For Peer Review - Mofet Institutemofetinternational.macam.ac.il/jtec/Documents/The timeline of self...

For Peer Review

The timeline of self-efficacy: Changes during the

professional life cycle of school principals

Journal: Journal of Educational Administration

Manuscript ID: JEA-Sep-2012-0103.R2

Manuscript Type: Research Paper (Quantitative)

Keywords: Self-efficiency, Principals, Perception, work experience, Facet Theory

Journal of Educational Administration

For Peer Review

1

The timeline of self-efficacy:

Changes during the professional life cycle of school principals

Theoretical Framework

Self-efficacy is defined as people’s judgment regarding their capabilities to organize

and execute courses of action required to complete designated tasks (Bandura, 1977;

Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 1997). It is also defined as a people’s belief in their ability to

succeed in a particular situation. These beliefs determine how people think, behave, and feel.

A vast number of studies have shown that self-efficacy influences people’s performance,

persistence, and motivation when carrying out tasks (Bandura 1977, 1997, 2006).

According to Bandura (1977), there are four major sources of self-efficacy: mastery

experiences, experiences provided by social models, social persuasion that one has the

capabilities to succeed in given activities, and inferences from somatic and emotional states

indicative of personal strengths and vulnerabilities. These sources explain past behaviors, but

they can also determine future behaviour. The self-efficacy theory suggests that academic

self-efficacy may vary in strength as a function of task difficulty, i.e., some individuals may

believe they are most efficacious in difficult tasks, while others consider themselves

efficacious only in easier tasks. Self-efficacy is believed to be a situational rather than a

stable trait (Linnenbrink and Pintrich, 2002). Self-efficacy should not be confused with self-

esteem or self-concept, since it is a task-specific evaluation, whereas self-esteem and self-

concept reflect more general affective evaluations of the self.

Within the field of educational research, self-efficacy has primarily been studied in four

different areas: student self-efficacy (Bandura 1994; Schunk and Meece, 2005), teacher self-

efficacy (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2007), collective teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard

et al., 2000; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010) and, more recently, principal self-efficacy (Brama,

Page 1 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

2

2004; Sierman Smith, 2007; Smith and Guarino, 2005; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2004,

2005).

Professional self-efficacy and principal self-efficacy

The self-efficacy concept has been applied in organizational psychology, termed

"professional self-efficacy", and defined as the belief in one’s ability to control events and

behaviors affecting professional activities and life (Cherniss, 1993). The literature mentions

two aspects of the term: Self-efficacy of the profession and self-efficacy of the professional

(Guskey and Passaro, 1994). Self-efficacy of the profession refers to the beliefs pertinent to

the specific professional group, specifically, that the profession can influence others. Thus,

for example, educators believe that education or teaching can influence students. Self-

efficacy of the professional refers to the belief that one can successfully perform the tasks of

one’s profession. Thus, individual teachers perceive themselves as "good professionals" when

they believe in their individual ability to make a difference and influence their students'

future. Both aspects together comprise the notion of professional self-efficacy (Guskey and

Passaro, 1994). Professional self-efficacy has to do with the complexity of the profession

(Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Therefore, it is necessary to define self-efficacy for specific

occupations or for groups or clusters of occupations that share a common denominator (Gist,

1987). Thus, Cherniss (1993) was among the first researchers to define professional self-

efficacy for occupations that involve attending to and caring for others, e.g., teachers, social

workers and psychologists. He referred to three domains: Assignment, relationship, and

organization.

Some studies show connections between self-efficacy and choosing a career. Perceived

efficacy is a robust contributor to career development. People seek a match between their

interests and occupational environments (Lent and Hackett, 1987; Rotberg et al, 1987).

Page 2 of 46Journal of Educational Administration

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

3

Principals’ self-efficacy (PSE) is of great importance with respect to the overall

managing of schools. It may be defined as a type of leadership self-efficacy, involving a

certain level of confidence in one’s knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are associated with

the task of leading others (Hannah et al., 2008). Research on principal self-efficacy usually

includes measures of multidimensional self-efficacy, in order to capture the various aspects

of principals’ work.

The job of school leaders has changed radically, as countries have transformed their

education systems to prepare young people for today's rapid technological change, economic

globalization, and increased migration (Pont et al, 2008). Principals play a vital role in setting

the direction for successful schools (Fisher, 2008), but there is as yet no knowledge on the

best way to prepare and develop highly qualified candidates (Davis et al, 2005).

In today’s climate of heightened expectations, principals are expected, more than ever,

to deal with pedagogy, i.e., they are expected to improve teaching and learning. They need to

be educational visionaries, instructional and curricula leaders, assessment experts and

disciplinarians. They are also expected to carry out general managerial tasks and be proficient

administrators This includes being budget analysts, facility managers, public relations

experts, expert overseers of legal, contractual, and policy mandates and initiatives (Freidman,

2000). However, being a school principal also requires special skills such as community

building, as principals are expected to broker the often conflicting interests of parents,

teachers, students, district office officials, unions, and state and federal agencies. They also

need to be sensitive to the widening range of student needs (Davis et al, 2005).

The research literature shows that very few have tried to define the professional self-

efficacy of school principals. Hilman's work (1986) was one of the first scales proposed in

this area. Dimmock & Hattie's scale (1996) was developed a decade later, and the other more

known scale is the principal efficacy scale used in Tschannen-Moran and Gareis’ (2004,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

4

2005) studies, in which the two researchers constructed and tested a valid and reliable

measure to capture principals’ sense of efficacy now known as the Principal Sense of

Efficacy Scale (PSES). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis’ PSES was a scale with eighteen items

that consisted of three emerging factors through factor-loading tests: (1) efficacy for

management; (2) efficacy for instructional leadership; and (3) efficacy for moral leadership.

However, these scales were not tested in Israel. Based on Hilman's scale and

Tschannen-Moran and Gareis’ PSES, Brama (2004) and Brama and Friedman 2007)

developed "The professional self-efficacy of the school principal". This scale was tested in

Israel in 2000 and was found suitable for Israeli principals. The definition derived from this

study was that the professional self-efficacy of the Israeli principal is the principal’s

perception of his or her own abilities in five domains that are necessary for a successful

principalship: general management, leadership; human relations; relationships beyond the

school perimeters, as with parents and the community; and school pedagogy. The scale

contained 57 items

It was decided to use this scale in this study, since it has been found suitable for Israeli

principals.

Given the specific goal of this study, i.e., to re-study the structure of a multidimensional

and hierarchical Principal Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES), the research was based on Bandura's

"self-efficacy theory" (1977, 1986, 1997), using the Brama (2004) and Brama and Friedman

scale (2007). However, for the purposes of the current study the author found it necessary to

coin a new term, "conditional control". This term, used in combination with Bandura's

theories and Brama's and Friedman's scale, enables a better understanding of the data found

in this study.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

5

Conditional control (Freedom of action)

Conditional control is defined as the principal’s perceived freedom of action, the

freedom to perform managerial, organizational or personal tasks, which are conditioned by

environmental, external and even hidden factors. It can be measured on a three-level scale,

with each level also representing the task complexity. The scale is cumulative, meaning that

every task at the third level (c) contains tasks from the first (a) and second level (b), and

every task in the second level contains tasks from the first level. The first level tasks stand

alone. This cumulative structure also demonstrates a hierarchic structure, since level c is

higher than b, and both are higher than a. The three levels of control are as follows.

a) Exclusive control by the principals, based solely on their will. Tasks on this

level are perceived as simple and unique.

b) Control by the principals and their closest environment (which is under their

control): the principals feel that they can perform different tasks based on their

will and the will of those who work with them and influence them directly.

c) Control by the principals, their closest environment, and distant factors: the

managerial tasks depend on external and distant factors. The principals may not

be well-acquainted with some of these factors. Tasks on this level are perceived

as complex but not unique.

