Effective Teaching and Learning Environments and Principal
Self-Efficacy
Wade
Smith, Director,
Anthony
Guarino, Associate Professor, Educational Psychology,
Olin
Adams, Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership,
Corresponding
Author:
Department
of Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology
4036
Email:
stromps@auburn.edu
Phone:
334-844-3077
Annotation: Principal self-efficacy influences the
effectiveness of teaching and learning in the school environment. A
heterogeneous sample of 284 principals was surveyed about their self efficacy
in fostering effective instructional environments. Four separate stepwise
regression analyses were conducted to identify the most important variables in
predicting the four criteria variables: (1) self-efficacy in instructional
leadership, (2) self-efficacy in management, (3) reported time devoted to
instructional leadership, and (4) reported time devoted to management.
Abstract: This article discusses the results of an
exploratory study of principal self-efficacy beliefs for facilitating effective
instructional environments at their schools.
Participants included 284 principals from 12 states. Participants completed the Principal Self-Efficacy
Survey. Three questions were addressed:
(a) the relationship between principal self-efficacy beliefs and various
demographic factors; (b) differences between perceived beliefs and actual
practices of principals; and (c) outcome expectancy for principals to
facilitate effective teaching and learning at their respective schools. Findings indicate that, in general, principal
self-efficacy beliefs tended to increase with the complexity of the job;
principals spend a significantly greater amount of time in management as
compared to facilitating instructional effectiveness; and an overwhelming
majority of the principals felt their efforts to facilitate an effective
teaching and learning environment were productive. Implications include the placement of
principals at compatible schools and exploration of self-efficacy in
professional development.
Effective
Teaching and Learning Environments and Principal Self-Efficacy
Public concern about the
quality of education in
School principals have a
critical role in the conceptual framework of NCLB. Their behaviors are believed to be central to
the creation and facilitation of an effective teaching and learning environment
within a school. From a social cognitive
perspective, behaviors are understood to be one component of a triadic,
reciprocal model of human agency where the environment (E), personal factors
(P), and behaviors (B) all exert bidirectional influences upon the other
factors (Bandura, 1997). This relationship is represented in Figure 1.
Figure
1. Triadic, Reciprocal Model of Human Agency
According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is a
personal factor (P) that can have significant effect upon human agency. Bandura (1997)
defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute
the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Self-efficacy beliefs influence the courses
of action people pursue, effort exerted, perseverance in overcoming obstacles
or failures, resilience to adversity, the extent to which thoughts are
self-aiding or self-hindering when coping with environmental demands, and
ultimately the level of accomplishments realized (Bandura,
1997). Self-efficacy is, therefore,
an important construct useful for understanding a broad spectrum of human
behavior in various social contexts.
Social cognitive theory also provides a theoretical
framework for understanding how strength of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome
expectancies interact to produce behavioral outcomes. Figure 2 provides a matrix describing
expected behavioral outcomes for various levels of strength of self-efficacy
beliefs and the value of the outcome.
Figure 2.
Interactions of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Outcome Expectancies
|
|
+
Outcome expectancy |
-
Outcome expectancy |
|
Self-efficacy |
Productive engagement |
Grievance |
|
Self-efficacy |
Stress |
Apathy |
As can be seen in the table, high self-efficacy for a
task with a positive outcome expectancy is expected to facilitate productive
engagement. High self-efficacy coupled
with a low outcome expectancy would be likely to facilitate protest or
grievance. Low self-efficacy for a task
that is perceived to be important creates stress while low self-efficacy for an
outcome that is not valued is likely to facilitate apathy. It is important to recognize that, when
considered independently, self-efficacy beliefs are better predictors of
behavior than outcome expectancies (Bandura,
1997).
A review of extant literature on teacher and student
self-efficacy reveals a large body of empirical studies (e.g., Pajares, 1996; Parker,
Guarino, & Smith, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy,
& Hoy, 1998). On the other hand,
research into the self-efficacy beliefs of school administrators regarding
their ability to create and facilitate effective instructional environments has
not enjoyed as much attention. An
extensive literature review was undertaken using various descriptors such as
“principals,” “self-efficacy,” “instructional effectiveness,” and “academic
achievement.” Abstracts for all studies
identified in the search were analyzed, revealing a minimum number of related
studies (DeMoulin, 1992; Hillman,
1984; 1986).
The
scholarship of Oplatka (2004) views self-efficacy
particularly regarding instructional leadership as a function of career stage.
