us-china education review 2013(12b)

8/12/2019 US-China Education Review 2013(12B)

1/80


2/80

US-China

Education Review

B

Volume 3, Number 12, December 2013 (Serial Number 31)

David Publishing Company

ww w.davidpublishing.com

PublishingDavid


3/80

Publication Information:US-China Education Review B(Earlier title: Journal of US-China Education Review, ISSN 1548-6613) is published monthly inhard copy (ISSN 2161-6248) by David Publishing Company located at 16710 East Johnson Drive, City of Industry, CA 91745,USA.

Aims and Scope:

US-China Education Review B, a monthly professional academic journal, covers all sorts of education-theory researches on HigherEducation, Higher Educational Management, Educational Psychology, Teacher Education, Curriculum and Teaching, EducationalTechnology, Educational Economics and Management, Educational Theory and Principle, Educational Policy and Administration,Sociology of Education, Educational Methodology, Comparative Education, Vocational and Technical Education, SpecialEducation, Educational Philosophy, Elementary Education, Science Education, Lifelong Learning, Adult Education, DistanceEducation, Preschool Education, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Art Education, Rural Education, EnvironmentalEducation, Health Education, History of Education, Education and Culture, Education Law, Educational Evaluation andAssessment, Physical Education, Educational Consulting, Educational Training, Moral Education, Family Education, as well asother issues.

Editorial Board Members:

Asst. Prof. Dr. Gner Tural Associate Prof. Rosalinda Hernandez Prof. Aaron W. HugheyProf. Alexandro Escudero Prof. Cameron Scott White Prof. Deonarain BrijlallProf. Diane Schwartz Prof. Ghazi M. Ghaith Prof. Gil-Garcia, Ana

Prof. Gordana Jovanovic Dolecek Prof. Grigorios Karafillis Prof. James L. MorrisonProf. Kthe Schneider Prof. Lihshing Leigh Wang Prof. Mercedes Ruiz LozanoProf. Michael Eskay Prof. Okechukwu Sunday Abonyi Prof. Peter HillsProf. Smirnov Eugeny Prof. Yea-Ling Tsao

Manuscripts and correspondence are invited for publication. You can submit your papers via Web submission, or E-mail [email protected] or [email protected]. Submission guidelines and Web submission system are available athttp://www.davidpublishing.com.

Editorial Office:

16710 East Johnson Drive, City of Industry, CA 91745, USATel: 1-323-984-7526, 323-410-1082Fax: 1-323-984-7374, 323-908-0457E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Copyright2013 by David Publishing Company and individual contributors. All rights reserved. David Publishing Company holdsthe exclusive copyright of all the contents of this journal. In accordance with the international convention, no part of this journalmay be reproduced or transmitted by any media or publishing organs (including various Websites) without the written permissionof the copyright holder. Otherwise, any conduct would be considered as the violation of the copyright. The contents of this journalare available for any citation. However, all the citations should be clearly indicated with the title of this journal, serial number andthe name of the author.

Abstracted/Indexed in:

Database of EBSCO, Massachusetts, USAChinese Database of CEPS, Airiti Inc. & OCLCChinese Scientific Journals Database, VIP Corporation,Chongqing, P.R.C.Ulrichs Periodicals DirectoryASSIA Database and LLBA Database of ProQuest

Excellent papers in ERICNorwegian Social Science Data Service (NSD), NorwayUniverse Digital Library Sdn Bhd (UDLSB), MalaysiaSummon Serials SolutionsGoogle Scholar

Subscription Information:Price(per year):Print $600 Online $480Print and Online $800

David Publishing Company16710 East Johnson Drive, City of Industry, CA 91745, USATel: 1-323-984-7526, 323-410-1082Fax: 1-323-984-7374, 323-908-0457E-mail: [email protected]

David Publishing Company

www.davidpublishing.com

DAVIDPUBLISHING

D


4/80

US-China

Education ReviewB

Volume 3, Number 12, December 2013 (Serial Number 31)

ContentsEducational Policy and Management

Teachers Self-efficacy on School Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of Private and Public

Junior High Schools in the Takoradi Metropolis, Ghana 903

Winston Kwame Abroampa, Kwesi Nkum Wilson

Teachers Perspectives on Principals Leadership in Mexican Schools 914

Rubi Surema Peniche Cetzal

Classroom Management and Feedback Systems 918

Yavich Roman, Starichenko Boris, Egorov Artem

Educational Evaluation and Assessment

Reforming Educational Measurement for National Security: The Role of Item Response