The present study

Previous studies have shown that the principals' preservice studies and the school that

they lead are predictors of professional self-efficacy (Brama and Friedman, 2007; Friedman

and Brama, 2010). Thus, it seems that very few studies have considered the relationship

between principal self-efficacy and work experience (Dembo and Gibson, 1985; Imants and

De Brabander, 1996). The results of the few studies that have been done are contradictory.

Dembo and Gibson (1985) found that perceived principal self-efficacy levels increased with


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

6

experience, while Imants and De Brabander (1996) did not find an overall increase in

perceived self-efficacy of principals related to experience. Both of these studies were

conducted more than two decades ago.

Therefore the first purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the

two variables.

The second purpose of this study was to test the structure of Brama and Friedman's

(2007) Principal Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES). The PSES was originally developed ten years

ago (Brama, 2004). Since the leadership skills required of principals have changed radically

in the last decade, it is of most interest to retest the PSES. The effect of changing demands on

principals’ professional self-efficacy has not yet been tested. Due to the small sample size in

the current study, the Facet Theory (Guttman, 1959) provided the definitional framework for

this part of the research.

Methodology

Sample

Participants in the study were 123 principals of public schools, including elementary,

middle and high schools (1st–12th grade) in Israel.

The sample consisted of 32.5% (40) males and 67.5% (83) females. The age of the

principals ranged from 29 to 55+ years old: 0.8% (1) below the age of 30; 23.6% (29)

between the ages 31-40; 60.2% (74) between the age 41-55; and 15.4% (9) were above the

age of 55. First year principals (23) comprised 18.7% of the sample; 30% (37) had between 2

and 5 years of experience; 24.4% (30) had between 6 and 10 years; and 26.8% (33) had more

than 10 years of experience. Only 3.3% (4) of the principals were single; 85.4% (105) were

married; 8.9% (11) were divorced; and 2.4% (3) were widows or widowers. In terms of

school assignment, 78.2% (93) worked in elementary schools and 21.8% (26) worked in

combined middle and high-schools.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

7

Instruments

The research instrument was an anonymous quantitative self-report questionnaire

entitled "The professional self-efficacy of school principals," which was based on a previous

study (Brama and Friedman, 2007) of principals' professional self-efficacy. The questionnaire

contained three sections. The first section contained an opening letter to the principals

explaining the aims and objectives of the research, committing to maintain responders’

anonymity, and asking for their sincere cooperation. The second section contained a seven-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not capable at all) to 7 (definitely capable), with items

pertaining to different school managerial tasks (57 items), divided into 5 sections: managing

school as an organization (11 items); working with people (14 items); relationships beyond

the school perimeters, as with parents and the community (7 items); pedagogy and

professional knowledge (6 items); and various personal capabilities (19 items).

Respondents indicated their perceived degree of capability on each item. The third part

of the questionnaire contained items pertaining to the principal’s background variables (6

items: gender, age, education, type of school, and experience).

Data collection and measures

The questionnaires were distributed directly to the school principals during 3 regional

meeting of school principals. The aim was to distribute 350 questionnaires in an attempt to

reach a sample of 300 principals. However, only 95 questionnaires were completed (27%

return rate). It was decided then to try a different approach and email the questionnaires to

different groups of principals, who did not take part in the regional meetings. In this round,

300 questionnaires were emailed, but the return rate was even lower, and only 28 (9%) were

fully completed. At this stage, it was decided to proceed and use the data as a pilot study.

There were two levels of statistical processing, each level based on a different statistical

approach. The first level involved (using SPSS19) computation of descriptive statistics,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

8

including means, variance, and item-total correlation for each item. Internal consistency of

the scale was measured using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for

the scores in the whole scale was 0.96. Since the main purpose of this study was to

investigate the relationships between PSE and work experience, one-way ANOVA analysis

was performed to test the research hypotheses. The correlation matrix of the scale's item

scores was subjected to factor analysis. Kaiser's rule (Nunnally, 1978), Cattell's (1966) scree

test, and comparison with the observed correlation matrix were used for verification. Due to

the relatively small size of the sample, factor analysis was intended to assist with first stage

confirmation, according to the findings of Brama and Friedman’s PSES (Brama and

Friedman, 2007). It was then decided to complete the exploration of the inner structure of

PSES with SSA (Smallest Space Analysis), since one can learn from the results of SSA

without depending on the sample size.

The second level included subjecting the data to an SSA (Smallest Space Analysis)

procedure, using the Hebrew University Data Analysis Program (HUDAP) (Borg and Shye,

1995; Shye, 1998), based on the calculated correlation matrix. SSA is a statistical model in

which coefficients of proximity between variables (such as correlations or monotonicity

coefficients) are represented as physical distances in a two or multi-dimensional space. In this

analysis, variables are shown as points in space, and the proximity between the points relates

to the correlation between the variables: the greater the correlation, the closer the points in

space. The spatial deployment picture (map) of the data that emerges using this method is

easier to interpret than a correlation matrix, and is used to establish associations between

variables that other methods cannot reveal.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

9

Results

PSES scale

Reliability Analysis (Corrected Item-Total Correlation) was found to be high (α =

0.96), meaning that all items measure the same underlying concept – principals’ perceptions

of self-efficacy. All the items contribute exactly in the same way to the reliability of the

entire questionnaire. The extent of the contribution of each item to the reliability of the entire

questionnaire is identical.

Relationship to principal’s sense of self-efficacy

Work experience

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the following 11

organizational and background variables on PSES:

____________________

Insert Table 1 about here

_________________

There was a statistically significant effect of work experience on PSES at the

p < .05 level [F(3, 122) = 2.938; p < .036]; η2 (Eta squared) = 0.062 (medium effect

size). Eta squared indicates the proportion of PSE variance accounted for by work

experience, in other words, 6.9% of observed PSE variance can be explained by work

experience.

Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score

for PSES of principals during their first year (M = 5.79, SD = 0.62) was significantly

higher than the PSE of principals with 2 to 6 years of experience (M = 5.17, SD =

0.71). No other significant effects were found. Taken together, these results suggest

that work experience has an effect on PSE. Specifically, the results suggest that


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

10

principals with only one year of work experience have higher levels of PSE than

principals with 6-10 years of experience.

As shown in Table 2 and in Figure 1, the highest levels of PSE were indicated

by principals in their first year on the job. A drop in PSE levels begins in the second

year and reaches the lowest levels between 6 – 10 years of work experience. PSE

levels begin to rise after ten years of experience, but do not yet reach the levels

associated with the first year of management.