According to Oplatka, middle and later career
principals have higher self-efficacy for instructional leadership. Furthermore, no known empirical studies have
been conducted which link self-efficacy beliefs of principals with the outcome
expectancy of facilitating an effective teaching and learning environment in
schools. Given the primary importance placed upon instructional leadership from
the principal in current school accountability models, such as No Child Left
Behind, there is a need to build an empirical base of knowledge regarding their
self-efficacy beliefs regarding facilitation of effective instruction.
Research Questions
This study examined three research
questions. The first research question explored the relationship(s) between
nine demographic variables of the principal or school and principal
self-efficacy beliefs. The demographic variables in this study were principal
race (Caucasian, minority), gender, years in education, years as a principal at
a particular school, total years as a principal, academic degree of the
principal (master’s, specialist, or doctorate), number of students enrolled at
principal’s school, percent of students on free/reduced lunch, and location of the
school (urban, suburban, or rural). Assessment of principal self-efficacy
beliefs was made using the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES).
The second research question examined if there were
significant differences between perceived beliefs and actual practices of
principals. This research question was
addressed by the second part of the PSES that asked principals to report the
amount of time spent per week on items related to the two factors of
Instructional Effectiveness and Management Skills. The final question on the PSES asked
principals to provide an outcome expectancy for their efforts to facilitate
effective teaching and learning at their schools.
Method
Procedure
School superintendents were queried by e-mail regarding
their interest in having principals from their system involved in the
study. Those agreeing to have their system’s principals participate in
the study were mailed survey packets for their principals. Respondents to the
surveys were supplied envelopes to ensure anonymity. Each system then returned their surveys in
one packet. Codes were used to sort data by school system and to identify
participants’ demographic characteristics.
Sample
Two hundred eighty-four principals returned completed and
valid surveys representing twelve states (5 in the Southeast, 2 in the Midwest,
2 in the West, 2 in the Northeast, and
Instrumentation
The Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES) is divided into
three main sections. The first section
is a fourteen-item inventory assessing principal self-efficacy in two domains
(Instructional Leadership and Management Skills). Confirmatory factor analysis
of this section of the survey yielded acceptably high goodness of fit indices
(i.e., > .99) for both the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990) and the Tucker-Lewis
Index (TLI) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).
The population discrepancy measure used in this study was the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993).
The RMSEA achieved a value of .049 indicating a close fit between the
sample coefficients and the estimated population coefficients. The correlation
between the two factors is .69, demonstrating discriminant validity.
Internal consistency was also measured using Cronbach’s
alpha with coefficients of .86 and .74 for Instructional Leadership and
Management Practices, respectively. Smith and Guarino (2005) provide a full explanation of the
development of the PSES and its psychometric properties.
The second portion of the PSES contains eight items
related to the amount of time principals spend during a week on typical
activities. These questions also had a two-factor solution with Instructional
Leadership (4 items) and Management Practices (4 items) representing the latent
constructs.
The last section of the PSES asked principals to rate
their beliefs regarding the effectiveness of their efforts to facilitate
effective instruction in their schools.
The choices given for this item were designed to correlate with the
matrix in Figure 2 (i.e., productive engagement, grievance/protest, stress,
apathy). The full measure can be found
in Appendix A, Principal Self-Efficacy Survey.
Results
Four separate stepwise regression analyses were conducted
to identify the most important variables in predicting the four criteria
variables: (1) self-efficacy in instructional leadership, (2) self-efficacy in
management, (3) reported time devoted to instructional leadership, and (4)
reported time devoted to management. A stepwise approach was used whereby
predictors were selected in order of importance with both entry and removal of
variables possible at each step. The predictor variables for the four analyses
were: (1) gender, (2) number of years as an educator, (3) number of years as a
principal at the current school, (4) number of years as a principal, (5) number
of students at the school, and (6) percent of students on free/reduced lunch.
Regressions
Self-Efficacy in
Instructional Leadership. The first stepwise regression analysis
(predicting self-efficacy in instructional leadership) yielded R2 =
.145, p
< .001. Variables that were significant in this equation were gender (beta =
.286, p
< .001), free/reduced lunch (beta = .195, p = .001) and number of
students (beta = .154, p = .009). Females scored higher on
self-efficacy in instructional leadership than males, principals working at
schools with a higher proportion of free/reduced lunch scored higher than
principals working at schools with a lower proportion of free/reduced lunch,
and principals working in larger schools scored higher on self-efficacy than
principals working in smaller schools.