Theory in Test Fairness 924

John Nwanibeze Odili

Educational Psychology

Exploration on Keyess Model of Mental Health for French Physically Active Adults 933

Mare Salama-Younes

The Effect of Reality Therapy Group Training on Decreasing Social Phobia of Students

in Eghlid City High Schools 943

Ali Akbar Rahimi, Reza Sattar

The Management of Stress in Students 950

Brbara-Emma Snchez-Rinza, Ana Laura Luna Peralta


5/80

Educational Theory and Practice

Some Ontological Issues on English Education in Chinas Universities 958

Tian Qiang, Cai Jian, Qiao Hui

Curriculum and Teaching

Exploring an Effective Model to Support Freshmen to Learn Calculus 967

Jung-Chih Chen, Yung-Ling Lai


6/80

US-China Education Review B, ISSN 2161-6248

December 2013, Vol. 3, No. 12, 903-913

Teachers Self-efficacy on School Improvement: A Comparative

Analysis of Private and Public Junior High Schools in the

Takoradi Metropolis, Ghana

Winston Kwame Abroampa, Kwesi Nkum Wilson

University of Education, Winneba, Ghana

One construct of teachers belief that has consistently been associated with the numerous qualities of an effective

teacher, is teacher efficacy. Varying studies conducted have established relationships between teacher efficacy and

motivation, learners outcomes and job performance. More so, studies conducted have attributed the differences in

the performance of public and private schools to supervision, school climate, availability of teaching, and learning

materials among others. However, not much has been studied about the teachers belief in these two working

environments. The study therefore sought to examine teacher efficacy in public and private basic schools and how

it influenced the general improvement of their schools. A correlational design was employed for the study. The

stratified and simple random sampling techniques were used to select 15 public and private schools; a total of 134

teachers comprising 90 public and 44 private basic school teachers respectively. A standard questionnaire for

measuring teacher efficacy was used in gathering data. The study revealed that, among other things, though, there

are more professional teachers in public schools than private schools, teachers in the latter have a slightly higherefficacy. More so, there was no relationship between teacher qualification and teacher efficacy. Thus, it was

recommended that, in the short term, circuit supervisors and heads of schools should organize seminars for teachers

on changing their mindset about teaching in general and learners who go to public schools in particular, since this

has serious implications for teachers self-efficacy and school improvement.

Keywords:self-efficacy, teacher efficacy, school improvement, public schools, private schools

Introduction

That education is the single most important building block on which a nations development is founded is

an understatement. In fact, it is the fulcrum, around which all the nations enterprises and endeavours revolve.

The extent to which these enterprises are functional and the endeavours are worthwhile, is largely dependent on

the quality of education that a nation provides for its people. This explains the large proportions of resources

that nations devote to the provision of education for their citizens (Ankomah, 2002). Though, the efforts at

providing quality education require the inputs of various stakeholders, teachers are the prime vanguards, they

are the final implementers of the curriculum. As a result, the quality of learners that an education system turns

Winston Kwame Abroampa, M.Phil., B.Ed., lecturer, Department of Psychology and Education, University of Education,Winneba.

Kwesi Nkum Wilson, M.Phil., B.Ed., lecturer, Department of Psychology and Education, University of Education, Winneba.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D


7/80

TEACHERS SELF-EFFICACY ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT904

out is determined by the quality of teachers (Hallack, 1977), to a greater extent, learners achievement is

determined by the quality of teaching. Without mincing words, one can say that no nation can develop beyond

the level of its teachers. Awoniyi (1979) concurred by reiterating that the quality of teachers largely determines

the quality of education in a society. Awoniyi emphasized that the indicators of the quality of a school system

are the qualifications and experiences of teachers, which may influence teachers level of efficacy.

Bandura studied self-efficacy concepts in relation to a variety of concepts, such as motivation (Schunk,

1991) and phobias (Bandura, 1983, as cited in Adu, Tadu, & Eze, 2012). The studies noted that individuals

develop ideas and self-perceptions of their capabilities. These capabilities drive individuals when interacting

with their environment. Bandura (1977) referred to this control as perceived self-efficacy, this research

supports the relationship between teacher efficacy/self-determination and academic achievement. Ross (1995)

also found a positive relationship between teacher efficacy and working conditions. Teachers with high efficacy

interact more frequently with peers, participate in joint work (team teaching, peer coaching, mentoring, or

committee work), and assume a stronger role in school decision-making than teachers with lower efficacy.Therefore, it is probable that teachers self-efficacy may influence school improvement.