____________________


____________________

____________________

Insert Figure 1 about here

____________________

Marital status

There was a statistically significant effect of the marital status of the principal

on PSE at the p < .01 level [F(3, 123) = 5.586; p < 0.001]; η2 (Eta squared) = 0.123

(medium effect size), meaning that 12.3% of observed PSE variability can be

explained by marital status.

Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score

for PSE of married principals (M = 5.54, SD = 0.64) was significantly higher than the

PSE of divorced principals (M = 4.54, SD = 1.09). No other significant effects were

found.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

11

___________________


_____________________

As shown in Table 3, in terms of the effect of marital status, married principals

perceived highest levels of PSE and divorced principals perceived the lowest levels of PSE.

Exploring the PSES structure, content, and intercorrelations

Since the sample was relatively small (N = 123), Facet Theory (Guttman, 1959)

provided the definitional framework for the second level of statistical processing for this

study. As mentioned, this study was based on Brahma and Friedman's PSES (Brama, 2004,

Brama and Friedman, 2007, and they both argued that five dimensions, each representing a

different skill, were found: (1) Managing the school as an organization, (2) Directing the

academic and administrative team, (3) Interrelationships with the neighbouring community,

(4) Leadership, and (5). Directing the school pedagogy. Factor analysis was intended to assist

with first stage confirmation, before examining the data with SSA. The correlation matrix of

the scale's item scores was subjected to factor analysis. The number of factors extracted was

decided based primarily on Brama and Friedman's findings (2007), and the procedure was

treated as CFA (confirmatory factor analysis). Kaiser's rule (Nunnally, 1978), Cattell's (1966)

scree test, and comparison with the observed correlation matrix revealed only three

dimensions. The complete scale has a reliability level of α = .98. The three dimensions and

their internal coefficient alphas were:

Organizational Leadership (OL) α = .97

(17 items: 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,20)

Educational and Pedagogical Leadership (EPL) α = .96

(28 items: 2, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,

39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 56)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

12

External and Communal Relations (ECR) α = .96

(12 items: 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57)

Explaining Facet Theory

It was then decided to subject the data to a SSA (Smallest Space Analysis procedure,

using the Hebrew University Data Analysis Program (HUDAP). Facet Theory is a unique

approach used for research planning, data analysis and testing hypotheses regarding the

relationship between the design of the research and its empirical results (Levy, 1994; Shye

and Elizur, 1994). This theory was chosen as the methodological approach for the second

level, due to its strength in conceptualizing different phenomena, and the fact that it does not

rely on sample size. Facet Theory enables an integration of conceptual and empirical

information in the search for rules or patterns that other scientific approaches cannot easily

discern, especially where multivariate analysis is concerned. It also makes it possible to

formulate a theory based on empirical findings. A theory according to Facet Theory is a

hypothesis of correspondence between a definitional system for a universe of observations

and an aspect of the empirical structure of those observations, and it includes the rationale for

such a hypothesis (Guttman, 1982, p. 335). This strategy, which has been proven to be

effective in establishing structural theories, does not define a concept like PSE in the

conventional way. Rather, such a strategy enables us to think (of PSE) in terms of the

collected observations of the concept, which in turn helps to address the problem of selecting

the variables to be studied (Guttman, 1982, p.336).

A central concept in Facet Theory is the facet. A facet is a classification of an issue

under investigation, based on a common rule, enabling the grouping of components into a

content unit or a single conceptual unit. SSA is a statistical model in which coefficients of

proximity between variables (such as correlations or monotonicity coefficients) are

represented as physical distances in a two- or multi-dimensional space. In this analysis,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

13

variables are shown as points in space, and the proximity between the points relates to the

correlation between the variables: the greater the correlation, the closer the points in space.

The spatial deployment picture (map) of the data that emerges using this method is easier to

interpret than a correlation matrix, and it is used to establish associations between variables

that other methods cannot reveal (Friedman, 2011 b).

A polarized form means that each item in the facet’s plot relates to a different direction

in the geometric space. Thus, the points on the data distribution map will display as angular

regions, each emanating from the same origin, fanning out, much like a pie chart. This type of

distribution occurs when items in a facet are not organized by any particular order or rank.

This is termed a polarizing facet.

In the radial form, the graphic shape rendered by such data distribution is that of

circular strips or concentric circles that share the same origin. A strip located closer to the

origin features items with a higher degree of correlation between them than the correlation

between items within a strip located farther from the point of origin. This form (i.e.,

concentric circles) has a hierarchically order organized according to levels of complexity.

The spatial distribution of variables represents levels of complexity that decrease (in some

cases increase) as we move from the point of origin towards the periphery. Thus, this type of

facet modulates the location of items in terms of their distance from the source or origin,

which is why it is termed a modulating facet (Levy, 1985).

The Radex pattern is a combination of polarizing and modulating aspects of item

deployment. This pattern is found in many studies that examine phenomena that differ in

terms of the amount or intensity of complexity, as well as in terms of qualitative features.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

14

Understanding PSES

The correlation matrix of the scale's item scores was subjected to factor analysis. Data

deployment was examined first in a 2-dimensional display. The coefficient of alienation1 in

the 2-dimensional display was .24, a fair correlation between the correlation matrix and the

graphic representation of the variables on the map. A 3-dimensional presentation yielded a

better alienation coefficient of .18, but the general pattern of item deployment was highly

similar to the one obtained in the 2-dimensional presentation. Therefore, it was decided to

present the 2-dimensional display, which is much more easily comprehended. Data

deployment on the SSA map exhibited both a polarized form (or angular form) and a radial

form in a Radex configuration.

The deployment of the variables in Figure 2 shows that the SSA map has an angular

order (Facet A). The findings demonstrate almost a perfect fit between the empirical data and

the estimated structure (separation index2 = 0.98). Facet A divides the map into three regions

3

1 The coefficient of alienation is a technical term which expresses the extent to which physical distances

between items on the map accurately (in an inverse ratio) reflect the correlation between them. In other words,

how well the software succeeded in “ordering” them graphically. The values range from 0-1 such that the lower

the value of the coefficient of alienation, the higher the fit.

2 The separation index denotes how far the empirical structure obtained reflects the hypothetical facet contents,

i.e., the goodness-of-fit between the theoretical model examined and the spatial deployment of the empirical

data on the SSA map. The separation index not only takes into account the number of items that “stray” from the

predicted region , but also their distance from it, since it is based on the total distance between the real position

of each point on the SSA map and the predicted position. Values range from 0-1, with higher values being more

desirable.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

15

that emanate from a single point, where each region faces a different direction away from that

point, as described below (see Figure 2). In an angular aspect, items located farthest from the

origin point may best express the semantic content of the entire angular region.

_____________________


______________________

_____________________


______________________

Facet A is an unordered polarized facet, since it is not possible to prefer one

management task to another. The facet's regions (similar to factors or dimensions) were

identical to the ones found in the CFA and include the following:

a1 - The upper section of the map (Figure 2 and Table 4), which contains items relating

to OL (Organizational Leadership), e.g. "Set clear targets for both the school's pedagogical

team and students" (Appendix, item 4).

a2 - The lower right-hand section of the map (Figure 2 and Table 4), which contains

items relating to EPL (Educational and Pedagogical Leadership), e.g. "Use proficient

methods for evaluating teacher functioning" (Appendix, item 56).

a3 - The lower left-hand section of the map (Figure 2 and Table 4), which contains

items relating to tasks pertinent to ECR (External and Communal Relations), e.g. "Be

actively involved in fund raising and obtaining resources for the school" (Appendix, item 47).

