\-m..... .1
‘...L~\. ‘

ux

 

 

 

 

2:»: saw"

‘5- J.A..‘.u..- ..
\»~L"~E:...:T.-".
8 ~;X‘\

 

\. ...q -. . “\~.;~r ,

u ,_ , . u §~='.\IKI<AAL

*‘L‘T‘.’ W; .. .3... - ‘ ‘ ‘11)?!» ~

, -~;‘~4 1-: ' .... _ ‘ >

w. u. .... - k - '. —~
\ ..

,_~-\V...:‘...£
4 ! .

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 .

x:«-u <‘

u..-<u.:‘.r.
r . r

 

. - - t 3L“.
«a -- - firm...
u-t : 14-;‘u’u (-..
-.. - - 1

~.-s,
.‘J‘

.‘L

 

 

.»

 

I;

 

_,.Lx

 

 

I I

{a ,- .
'4.“

4 wk. .

.k x
mm

 

 

, .1.
r. ,2:
. , .._.

,,

 

 

.‘1. z A 4-H: _ .
»‘ .....,g

 

2r. .
, um r. w .
M, ,
V ...,
V ‘ ”Wu-
- . - ‘ ’ 7' ‘L
.
.._.~. . ,
. ,

...

 

 

.u>‘
,.:.‘, w
"llll)'r'
wow. I

 

-..a
.....u "_

.. r1:
....
. 'I '1 r—o
- . u. . .
, _. .
H , ,' .
I .
. . ‘ ,IJ ,
I . , ,~, ' .
. , '. r
1 ’4

.
‘ I ‘7

n. ..
t-I’r-rl u

.:.. ‘... ,

; m! «. ',,
"3"" 'e=tu~9
..., .-.-.

..,...,....,

-:
"nun
~ I .

v wl ..w
my». ,.
I

1

mm.

“(...-.....-

n nvxrfln ....«nmv
..., k

(\r

.-

.. . . .

1'ry‘r- . .w .

.. .1“. :4: . .

_, l . ..

p... »
mm!-
a

n
l

‘ .. 'npn .
’ 1 _ ‘ Vurwt'l ”whom
. I ,4 - "a..."
. . -' I

. , J

 

‘
....» .4 ', ‘-;
. "mfg-... . ‘ u- .
...q , ,1 flu." ', .151"
,0, l . w, -~ v -
'. w a “V I:
. u. ,.
wuhnmnu .~ '(-I lxu
,4 .. . up

 

1III/TllllI/lllllllllll

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS REGARDING
THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN INSERVICE EDUCATION
OFFERED BY THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN KUWAIT

presented by

Mohammad S. Al-Ameeri

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Ed0cational Administration

 

fl ‘ Major professor

Date December: 10, 1991

MS U is an Affirmative Action/[Sq ual Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LEBE‘iARY

Michigan State
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
m1, 2w?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
c:\circ\datedm.pm3—p.1

PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND
ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS REGARDING THEIR INVOLVEMENT
IN INSERVICE EDUCATION OFFERED BY THE
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN KUWAIT

By

Mohammad S. Al-Ameeri

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

T991

5&5” é? ZZZ

ABSTRACT

PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND
ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS REGARDING THEIR. INVOLVEMENT
IN INSERVICE EDUCATION OFFERED BY THE
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN KUWAIT

By

Mohammad S. Al-Ameeri

'The researcher’s purpose in conducting this study was to assess
the perceptions of Kuwaiti public secondary school principals and
assistant principals regarding the importance of their involvement
in needs assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation of
current inservice education programs. The researcher also inquired
irrto 'these administrators’ satisfaction with their involvement and
methods being used in the inservice education programs.

The population for the study included all 272 public secondary
schcuil principals and assistant principals employed by the Ministry
of Education in Kuwait for the l989/90 academic year. Of that
number, 204 (75%) participated in the study. A questionnaire was
used in) gather data regarding respondents’ demographic characteris-
tics and their perceptions of their actual involvement in and satis-
facticni with their involvement in various aspects of inservice
education activities delivered by the Ministry of Education in

Kuwait .

 

Mohammad S. Al-Ameeri

The study was primarily descriptive in nature. Because
respondents answered most questionnaire items using an ordinal
Likert-type scale, means and ranks were used to determine level of
importance and extent of involvement. The chi-square test and the
Pearson product-moment correlation analysis were used to test the
statistical relationship between respondents’ involvement and their
satisfaction levels.

Based (Hi the study findings, the following conclusions were
drawn: Public secondary school administrators recognized the impor—
tance of their involvement in inservice education program activities
such as needs assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation.
No actual involvement was perceived in needs assessment or planning,
and actual involvement in implementation was perceived as occurring
only through discussions and occasional workshops. Actual involve-
ment in .evaluation was perceived as being only through question-
naires at the end of each inservice program/cycle. Respondents
expressed dissatisfaction with instruments and techniques and with
their level of involvement in inservice education activities.
Respondents perceived that they attended inservice education pro-
grams without assessment of their needs. They recommended increased
involvement as a step toward improving administrative inservice
education programs in Kuwait. They also recommended that inservice
participants be rewarded with priority for promotion, opportunity

for personal growth, wage increase, and merit pay.

Copyright by
MOHAMMAD S. AL—AMEERI
1992

I dedicate this work to the memory of my father, Salem, whose
faith in my work kept me going in times of doubt and stress.

To the memory of my mother, whose endless love, support, and
constant prayer helped me greatly in my achievement.

And to my wife, "Um-Salem," and my children, Salem, Awatif,

Abdulwahab, and Eman, who make it all worthwhile.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the world, without whose help
and blessing this research would not have been accomplished.

I wish to express my special appreciation to Dr. John H. Suehr,
chairman of the Guidance Committee, for his guidance, encouragement,
direction, and patience. Appreciation is also extended to the
Guidance Committee members, Drs. Louis Romano, J. Allan Beegle, and
Howard Hickey, for their time, constructive criticism, and
understanding.

Acknowledgment also is due to Dr. Khalil Al—Khalily for his
friendly, constructive remarks. Special thanks are extended to all
brothers at the Islamic Center in East Lansing for their prayers and
support.

Special thanks to Jashwa Backakas for his valued assistance
with the data analysis.

I wish to express special thanks to Susan Cooley for her
support and professional work in editing and typing the final drafts
of this dissertation.

Most of all, the warmest appreciation and gratitude are
expressed to my wife, Um-Salem; without her support, encouragement,
and patience this study would not have been realized. Finally, my
deepest appreciation to my children, Salem, Awatif, Abdulwahab, and

Eman, for their impatience, love, and support.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . .................

LIST OF FIGURES .

Chapter
I.

II.

THE PROBLEM . .

Introduction to the Problem ..........

Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

Statement of the Problem ..... . . . . .
Purpose of the Study ............
Research Questions .............
Significance of the Study .....
Assumptions Underlying the Study . .
Delimitations of the Study ........
Definition of Terms ............
Organization of the Study .....

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........

Introduction ...............
Inservice Education ............
Defining Inservice Education
The Need for Inservice Education . .
The Needs-Assessment Phase of Inservice
Education . ................
The Planning Phase of Inservice Education .

The Implementation Phase of Inservice Education :

Selecting Activities for Inservice Education
Sessions . . ............. .
The Evaluation Phase of Inservice Education .
A Theory for Inservice Education Programs . .
Theories of Motivation for Inservice Education
A Conceptual Framework for Involvement . .
Principals’ Centers as Models for Involvement .
Human and Resource Development in Kuwait
Introduction . .............
Composition of Kuwait’s Population . . .
The Need for Development Planning . . . . . . .

vi

ooooooooooooooooooo

...................

 

_1_J_.r
N-‘Oko‘o‘m-J-J

 

Trends Toward Education and Training ...... 85
The Educational System in Kuwait ........ 86
Educational Administration and Leadership . . . . 88
Conclusion ................... 103

The Present Status of Administrative Inservice
Education in Kuwait .............. 103

The Role of the Training Center in Preparing

School Administrators ............. 107
Chapter Summary .................. 109
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ........... 111
Introduction ................... 111
Research Questions ................ 111
The Study Population ............... 113
Research Design .................. 114
The Research Questionnaire ............ 115
Development and Validation ........... 115
Content of the Instrument ............ 117
Reliability ................... 118
Data—Collection Procedures ............ 120
Data-Analysis Procedures ............. 121
Summary ...................... 123
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA .......... 124
Introduction ................... 124
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents . . 124
Results Pertaining to the Research Questions . . . 127
Research Question 1 ............... 127
Research Question 2 ............... 129
Research Question 3 ............... 130
Research Question 4 ............... 132
Research Question 5 ............... 134
Research Question 6 ............... 136
Research Question 7 ............... 138
Research Question 8 ............... 140
Research Question 9 ............... 142
Research Question 10 .............. 144
Research Question 11 .............. 145
Research Question 12 .............. 148
Summary ...................... 154
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 157
Summary ...................... 157
Study Population ................ 157
Instrumentation ................. 157

vii

 

Page

Data Collection ................. 158

Data Analysis .................. 158

Summary of the Findings .............. 159

Conclusions .................... 164

Recommendations for Practice ........... 168

Suggestions for Further Research ......... 169
APPENDICES

A. PRETEST COMMENTS .................. 170

B. ARABIC AND ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . 171

C. QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTERS IN ARABIC AND ENGLISH . . 192

D. FOLLOW-UP LETTERS .................. 195

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 197

viii

Table
2.1

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of the Ministry of Education’s Budget to

the State Budget in Kuwait .............

School Administrators’, Supervisors’, and Directors’
Perceptions of Various Aspects of Educational
Administration in Kuwait .......... .

Distribution of Respondents by Demographic Charac-
teristics ...................

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Importance of School
Administrators’ Involvement in Four Inservice
Education Activities . . . . . . . . . .....

Respondents’ Perceived Involvement in Specific
Needs— Assessment Activities . . . . .....

Respondents’ Perceived Involvement in Specific
Planning-Process Activities . . . . .

Respondents’ Perceived Involvement With Specific
Instructional Methods Used in Inservice Educa-
tion Programs .......... . . .....

Respondents’ Perceived Involvement in the Evalua—
tion of Inservice Education Programs .

Results of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Analysis for the Relationship Between Respondents’
Involvement in Four Activities of Inservice Edu—
cation and Their Satisfaction With That Level
of Involvement ...............

Respondents’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Their
Involvement in Inservice Education Activities

Respondents’ Perceptions That Certain Techniques/
Instruments Are Used in Identifying Public
Secondary School Administrators’ Inservice
Education Needs ........ . . . . .

Page

85

89

125

128

130

131

133

135

137

139

141

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Use of Selected
Instructional/Training Methods in Implementing
Administrative Inservice Education Programs

Respondents’ Perceptions of the Use of Selected
Techniques/Instruments in Evaluating Adminis-
trative Inservice Education Programs .....

Chi-Square Results for the Relationship Between
Respondents’ Satisfaction With the Techniques
Used in Administrative Inservice Education
Activities and Respondents’ Satisfaction With
Their Level of Involvement in Those Activities .

Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement With Recom-
mendations for Improvement of Inservice
Education Programs in Kuwait ..........

Tabulation of Open—Ended Responses Regarding Recom—
mendations for Improvement of Inservice Education

Page

143

145

147

149

155

 

Figure
2.1
2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

LIST OF FIGURES

Relating Trainee to Experience to Outcomes .

Model of an Instructional Value System (Training
Process) . .............

The Training Cycle as a Closed-Loop, Continuous
System . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . .

Basic Activities for Inservice Education Sessions,

According to Group Size ..............

Stages of the CSE Evaluation Model

xi

........

Page
32

34

36

45
57

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction to the Problem

The role of the secondary school administrator, for the 1990s
and beyond, has become extremely complex. New developments in
technology, rapid societal changes, and demands to renew and reform
secondary education require that public secondary school
administrators possess skills not required of their predecessors.
Public secondary school administrators who lack the requisite skills
are inadequately prepared to deal with the complexities of their
jobs, both today and in the future.

The diversity of skills required by today’s public secondary
school administrators represents a challenge to educators in the
Ministry of Education in Kuwait to offer inservice education that
may help to address the needs of public secondary school

administrators. This study was undertaken to address that problem.

Need for the Study
The Ministry of Education has attempted to respond proactively
in providing inservice education to public secondary school
administrators in Kuwait. However, a lack of positive relationships
between inservice education outcomes and the reality of public

secondary school administrators’ daily work has been noted in the

 

few studies done to evaluate the productivity and effectiveness of

school administration in Kuwait and the outcomes of administrative
training (Al-Mohaini, 1976; Al-Tammar, 1983).

In his 1976 study, Al-Mohaini argued that public secondary
school principals needed more authority to perform their tasks and
that they were not performing their tasks well. These
administrators needed more knowledge and skill in educational
administration.

The role of public secondary school principals in Kuwait is to
do what they have been told by the Ministry of Education (Al-Tammar,
1983). Most of these principals do not have knowledge about
educational goals. In their 1985 study, Al-Rasheedi and Khalaph
found that only 30.8% of principals had such knowledge, whereas more
than 33% of the respondents had not received any education about
setting and applying goals.

Al-Musaileem (1988) found that the Ministry of Education in
Kuwait interfered in 95% of the principals’ work. Such an unhealthy
situation does not help principals to be innovators or even to apply
what they Inight have learned from attending inservice education
programs.

Participants in the Arabic Conference on the renewal and
diversification of secondary education, which was held in Kuwait in
November 1987, suggested that secondary school administrators and
other school staff should receive intensive training before applying

the new educational system in secondary schools.

 

 

 

The final report on inservice education in Kuwait, prepared by
a UNESCO expert, emphasized that potential school administrators
should receive administrative training before they are assigned to
new administrative positions (Hijab, 1981).

Several researchers who investigated the effectiveness of
inservice education in Kuwait and the relationship between the
inputs and the outcomes of inservice programs, indicated that the
outcomes of inservice programs were far less effective than what had
been expected (Al-Baghdadi, 1981; Bakeesh, 1982; Bustan, 1981;
Hajjaj & Bustan, 1986; Sa’adah, Bakeesh, & Al-Mutairi, 1986).
Furthermore, these researchers suggested that public school
administrators should be given an opportunity to participate in the
selection and execution of inservice education activities. Another
suggestion was that the content of inservice programs should be
relevant to public school administrators’ daily work.

The importance of school administrators’ involvement in
inservice education has been stressed in the literature. Inservice
programs should be planned and carried out to maximize trainees’
involvement. Otto and Erickson (1973) added that proper involvement
of the participants may be the key to successful planned change in
schools.

The value of participants’ involvement in inservice education
activities has been further' documented ir1 the professional
literature (Boyle, 1981; Daresh & La Plant, 1985; Goad, 1982;
Goldstein, 1986; Harris, 1980, 1989; Knowles, 1980, 1984; Laird,

 

1985; Orlich, 1989; Rogers, 1969; Wick & Beggs, 1971; Wimpelberg,
1984).

In his 1980 book, The Modern Practice of Adult Education,
Knowles suggested that adult learners should have the opportunity to
participate in selecting the content of their programs. He stated
that few adult educators are conscious of their role as educators of
adults. Knowles viewed education as a lifelong process in which
instructional goals and learning strategies are based on the
interests, needs, and learning styles of the adult.

Other authors have agreed with Knowles. For example, Harris
(1980) maintained that:

Involvement of any person in decision-making, in assessing

needs, in evaluating and implementing inservice activities is,

of course, desirable only to the extent that it contributes to
the quality of the inservice education program. Collaborative
decisions involve more than just representation of interests.

It requires that those to be affected and who have

contributions to make shall be involved in decisions. This

helps to assure that interests are balanced without loss in the
quality of the program.
Clients should have opportunities to serve selectively in roles as
planners, designers, managers, presenters, and evaluators of
inservice programs or sessions, as well as being trainees (Edelfelt,
1977).

The need for a close liaison and interface among all
individuals related to the problem under consideration is essential.
Through such an interchange, various methodologies can be developed
to meet the goals and needs of all groups involved. This

partnership must be demonstrated in each phase of the inservice

process (Cochran, 1980). ~

Some educators view education in the narrow contexts of place
(formal educational institutions) and time (childhood through
adulthood). This view has been challenged repeatedly by educators
advocating education as a lifelong process that is not limited to
formal educational institutions. Knowles (1984) suggested that
learners should participate in planning their programs, diagnosing
their own needs for learning, carrying out their learning plans, and
evaluating their learning.

Collaboration and participation of school administrators in
inservice education programs has increased in recent years. The
expansion of principals’ centers in the United States is one
indication that school administrators prefer to carry out their
inservice education themselves. From 1983 to 1987, approximately
100 principals’ centers were established in the United States
(Barth, 1987). The essential idea behind a principals’ center is
that it is initiated and directed by principals, for principals
(Carmichael, 1982).

Several factors have contributed to the success of the
principals’ center at Harvard University:

1. It seeks to improve the self—confidence and self-esteem of
principals at a time when public support for them is
wan1ng.

2. The setting at Harvard provides an atmosphere of relaxed
yet serious inquiry away from day-to-day pressures of the

school site.

3. Other important aspects of the program include the
diversity of participants and teaching methods.

4. Principals themselves are used as resource persons.

5. There is a sense that the principals "own" and operate the
center. (Barth, 1984, pp. 246—254)

The main concept behind the establishment of principals’
centers was principals’ ownership of their learning. With ownership
came involvement. The principals voluntarily engaged in activities
that promoted their growth as leaders in school improvement. Hence,
principals became both learners and leaders in their schools (Barth,

1987).

Statement of the Problem

The problem underlying this study is threefold: The extent to
which public secondary school principals and assistant principals in
Kuwait are involved in planning and implementing inservice education
activities needed to be investigated. Second, there was a need to
determine the importance of involvement in inservice education
activities, as perceived by public secondary school principals and
assistant principals in Kuwait. Finally, the methods and techniques
used in preparing, implementing, and evaluating administrative

inservice education programs in Kuwait needed to be determined.

Purpose of the Study
The researcher’s primary purpose in conducting this study was
to assess the perceptions of practicing public secondary school
principals and assistant principals regarding the importance of
their involvement in needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
evaluation of current inservice education programs. Specific

objectives were as follows:

1. To investigate the type and scope of current inservice
education provided by the Ministry of Education to public secondary
school principals and assistant principals.

2. To investigate public secondary school administrators’
perceptions regarding the importance of their involvement in
inservice education activities.

3. To examine the extent to ‘which public secondary school
administrators perceived they were involved in needs assessment,
planning, implementation, and evaluation of inservice education
programs.

4. To determine public secondary school administrators’
perceived degree of satisfaction with their involvement in inservice
education activities.

5. To discover the factors that public secondary school
administrators perceived to prevent or limit their opportunities for
involvement in inservice education activities.

6. To determine public secondary school administrators’
perceptions of the strengths and/or weaknesses of current inservice
education programs and their proposed remedies for those weaknesses.

7. To make recommendations for further research in the field

of inservice education in Kuwait.

Research Questions

The following questions were posed to guide the collection of

data for this study:

1. What is the perceived importance of Kuwaiti public second-
ary school administrators’ involvement in four inservice education
activities: needs assessment, planning, implementation, and program
evaluation?

2. To what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis—
trators perceive they are involved in needs assessment regarding
inservice education programs?

3. To what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis—
trators perceive they are involved in planning administrative
inservice education programs?

4. To what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-
trators perceive they are involved in implementing administrative
inservice education programs?

5. To what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis—
trators perceive they are involved in evaluating administrative
inservice education programs?

6. Is there a statistically significant relationship between
Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ perceived level of
involvement in inservice education activities and these administra-
tors’ satisfaction with their level of involvement in these activi-
ties?

7. What factors do Kuwaiti public secondary school administra-
tors perceive to have prevented them from being involved in adminis-

trative inservice education activities?

 

8. What kinds of techniques and instruments do Kuwaiti public
secondary school administrators perceive 1x1 be used ‘hi preparing
administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait?

9. What kinds of instructional/training methods do Kuwaiti
public secondary school administrators perceive to be used in imple-
menting administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait?

10. What kinds of techniques and instruments do Kuwaiti public
secondary school administrators perceive 1x1 be used ir1 evaluating
administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait?

11. Is there a statistically significant relationship between
Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ satisfaction 1~ith
the techniques used in carrying out administrative inservice educa-
tion activities and the respondents’ satisfaction with their level
of involvement in these activities?

12. How do respondents recommend that Kuwaiti public secondary
school administrators’ involvement in inservice education activities

be maximized?

Significance of the Study
Considering the substantial changes in Kuwait’s social and
educational environment and the fact that school administration is
in a state of transition, inservice education programs are needed
that more adequately address the concerns of that rapidly changing
environment. This study was undertaken 11) investigate the

perceptions of public secondary school principals and assistant

principals regarding their involvement in current inservice

 

 

10

education programs. A study of these perceptions is important for
the following reasons:

1. The results of this research could provide information that
may help decision makers at Kuwait’s Ministry of Education
understand the importance of involvement to the professional growth
of inservice education participants.

2. The findings of this research may help inservice education
planners design programs that meet the professional needs of public
school principals and assistant principals in Kuwait.

3. This research could encourage public secondary school
administrators to participate actively in some or all elements of
future inservice education programs.

4. This research could provide some help to the directors and
top administrators in their efforts to improve selection and
promotion of school leaders.

5. The study findings may be used to help inservice
coordinators and planners establish new criteria for the selection

of inservice program content and instructional methods.

Assumptions Underlying the Study
The researcher made the following assumptions in conducting
this study:
1. Principals want and need professional growth and renewal
opportunities; they do not want to spend time in contrived, overly
theoretical activities (Barth, 1987). This statement illustrates

the main assumption underlying the study.

11

2. Involvement of public secondary school principals and
assistant principals in planning and executing inservice education
programs is highly important if the Ministry of Education wants to
help these administrators develop their skills.

3. Participants responded to the survey instrument in a
sincere and forthright manner. Validity depends on the extent to
which the respondents provided honest, impartial, and unbiased
answers to items on the survey instrument.

4. Respondents accurately reported information related to
their experience with inservice education programs they had
attended.

5. Respondents understood what "being involved" means and thus
could provide accurate information on the survey.

6. The inservice education programs in which the public
secondary school administrators in this study participated had
characteristics similar to those of other such programs offered by

the Ministry of Education to all K-12 public school administrators.

Delimitations of the Study

This study had the following delimitations:
1. The study was limited to public secondary school princi-
pals’ and assistant principals’ perceptions regarding their involve-
ment in inservice education offered by the Ministry of Education in

Kuwait.

12

2. The researcher investigated respondents’ involvement in
four specific phases of inservice education: needs assessment,
planning, implementation, and evaluation of inservice programs.

3. No attempt was made to assess the effectiveness of the
inservice programs or the knowledge public school administrators
acquired from inservice education programs.

4. The study purposes will not be achieved unless this
document is translated into Arabic and made available to personnel
concerned with and involved in the development of public school

administrators in Kuwait.

Definition of Terms

The following key terms are defined in the context in which
they are used in this study:

Administration. ”The management, organization, operation, and
supervision of an educational institution. [Administration] usually
includes all institution functions other than teaching" (Hawes &
Hawes, 1982, p. 7).

Administrative inservice education. Formal training provided
by the Kuwait Ministry of Education to public school administrators.

Adult education. "Any process by which men and women, either
alone or in groups, try to improve themselves by increasing their
knowledge, skills, or attitudes" (Good, 1973, p. 16).

Competencies. The knowledge, judgment, and skills needed to

perform the task of being a school administrator.

 

l3

Inservice education. Any planned program of learning opportu—
nities afforded to staff members of schools, colleges, or other
educational agencies for the purpose of improving the performance of
individuals in currently assigned positions (Harris, 1980).

Needs assessment. An evaluation process with at least three
purposes, including analyzing clientele, identifying topics, and
specifying areas of need (Pennington, 1980). A training need exists
when an employee lacks the knowledge or skill to perform an assigned
task satisfactorily (Laird, 1985).

Planning. A sequence of actions involving coordinating things
and people to achieve an objective for which there is a stated
rationa1e(s) (Ehrenberg & Brandt, 1976). Planning is thinking
things through to decide what to do (Steiner, 1969).

Principals’ center. A place where school administrators meet
and exchange ideas and experiences. Principals’ centers are
initiated and directed by the principals themselves. In these
centers, school administrators assess their professional needs and
try to solve work problems cooperatively and through voluntary
involvement and participation. A principals’ center focuses on
improving these administrators’ professional skills, attitudes, and
expertise (Carmichael, 1982).

Program evaluation. The testing, measuring, and appraising of
the learner’s growth, adjustment, and achievement by means of tests
as well as nontest instruments and techniques (Good, 1973).

Program preparation. The plan or efforts carried out before

the implementation or delivery of instructional action.

_School administrators. Those principals and/or assistant prin-
cipals who are responsible for the functions of elementary, middle,

or secondary schools.

Organization of the Study

Chapter I contained an overview of the research, including an
introduction to the problem, need for the study, a statement of the
problem and purpose of the study, the research questions,
significance of the study, assumptions underlying the study,
delimitations, and definitions of key terms.

A review of literature relevant to administrative inservice
education in Kuwait and abroad is provided in Chapter II. The first
part of the chapter is concerned with the various aspects and phases
of inservice education. The second part of the chapter is devoted
to a discussion of human and resource development in Kuwait.

The research design and procedures used in carrying out the
study are discussed in Chapter III. Included are a description of
the population and the research design, development and validation
of the questionnaire, a description of the instrument used in the
study and its reliability, and a discussion of the procedures used
in collecting and analyzing the data.

Chapter IV contains the results of the data analyses performed
in this study. A summary of the study, conclusions drawn from the
findings, and recommendations for practice and further research are

presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Rapid changes in Kuwaiti society have created pressure on
educational policy makers to adapt by introducing new services,
instructional materials, and equipment in schools. Therefore,
inservice education for those engaged in the learning process is not
only desirable but also an activity to which all school districts
must commit human and fiscal resources if they are to maintain a
viable and knowledgeable staff. As Christensen (1981) wrote, "In
any rapidly changing society, the schools are often asked to be a
vehicle for assimilating and transmitting changes" (p. 81).

Therefore, to help school administrators respond to the demands
on schools, it is important to examine what school administrators’
needs are. School administrators want to be involved in project
planning, prefer active participation, support long—term or short—
range projects, and desire some control over decision making (Daresh
& La Plant, 1985).

Planning for administrative inservice education includes
assessing needs, developing training objectives, determining
activities, preparing evaluation plans, and developing budgets to

accomplish the various components of a program. Orlich (1989)

 

16

stated that inservice education programs designed for administrators
appear to have six commonalities: developing new skills, acquiring
current information, learning about new programs, solving problems
that tend to recur, expanding a knowledge of administrative theory

and practice, and preparing for new challenges, jobs, or positions.

Inservice Education
Defininq Inservice Education

Scholars and practitioners have offered many definitions of
inservice education, but there is much similarity in both the
concepts and the terminology used in defining this important
development activity. Among the terms that are used widely and
almost synonymously with the term "inservice education" are "on—the—
job training," "renewal," "staff development," "human resource
development," "continuing education," "professional growth," and
"professional development."

Distinctions in meanings can and should be made among these
terms (Harris, 1989). For instance, Nadler (1979) attempted to
differentiate the meaning of training, which is job—related
learning, from education, which is individual—related learning, and
from development, which is organization—related learning. He
defined training as "those activities which are designed to improve
human performance on the job the employee is presently doing or
being hired to do" (p. 40). Education is "those human resource
development activities which are designed to improve the overall

competence of the employee in a specific direction and beyond the

17

job now held" (p. 60). To Nadler, development "is concerned with
preparing the employees so they can move with the organization as it
develops, changes, and grows" (p. 88).

In their 1967 book Training and Development, Lynton and Pareek
also distinguished between training and education:

The term training is concerned with the role performance of

workers in organizational systems. More precisely it is

concerned with the development and maintenance of competencies
to perform specific roles by persons holding positions in
existing systems. In comparison time term education is
concerned with the more general growth and development of an

individual. (p. 5)

However, training cannot be strictly differentiated from
education. The processes of learning involved in each are similar,
as are the methods and techniques used in their implementation.
Thus, although education and training differ in the conceptual and
performance competencies they require, they do demand certain
efforts that are similar (Grabowski, 1981).

Generally speaking, the words "training," "education," and
"development" are used interchangeably by specialists 11) describe
what they do for their organizations. For instance, the term
"training" is defined as experience or a regimen that causes people
to acquire new predetermined behaviors (Laird, 1985). Goldstein
(1986) used the term "training" to mean the systematic acquisition
of skills, rules, concepts, or attitudes that result in inmroved
performance in another environment.

Harris (1989) used the term "inservice education" to mean "any

planned program of learning opportunities afforded staff members of

schools, colleges, members of schools, colleges or other-educational

agencies for purposes of improving the performance of the individual
in already assigned positions" (p. 18). Hass’s (1957) definition of
the term “inservice education" is considered to be the guidepost for
many studies in this area. He stated that "inservice education
includes all activities engaged in by the professional personnel
during their service and designed to contribute to professional
improvement" (p. 13).

In relation to planned change, Harris and Bessent (1969)
provided a concise and precise definition. They viewed inservice
education as "a planned, goal-directed change process introduced
through a deliberate intervention aimed at some altered future
condition" (p. 19).

In relation to the purpose of inservice education, Johnston
(1971) stated:

Inservice education may consist of carefully planned, sustained

work over a lengthy period leading to a further qualification

in the form of an advanced certificate, diploma, or higher
degree; it may equally well be casual study, pursued
irregularly in the evenings or during vacations, and in no
sense leading to measurable recognition for purposes of salary

or of promotion. (p. 9)

In relation to personal and professional growth, Dillon-
Peterson (1981) described inservice education in The 1981 Yearbook
of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development as:

a process designed to foster personal and professional growth

for individuals within a respectful, supportive, positive

organizational climate having as its ultimate aim better

learning for students and continuous responsible self-renewal
for educators and schools. (p. 3)

19

The term “inservice education" is conceived as personal
professional development, formalized into courses at the graduate
level that lead to advanced degrees and credentials, job promotion,
and added competence for the individual. This concept assumes that
the trainee is an individual entrepreneur, moving independently
along in his/her own career (Edelfelt, 1977).

The preceding definitions of inservice education describe what
should be included in such a task. In general, inservice education
ideally should include a variety of activities. Thus, if these
activities are carried out with active and positive involvement of
the training recipients, the activities will contribute to what
educators refer to as professional growth.

A well—planned, goal—directed inservice education program is
needed for the training of public school administrators in Kuwait.
Any of the preceding definitions could be used as guidelines for the
planning of administrative inservice education as long as it will
help public school administrators develop professionally. The
Ministry of Education should decide first the purpose of training
and then choose the appropriate plan. As stated by Dillon-Peterson
(1981), inservice education should foster personal and professional
growth and should be carried out in a supportive, respectful, and

positive organizational climate.

The Need for Inservice Education

 

In any career, changing circumstances and changing methods

bring a need for periodic retraining. Training needs can be

 

20

identified as falling into three broad categories: (a) for the
effective execution of one’s current job, (b) in preparation for a
future job, and (c) to ensure familiarity with current development.
Any inservice program plan, therefore, must answer two questions:
(a) What is it all about? and (b) What is its relevance to my
environment? (Turnbull, 1978).

A need for inservice education exists when there is a
discrepancy in the current state of affairs. The need for inservice
education is generated by the necessity to maximize congruence
between (a) the organization and the environment, (b) organizational
structure and purposes, (c) individual employees and the
organization, and (d) individual employees and their aspirations.
Lack of congruence in these four areas is most often due to change.
Inservice education programs are designed to help employees and the
organization cope with or respond to change (Friedman & Yarbrough,
1985). Accordingly, inservice education planners must select the
inservice program activity with great care. They must also
subscribe to the definition of inservice that focuses on some
balance between the individual and the educational institution or
organization.