Self-Efficacy in Management.
The second stepwise regression analysis (predicting
self-efficacy in management) yielded R2 = .196, p =
.017. The only variable that reached significance was free/reduced lunch
(beta = .177, p =
.046). Principals working at schools with a higher proportion of
free/reduced lunch scored higher on self-efficacy in management than principals
working at schools with a lower proportion of free/reduced lunch.
Reported Time
Devoted to Instructional Leadership. The
third stepwise regression analysis (predicting reported time devoted to
instructional leadership) yielded R2 = .156, p
< .001. Variables that were significant in this equation were gender (beta =
.261, p =
.002), and free/reduced lunch (beta = .320, p < .001). Females
scored higher on time devoted to instructional leadership than males and
principals working at schools with a higher proportion of free/reduced lunch
scored higher on self-efficacy in instructional leadership than principals
working at schools with a lower proportion of free/reduced lunch.
Reported
Time Devoted to Management. The fourth
stepwise regression analysis (reported time devoted to management) yielded R2 = .051, p = .002. The variable that was
significant in this equation was number of years as a principal (beta = -.274).
Principals with more experience reported less time devoted to management. The
effect size for this variable is minimal, explaining about 5% of the variance.
Analysis of Variance
In order to determine whether
significant differences existed between the percent of time principals reported
in instructional and management practices a one-way within-subjects ANOVA was
conducted. A significant difference was found with principals reporting they
spent significantly more time on management practices (M = 2.14, SD = .61) than
instructional practices (M = 1.83, SD = .61), F(1, 266) = 51.31, p <
.001, R2 = .162. This finding is not unique, (e.g., Amadeo & Taylor, 2004; Barnett,
2004).
However,
given efforts to reconceptualize the principalship, this finding demonstrates
that management demands continue to pervade the job.
Outcome Expectancy
The final question on the Principal Self-Efficacy Measure
asked respondents to pick the one best answer that described the expected
outcome of their efforts to facilitate an effective teaching and learning
environment at their school. Only two
respondents indicated time spent in improving teaching and learning at their
school makes little difference and leaves them feeling discouraged and/or
depressed, while 226 (80%) indicated their efforts were generally productive
and worthwhile. The remaining 56 respondents (20%) indicated their belief in
their ability to improve teaching and learning in their school, but contended that
their efforts to do so were hampered by policy or other impediments.
Discussion
It is important to note that 226
participants in the study reported active engagement in facilitating positive
outcome expectancies for teaching and learning at their school. Fifty-six respondents reported they have the
ability to facilitate effective teaching and learning, but there are external
variables hindering their efforts. Only
two principals said that they had serious doubts about their ability to create
the desired outcome, and no one indicated that they had given up entirely on
the endeavor.
The overwhelmingly positive response
to the outcome expectancy of actions provides strong evidence that the
principals participating in this study are having their self-efficacy beliefs
reinforced through the attainment to some degree of valued outcomes relative to
improving teaching and learning at their schools. Given the central role of principals as
change agents in current school accountability models, this is good news
indeed, and it forms the conceptual basis for the remainder of the
discussion.
Regression analyses indicate several trends that suggest,
on the whole, favorable relationships between many of the study variables and
reported self-efficacy beliefs of principals.
For example, principals working with higher proportions of free/reduced
lunch populations reported significantly higher self-efficacy beliefs for
instructional leadership. The same trend
was found also when school size was regressed against principal self-efficacy
beliefs.
Findings such as these are important, given the high
correlation between free/reduced lunch and educationally disadvantaged
students. For instance, Bobbett (2001) reports that over 66% of
the variance in school performance scores in
A similar trend was found when school size was regressed
against principal self-efficacy beliefs.
Principals working in larger schools reported significantly higher
self-efficacy scores for instructional leadership when compared to the entire
sample. Larger schools would be expected
to provide more complex organizational challenges and likewise would be
expected to place more stringent demands upon principals. If this is the case, principals working in
larger schools would be well-served by accurate self-efficacy beliefs about
their actual capabilities to plan and to execute courses of action necessary
for the effective and efficient operation of the school plant. Interestingly,
female principals reported significantly higher self-efficacy for instructional
leadership. Several possible
explanations come to mind to explain this finding. For example, until recent times, males have
primarily filled the principalship. An
attribute of female principals might be higher strength of self-beliefs in
their abilities since this would be expected to be a critical factor in overcoming
mindsets that might favor males for principal positions. Whatever the reason for this finding, future
research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
When time devoted to instructional leadership is
considered, the findings corroborate those above. For example, females reported spending more
time in the area of instructional leadership than males, and principals with
higher percentages of free and reduced lunch reported similar practices.