3 Similar to factor loading in factor analysis: The higher the load the more relevant it is in defining the factor’s

dimensionality (Kim & Mueller, 1978a).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

16

Based on previous studies (Fisher, 2011; Friedman, 2011 a), we expected to find a

Radex configuration. The deployment of the variables in Figure 3 shows that the SSA map

has also radial aspect (Facet B). The separation index was 1.000, indicating perfect

separation. The radial nature of the deployment is indicated by the distance of the items from

the point of origin.

__________________


___________________

_____________________


______________________

Facet B is the second content facet and it represents the principals’ perceived freedom

of action in performing managerial tasks. It is a hierarchically ordered facet. An ordered facet

has an ordering role in the partitioning of the SSA map. Its role is to deploy variables in the

SSA map in a radial configuration forming three circles:

b1 – The inner circle (Figure 3 and Table 5): the common denominator of all 10 items in

this circle is the principals’ maximal degree of freedom in performing managerial tasks, i.e.

principals have exclusive control over actions, based solely on their will (EC). These items

are associated with managerial tasks such as developing curriculum, using evaluation

methods and managing conflicts. For example: "Be accessible and available to students,

teachers, and parents at any time" (Appendix, item 37); "Be a resource of pedagogical

knowledge for the teachers" (Appendix, item 55); "Provide the teachers with useful and

detailed feedback on the quality of their work" (Appendix, item 57).

b2 - The second concentric circle, i.e. middle circle (Figure 3 and Table 5): the

common denominator of all 41 items is the control by the principals and their closest


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

17

environment (controlled by them) (CPCE). These items are associated with managerial tasks

such as building up professional capability, decision making, and using a variety of teaching

and evaluation methods, e.g. "Reprove a teacher who is not functioning as desired"

(Appendix, item 5); "Make decisions utilizing a systematic deliberations process" (Appendix,

item 10); "Identify prevailing innovations in other schools, and import them to your school,

utilizing in-service training" (Appendix, item 49).

b3 - The third and outermost circle (Figure 3 and Table 5): the common denominator of

the 5 items is managerial tasks controlled by the principals themselves, those in their closest

environment, and distant factors (CPCEDF). These items are associated with managerial

tasks such as good communication skills, manpower planning, and work plans. For example:

"Survey the school's neighbouring community needs in order to formulate your school's

vision to best suit the community's requirements" (Appendix, item 3); "Prepare the school's

work plan for a time range extending beyond the present school year" (Appendix, item 6).

Bearing in mind that facets A and B are related, the three degrees of perceived control

outlined through Facet B may be applied to each of the principal’s dimensions of action

(which are the components of Facet A): OL, EPL, and ECR. Nine structuples4 were derived

from the combination of the elements in facets A and B:

a1b 1: The principals perform tasks pertaining to organizational leadership (a1- OL), over

which they have exclusive control and which are based solely on their will (b1- EC)

4 The term structuple, a word unique to Facet Theory, stems from the mathematical concept of struct.

Structuples can create variables to be measured or items of a particular measuring instrument. Formally, facets

are mathematical sets, that is, a group governed by a particular rule, while the subject under investigation is a

Cartesian multiplication of all of the facets, whereby the product defines a Cartesian space.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

18

a1b 2: The principals perform tasks that pertain to organizational leadership (a1- OL), which

are controlled by the principals themselves and those in their closest environment (b2 -

CPCE)

a1b3: The principals perform tasks pertaining to organizational leadership (a1- OL), which are

controlled by the principals themselves, those in their closest environment, and distant

factors (b3 - CPCEDF)

a2b1: The principals perform tasks pertaining to educational and pedagogical leadership (a2 -

EPL), over which they have exclusive control and which are based solely on their will

(b1 - EC)


EPL), which are controlled by the principals themselves and those in their closest

environment (b2 - CPCE)


EPL), which are controlled by the principals themselves, those in their closest

environment, and distant factors (b3 - CPCEDF)

a3b1: The principals perform tasks pertaining to external and communal relations (a3 - ECR),

over which they have exclusive control and which are based solely on their will (b1-

EC)


which are controlled by the principals themselves and those in their closest

environment (b2 - CPCE)


which are controlled by the principals themselves, those in their closest environment,

and distant factors (b3 - CPCEDF)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

19

The combined radial and angular deployments seen in the two-dimensional

representations of the data on the SSA map (Figure 4) indicate that each of the principal’s

perceived freedom–of-action tasks forms part of one of the three managerial tasks. Figure 4

shows these points of proximity.

______________________


_____________________

Discussion

The results of this study are a persuasive demonstration of the theoretical and practical

relevance of our conceptualization of the efficacy construct. Empirical evidence shows

clearly that PSES is a two-layer conception. It is indeed important to underscore the unique

contribution of Facet Theory, which provided the evidence in support of the Two-Layer

theoretical conception.

The first layer of PSES is composed of tasks related to OL organizational leadership,

EPL (educational and pedagogical leadership), and ECR (external and communal relations

Facet A). Furthermore, the principals perceived that control over these tasks depended on

their perceived freedom of action in performing these tasks (Facet B). The perceived freedom

of action could be measured on a three-level scale, with each level representing the

complexity of the task:

EC (exclusive control) by the principals, based solely on their will. The tasks on this

level are perceived as simple and unique.

CPCE (controlled by the principals and those in their closest environment): the

principals feel that they can perform various tasks, based on their will and the will of those

who work with them, and that at the same time they have direct influence on those in their

immediate environment. The tasks pertaining to this level are perceived as complex.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

20

CPCEDF (control by the principals, those in their closest environment, and distant

factors): the managerial tasks depend in part on external and distant factors, with which the

principals may not be well acquainted. The tasks on this level are perceived as simple and not

unique.

EFC (exploratory factor analysis) and CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) could and did

provide sufficient evidence that PSE is based on three main components: OL, EPL and ECR.

However, as shown, this is only a partial, one layered definition. Facet Theory enabled us to

have a better understanding. PSE is contingent not only on the principals’ ability to carry out

one task or another, but also on the degree of control or freedom they perceive they have

when performing such tasks. The level of control that the principals feel they have over these

tasks is an inherent part of PSE. Principals feel that most of their managerial tasks (41 out of

57, as shown in Figure 4) are controlled not only by them but also by those in their closest

environment (i.e. teachers, students, parents etc.). These items, over which they have less

than total control, are divided evenly between OL, EPL and ECR. Principals feel that they

have the abilities and skills to disseminate valuable ideas that were developed and

implemented at their schools within/ professional forums (Figure 4 and Appendix, item 48),

but whether they succeed is not entirely up to them. The acceptance of such ideas depends on

the forums before which they present the ideas. Likewise, a principal can comment on the

work of a teacher, and while the intention may be to say a word of encouragement (Figure 4;

Appendix, item 35), the manner in which the comment is perceived, whether it is considered

a positive or a critical comment, is not exclusively in the principal’s control. It depends on the

teacher's perception of the words and the message.