Harris (1989) illustrated the need for inservice education in
the following statement:

Inservice education is to the school operation what good eating

habits and a balanced diet are to human growth and vitality.

Without substantial continuing growth in competence in

personnel serving in our elementary and secondary schools, the
entire concept of accountability has little meaning. (p. 11)

21

Inservice education versus preservice education. Some writers
have said there is a need for inservice education because preservice
education is not preparing school personnel to perform their tasks
effectively. Hass (1957) argued that "one of the factors which make
clear the need for inservice education is that pre-service education
cannot adequately prepare members of the public school professional
staff for their responsibilities" (p. 14).

Talking about the importance of inservice education, Harris and
Bessent (1969) seemed to agree with Hass about the inadequacy of
preservice preparation: "Preservice preparation of professional
staff members is rarely ideal and it may be primarily an introduc-
tion to professional preparation rather than professional prepara—
tion as such" (p. 3).

The need for administrative inservice education. The area of
administrative preparation has been generally ignored; in fact,
Bessoth (1978) asserted that school administrators have entered
their field with less preparation than teachers.

The opinion that administrative inservice education is more
than a high priority, that it is a necessity if school administra-
tors are to keep pace with their professional-development needs, has
been shared by many writers in the field of educational research and
development. Wood (1974) wrote:

If the principalship is to survive as a viable, dynamic

position in education, then it is imperative that future

research be conducted on how best to prepare and continually
update the training as the secondary school leader. Many
principals already in positions of leadership will need to

reassess their skill in light of the challenge they are
currently facing and will continue to face. (p. 117)

22

Sharp (1983) added:

The principalship obviously demands highly developed leadership

skills. The principals soon realize that the ever— increasing

demands and complex responsibilities of the principalship
require more than that knowledge and those skills they already

have. (p. 96

The role of the principal has changed dramatically in recent
years, according to Drake and Miller (1982):

The principal will need to be trained or retrained to more

directly assume such a responsibility. Perhaps the nature of

skills for the ’805 is best defined by the term "competencies“;
for no matter where we start in analyzing the educational needs
of our times, administrative competencies are a necessity for

the individual building-level principal. (p. 20)

In a 1967 study conducted by Goldhammer, Aldridge, Suttle, and
Becker, superintendents perceived the lack of competence by many
building-level administrators as the number-one issue. The
inadequacy of principals’ preparation presents a major problem for
oplicy and practice in light of the critical role principals play in
school improvement (McCary & Hallinger, 1990). Similarly, Olivero
(1982) commented:

Principals may have greater needs for renewal than anyone else.

For better or ill, the bulk of educational improvements rests

on the shoulders of the principal, the very person who has been

neglected for so long. (p. 341

When asked about the role of secondary school principals in
solving problems in their schools, Etzioni (1981) said that these

principals should be trained to deal with the problems one faces

when there is a multiplicity of pressure groups.

 

 

23

The Needs-Assessment Phase of Inservice Education

What is a need? One source of confusion regarding needs
assessment is the lack of a generally accepted, useful, and substan—
tive definition of need. Scriven and Roth (1978) expressed the idea
that need is the gap between an actual and a satisfactory situation
and does not imply any state of deficiency or deprivation.

Coffing and Hutchinson (1974) defined a need as a concept, an
idea, or an image of some desired set of behaviors and/or states. A
"need" is a mental image of "what should be" according to the person
or persons who hold the image. A need also may be defined as some
condition that requires attention, or some desire or value that is
not present or not being met (Orlich, 1989).

What does needs assessment mean? Needs assessment is a method

of discovering gaps between what 13" and what "ought to take place"
(Orlich, 1989). Needs assessment, as a means of finding what is and
what ought to be, requires informed examination of existing condi-
tions, reasoned projections of desirable goals, and careful meshing
of the two (Wood, Thompson, & Russell, 1981).

Needs assessment is a term that has been used to describe a
process with at least three purposes, including (a) analyzing
the clientele, (b) identifying topics, and (c) specifying areas of
need. Analyzing characteristics and expectations of the clientele
to provide data for program and policy decisions is common to each
of these purposes (Pennington, 1980).

Harris (1989) viewed needs assessment as a process that has to

be undertaken formally or informally before selecting- goals and

 

24

objectives; in other words, it is part of the goal-setting process.
Harris and Hill (1982) differentiated between a needs-assessment
process that attends to diagnosing and prioritizing needs for an
individual and those procedures that are, in effect, an opinion
survey.

Identifying training needs. Training needs exist when an
employee lacks the knowledge or skill to perform an assigned task
satisfactorily (Laird, 1985). Participants have needs and
interests, and the designers of inservice education have a
responsibility for trying to arrange relevant experiences. To
determine the individual and institutional needs to 1x2 met by an
inservice education program, a needs assessment should be conducted
before program planning.

Conductinqpa needs assessment. There are many methods by which
to assess needs. A few such techniques are surveys, interviews, or
questionnaires; testimonials from knowledgeable individuals;
committee reports; planning documents; reviews of literature;
statements from professional or scientific societies; and scores on
objective (n: standardized tests (Orlich, 1989). ‘Hna most popular
methods for assessing needs are personal interviews and
questionnaires. O’Banion (1982) stated that these methods go
directly to the source individuals. Each of these methods has its
advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate to different
situations.

The personal interview would be most appropriate for small

organizations or for situations in which only a few people are to be

25

interviewed, because (Hi the time involved. Advantages of 'this
method are that support can be built for staff-development programs,
and that the Hawthorne effect (that is, the fact that people feel
better or produce more because they think someone is paying
attention to them) can increase morale.

Questionnaires provide a way of collecting much information in
a short time, so they are appropriate for organizations of any size.
Questionnaires also can provide anonymity to respondents, thus
ensuring more candid responses. The disadvantage of using
questionnaires is that they do not provide the personal touch that
interviews do.

Laird (1985) suggested another method of assessing needs that
uses information gathered through standard personnel functions.
Using Laird’s method, it is not necessary to gather additional
information. That method is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Assessment of micro needs. Information on micro needs can be
garnered by monitoring the following personnel functions:

1. Performance appraisals. According to most personnel poli-
cies, all employees are to 1%; evaluated at least once a year.
During the evaluation process, suggestions for improvement are often
made. These suggestions can form the basis of training and develop-
ment programs for individuals.

2. Hiring. When a new employee is hired, there is a need for
orientation, which can be met by a staff-development program. Also,
during the selection interview process, the individual is evaluated

to determine how closely his/her skills and abilities match those

26

required for the position. Staff development comes into play when a
discrepancy exists between actual and required skills.

3. Transfers and promotions. The need for inservice training
is apparent when a transfer or a promotion occurs. Like newly hired
employees, transferred or promoted employees need to be evaluated to
determine whether discrepancies exist between their actual and
expected competencies. Any discrepancies can 1x2 remedied through
staff-development programs.

4. Grievances. A grievance filed against an individual can
signal a need for training and development, either for the person
against whom the grievance was filed (to remedy deficiencies in the
ability to complete job requirements in a satisfactory manner) or
for the person who filed the grievance (to inform the individual of
his/her job responsibilities) or to teach the person human-relations
skills (Laird, 1985).

Assessment of macro needs. Macro or group needs are indicated
when the following conditions exist:

1. Trends in performance appraisals. Improving an indi-
vidual’s performance is a micro need; the same need in a number of
employees constitutes a trend and, hence, a macro training need,

2. Trends in grievances. A number of grievances with common
themes or similar complaints filed against many different people may
indicate a need for group training.

3. New policies. When a new policy is adopted by an institu-

tion, all employees affected by the policy must be oriented to it.

27

4. Changes ir1 standards. If’ a particular: change affects a
number of employees, there is a need for group training.

5. New facilities. When new facilities are opened, an
institution must hire or transfer a number of employees to work in
them. Employees’ common training needs constitute macro needs.

6. New programs. Adding a new academic program normally
requires the hiring or transfer of a number of employees. In this
case, both new hires and transfers need ix) be trained ir1 skills
pertaining to the new area.

Although each of the two types of needs assessments discussed
by Laird (1985)—-monitoring of personnel functions and interviews/
questionnaires--can be used separately, the two can also be used
together. Micro training needs identified by personnel-
function monitoring can be validated in interviews with supervisors
of the potential trainees or with the trainees themselves. Macro
training needs identified through monitoring can be pursued with the
use of questionnaires given to employees. Information gathered from
the monitoring function can validate new needs identified 'hi the
questionnaire and interviews.

In light of the above-mentioned needs assessment techniques,
Kuwait’s Ministry of Education or inservice planners might conduct
several different. needs assessments. Carrying out :1 needs
assessment requires that Ministry decision makers continuously plan
ahead-~at least one or more years. In short, a needs assessment is
one method by which the Ministry can determine the actual needs of

school administrators for inservice education. As Orlich (1989)

 

28

stated, proper needs assessment is one of the critical elements of
inservice education and ultimately leads to the success of such

activities.

The Planning Phase of Inservice Education

Planning is determining in advance what a group or an
individual should accomplish and how it should be accomplished. In
other words, planning is deciding in advance the who, what, when,
and how of activities (Deitzer, 1979, p. 95).

The success of an inservice education program appears to depend
on an initial plan or strategy. Mager (1975) stated that a plan
needs to answer only three questions: Where are we going? How
shall we get there? and How will we know we’ve arrived? These are
the core questions a plan must address, but they are only a
beginning (Harris, 1989).

Planning is systematic preparation and decision making for
action. It should be a continuous process involving diagnosis,
monitoring, data collection, data analysis, evaluation, feedback,
agenda building, needs assessment, review of resources and
alternative innovations, screening of resources, strategy building,
and decision making (Zaltman, 1977).

Thus, the planning process is a strategy of how to determine

the most appropriate way to achieve future training goals and

objectives. The term strategy refers to a plan consisting of a

sequence of action involving coordinating of things and people

to achieve an objective for which there is a stated rationale.

(Ehrenberg & Brandt, 1976, p. 205)

In brief, planning means thinking things through to decide what

to do (Steiner, 1969). In his 1975 book, Preparing Instructional

29

Objectives, Mager stated that "If' you’re not sure where ,you’re
going, you’re liable to end up someplace else--and not even know
it" (p. 13).

Developing inservice objectives. The statement cn’ inservice
program objectives should express how the trainees are expected to
perform upon completion of the program. The main drawback in most
inservice efforts is that not enough attention is paid to outcomes,
and without attention to outcomes, inservice efforts will remain
ineffectual (Otto & Erickson, 1973).

The identification of needs gives direction to long-term
efforts by suggesting a goal or goals. To make progress toward the
goal, one must have more specific objectives to guide the activities
that will lead to attainment of the goal. As Harris and Bessent
(1969) pointed out, the activity frequently appears to be confused
with the objective: ”It is not unusual to find an inservice program
in which the only identifiable objective is 1x1 have an inservice
program" (p. 31).

Worthwhile objectives are stated ir1 behavioral (n: performance
terms. In other words, the objectives are stated 'hi terms that
describe what a participant should be able to do upon completion of
the program. Such objectives not only provide help in the selection
of learning activities, but also guide attempts to evaluate whether
an objective has been reached (Otto & Erickson, 1973). The
behavioral objectives lead inservice education activities to produce
tangible results. Such outcomes are guided by explicitness of

intentions (Harris, 1989). ‘

30

The explicitness of intentions means clearly defined goals and
objectives that are derived from identified needs. Thus, an
objective is a description of a performance one wants learners to be
able to exhibit before they are considered competent (Mager, 1975).

Characteristics of training objectives. Mager and Beach (1983)
listed the characteristics of training objectives, which are
summarized as follows:

1. An objective says something about the trainee. It does not
describe the textbook, the instructor, (n: the kinds of cflassroom
experiences to which the trainee will be exposed.

2. An objective talks about the behavior or performance of the
trainee. It does not describe the performance of the teacher.

3. An objective is about ends rather than means. It describes
a product rather than a process.

4. An objective describes the conditions under which the
trainee will be performing his/her terminal behavior.

Training objectives should be as explicitly stated as possible,
both to validate them against the needs they are intended to serve
and to guide the selection of activities and other design
considerations. Mager (1975) developed a useful guide to writing
performance objectives. He asserted that objectives are well-
stated, explicit, and convey maximum meaning with the least
uncertainty when they clearly express three things: (a) the

performance sought hi behavioral terms, (t0 the conditions under

31

which the behavior will be demonstrated, and (c) the standard of
acceptability of the performance.

These guidelines for writing performance objectives are useful
in planning administrative inservice education programs. However,
Harris (1989) argued that these guidelines have the following
limitations that must be recognized:

1. Certain learning outcomes (performance) cannot be so
clearly specified in advance.

2. Such explicit statements of outcomes tend to encourage
preoccupation with fragments of a larger, more complex performance.

Emphasis on outcomes. Several writers in the field of training
have emphasized the outcomes of inservice education (Goldstein,
1986; Harris & Bessent, 1969; Mager, 1968; Otto & Erickson, 1973).
By definition, all inservice education is concerned with learning
outcomes. Harris (1989) stated that:

The nature of those outcomes and the specificity with which

they are emphasized are important elements of strategy. The

greatest demands for strategic planning for inservice education
are often found when outcomes involve complex changes in many

aspects of behavior. (p. 38)

Relating trainee to experience to outcomes is an important
strategy in promoting good inservice education. Harris presented

this strategy as shown in Figure 2.1.

 

32
TYPES OF
TRAINEE CONCERNS EXPERIENCES INTENDED OUTCOMES

To know about... To read... To understand...

To operate... To demonstrate... To perform as a
To try... skilled operator
To receive cor- of..
rectives...
To use...
To feel confident... To be observed...
To receive assist-
ance...
To get positive
reinforcement...

Figure 2.1: Relating trainee to experience to outcomes.
Adapted from Harris (1989), p. 39.

There are other strategic concerns when planning for inservice
education: Immediate versus intermediate versus long-term outcomes
is an issue of practical import. As busy practitioners, trainees
(school administrators or staff members) are most eager for training
that promises immediate worth. However, the strategic problem is to
respond to immediate needs and interests, and still sustain
commitments to larger accomplishments or long-term outcomes.

Knowledge versus technique versus practice is still another
issue of strategic importance. The strategic problem is to design
to avoid neglect of knowledge, avoid mechanistic emphasis on
techniques, but to foster change in practice that combines
knowledge, skill, understanding, and judgment. This is akin to the

best concepts of competence (Harris, 1989).

 

33

Planning models for inservice education programs. The success
of an administrative inservice education program appears to depend
on an initial plan or strategy. Because of the characteristics of
adult learning, it becomes apparent that the adoption of new
planning models and strategies is important if Kuwait’s Ministry of
Education is willing to offer effective inservice education to
school administrators.

Goldstein’s training model. Goldstein (1986) presented a
general flow-chart model consisting of three elements (see Figure
2.2). The first element is needs assessment, which includes:

1. Organization analysis. This begins with an examination of
the short- and long-term goals of the organization, as well as of
the trends that are likely to affect these goals (Goldstein, 1986,
pp. 26-35).

2. Task and knowledge, skill, and ability analysis. In this
part, two types of analyses are used: (a) task analysis, which
provides a statement of the activities or work operations performed
on the job, and (b) the conditions under which the job is performed.
It is not a description of the employees but rather a description of
the job.

3. Person analysis. At this stage, the needs assessment has
already accomplished an organizational analysis of the work
condition and environment. Also, the task analysis has determined
what important tasks are performed and the knowledge, skills, and
abilities needed to perform those tasks. The analysis of knowledge,

skill, and ability provides considerable information for‘the person

34

.o_ .a .mmm_ .ewapme_ow scat empaaa<
.Ammmuoca mcwcwmcpv emgmzm chowpochmcw cm co anoz

N.~ masmwc

 

fl

s3_n_rm>.Fm=ocp
-mecmmcocmwcH

 

 

 

 

 

 

zpwvwrm> chowp
-mecmmLomcch

 

 

 

 

xuwvw—m>
cmemcmcp

 

pcmpcou .u
Fmpcmewcmaxm .n
mucmcmmewc
Fascw>wccm .m
”mrmcoz
cowpmzrm>m mo mm:

 

 

mcwcwmch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xpwuwpm>
mcwcwmch

 

 

mamcmoca
chowpozcumcH

mo :mvmwo
use cowHUBme

 

 

 

metapwcu

 

 

 

Fmoa mcwcwmch

mo pcmEQoPm>mo

 

 

ma>upumflao

 

 

 

cowumspm>m

 

peasaopo>ma
ucm mcmcmmch

chowuuacumcH

 

 

 

 

 

 

mwmxrmcm comcwm .u
mmmz—mcm x“?
-Fwnm vcm .m—P_xm
.mmvmrzocx .mxmmh .n
mwmxpacm
chowpmecmmco .m
pcmsmmmmm< mummz

 

“cwEmmwm m< mummz

 

 

 

35

analysis. To actually perform the person analysis, criteria should
be developed, which can be used to assess performance before and/or
after training. This analysis can also be used to determine the
capabilities of persons on the job for training-design purposes
(Goldstein, 1986, pp. 26-62).

The second element of Goldstein’s training model is the
training-development phase. The learning environment refers to the
dynamics of the instructional setting, which support learning. Once
the tasks, knowledge, skill, ability, and objectives have been
specified, the next step is to design the environment to achieve the
objectives. This is a delicate process that requires a tflend of
learning principles and media selection, based on the tasks the
trainee is eventually expected to perform (Goldstein, 1986, pp. 63-
107).

The third element 'hi the Goldstein model is the evaluation
phase. Goldstein emphasized that the training program should be a
closed-loop system in 1thfl1 the evaluation process provides for
continual modification of the program (pp. 15-16).

Goad’s training model. Goad’s (1982) model consists of five
phases of training cycles: analysis, designing, developing,
conducting, and evaluating (see Figure 2.3). Goad considered the
training process as a closed-loop or continuous system with the

following interrelated phases:

36

(1)
Analyze
Evaluate ////////E§§ign
(4) , (3)
Conduct Develop

 

Figure 2.3: The training cycle as a closed-loop, continuous
system. Adapted from Goad (1982), p. 11.

1. Analyze to determine training requirements: (a) Identify
the problem and then determine whether training is the best way to
solve it. (b) Analyze the tasks and skills needed for the job or
function for which the training is 1x1 be conducted. (c) Identify
the learners to be trained.

2. Dgpigp the training approach. Like the analysis phase, the
design phase requires a great deal of data gathering. The nmre
thorough the front-end analysis, the more comprehensive the training
design. Included in the design phase are such tasks as (a) defining
the learning objectives on which the training is 11) be based, (b)
determining the best (most appropriate) methods of training, (c)
selecting the best media for the training, (d) identifying test

items, (e) determining prerequisites for the learners ‘who are to

37

receive the training, and (f) organizing the training--whether it be
a half-day workshop or a multiple-week course--into its initial
sequence, based on a variety of data.

3. Develop the training materials. This involves taking the
course outline that resulted from the design phase and converting it
into a complete set of materials that, when implemented, will result
in the attainment of the desired learning objectives.

4. Conduct the training. The role of' the trainer is to
instruct, cajole, incite, coordinate, and otherwise facilitate the
occurrence of learning.

5. Evaluate and update the training. Goad (1982) believed
that if good training is to continue to be good, it must be
validated, updated, and then updated again. The activities of the
evaluation phase include (a) instructor evaluation of the training
after various segments are completed, (b) learner evaluation of the
course, (c) third-party evaluation of the course, and (d) field
evaluation, to determine whether the learners are performing well in
the roles for which the training was to have prepared them.

Involvement ir1 the planning process. Zaltman (1977) posed
three critical questions regarding people’s involvement in initiat—
ing the planning process:

1. Who is to be involved in the planning/decision-making
process?

2. What are the diagnostic and problem-solving skills (knowl-

edge/experience) held by those involved in the planning process?

38

3. What are the educational/training needs of members of the
planning process?

Obviously, those who intend to involve themselves in the
process of planning inservice programs need skill and knowledge to
perform their planning roles successfully.

Zaltman (1977) suggested the need for collaborative efforts in
the planning process in the following statements:

The degree of acceptance, satisfaction, commitment, and follow-

up action with regard to planning decisions is positively

related to the degree of involvement that members of the system
feel they have in the decision-making process.

Constructive participation and involvement cannot occur unless

system members: (I) believe their participation will lead to

action; and (2) are able to perform tasks in the planning

process. (p. 131)

The planning activity begins with certain value assumptions and
proceeds through analyzing the system, setting goals, and
formulating different ideas and suggestions. Boyle (1981) stated
that the purpose of the involvement task will determine the process
to be followed, the roles of the programmer and the client, and the
resources necessary for program completion. He suggested that the
design of the process of involvement should be based on the program
situation rather than on the soundness of the idea of involvement.

Summary. Planning is the process of defining administrative
and operational goals and objectives and of devising the means best
suited to their achievement. This definition means that those who

involve themselves in planning inservice education programs should

try to gather facts about the trainees and analyze that information

39

to determine present and future professional-development needs and
to develop procedures and resources to meet those needs.

Planning administrative inservice education involves
determining specific steps to be taken to put such a program into
operation and bring it to a successful conclusion. Specific steps
are taken, such as those mentioned in the Goldstein model, the Goad
model, or any other closed-loop training model. Administrative
inservice education programs in Kuwait shouid be designed to "wet
the needs of public school administrators and to achieve the organi-
zational goals of the Ministry of Education as well. Public school
administrators should In; actively involved iri the needs-assessment
and planning processes if effective administrative inservice
education programs are to become a reality.

The Implementation Phase
of Inservice Education

Introduction. Inservice education is a total system; it is a
closed-loop process. Such education has a variety of applications
and comes in a variety of types. The instructional process is part
of a larger system, the learning process. The question is how
inservice education designers can start the training session so that
maximum learning takes place. In general, something that starts
right has a better chance of finishing right than does something
that begins badly.

Implementation, however, is not just an instructional process
or delivery system. It is part (H: a closed-loop process, which

begins with analysis of needs, careful planning, and clear learning

4o

objectives, and ends with evaluation as a continuous process (starts
from the beginning with training program design) that completes the
closed loop of the training system.

The challenge facing the trainer is to take the course outline
that results from the design phase and convert it into a complete
set of materials that, when implemented, will result in the
attainment of the desired learning objectives.

Developing inservice education materials. .A wide variety of
training materials may be needed, depending on the circumstances
(Goad, 1982). These materials might include lesson plans used by
the instructor; learner materials, such as workbooks, lesson texts,
programmed-instruction texts, and handouts; audio—visual aids, such
as films, slides, flip charts, and so on; tests based on items
identified in the design phase; and evaluation sheets.

Developing training materials is not the only activity in the
implementation phase. Goad (1982) suggested other activities, such
as making arrangements for the course and taking care of all the
logistical and administrative details that can be done in advance,
molding the training events into a practical block of instruction,
screening existing materials to discover what is usable, and
validating the training course and the materials as much as possible
before the actual event.

Whatever type of planning or implementation is used, the

training effort should be geared to achieve the objectives--no more

41

or less than this. The basic foundation for training programs is
learning.

The inservice education learning environment. What kind of
inservice education do school administrators need and/or prefer?
Many teachers and school administrators actually have negative
feelings toward inservice meetings because they have experienced
nonproductive and poorly planned programs. Hilmar Wagner (1975), an
assistant professor at the University of Texas, offered ten
suggestions on what participants wanted at inservice education
sessions:

1. They liked meetings in which they could be actively
involved.

2. They liked to watch their peers demonstrate various
techniques ir1 their: working fields. This. demonstration
would serve as a model that participants can take back to
their schools.

3. They liked meetings that were short and to the point.

4. They 'liked practical information--almost step—by-step--on
how others approached certain tasks. Too often inservice
programs are theoretical and highly abstract.

5. They liked well-organized meetings.
6. They liked variety in inservice program activities.

7. They liked some incentives for attending inservice meet-
ings: release time, salary increments, and advancement
points on rating scales.

8. They liked an in-depth treatment of one concept that could
be completed in one meeting rather than a generalized
treatment that attempted to solve every trainee’s problems
in one session.

9. They liked to have inspirational speakers occasionally;
such speakers often gave them the necessary drive to start
or complete a given task.

42
10. They liked to visit other schools to observe others in
situations similar to their own. (pp. 13-14)

Instructional design for inservice education. The establish-
ment of instructional procedures is based on the belief that it is
possible to design an environment in which learning can take place
and later be transferred to another setting (Goldstein, 1986). With
regard to designing for learning, Harris (1980) said:

1. The design of actiVity sequences and Inaterials for use
should provide for some differentiated experiences even
when common goals, objectives, and needs are being served.

2. The activities and materials should be designed to assure
active, meaningful, and purposeful experiences as much as
possible.

3. A great variety of activities should be planned that are
task-oriented and reality-based as much as possible. (p.
159)

Harris (1975) emphasized that, whatever instructional design or
method is used, the training activities must be chosen on the basis
of purposes and objectives plus the situational realities, which
include group size and available resources.

Designing training sessions. A session is a basic unit of
training. Harris (1989) said that without at least some solid
information regarding client or group, one or more objectives, and a
time frame, a design for instruction is not 'feasible. Session
planning requires information about the number of (flients, their
past experience, their perceptions of need, their job responsibili-

ties, and the like. These data provide the designer with at least a

starting base upon which to determine objectives for training,

43

specify an appropriate time frame, and proceed to develop a session
plan.

A session plan is a document or set of documents and materials
that guides the implementation of session activities in operation.
Harris suggested the following guidelines for preparing an inservice
session plan: statement of the problem, client specification, goals
and objectives, schedule of events, description of procedures,
evaluation, follow-up plans, and exhibits of materials, equipment,
resource persons, and training budget.

Instructional methods and activities. Instructional methods
are only as good as their contribution to the achievement of
learning objectives. A fundamental criterion in selecting a
learning method should be the appropriateness of that method to the
learning objectives (Laird, 1985).

Instructional methods or activities are the building blocks of
the training session. Harris (1985, 1989) developed lists of
activities and detailed descriptions of their unique
characteristics. However, the challenge facing designers of
inservice education is the selection of an appropriate activity or
activities. Harris (1989) emphasized that the following questions
need to be answered for an effective inservice education design to
emerge:

1. What activity or activities are most likely to stimulate
learning toward the objective(s)?

2. Will more than one activity be required? If so, which
ones?

3. What sequence of activities is likely to be most effective?

44

4. How feasible are the chosen activities, given the time
frame, size, and composition of the client group,
leadership competencies, materials, and other resources
available? (p. 76)

Selecting activities for inclusion and sequencing in a training
session relies heavily on the designer’s understanding of each of
the many activities at his/her disposal (Harris, 1989).

Selecting Activities for
Inservice Education Sessions

Inservice activities in themselves are neither good nor bad;
they can be used effectively or disastrously (Thelen, 1954).
Inservice leaders should select activities that best suit the
objectives of the program. Thelen warned that cautious selection is
called for when inservice activities are planned. The author
offered time following questions as guidelines for Inatching
activities with objectives:

1. What main objective is the activity supposed to accomplish?

2. Under what conditions does the activity actually work suc-
cessfully?

3. What undesirable things does the activity produce?

4. What part of the activity is fixed and what can be modified
to fit a particular situation?

Harris (1985) provided a list of 26 activities. Those activi-
ties are presented in this study with respect to their appropriate-

ness to group size (see Figure 2.4).

45

.mm .a .Ammm_v
mwccm: vcm ”Nu .a .AmmmFV mecca: Eocm cmpamv< .mem asocm ow

mcwvcouom .mcowmmmm :owpmozvm mow>smmcw coc mmwpw>euum uwmmm ue.m mczmwc

cowpumcmpcw meuom mcwzmcv Lo mcwuwcz
ocean—Q-m_om m:_;amcmowoca
co mcwampomvw>
cowym>
mcwpmmh -meno uwmemexm mcwvmmm
:owpumcmpcw meuom maesowmwocowz mcwgmwumz
mcwzmw> acme Xamcmgp azocw mcwzmw>cmch
-awscm\_mwcmpmz
mchmeamw> cmwmprWUmm cmvmmF mowpomca emuwzo
mcwzmw> awcmeFWm --cowmmzomwo
cowwumcmpcw meuom .cowmw>m_mg .Epwc mucm
mmmFLmvmm— -vcmaxm n:m:-wmcwm
mcwczpumg mcwpmcpmcoemo --co_mm=omvo
mcwme=Uqu
mcwpcmmmcq chwa mcwecopmcwmcm cowmmmm Nsz new mch>ch<
aaoga «new; macaw Ezwumz asocu F—msm zuw>wpo<

uanpasew>wecu

 

46

Another list of 38 activities was described and analyzed by
Laird (1985). The question is: "What method or activity should be
used for a training program?" Laird’s answer was: "Asking what
method to use for a training program is like asking a physician what
instrument to use for surgery. It all depends on the nature of the
operation" (p. 131).

Lecture. The lecture is probably the most used and misused
inservice activity. 'This activity is an excellent vehicle for
providing one-way, controlled input of information and is probably
used in some form in almost every inservice program (Otto &
Erickson, 1973). Laird (1985) defined the lecture as:

. . words spoken by the instructor. It is thus 21 verbal-
symbol medium, offering a relatively passive and unstimulating
experience for learners . . . unless the speaker has unusual
vocal and rhetorical talent. In itself, the lecture is a
nonparticipative medium. (pp. 133-134)

Discussion method. The intention of group discussions includes
sharing information, analyzing alternatives, developing understand-
ings of complex problems, and arriving at carefully considered
decisions (Otto & Erickson, 1973). The discussion method may be
more effective than the more passive learning environment of the
lecture if the teacher wants learners to reflect on and confront
their attitudes (Gall & Gall, 1976).

Demonstration. In this basic activity the participants usually
witness a real or simulated activity in :1 setting that usually
includes procedures, materials, equipment, and techniques employed

in the "real world." Demonstrations provide trainees with models of

specific behavior and help answer questions such as "What do you do

47

if . . . ?" The specificity necessary for a worthwhile demonstra-
tion calls for a relatively narrow topic (Harris & Bessent, 1969).

Observation. Observation provides participants with opportuni-
ties to view certain activities in actual situations, such as
teaching' activities 'hi classroom situations. Observations, like
lectures and demonstrations, have a relatively low experience impact
because there is no control over the content other than the
selection of the observable activity (Otto & Erickson, 1973).

Interviewing. The first type of this activity is personal
interview. The objective of this person-to-person interaction
activity in terms of inservice education is to exchange information
with another person in order to effect changes in either one or both
persons’ behavior. The interview activity should vary according to
the advantages and disadvantages of each style in a given situation.

The second type of activity is group interview, in which one
person interviews several others. The intention is not to change
personal behavior; rather, this activity is appropriate in problem-
solving meetings because it allows several resource people to
respond to the same concerns in a structured manner (Otto &
Erickson, 1973).

Field trips. Field trips, excursions, observations, or tours
may or may not be participative learning experiences. That depends
on how well instructors set up expectations and objectives before
the trip takes place. Instructors give each trainee a set of

questions for which answers must be supplied. These answers can be

48

discovered on the field trip. They can be reviewed at a feedback
session in the classroom following the tour. Laird (1985) stated
that the best method is probably to have the learner actually work
with an employee of the visited department.

Role play. This activity permits learners to reenact
situations they face on the job, that they will face in the future,
or that they perceive to be like those on the job (Laird, 1985).
The general procedure of role play is to establish support, identify
a situation, assign roles, adhere to the roles, and stop at the
appropriate time. The role playing should be directed to a specific
problem, and role assignments must be explicit so the participant
knows what is expected of him/her. Sometimes follow-up group
discussions or an expert’s analysis is useful (Otto 81 Erickson,
1973).