Analysis of reported self-efficacy in management skills
produced one significant predictor.
Principals with higher proportions of free and reduced lunch reported
significantly higher levels of strength of beliefs for the management skills
factor. This finding, like those for
instructional leadership may provide further evidence that principals
responding to this survey are working in environments that are contextually
appropriate to their self-beliefs.
There are several potential explanations why principals
in schools with higher levels of free and reduced lunch students are reporting
higher levels of beliefs in their management skills. Among the possibilities is the likelihood
that higher levels of free and reduced lunch students are correlated with increased
managerial demands. If this is the case,
this is further evidence that the beliefs of the principals in the study are
appropriate to their job context.
Predictably, principals reported a significantly greater amount of time
devoted to management practices when compared to instructional practices. According to the study, principals are
spending more time meeting with parents, dealing with discipline, completing
paperwork, and attending school activities than with instructional practices. This is noteworthy given the importance
placed upon instructional leadership in school accountability models, and poses
an interesting problem for further study.
At the present time it appears that principals are operating as managers
first and instructional leaders second.
Implications
This study begins to build a base of knowledge that
relates the self-efficacy beliefs of principals to their day-to-day
practices. A clear understanding of this
relationship has implications for both policy and practice. As more knowledge is developed it can be used
in areas such as principal certification, ongoing professional development, and
administrator licensure. This knowledge
can also be useful in identifying viable principal candidates, matching
candidates to jobs, and recognizing principals likely to burn out as well as
those who would serve well as mentors to others.
In addition to the implications listed above, results
obtained from the PSES would be expected to be a useful component in developing
a richer understanding of a school’s effectiveness when analyzed with other
constructs known to be important to effective schools. For example, examination of relationships
between the PSES with factors such as school culture, teacher satisfaction,
teacher self-efficacy, and teacher retention would serve to broaden the
conceptual and practical understanding of the relationships that exist between
these constructs.
Suggestions for Future Research
Additional research that investigates why principals
spend the majority of their time in management roles is recommended. Future investigations should attempt to
determine if principals feel the amount of time they are devoting to
instruction is appropriate or needs to be increased. In the same light, it is also important to
determine if the time devoted to management is appropriate or if there is a
sense that day-to-day management needs block principals from spending more time
in the area of instructional leadership.
Influences of gender and experience invite further
investigation. Female principals reported significantly higher self-efficacy
for instructional leadership than did males. Future research could investigate
whether female principals perform better in instructional leadership than
management. The results of our study suggest that principals with higher levels
of self- efficacy are more often found in complex jobs. If this is so, is it
because of self-selection or a district matching a good leader with a
challenging placement?
Future research is also called for to see if the results
of the study replicate. A larger sample
would allow for disaggregation by school level and geographic area and would
enhance the contextual richness of any findings. Furthermore, additional research would
benefit from mixed methodology where quantitative data could serve as the basis
for qualitative fieldwork. Focus groups
would also be expected to provide a fuller understanding of how principal
self-beliefs are related to their actual practices. Finally, correlating responses of teachers
regarding their beliefs for their school principal’s ability to facilitate
instructional effectiveness and to demonstrate management skills would provide
an interesting comparison of principal and faculty perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of their principal in these areas.
References
Amodeo, A.J. & Taylor, A. ( 2004).
‘Virtual supervision’ model tips the scales in favor of instructional
leadership. THE Journal, 31(7), 22.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The
exercise of control.
Barnett, D. (2004). School leadership
preparation programs: are they preparing tomorrow’s leaders?
Education,
125(1), 121-129.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes
in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238-246.
Bentler, P., & Bonett, D. (1980).
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bobbett, J.
(2001). School culture, teacher efficacy, and decision making in
demonstrably effective and ineffective schools. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993).
Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen, & J. Long (Eds.). Testing structural
equation models (pp. 136-162).
DeMoulin, D. (1992). Demographic
characteristics associated with perceived self-efficacy levels of elementary,
middle, and secondary principals.
Abstract of paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association,
Hillman, S. (1984).
