For Peer Review - Mofet Institutemofetinternational.macam.ac.il/jtec/Documents/The timeline of self...
-
Upload
truongkien -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 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,
Page 3 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 4 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 5 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 6 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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,
Page 7 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 8 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 9 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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 Table 2 about here
____________________
____________________
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.
Page 10 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
11
___________________
Insert Table 3 about here
_____________________
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)
Page 11 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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,
Page 12 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 13 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 14 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
_____________________
Insert Figure 2 about here
______________________
_____________________
Insert Table 4 about here
______________________
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).
Page 15 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
__________________
Insert Figure 3 about here
___________________
_____________________
Insert Table 5 about here
______________________
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
Page 16 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 17 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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)
a2b2: The principals perform tasks pertaining to educational and pedagogical leadership (a2 -
EPL), which are controlled by the principals themselves and those in their closest
environment (b2 - CPCE)
a2b3: The principals perform tasks pertaining to educational and pedagogical leadership (a2 -
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)
a3b2: The principals perform tasks pertaining to external and communal relations (a3 - ECR),
which are controlled by the principals themselves and those in their closest
environment (b2 - CPCE)
a3b3: The principals perform tasks pertaining to external and communal relations (a3 - ECR),
which are controlled by the principals themselves, those in their closest environment,
and distant factors (b3 - CPCEDF)
Page 18 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
______________________
Insert Figure 4 about here
_____________________
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.
Page 19 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 20 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 21 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 22 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 23 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 24 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 25 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 26 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 27 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 28 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 29 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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.
Page 30 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 31 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
32
Under burdensome conditions, to what extent do you think you are able
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
Page 32 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
33
Under burdensome conditions, to what extent do you think you are able
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
Page 33 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
34
Under burdensome conditions, to what extent do you think you are able
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
Page 34 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 35 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 36 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 37 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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
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
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
Page 38 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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
15 Reprove a teacher who is not functioning as desired
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
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
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
Page 39 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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
55 Be a resource of pedagogical knowledge for the teachers
56 Use proficient methods for evaluating teacher functioning
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
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
57 Provide the teachers with useful and detailed feedback on the quality of their
work
Page 40 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
Table 5: Items Organized in Facet B
Item
Number Item Content
b1 – Exclusive Control (EC) (first concentric circle)
37 Be accessible and available to students, teachers, and parents at any time
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
52 Be involved in developing school based curriculum
55 Be a resource of pedagogical knowledge for the teachers
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
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
Page 41 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
Item
Number
Item Content
12 Motivate teachers for excellence
13 Engage a large group of teaching team members in decision making processes
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
32 Make people change their minds or deeds, so that they function the way you
wish them to
35 Say a good word to a teacher
36 Solve inter-personal conflicts by exerting your authority
Page 42 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
Item
Number Item Content
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
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
51 Market the school
53 Use a variety of teaching methods
54 Use a variety of evaluation methods
56 Use proficient methods for evaluating teacher functioning
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
Page 43 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
34 Listen attentively to parents' objections, complaints, and comments
Page 44 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 45 of 46 Journal of Educational Administration
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
Page 46 of 46Journal of Educational Administration
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960