Simulationslgames. Simulations are somewhat like action mazes
being role-played. Usually they are extensive designs with
carefully programmed decision points (Laird, 1985). Games result
when simulations are made competitive, with teams vying to see who
makes the more effective decisions. In-baskets are a form of
simulation that gets at the realities of a job through the paper
symptoms of that job. Learners get all the materials one might

expect to find in an "in basket on a typical workday. They must
then process that paperwork until all the items are iri the "out"
basket (Laird, 1985).

Involvement in instructional activities. People learn by

doing. The growing trend in training over the years has‘been to get

49

learners more involved. One way to do this is to give the learner
most, if not all, of the responsibility for learning (Goad, 1982).

Modern learning theories stress that adults must have a degree
of ownership of the learning process--that they want to invest their
previous experience ir1 those processes. Such ownership and
investment are achieved by designs in which the learners actively
talk about what they have done in the past or what they are thinking
and feeling currently as they experiment with new behaviors during
the learning process (Laird, 1985).

There are several techniques for getting learners involved.
The use (H: a variety of experiential techniques will enhance the
learning process. Some of the techniques suggested by Goad (1982)
are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Questions. The use of questions is one of the best means
available: to stimulate learner response. Questions help arouse
interest, stimulate thinking, keep the training on track, and obtain
vital feedback.

Tests. Tests not only help measure progress and provide feed-
back, but they also are :1 means of getting the learners to
participate.

Instruments. Also called data-feedback devices or inventories,
these paper-and-pencil response forms (h) not test what learners
know; rather, they collect data for the learners to use.

Trainer/learner-developed materials. Taking notes is one type
of such materials. Another is work sheets, which the learners to

complete at various times during the training session.

50

Presentation/recitation. This is the technique of having
learners explain the whys, whats, and hows of something. In other
words, after advanced preparation, the trainees become co-trainers.

Case studies. The learners are required 11) react with
solutions to problems that are depicted in the cases.

Simulations/games. Simulators range from relatively simple,
gamelike devices to complex electronic/digital computers. They
teach such things as strategy, negotiation, and decision making.
These are frequently used in management training. They may require
several people to interact with one another or can be designed for
use by an individual.

Role playing. This technique commonly is used in teaching
human-relations skills. Role plays may be highly structured, with
the roles well-defined, or the people who are playing the roles may
be given a great deal of flexibility in acting them out.

In using any of the above-mentioned techniques, it is important
to have specific objectives and guidelines. Whatever is
demonstrated or learned should contribute to the achievement of the
specific learning objectives of the training session (Goad, 1982).

The involvement of public school administrators in any of these
activities depends on what the administrative training programs are
designed to achieve. Implementation of such techniques should be
built on specific objectives. What is needed is a well-trained
trainer/facilitator who knows what techniques are appropriate fer

the training session, how and when the program should be offered,

51

and who should be involved in each activity. As Otto and Erickson
(1973) stated, in any inservice program, the nmrriage between the
specific goals and objectives and the actual activity engaged in by
the participants will determine, to a great extent, the success or
failure of the program.

The Evaluation Phase

of Inservice Education

Definition of evaluation. Stufflebeam and associates (1971)
defined evaluation as "a process which links value, information, and
decision-making situations in Inaking professional judgments" (p.
13). This concept of evaluation would avoid the ex post facto
effect of the congruence or nmasurement approaches and make
evaluation influential in the decision-making process, rather than
simply determining what constructive or destructive effects had
already occurred. Evaluation is a key factor in making
professional, enlightened decisions.

Evaluation is the systematic process of obtaining objective
information for educational decision making. The evaluation
process, as conceived by Tyler (1934, 1949) and further developed by
more recent writers in the field (Bloom et al., 1971; Provus, 1971;
Stufflebemn et al., 1971), is :1 goal— or objective-oriented
activity.

Evaluation of inservice education programs. Goldstein (1986)
viewed evaluation of inservice education as "a systematic collection
of descriptive and judgmental information necessary 1x) make

effective training decisions related to the selection, adoption

52

value, and nmdification (Hi various instructional activities" (p.
111). In other words, evaluation is an information-gathering
technique that cannot possibly result in decisions that categorize
inservice programs as good or bad because the objectives of
instructional programs reflect numerous goals, ranging from trainee
progress to organizational objectives.

When we evaluate without data, we ignore the premise of Bloom’s
taxonomy (H’ educational objectives. Laird (1985) contended that
evaluation is the most complex of the mental skills and can be done
effectively only after some knowledge is acquired, comprehended,
applied, analyzed, and finally synthesized.

How to evaluate. Inservice education program evaluation almost
always demands gathering and digesting information about program
status and sharing that information with the program’s planners,
participants, and/or funders. Morris and Fitz-Gibbon (1978) stated:

The essential purpose behind doing an evaluation usually is to

answer the question "Does the unique amalgam of materials,

activities, administrative arrangements and role-determined
tasks that comprise this particular program seem to lead to its

achieving its objectives?" (p. 9)

Some evaluations become more an analysis of how well the
program followed the original plan than an examination of how well
the program met the original need. When one is evaluating a program
rather than a plan, the plan should be treated as a means to the

desired end, and the evaluation should emphasize whether the end was

attained (Steele, 1973).

53

Evaluation of the efficiency of inservice education programs is
a very important step. Donald Kirkpatrick (1975), an authority in
the field of inservice evaluation, divided the subject into four
broad segments:

1. Measuring the reactions of participants--how well they
liked the training.

2. Measuring the learning of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

3. Measuring on-the-job behavioral changes that resulted from
the training.

4. Measuring desired results—-were they achieved? (Measuring
results is extremely difficult to do.)

Types of evaluations. Evaluation can be divided into three
types, although they do overlap and all three are required to
provide effective evaluation. According to Goad (1982), the three
types of evaluations are as follows:

Self-evaluation. Trainers need to do their own evaluation to
know how effective they are, but critiques from observers can be
helpful.

Learner evaluation. This is the process in which the learners
express their opinions and make observations about the effectiveness
of’ the training. Trainers usually' have many learner-evaluation
forms, but what they use will depend on their training situation.
Some of the things on which the trainer wants to receive feedback
are: How useful was the material for the trainer’s performance and
qualifications? Were the learning objectives understood? What was

the value of the audio-visual (and other) training aids that were

54

used? How effective was the allocation of time (overall and various
segments)? Were the facilities adequate? Were the learners
satisfied with the flow of the training event? How do the learners
rate the helpfulness and attitude of the trainers? What suggestions
do the learners have for improvement?

Testing. This is the process of determining whether the
learners learned what was intended. Testing can be done informally,
with questions, or with various types of written or performance
tests. There are two types of knowledge tests: subjective and
objective. Subjective (n: essay tests are not ordinarily used in
training situations. There are several types of objective tests,
including oral, true/false, nmltiple choice, nmtching, and
completion (fill in the blanks). All of these have application in
evaluating knowledge learning. Tests can be administered any time
that the trainers think they will help-~before the lesson starts,
during the lesson, or after the session.

Formative zuwi summative evaluations. Evaluators distinguish
between two major types of evaluations: formative and summative.
Formative evaluation is done during a program or process. As
originally conceived by Scriven (1967), formative evaluation is used
to determine whether the program is operating as originally planned
or whether improvements are necessary before the program is
implemented (Goldstein, 1986).

Morris and Fitz-Gibbon (1978) described the formative evaluator

as a helper and advisor to the program planners and developers, or

55

even a planner him/herself. The evaluator is a person who may be
called on to look out for potential problems, to identify areas
where the program needs improvement, to describe and monitor program
activities; and periodically to test for progress in achievement or
attitude change.

The major concern of summative evaluation is the evaluation of
the final product, with major emphasis on program appraisal. Thus,
formative evaluation stresses tryout and revision processes,
primarily using process criteria, whereas summative evaluation uses
outcome criteria to appraise the instructional progrmn. However,
process criteria (such as daily logs of activities) are also
important in summative evaluation because they supply information
necessary 1x1 interpret the data. Of course, both formative and
summative evaluations can lead to feedback and program improvement
(Goldstein, 1986).

A summative evaluator might have responsibility for producing a
summary statement about the effectiveness of the program. In such a
case, the evaluator probably will report to the director of the
training center or, in the case of Kuwait, to some other Ministerial
representatives or officials. The evaluator might be expected to
describe the program, to produce a statement concerning the
inservice education program’s achievement of announced goals, to
note any unanticipated outcomes, and possibly to make comparisons
with alternative programs. It is difficult to fu1fill this role
successfully with one instrument such as a posttest. Even with the

administration of a pretest before the instructional program begins

56

and a posttest after participants have been exposed to the
instructional program, no indication is given of later transfer
performance (Goldstein, 1986).

Models for evaluation. Most evaluation models outline how
their various proponents believe evaluations should In; conducted.
Various types of evaluation models are described in the following
paragraphs.

Adversary evaluation model. Evaluation should present the best
case for each of two competing alternative interpretations of the
program’s value, with both sides having access to the same
information about the program (Levine, 1973; Owens, 1981).

Decision-oriented evaluation model (CIPP). Evaluation should
facilitate intelligent judgments by decision makers (Stufflebeam et
al., 1971).

Evaluation research model. Evaluation should focus on explain-
ing educational effects and devising instructional strategies
(Campbell, 1969; Cooley, 1976).

Goal-free evaluation model. Evaluation should assess program
effects based on criteria apart from the program’s own conceptual
framework (Scriven, 1974).

Goal-oriented model. The goal-oriented model emphasizes that
evaluation should assess learners’ progress and the effectiveness of
educational innovations (Bloom et al., 1971; Provus, 1971).

Transactional evaluation model. Evaluation should depict
program processes and the value perspectives of key people (Rippey,

1973; Stake, 1975).

57

The Center for the Study Of Evaluation (CSE) model Of evalua-
tipp, In The Evaluator’s Handbook, Morris and Fitz-Gibbon (1978)
outlined how the CSE model Of evaluation works. The CSE program-
development model, at least in its major outlines, has guided evalu-
ation theory, practice, and training conducted by the Center for the
Study Of Evaluation since the late 19605. The CSE nmdel focuses
primarily on when to evaluate and points out phases during the
development Of a program during which various audiences might effec-
tively use credible information. The four stages tO be followed in

the CSE model are shown in Figure 2.5.

(1) (2) (3) (4)
NEEDS > PROGRAM FORMATIVE 3’, SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENT PLANNING )’ EVALUATION EVALUATION

Figure 2.5: Stages Of the CSE evaluation model. Adapted from
Morris and Fitz-Gibbon (1978).

CSE-model steps for conducting a formative evaluation are as
follows:

1. Set the boundaries Of the evaluation.

2. Prepare a program statement.

3. Monitor program implementation and the achievement of
program Objectives.

4. Report and confer with planners and participants.

CSE-model steps for conducting a summative evaluation are as

follows:

58

1. Focus the evaluation-~that. is, decide ‘what needs tO be
known, and by whom. Determine the purpose Of evaluation.

2. Select appropriate measurements and evaluation design.

3. Collect data.

4. Analyze data.

5. Prepare, assemble, and submit the report.

A Theory for Inservice Education Programs

The absence Of theory-based inservice education programs at all
levels was amplified by (Nuickshank, Lorish, and Thompson (1979),
who reported the apparent lack. Of 'theoretically based inservice
programs and the attending problems that emerge. Orlich (1989) also
Observed how little theory was called upon by inservice program
designers.

Putting theory into practice is just one Of the imperatives for
inservice education or any other area Of learning. The challenge Of
moving from theory tO practice permeates the educational system.
Maley (1982) contended that putting theory intO practice should be
guided by the identification Of theories appropriate for the time,
place, and function Of the enterprise. The process Of theory
validation is another imperative that must precede the theory-into-
practice process. Finally, for the educator, the challenge Of
putting theory into practice can be one Of the finest stimulators Of
professional involvement in developing the human component and

fulfilling the promise in each individual (Maley, 1982).

59

Selecting a theory or a combination Of theories for inservice
education would facilitate learning for all those involved in
inservice programs. TO select an educational approach for inservice
education is Of great use to program designers because it causes
them to analyze their assumptions, assertions, and definitions
before they even begin planning projects (Orlich, 1989).

By selecting a testable model from the theory, inservice
program directors can predict more accurately the logical
consequences Of their decisions. If the selected theory or paradigm
is applied properly, efficacious inservice projects and staff-
development programs evolve more scientifically and not Simply as
random events (Orlich, 1989). Thus, the design (If administrative
inservice programs should be based on theories that promote the
involvement Of participants and facilitate collaborative training.

Selecting a learning theory,for inservice education. Inservice
education designers need some learning theory upon which tO base the
activities they specify in the learning systems they create.
Professional instructors need some theoretical basis from which tO
Operate (Laird, 1985). Laird added, "But there are many learning
theories; which one Should be used? If you must have just one
theory, use the one that caused you yourself to learn--if you know
what it was!" (p. 114).

Gagne (1970) pointed out in The Conditions Of Learning, "I dO
not think learning is a phenomenon that can be explained by simple

theories, despite the admitted intellectual appeal such theories

60

have." The various learning theories have two chief values,
according to Hill (1977):
One value is in providing us with a vocabulary and a conceptual
framework for interpreting the examples of learning that we
observe. These are valuable for anyone who is alert to the
world. . . . The other, closely related, is in suggesting where
to look for solutions to practical problems. The theories do
not give us solutions, but they do direct our attention to

those variables that are crucial in finding solutions. (p. 261)

Thus, although learning theories cannot provide an Operator’s
manual for inservice education designers and instructors, they can
be useful as ways of organizing information and of thinking through
practical problems in designing and conducting inservice education
programs.

What is learning? One of ‘the ‘first practical concerns of
anyone attempting to deal with learning theory is the definition of
learning. Hilgard and Bower (1966) defined learning as:

. . the process by which any activity originates or is
changed through reacting to an encountered situation, provided
that the characteristics of the change irI activity cannot be
explained on the basis of native response tendencies,
maturation, or temporary states Of the organism (e.g., fatigue,
drugs, etc.). (p. 2)

Learning is a process, not a product, but the measurement of
the process presents such major difficulties that educators have
followed the practice of measuring the product. Although the
learning process is internal and unobservable, evaluations Of the
effectiveness Of an instructional program rest on the measurement of
observable behavior as a product of the desired behavior. Learning

is a change in the behavior of learners, and it: is described most

usefully in those terms (Blackburn, 1984).

 

61

Putting learning theory into practice. Learning theory and its
application to instructional methodology have led many researchers
to believe that an intervening link must be developed between the
theorist ir1 the 'laboratory zuui the practitioners ir1 the applied
setting. Bruner (1963) stated the problem:

A theory Of instruction must concern itself with the relation-

ship between how things are presented and how they are
learned. . . . Learning theory is not a theory Of instruction.

It describes what happened. . . . A theory Of instruction is a
guide to what to do in order to achieve certain Objectives. (p.
524)

During the 19703, researchers began the task of developing
instructional theories relying on both theoretical and experimental
analyses ‘hi the laboratory and applied problems taken from
instructional settings. Theories were developed about how the
learner organized and integrated information and how information was
stored (Glaser, 1982).

The issue Of putting theory into practice is imperative for the
professional educator if there are to be plausible and/or scientific
guidelines for his/her actions. The theory in this respect serves
as a statement of beliefs growing out Of Speculation, analysis, and
scientific examination (Maley, 1982).

Theories Of learning or instruction are, in essence, projec-
tions of thought through which the professional educator is able to
establish rationality and a sense Of logic for decisions in the
pursuit Of his/her actions. AS Cross (1981) stated, "theory without
practice is empty, and practice without theory is blind" (p. 110).

Examples Of learning theories dealing 'with ‘the behavior of

‘

people in relation to the processes Of learning, motivation,

62

individual differences, involvement, and personal development are
presented and described in the following pages.

The theory of individual differences. Individual differences
extend across the personal qualities of background, emotions,
abilities, interests, learning styles, motivations, health, sensory
effectiveness, maturity, self—concept, peer pressure, and many more.
Some suggested guidelines and principles have been presented as
prerequisites to putting the theory of "individual differences" into
pedagogical practice (Maley, 1982):

An understanding Of the ways in which people are different.

An understanding Of the specific learners and their particular
individual differences.

A dedication to the proposition that effective education is
dependent on the individualization of instruction.

A constant search for ways of bringing instructional programs
and practices in line with the individual learner. (p. 7)

Accordingly, an inservice education program or any other
educational program would include:

1. A broad range Of instructional activities from which the
learner can achieve success.

2. Multiple levels Of difficulty and challenge in the activi-
ties.

3. A broad range of roles that the learners could perform in
the training session.

4. Opportunities for learner involvement in terms of his/her
goals and purposes.

5. A good variety Of instructional strategies to facilitate
student or trainee learning in keeping with their needs.

6. A variety of educational media in keeping with the indi-
vidual sensory needs of the students.

63

7. Opportunities for every learner to become a somebody and/or
build a positive self-concept. (Maley, 1982, p. 8)

The theory of involvement in the learning process. This theory
is based on the idea that the quality of learning experienced by an
individual is highly related to the degree to which he/she is
involved in the process of learning as well as with the content.
Learning in this context depends on:

Establishing associations or linkages with previous experience
or knowledge gained.

Opportunities to use that which is tO be learned.
The use Of information in various Situations.
The use of multisensory input into the central nervous system.

The degree to which the learner finds meaning and/or a
relationship tO his/her purposes in what is to be learned.

The kind of physical and mental activity engaged in by the
learner.

The degree of mental concentration exerted by the learner.
(Maley, 1982, p. 8)

Each of the preceding conditions is a form of learner involvement
that puts the individual trainee in an active role with the content
or the processes Of the inservice education program.

Involvement Of the learner in the learning process entails an
intellectual participation in the processes Of searching, challeng-
ing, anticipating, analyzing, auui concluding. Involvement ir1 the
identification and planning Of the work to be done by learners
builds a personal identification with the materials and activities

of the learning experience (Bruner, 1977).

64

The theory of purposeful learning. The theory of purposeful
learning is grounded in the psychological connections Of meaning and
relevance of the learning experience to the individual learner. It
is based on the theory that the student enters the learning activity
with purposes and drives that tend to separate out that which is
relevant to him/her (Maley, 1982).

The teacher’s role may be one of providing the environmental
setting or Situation through which the learner accomplishes his/her
purposes. Klausmeier and Ripple (1971) provided the following
description Of this learning dynamic:

The theory' of’ purposeful learning attempts to identify and

describe conditions within the learner and the school setting

that facilitate learning. The sequence Of purposeful learning
begins with attending to the situation and setting a goal; it
ends with goal attainment and the use Of acquired knowledge and
abilities in other Situations. The teacher’s role is parallel
to that Of a student: it is viewed as facilitative and helping

rather than as perspective and Shaping. (p. 68)

The theory Of purposeful learning ranges over a broad Spectrum
of" individual possibilities. Individual purposefulness may stem
from such factors as exploration or pursuit of a career, involvement
with a hobby, future aspirations, use Of the information or skill,
purposes for pursuing the study, relevance of the educational
experience to one’s self-concept, one’s interests, and the goals one
has set for him/herself (Maley, 1982).

Sensory-stimulation 'theory. This approach to learning says
that, for people to change, they nmst invest their senses in the

process. Advocates of ‘the sensory-stimulation approach maintain

that 75% Of what adults know was acquired through the eyes. They

65

credit hearing with 13% and say that the remaining 12% of what
people know was acquired through touch, smell, and taste. This
stress on visual senses as the source Of learning results in a heavy
attack on the lecture method--unless, Of course, it is accompanied
by much visual stimulation.

The sensory—stimulation theory recognizes the problem of
forgetting. Some studies have Shown that people retain only about
one-tenth of what they have heard 72 hours after hearing it. Some
students retain about 30% Of what they have seen. When the
stimulation appeals to both ears and eyes, the retention rises to
about 70%. Advocates Of this theory point out that the more senses
are involved, the more lasting is the response (Laird, 1985).

Reinforcement theory. Behaviorists teach that :1 behavior is
controlled by its consequences. Humans will repeat a behavior that
seems to produce pleasant consequences and will avoid behaviors that
seem to lead to unpleasant consequences. To apply this in learning
settings, positive reinforcement will Shape learning experiences.
The implication is that the learner is actively involved in the
learning process. The learner is actively engaged and interacting
with the instructor whenever learning is really happening (Laird,
1985).

Facilitation theory. This approach places greater emphasis on
the learner’s involvement ir1 the process. In Freedom 1x1 Learn,
Rogers (1969) examined in depth the relationship between the learner
and the instructor. He saw the role Of the instructor as that Of a

facilitator, rather than a stimulator or controller, Of the learning

66

process. Thus, Rogers’s concept of facilitation involves permitting
students to make responsible choices about the direction of their
learning and to live responsibly with those choices. Rogers
identified maturity as the ultimate objective of a facilitative
learning system. "The most useful learning is learning the process
of learning . . . a continuing openness to experience, incorporating
into oneself the process of change" (p. 163).

Implementation of the facilitation approach in inservice
education requires an investment Of sufficient time 11) enable all
parties to chscuss their ideas and plans Openly. This approach
stresses the affective domain and encourages the expression of
emotions and feelings. Human relations Skills are emphasized; thus,
training in these skills is a prerequisite for using the
facilitation approach. Motivation is based on Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs, with each person satisfying his/her own higher-order needs Of
self-esteem or self-actualization. Finally, the trainer or
instructor in the project is perceived as a learning facilitator.

Rogers (1969) abstracted a number of principles from current
experience and research that might answer the following questions;
How does a person learn? How can important learning be facilitated?
What basic theoretical assumptions are involved?

1. Human beings have a natural potentiality for learning.

2. Significant learning takes place when the subject matter is

perceived by the student as having relevance for his own
purposes.

67

3. Learning which involves a change in self-organizations--in
the perception Of oneself--is threatening and tends to be
resisted.

4. Those learnings which are threatening to the self are more
easily perceived and assimilated when external threats are
at a minimum.

5. When threat to the self is low, experience can be perceived
in differentiated fashion, and learning can proceed.

6. Much significant learning is acquired through doing.

7. Learning is facilitated when the student participates
responsibly in the learning process.

8. Self-initiated learning which involves the whole person Of
the learner--feelings as well as intellect--is the most
lasting and pervasive.

9. Independence, creativity, and self-reliance are all facili-
tated when self-criticism and self-evaluation are basic and
evaluation by others is of secondary importance.

10. The most socially useful learning in the modern world is
the learning Of the process of learning, a continuing
Openness to experience and incorporation into oneself of
the process Of change. (pp. 157—163)

The andragogical model. The prefix "andra" is derived from the
Greek "aner," which means "man"; andragogy deals with how adults
learn. The leading person in this field is Malcolm Knowles, who
pointed out many differences between the ways adults and children
learn. According to Knowles, adult learners (a) are problem
centered rather than content centered, (b) seek participation, and
(c) like the student-centered classroom setting.

Knowles (1984) said that the basic format Of the andragogical
model is a process design. The andragogical model assigns a dual

role to the facilitator Of learning (a title preferred over

teacher): first, to facilitate the learners’ acquisition Of content

68

and, only secondarily, the role of content resource. An
andragogical process design consists Of the fbllowing seven
elements:

1. Climate or setting. What procedures would be most likely
to produce a climate that is conducive to learning? Knowles (1984)
considered two aspects Of climate. ‘The first is the physical
environment, the typical classroom, with chairs in rows and a
lectern ir1 front. Although physical climate 'Hs important,
psychological climate is even more important and more conducive to
learning. The psychological climate must be one of mutual respect,
collaborativeness, mutual trust, supportiveness, openness and
authenticity, pleasure, and humanness (Knowles, 1984).

2. Involving learners in mutual planning. A basic law of
human nature is at work here: People tend to feel committed to any
decision in proportion to the extent to which they have participated
in making it. Conversely, people tend to feel uncommitted to any
decision tO the extent that they believe others are making it for
them and imposing it on them.

3. Involving participants in diagnosing their own needs for
learning. A variety of diagnostic strategies are available, ranging
from simple interest-finding checklists to Eflaborate performance-
assessment systems.

4. Involving learners in formulating their learning objec-
tives.

5. Involving learners in designing learning plans.

6. Helping learners carry out their learning plans:

69

7. Involving learners in evaluating their learning.
Individual learners evaluate the accomplishment Of Objectives.
Evaluation also is concerned with judging the quality and worth of
the total program (Knowles, 1984).

Theories of Motivation for
Inservice Education

According to basic psychology, two classes Of motives determine
people’s behaviorv physiological motives (e.g., hunger, thirst,
sexual 1drives, cold) and psychological motives (e.g., cognitive,
achievement). The physiological motives are, obviously, basic; the
psychological ones are learned (Goad, 1982).

Many theories regarding motivation have been researched and
documented. Those that are useful in gaining an understanding of
the importance of motivation to training (Goad, 1982) are discussed
in the following paragraphs.

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. McGregor was a proponent of
a participative approach to management, as opposed to a more
autocratic style. Theory X is the label given to the traditional,
more authoritarian approach. This theory proposes the notion that
the average person dislikes work and will avoid it if he/She can.
Theory ‘Y rests (n1 Maslow’s higher-order human needs. It assumes
that man is active, and wishes to grow and become more and more
useful to the organization of which he/she is a part (Griffith,
1979). Both approaches work, whether used by an executive, a

trainer, or anyone in a position Of authority. But Theory Y--the

70

more participative approach--is much better suited to adult learning
(Goad, 1982).

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow (1954) classified human
needs in a pyramidal order, placing the most basic at the bottom of
the pyramid and the least potent at the top. When the physical
requirements of survival and security have been assured, an
individual looks for social satisfaction. A new level of needs
arises when his/her social needs have been met. The person desires
to earn the esteem of others. The highest level of needs relates to
self-actualization (Maslow, 1954).

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory. The work done by
Herzberg (1966) resulted in two categories Of factors that motivate
people: 11w; motivator factors are achievement, recognition Of
achievement, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and the pos-
sibility of growth. ‘The hygiene factors are supervision, company
policy and administration, working conditions, relations with
others, status, job security, salary, and personal life. Although
these factors relate primarily to work, they can be equated with the
training setting (Goad, 1982).

Instrumentality theory and motivation. Vroom (1964) developed
a process theory of motivation. The theory is based on cognitive
expectancies concerning outcomes that are likely to occur as a
result of the participants’ behavior and on individual preferences
among those outcomes. The motivational level is based on a combina-

tion of the individual’s belief that he/she can achieve certain

71

outcomes from his/her acts and the value of those outcomes to the
person (Goldstein, 1986).

Equity theory: Equity theory' is based on the belief ‘that
people want to be treated fairly. Adams (1965) stated that
"inequity exists for a person when he perceives that the ratio of
his outcomes to inputs and the ratio Of others’ outcomes to inputs
are unequal" (p. 280).

Although equity theory appears to be especially relevant to the
subject of wage factors (e.g., pay, status, and fringe benefits), it
may also have important implications for training. Instructional
programs for training may be viewed as an input or an output. In
the input case, individuals who have acquired the necessary training
experiences may view as inequitable promotions and pay raises earned
by individuals without equal educational experience. In the output
case, persons may perceive that they are not given the opportunity

to attend advanced training courses (Goldstein, 1986).

A Conceptual Framework for Involvement

All changes Should be introduced with the full consent and
participation Of those whose daily lives will be affected by the
change (Mead, 1955). The literature revealed a wide range of
disagreement on the notion of involvement in decisions when
developing programs. Boyle (1981) argued that the emphasis on
involvement in decisions about a program represents a departure from
planning for people to planning with people. Preferably, decisions

concerning the activities to be carried out Should be made by those

‘

72

who will benefit and, if not» at least through effective
consultation and substantial acceptance by those who will benefit
(Cohen & Uphoff, 1977).

A concept of involvement. The first view of involvement iS
embodied in the concept of power or control. Arnstein (1971), for
instance, defined participation as "the redistribution of power that
enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political
and economic process, to be deliberately included 'hi the fUture"
(pp. 71—72).

The underlying theme is one Of conflict: the have-not citizens
against the power holders. The basic purpose of this type of
participation is to alter drastically the power structure. Boyle
(1982) emphasized that the conflict approach is not the only
approach to social change. It iS misleading to imply that
participation always entails conflicts of interest.

The functional approach. The functional approach to social
change maintains that the major function is to provide the means for
increased collective effectiveness. Societal needs become organized
in and represented by Specific institutions. Collective effective-
ness is realized only if all societal needs are met in a balanced
fashion (Boyle, 1982).

The institutional building model. Boyle (1982) suggested the
institutional building model as an approach tO societal change. The
basic premise Of this model is that change is introduced primarily
in and through formal organizations. In the institutional building

model, the change agents are identified as the leadership, with

73

professional and political attributes, that facilitates the change
process. The basic tasks of change agents are to (a) define prob-
lems, values, Objectives, and Operating styles of the organization;
(b) translate problems and needs into programs through policies and
action measures; (c) mobilize and develop human and physical
resources; and (d) combine these resources into structure of
authority, communication, and effective actions that enable the
organization to carry out its programs. Mobilizing and developing
human resources into structures that- enable the organization to
implement its programs is most effective when there is direct
participation by those the organization serves (Boyle, 1982).

Definition of involvement/participation. The literature con-
tains many definitions of participation/involvement. Some of these
definitions stress people’s involvement in the decision-making
process, particularly their involvement in implementing programs and
decisions, their contributions of various resources, and their
cooperation in activities and programs, as well as mutual sharing in
the benefits Of the development in efforts to evaluate such programs
(Cohen & Uphoff, 1977).

Boyle (1982) viewed participathn1 as the process that helps
integrate the ever-increasing numbers of differentiated functions
and institutions in the social system. To participate means to take
a part (n: share with others 'hi some activity CH“ enterprise
(Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1983). Training

participation has been defined as an instructional program designed

74

to help participants use the processes and procedures Of group
discussion and other educational procedures in order to learn
effectively (Good, 1973).

Involvement in inservice education. The cooperative efforts
between planners and recipients of inservice education should be
harmonized. Involvement Of recipients Should begin with initiation
of program planning and continue through final evaluation because
involvement is EH1 important key to success (Harris, Bessent, &
McIntyre, 1969). The following statement by Otto and Erickson
(1973) seems to reinforce what Harris et a1. suggested:

If the participants have some control over the content of the

activity, it may have more relevance for their needs; or, if

the activity involves multisensory presentations, involvement
is enhanced. Finally, if two-way communication is prevalent
the chances for feedback and interaction increase the degree of

experience impact. (p. 4)

Continuing, Otto and Erickson pointed out that inservice programs
Should be planned and carried out to maximize recipients’ involve-
ment.

An inservice program cannot be judged solely on its goals; its
value is also based on the degree of involvement, cooperation, and
assistance Of the participants, as well as the degree to which
desired changes come about in their knowledge and behavior (Wick &
Beggs, 1971).

The absence of cooperative efforts between inservice program

planners and training recipients was documented by Rubin (1971):

"Historically, there is reason to believe that there have been

75

differences between the expectations Of in—service planners and
those of recipients for inservice" (p. 5).

Inservice education for school administrators should be based
on comprehensive studies of the real needs of school administrators.
Daresh and LaPlant (1985) reported that "administrators want to be
involved in project planning, prefer active participation, support
long-term or short-range projects, and desire some control of
decision making" (p. 39).

The NASSP Bulletin for January 1987 featured principals’ center
projects, Showing the commitment of such organizations to the
concept of voluntary involvement (Barth, 1987). Principals’ centers
and institutions are organized and administered tn/ the principals
themselves. The Harvard Principals’ Center even allows practi-
tioners to teach in the graduate school. Barth (1987) wrote that
the Harvard Center had a very positive effect on principals working
through the center.