The ten managerial tasks over which they have exclusive control are divided between

EPL and ECR. This is the "comfort zone" for the principals. Providing the teachers with

useful and detailed feedback on the quality of their work (Figure 4—ECR; Appendix, item


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

21

57) is undoubtedly under the control of the principal alone. Other items within the comfort

zone include “running the school in such a way that whoever wants is able to track

procedures, decisions, and positions assigned” (Figure 4 ECR; Appendix, item 50); being

accessible and available to students, teachers, and parents at any time (Figure 4--EPL;

Appendix, item 50). These managerial tasks are fully controlled by the principal in the sense

that it is the principal who decides the level of accessibility to be maintained. Six other

managerial tasks are controlled not only by the principals themselves, but also by those in

their closest environment, and by distant factors. These are mainly OL and EPL tasks. By

contrast, in communication-related tasks, such as communicating clearly and in an even

manner with both low-ranking personnel as well as with influential authority figures (Figure

4—EPL; Appendix, item 31), principals do not have full control, since the communication

path involves others. The same is true for planning-related tasks, e.g. planning the scope of

human resources, the assignment of roles, the delegating of responsibilities, or the allocation

of resources (Figure 4--OL; Appendix, item 7). In public schools in Israel, the decisions of

manpower and resources are taken primarily by the Ministry of Education, and the principals

have very little control over these decisions, although they do have a say.

Understanding the two-layer conception of PSE may have implications for both the

selection and training of principals. In particular, the training of principals should cover a

wide range of areas of responsibility. In Israel, for instance, school principals have a wide

range of responsibilities, which in the past had been maintained by the local education

authority, such as managing the school’s budget, the building maintenance, the hiring of

teachers, and local curriculum development. In the last few years, the role of principal in

Israel has changed, and it is clear today to all principals that the main function of a school

principal is to serve as an educational and pedagogic leader for the school, in order to

enhance the education and learning experience of all students.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

22

Four additional management aspects facilitate and support this educational and

pedagogic function: Developing the school's vision and image, and managing the resulting

transition; leading the staff and fostering its professional development; focusing on the

individual; and managing the relationship between the school and the community. As the

leader of the school, the principal must be able to grasp all of the school system's dimensions

and aspects and create close connections between these elements, in order to ensure the

success of all pupils.

The change of the principal’s role could definitely explain the new two-layer

conception of PSE (as seen in Figure 4), in contrast to Brama and Friedman's (2007) five

dimension scale.

Although the main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between

principal self-efficacy and work experience, it is hereby presented as a finding of secondary

importance in this study. The results emphasize clearly that work experience has a significant

effect on PSE. To date, this issue has not been discussed. There have been some reports

mentioning work experience and principals' self-efficacy, but no evidence of a significant

relationship has been reported (Tschannen-Moran and Gareiseven, 2004, 2005).

This study has shown that principals during their first year of principalship reported

higher levels of self-efficacy (M = 5.79) than did principals with 2-6 years of work

experience (M = 5.17). This finding requires a rational explanation, particularly since

Bandura (1997) has suggested that self-efficacy develops and grows based on the acquisition

of skills and positive experience. Thus, we would have expected to find a linear connection

between PSES and work experience: lower levels of PSES in the first years and higher levels

as the years of experience increase. Yet, this study shows that not only was there no increase

in PSE levels after the first year, the levels in fact decreased.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

23

Therefore, the more probable explanation is related to Glass and Singer's theory of

"Perceived Control" (Glass and Singer, 1972). It is possible that principals in their first year

of principalship still feel that they have full control of the events and activities pertaining to

their managerial tasks. The inexperienced principals who have just received their nomination

feel very capable, since surely that is the reason they were appointed to their current position.

However, after their first year in the job, as stressful or unpleasant management events occur,

they feel that they do not have full control and therefore their PSE levels drop.

Another explanation for this phenomenon may be based on Langer's theory of "Illusion

of Control" (1975). Langer argued that people tend to believe that they can control the

outcome of purely incidental events. Only after principals have had first-hand experience

with difficult situations do questions arise regarding the significance of their role and their

ability to influence adaptation, quality of learning, quality of teaching, and students’ and

teachers' performance and well-being (Eyal and Roth, 2011). With the experience and

questions come doubts. According to Langer (1975), the illusion of control fades after

entering the "Hall of fame"; after the “initiation” period, principals understand what it really

means to be the leader of a school, with all the responsibilities associated with this title, as

well as the purely incidental events over which they truly have no control.

Since self-efficacy pertains to people's confidence in their knowledge and skills, it is

odd that PSE levels rise only after a period of ten years. This has significant implications for

ensuring the continuous professional development of principals, which should be an

important objective for those responsible for improving the quality of leadership in schools.

Principals must receive professional mentoring not only through their first year, but mostly

from their second to fifth year. This could be done through personal mentoring provided by

highly experienced principals who have ten or more years of work experience, since the PSE

of those principals is likely to have risen with the accumulation of experience.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

24

The third interesting finding is the relationship between marital status and PSE. Married

principals expressed higher levels of PSE (M = 5.54) than did divorced principals (M = 4.54).

This issue has not been addressed in the context of PSE; however, some studies have

reported that general self-efficacy is correlated negatively with marital status and gender

(Cinamon, 2006), and that general self-efficacy may be undermined by stressful life events

(Maciejewski et al, 2000). Although some conclusions and practical implementations could

be drawn from this finding, this should be done carefully, particularly in attempting to relate

this data to continued professional development. Marital status is a private issue and its

discussion among colleagues is culture based. There are many countries in which there is

complete separation between one’s private and professional life. Therefore, even though it is

an interesting finding that merits a mention in the professional literature, any support offered

to divorced principals in order to help them gain higher levels of PSE should come from the

principals themselves.

While these reflections concerning the relationships between work experience, marital

status, and PSE are speculations that exceed the boundaries defined by the study’s data, they

point to important questions for future research, as well as for practical school governance.

As described herein, results of the study offer several theoretical as well as practical

implications. Thus, it is suggested that further studies should include larger and more diverse

samples, in order to confirm the two-layer theoretical conception of PSE. It is advised also to

analyze the data from larger and diverse samples by conducting factor analyses, in order to

explore whether the factor structure found in this study (first layer of the SSA) is stable

across several types of population. Thus, further studies utilizing multiple reporters and

behavioural observations would be very helpful in confirming the results.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

25

Another difficulty related to the current cross-sectional data is that they do not allow for

causal interpretations. It is therefore important to test the hypotheses with prospective

longitudinal research.

Although obtaining measures of the participants’ perceived self-efficacy was not the

immediate goal of this study, the re-measures scale could be used as a guideline for decision

makers and heads of in-service-training programs. They could use the self-efficacy

questionnaire as part of the decision-making process when nominating mentors for first and

second year principals, as mentioned before. As findings indicate that the PSES of principals

with 2-5 years’ seniority is lower than the PSE of principals who have just started their

principalship career, while principals with 10 years of seniority have respectively higher

levels of PSE, mentors should be selected from the latter group. With their experience and

stable levels of PSE, they can definitely guide the others through the crisis points of PSES.

Given that this finding has not emerged in previous studies, it may be relevant not only

in Israel, but also in other countries. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that we still do not

know if PSES is culturally based. There is definitely room to conduct a cross-national study

in order to elaborate this most interesting issue.