Contributions to achievement: the role of expectations and self-efficacy
students, teachers, and principals. Abstract of paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Hillman, S. (1986). Measuring
self-efficacy, preliminary steps in the development of a multi-dimensional
instrument. Abstract of paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.) (1998). The black-white test
score gap.
Oplatka,
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in
academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 4(66), 543–578.
Parker, M., Guarino, A., & Smith, W. (2003).
Self-efficacy in a sample of educational majors and teachers. Psychological Reports, 91, 935-939.
Smith,
R. W. & Guarino, A. J. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Principal Self-Efficacy Survey. Journal
of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict 9(1) 81- 86.
Confirmatory
factor analysis of the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey. Journal of Organizational Culture, Conflict and Communication.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.
(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review
of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
APPENDIX A: PRINCIPAL
SELF-EFFICACY SURVEY
PRINCIPAL SURVEY
|
1. Gender ___ M ___ F |
School
Number ______________ |
|
2. Ethnicity ___ Asian ___ African American ___ Hispanic ___ White ___ Other: ___________ |
|
|
3. Total number of years as a
professional educator (including this year) is: _____ |
4. Total
number of years as the head principal at this school (including this year)
is: _____ |
|
5. Total number of years as a head
principal (including this year) in your career is: _____ |
6. Number
of students in your school: _____ |
|
7. Highest degree completed: ___ Bachelor ___ Master ___ Master +30/specialist ___ Doctorate |
8. I
serve at: ___
elementary ___
middle school ___
high school ___
alternative school grade level(s) served: ______ ___
other |
|
9. My
school is: ___ public ___ private ___ charter ___ other |
10.
Percentage of students on free or reduced lunch: ________ |
|
11.
My school is: ___
Rural ___ Urban ___ Suburban |
|
Definition
This principal survey asks you to make a series of
judgments about your experiences as a head administrator for a school.
Instructions
You are asked to read the following items and rate the
strength of your beliefs in your abilities to attain the following
outcomes. These items should be answered
from your perspective as a school principal working to produce an effective
teaching and learning environment. You
are to indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement
by darkening the appropriate oval.
Scale 1=Very Weak
Beliefs in My Abilities (VW)
2=Weak
Beliefs in My Abilities (W)
3=Strong
Beliefs in My Abilities (S)
4=Very
Strong Beliefs in My Abilities (VS)
STATEMENTS:
My
beliefs in my abilities to…
1. influence teachers to utilize effective
teaching and learning practices are
2. provide effective modeling for teachers
regarding effective teaching and learning
practices are
3. use research on teaching and learning to
guide strategic planning for accomplishment of school goals are
4. plan effective activities and experiences
which facilitate teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to provide effective
teaching and learning activities to their students are
5. use data collected from teacher observations
to inform school-wide efforts for improving teaching and learning are
6. regularly perform effective observations of
teachers are
7. stay abreast of current best practices for
facilitating effective teaching and learning are
8. communicate needs and goals necessary to
enhance effective instructional effectiveness to faculty are
9. provide experiences that foster and
facilitate high levels of teacher motivation towards teaching and learning are
10. protect
instructional time so that effective teaching and learning can take place
11. facilitate an
atmosphere that provides fair and consistent discipline for all students are
12. maintain
healthy school/community relations are
13. maintain a
school-wide atmosphere that is conducive to teaching and learning are
14. buffer teacher
from unnecessary paperwork
Answer items 15-22
in terms of the amount of time spent per week on the following activities.
Scale: 1=Less
than 10%
2=Between 10% and 30%
3=Between 30% and 50%
4=More than 50%
15. Classroom observations
16. Follow-up to classroom
observations (e.g., teacher conferences)
17. Meetings with parents
18. Dealing with discipline
19. Completing paperwork
20. Attending seminars for
personal and professional growth
21. Attending school activities
(e.g., ball games, concerts, etc)
22. Planning professional
activities that enhance teaching and learning at your school
23. Which of the following best expresses you beliefs
regarding your ability to facilitate
effective teaching and learning at your school?
(a) The time I spend engaged in
improving teaching and learning at my school is generally productive and
worthwhile
(b) The time I
spend engaged in improving teaching and learning at my school is hampered by
policy and/or other impediments
(c) The time I
spend engaged in improving teaching and learning at my school makes little difference
and leaves me feeling discouraged and/or
depressed
(d) I have quit spending much time
attempting to facilitate instructional effectiveness because the efforts do not
make a difference