Principals’ Centers as
Models for Involvement

During the last half decade, a variety Of different
associations, known by different names but most commonly classified
as principals’ centers, have appeared on 'the educational scene.
Erlandson (1987) stated that principals’ centers will fail if they
call attention primarily to themselves. They are facilitators of
growth and relationships among the principals they serve. 'The
centers can serve principals in conjunction with universities,

professional associations, and state departments Of education.

76

The main idea behind the establishment of principals’ centers
is the ownership by principals of their learning. .And with.
ownership comes involvement--involvement in the choice to
participate and 'hi the governance of their organizations;
involvement as providers of resources as well as consumers; and,
perhaps most important, involvement Of principals by nmdeling for
others, adults and students (Barth, 1987).

Between 1983 and 1987, approximately 100 Injncipals’ centers
were established in the United States. Wallace (1987) summarized
the purposes Of principals’ centers in the following statement:

Centers range from grass—roots "club" style centers, where

principals attend voluntarily and plan, organize, and Offer

activities in which craft knowledge is shared, to district or
state training academies where courses are provided by

professional trainers for principals in a given area. (p. 63)

Erlandson (1987) wondered why principals’ centers have come on
the scene. Established bodies, including universities and
professional associations, have for years provided the same benefits
promised by principals’ centerS-—chiefly training, renewal, and
collegiality. Why, then, have principals’ centers been established?
And what accounts for their growing popularity? Erlandson’s answer
is that principals’ centers cannot supplant, or even compete with,
the agencies and associations that have traditionally supported
principals. They are in the business of fostering renewal through

relationships designed to continue only so long as they fulfill

needs that are unmet by other groups.

77

The most Significant and essential idea behind a Infincipals’
center is that it is initiated and directed by principals, for
principals. Although the development Of each principals’ center
will be different, it is important to note an idea that is common to
all centers. The purpose of principals’ centers is not to develop
political clout for principals or to improve their working condi-
tions or salaries, although such things could be by-products. A
principals’ center focuses essentially on improving principals’
professional skills, attitudes, and expertise (Carmichael, 1982).

According to Barth (1987), each Of the 100 or so principals’
centers across the United States is an experiment, a laboratory
seeking to foster learning, to make visible and available knowledge
about the professional craft, to encourage risk taking, and to
develop a culture of collegiality. What principals want and need
are real professional-growth and renewal Opportunities, not time
spent in contrived, overly theoretical activity. Some principals
and assistant principals, as members of principals’ centers, will
gain personal and professional recognition from the society, volun-
tary attendance, and 21 neutral and protected setting for their
reflections and conversations (Barth, 1987).

IDEA: A model for involvement. The Institute for Development
Of Educational Activities (IDEA) is a private, nonprofit foundation
hi Dayton, Ohio. All principals 'hi the Kenmore School District
participated in the IDEA principals’ inservice program. This

program was designed to help build support groups and to develop the

78

problem-solving skills needed to plan and implement improvements in
their school buildings.

After initial awareness workshops, the principal inservice
groups meet one day a month during the first year of school
improvement to vund< on planning Skills, to help each other solve
immediate problems, and to prepare for supporting improvement
projects in their individual schools. During the next stage,
principals ‘turn ‘their' staff-development. efforts 'toward increasing
their supervisory Skills and focusing on instructional
effectiveness.

Thus, knowledge gained in the principals’ inservice program is
Specific, as it evolves from the process of the group.
Substantively, the program develops the participants’ understanding
Of the roles of educator, leader, and agent of change and Offers
training in the skills Of group process and problem solving. The
group members work toward four Specific outcomes:

1. The principal, as a member Of a collegial support group,
designs, implements, and evaluates his/her own professional-
development plan for increasing leadership capability.

2. The principal designs, implements, and evaluates a school-
improvement project that includes staff involvement in addressing an
identified need within the school.

3. Members of the collegial support group assist and encourage
each other in professional-development and school-improvement

efforts.

79

4. The principal adopts continuous improvement as a way of
life and accepts personal responsibility for his/her role in the
improvement process.

Learning is more than information gathering; it is participa-
tion. Therefore, group members share their improvement efforts.
They learn in styles that are appropriate for each group member. In
designing his/her: own professional-development plan, each member
identifies the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to improve
job effectiveness; these needs are then verified through a variety
Of techniques and sources. Through a series of structured
activities, each principal becomes more aware of his/her leadership
style, how it affects others, and the importance Of adaptiveness and
flexibility.

An analysis Of the school-improvement plans received from the
1979-80 participating principals indicated that most plans addressed
needs 'hi two areas: staff programs and the educational climate.
According to a survey Of the 1979-80 participants, principals viewed
the program positively (Sharp, 1983).

The NCLIP model. The North Carolina Leadership Institute for
Principals (NCLIP), initiated in 1979, has developed various types
of programs to meet the needs of principals and assistant
principals. These programs are designed to help individual school
administrators develop anui maintain administrative skills through
three programs:

1. Business/industry liaison program. 'The training 'hi this

program is designed to help school administrators strengthen their

80

supervisory, administrative, leadership, communication, and/or
interpersonal skills. The training topics are Offered several times
throughout the year by different business firms in North Carolina.

2. Short-term internship program. This program was designed
to provide growth Opportunities for school administrators who wish
to visit another administrator, school, or educational agency to
examine new materials or practices. The short-term internship
program is tailored to the individual needs and interests of each
participant. After the visit occurs, the participant completes a
report on the benefits gained.

3. Executive assistant program. Since the Institute’s
inception, three principals have been chosen to serve one-year
terms. The role (Hi'the executive assistant includes planning fOr
seminars, handling the paperwork for each seminar, facilitating the
seminars on site, assisting with Office Operations, providing
feedback on the principalship, designing and delivering training
programs, and writing training materials and position papers on the
principalship.

The Institute benefits the executive assistants by broadening
their knowledge and skills in the principalship through participa-
tion in educational seminars and expanding their knowledge of
programs and services available throughout the state and nation
(Grier & Draughton, 1987).

The Georgia Principals’ Institute. The Bureau Of Research and

Service of Georgia State University established the Principals’

81

Institute in July 1964 to assist principals and local school
districts in improving educational Opportunities for students in 11
Atlanta school systems. This purpose is being achieved through
implementation of the NASSP Assessment Center to provide relevant
data fOr Injncipal selection (preservice), development activities
for current principals (inservice), and research and dissemination
activities (service to the profession).

Principals are actively involved ir1 the development and
implementation of service provided by the Principals’ Institute.
They serve on an advisory board, which sets goals for the year.
Outstanding principals are identified by the advisory board to serve
as workshop presenters, role models for beginning principals, and
resources for principals who want to Observe successful programs in
action. The process of assessing needs, setting goals, and
selecting activities puts control of development ir1 the hands Of
professionals who know the needs Of their peers (Richardson &
Robinson, 1987).

The Meadowbrook Leadership Academy. The purpose of this
Academy is to provide continuing education and professional-
development Opportunities for school administrators ir1 the south-
eastern Michigan and Detroit metropolitan areas. The Academy Offers
one-day seminars, weekend workshops, week-long institutes, short-
term courses, and conventional noncredit courses; participants can
receive continuing-education units and graduate credits.

Because the focus Of the Academy is on continuing education and

professional needs Of school principals, a planning group of 12

82

principals convened to discuss and define the mission Of a
principals’ center: and to plan activities for a pilot program.
Eventually, the planning group divided into two subgroups. One
subgroup focused on assessing the needs of the more than 1,500
principals and assistant principals. The other subgroup addressed
the question of the financial and governance structure of the
Academy. The importance Of principals’ involvement in planning for

a new principals’ center was emphasized (Pine, 1987).

Human and Resource Development in Kuwait
Introduction

Kuwait is a developing country that is endeavoring to use its
resources in a balanced way to meet the state’s national goals.
Because Of recent rapid advances in technology and extreme changes
in Kuwaiti society, the major challenge facing Kuwait is to provide
the means by which the society can pass safely through this critical
transitional stage.

The rapid changes in Kuwaiti society, brought about by
increased revenues from the petroleum industry, have improved the
life style in Kuwait. However, along with these improvements have
come significant problems, one Of which is lack Of trained Kuwaiti
professionals and technicians in many areas, such as education, the
oil industry, engineering, and medicine. As a result, Kuwait has
had to depend on professionally and technically trained and
qualified employees and workers from other countries tO fulfill this

need (Al-Hashel, 1979). '

83

Cpmppsition Of Kuwait’s Population

The recent marked economic changes have brought about equally
rapid changes in the social conditions in Kuwait, including changes
in the size and composition of the population, the composition of
the labor force, employment levels, and the distribution Of wealth
and income. Kuwait’s population has been increasing at a compounded
annual rate of more than 8% for the last 40 years. This phenomenal
growth is due to two main developments: (a) the influx of workers
from other countries in the region to help in the construction of
new infrastructure projects and to staff jobs created by the
expansion of public service and (b) the increase Of Kuwaitis through
a concentrated effort to naturalize tribesmen scattered on the
fringes of the country along with a limited number of qualified
people who have resided in the country for an extended time
(normally 20 years or more) (Khouja & Sadler, 1979).

The growth Of Kuwait’s labor force during the 19505 and early
19605 was remarkable, averaging 9% per annum during the years from
1946 through 1957 and more than 16% annually in the following eight
years. Although in comparison to other countries the labor force
continued to increase rapidly during the second half Of the 19605
and the early 19705, the growth rate decreased to lower levels,
averaging about 6.5% annually since the mid-19605. Further reasons
for this slow-down were the slower growth Of the economy and the
increased restrictions on entry to the country (Khouja 81 Sadler,

1979).

 

84

The Need for Development Planning

The first five-year plan. The first five-year plan of the
state of Kuwait (hereafter called the plan) was released in early
1966. The plan encompasses two sets Of Objectives, one of long-run
implications and the other Of 21 more immediate nature. The long-
term goals deal with the basic structure of the society to actuate
social and economic principals. Among these are:

1. Building a diversified, self-sustaining economy, with
emphasis on sectors other than 011.

2. Raising the standards of education and training.

3. Insuring a high rate of economic growth.

4. Creating a geographical balance between cities and smaller
municipalities through improved transportation and communication
facilities.

5. Increasing the proportion of Kuwaitis in the labor force.

6. Assuring and raising the proportion (Hi Kuwaitis in the
labor force.

7. Creating employment opportunities.

8. Limiting the use of labor from nonindigenous sources,
except in highly technical vocations, to be balanced and surpassed
by the exit of certain numbers of unskilled non-Kuwaitis.

9. Realizing a greater degree of social justice.

10. Recognizing the principle that every citizen has inviolable
proprietary rights.
11. Working toward Arab economic complementarity (Ministry of

Planning, 1968). '

85

Trends Toward Education and Training

To achieve the first three Objectives of the plan and to raise
the proportion of Kuwaitis in the labor force, the government of
Kuwait has spent Inillions. Of' Kuwaiti dinars on the progress of
education and training. Table 2.1 indicates the: growth of 'the
Ministry Of Education’s budget compared to the state budget during
the period from 1972/73 to 1981/82.

Table 2.1.--Comparison Of the Ministry Of Education’s budget to the
state budget in Kuwait (in millions of Kuwaiti dinars).

 

 

Ratio of Rate of

School State Ministry Ministry Growth Of
Year Budget Budget Budget to Ministry

State Budget Budget
1972/73 412.0 47.0 11.5 100%
1973/74 450.0 54.0 12.0 115%
1974/75 574.0 62.0 10.8 132%
1975/76 827.0 87.0 10.5 185%
1976/77 1322.0 106.0 8.0 225%
1977/78 2038.0 122.0 6.0 259%
1978/79 1991.0 129.0 6.5 274%
1979/80 2300.0 165.0 7.2 351%
1980/81 2975.0 184.0 6.2 391%
1981/82 2082.7 221.5 7.2 471%

 

Source: Hakim (1984), p. 25.

An abundance of capital and the small Size of the population
have enabled Kuwait to make rapid strides in education. Education
is now compulsory for children 4 to 16 years of age. Stress has

been placed on adequate secondary education on the grounds that a

u-

86

poorly developed education at this level could become a hindrance to
the success of both primary and higher education (El-Mallakh, 1968).

Another area Of human resource development is the preparation
and training of manpower for the labor force. At least three
separate methods of human resource development are used in Kuwait:

1. The first method is to make greater use of existing
facilities and institutes by additional sites Of instruction, using
added staff if necessary.

2. On-the-job and apprenticeship training is being developed,
whhfli is considerably cheaper than institutional training. Such
types Of training can be carried out, provided the prerequisite
supervisory training is implemented.

3. As a member of the Cooperative Council Of the Gulf States,
Kuwait Should participate on the committees established with repre-
sentatives from each state in the Gulf area. Their task would be to
advise the governments in the Gulf on Opportunities for cooperative
efforts at employment-oriented human resource development

programming.

The Educational System in Kuwait

Historical background. Education in Kuwait began at the turn
of the eighteenth century in the form of private schools known as
katateeb (literally, places to teach and learn writing and reading)
and seminars at mosques. In Kuwait, mosques have played a very
important role in education since the times Of the early settlers.

Education at that time was limited to reciting and memorizing the

w.

87

Quran and the sayings (Hadith) of the Prophet Mohammad (Peace be
upon him). In the mosques, students were taught reading, writing,
and simple arithmetic Operations needed for purposes Of exchange and
trade.

Private (nongovernmental) education 'HT Kuwait began 'hi 1912,
with the establishment Of Al-Mubarakiah School, the first school in
Kuwait. Its curriculum includes Islamic education, Arabic language,
history, geography, and mathematics (Al-Ahmed, 1986). The Opening
Of this school in 1912 marked the beginning of Kuwait’s present
educational system.

Al-Mubarakiah’s principal wrote the textbooks and designed the
program, which was concerned primarily with arithmetic and
correspondence in addition to the curriculum of the home schools.
In 1931, the world economic slump hit Kuwait, causing a drop in the
pearl market, the financial base for Al-Mubarakiah school. As a
result, the school was closed until 1936 (Freeth & Winston, 1972).
In 1936, the Council of Education (Majlis Al-Ma’arif) was
established, and formal education in Kuwait began.

In 1954, education in the modern sense began with the emergence
of new concepts in Kuwaiti society, which impelled the Department of
Education to reconsider its educational philosophy, Objectives, and
existing educational provisions. Two prominent educationalists,
Al-Agrawi and Al-Qabbani, were assigned the task of examining the
existing system Of education and suggesting ways Of developing it SO
as to meet the society’s need for specialized workers as Oil

revenues began affecting the standard of living. In light of these

88

experts’ report, a new school ladder (four years of primary school,
four ,years Of intermediate [middle] school, and four years of
secondary school) was adopted; compulsory education was extended to
eight years, and a teacher education institute was established,
among other educational developments (Al-Ahmad, 1986).

The second major turning point began with Kuwait’s independence
in 1961. At about the same time the country became a member of the
Arab League and the United Nations. The door was opened for
cultural contacts with other countries and the exchange of
educational experiences. Accordingly, the need was recognized for
educational planning; the development Of educational administration;
and changes in the educational ladder, plan of study, curricula,

textbooks, and educational technology (Al-Ahmad, 1986).

Educational Administration and Leadership

Educational administration is an important function, guided by
clearly defined scientific principles, although in Kuwait such
administration long remained an arbitrary procedure that was void of
any scientific, thoroughly studied planning. The functions of
departments of education include educational administration of all
patterns and at all levels—-primary, intermediate, and secondary.
In other words, these functions involve administration at the level
of central planning, regional authorization, and local
implementation. All of these functions are carried out within a
centralized policy Of education and its administration (Al—Ahmed,

1986).

89

In a conference paper entitled "Toward a Better Future in
Education in the Arabian Gulf," Al-Mohaini (1976) asserted that an
autocratic relationship and centralization are two characteristics
Of Kuwait’s educational system. He reported how school administra-
tors, supervisors, and directors perceived various aspects of

educational administration in Kuwait (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2.--School administrators’, supervisors’, and directors’
perceptions Of various aspects of educational admin-
istration in Kuwait.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School
Adminis- Super- Directors
trators visors
PM W W
Kind of relationship: centrali-
zation or decentralization
Centralized system 82 80 64.0
Decentralized system 8 6 22.7
Combination 10 14 13.3
Relationship between schools
and the Ministry of Education
Autocratic relationship 84 73 50
Guidance relationship 12 21 27
Leadership relationship 4 6 23
How much authority should
be given to principals?
Authority from principal 78 47 20
Unlimited authority 9 l --
Limited authority 1 8 60
When situation needs it 12 44 15

 

Source: Al-Mohaini (1976).

90

According to Al—Tammar (1983), the Ministry of Education Should
delegate more authority to public secondary school principals.
Similarly, in his 1987 study Of public secondary school principals’
job satisfaction, Safar suggested that the authorities Should take
appropriate measures to help raise principals’ level of satisfaction
with respect to autonomy, development and advancement, involvement
in decision making, relationships with superiors, and job security.

In an effort to decrease centralization, the Ministry of
Education has divided the state of Kuwait into five educational
zones: Al-Ahmadi, Al—Farwaniah, Al-Jahra, Al-Asimah (the capital),
and Hawalli. Each of these zones was established to serve a number
of residential areas. Another reason for establishing educational
zones was to provide educational services better and faster to local
schools and communities throughout Kuwait.

School administration. What tasks, skills, zuwi competencies
have been identified for school administrators in Kuwait? In the
School Organization Manual, issued by the Ministry of Education in
1975, the school principal’s tasks are described as follows:

1. The principal is responsible for everything within the
school building. He/She is in charge of Observing and evaluating
the progress and implementation Of educational programs at his/her
school. The principal also is responsible for all managerial and
administrative ‘tasks, as well as technical, social, and cultural

matters.

91

2. As an instructional leader, the principal is required to
perform the following tasks:

a. Distribute and endorse the master teaching plan.

b. Assign teachers to extracurricular activities.

c. Revise all teachers’ class work records, classroom
activities, and students’ exams.

d. Assign teachers to disciplinary tasks within classrooms
and on the school playground.

e. Visit and Observe teachers in classrooms and take notes
on these Observations.

f. Observe and monitor students’ behavior and progress.

g. Endorse all official records and documents issued
within the school building.

3. The principal has the right to deal directly with all
directorates in the Ministry of Education and can demand supplements
to or repairs Of the school building’s physical plant and facili-
ties.

4. The principal has the right to punish any school employee,
either orally or in writing.

5. The principal may not prevent any school employee from
writing or complaining to the Central Office of the Ministry Of
Education.

6. The principal may accept or reject new students from

outside his school locale for reasonable causes.

92

7. The principal has the right to punish student Offenders,
within the limits Of the rules and regulations stated by the
Ministry of Education.

8. The principal is the head (H: the school building’s
administrative board, which consists Of the principal, assistant
principal, head teachers, school counselors, and social workers.
The main purpose Of this board is to help the principal with various
tasks, such as dealing with major disciplinary problems and estimat-
ing the annual school budget and the need for equipment, facilities,«
teachers, other school employees, and students for the ikfllowing
school year. The board meets weekly to discuss procedures of the
monthly and final school examinations, in accordance with the
Ministry Of Education’s policy regarding this wetter (Ministry of
Education, 1975, pp. 5-9).

The Specific tasks and responsibilities of assistant principals
in Kuwait are as follows:

1. Supervising and maintaining discipline, in cooperation with
the teachers.

2. Preparing and administering the master schedule.

3. Preparing substitute teachers’ schedules.

4. Organizing and supervising the cafeteria.

5. Supervising and administering student organizations.

6. Supervising, monitoring, and evaluating classified
employees.

7. Preparing and inaintaining proportionate budgets for the

various activity accounts, and keeping accurate records.-

93

8. Managing the school buildings and physical plant.

9. Gathering and preparing data about school employees.

10. Helping the principal supervise and administer school exam-
inations.

11. Performing any additional tasks assigned to him by the
principal (Ministry of Education, 1975, pp. lO-ll).

In general, it is assumed in this school organization manual
that the assistant principal will increase his/her general knowledge
of administrative and managerial responsibilities through working
and cooperating with the school principal. However, the assistant
principal’s daily interaction with the principal and other staff
members is the only way in which he/she can learn about the
administrative duties involved ir1 the principalship; this 'hs not
sufficient preparation for potential school principals.

The role Of the school principal. Public school principals in
Kuwait do not actually perform the same tasks as school
administrators in advanced countries. Furthermore, most of their
responsibilities are nonacademic and are carried out routinely and
"by the book" (Al-Mohaini, 1976, p. 2). Haider (1974) described the
role Of a public school principal in Kuwait as follows:

The principal has no Options regarding the curriculum syllabus,

teaching staff, or the choice of textbooks; he is merely an

instrument for the Ministry Of Education. 'The school’s
principal has no freedom for action even on the basis Of day-
tO-day school Operations. It is difficult to Operate with
efficiency with the present form Of centralization in which too
much authority is invested in a few top Officials who retain
ultimate control over even minor decisions. Thus, not only

does this centralization constitute a serious obstacle to
educational efficiency and waste Of both resources and

94

personnel, but it also prevents any possible initiation of

flexibility with any given Situation. (pp. 68-69)

In his study, Al-Mohaini (1976) found that public school
principals wanted (a) more authority to run their schools, (b) less
interference in school matters by the Central Office Of the
Ministry, (c) more cooperation between school and home, (d) an
Opportunity to participate in educational and administrative
decisions, and (e) evaluation based on fair and appropriate criteria
(pp. 25-28).

In Kuwait, the principals follow directives handed down to them
from the Ministry. The Ministry has the legal authority to issue
decrees that determine every aspect of the educational process in
the country. For ‘thlS reason, in her 1983 study, Al-Tammar
suggested that the Ministry Of Education needs to give more
attention to the importance of public secondary school principals’
role. She wrote:

1. There is a need for a new outlook on the role Of the prin—
cipal for the secondary school in Kuwait.

2. The Ministry has to delegate more authority to the princi-
pals.

3. Decentralization Of education in Kuwait could very much
result in a more powerful and effective principal.

4. The decentralized system that makes the principal more
independent would release his capacity to create and stimu-
late change toward the better for schooling and education.

5. There is an Obvious need for active involvement and
participation Of the secondary school principals in running
their schools. (pp. 26-27)

Al-Rasheedi and Khalaf (1985) found that 30.8% of public

secondary school principals had knowledge about the -educational

95

goals, whereas more than 33% had not received any kind of education
about. goal setting and application. Ninety-Six percent of the
respondents perceived that knowledge of goals was an important
matter in their work. Al—Rasheedi and Khalaf concluded that the
present educational goals and Objectives exist only on paper but are
not applied in daily school life.

Regarding the academic level Of public school administrators,
Al-Rasheedi and Khalaf (1985) found that 9% Of administrators had a
secondary education certificate and 54% possessed a teaching diploma
(two years postsecondary education). Most public secondary school
administrators have a university degree. The researchers also
indicated that about 50% of school administrators had been in their
positions for Six or fewer years; 76.1% had been in their positions
ten or fewer years.

Al-Rasheedi and Khalaf (1985) emphasized that principals need
more training in goal setting and in knowledge and skills of
educational and school administration. Furthermore, they
recommended that principals be given an opportunity to participate
in decision-making processes as part of their roles as school
leaders.

hi a recent study (if school administration iri Kuwait,
Al-Musaileem (1988) examined all the decrees issued by the Ministry
of Education between 1983 and 1985. He found that the Ministry
interfered in 95% of the principals’ work. AS a result, public

school principals are little more than receivers or transformers of

96

the Ministry’s orders and instructions. Such an unhealthy situation
will not help principals to be innovators or even to apply what they
might have learned from inservice education.

School principals Spend most Of their work hours in their
Offices, attempting to finish the mountains Of paperwork required by
the Ministry (Al-Musaileem, 1988). In addition, the principal is
required to carry out his daily school tasks effectively. In 1987,
the Ministry issued a new booklet as a guide for school principals’
work. This booklet contained 109 duties the principal should
perform throughout the academic year. With all Of these administra-
tive and managerial responsibilities, no individual can perform this
role effectively. Furthermore, the instructional role Of the
principal requires that he/she visit classrooms, as well as evaluate
teachers, the curriculum, and students’ progress. Al-Musaileem
suggested that the Ministry of Education should pay more attention
to the process by which principals are selected and promoted and
provide better on-the-job training for these individuals.

At the Arabic Conference on the Renewal and Diversification Of
Secondary Education in the States of the Arabian Gulf, held in
February 1987, a paper was presented by the Arabic Center for Educa-
tional Researchers in the Gulf States (1987) about school adminis—
trators’ need for inservice education. It was recommended that
decentralization and more cOOperation between central educational
administrators and school administrators are the best ways to solve

some administrative problems in the schools.

97

In a paper presented at the Arabic Conference on Renovation and
Diversification in Secondary Education, which was held in Kuwait in
November 1987, the Kuwaiti delegation indicated that the lack of
qualified teachers and school administrators hindered the change
process (Ministry of Education, 1987). For example, Kuwait adopted
the credit system in 1978, but after ten years only a few schools
were applying that system. Accordingly, inservice education was
recommended for teachers, and for school administrators as well.

On June 30, 1985, His Highness the Emir Of the State of Kuwait
issued a decree forming a supervisory committee whose main purpose
was to evaluate the state’s educational system. Twp years later,
the committee reported its findings and made a number of
recommendations. Major issues discussed ir1 the committee report
were general educational goals, educational policy, educational
planning, and educational administration.

In relation to school administration, the committee recommended
that the criteria for selecting school principals and assistant
principals and the evaluation of their performance needed to be
revised and improved. Continuous professional inservice education
programs are needed for educational leaders in schools and in the
Ministry’s directorates and departments. It was recommended that a
comprehensive plan for inservice education be established for this
purpose. Also, the Ministry should Offer it variety Of styles of
inservice education. Follow-up studies should be carried out after
each inservice education program to develop and build better

programs . T

98

Selection and promotion of academic and administrative person-
p_l. Three types of promotion are used in the educational system in
Kuwait. The first is in the academic area, where teachers may
advance in academic rank, be promoted to positions with increased
responsibility (such as departmental chair, head teacher, or
academic supervisor), or be granted higher status with better
pay. Criteria governing advancement in academic rank may include
length of service in the teaching profession and length of service
in a particular rank. School principals and academic supervisors
also may make recommendations to central Office administrators
concerning teachers they believe Should be considered for promotion.

The second type (H: promotion pertains to nonacademic support
personnel. These personnel appear to be promoted on the same basis
as business people, 'if they znwa working 'hi administrative/
professional areas only.

The third type Of promotion is the selection of school building
administrators. Injncipals and assistant principals are promoted
according to the criteria used in both academic and administrative
types Of promotions.

A brief look at the way in which public school administrators
are selected and promoted will help explain the necessity for more
systematic and well-planned administrative inservice programs, not

only for school administrators but also for those who are in charge

of the selection process at the Ministry of Education.

99

All assistant principals in the Kuwaiti K-12 public educational
system enter their jobs through academic promotions as teachers.
Potential school administrators are nominated for assistant
principalships according to the following conditions:

1. Potential administrators should have performed effectively
in their teaching assignments.

2. Potential administrators should have had excellent reports
in the preceding two years, at the minimum, from the academic
advisor and the school principal.

3. A written recommendation letter from the principal is a
prerequisite for the nomination.

4. Potential administrators are interviewed individually by a
committee for 10 to 20 minutes.

When the committee has made its decision, the candidate is
notified of his/her new job. The new assistant principal enters the
new job without any kind of induction. Recently, the Ministry of
Education considered requiring attendance at an inservice education
program as a prerequisite for nomination to school administration
positions.

New assistant principals, as well as teachers and new
principals, are assigned to their schools according to certain
criteria. Factors considered in inaking assignments include the
candidate’s wishes, the welfare of students, working relationships,
seniority, annual reports, and vacancies in schools.

Selection Of school principals is similar to the selection of

assistant principals. Selection Of new principals is based on

100

seniority, a letter Of recommendation, annual reports, and vacancies
in schools. The last is the most important criterion in selecting
and assigning new principals.

The absence Of accurate and reliable techniques in selecting
and promoting school staff members to higher administrative
positions has resulted in Kuwait’s having school administrators who
are insecure and poorly prepared. Al-Mohaini (1976) contended that
administrators are running their schools by the book, according to
traditional notions and authority, in order to cover their own
inferiority and inefficiency.

A model for the selection of school administrators. Effective
selection Of educational administrators iS a challenging task
(Buckley, 1971). Tesolowski and Morgan (1980) emphasized that the
problem of selection has been difficult to handle and will become
even more challenging in the future. Wagstaff and Spillman (1974)
pointed out that many principals have discovered much too late that
they are not up to the demands Of the job. The authors added that
this problenl might. be prevented I»! using assessment-center
procedures.

In Kuwait, as elsewhere, assessment techniques could be used to
provide more valid information about candidates for administrative
positions. Based on the assessment results and evaluation reports,
Ministry officials could make final selection decisions in the
context Of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. In selecting

school administrators, the Ministry of Education must bear in mind

101

that students and teachers, as well as school programs, are directly
affected by the selection.

The objective Of the selection process is to hire individuals
who yfill be successful ir1 schoOl administration. Rebore (1982)
stated that the selection process should be implemented through a
series Of activities that will minimize the chance of hiring
individuals who are inadequate performers.

Assessment-center technigues. Cohen (1975) defined assessment
centers as places where job—related assessment programs are
conducted. The assessment is with regard to one’s future
performance ir1 a specific role (Lopez, 1970). Techniques used by
assessment center“ personnel 1x1 determine the personal
characteristics of participants include interviews, in-basket
exercises, leaderless group discussions, business game exercises,
projective tests, and paper-and-pencil tests (Bender, 1973; Bray &
Grant, 1966; Moses, 1973).

Interviews. An interviewer attempts to acquire insights into
an interviewee’s development. Information regarding the inter-
viewee’s work. Objectives, attitudes toward the current place of
employment, social values, and personal idiosyncrasies is Obtained.
Interviews often are coupled with more traditional instruments, such
as biographical data forms, personal history’ questionnaires, and
Short autobiographical essays. Interviews require time, effort, and
an expert interviewer who is able to analyze and draw conclusions

about the interviewee’s personal characteristics.

102

Leaderless group discussions. These discussions are designed
to evaluate candidates’ interpersonal Skills. They consist of com-
petitive group problems, which require Six candidates to arrive at a
mutually agreed upon decision.

Business game exercises. These exercises Often present a
manufacturing problem. Participants assume roles as partners in a
manufacturing enterprise.

The in-basket technique. This is an individual exercise for
evaluating administrative ability. Participants receive at set of
materials that a manager might expect to find in the in-basket.
Items range from telephone messages to detailed reports.
Participants are allowed three hours to review neterials and take
appropriate action on items In/ writing letters, memos, and
reminders. After they have reviewed the materials, participants are
interviewed. Reasons are sought for the actions that have been
observed.

Projective tests. Such tests as the Rotter Incomplete Sen-
tences Blank, the Bell Incomplete Sentences Test, and the Thematic
Apperception Test sometimes are used in assessment procedures.

Paper-and-pencil tests. Such instruments as the School and
College Ability Test, the Test Of Critical Thinking in Social
Science, and the Contemporary Affairs Test are used. McIntyre
(1974) pointed out that tests should be used sensibly, cautiously,
flexibly, and in combination with other evidence.

The services of assessment centers are expensive. Estimates

have placed costs at $500 to $600 per candidate (Wilson 81 Tatge,

103

1973). However, the expense Of employing a poor manager far exceeds
that involved in selecting one who is more qualified (Tesolowski 8

Morgan, 1980).