Keeping this in mind, it is important to state that each country has a different policy

regarding the training and development of principals. There is currently no evidence of

common perception. Thus, we need to establish an adequate knowledge base before we can

attempt to "join forces" on such an important issue.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

26

References

Bandura, A. (1977), "Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change",

Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp.191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1994), "Self-efficacy", In Ramachaudran, V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behavior , Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 71-81.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: the exercise of control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.

Bandura, A. (2006), "Toward a psychology of human agency", Association for Psychological

Science, Vol.1 No. 2, pp. 164-180.

Borg, I. and Shye, S. (1995). Facet Theory: Format and content. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brama, R. (2004), The professional self-Efficacy of school principals (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation), Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel (Hebrew)

Brama, R. and Friedman, A.I. (2007), The professional self-efficacy of the school principal:

A self-report questionnaire for the school principal, The Henrietta Szold Institution,

Jerusalem, Israel. (Hebrew)

Cattell, R.B. (1966), "The scree-test for the number of factors", Multivariate Behavioral

Research, Vol. 1 No. 527, pp. 245–276.

Cherniss, C. (1993), "Role of professional self–efficacy in the etiology and amelioration of

burnout", in Schaufeli, W. B., Maslach, C. and T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout:

Recent developments in theory and research, Taylor and Francis. Washington, DC ,

pp. 135-143.

Cinamon, R.G. (2006), "Anticipated Work-Family Conflict: Effects of Gender, Self-Efficacy,

and Family Background", The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 54 No.3, pp. 202-

215.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

27

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., and Meyerson, D. (2005), School leadership

study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research), Stanford University,

Stanford Educational Leadership Institute Stanford, CA.

Dembo, M. H. and Gibson, S. (1985). "Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in

school improvement", The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp.173-184.

Dimmock, C. and Hattie, J. (1996). "School principals’ self-efficacy and its measurement in a

context of restructuring", School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 7, No. 1,

pp. 62-75.

Eyal, O. and Roth, G. (2011), "Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self-

determination theory analysis", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49, pp.

256-275.

Fisher Y. (2008). The road to excellence: Success stories of schools. Henrietta Szold Institute

Jerusalem, Israel. (Hebrew)

Fisher Y. (2011), "The sense of self-efficacy of aspiring principals: Exploration in a dynamic

concept", Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-117.

Friedman, A.I. (2000). "Burnout in teachers: shattered dreams of impeccable professional

performance", Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 595-606.

Friedman, A.I. (2011a), "A radex model of school principals sense of professional self-

efficacy", in Fisher, Y. and Friedman, I.A. (Eds.), New horizons for facet theory:

Interdisciplinary Collaboration Searching for Structure in Content Spaces and

Measurement, FTA publication. Tel-Aviv, Israel, pp. 161-172.

Friedman, A.I. (2011b), "Facet theory: Principles and applications", in Fisher, Y. and

Friedman, I.A. (Eds.), New horizons for facet theory: Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Searching for Structure in Content Spaces and Measurement, FTA publication. Tel-

Aviv, Israel, pp. 11-18.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

28

Friedman, A.I. and Brama, R. (2010), "School Principal's Professional Self-Efficacy: the

Construct and its Components", Studies in Education Administration and Organization,

Vol. 31, pp. 57-94. (Hebrew).

Gibson, S. and Dembo, M.H. (1984), "Teacher efficacy: A construct validation", Journal of

Educational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 569-582.

Gist, M.E. (1987), "Self - Efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human

resource management", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 472-485.

Glass, D.C. and Singer, G.E. (1972), "Behavioral aftereffects of unpredictable and

uncontrollable aversive events", American Scientist, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 457-465.

Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K. and Woolfolk, A. (2000). "Collective teacher efficacy: Its

meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement", American Education Research

Journal, Vol. 37, No.2, pp. 479-507.

Guskey, T.R. and Passaro P.D. (1994), "Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions"

American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 627-643.

Guttman, L. (1959), "Introduction to facet design and analysis", in Proceedings of the

fifteenth international congress of psychology , North-Holland Publishing Company,

Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 130–132.

Guttman, L. (1982). "What is not what in theory construction" in Hauser, R.M., Mechanic,

D. and. Haller, A. (Eds.), Social Structure and Behavior, Academic Press, New York,

NY, pp. 331-348

Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., and Harms, P. D. (2008), "Leadership efficacy:

Review and future directions". The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 669–692.

Hillman, S. J. (1986, April), Measuring self–efficacy: Preliminary steps in the development of

a multi–dimensional instrument. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

29

Imants, J.G.M. and De Brabander, C.J. (1996), "Teachers’ and principals’ sense of efficacy in

elementary schools", Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 179-195.

Langer, E.J. (1975), "The illusion of control", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Vol 32 No. 2, pp. 311-328.

Lent, R.W. and Hackett, G. (1987), "Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future

directions". Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 347-382.

Levy, S. (1985), "Lawful roles of facets in social theories", in Canter, D. (Ed.), Facet Theory:

Approaches to social research, Springer, New York, NY. pp. 59-96.

Levy, S. (Ed.). (1994), Louis Guttman on theory and methodology: Selected writing,

Aldershot, Dartmouth, England.

Linnenbrink, E.A. and Pintrich, P.R. (2002), "Motivation as an enabler for academic

success", School Psychology Review, Vol. 31, pp. 313-327.

Maciejewski, P.K., Prigerson, H.G. and Mazure, C.M. (2000), "Self-efficacy as a mediator

between stressful life events and depressive symptoms: Differences based on history of

prior depression", The British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 176, pp. 373-378

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Introduction to statistics for psychology and education, McGraw-Hill

New-York, NY.

Pont, B., Nusche, D. and Hopkins, D. (Eds.) (2008), Improving School Leadership Volume 2:

Case Studies on System Leadership. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.

Rotberg, H.L., Brown, D., and Ware, W.B. (1987), "Career self-efficacy expectations and

perceived range of career options in community college students". Journal of

Counseling Psychology, Vol. 34, pp.164-70.

Schunk, D. H., and Meece, J. L. (2005), "Self-efficacy development in adolescence", in

Pajares, F. and Urdan, T.C. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. IAP -

Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp. 45-69.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

30

Shye, S. (1998). "Modern facet theory: Content design and measurement in behavioral

research", European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol 14 No. 2, pp. 160-171

Shye, S., and Elizur, D. (1994), Introduction to Facet Theory. SAGE Publications USA,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sierman Smith, L. R. (2007). Character education leadership: An investigation of principal

efficacy beliefs. Thesis (Ed. D.), University of Northern Colorado

Sierman and Smith, 2008

Skaalvik, E.M., and Skaalvik, S. (2007), "Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations

with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout", Journal

of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 3, pp. 611–625.

Skaalvik, E.M., and Skaalvik, S. (2010), "Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study

of relations". Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp.1059–1069.

Smith, R. W. and Guarino, A. J. (2005). "Confirmatory factor analysis of the Principal Self-

Efficacy Survey". Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and

Conflict, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 81- 86.

Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), "Self- Efficacy and Work- Related Performance: A

Meta- Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 240-261.

Tschannen-Moran, M., and Gareis, C.R. (2004), "Principals sense of efficacy: Assessing a

promising construct", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 573–

585.