Conclusion

The relationship between central administration and school
administration in Kuwait is 21 major issue (Al-Mohaini, 1976; Al-
Musaileem, 1988; Khalaph 8 Al-Rasheedi, 1985; Al-Tammar, 1983). The
role and functions Of public school administrators appear to be
unclear, despite the written guide. The effectiveness Of public
school principals in performing their role has not been adequately
assessed. More than annual reports and years of experience are
needed in selecting and promoting school staff and assistant
principals to higher administrative positions. There appears to be
a need for inservice programs for all those involved in the
selection process.
The Present Status of Administrative
Inservice Education in Kuwait

Administrators at all levels in the Kuwaiti Ministry of
Education believe that inservice education is the most appropriate
way of improving the managerial and administrative skills Of public
school administrators. At present, however, administrative
inservice education is not seen as fulfilling the needs Of
practicing public school administrators in Kuwait. Not enough
administrative inservice iS Offered, and much Of what is provided is

viewed as having little applicability and value to the participants.

-

104

Most administrative inservice education programs are chosen by
Training Center Officials and the administrative or academic
supervisors and usually are delivered in a mode that does not
encourage school administrators’ active involvement.

The characteristics Of inservice education Offered to Ministry
of Education personnel were described by a UNESCO expert in 1981 as
follows (Hijab, 1981):

1. Most inservice education policies are remedial and reactive
in nature.

2. Inservice education programs are not well planned.

3. The main idea behind training is to provide untrained or
unqualified employees with information to help them do their jobs as
required by the Ministry Of Education.

4. The Ministry supervisors are the only people in charge of
initiating or suggesting new inservice education programs.

5. Training programs are focused on treating certain tOpics
and problems and are given to certain categories of employees more
than others.

6. The Department of Human Resource and Curricula Development
has the only people who may accept or deny any new training program.

7. The training session is the actual training unit, whereas
the training program has come to be a group Of unrelated sessions.

8. There is no set Of general principles or goals for staff-
development policy in the Ministry of Education.

9. Employees’ training needs have not been identified or

categorized. .

105

10. It seems that the main purpose of evaluating inservice
education programs is to distribute rewards and punishments and not
to improve the inservice education program itself.

11. Ministry Officials such as heads Of departments, heads of
educational zones, heads of supervisory sections, and some assistant
secretaries have not received inservice education before being
assigned to their positions.

The inadequacies of inservice education in Kuwait have been
reported in several studies. In a paper presented to the Conference
on the Selection and Training of Educational Administrative Leaders
in the Arabian Gulf States, the director of the Curriculum Research
Center in Kuwait suggested that educational leaders should be
trained before and after they are selected for or promoted to higher
positions (Bustan, 1981). He recommended that trainees should be
given an opportunity to participate in the processes of needs
assessment, planning, and evaluation (Hi inservice education
programs.

Bakeesh (1982) conducted a survey Of all inservice education
programs Offered by the Ministry of Education to school
administrators and staff members between 1975 and 1980. He fOUnd
that:

l. Lectures were the tool used most frequently in delivering
inservice education.

2. Most inservice education programs were delayed or canceled
because Of the lengthy bureaucratic procedures involved in gaining

approval for these programs. ~

106

3. Most inservice education programs were remedial in nature.
They lacked accurate and long-term planning for continuous profes-
sional development.

4. Inservice education programs were designed and implemented
without identifying trainees’ needs.

5. Evaluation of inservice education programs was used as it
tOOl to appraise or punish trainees, instead of as an aid in devel-
oping and improving inservice education.

In an evaluative study Of inservice education programs and
their effects (”1 the trainees, Bakeesh aunt his colleagues (1985)
suggested that school administrators Should be given an Opportunity
to participate in the following aspects of inservice education
programs: (a) setting goals and objectives of inservice education,
(b) selecting the content Of training programs, (c) evaluating
training sessions, and (d) carrying out follow-up studies to see how
training affects the trainees in their work.

Another study Of how inservice education programs affect the
work Of public elementary school assistant principals was conducted
by Sa’adah et a1. (1986). They found that there was no Official
plan to conduct follow-up studies with inservice program trainees
after they finished their training. Furthermore, assistant princi-
pals said they did not receive much help in their jobs from the
inservice education programs/cycles they had attended.

Hajjaj and Bustan (1986) suggested that administrative
inservice education programs should include more information on new

instructional techniques. Furthermore, they said that academic

107

supervisors and teachers need to know more about educational
administration. They recommended that public school administrators
and teachers be given an opportunity to participate in identifying
their educational programs and 1x1 help make decisions about
appropriate ways to solve those problems.

Sa’adah (1986) emphasized the importance Of trainees’
involvement in inservice education program activities. He Suggested
a training program in which trainees are given an opportunity to be
involved, not only in inservice education programs but also in their
preservice programs.

The Role of the Training Center in
Preparing School Administrators

The first training center "hi Kuwait was established ir1 1974.
By Ministerial Decree Number 75952, issued in May 1974, the Eastern
Elementary School for Girls was converted into a center for
training. The new center became a department Of the Research and
Technical Coordination Directorate. On December 15, 1979, Minis-
terial Decree Number 79/310 was issued, by which the Training Center
became an independent directorate in the Ministry Of Education.

In 1985, the Training Center issued a report on the five-year
training plan of the Ministry of Education, spanning academic years
1980/81 through 1984/85. This plan was to cover all inservice
education programs Offered by the Ministry of Education through the
Training Center during that period.

In this plan, the proportion of 'training ix) be Offered to

administrators was snmll, as compared 11) the development programs

108

for other segments (H: the staff. The assessment of professional
needs for training was carried out by Ministry Officials only (top
administrators, directors, and supervisors). It seems that the main
purpose Of the plan was to serve the interests of certain groups in
the Ministry of Education; trainees were not included among those
groups.

In this plan, public school principals and assistant principals
were categorized into five groups, according to their school level.
They were to receive inservice education accordingly, as follows:

1. Public secondary school principals and assistant principals
who worked in credit-system secondary schools received their
training with the school staff in academic year 1980/81. (In 1981,
just Six secondary schools used the credit system.)

2. An inservice education program for public secondary school
principals in the general system was delivered in academic year
1981/82.

3. Two training cycles were Offered to public kindergarten and
elementary school principals in academic year 1982/83.

4. Inservice education in academic year 1983/84 was given to
public middle school principals.

5. Public kindergarten and elementary school assistant princi-
pals attended ENl administrative inservice education program during
academic year 1984/85.

Comments. The plan described above seems to be an annual
report about what the Training Center achieved during the five years

from 1980/81 through 1984/85, rather than a sophisticated plan for

109

accomplishing stated inservice education goals. One can notice from
the plan that administrators at each school level were assigned to

attend only training session during the five—year period.

Chapter Summary

The review of literature relevant to inservice education
revealed some divergence of Opinion concerning how to carry out
inservice activities. However, there were general indications of
agreement on the following matters:

1. There is a need for inservice education to upgrade and
improve school administrators’ performance.

2. Through needs assessment, inservice planners can discover
gaps between "what is” and "what ought in) take place" (Orlich,
1989). Such assessment is the first step in identifying needs and
prioritizing goals for inservice education programs.

3. Although the literature revealed a wide range of
viewpoints on program participants’ involvement in decisions when
developing programs, studies relevant to inservice education
indicated that collaborative efforts are needed in planning,
implementing, and evaluating inservice programs for school
administrators.

The second part of this chapter contained a discussion of human
and resource development in Kuwait. Millions of Kuwaiti dinars have

been spent to further the progress of education and training. TO

pursue both educational and research goals, the government of Kuwait

110

recently' has given more attention to the establishment of
educational and training institutes.

Researchers who have studied the effectiveness of inservice
education have found that public school administrators are in
desperate need of training and professional development. Most
writers suggested that public school administrators and teachers
should be given an Opportunity to participate in selecting and
evaluating the contents Of their inservice education programs (A1-
Ahmed, 1986; Al-Baghdadi, 1981; Al—Musaileem, 1988; Al—Rasheedi &
Khalaph, 1985; Al-Tammar, 1983; Bakeesh, 1982, 1985; Bustan, 1981;
Hijab, 1981).

Because the researcher’s main Objective in this study was to
investigate the perceived importance and degree Of involvement by
Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators in inservice educa-
tion activities, a review of relevant studies in this area was
carried out. Relationships between the educational leadership at
the Ministry of Education and the administrative leadership in the
schools was the main focus of these studies. Accordingly, the role
of public school administrator has been seen as ineffective because

leadership is SO highly centralized in the Ministry.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

The researcher’s primary purpose in conducting this study was
to assess the perceptions Of public secondary school principals and
assistant principals in Kuwait regarding the importance of their
involvement in needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
evaluation of current inservice education activities. A secondary
purpose was to investigate these administrators’ perceptions Of
their actual involvement in inservice education activities and their
satisfaction with that level of involvement.

The research design and procedures are discussed in this
chapter. Included are the research questions, a description of the
study population, the research design, development and validation of
the questionnaire, a description Of the content Of the instrument
and its reliability, methods used in collecting the data, and the

data-analysis procedures.

Research Questions
The questions the researcher sought to answer ir1 this study
were as follows:
1. What is the perceived importance Of Kuwaiti public second-

ary school administrators’ involvement in four inservice education

111

112

activities: needs assessment, planning, implementation, and program
evaluation?

2. To what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis—
trators perceive they are involved in needs assessment regarding
inservice education programs?

3. TO what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-
trators perceive they are involved in planning administrative
inservice education programs?

4. To what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-
trators perceive they are involved in implementing administrative
inservice education programs?

5. TO what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-
trators perceive they are involved in evaluating administrative
inservice education programs?

6. Is there a statistically significant relationship between
Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ perceived level of
involvement in inservice education activities and these administra-
tors’ satisfaction with their level Of involvement in these activi—
ties?

7. What factors do Kuwaiti public secondary school administra-
tors perceive to have prevented them from being involved in adminis-
trative inservice education activities?

8. What kinds Of techniques and instruments do Kuwaiti public
secondary school administrators perceive to be used in preparing

administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait?

113

9. What kinds Of instructional/training methods do Kuwaiti
public secondary school administrators perceive to be used in imple-
menting administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait?

10. What kinds Of techniques and instruments do Kuwaiti public
secondary school administrators perceive 11) be used 'hi evaluating
administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait?

11. Is there a statistically significant relationship between
Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ satisfaction ifith
the techniques used in carrying out administrative inservice educa-
tion activities and the respondents’ satisfaction with their level
Of involvement in these activities?

12. How do respondents recommend that Kuwaiti public secondary
school administrators’ involvement in inservice education activities

be maximized?

The Study Population

Kuwait is a small country. Its 563 K-12 public schools are
scattered throughout the country, with a higher concentration Of
schools in the cities than in the countryside. The population for
this study comprised all (Hi the 272 public secondary school
administrators employed by the Ministry Of Education in Kuwait.
Because records Of all employees in the Ministry of Education were
available, it was possible to Obtain the names of the school
administrators to be contacted for this study.

Public school administrators were defined as those persons

listed ‘hi the 1989-90 .Administrative Directory‘ published by the

.-

114

Planning Directorate (H: the Ministry' of Education (Ministry Of
Education, 1989-90). The 272 public secondary school administrators
included 69 male principals, 67 female principals, 69 male assistant

principals, and 67 female assistant principals.

Research Design

This was a descriptive study, in which a survey approach was
used. This study was an investigation of the scope and current
status Of administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait, as
perceived by public secondary school principals and assistant prin-
cipals. In addition, the researcher examined these administrators’
perceptions of their actual involvement in particular inservice
education activities, as well as the importance of and their satis-
faction with their involvement in such activities.

Fox (1969) clarified the intention Of a descriptive survey:

A descriptive survey is intended to describe a specific set Of

phenomena in and Of themselves. The rationale for the purely

descriptive survey is the fact that the information provided is

in itself the answer to the research question posed. (pp. 423-

424)

Borg and Gall (1983) and Leedy (1985) emphasized the importance
of descriptive studies. Borg (1981) stated that descriptive
research is important because it is necessary to know something

about the characteristics of the subjects before attempting to

answer more complex research questions.

115

The Research Questionnaire
Development and Validation

A. questionnaire is used for two basic Objectives: (a) to
collect information relevant to the purposes of the study and (b) to
collect this information with maximum reliability and validity
(Warwick 8 Lininger, 1975. The questionnaire can be a valuable tool
in educational research if it is devised with sound methodology
(Borg 8 Gall, 1983). Leedy (1985) suggested that, when employing a
questionnaire as a tool in survey research, researchers keep in mind
the following:

1. The language nmst 1x2 unmistakably clear 'hi telling pre-
cisely what the researcher wishes to learn.

2. Questionnaires should IKE designed to fulfill a specific
research Objective.

3. Questionnaires succeed as their success is planned.

4. The initial letter to potential participants is all impor-
tant.

As the first step in developing the questionnaire for this
study, the researcher conducted a thorough review Of related litera-
ture pertaining to inservice education. This review was helpful in
acquiring a sound knowledge Of the subject, which was necessary in
constructing a questionnaire relevant to the study Objectives.
Following this review, the researcher developed items for the
initial draft Of the questionnaire.

Next, the researcher pretested the survey instrument with a

group of Kuwaiti public school administrators who were on leave from

116

their schools. These educators were asked to fill out a comment
form indicating how long it had taken them to complete the
questionnaire, items that needed clarification, and suggestions Of
additional items that Should be included (see Appendix A for a copy
of ‘this form). The researcher also interviewed the respondents
personally after they had completed the survey, to resolve any
ambiguities.

After making the recommended modifications, the researcher
presented the questionnaire to Irvin Lehmann and Steve Raudenbush,
educational research experts in the College Of Education at Michigan
State University, for their review. In light Of their comments and
suggestions, the researcher revised certain items.

The researcher then translated the revised questionnaire into
Arabic. The translation was revised and its accuracy approved by
Salha Abdulhakeem, head of the English Language Department in the
Research Center' in Kuwait. The Arabic: was further ‘revised for
accuracy by Rafeek Al-Hulaimi, head Of the Arabic Language
Department in the Research Center.

Personal interviews were then conducted with a group of school
administrators and researchers in Kuwait. An Arabic copy of the
questionnaire was given to each member of a panel consisting Of two
public secondary school principals, two public secondary school
assistant principals, five researchers from the Research Center, and

one official from the Training Center. The researcher’s purpose in

117

doing this was to increase the validity of the questionnaire and to
endorse its ethical acceptability for this study.

Finally, before administering the questionnaire, the researcher
sought the advice of the members of his doctoral committee. Upon
receiving their approval, the investigator proceeded with the data

collection.

Content of the Instrument

The questionnaire developed for this study was divided into
five sections and contained 60 items (see Appendix B). The first
section Of the questionnaire contained items designed to elicit
professional and demographic information about the respondents,
including their present administrative position, years of experience
as an administrator, age, gender, and highest educational degree
attained.

The second section of the questionnaire concerned respondents’
perceptions Of the importance Of public secondary school principals’
and assistant principals’ involvement 'Hi specific inservice
education activities: needs assessment, planning, implementation,
and evaluation of inservice education programs.

The third section of the questionnaire contained Six parts.
The first four parts included items related 11) the participants’
involvement in needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
evaluation Of inservice education programs. The fifth part had
items related to the respondents’ satisfaction with their level of

involvement in administrative inservice education activities. The

‘n

118

sixth part included items related to barriers that respondents
perceived to have prevented or tended to prevent them from being
involved in inservice education activities.

The fourth section Of the questionnaire contained items related
to techniques and instruments used in preparing, implementing, and
evaluating administrative inservice programs, and the respondents’
satisfaction with the methods by which current inservice education
activities are carried out.

The fifth section Of the questionnaire was intended to elicit
respondents’ agreement/disagreement with eight recommendations and
suggestions for improving inservice education programs and for
maximizing public school administrators’ involvement in such

programs.

Reliability

Reliability is the degree to which a measurement instrument is
consistent or dependable (Sowell, 1982). Gay (1987) defined
reliability as the degree to which a test consistently measures
whatever it was designed to measure. The more reliable a test, the
more confidence one can have that the scores Obtained if the test
were readministered would approximate those obtained in earlier
administrations.

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient (Mehrens 81 Lehmann,
1984), a measure Of internal consistency, was used to determine the

reliability of the questionnaire items pertaining to academic

119

interests and motivational factors and influences. 'The following

alpha coefficient values were Obtained:

Importance Of involvement in inservice

education activities (4 items) 0.87
Need assessment (4 items) 0.72
Planning process (4 items) 0.73
Implementation (7 items) 0.59
Evaluation (4 items) 0.49

Satisfaction with involvement (4 items) 0.93

Factors affecting involvement in inservice

education activities (6 items) 0.49

Techniques and instruments
Preparation of inservice education pro-
grams (4 items) 0.44
Training and instructional methods used
in the implementation Of inservice
education activities (7 items) 0.71
Methods of evaluation (4 items) 0.49
Satisfaction with techniques (4 items) 0.89

Recommendations and suggestions (8 items) 0.79

Overall questionnaire (60 items) 0.89

Different researchers have determined various levels of alpha
coefficients to be acceptable for denoting internal consistency. In
this study, although the alpha coefficients for items under
evaluation, factors affecting involvement, preparation of inservice
education, and methods Of evaluation were less than 0.5, the overall

alpha coefficient was 0.89 for the 60 items, which was quite high.

‘.

120

Data-Collection Procedures

The study population comprised all 272 public secondary school
principals and assistant principals employed by the Ministry of
Education in Kuwait for the 1989-90 academic year. TO reach these
individuals, the researcher compiled a list of the names and
locations Of public secondary schools in Kuwait with the help of the
Department of Planning in the Ministry of Education.

TO obtain permission from the Ministry Of Education to survey
public secondary school administrators and to meet with them during
their' working hours, the researcher had to follow certain
procedures. First he submitted an application to conduct the study,
along with a copy of the proposal, to the Department Of Follow-Up
and Coordination at the Ministry Of Education. A meeting with the
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Education was arranged to discuss
the nature of the study. After receiving approval to conduct the
study, the researcher contacted the directors of the educational
zones in Kuwait and asked them to facilitate the distribution of the
questionnaires to local public secondary school principals and
assistant principals.

During June and July 1990, the questionnaires were mailed to
all public secondary school principals and assistant principals
throughout Kuwait. Each questionnaire contained definitions of
certain terms used in the instrument to ensure consistency in the
respondents’ interpretations Of this wording. Each questionnaire

was accompanied by a transmittal letter explaining the study,

121

requesting the administrators’ participation, and assuring them that
their responses would be kept in strict confidence. (See Appendix C
for' a copy of the cover letter.) A. return-addressed, stamped
envelope was included for respondents’ convenience.

Two weeks after the first questionnaire was sent, a follow-up
letter and a second copy of the questionnaire were mailed to
nonrespondents. The researcher contacted some of the nonrespondents
by telephone to encourage them to return their completed question-
naires.

Of the 272 public school principals and assistant principals to
whom questionnaires were sent, 204 returned completed question-
naires. This represented a 75% response rate. Demographic charac-

teristics of the respondents are reported in Chapter IV.

Data-Analysis Procedures

Responses to the questionnaires. were coded and the results
keypunched for computer processing. The Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was used in analyzing the data.

This study was primarily descriptive in nature. Descriptive
statistics in the form of means, percentages, and ranks were used in
treating the data. According to Engelhart (1972), descriptive
statistics such as means, percentages, and ranks are useful in
summarizing data so as to facilitate their interpretation.

Because most Of the questionnaire items were of an ordinal

Likert type, means and ranks were used to determine (a) the

.-

122

respondents’ perceptions Of the importance of involvement in
inservice education activities; (b) the degree to which respondents
were involved 'hi needs assessment, planning, inmlementation, and
evaluation of inservice education programs; (c) the extent to which
certain factors affected respondents’ involvement in inservice
education activities; and (d) the extent to which certain
instruments/techniques were used “hi the inservice education
programs.

Besides descriptive statistics, the Pearson product-moment
correlation analysis. was used to determine whether there was a
statistically significant relationship between public secondary
school administrators’ perceived degree Of involvement in inservice
education activities and their satisfaction with that level of
involvement (Research Question 6). The chi-square test (H:
statistical significance was used to determine whether a
statistically significant relationship existed between public
secondary school administrators’ satisfaction with the techniques
used 'hi carrying out inservice education activities and the
administrators’ satisfaction with their level Of involvement in
these activities (Research Question 11).

Ferguson (1982) said that it is conventional to adopt either
the .01 or the .05 level of significance; He fUrther stated that
the investigator may choose, perhaps arbitrarily, a particular level
of significance. For the purpose of this study, the .05 level of

Significance was adopted.

123

Summary

The research design and the methodology of the study were
presented in this chapter. The study population was described, and
the development and pretesting of the survey instrument were
discussed, as were the validity and reliability Of the instrument.
Data-collection and data-analysis procedures also were specified.

The results Of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

The data presented in this chapter were gathered from public
secondary school administrators (principals and assistant
principals) employed by the Ministry of Education in Kuwait in
academic year 1989-90. In all, 204 public secondary school
administrators from a total population Of 272 participated in the
study. This represented a 75% response rate.

This chapter contains the results (Hi the data analyses
conducted ir1 the study. Demographic characteristics (Hi the study
participants are presented 'hi the first section. Results of the
data analyses performed to answer the research questions are

presented in the second section.

Demographic Characteristics Of the Respondents
The distribution Of respondents by administrative position and
selected demographic characteristics (gender, years (H: experience,
age, and educational level) is shown in Table 4.1. It is clear in
the table that, Of the 204 respondents, 104 (51%) were male and 100
(49%) were female. With regard to administrative position, 99
(48.5%) of the participants were principals, and 105 (51.5%) were

assistant principals. ‘

124

125

Table 4.1.-~Distribution Of respondents by demographic character-

 

 

 

 

istics.
Assistant Total
Principals Principals

Characteristic —————————
n % n % n %

Male 53 51.0 51 49.0 104 51.0

Gender Female 46 46.0 54 54.0 100 49.0
Years Of < 10 years 44 38.3 71 61.7 115 56.4
experience 10-28 years 55 61.8 34 38.2 89 43.6
< 30 years 19 31.7 41 68.3 60 29.4

Age 30-35 years 28 46.7 32 53.3 60 29.4
36-56 years 52 61.9 32 38.1 84 41.2

- Teaching dip. 3 27.3 8 72.7 11 5.4
Egggit‘°"al Bachelor’s 90 48.9 94 51.1 184 90.6
Master’s 5 62.5 3 37.5 8 4.0

 

AS shown in Table 4.1, 53 (51.0%) Of the principals were male,
whereas 54 (54%) Of the assistant principals were female. Of the 99
principals, 44 (38.3%) had fewer than 10 years Of administrative
experience; 55 (61.7%) had from 10 to 28 years Of such experience.
For the assistant principals, the level Of experience was nearly the
reverse Of that held by principals. Of the 105 assistant principals
who were involved in the study, 71 (61 7%) had fewer than 10 years
of experience, and 34 (38.3%) had been in the profession for 10 to
28 years. As expected, therefore, principals generally had been in
the profession longer than assistant principals.

Overall, Of the 204 respondents, 60 (29.4%) were younger than
30 years, 60 (29.4%) were between 30 and 35 years of age, and 84

.-

126

(41%) were between 36 and 56 years of age. More of the Older
respondents (52 or 61.9%) were principals than were assistant
principals (32 or 38.1%). In contrast, 19 (31.7%) of the principals
were younger than 30 years, whereas 41 (68.3%) of the assistant
principals were under 30.

With regard to formal education, almost all Of the respondents
(184 or 90.6%) had a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of
formal education. The remaining 19 luui a teaching diploma (11 or
5.4%) or a master’s degree (8 or 4.0%). (If the 11 administrators
whose highest formal education was a teaching diploma, three (27.3%)
were principals, whereas eight (72.7%) were assistant principals.
Of the eight administrators who had master’s degrees, five (62.5%)
were principals, as compared to three (37.5%) who were assistant
principals. The bachelor’s degree holders were evenly distributed
between the two levels of the administrative hierarchy; 90 (48.9%)
were principals and 94 (51.1%) were assistant principals.

Thus, as shown by the distribution of respondents according to
demographic characteristics, in general, public school administra-
tive positions were evenly distributed between males and females.
It was found that principals were generally older, had more years of
experience, and had more formal education than assistant principals.
It was also found that the public school administrative positions
(principal and assistant principal) in Kuwait were held primarily by

individuals holding bachelor’s degrees.

127

Results Pertaining to the ResearchpQuestions
Twelve research questions were addressed in this study. Data
gathered in the survey to address those questions are presented in
the remainder of this chapter. In the following pages, each
question is restated, followed by the results pertinent to that

question.

Research Question 1

What is the perceived importance (H: Kuwaiti public secondary

school administrators’ involvement in four inservice education

activities: needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
program evaluation?

Four inservice education activities 'hi which participants in
inservice education programs might be involved were listed in the
questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement
with the importance of administrators’ involvement in ,inservice
education programs through these activities, using an ordinal
Likert-type scale ranging from Agree strongly (5) tO Disagree
strongly (1). Based on the responses, 8 mean rating was calculated
for each activity. The mean ratings could range from 1.00,
indicating the lowest level of agreement, to 5.00, indicating the
highest level Of agreement. The percentages Of responses in each
category, mean ratings, and ranks for the four inservice education
activities are Shown in Table 4.2.

From Table 4.2 it can be seen that the highest level Of
agreement was Observed for the activities Of Assessment of needs

(mean = 4.82, rank = l) and Evaluation of inservice education

programs (mean = 4.79, rank = 2). The lowest mean rating among

128

these four activities was for Planning of inservice education
programs (mean = 4.22, rank = 4), followed by Implementation of

inservice education programs (mean = 4.28, rank = 3).

Table 4.2.--Respondents’ perceptions of the importance of school
administrators’ involvement in four inservice education

 

 

 

 

activities.
Response (%)
Inservice Education Mean Rank
Activity DS O NO A AS

Assessment Of needs 1.0 1.5 —- 9.8 87.7 4.82 1
Evaluation Of inservice
education programs 0.5 —- 1.0 17.2 81.4 4.79 2
Implementation Of
inservice education 1.5 6.9 3.9 38.2 49.5 4.28 3
programs
Planning of inservice
education programs 1.5 4.4 3.9 51.5 38.7 4.22 4
Key: DS = Disagree strongly (l) A = Agree (4)

D = Disagree (2) AS = Agree strongly (5)

N0 = NO opinion (3)

The lowest mean rating was 4.22 and the highest was 4.82.
These mean ratings indicate that, in general, the public school
administrators in this study agreed or strongly agreed that it is
important for Kuwaiti administrators to be involved in needs
assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation of inservice

education programs.

129

Research Question 2

TO what extent. do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-

trators perceive they are involved in needs assessment

regarding inservice education programs?

Four aspects of the needs-assessment activity regarding
inservice education programs were listed in the questionnaire.
Respondents were asked to indicate their perceived level of actual
involvement in each of these activities, using a three-point ordinal
scale ‘ranging from INN: involved (1), through Uncertain (2), to
Involved (3). Using respondents’ individual ratings, the researcher
calculated a mean rating for each Of the four aspects of needs
assessment. A high mean rating (near 3.00) indicated that the
school administrators perceived themselves to be actually involved
in that needs-assessment activity, whereas a low mean (near 1.00)
indicated no involvement. The percentages Of responses in each
categoryg mean ratings, and ranks for the four specific needs-
assessment activities are shown in Table 4.3.

As shown in Table 4.3, the wean retings ranged from 1.03 to
1.16, indicating that, overall, school administrators perceived no
involvement in the four needs-assessment activities listed in the
questionnaire. Although the mean ratings were generally very low,
the highest rating was Observed for the activity of Defining the
problems and subjects for inservice education (mean = 1.16, rank =
1). The mean ratings for the other three activities differed by no
more than .04. Thus, 'Hi general, the respondents perceived
themselves as not being involved in needs-assessment activities

regarding inservice education programs. -

130

Table 4.3.-~Respondents’ perceived involvement in specific needs—
assessment activities.

 

Response (%)

 

 

 

Needs-Assessment Position Mean Rank
Activity I U NI

Defining the problems Principals 4.0 5 1 90.9 1.13
and subjects for Assistants 9.5 -- 90.5 1.19 1
inservice education All 6.9 2.5 90.7 1.16
Collecting data for Principals -- 6 1 93.9 1.06
needs-assessment Assistants 4.8 -- 95.2 1.10 2
purposes All 2.5 2.9 94.6 1.07
Designing some Of the Principals 2.0 4.0 93.9 1.08
instruments/techniques Assistants 1.9 1.0 97.1 1.05 3
that have been used in All 2.0 2.5 95.6 1.06
the needs assessment
Analyzing data that have Principals -- 2 0 98.0 1.02
been gathered for needs- Assistants 1.9 -- 98.1 1.04 4
assessment purposes All 1.0 1.0 98.0 1.03
Key: N1 = Not involved (1)

U = Uncertain (2)

I = Involved (3)

Research Question 3

TO what extent do Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators
perceive they are involved in planning administrative inservice

education programs?

Four planning-process activities pertaining to

education programs were listed 'hi the questionnaire.

were asked to indicate their perceived level of actual

in each Of 'these activities,

inservice

Respondents

involvement

using a three-point ordinal

scale

ranging from Not involved (1), through Uncertain (2), to Involved

(3).

AS in Research Question 2, means, percentages, and ranks were

 

131

computed for each Of the planning-process activities.

(near 3.00)

mean (near 1.00)

indicated no

indicated perceived actual

involvement.

A high mean
involvement, whereas a low

The percentages of

responses in each category, means, and ranks for the four planning-

process activities are Shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4.--Respondents’ perceived involvement in specific planning-
process activities.

 

Response (%)

 

 

 

Planning-Process Position Mean Rank
Activity I U NI

Suggesting topics for Principals 11.1 3.0 85.9 1.25
school administrator Assistants 6.7 1.0 92.4 1.14 l
inservice education All 8.8 2.0 89.2 1.20
programs/cycles
Involved in allocation Principals 7.1 2.0 90.9 1.16
of human and material Assistants 4.8 -- 95.2 1.10 2
resources for inservice All 5.9 1.0 93.1 1.13
education programs
Identifying and priori- Principals 1.0 6.1 92.9 1.08
tizing goals and Objec- Assistants 2.9 1.0 96.2 1.07 3
tives for inservice All 2.0 3.4 94.6 1.07
education programs/
cycles
Designing strategies of Principals -- 2.0 98.0 1.02
inservice education Assistants 1.0 -- 99.0 1.02 4
programs/cycles All 0.5 1.0 98.5 1.02
Key: N1 = Not involved (1)

U = Uncertain (2)

I = Involved (3)

132

The results shown in Table 4.4 are similar to those for
Research Question 2. The mean ratings for all four planning-process
activities were very low, indicating respondents’ perceived general
lack of involvement in planning inservice education programs. The
mean ratings ranged from 1.02 to 1.20. The highest mean rating was
for Suggesting topics for school administrator inservice education
programs/cycles (mean = 1.20, rank = 1), followed by Involvement in
allocation of human and material resources for inservice education
programs (mean = 1.13, rank = 2). Mean ratings for the other two
planning-process activities were 1.07 and 1.02. In general,
therefore, the Kuwaiti public school administrators perceived
themselves as not being involved in planning inservice education

programs.

Research Question 4

11) what extent. do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-

trators perceive they are involved in implementing administra-

tive inservice education programs?