Tschannen-Moran, M., and Gareis, C.R. (2005), "Cultivating principals’ self-efficacy:

Supports that matter", Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 17 No. 1, 89–114.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

31

Appendix

The 57 items of the PSES

Under burdensome conditions, to what extent do you think you are able

to…

1 Canvass and scrutinize several alternatives for action before

taking action

2

Find out and comprehend the common denominator of the

school's processes and activities in their entirety

3

Survey the school's neighbouring community needs in order

to formulate your school's vision to best suit the

community's requirements

4

Set clear targets for both the school's pedagogical team and

students

5

Plan your work week in advance, to make yourself available

for the things that are most important for you

6

Prepare the school's work plan for a time range extending

beyond the present school year

7

Plan a proper allotment of school manpower, roles,

authority, and resources

8

Carry out plans and decisions that have already been

decided on

9

Use an efficient control mechanism to monitor the

implementation of decisions

10 Make decisions utilizing a systematic deliberations process

11 Coordinate school's teaching teams activities, so that all

incumbents work together to reach a common goal

12 Motivate teachers for excellence

13 Engage a large group of teaching team members in decision

making processes


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

32


to…

14

Delegate authority to the teachers pertaining to important

matters

15 Reprove a teacher who is not functioning as desired

16

Devise a school-year work plan accompanied by a suitable

budget proposal

17 Find a balance between pressing demands, or the need to

"put out fires", and pre-planned or routine demands

18 Motivate teachers to work based on a sense of idealistic

commitment, not compelled by rules and regulations

19 Explain your decisions and instructions and provide

persuasive reasoning

20 Persevere in executing plans for a long period of time, even

when you do not see immediate results

21 Function in a way that seems right in your eyes, even if it is

uncommon, and does not exactly fit dictates

22 Act enthusiastically, sweeping the teaching-team to follow

23 Learn all the time so as to broaden your education

24 Enable the introduction of innovations initiated by teachers

25 Set achievable goals for yourself and make sure that you

have accomplished them

26 Set high and challenging goals for yourself

27 Reflect on your own performance, acknowledge your

weaknesses and work on them to improve your functioning

28 Restrain your anger at work

29 Overcome fear of failure when you start something new

30 Initiate new, creative ideas for running the school


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

33


to…

31

Communicate clearly and in an even manner with both low-

ranking personnel as well as with influential authority

figures

32 Make people change their minds or deeds, so that they

function the way you wish them to

33

Be caring and attentive to the teaching team members'

personal problems

34

Listen attentively to parents' objections, complaints, and

comments

35 Say a good word to a teacher

36 Solve inter-personal conflicts by exerting your authority

37 Be accessible and available to students, teachers, and parents

at any time

38 Be profoundly attentive to what a student has to say

39 Support people at work and be attentive, without being

considered too yielding

40

Build up the professional capability even of those who are

the frailest in the teaching team

41

Be simultaneously nice and uncompromising in your

demands of people

42

Develop appropriate contacts with people in the community

and the local authority for the school's benefit

43

Encourage initiatives and plans for cooperation between the

school and its neighbouring community

44

Contribute to the school's neighbouring community by active

personal involvement


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

34


to…

45

Present your demands to various agencies in such a way that

you will obtain what the school rightfully deserves

46

Manage conflicts between the school and its environs in

order to bring about a satisfactory solution

47 Be actively involved in fundraising and obtaining resources

for the school

48 Disseminate valuable ideas that were developed at your

school through professional forums

49 Identify prevailing innovations in other schools and import

them to your school, utilizing in-service training

50 Run the school in such a way that whoever wants is able to

track procedures, decisions, and positions assigned

51 Market the school

52 Be involved in developing school based curriculum

53 Use a variety of teaching methods

54 Use a variety of evaluation methods

55 Be a resource of pedagogical knowledge for the teachers

56 Use proficient methods for evaluating teacher functioning

57

Provide the teachers with useful and detailed feedback on

the quality of their work

Response Range: 1: Not at all efficacious; 2: To a very little extent; 3: To a little

extent; 4: to a medium extent; 5: to a large extent; 6: To a very large extent; 7: Surely

efficacious


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 1. Organizational and Personal Background Variables

Organizational variables Percentage of sample

1 Number of students in

school

a. Between 400 - 700 b. Between 701 - 1000 c. Above 1000

78

17.1

4.9

2 pre-service training

a. Took part in principal training program

b. Didn't take part in principal training program

c. I'm in the process of a principal training

program

87.8

8.1

4.1

3 Number of teachers in

school

a. Less than 20 b. 21 - 50 c. 51 – 90 d. More than 91

8.1

65.9

21.1

4.9

4

Work experience as

principal

a. First year b. 2 -5 c. 6 – 10 d. More than 10

18.7

30

24.4

26.8

5 Type of school

a. Primary school

b. Middle school

c. High-school

78.2

21.8 combined

Personal background variables

6 Gender a. Male

b. Female

32.5

67.5

7 Age

a. 20 – 30 b. 31 – 40 c. 41 – 50 d. 51+

0.8

23.6

60.2

15.4

8 Marital status

a. Bachelor b. Married

c. Divorced d. Widower

3.3

85.4

8.9

2.4

9 Number of children

a. No children

b. 1 c. 2

d. 3 e. 4

f. 5 or more

4.1

6.5

24.4

33.3

15.4

16.3

10 Level of education

a. BA (or equivalent)

b. MA (or Equivalent

c. Ph.D.

d. Other

30.1

66.7

3.2

-

11 Level of family

income

a. Much under than average

b. Little under than average

c. Average

d. Little above average

e. Much above average

0.8

9.8

21.1

49.6

18.7


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 2. Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD Post Hoc: Work Experience and PSES

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

(I) work_

experience

(J) work_

experience

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Work experience

Mean Std.

Deviation Lower Upper

Bound Bound

first year 5.7879 .61995

first year

2-5 .44853 .21114 .151 -.1016 .9987

6-10 .61299

* .22038 .032 .0388 1.1872

10+ .25140 .21599 .651 -.3114 .8142

2-5 5.3393 .97341

2-5

first year -.44853 .21114 .151 -.9987 .1016

6-10 .16446 .19536 .834 -.3446 .6735

10+ -.19714 .19039 .729 -.6932 .2990

6-10 5.1749 .70948

6-10

first year -.61299* .22038 .032 -1.1872 -.0388

2-5 -.16446 .19536 .834 -.6735 .3446

10+ -.36159 .20059 .277 -.8843 .1611

10+ 5.5365 .75161

10+

first year -.25140 .21599 .651 -.8142 .3114

2-5 .19714 .19039 .729 -.2990 .6932

6-10 .36159 .20059 .277 -.1611 .8843


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 3. Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD Post Hoc: Marital Status and PSE

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Marital

Status Mean

Std.