Seven instructional methods used ir1 inservice education
programs were listed in the questionnaire; these included lectures,
discussions, workshops, field trips, films, tape recordings, and
videotapes. Respondents were asked to indicate their actual
involvement with each of these instructional methods in inservice
education programs. .As in the previous two research questions, a
three-point ordinal response scale was used, ranging from Not

involved (1), through Uncertain (2), to Involved (3). A mean rating

was computed for each instructional method. The percentages Of

 

133

responses in each category, the mean for each instructional method,

and the ranks of the methods are shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5.--Respondents’ perceived involvement with specific instruc-
tional methods used in inservice education programs.

 

Response (%)

 

 

 

Instructional Position Mean Rank
Method I U NI

Discussions Principals 67.7 4.0 28.3 2.39
Assistants 72.4 9.5 18.1 2.54 1
All 70.1 6.9 23.0 2.47

Workshops Principals 47.5 8.1 44.4 2.03
Assistants 51.4 3.8 44.8 2.07 2
All 49.5 5.9 44.6 2.05

Lectures Principals 14.1 4.0 81.8 1.32
Assistants 2.9 -- 97.1 1.06 3
All 8.3 2.0 89.7 1.19

Videotapes Principals 8.1 5.1 86.9 1.21
Assistants 4.8 1.9 93.3 1.11 4
All 6.4 3.4 90.2 1.16

Films Principals 5 1 10.1 84.8 1.20
Assistants l 9 -- 98.1 1.04 5
All 3 4 4.9 91.7 1.12

Tape recordings Principals -- 5.1 94.9 1.05
Assistants 1.0 1.0 98.1 1.03 6
All 0.5 2.9 96.6 1.04

Field trips Principals -— 4.0 96.0 1.04
Assistants -- 1.0 99.0 1.01 7
All -- 2.5 97.5 1.03

Key: NI Not involved

HC
II II II

(
Uncertain (
Involved (

WN-J
vvv

134

The mean ratings ranged from 1.03 to 2.47. The highest mean
ratings were Observed for the instructional methods of Discussions
(mean = 2.47, rank = l) and Workshops (mean = 2.05, rank = 2). The
lowest mean ratings were Observed for the instructional methods of
Field trips (mean = 1.03, rank = 7) and Tape recordings (mean =
1.04, rank = 6). If the mean ratings are interpreted according to
the response scale they represent, mean ratings in the 1.0 to 1.5
range would indicate no involvement, 1.5 to 2.25 would indicate
uncertainty, and 2.25 to 3.00 would indicate involvement. According
to this interpretation, respondents perceived that they were
involved only in Discussions (mean = 2.47); they were uncertain
about their involvement in Workshops (mean = 2.05) and perceived no
involvement in the remaining five instructional methods (mean
ratings ranging from 1.03 to 1.19). Thus, other than Discussions,
in which respondents perceived slight involvement, the findings
indicated no involvement in the instructional methods used in

inservice education programs.

Research Question 5
11> what extent. do Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-
trators perceive they are involved in evaluating administrative
inservice education programs?
Four activities concerning the evaluation of inservice
education programs were listed 'h1 the questionnaire. Respondents
were asked to rate their perceived involvement in each Of these

evaluation .activities, using a ‘three-point ordinal scale ranging

from Not involved (1), through Uncertain (2), to Involved (3). From

135

the responses, a mean rating was computed for each of the four
activities. The percentages of responses in each category, the mean
for each evaluation activity, and the ranks of the activities are

shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6.--Respondents’ perceived involvement in the evaluation Of
inservice education programs.

 

Response (%)

 

 

 

Evaluation Position Mean Rank
Activity I U NI
Questionnaires at the Principals 76.8 5.1 18.2 2.59
end Of each inservice Assistants 94.3 -- 5.7 2.89 1
education program/ All 85.8 2.5 11.8 2.74
cycle
Interviews Principals 12.1 3. 84.8 1.27
Assistants 9.5 1.9 88.6 1.21 2
All 10.8 2.5 86.8 1.24
Observations Principals 7.1 4.0 88.9 1.18
Assistants 5.7 1.9 92.4 1.13 3
All 6.4 2.9 90.7 1.16
Achievement tests Principals 2.0 7.1 90.8 1.11
Assistants -- 2.9 97.1 1.03 4
All 1.0 5.0 94.1 1.07
Key: NI = Not involved (1)
U = Uncertain (2)
I = Involved (3)

The mean ratings ranged from 1.07 to 2.74. However, it should
be noted that a rating higher than 2.00 was Observed for only one
activity (Questionnaires at the end of each program/cycle; mean =

2.74, rank = 1); the other three evaluation activities had wean

‘-

136

ratings below 1.25. Assistant principals perceived a higher level
of involvement in this top-ranking activity than did principals.
The Observed mean ratings and ranks for the other evaluation
activities were as follows: Interviews (mean == 1.24, rank = 2),
Observations (mean = 1.16, rank = 3), and Achievement tests (mean =
1.07, rank = 4). Overall, respondents seemed to perceive a lack of
involvement in the specific activities pertaining to the evaluation

of inservice education programs.

Research Question 6

Is there a statistically significant relationship between

Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ perceived

degree of involvement in inservice education activities and

these administrators’ satisfaction with their level Of
involvement in these activities?

The respondents’ perceived degree Of involvement in needs
assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation of inservice
education programs was measured by averaging the perceptions Of
involvement in the specific components listed under each activity in
the questionnaire. Respondents also were asked ix) indicate their
satisfaction with their level Of involvement in these four major
activities pertaining to inservice education. In responding, they
used a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from Very dissatisfied
(1) to Very satisfied (5). From the responses, mean ratings were
computed for ‘respondents’ satisfaction with their level of
involvement in each Of the four activities. Using these pairs of

measures-~level of involvement and satisfaction with involvement—-a

Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used in) determine

‘-

137

whether a statistically significant relationship existed between the
respondents’ perceived level Of involvement in the specified
inservice education activities and their satisfaction with that
level of involvement. The resulting Pearson correlation coeffi-
cients (r) and their corresponding significance levels are shown in

Table 4.7.

Table 4.7.-~Results of the Pearson product-moment correlation
analysis for the relationship between respondents’
involvement in four activities of inservice education
and their satisfaction with that level Of involvement.

 

 

Inservice Education Activity r p—Value
Assessment of trainees’ needs .320 .000*
Planning of inservice education programs .415 .000*

Implementation of inservice education
programs .423 .000*

Evaluation Of inservice education
programs .488 .000*

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

Statistically significant relationships were found between the
respondents’ perceived level of involvement ir1 all four activities
pertaining to inservice education progrmns and their satisfaction
with that ‘level (H: involvement. The following correlation
coefficients were observed: Needs assessment (r = .32, p < .05),
Planning process (r‘== .415, p < .05), Implementation of inservice

education programs (r5 = .423, p < .05), and Evaluation‘of inservice

138

education programs (r = .488, p><< .05). All Of these correlation
coefficients were positive, indicating a positive relationship
between respondents’ perceived level (if involvement 'hi the

activities and their satisfaction with that level Of involvement.

Research Question 7

What factors do Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators

perceive to have prevented them from being involved in adminis-

trative inservice education activities?

Six factors that might hinder the involvement Of public school
administrators in inservice education activities were listed in the
questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement/
disagreement with each factor, using the following three-point
scale: Disagree = 1, Don’t know = 2, and Agree = 3. A mean rating
was computed for each factor to determine the extent. to which
respondents perceived it to Ina a hindrance to their involvement in
inservice education activities. A high mean (near 3.00) indicated
that the factor was perceived to be a hindrance, whereas a low mean
(near 1.00) indicated that the factor was not perceived as a
hindrance to the administrators’ involvement in inservice education
actiVities. The percentages of responses in each category, the mean
rating for each Of fine six factors affecting involvement in
inservice education activities, and the rank of each factor are

Shown in Table 4.8.

139

Table 4.8.--Respondents’ perceptions of factors affecting their
involvement in inservice education activities.

 

Response (%)

 

 

Factor Position Mean Rank
A UK D
Only training center Principals 77.6 8.2 14.3 2.63
personnel permitted to Assistants 81.9 3.8 14.3 2.68 1
be involved in inserv- All 79.8 5.9 14.3 2.66
ice education program
activities
Public secondary school Principals 74.5 7.1 18.4 2.56
administrators excluded Assistants 77.1 5.7 17.1 2.60 2
from participation in All 75.9 6.4 17.7 2.58
inservice education
program activities
Public secondary school Principals 21.4 4.1 74.5 1.47
administrators do not Assistants 48.6 1.0 51.4 1.98 3
have enough time to All 35.5 2.5 62.1 1.73
participate in inserv-
ice education program
activities
Personal reasons (e.g., Principals 23.2 6.1 70.7 1.53
family responsibility, Assistants 33.3 2.9 63.8 1.70 4
health, etc.) All 28.4 4.4 67.2 1.61
Involvement in inserv- Principals 10.1 6.1 83.8 1.26
ice education program Assistants 15.2 2.9 81.9 1.33 5
activities requires All 12.7 4.4 82.8 1.30
professional skill and
knowledge they don’t
have at present time
Public secondary school Principals 6.1 1.0 92.9 1.13
administrators believe Assistants 17.1 1.9 81.0 1.36 6
5 7

that participation in All 11.8 1.
inservice program
activities is a waste

86.

 

of time

Key: A = Agree (3)
DK = Don’t know (2)
D = Disagree (1)

140

The mean ratings ranged from 1.25 to 2.66. According to these
mean ratings, the respondents perceived two factors to be :1
hindrance to their involvement in inservice education activities.
These were Only training center personnel are permitted to be
involved in inservice education program activities (mean = 2.66,
rank = l) and Public secondary school administrators are excluded
from participation in the inservice education program activities
(mean = 2.58, rank = 2). The mean ratings for the other four
factors were all under 2.00, which indicated that, in general,
respondents did not perceive these factors to be a hindrance to

their involvement in inservice education activities.

Research Question 8

What kinds of 'techniques and instruments do Kuwaiti public

secondary school administrators perceive to In; used in

preparing administrative inservice education programs in

Kuwait?

Four techniques and instruments that can be used to identify
the inservice education needs of public secondary school
administrators were listed in the questionnaire. Respondents were
asked to indicate whether they agreed/disagreed that the particular
technique/instrument was used to identify the inservice education
needs of administrators in Kuwait, using a three-point ordinal scale
with Disagree = 1, Don’t know = 2, and Agree = 3. Based on the
responses, 8 mean rating was computed for each technique/instrument.
A high mean rating (near 3.00) indicated general agreement that the

technique/instrument was used to identify administrators’ inservice

education needs, whereas a low mean rating (near 1.00) indicated

141

that the technique/instrument was not used. Percentages of
responses in each category, mean ratings, and ranks for the four

techniques/instruments are shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9.--Respondents’ perceptions that certain techniques/
instruments are used in identifying public secondary
school administrators’ inservice education needs.

 

Response (%)
Technique/Instrument Mean Rank
A UK D

 

 

Public secondary schOOl adminis-

trators attending the inservice 74.0 4.4 21.6 2.53 1
education programs without
assessment of their needs '

Report by Ministry Of Education
Central Office Officials 40.4 21.2 38.4 2.02 2

Survey of public secondary
school administrators’ needs 19.7 11.3 69.0 1.51 3

Interviews between public second-
ary school administrators and 13.2 15.2 71.6 1.42 4
Training Center personnel

 

Key: A = Agree (3)
DK = Don’t know (2)
D = Disagree (1)

As shown in Table 4.9, the mean ratings ranged from 1.42 to
2.53. The highest mean ratings were Observed for the techniques/
instruments Of Public secondary school administrators attending the
inservice education programs without assessment of their needs (mean

= 2.53, rank = l) and Reports by Ministry of Education Central

142

Office officials (mean = 2.02, rank = 2). Mean ratings for the
other two techniques/instruments were under 2.00. Interpreting
these mean ratings according to the values they represent, the one
item with which respondents agreed was that no assessment was being
made Of the inservice education needs of public secondary school
administrators; they did not know whether another technique (reports
by Ministry Officials) was being used at all. The two
techniques/instruments that were perceived not to be used in
identifying the inservice education needs of public secondary school
administrators were Surveys of public secondary school
administrators’ needs (mean = 1.51, rank = 3) and Interviews between
public secondary school administrators and Training Center personnel

(mean = 1.42, rank = 4).

Research Question 9
What kinds of instructional/training methods do Kuwaiti public
secondary school administrators perceive to be used in imple-
menting administrative inservice education programs in Kuwait?
Seven instructional/training methods were listed 'hi the
questionnaire. These included lectures, discussions, workshops,
field trips, films, tape recordings, and videotapes. Respondents
were asked to indicate the extent tO which each of these methods was
being used in implementing inservice education programs in Kuwait,
using a three-point ordinal scale on which Never used = 1, Sometimes
used = 2, and Always used = 3. Intermediate mean ratings were

interpreted according tO their proximity to one Of the three values

(always, sometimes, or never). The percentages of responses in each

‘-

143

category, mean ratings, and ranks for the use of each of the seven

instructional/training methods are shown in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10.--Respondents’ perceptions of the use of selected
instructional/training methods in implementing
administrative inservice education programs.

 

Response (%)

 

 

 

Instructional/Training Mean Rank
Method AU SU NU

Lectures 92.6 6.9 0.5 2.92 1
Discussions _ 26.0 57.8 16.2 2.10 2
Workshops 6.4 57.6 36.0 1.70 3
Films 10.3 35.8 53.9 1.56 4
Videotapes 5.9 29.4 64.7 1.41 5
Tape recordings 1.0 12.3 86.8 1.14 6
Field trips 1.5 2.0 96.6 1.05 7
Key: AU = Always used (3)

SU = Sometimes used (2)

NU = Never used (1)

AS shown in Table 4.10, the mean ratings for the seven
training/instructional methods ranged from 1.05 to 2.92. The
highest mean rating was Observed for Lectures (mean = 2.92, rank =
1). This was the only method that respondents perceived to be
always used. The respondents’ general perception was that
Discussions (mean = 2.10, rank = 2) were sometimes used. The mean
ratings for the other five methods ranged from 1.70 to 1.05,
indicating that respondents perceived these methods to be almost
never used in implementing administrative inservice education

programs in Kuwait.

144

Research Question 10

What kinds Of techniques and instruments do Kuwaiti public

secondary school administrators perceive to In: used in

evaluating administrative inservice education programs in

Kuwait?

Four techniques/instruments that can be used to evaluate
administrative inservice education programs were listed in the
questionnaire. AS in Research Question 9, respondents were asked to
indicate the extent to which the technique/instrument was used in
evaluating inservice education programs, using a three-point Likert-
type scale on which Never used = 1, Sometimes used = 2, and Always
used = 3. From the responses, mean ratings were computed for the
four techniques/instruments. Percentages of responses in each
category, means, and ranks for the four evaluation techniques/
instruments are shown in Table 4.11.

From Table 4.11, it can be seen that the mean ratings ranged
from 1.13 to 2.38. A high mean rating was Observed for
Questionnaires at the end of each inservice education program/cycle
(mean = 2.38, rank = '1). Mean ratings for the other three
techniques/instruments were less than 1.50, indicating they were

sometimes or never used. These ratings were as follows:

Observation during implementation of inservice education programs

(mean 1.28, rank = 2), Interviews between trainers and trainees

individually or in groups (mean = 1.27, rank = 3), and Achievement

tests to measure the trainees’ progress (mean 1.13, rank = 4). In
general, public secondary school administrators perceived that most

of the techniques/instruments listed in the questionnaire were

 

145

almost. never: used 'hi evaluating inservice» education programs in

Kuwait.

Table 4.1l.--Respondents’ perceptions Of the use Of selected
techniques/instruments in evaluating administrative
inservice education programs.

 

Response (%)
Technique/Instrument Mean Rank
AU SU NU

 

 

Questionnaires at the end of
each inservice education 45.1 48.0 6.9 2.38 l
program/cycle

Observation during implemen-
tation of inservice education 0.5 27.5 72.1 1.28 2
programs

Interviews between trainers
and trainees individually or 1.0 25.0 74.0 1.27 3
in groups

Achievement tests to measure 1.0 11.3 87.7 1.13 4
the trainees’ progress

 

Key: AU = Always used (3)
SU = Sometimes used (2)
NU = Never used (1)

Research Question 11

Is there a statistically significant relationship between
Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ satisfaction
with the techniques used in carrying out administrative inserv-
ice education activities and the respondents’ satisfaction with
their level Of involvement in these activities?

For the four broad areas of involvement in inservice education

activities, namely, assessment Of trainees’ needs, planning of the

‘

146

inservice education programs/cycles, implementation, and program
evaluation, respondents were asked to indicate their level of
satisfaction with the techniques/instruments used in carrying out
these activities. Respondents also were asked to indicate their
satisfaction with the level Of their involvement in these four
activities. The administrators responded to both items using a
five-point Likert-type scale ranging from Very dissatisfied (1) to
Very satisfied (5).

For data-analysis purposes, the five response options were
collapsed into two categories: Dissatisfied (l) and Satisfied (2).
Using these two categories, a chi-square test of statistical
significance was used to determine whether a statistically
significant relationship existed between respondents’ satisfaction
with the techniques used in administrative inservice education
activities and the respondents’ satisfaction with their level of
involvement in these activities. The chi-square values. and their
corresponding significance levels for the four inservice education
activities are shown in Table 4.12.

As shown in Table 4.12, statistically significant relationships
were found between respondents’ satisfaction with the techniques
used in carrying out inservice education programs and respondents’
satisfaction with their level Of involvement in each Of these
activities. The values were as follows: Assessment of trainees’
needs (X2 = 111.9, p < .05), Planning of inservice education

programs (X2 = 132.2, p < .05), Implementation of inservice

‘

147

education programs (X2 = 125.6, p < .05), and ENaluation of

inservice education programs (X2 = 77.9, p < .05).

Table 4.12.--Chi-square results for the relationship between
respondents’ satisfaction with the techniques used
in administrative inservice education activities and
respondents’ satisfaction with their level of involve-
ment in those activities.

 

 

Chi-Square
Inservice Education Activity Value df p-Value
Assessment Of trainees’ needs 111.9 1 .000*
Planning of inservice education
programs 132.2 1 .000*
Implementation Of inservice education
programs 125.6 1 .000*
Evaluation of inservice education
programs 77.9 1 .000*

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

Although, in general, respondents expressed more
dissatisfaction than satisfaction, most of those who were
dissatisfied with the techniques used in carrying out inservice
education activities also were dissatisfied with the level of their
involvement in these activities. From the size Of the Observed chi-

square values, this relationship was quite obvious.

148

Research Question 12

How (k1 respondents recommend that Kuwaiti public secondary

school administrators’ involvement in inservice education

activities be maximized?

Eight recommendations for ways inservice education in Kuwait
might be improved were listed in the questionnaire. Respondents
were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that each
recommendation was important for the improvement Of inservice
education programs in Kuwait. An ordinal scale was used, with
Disagree = 1, NO opinion = 2, and Agree = 3. Based on the
responses, a mean rating was computed for each recommendation. A
ffigfli mean rating (near 3.00) indicated that the suggested
recommendation was important, whereas a low mean rating (near 1.00)
indicated that the recommendation was not important for the
improvement Of inservice education programs in Kuwait. The
percentages of responses, means, and ranks for the eight
recommendations are shown in Table 4.13.

As shown in Table 4.13, the mean ratings ranged from 2.36 to
2.94. The following recommendations had the highest mean ratings:
Another type of incentive is needed by the trainees, like priority
for promotion, Opportunities for personal growth, etc. (mean = 2.94,
rank = 1); All inservice education program participants Should be
rewarded with things like wage or salary increases, merit pay, etc.
(mean = 2.93, rank = 2); and School administrators should be
involved in evaluation of the inservice education programs/cycles
(mean = 2.86, rank = 3). The following recommendations received the

lowest mean ratings: School administrators should be given an

149

 

 

ew.N e.n 0.? N._m PF< mamcmoca covumusnm mow>cmmcw
e mm.N Q.“ -- e.~m mpcmumwmm< co mcwccwmmn ecu mgoemn meme: .mmmcwmcp
em.~ _.~ o.N m.om mrmawocwcm we“ co pcmEmmwmmw an we stogm mcmgh
mm.~ 8.0 m._ F.Nm ——< mmfiuxo\m5mcm
m ~m.~ o.m o._ m.om mucmpmwmm< -oca cowpmuzum muw>cmmcw mcp co cowuma—m>m
om.~ F.¢ o.~ m.mm mqu_ucwc¢ cw um>Fo>cw ma n_=o;m mcopmcpmwcchm Poonum
mm.~ m.~ o._ _.om FP< .upm .xma pwcme .mmmmmcocw xcmme
N mm.~ m.~ o._ N.@@ mpcmpmwmm< co mmmz mJPF mmcwcp 59w: umncmzmc mg vF=onm
mm.~ o.m o.F o.mm mpmqwocwca mpcmawuwwcma smcmoca co_pao:nm muw>cmm:_ __<
em.~ m.~ o.P o.mm __< .upm .cpzocm Pacomcma so» mm_pwczucoaqo
_ mm.N m.~ o.— ~.om mpcmpmwmm< .cowuosoca so» apwcowca mxwp .mmmcwmcp
mm.~ o.~ o._ o.nm mFmawucmca mg“ as umnmm: my m>wpcmucw mo max“ cmguoc<
9 oz <
xcmm cam: cowpwmom cowpmvcmesoumm

ARV wmcoammm

 

.uwmzsx cw msmcmoca cowpmozvm muw>cmmcw
mo gcmEm>ocaew cow meowumucmseoumc ;p_3 newsmmcmmm_u\pcmsmmcmm .mucmucoammm--.m_.e anmH

150

AFV mmcmmm_o
ANS cowceao oz
Ame 66Em<

II II II
<00
2
>5
(1)
M

 

 

 

mm.~ e.m~ m.m N.¢o FF< mmwp_>_pum cowpmuzum
m mm.m ¢.Pm m.e m.mm mpcmpmwmm< muw>cmmcw F—m a? mpmawowpcwa op apwczpcoaao
oe.~ m.m~ F.m N.mm MPmawucwcm cm cm>wm mp c_:o;m mcoumcpmwcwenm Poogum
m¢.~ m.m~ ¢.m F._~ FF< mmwpw>wgom cowpmuzcm
N me.~ m.n~ m.~ m.on mpcmpmwmm< mow>cmmcw mo mcwccmpq mgu cw wpwawowacma op
me.~ ~.m~ _.m ~._N mpmawucwca nwmmczoocm ma crzocm mcopmcumwcwenm Foogum
m¢.N m.m~ m.~ o.—~ FF< mmpo>8\msmcmoca cowpmosum muw>cmmcw ecu mo
0 Am.N m.m~ m.m 5.08 macapm_mm< cowaap=6e8_aaw 6;“ cw mpmaeuwpcma op specas
mm.~ N.FN o.~ m.o~ mpmawocwca -coaao esp m>mc vfizogm mcoumcpmwcwEnm Foogum
oN.N e.m e.m N.mm PP<
m m~.~ m.o— m.m “.mm mpcmpmwmm< acmpcspo> ma n_:o;m msmcmocq
RN.N ~.m F.“ ~.¢m m—mawucwca cowpmusvm mow>cmmcw mgp pm mucmucmpp<
0 oz <
xcmm cam: cowpwmoa cowomncmeeoomm

Axv mmcoammm

 

.vmzcwpcoo11.m_.v m—nmh

151

opportunity to participate in all inservice education activities

(mean = 2.36, rank 8); and School administrators should be
encouraged to participate in the planning of inservice education
activities (mean = 2.46, rank = 7). Mean ratings for the remaining
recommendations ranged from 2.46 to 2.84.

The mean ratings for all eight recommendations were higher than
2.25. Interpreting these ratings according to the scale they
represent, one' can say that respondents perceived all of these
recommendations to be hwportant 'Hi the improvement Of inservice
education programs in Kuwait.

Open-ended responses. In addition to the eight recommendations
for improvement of inservice education programs listed in the
questionnaire, respondents could write in their own suggestions for
improving inservice education in Kuwait. The public secondary
school principals and assistant principals who participated in the
study offered the following suggestions:

1. Ministry of Education officials should have more trust in
public school administrators.

2. The policy regarding attendance at inservice education
programs needs to be revised or changed.

3. The number of lectures should be decreased.

4. Theoretical studies and lectures are not providing adminis-
trators with pertinent information to solve daily work needs and

problems.

152

5. A survey of public school administrators’ needs is neces-
sary, and needs assessment should be part of any inservice education
program.

6. Inservice education should be delivered during the school
day, not at the expense of participants’ families.

7. Coordination among inservice education programs 'hs needed
to avoid repetition of topics and activities.

8. The instructional techniques used 'hi inservice education
programs need to be improved.

9. Research studies are needed to pinpoint the kinds Of topics
and techniques to be used in inservice education.

10. TO have inservice education programs delivered smoothly and
on time, they should be decided through direct and simple ways of
communication.

11. If they are to be successful, new inservice education pro-
grams should be based on assessments of trainees’ needs.

12. Visiting other schools is very important. We hope to see
it in the future.

13. A timetable plan for topics and activities is needed before
carrying out inservice education programs.

14. Providing transportation to and from the Training Center
should be considered in the future.

15. More practical and field-study inservice education programs
are needed.

16. Some or all inservice education activities should take

place at school. ‘

153

17. Inservice education should be Obligatory for all school
staff and administrators.

18. Financial rewards would encourage school administrators to
attend and participate actively in inservice education programs.

19. Brochures about inservice education policy should 1x3 made
available to public school administrators.

20. More collective and individual discussion during each
session is needed to pave the way for the evaluation of inservice
education program content.

21. Each school district should have its own inservice educa-
tion programs.

22. Inservice education programs should cover and treat both
administrative and technical fields.

23. A clear set Of goals and objectives is helpful in under-
standing the content of inservice education programs.

24. Evaluation of inservice education programs should take
place during the activity and after participants return to their
schoOls.

25. Candidates for principalships and assistant principalships
should receive administrative inservice education before being
assigned to their positions.

26. The value and success Of inservice education programs
should be evaluated continuously.

27. Evaluation of measurements of school productivity is neces—

sary as a basis for inservice education program plans.

154

28. Public secondary school principals need more inservice
education.

29. Inservice education programs Should treat the problems Of
school districts individually.

The recommendations for improvement of inservice education,
listed above, are tabulated in Table 4.14 according to the gender

and position of the respondents.

Summary

In this chapter, the results of the data analyses were
presented, according to the 12 research questions. A summary of the
study, discussion Of the findings, conclusions drawn from the
findings, recommendations for practice, and suggestions for further

research are presented in Chapter V.

 

155

 

 

 

 

 

N m— NN N.Ne mF .. - m.Pm ¢_ -- - v—
N.mP wN P.Nm m o.mN N o.mN N m.NF m NF
N.¢F om o.o¢ NF o.o¢ NP m.m P N.m_ m N—
N.mp mm e.mm mp m.m¢ my o.m _ —.m m P—
N.o— mm ¢.om NP m.mm FF N._N N —.m m o_
N.oF em N.Nm mp N.Fe ep m.m N N.¢_ m m
N.NP mm N.NN m ¢.Fm FF e._m FF m.¢F. m m
N.NF mm N.NN m ¢.Pm FF N.NN m N.NN m N
N.NF mm N.NN m ¢._m PP e._m PF m.¢_ m m
F.mF mm F.MN m m.mm ¢_ m.mN oF «.m_ o m
m.m~ ov m.Nm NF o.mm «F m.N_ N o.m_ m e
m.m_ oe o.ON m o.om NF o.mN OF o.mN o_ m
_.oN Fe N.—m m_ m.mp m m.mN PF m._N m N
P.NN me N.oN NF F._m e_ N.NN op o.ON m P
x c x c x c x :
mucovcoammm mmcoammm Ame u :v Amm 1 cv Aem 1 cv AFm 1 cv acmne:z
—_< mo quop mpmamucwcm mpmamocwca mFmawucwca mFma_ucvca cowpmvcmEEoumm
pcmucma erased are: pcmumem< ucwumwmm<
umEmd mfimz

 

.cowpmuzum muw>cmmcw
mo pcmsm>ocqsw com mcowpwvcmEEoomc mcwvcmmoc mmmcoqmmc umucm1cmao co cowmesnmp--.e_.e wreak

156

.emN-NmN woman so Nuchucm cchu :N cm>Nm mcm mcoNvacmEEoumc chm

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.o N - - - - -- - o.ooN N mN
o.N e -- - o.mN N o.om N o.mN N mN
¢.N m o.oe N o.om m -- - - - NN
e.m N m.eN N N.Nm v m.¢N N m.eN N mN
e.¢ m e.ev e N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N mN
m.¢ oN o.oN N o.om m - - o.om m «N
m.m NN - - o.mN m N.Ne m m.mm e MN
e.m mN «.mN N m.om e m.mm m ¢.mN N NN
m.m NN o.MN e -1 - N.Nm oN N.NN m NN
m.m mN N.NN N N.NN v o.om m N.mN m ON
m.m mN - - o.mm N m.mm oN m.m N mN
m.m 0N o.oN N o.0N e o.o¢ w 0.0m o mN
m.oN NN N.Nm m o.mN v N.Nm m m.¢ N NN
N.NN mN o.Nm m o.m N o.oe oN - - mN
N.NN mN o.om m o.¢¢ N o.m N o.NN m mN
x c N c x c x :
mucmccoammm mmcoammm Nov 1 cv Nmm 1 cv Nam :V NNm n :V meane:z
NN< No NmNoN mNmaNucha mNmaNochm mNmaNuchm mNmaNocNNN :oNNmucmEEoomm
Ncmocmm mNmEmN mNmz pcmumNmm< NcmumNmm<
mNmsmN mNmz

 

.oasccacoc--.eN.e aNnaN

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The researcher’s primary purpose in conducting this study was
to assess the perceptions of Kuwaiti public secondary school
principals and assistant principals regarding the importance Of
their involvement in needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
evaluation of current inservice education programs. Additional
purposes were to determine public secondary school administrators’
perceived degree of satisfaction with their level Of involvement in
inservice education activities and to discover the factors that
the administrators perceived to prevent or limit their Opportunities

for involvement in such activities.

Study Population

The target population consisted of all 272 public secondary
school principals and assistant principals employed by the Ministry
Of Education in Kuwait during the 1989-90 academic year. Of that
number, 204 (75%) participated in the study.

Instrumentation
The researcher developed a questionnaire, based on a review Of

the literature on inservice education. In addition to demographic

157

158

characteristics, items were designed in) elicit respondents’
perceptions of the importance of involvement in needs assessment,
planning, implementation, and evaluation of inservice education
programs in Kuwait; and the administrators’ satisfaction with their
level of involvement in these activities and with the
instruments/techniques used in carrying out inservice education
programs. In addition, respondents were given an Opportunity to

suggest ways to improve inservice education programs in Kuwait.

Data Collection

After receiving approval from the Kuwaiti Ministry of Education
to conduct the study, the researcher mailed questionnaires to all
public secondary school principals and assistant principals through-
out the country. Two weeks after the first questionnaires were
sent, a follow-up letter and a second copy of the questionnaire were
mailed to nonrespondents. In all, 204 of the 272 administrators

returned completed questionnaires, a 75% response rate.

Data Analysis

The study was primarily descriptive in nature; descriptive
statistics in the form of means, percentages, and ranks were used in
treating the data. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS-X) was used in analyzing the data. The Pearson product-moment
correlation analysis. was used to determine whether there1 was a
statistically significant relationship between public secondary
school administrators’ perceived degree Of involvement in inservice

education activities and their satisfaction with that level of

159

involvement (Research Question 6). The chi-square test CH:
statistical significance was used to determine whether a
statistically significant relationship existed between administra-
tors’ satisfaction with the techniques used in carrying out
inservice education activities and the administrators’ satisfaction
with their level of involvement in these activities (Research
Question 11). The .05 alpha level was set as the criterion for
statistical significance. 'The Iwajor findings for each research

question are discussed in the following section.