Deviation

(I) Marital_

status

(J) Marital_

status

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

single 5.2468 .63568

single

married -.28840 .39305 .883 -1.3126 .7358

divorced .70471 .45048 .403 -.4691 1.8785

widower -.24703 .58927 .975 -1.7825 1.2884

married 5.5352 63568

married

single .28840 .39305 .883 -.7358 1.3126

divorced .99310

* .24451 .001 .3560 1.6302

widower .04136 .45177 1.000 -1.1358 1.2185

divorced 4.5421 1.08630

divorced

single -.70471 .45048 .403 -1.8785 .4691

married -.99310

* .24451 .001 -1.6302 -.3560

widower -.95174 .50253 .236 -2.2612 .3577

widower 5.4938 .81388

widower

single .24703 .58927 .975 -1.2884 1.7825

married -.04136 .45177 1.000 -1.2185 1.1358

divorced .95174 .50253 .236 -.3577 2.2612


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 4. Items Organized in Facet A

Item

Number Item Content

a1 – Organizational Leadership (OL)

1 Canvass and scrutinize several alternatives for action before taking action

3 Survey the school's neighbouring community needs in order to formulate your

school's vision to best suit the community's requirements

4 Set clear targets for both the school's pedagogical team and students

5 Plan your work week in advance, to make yourself available for the things that

are most important for you

6 Prepare the school's work plan for a time range extending beyond the present

school year

7 Plan a proper allotment of school manpower, roles, authority, and resources

8 Carry out plans and decisions that have already been decided on

9 Use an efficient control mechanism to monitor the implementation of decisions


11 Coordinate school's teaching teams activities, so that all incumbents work

together to reach a common goal


13 Engage a large group of teaching team members in decision making processes

14 Delegate authority to the teachers pertaining to important matters

16 Devise a school-year work plan accompanied by a suitable budget proposal

17 Find a balance between pressing demands, or the need to "put out fires", and

pre-planned or routine demands

18 Motivate teachers to work based on a sense of idealistic commitment, not

compelled by rules and regulations

20 Persevere in executing plans for a long period of time, even when you do not

see immediate results


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Item

Number Item Content

a2 –Educational and Pedagogical Leadership (EPL)

2 Find out and comprehend the common denominator of the school's processes

and activities in their entir


19 Explain your decisions and instructions and provide persuasive reasoning

21 Function in a way that seems right in your eyes, even if it is uncommon, and

does not exactly fit dictates




25 Set achievable goals for yourself and make sure that you have accomplished

them


27 Reflect on your own performance, acknowledge your weaknesses and work on

them to improve your functioning




31 Communicate clearly and in an even manner with both low-ranking personnel

as well as with influential authority figures

32 Make people change their minds or deeds, so that they function the way you

wish them to

33 Be caring and attentive to the teaching team members' personal problems

34 Listen attentively to parents' objections, complaints, and comments



37 Be accessible and available to students, teachers, and parents at any time


39 Support people at work and be attentive, without being considered too yielding


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Item

Number Item Content

40 Build up the professional capability even of those who are the frailest in the

teaching team

41 Be simultaneously nice and uncompromising in your demands of people

42 Develop appropriate contacts with people in the community and the local

authority for the school's benefit

43 Encourage initiatives and plans for cooperation between the school and its

neighbouring community



a3 – External and Communal Relations (ECR)

44 Contribute to the school's neighbouring community by active personal

involvement

45 Present your demands to various agencies in such a way that you will obtain

what the school rightfully deserves

46 Manage conflicts between the school and its environs in order to bring about

a satisfactory solution

47 Be actively involved in fundraising and obtaining resources for the school

48 Disseminate valuable ideas that were developed at your school through

professional forums

49 Identify prevailing innovations in other schools and import them to your

school, utilizing in-service training

50 Run the school in such a way that whoever wants is able to track procedures,

decisions, and positions assigned





57 Provide the teachers with useful and detailed feedback on the quality of their

work


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 5: Items Organized in Facet B

Item

Number Item Content

b1 – Exclusive Control (EC) (first concentric circle)


43 Encourage initiatives and plans for cooperation between the school and its

neighbouring community

44 Contribute to the school's neighbouring community by active personal

involvement

45 Present your demands to various agencies in such a way that you will obtain

what the school rightfully deserves

46 Manage conflicts between the school and its environs in order to bring about a

satisfactory solution

50 Run the school in such a way that whoever wants is able to track procedures,

decisions, and positions assigned



57 Provide the teachers with useful and detailed feedback on the quality of their

work

b2 – Control by the Principals and Their Closest Environment (CPCE) (second

concentric circle)

2 Find out and comprehend the common denominator of the school's processes

and activities in their entirety

4 Set clear targets for both the school's pedagogical team and students

5 Plan your work week in advance, to make yourself available for the things that

are most important for you

8 Carry out plans and decisions that have already been decided on

9 Use an efficient control mechanism to monitor the implementation of

decisions


11 Coordinate school's teaching teams activities, so that all incumbents work

together to reach a common goal


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Item

Number

Item Content


13 Engage a large group of teaching team members in decision making processes

14 Delegate authority to the teachers pertaining to important matters


16 Devise a school-year work plan accompanied by a suitable budget proposal

17 Find a balance between pressing demands, or the need to "put out fires", and

pre-planned or routine demands

18 Motivate teachers to work based on a sense of idealistic commitment, not

compelled by rules and regulations

19 Explain your decisions and instructions and provide persuasive reasoning

20 Persevere in executing plans for a long period of time, even when you do not

see immediate results

21 Function in a way that seems right in your eyes, even if it is uncommon, and

does not exactly fit dictates




25 Set achievable goals for yourself and make sure that you have accomplished

them


27 Reflect on your own performance, acknowledge your weaknesses and work on

them to improve your functioning




32 Make people change their minds or deeds, so that they function the way you

wish them to




123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Item

Number Item Content



39 Support people at work and be attentive, without being considered too yielding

40 Build up the professional capability even of those who are the frailest in the

teaching team

41 Be simultaneously nice and uncompromising in your demands of people

42 Develop appropriate contacts with people in the community and the local

authority for the school's benefit

47 Be actively involved in fundraising and obtaining resources for the school

48 Disseminate valuable ideas that were developed at your school through

professional forums

49 Identify prevailing innovations in other schools and import them to your

school, utilizing in-service training





b3 - Controlled by the Principals, Closest Environment, and Distant Factors

(CPCED35F) (third concentric circle)

1 Canvass and scrutinize several alternatives for action before taking action

3 Survey the school's neighbouring community needs in order to formulate your

school's vision to best suit the community's requirements

6 Prepare the school's work plan for a time range extending beyond the present

school year

7 Plan a proper allotment of school manpower, roles, authority, and resources

31 Communicate clearly and in an even manner with both low-ranking personnel

as well as with influential authority figures


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

34 Listen attentively to parents' objections, complaints, and comments


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Figure 1. The effect of work experience on PSES

Figure 2. Angular item-deployment in the SSA map for facet A: managerial tasks

a3 - ECR

a1 -OL

a2 - EPL

*

*

* statistically significant effect on the level of p<0.05


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Figure 3. Angular item-deployment in the SSA map for facet B: Freedom of action

Figure 4. Two-dimensional representation of the data deployment on the SSA map –

Radex configuration

b1 - EC

b2 - CPCE

b3 - CPCEDF

ECR

OL

EPL


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review - Mofet Institutemofetinternational.macam.ac.il/jtec/Documents/The timeline of self...

Documents

Transcript of For Peer Review - Mofet Institutemofetinternational.macam.ac.il/jtec/Documents/The timeline of self...