Summary of the Findings

Research Question 1: What is the perceived importance Of

Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ involvement in

four inservice education activities: needs assessment, plan-

ning, implementation, and program evaluation?

The two activities receiving the highest mean ratings with
regard to the importance of administrators’ involvement were
Assessment of needs and Evaluation of inservice education programs.
In general, public secondary school administrators agreed or
strongly agreed that it is important for Kuwaiti administrators to
be involved in inservice education programs by participating in
needs assessment, planning, implementation, andevaluation of these
programs.

Research Question 2: TO what extent do Kuwaiti public second-

ary school administrators perceive they are involved in needs

assessment regarding inservice education programs?

Overall, school administrators perceived little (H‘ no

involvement in the four Specific activities of needs assessment for

160

inservice education programs. Although the mean ratings were
generally very low, the highest rating was observed for the
activity of Defining the problem and subjects for inservice
education.

Research Question 3: TO what extent dO Kuwaiti public second-

ary school administrators perceive they are involved in plan-

ning administrative inservice education programs?

The mean ratings for the respondents’ extent Of involvement in
all four planning-process activities were very low, indicating a
general lack of involvement in inservice education programs through
the planning activity. The highest mean rating was for the activity
of Suggesting topics for school administrator inservice education
programs/cycles, followed by Involvement in allocation of human and
material resources for inservice education programs.

Research Question 4: TO what extent do Kuwaiti public second-

ary school administrators perceive they are involved in imple-

menting administrative inservice education programs?

According to the mean ratings for the respondents’ extent of
involvement in the implementation Of administrative inservice
education programs, slight involvement was perceived in only one
instructional method--Discussions (mean = 2.47), uncertainty was
perceived with regard to involvement in Workshops, and no involve-
ment was perceived in the remaining five methods.

Research Question 5: To what extent do Kuwaiti public second-

ary school administrators perceive they are involved in evalu-

ating administrative inservice education programs?

Overall, the respondents indicated a lack Of involvement in the

specific activities Of evaluation Of inservice education programs

in Kuwait. The only high mean rating was Observed for the activity

161

of Questionnaires at the end of each inservice education program/
cycle (mean = 2.74). The other three evaluation activities had mean
ratings below 1.25.

Research Question 6: Is there a statistically significant

relationship between Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-

trators’ perceived level Of involvement in inservice education
activities and these administrators’ satisfaction with their
level of involvement in these activities?

Using the Pearson product-moment correlation analysis, a
statistically significant relationship was found between the
respondents’ perceived involvement in the four inservice education
activities of needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
program evaluation and these administrators’ satisfaction with their
level of involvement in such activities. All four correlation coef-
ficients were positive, indicating :1 general positive relationship
between respondents’ perceived level of involvement and their satis-
faction with that involvement.

Research Question 7: What factors do Kuwaiti public secondary

school administrators perceive to have prevented them from

being involved 'hi administrative inservice education activi-
ties?

The public secondary school administrators perceived two
factors tO be a hindrance 1x1 their involvement in inservice
education activities. These were: Only Training Center personnel
are permitted to be involved in inservice education program
activities (mean = 2.66) and Public secondary school administrators

are excluded from participation in the inservice education program

activities (mean = 2.58).

162

~Research Question 8: What kinds of techniques and instruments

do Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators perceive to

be used in preparing administrative inservice education pro-
grams in Kuwait?

The highest mean ratings were observed for the fo110wing two
instruments/techniques: Public secondary school administrators
attending the inservice education programs without assessment of
their needs (mean = 2.53) and Report by' Ministry' of Education
Central Office officials (mean = 2.02). Respondents agreed that the
first technique/instrument was used to identify the needs of public
secondary school administrators; they did not know whether the other
was being used at all. The two instruments/techniques that
respondents perceived not to be used in identifying the needs of
public secondary school administrators were Surveys of public
secondary school administrators’ needs (mean = 1.51) and Interviews
between public secondary school administrators and Training Center
personnel (mean = 1.42).

Research Question 9: What kinds of instructional/training

methods do Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators per-

ceive to be used in implementing administrative inservice
education programs in Kuwait?

Of the seven instructional/training methods that might be used
in implementing administrative inservice education programs,
Lectures (mean = 2.92) had the highest mean rating. 'This was the
only method that respondents perceived to be always used. The
administrators perceived that Discussions (mean = 2.10) were
sometimes used in implementing administrative inservice education

programs in Kuwait and that the other five methods were almost never

used.

163

Research Question 10: What kinds of techniques and instruments

do Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators perceive to

be used in evaluating administrative inservice education
programs in Kuwait?

The highest mean rating was for Questionnaires at the end of
each inservice education program/cycle (mean = 2.38). Mean ratings
for the other three techniques/instruments were less than 1.50. In
general, the public secondary school administrators perceived most
of the techniques/instruments listed in the questionnaire to be
almost never used in evaluating inservice education programs in
Kuwait.

Research Question 11: IS there a statistically significant
relationship between Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-
trators’ satisfaction with the techniques used in carrying out
administrative inservice education activities and the respond-
ents’ satisfaction with their level Of involvement in these
activities?

The chi-square test revealed a statistically significant,
positive relationship between respondents’ satisfaction with the
techniques used in carrying out administrative inservice education
activities and the administrators’ satisfaction with their level Of
involvement in all four activities: needs assessment, planning,
implementation, and program evaluation. In general, respondents
expressed greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction; most Of those
who were dissatisfied with the techniques also were dissatisfied

with their level Of involvement in the inservice education activi-

ties.

164

Re§g§rch Question 12: How do respondents recommend that

Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators’ involvement in

inservice education activities be maximized?

0f the recommendations for improvement Of inservice education
programs listed in the questionnaire, the following received the
highest mean ratings: Another type of incentive is needed by the
trainees, like priority to be promoted, opportunities for personal
growth, etc. (mean = 2.94); All inservice education program partici-
pants should be rewarded with things like wage or salary increases,
merit pay, etc. (mean = 2.93), and School administrators should be
involved in evaluation of the inservice education programs/cycles
(mean = 2.86). Recommendations receiving the lowest mean ratings
were: School administrators should be given an opportunity' to
participate in all inservice education activities (mean = 2.36) and
School administrators should be encouraged to participate in the
planning of inservice education programs (mean = 2.46). Based on
the mean ratings, respondents perceived all of the proposed

recommendations to be important in maximizing administrators’

participation in inservice education activities in Kuwait.

Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the findings Of the
study:
1. Although public secondary school administrators recognized
the importance Of their involvement in needs-assessment activities
Of inservice education programs, they were not actually involved in

such activities.

 

165

2. Public secondary school administrators recognized the
importance of their involvement in planning activities Of inservice
education programs without actually becoming involved in these
activities.

3. Public secondary school administrators recognized the
importance of their involvement in implementation activities Of
inservice education programs. However, they perceived their actual
involvement in such activities to be only through discussions and
sometimes workshops. They had not been involved in using lectures,
field trips, films, tape recordings, or videotapes.

4. Public secondary school administrators recognized the
importance Of their involvement in evaluation activities of
inservice education programs. However, they perceived their actual
involvement to be only through questionnaires at the end of each
inservice education program/cycle. No involvement in observations,
interviews, or achievement tests was perceived.

5. In general, respondents’ perceptions Of the importance of
involvement in needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
evaluation of inservice education prograwm. were far higher than
their perceived actual involvement in these activities. Thus,
public secondary school administrators clearly saw a need to become
more involved in the activities Of inservice education programs.

6. Assessment Of needs and evaluation Of inservice education
programs were perceived to be more important than planning and

implementation of such programs.

166

7. The fact that only Training Center personnel are permitted
to be involved in inservice education activities was perceived to
have prevented public secondary school administrators from being
involved in such activities. Thus, these administrators are being
excluded from participating in needs assessment, planning,
implementation, and evaluation Of inservice education programs
because such participation is not part Of their job description.
Personal reasons (e.g., family responsibilities, health, and so on),
insufficient time, and lack of skills were not among the factors
perceived 1x1 prevent public secondary school administrators from
participating in inservice education activities.

8. Public secondary school administrators agreed (n: strongly
agreed that they attended inservice education programs without an
assessment of their needs having been done. Surveys of public
secondary school administrators and interviews between these
administrators and Training Center personnel were not being used to
identify the inservice education needs Of the administrators.

9. Lecture was the only instructional/training method that was
perceived to be always used in implementing administrative inservice
education programs. l)iscussions. were perceived to be sometimes
used. Workshops, films, videotapes, tape recordings, and field
trips were perceived to be never used in implementing such programs.

10. Questionnaires at the end of each inservice education
program/cycle were the only technique/instrument that respondents
perceived to be always used in evaluating administrative inservice

education programs. Observations during implementation of inservice

167

education programs, interviews between trainers and trainees
individually or in groups, and achievement tests to measure
trainees’ progress were perceived to be almost never used in program
evaluation.

11. In general, respondents expressed a high level of
dissatisfaction with techniques/instruments used in carrying out
inservice education activities and with their level of involvement
in such activities. Dissatisfaction with techniques/instruments was
directly related to administrators’ dissatisfaction with their level
of involvement in the inservice education activities.

12. The most highly recommended ways of improving
administrators’ level of involvement in inservice education
activities were providing incentives for participation, such as
priority for {promotion and opportunity for personal growth;
rewarding program participants with such things as wage increases
and merit pay; and involving administrators ir1 the evaluation of
inservice education programs/cycles. Other recommendations were
giving administrators an opportunity to participate in all inservice
education activities and encouraging administrators 1x1 participate
in the planning of inservice education programs. Respondents
perceived all eight recommendations listed in the questionnaire to
be important in maximizing Kuwaiti public secondary school adminis-

trators’ involvement in inservice education activities.

168

Recommendations for Practice

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommenda-
tions for practice are Offered:

1. Currently, Kuwaiti public secondary school administrators
are made to understand that only Training Center personnel are
permitted to be involved in inservice education activities. This
policy needs to be changed. The job descriptions Of public
secondary school principals and their assistants should include
participation in inservice education activities: assesssing par-
ticipants’ needs, planing the process, and implementing and evaluat-
ing the outcome Of inservice education programs.

2. There is a need to use modern instructional/training
methods beyond lectures in implementing inservice education programs
in Kuwait. These methods should include workshops, visual and
nonvisual aids, and computers.

3. Other methods of evaluating inservice education programs,
beyond questionnaire surveys, should be emphasized. These methods
could be in the form of observations, tests, interviews, and follow-
up studies on the effects Of inservice education on administrator
trainees’ performance.

4. Trainees’ needs should be assessed before the beginning Of
an inservice education cycle.

5. All participants in inservice education programs should be
rewarded for taking part in the program activities.

6. Such incentives as promotions and merit pay increases

should be considered for inservice education program participants.

169

Suggestions for Further Research

1. A study using trainers as the subjects should be undertaken
to assess the activities of needs assessment, planning, implementa-
tion, and evaluation of inservice education programs in Kuwait.

2. A study should be conducted to investigate the perceptions
Of inservice education program participants regarding their needs
for continuing education and the planning, implementation, and
evaluation Of inservice education programs in Kuwait.

3. Kuwaiti public secondary school principals’ and assistant
principals’ satisfaction with inservice education programs should be
investigated, using standardized satisfaction scales.

4. Inservice education programs in Kuwait need to undergo an
evaluation, to determine ways and means Of improving the programs

overall.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PRETEST COMMENTS

 

170

PRETEST COMMENTS

 

Amount of time to complete this form is

 

Items which are confusing, unclear and need reworking:

Question No. Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some training activities which should be omitted from
this study:

 

 

 

 

Some training activities not mentioned in this study
and should.be added:

 

 

 

 

 

Other comments:

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

ARABIC AND ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

171

r: .7110 “1’“ III,

 

‘—-—-- '24-” CH. '2—9

(NFL—NJ 6.1—a J,» LNJXS” c.3511, 2:);L‘JI ”91.1.1le15; *IJT all»... ‘1 a_.a’ 1}.)
...-....- ......z_,.,.-- NJ- 1,__.... _. .'. ...-4| ......7. -..-4191.4 NNJ- - 1...-

 

414.41

GM 1%. '15—‘04...“

01 Tutu"; L71 LL?

 

( 5‘1. / ‘3' ‘i‘o

172

:a____.:..b’ _'_ 'x, W - ‘ ‘ ¢L71_a.

 

1.9-1119,1153 2.,L;..3U 1:191...“ Lula-,3}; .1_..IJ.1JI.-IJ_;I,:-:1;.2L;J1..:.L-.1,..II,_,;,.1 U1: 1.;
' . .1_-.,JirL_.IUJL_;J1¢_.J.IIU; emcee-a:

s L__.JL>. L_'_L;::.,_,:II 13:15,]! O..- 1._1
2.....JJ. 27151:. _1
;-—-“'f"‘ J—rS) —T

 

 

 

 

 

s gran 51.111 Jr... U; Leg-.1 U211 QIJSMJI .1.” 1. ..r
EJ—Jlogrj—T’
S l_.',_.J|U_.::U:J|w;NJIZ§_5|-.-i

,___<-J -1

U:_;I _T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s L__f:lsch»Z___‘1:;—?JJU_JLIU_A 1._o
M104 -1

 

 

 

L.___E~L?JI1___?J.1JI _r

173

s ;__.._.J_:J1F.1,_JI me, 1:32., SLUT art-NU; ”91.1.11 2:;‘4' LILL— gial 1. : 9,1

: u___J11-.JI,_,_..1._;JI 0.1.5.]! a...» 1:115, L-Jfla: 2,.” c‘ 5.31:, 61.11911“)? 5:13 c—-‘ 349-)”

 

 

 

 

1.1_.-. ,3_;1,1 ,3____;1,1 15,-11‘! 541,19 1:11... 5.1,! 11
o -. i .1' r 1 l_ _
o i. r r 1 2.3-:11 9%‘11 4,1,; ;__..LE -1
o s. r r 1 c,_._J.rJl En.1,, 4.1.—La; _r
o i r r i c..___:J.1.—JI 5....51 .1_.___i;.-. .1"
6 i r r 1

five“ E_.1;,,J1,._1,;; -1

Greens, c.1115; Lfi,c.,;_a=,_,-JI;._:.IIJ,,. 31:13:,” rr_o) rflJi mambo 211.911

:U__JI:JI,_,__:)UI U.I_.LIJ

 

 

 

 

 

mL__.. 5,11 Y HLIH
1' T l
3e~¢nu $91.39* Arie-‘- — I
1" 1' l firs.“ Ebfi'u $15.3ij c.2112..." ..L_~L>.3 ..0
1' T l

0:91.119ng Wk.) PINE-.1»? 91,131 0;..3 5:79.: _‘1
(30.13.11 QLNLLNI Jf" $11913 'Ji (LT-"3' _Y
L—H‘?‘ (3 c3“ Cable-3' 0.151"; J

______________________________ .591 931—.»-

174

 

‘ ' ",le P4114] W' — he
1- 1 1 9921154,, .514.“ 4,1,5, ,1_.-.-,1U; ,Lr__..11_1
1' 1 1 try-‘3” 3:2»!- 3—.~2~.-=‘f—-1c—5:u—5r'~r-7'-"
1' 1 1 V4.2.” a.,-)UI :zfgtjl ft...“ ,1... ,ggIJ'aSJLle _11
1' 1 1 .....Jnn 6.9. 0...; Lfidjfl 1.35.5.1! ”1..1 (1531-11

Ln,- .- . .1... 15.13,; :11 u; $.41 97L...

——_———_—————————————
———-————————————————————~~--——————~————

 

1' 1 1 91,51___,..J1_11'
1' 1 ' 1 1:91.30141
1' 1 1 ,J__..,J1‘_,:,, _1o
1' T 1 L914A1551911_11
1' 1 1 ,)1__6\11_1Y
1" 1’ 1 . @1511 gay—3...... _1A

175

: ;__._._,,.1».J1 E._.1,,J1 r...’_i'.: v.5 ,L,..§1_.1

 

 

 

 

1' 1 z____.,:,.r_JI 3,,111 39.7.: U__; cth...‘11_1o

1' , ; 11-1.11 _11

1' 7 1 c.)l.1 4.11-11

1' 1 ;___.1_....,_-.!11;,1, L _ALVI _11'
————————————————————————— L—r-J ML- (.3111 «SJ—>1 1);-19

: ..__,_1 912.11 (111.11 9111.”; 1.1.,1U1w,1.1..11,:,1.11‘51,_ .1.

 

0.1___..3..1| 1,1...) c1115, L._.§Jl JP 5:1; 9,, 1131-111 .115 ,LFAI 11:16.1 11.1-.311, .51. Q1 ,§_1

 

 

 

 

 

:,_,Jl_-J1 1...;J1
1.1.: ......11. .....__.L.. 19413 11.1.. ,1; 1:11.11. 1.1.11.9.
o i T’ 1 1
O i 1' 1 “4.2.1.1 ¢L§1_:..>Y| 414...: J (17.1.71 641- .11
o 1. 1' 1 Vex—J W1”; (9115,21. .10
o i T 1

2:131:11 E15,11,311: Us 0:31.111 (L'...1JL?.. ..1v

.. _. __________________ 1...,551 19411-1111. Us f.1_,_.11 15,-....

: 1,13le 131.11.; v.5 L,.,1.1.Jl $31.11 f.L,_..1 L,5 ,3. “11115.11- ,

 

: U_J1:JIU:DUI L,.1_.;.11 11,11. clLi, 111,21; 31,11, 6 5h:,_,-.J1a.;111d,,. 3,314 {5.1; :4er

176

 

 

 

 

L§_____51)1 ‘5).11‘1 5_51J1 ‘1
1' 1 1

1' 1 1 ( L__..... ,1:=1:11 ) 2__._....;..: 99.1;‘1';
0.1.le 015-15711111‘ 921-5“ 151:1“ u; (Lu—~71 H5: J‘

1' 1 1 9.313154, U_.;
1' 1 1 1.1.3.5111;1._.L1 Us 1314.110 u.,1.1..JI,:,1..11,_,;1..: .1.
1' 1 1 1.11.3.1.“ 1:.1._.L1 U; 2.111.410. h..1-..: u.,1.1.11,=,1.11JL.1..:.:1_1'1
1- 1 1 1,1,1.“ 111.21”; aS,1.:.11 6,1... ‘11., ,_,.,1.1.J1 ,,,1.11 .1211: -11
, ;,__;,-.. ,_.a 1.1; ;,L,. 11,11,511 3.11.311“; #151111... _11-

1' 1' 1 L__r§)l$,,2_..,;h.11 ”91.1.1le .13; L_JL-1.

_________________________ L—Lfi‘ 6).—$1 J‘H

yank; 3.15;.J1gfiJLSJ1, 5,4111: L51:

 

=u——!UI..,=>U1 11113-11 11.: cm, 111,151 in», c- axsuzn 21511.1,» :,-1.1 ex 1...»!

 

 

 

 

 

5__51,1 15,-11‘! 541,11
1' 1 1
: :_______..:,.:.11c,1,,.1115._.1,, .11.1_11_ 1
1' 1 leu1wJ1J1¢l¢EJJ 2,9... 131.1,.) 11:11.1,f 23,4211le .141: _T1
1' 1 2 _MJ'JI 3J1), U; u=.1,:.....11J:,1.?:. UL. th, .111: _TO

 

177

T’ 1' 1 Z._...._J.:J1r':.LI-.J ‘13'1Orl: 1::de 9514.11)?» U.JL1.J13.._‘,1.111.Jo.:.1$: (1.1: _TY
_________________ LAJSJ1 91.95.111.2110411 41.1511 M 1.51-51 6,19

J.__11 3531111,, 3,:14 (5.3,.( u _ TA ) 311-31111; ......1 9.4.1.11 1:1er 1:1,,» J1; o- - 1.,

v.511u2x11 0.15.111...) 151,15.- ;,__?., c- .511:

_1-
H.04211UJ Z._L‘,_.1=JS'L1;:...16L.

 

 

o- - ._ - u- -3
p.511 t1__.,1 5111\nd.

 

 

 

'J—fl"?! 51“” 1' 1 1
93.1—_311
cJJ—JL...“ 1' 1 1
gal—.4512." 1" 1' 1
.J_..J1u:,, 1' 1 1
z_.;L1_..Jl 1:1,1511 1' 1 1
401—431 1' 1 1
1:1...1511 1:11.... 1' 1 1
:—=-‘——.-"-“ 1' Y 1

 

 

----- U15“ 1523-1 £5be H‘ruat

_TA

.71

_1°

_21

_iY

_U"

_ii

178

 

: ' _~,.1-.11 1:1,,111 was U; 2.4;...“ 9:11.511 _ _,.

 

: ulbj1us)1:JI 0.1.2.11 111,-, .1115, cJJLa; 1.11., c- 517,“:11 3.;111 4,1. :,:1.: ts, 3.1.1.11

 

1.:14 (.115... 111.11 r-‘°'-’-—~ ELL. ,1..:..., ‘1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1' 1' 1
1" 1' 1 Wijyfiifiwd “1:51;...‘11_i°
1' , , - .12.“: 2 Jam)..." _i‘l
1' 1. 1 1;)111 :.11_1.Y
1' 1 1 2___.1_....1:J| 51,1 _z;‘11_u

 

- _ _. ____-_ ----..-__-._.._ LoJSJ1fl,3_:1|J,.1;:u.-..5,_.;.15,L

: 211.141.131.11 2.11.1119; 2.1;...111141..‘11._,; 911.110.,1JJ1ML11 ‘51,- .1

 

:JU1W1..;J1,_,.1_.;.11 1,11... 1111.}, 141,21 27.-1,3 52:,_,:11:.__;.11J,.. 5:1ch 11L?)U

 

 

 

 

 

1_.1.-. 1,...11. 1.....11. 15,11 ‘1 9.1.1.}; 51111101. 1.....11 A;
o 1 ' 1' 1 1
i 1" 1' 1 1...”.1211 L,.3)15” ,_,.,1.1.11,Lla; LLLy-L-‘ol 1.11.11); ,_,5 cg...“ 10.11.71 ...i‘\
i 1' 1 1 1 _.._.,.1-.11c.l,,.111 WI ”1 111.311 1:14.le-

 

1. 1- 1 1 ; _JLJI z_...fi,.1-.J11:,1,,111.1_.1:. Us 919131.01
1: - 1' 1 1 ;___.,.,.r.111-,1,,.111/ rw1,_:,au;c__.1.111,,1.31 _o1

_________________ 141,551 1,311.11 1111.231 U; WI 15,41 .__.._JL.1

179

:3.__.,._J_1.'J1F_.1fiJ1w.,.:, J1)__19:J 1:,L,.1J:31 : 1.4111,

 

 

0.19.11 L._,.-¢U.3,¢J,_2.; 9+,céckfil1 :1._.1J1J,.,. 5:14?“ 1- ..o1')11:...\11 U11.1.1131!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- :‘_,_:_____JhJIU:)‘&._J1
5_JI,1 ‘51, “3,1,. $5511
1' 1 1
1' 1 1 113,1.“ MYIJ' ,Lflmw1uIW1qlceJ 51.91111 1.11:1 .11.. _or
1' 1 1 my; 5.15., ¢NW1J§Ow1zJ1¢L11§1114¢¢Q 411-01.
1- 1 1 fidhr‘fifl'k-J‘“ 3,1.1 1.15 315,1..:..u w1¢1,,,1.11¢1..:, 0111,. _oo
1' 1 1 1:3,;J1pljg14g: U; 15,1441 03,143U 3...,111 3.1.121 ...... _o1
1' 1 .1. 13,111 9,1111 ¢L,.1JI,,..:., 19:5: ,1 1:1,, _oY
1' 1 1 U5 Lr:>15,, ”91.1.11 ,LLa; Q. ._-,_.$,1.:.JI 31515.1 L_.11. ,1»... t5: :,,,..-. _GA
L _wd1wyl
1' 1 1 U5 3.5,L:.JL._,L L...‘>LS,, L,.,1_1.J1,L.1a1; 6.1.3.1 3,,1... ,1'1,_.. 65: ;,,,.:1 -01
L "0.1211 MVIJ
1 1 a_.1._1:.., 'wfc U5 (L...)U L..:>LS,, w,1.1.JI,LI;1;J 1.9111 3.11:1 .... -1.
9.4.2.11241
______________________ 1.11;.31 15,411 1111,11. 4.11 015 1.31

 

180

Definitions for Participants

P1ease read carefu11y before you start answering the question-
naire!

InvoTvement: 'This term refers to the cooperative efforts
between the pianners, directors, instructors, and/or coordinators of
any inservice education program and the recipients (H‘ trainees of
this program.

Needs Assessment: This is the assessment of the actuaT train-
ing needs of the trainees, in order to determine the gap between
what exists and what ought to be done.

P1anning: This step means the systematic preparation and deci-
sion making for inservice education programs. It is the process of
setting purposes, goaTs, and objectives; ana1ysis of data gathered
in needs assessment; and design of program components.

ImpTementation: This inc1udes contents of training programs,
such as books, aid materiaTs, instructors, teaching instruments and
materiaTs, and so on, as we11 as organization of inservice education
programs, which means that specific procedures and activities are
adopted to achieve the intended objectives.

Eva1uation: This is the process of appraising every step of
the program and the outcomes (ends) to identify areas in which the
program needs improvement, or to make decisions regarding

continuation or repTacement of the program.

181

PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
TOWARD THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN INSERVICE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

This questionnaire is an attempt to assess the importance of
invoivement in the activities of inservice education, as perceived
by pubTic secondary schoo] principais and assistant principaTs.
Another objective is to assess how they fee1 toward their actuaT
inv01vement in assessing their training needs, and in p1anning,
impiementing, and eva1uating inservice programs offered to pub1ic
secondary school administrators by the Ministry of Education in
Kuwait. The third objective is to investigate what kinds of
instructiona] methods are used to train public secondary schooT
principaTs and assistant principaTs. However, the main 90a] of this
research study is to provide the information e1icited from your
answers to those in charge of p1anning and de1ivering inservice
education. This information might heTp make inservice programs for
schooi administrators sponsored by the Ministry of Education and
other educationa1 institutions in Kuwait as re1evant as possibTe.

When you answer this questionnaire, it is not necessary to sign
your name. In reporting the resu1ts, on1y statisticaT summaries of

the responses wi11 be cited. No reference wi11 be made to
individuaTs or to particuTar schooTs. The code number on the form
wi11 be used for foTTow-up purposes with nonrespondents. Your

carefu1 attention to the instructions wi11 faciTitate accurate and
rapid processing of the data.

SincereTy yours,

Mohammad S. AT-Ameeri

182
Professional Information

Please answer all of the following questions, putting an X on the
line next to the response that most accurately describes your
professional demographics.

Your present position:
l. Principal
2. Assistant principal

How many years have you worked as an administrator? years

What is your age: years

 

What is your gender?

l. Male

2. Female

What is the highest degree you have earned?

l. Teaching diploma
____ 2. Bachelor’s degree
____ 3. Master’s degree
____ 4. Other (please specify)

 

183
PART I
Importance of Involvement in Inservice Education Programs

This section deals with your perceptions of the importance of public
secondary school principals’ and assistant principals’ involvement in
needs assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation of
inservice education programs/cycles.

Directions: Regarding the importance of involvement in each of the
inservice education activities listed below, circle the number
that best describes how you feel.

Very Not Absolutely
Impor- Impor- No Impor- Not
tant tant Opinion tant Important
5 4 3 2 l
1. Assessment of needs 5 4 3 2 l
2. Planning of inservice
education programs 5 4 3 2 l
3. Implementation of
inservice education 5 4 3 2 l
programs
4. Evaluation of inserv-
ice education programs ' 5 4 3 2 l

184

PART II

Areas of Involvement in Inservice Education

This section deals with areas of inservice education in which public
secondary' school principals and assistant principals are actually
involved.

Directions: For the following questions regarding your involvement
in inservice education activities, circle the number that best
describes how you feel.

Not
Involved Uncertain Involved
3 2 l

A. Needs Assessment. In which of the following aspects of the needs-
assessment process have you been involved?

5. Defining the problems and sub-
jects for inservice education 3 2 l

6. Defining some of the instruments/
techniques that have been used in 3 2 l
the needs assessment

7. Collecting data for needs-

assessment purposes 3 2 l
8. Analyzing data that have been

gathered for needs-assessment 3 2 l

purposes

Others (please specify)

 

 

B. Planninq Process. In which of the following planning procedures
have you ever been involved?

9. Identifying and prioritizing
goals and objectives for ISE 3 2 l
programs/cycles

lO. Designing strategies of ISE
programs/cycles 3 2 l

ll. Suggesting topics for school
administrator ISE programs/ 3 2 1
cycles

12.

l3.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.

185

Involvement in allocation of
human and material resources
for ISE programs/cycles

Other (please specify)

Not

Involved Uncertain Involved
3 2 l
3 2 l

 

 

Implementation of ISE Proqrams. In which of the following train-
ing/instructional methods incorporated in the ISE programs have

you been involved?
Lectures

Discussions

Workshops

Field trips

Films

Tape recordings
Videotapes

Other (please specify)

3 2 l
3 2 l
3 2 l
3 2 l
3 2 l
3 2 l
3 2 l

 

 

Evaluation of ISE Proqrams. In wh
procedures have you been involved?

Questionnaires at the end of
each ISE program/cycle

Observations
Interviews
Achievement tests

Other (please specify)

ich of the following evaluation

3 2 l
3 2 l
3 2 l
3 2 l

 

 

186

E. §atisfaction With Involvement in ISE Activities. This section
deals with public secondary school administrators’ satisfaction
with their involvement in the selected activities of inservice
education programs.

Directions: For the following questions regarding how satisfied you
are with your involvement in inservice education activities, circle
the number that best describes how you feel.

Very Dis- Very
Satis- Satis- No satis- Dissat-
fied fied Opinion fied isfied
5 4 3 2 l
24. Assessment of needs 5 4 3 2 l
25. Planning of inservice
education programs 5 4 3 2 l
26. Implementation of
inservice education 5 4 3 2 l
programs
27. Evaluation of inserv—
ice education programs 5 4 3 2 l

Other activities (please specify)

 

 

F. Factors Affecting Involvement in ISE. This section deals with
factors that have prevented or tend to prevent you from being
involved in inservice education activities.

Directions: For the following questions regarding factors affecting
your involvement in inservice education activities, circle the number
that best describes how you feel.

Don’t Dis-
Agree Know agree
3 2 l
28. Personal reasons (e.g., family respon-
sibilities, health problems, etc.) 3 2 l

29. Only Training Center personnel are
permitted to be involved in ISE 3 2 l
program activities

30.

31.

32.

33.

187

Public secondary school administrators
are excluded from participation in the
ISE program activities

Public secondary school administrators
do not have enough time to participate
in ISE program activities

Public secondary school administrators
believe that participation in ISE
activities is a waste of time

Involvement in ISE program activities
requires professional skill and knowl-
edge they don’t have at the present time

Other factors (please specify)

Don’t

Agree Know

3

2

Dis-
agree
l

 

 

 

188

PART III

ISE Techniques and Instruments

This section deals with techniques and instruments that are used
in delivering inservice education to public secondary school adminis-
trators.

Directions: To answer the following questions, circle the number that
best describes how you feel.

Don’t Dis-
Agree Know agree
3 2 l

A. Preparation of ISE Proqrams. With regard to the preparation pro-
cess for ISE programs/cycles, which of the following techniques
are used to identify the needs of public secondary school admin-
istrators?

34. Surveys of public secondary school
administrators’ needs 3 2 l

35. Reports by Ministry of Education Central
Office officials 3 2 l

36. Interviews between public secondary
school administrators and Training 3 2 l
Center personnel

37. Public secondary school administrators
attending the ISE programs without 3 2 1
assessment of their needs

Other techniques (please specify)

 

 

189

B. Training and Instructional Methods Used in the Implementation of
ISE Proqrams. During your attendance at ISE programs/cycles,
which of the following training and instructional methods were
used?

Directions: To answer the following questions, circle the number that
best describes how you feel.

Always Sometimes Never
Used Used Used

3 2 l
38. Lectures 3 2 l
39. Discussions 3 2 l
40. Workshops 3 2 l
4l. Field trips 3 2 l
42. Films 3 2 l
43. Tape recordings 3 2 l
44. Videotapes 3 2 1

Other (please specify)

 

 

C. Methods of Evaluation in Current ISE. How often were the follow-
ing evaluation techniques used in each ISE program/cycle that you
attended?

Directions: To answer the following questions, circle the number that
best describes how you feel.

Always Frequently Never

Used Used Used
3 2 l
45. Questionnaires at the end of each
ISE program/cycle 3 2 l
46. Observation during implementation
of ISE programs 3 2 l
47. Interviews between trainers and
trainees individually or in groups 3 2 l

48. Achievement tests to measure the
trainees’ progress 3 2 l

190

'Other methods used in evaluation (please specify)

 

 

 

D. Satisfaction With Techniques Used in Current ISE. This section
deals with how public secondary school administrators feel about
the methods by which ISE is carried out.

Directions: To answer the following questions, circle the number that
best describes how you feel.

Very Dis- Very
Satis- Satis- No satis- Dissat-
fied fied Opinion fied isfied
5 4 3 2 l
49. The way public second-
ary school administra-
tors’ needs are iden- 5 4 3 2 l
tified
50. Planning of the ISE
programs/cycles 5 4 3 2 1
Bl. Application of instruc-
tional and training
methods in current ISE 5 4 3 2 l
programs/cycles
52. Evaluation of the cur-
rent ISE programs 5 4 3 2 1

Your feeling about other methods (please specify):

 

 

 

191

PART IV

Recommendations and Suqqestions

This section deals with respondents’ suggestions for the
improvement of ISE programs.

Directions: Please indicate your opinion about the suggestions listed
below by circling the number that best describes how you feel.

Don’t Dis-
Agree Know agree
3 2 l

53. School administrators should be given
an opportunity to participate in all 3 2 l
ISE activities

54. There should be an assessment of the
trainees’ needs before the beginning 3 2 l
of ISE programs

55. School administrators should be encour-
aged to participate in the planning of 3 2 l
ISE programs

56. School administrators should have the

opportunity to participate in the 3 2 l
implementation of the ISE programs/
cycles

57. Attendance at the ISE programs should
be voluntary 3 2 l

58. All ISE program participants should be
rewarded with things like wage or 3 2 l
salary increases, merit pay, etc.

59. Another type of incentive is needed by
the trainees, like priority for promo- 3 2 1
tion, opportunities for personal
growth, etc.

60. School administrators should be involved
in evaluation of the ISE programs/cycles 3 2 l

Other suggestions (please specify)

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTERS IN ARABIC AND ENGLISH

192

.=.r;',\-‘ A...

 

!Ladl ELLA. 11:31:31 Litu'fi 22.51

 

1......L’JJ1 LJLufiL/IfMI 3:...“
441:. .15}: 393

. 2.0.91 2,1331 2.- @5811,” 61. “Lego cubssfu stashed-fl,

° (9521‘: f“ ) L935): lift-"wJ‘m‘JI-E‘

. Him...- we 153 Wm
uu 1_._->—'J1bcjl> cc

.‘ '23.?»
/' l
‘.
1

(MIN ML...“ Jggl/Zw 25...:
.4 L11 / 25...;
do:

193

crjzgsll 'XJJ1¢IJ__A.-_ _._',

3.4.1, $1.5” 4112.»), ..$__1. |.)1_..J1

2:711 14:;le Luff 0:—->-'9 . W1 r‘zr“ 69.9,] 12.5. 1.1).“, 2:13. ..1__ii

. car—5110913.”; ;____.-.;JI, H1311

43.—s 01$.1 2.9810. vfiJ .eb'. ‘11—?“ 1.11.”; ;,__,.J.J1;.I:w1,5__.:,.-. J,,...U;,
¢,_J,.=.J1 5.1:. a... . ”#5:! (£9.31!) 13);." 91,111 .12. UL 0,5,4.“ u. 3,,_,J1J3u::. Q!
We, Luis 21.11.; 2.94.211 E..1J,11 31.1.1, egg-.71 3,1,4] fl... 1.; 133-21'.» 0:91.11?
' L——-—r-:)3":

‘u___; c.>1_.s,11, 915,11, $1,151.11, Jum C, (”9.152; :4...” £312.11 .5... 1.1.1,. ”:11,
1__,_..11 Eh», J31 2,4311 291,91 WU; 24.15.11 131.21“, (9.43: 1. ,J,.. 29:1:11 u91.1.11
. L34...” 21,511 5;; cmldcmrnm 1.312., . EvilaJlrlfijl 31.3194, . 03.3.5.1!

c5,__.uu1§;w1d.g,_s_L fist 1__,JU,_5__..,__5,L; 231.1,” Olga-1.21 1.,
o Z_...IJ.1J| eel—... L_.,.'.sJ__.a...:

LA . QLLSJIWJangcj)... ,5:1,1,.1U_; affi1¢ggsulotrszm¢l 1:,1, ‘1,
szflgopléfiud L_L.._,z-.L;_m.113,_;, 0.24....1101

.. ... 1‘“ . $3)

6 6 ° #1, 1+3." mJL—gb to
.,111./1/r- 1.31.», U; 21,-...‘11 231:1, 94,54- I,_.,S= 31 :—-.>;= : 152—~1-
r5131

194

Date, 1990

Dear Colleague:

Efforts are being made to improve the quality and
effectiveness of in-service education programs in Kuwait.
In order to receive optimal benefits, it is important that
cooperative efforts between in-service education planners/
coordinators, and recipient school building administrators
be harmonized.

This study is an attempt to measure the attitude of
public secondary school principals and assistant principals
toward the extent of their involvement in needs assessment,
planning, implementation, and evaluation of in-service
education. You are one of the population of secondary
school principals and assistant principals in Kuwait being
asked to participate in this study. Your participation,
cooperation, and honesty in responding to the questionnaire
are highly appreciated and are a reflection of your
awareness of the importance of this study.

The researcher assures you that all information will be
kept in the strictest confidence. Your completion of the
enclosed instrument implies your consent to participate in
this study. Please make sure you read and understand the
instruction provided for each part, which will help you in
completing the questionnaire.

A return by , 1990, will be greatly
appreciated. Please return your questionnaire in the
enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope.

 

Thank you for your participation and cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Mohammad S. Al-Ameeri

MSA/cld
Enclosures

APPENDIX D

FOLLOW-UP LETTERS

195

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Date, 1990

Dear Colleague (name):

Two weeks ago, you were sent a questionnaire and a
request to participate in a study to measure the attitude of
public secondary school principals and assistant principals
toward their involvement in the ISE activities such as needs
assessment, planning, implementation/organization, and
evaluation. If you have already completed and returned the
form, then this is an opportunity for us to say "Thank you!"

If you have been too busy to complete the form, may I
ask that you do so now? The validity of this study depends
very much on subjects' responses. It should take no longer
than fifteen minutes to complete. All information will be
held in the strictest confidence. Another instrument is
enclosed in case you misplaced the first copy.

A return by , 1990 will be greatly
appreciated. Please return your questionnaire in the
enclosed stamped, self—addressed envelope.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mohammad S. Al-Ameeri

MSA/cld
Enclosures: Questionnaire
Return Envelope

196

Date , 1990

 

Mr./Ms.

 

Secondary School
Educational Zone, Kuwait

 

 

Dear Mr./Ms. :

 

A short time ago, you received a questionnaire designed
to measure the attitude of public secondary school
principals and assistant principals toward the importance
and extent of their involvement in inservice education‘
activities. This is just a reminder to ask your help in
completing and returning that form. If you have already
done so, thank you. If not, your reply is critically needed
for the success of this research. '

Your participation will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Mohammad S. Al-Ameeri

MSA/cld

pf

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Ahmad, A. A. (l986). The development of the general education

system in the State of Kuwait. Kuwait: Foundation for the
Advancement of Science.

Al-Ahmad, A. A., et al. (l986). The administration of educational

services in public education in Kuwait. Kuwait: Foundation
for the Advancement of Science. (In Arabic)

Al-Baghdadi, M. I. (l98l). A study of English teachers’ inservice

education in Kuwait. Kuwait: Curriculum Research Center,
Ministry of Education. (In Arabic)

Al-Hashel, S. J. (l979). The perceptions of selected Kuwait

decision-makers and citizens toward career education and a
suggested model for implementing chanqe. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University.

Al—Kandari, A. R. (l985). Principles of statistics and methods of

statistical analysis. Kuwait: That Es-Salasel Publishing
Company.

Al-Mohaini, M. S. (l976, March 20—25). School administration in

Kuwait. Paper presented at the Educational Conference, Toward
a Better Future in the Arabian Gulf, Kuwait University. (In
Arabic)

Al-Musaileem, M. Y. (l988). School administration in Kuwait: The

actuality and the problems. Journal of Education (Ministry of
Education, Educational Research Center). (In Arabic)

Al-Qahtani, S. J. (1989). The perceptions of the key position

manaqers at the armed forces hospitals in Saudi Arabia on
proposed quidelines for staff development programs. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Al-Rashidi, B., & Khalaf, O. M. (l985, September). An analysis of

the perceptions of public school headmasters concerning the
goals and educational administration in Kuwait. The Educa-
tional Journal (College of Education, Kuwait University. (In
Arabic)

 

197

198

Al-Tammar, J. A. (l983). The role of the secondary school
principal in the State of Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, George Washington University.

Andrews, T. E., et al. (1981). Adult learners: A research study.
Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators.

Arabic Center for Educational Researchers in the Gulf States.
(1987, February 2l-24). About the renewal and diversification
of the secondary education in the states of the Arabian Gulf.
Paper presented at a conference in Kuwait. (In Arabic)

Bakeesh, O. S. (1982, February). A study of teacher inservice
edggation in the State of Kuwait. Kuwait: Curriculum Research
Center, Ministry of Education. (In Arabic)

Bakeesh, O. S. (l982, August). Contemporary trends in on-the-job
training of teachers. Kuwait: Curriculum Research Center,
Ministry of Education. (In Arabic)

Bakeesh, O. S. (l982, November). Evaluation of the training
cycles: Evaluation of the traininq effect on the trainees.

Kuwait: Curriculum Research Center, Ministry of Education.
(In Arabic)

Barth, R. S. (l984, April 23-26). The principals’ center at
Harvard University. Paper presented at the 8lst Annual Meeting
of the National Catholic Educational Association, Boston, MA.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 246 540)

Barth, R. S. (l987, January). A context for growth. NASSP
Bulletin, 11, 495.

Bender, J. M. (1973). What is "typical" of assessment centers?
Personnel, 59, 50-57.

Bessent, R. (l978, February). First steps in an emerging field:
Educational administrator preparation in West Germany. UCEA
Review. .

Blackburn, D. J. (Ed.). (l984). Extension handbook. Canada:
University of Guelph.

Bloom, B. S., et al. (l97l). Handbook on formative and summative
evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Borg, W. R. (l98l). Applyinq educational research. New York:
Longman.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (l983). Educational research: An
introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

199

Bouchard, R. A. (l980). Personnel practices for small colleges.
Washington, DC: National Association of Colleges and
Universities Business Officers (CUPA).

Boyle, P. G. (l98l). Planninq better proqrams (Adult Education
Association Professional Development Series). New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Britton, P. R. (l978). Role expectations for the secondary princi-
pal in secondary schools in DODDs’ European and Atlantic
regions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California.

Brower, S. L. (l964, Summer). Dilemma of adult educators. Journal
of Cooperative Extension, 2(2): ll3-ll9.

Bruce, M. G. (l980). Inservice education grows massively in
western Europe. Phi Delta Kappan, §l(2).

Bruner, J. S. (l963). Needed: A theory of instruction. Educa-
tional Leadership, 29, 523-532.

Buckley, J. J. (l97l). The determination to pioneer. Six ways of
improving the process of selecting urban school administrators.
Phi Delta Kappan, §2, 36l-362.

Bustan, A. (L982). Effect of TV programs and journalism on the
educational process--and its importance in traininq of teach-
ara. Paper presented to the regional conference on the effect
of TV programs and journalism on the educational process.
Tunisia: Regional UNESCO Bureau in Arabic Countries. (In
Arabic)

Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychol-
ogist, 24, 409-429.

Campbell, R. F., Bridges, E. M., & Nystrand, R. O. (l977). Intro-
duction to educational administration (5th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Carlson, R. A. (l979, Fall). The time of andragogy. Adult
Education, 39(l).

 

Carmichael, L. (1982, October). Leaders as learners: A possible
dream. Educational Leadership.

Cawelti, G. (l982, February). Training for effective school admin-
istrators. Educational Leadership, é, 326-328.

200

Cochran, D. W. (l980, December). A critical skill school leaders
need to keep people in focus. NASSP Bulletin, Q4, 44-45.

Cohen, M. J., & Uphoff, N. (l977). Rural development participa—
tion: Concepts and measures for project design, implementa-
tion, and evaluation. Ithaca, NY: Rural Development
Committee, Cornell University.

Coleman, P. (l982). Administrative programs for administrators.
Canadian Journal of Education, 1(l).

Cohen, B. M. (l975). Assessment centers. Supervisory Management,
29, 30-34.

Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1976). Evaluation research in
education. New York: Irvington Publishers.

Crawford, A. L. (l982). Skills perceived to lead to success in
higher education administration. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Alabama.

Cross, K. P. (l98l). Adults as learners: Increasing participation
and facilitating learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cruickshank, D. R., Lorish, C., & Thompson, L. (1979). What we
think about in-service education. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, §Q(l), 27-32.

Damon, P. (l978, March). Inservice blues. National Elementary
Principal, 51(3), 47-50.

Daresh, J. C., & LaPlant, J. C. (T983, April). Inservice for
school principals: A status report. The Executive Review,
3(7).

Daresh, J. C., & LaPlant, J. C. (l985). Developing a research
agenda for administrative inservice. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 18(2).

Deitzer, B. A., et al. (l979). Contemporary management concepts.
Columbus, OH: Grid Publishers.

Dewey, J. (l947). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dhafar, S. A. (l988). Training as a means for solving human
resources problems: A study of the perceptions of managers in
the electrical sector in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University.

201

Dillon, E. A., et al. (l974). Organizing and expanding the
individualized continuinquroqram for administrators in the
local school district (An occasional paper). Denver, CO: CFK.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 101 455)

Dillon-Peterson, B. (Ed.). (l98l). Staff development/organization
development--perspective l98l. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Donaldson, G. A., Jr. (1987, January). The Maine principal’s
academy. NASSP Bulletin, 11, 40-43.

Edelfelt, R. A. (l974, Summer). Inservice education of teachers:
Priority for the next decade. Journal of Teacher Education,
25, 250-252.

Edelfelt, R. A. (Ed.). (1977). Inservice education: Criteria for
and example of local programs. Bellingham: Western Washington
State College.

Edmond, R. (l984). The principal as instructional leader.
Research-based school improvement practices. Hartford:
Connecticut State Department of Education.

Ehrenberg, L. M., & Brandt, R. S. (1976). Improved student learn-
ing: A necessary goal of staff development. Educational Lead-

ership, 34(3).

Elias, J. L. (l979, Summer). Andragogy revisited. Adult Educa-
tion, 29(4).

El-Mallakh, R. (l968). Economic development and regional coopera-
tion: Kuwait. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Emery, C. E. (l975). Professional development needs of higher
education administrators in the Appalachian region. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Engelhart, M. D. (1972). Methods of educational research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.

Erlandson, D. A. (l979, Fall). Language experience and adminis-
trator preparation. Planning and Changing, 19, 150-156.

Erlandson, D. A. (1987, January). Principals’ centers--diversity
reflects strength of concept. NASSP Bulletin, 11.

Faily, A. (l980, February). Effective administrative behavior.
NASSP Bulletin, 64.

202

Ferguson, G. A. (l982). Statistical analysis in psychology and
education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fields, J. C. (l982). Theory and practice: Principals and manage-
ment training needs. NASSP Bulletin, 66, 36-40.

Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Morris, L. L. (l978). Evaluator’s handbook.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fox, D. J. (l969). The research process in education. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Freeth, Z., & Winstone, V. (1972). Kuwait: Prospect and reality.
London: George Allen & Unwin. ,

Friedman, P. G., & Yarbrough, E. A. (l985). Training strategies
from start to finish. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gagne, R. M. (l970). The conditions for learning (2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Gall, M. D., & Gall, J. P. (l976). The discussion method. In N.
L. Cage (Ed.), The psychology of teaching methods. Seventy—
Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa—
tion (Part I). Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.

Garbiah, E., et al. (1983). Evaluation of the training cycles in
the social sciences area. Kuwait: Curriculum Research Center,
Ministry of Education. (In Arabic)

Gay, L. R. (1987). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and application (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Glaser, R. (1982). Instructional psychology: Past, present and
future. American Psychologist, 31, 292-306.

Goad, T. W. (l982). Delivering effective training. San Diego, CA:
University Associates.

Goldhammer, K., Aldridge, W. D., Suttle, J. E., & Becker, G. L.
(l967). Issues and problems in contemporary educational
administration. Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of
Educational Administration, University of Oregon.

Goldstein, I. L. (l986). Training in organizations: Needs assess-
ment. development, and evaluation (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.

Good, C. V. (1973). Dictionary of education (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.

 

203

Grabowski, S. M., & Associates. (l98l). Preparing educators of
adults. Washington, DC: Adult Education Association of the
U.S.A.

Grier, L. W., & Draughton, B. S. (l987, January). The North
Carolina Leadership Institute for Principals. NASSP Bulletin,
11, l7-l9.

Griffith, F. (1979). Administrative theory in education: Text and
readings. Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing.

Haider, A. H. (l974). A_master plan for the development of school
libraries in the State of Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral disser—
tation, University of Pittsburgh.

Hajjaj, A. H., & Bustan, A. (l986, March). Educational supervision
and school administration. Paper presented at the 16th Educa-
tional Conference of the Kuwaiti Teachers Association, Kuwait.
(In Arabic)

Hakim, S. A. (1984). On education: With special reference to the
State of Kuwait. Bombay, India: Sharafudin & Sons.

Harris, B. M. (1980). Improving staff performance through in-
service education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harris, B. M. (l989). In-service education for staff development.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harris, B. M., Bessent, W., & McIntyre, K. (l969). Inservice
education: A guide to better practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Harris, B., et al. (l985). Personnel administration in education:
Leadership for instructional improvement (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hass, G. (1957). Inservice education today: Inservice education
for teachers, supervisors and administrators. Fifty-sixth
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education
(Part l). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Hawes, G. R., & Hawes, L. S. (1982). The concise dictionary of
education. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Herzberg, F. (l966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH:
World Publishing Company.

Hijab, W. (l98l, November). Status of training in the Ministry of
Education in Kuwait. Paris: UNESCO. (In Arabic)

204

Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (l966). Theories of learning (3rd
ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Hill, W. F. (l977). A survey of psychological interpretation. New
York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Hoekstra, R. B. (l975, March 3l-April 4). Internships as aymeans
of training educational leaders: An historical_and contextual
perspective. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED l03 999)

Howell, W. C., & Goldstein, I. L. (l97l).. Engineering psychology:
Current perspectives in research. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.

Howsam, R. B. (1966). Inservice education of school administra-
tors: Background, present status, and problems. In P. D.
Lynch & P. L. Blackstone (Eds.), Institutional roles for
in-service education of school administrators (pp. 8-29).
Albuquerque: Department of Educational Administration and
Foundations, College of Education, University of New Mexico.

Johnston, D. J. (l97l). Teachers’ inservice education. New York:
Pergamon Press.

Kelley, E. A., & Dillon, E. A. (l978). Staff development: It can
work for you. NASSP Bulletin.

Kimpston, R. R. (l982). Employing systematic procedures in goal
setting: A matter of necessity, not choice. Planning and
Change, 12(1), 3l-47.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (Ed.). (l975). Evaluating training programs.
Madison, WI: American Society for Training and Development.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (l983). A practical guide for supervisory
training and develooment (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Klausmeier, H. J., & Ripple, R. F. (l97l). Learning_and human
abilities. New York: Harper & Row.

Knowles, M. S. (l950). Informal adult education: A guide for
administrators. leaders and teachers. New York: Association
Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). Thegmodern practice of adult education (2nd
ed.). New York: Association Press.

 

205

Knowles, M. S. (l984a). The adult learner: A neglected species
(3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.

Knowles, M. S. (l984b). Andragogy in action. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Kohl, H. R. (1969). The open classroom. New York: Vintage Books.

Laird, D. (l985). Approaches to training and development (2nd
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Leedy, P. D. (l985). Eractical research: Planning and design (3rd
ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Levine, M. (l973). Scientific method and the adversary model:
Some preliminary suggestions. Evaluation Comment, 4. Los
Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA.

Lopez, F. M. (l970). The making of a manager. New York: American
Management Association.

Ludwig, R. A. (l977). Effect of multiple sources of input for
decisions involving inservice education programming process.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron.

Lynton, R. P., & Pareek, U. (l967). Training for development.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Mager, R. F. (l968). Devel0ping attitude toward learning. Palo
Alto, CA: Fearon Publishers.

Mager, R. F. (l975). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo
Alto, CA: Fearon Publishers.

Mager, R., & Beach, K. (l983). Course objectives. In The training
and development sourcebook. Amherst, MA: Human Resource
Development Press.

Maley, D. (l982, May/June). Putting theory into practice. Man,
Society. Technology, DP. 3-ll.

Maslow, A. H. (l954). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper & Brothers.

Matczynski, T., & Rogus, J. (1979). Program evaluations: A
workable format. NASSP Bulletin, 62, 63-75.

McCary, C. E., & Hallinger, P. (1990, November). Developing the
strategic thinking of instructional leaders. Elementary School
Journal, 91, 89-l08.

 

206

McCoy, S. S., & Shreve, G. R. (T983, September). Principals--Why
are some more successful than others in implementing change?
NASSP Bulletin.

McGregor, D. (l960). The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw—Hill.

McIntyre, K. E. (l974). The way is was/is. National Elementary
Principal, 52, 30-34.

McIntyre, K. (l979, February). Training programs for principals.
Theory Into Practice, 18, 28-32.

McKenzie, L. (l977, Summer). The issue of andragogy. Adult
Education, 21(4).

 

Mead, M. (Ed.). (1955). Cultural patterns and technical change.
New York: UNESCO and the New American Library.

Mehrens, W., & Lehmann, I. (1984). Measurement and evaluation in
education and psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.

Merrow, J., Foster, R., & Estes, N. (l974). A white paper on the
preparation of school administrators. The National Elementary

Principal, 52, 8-l8.

Miller, R. I., & Holzapfel, M., Jr. (Eds.). (l988, Summer). Issues
in personnel management: New directions for community
colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ministry of Education. (l975). School organization manual.
Kuwait: Fahad Al-Marzouk Press. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Education. (1977). Development of general education in
the State of Kuwait. Kuwait: Directorate of Planning and
Training, Department of Educational Media. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Education. (l98la). Annual report. Kuwait: Al-
Mogahwi Press. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Education. (l98lb). Some universal contemporary trends
in selecting. preparing, and training of educational leaders.
Kuwait: Curriculum Research Center. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Education. (1985). Training in five years: l980-l985.
Kuwait: Training Center. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Education. (l987, November). The l987-88 administra-
tive directory: School names and locations. Kuwait: Planning
Department. (In Arabic)

 

207

Ministry of Education. (l987, November 22-26). Toward renovation
and diversification in secondary education. Paper presented at
the Arabic Conference in Kuwait. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Education. (1988, Fall). An evaluation of the educa-
tional system in the State of Kuwait. Journal of Education

(Ministry of Education, Educational Research Center). (In
Arabic)

Ministry of Education. (l989, November). The l989-90 administra;
tive directory: School names and locations. Kuwait: Planning
Department. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Education. Undersecretary Bureau for Administrative
Affairs. (1975). Employment bases of the Ministry of Educa-
tion employees. Kuwait: Special Education Directorate Press.
(In Arabic)

Ministry of Planning. (l968). The first five-year economic and
social plan. l966/67-l970/7l. Kuwait: Ministry of Planning.
(In Arabic)

Moses, J. L. (l973). The development of an assessment center for
the early identification of supervisory potential. Personnel
Psychology, 26, 569-580.

Mubarak, A. M. (l982). A descriptive study of perceived profes-
siogal benefits derived from teacher involvement in the Kent
Professional Staff Development, with a view toward developing
recommendations for in-service education in Saudi Arabia.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Nadler, L. (l979). Developing human resources. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.

O’Banion, T. (l982). Guidelines for organizing staff development
programs. Community and Junior College Journal, §2(6).

Olivero, J. L. (1982). Principals and their inservice needs.
Educational Leadership, é, 341-344.

Orlich, D. C. (l989). Staff development: Enhancing human
potential. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Otto, W., & Erickson, L. (l973). In-service education to improve
reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association Service Bulletin.

 

208

Owens, L. A. (l98l). A comparative analysis of the perceived
professional development needs of men and women senior-level
administrators in higher education. Doctoral dissertation,
Florida University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42.

Owens, T. R. (l973). Educational evaluation by adversary proceed-
ing. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics
and process. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Pennington, F. C. (Ed.). (l980). Assessing educational needs of
adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pine, G. J. (l987, January). The Meadowbrook Leadership Academy.
NASSP Bulletin, 11, 44-48.

Provus, M. (l97l). Discrepancy evaluation for educational program
improvement and assessment. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Rebore, R. W. (l982). Personnel administration in education: A
management approaph. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Richardson, J., & Robinson, C. (l987, January). The Georgia
Principal’s Institute. NASSP Bulletin, 11, 20-24.

Rippey, R. M. (Ed.). (l973). Studies in transactional evaluation.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Rogers, C. R. (l969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E.
Merrill.

Rossi, P., Wright, J., & Anderson, A. (Eds.). (l983). Handbook of
servey research. New York: Academic Press.

Rubin, L. T. (l97l). 1mproving in-service education: Proposals
and procedures for change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sa’adah, Y., Bakeesh, O., & Badwan, K. (l985). Eyaluation of
training cycles and the effect of training on the trainees.
Kuwait: Curriculum Research Center, Ministry of Education.

Sa’adah, Y., Bakeesh, O., & Al—Mutairi, H. S. (l986). A field
follow-up study of the trainees on their jobs. Kuwait:
Curriculum Research Center, Ministry of Education.

Safar, H. A. (1987). A study of job satisfaction as perceived by
secondary school principals in Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University.

 

209

Salmon, D. A. (1974). Inservice programs for principa1a. Paper
presented at the National Association of Secondary School
Principals 58th Annual Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 089 425)

Schneider, R. (l976). The development ofaa theoretical model for
in-service training for elementary school teachers. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Scriven, M. (l967). The methodology of evaluation in perspectives
of curriculum eyaluation (American Educational Research Associ-
ation Monograph No. l). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Scriven, M. (l972). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. In
Evaluation Comment, 2. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of
Evaluation, UCLA.

Scriven, M., & Roth, J. (l978). Needs assessment: Concept and
practice. In S. B. Anderson & C. D. Coles (Eds.), Nam
directions for program evaluation: Exploring purposes and
dimensions. No. l. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sharp, K. J. (1983, January). I/D/E/A/ program emphasizes
principals as number one learner. NASSP Bulletin.

Skinner, B. F. (l974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.

Smith, R. F. (l964, June). The development of training objectives.
HumRRO Research Bulletin.

Sowell, E. J. (l982). Analyzing educational research. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Stake, R. E. (Ed.). (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A
responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Steele, S. M. (l973). Contemporary approaches to program evalua-
tion and their implications for evaluating programs for disad-
vantaged adults. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult
Education.

Steiner, G. A. (l969). Top management planning. New York:
Macmillan.

Stokes, M. (l98l). Professional development needs and organiza-
tional constraints reported by women administrators in the
state universities of Florida. Doctoral dissertation, Florida
State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42.

 

210

Stufflebeam, D. L., et al. (l97l). Educational evaluation and
decision making. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Tesolowski, D. G., & Morgan, T. E. (1980, February). Selecting
educational administrators: The assessment center technique.
NASSP Bulletin, pp. l07-ll3.

Thoms, G. H. (l987, January). The administrator’s greatest
professional challenge. NASSP Bulletin, 11, 7-l0.

Trujillo, V. L. (l978). Educational administrator competencies and
their relationship to graduate administration training pro-
grams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North-
ern Colorado.

Turnbull, J. (1978). Talking points. Education and training,
20(8).

Tyler, R. W. (l949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruc-
tion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

UNESCO. (l97l). World survey of education. New York: UNESCO
Publications.

Usdan, M. (l976). The training task: Broadening the base. In
N. Drachler & G. Kaplan (Eds.), Training educational leaders:
A search for alternatives. Washington, DC: George Washington
University.

Vroom, V. H. (l964). Work and motiyation. New York: Wiley.

Wagner, H. (l975). Inservice education: Current trends in school
policies and programs. Arlington, VA: National School Public
Relations Association.

Wagstaff, L. H., & Spillman, R. (1974). Who should be principal?
Nationa14Elementary Principal, 5;, 35-38.

Wallace, M. (l987, January). How many principals’ centers contrib-
ute to management development? NASSP Bulletin, 11, 62-64.

Warwick, 0. P., & Lininger, C. A. (l975). The sample survey theory
and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. (l980). Springfield, MA:
G & C. Merriam.

Wick, J. W., & Beggs, D. L. (l97l). Evaluation for decision-making
in the schools. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

 

211

Wikstrom, W. S. (l967). Assessing managerial talent. The Confer-
ence Board Record, 4, 39-44.

Wiles, D., Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1981). Emacticaljpolitics for
school administraLjon. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Willert, F. (l978, March). What’s going on around here? Twelve
principals talk about preservice, inservice, and other woes.
National Elementapngrincipal, 51, 52-55.

Wilson, J. E., & Tatge, W. A. (1973). Assessment centers: Further
assessment needed? Personnel Journal, 52, l72-l79.

Wimpelberg, R. K. (l984). Administrative inservice and theories of
groups. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research
Association.

Wimpelberg, R. K. (1987, January). Evaluating principals’ centers.
NASSP Bulletin, 11, 64-67.

Wofford, J. W. (l978, March). Toughing it out through inservice.
NASSP Bulletin, 51.

Wood, C. L. (1974, September). Preparation, inservice for school
leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 55, llO-ll7.

Wood, F., Freeland, R., & Szabo, J. (l985, March). School improve—
ment is more than school improvement. Educational Leadership.

Wood, F. H., Thompson, S. R., & Russel, F. (l98l). Designing
effective staff development programs. In B. Dillon-Peterson
(Ed.), Staff development/organization development. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Yousef, A. (l987). Studies in preparation and training of profes-
sionals in education. Kuwait: That Essalasel Publishing Co.
(In Arabic)

Zaltman, G., Florio, D., & Sikorski, L. (l977). Dynamic educa-
tional change: Models, strategies. tactics. and management.
New York: Free Press/Macmillan.

 

-..-.7.».uj/x-/.~. .-x
r
...... w. ... .

L IBRQRIES

1‘1‘ 1 1| ‘1 1|

31293008955902

« 1
5.3.1.”,

-.1- 1.11» 1
11 .-,11 1

111.1

1.1....
_.....

. ,-.-.. .

.111. ,..1.,...
.....‘...~.. . .
L

 

 

 

 

. ~.- - ...
:~'...... .11....“
.11.-‘.W.....