Teacher Efficacy

One construct of teachers belief that has consistently been associated with the numerous qualities of an

effective teacher, is teacher efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk (2001) (as cited in Vasquez, 2008) defined

teacher efficacy as a teachers judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student

engagement and learning, even among students who may be difficult or unmotivated (p. 283). Teacher efficacy

has been related to students outcomes, such as motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), achievement

(Ashton & Webb, 1986), and students own sense of efficacy (Anderson, Green, & Loewen, 1988). Teacher

efficacy has also been related to teacher behavior in the classroom. Allinder (1994) found that teachers with high

efficacy beliefs plan more thoroughly and are more organized. Highly efficacious teachers have a willingness to

try new strategies (Guskey, 1988), they persist longer when teaching becomes difficult (Coladaraci, 1992) and

work with struggling students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Teachers with high efficacy show greater commitment

to teaching (Evans & Tribble, 1986), more enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994), and are more likely to stay

in the profession (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brockheimer, 1991).

More so, Ashton and Webb (1986) found that teachers with a high sense of efficacy have high

expectations for all students, establish classroom environments that encourage warm interpersonal relationships,

and promote strong academic work. They are more humanistic in their classroom management style (Woolfolk,

Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990), evoke trust from their students (DaCosta & Riordan, 1996), and favor student-centered

classrooms (Czerniak & Schriver, 1994), as well as activity-based and experiential learning (Enochs, Scharman,

& Riggs, 1995). Furthermore, teachers with high efficacy are more likely to seek assistance from other

educational professionals (DeMesquita & Drake, 1994) and promote parental involvement in schooling

(Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992).

A gleaning of the forgoing suggests that teacher efficacy influence most attributes that a teacher

demonstrates and it also plays a significant role primarily in learners outcomes. However, considering the key

role a teacher plays in the entire life of a school, it cannot be overestimated that the extent to which a teacher is

efficacious may influence all aspect of a school, which may invariably impinge on its improvement.


8/80

TEACHERS SELF-EFFICACY ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 905

School Improvement

School improvement entails a whole gamut of worthwhile activities that schools employ in order to make

the schools better and ensure the achievement of educational outcomes. Welzen (1985) believed that it is asystematic and sustained effort to improve learning outcomes. Hopkins, Ainscow, and West (1994) discussed

the two meanings of school improvement: (1) It is a common sense which relates to general efforts to make

schools better places (p. 3); and (2) It is a distinct approach to educational change that enhances students

outcomes as well as strengthening schools capacity for managing change (p. 3).

School improvement is not an event but a deliberate effort to systematically set a process in motion geared

towards making schools better. Stoll (1998) argued that it is not a quick fix but part of an ongoing process that

requires the participation of teachers in decision-making. Therefore, this implies that it is a process of sustained

activities that seek to enhance benefit for learners, which may be influenced by responses from internal or

external contributions. Some internal elements that may facilitate school improvement may be an open school

climate, participation of teachers and learners in decision-making, provision of resources, enforcing discipline,

etc., whereas, a strong school community relationship that allows for parental and community involvement may

constitute external factors. The ultimate aim is to enhance learners progress, achievement, and development

(Stoll & Fink, 1996). The extent to which teachers are efficacious may influence all these.

Problem Statement

A growing line of literature, starting with Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore (1982), have suggested that other

things equal, private schools are more effective learning institutions (Hall & Vedder, 2004, p. 77). Ankomah

(2002) intimated that inspite of the effort of the government of Ghana at providing sound education, especially

at the basic level, public schools continue to lag behind private schools in pupils performance with

unacceptably wide disparities, which has implications for school improvement. It may be argued that schools

with appreciable learners outcomes are progressively improving most aspects of schools, such as teachers

participation in decision-making, provision of resources, enforcing discipline, encouraging parental and

community involvement, etc..

Though the contributing factors for these disparities are not farfetched, the irony is that most teachers in

public schools are certified, more trained and qualified, and are better paid than most of their counterparts in

private schools, which may naturally prop up their level of efficacy. More so, most studies conducted have

concentrated on resources availability, management, supervision, learners socio-economic background,

students self-efficacy and teacher efficacy, and their relationship with learners academic performance. Most

of such studies have all shown a positive relationship among all these variables. This investigation, however,seeks to examine the extent to which basic school teachers level of efficacy in other aspects of school life in

public and private JHS (junior high schools) influence the school improvement.

Research Questions

The study addressed the following research questions:

(1) What is the difference between teacher efficacy in public and private JHS?

(2) How does teacher qualification relate to teacher efficacy?

(3) What are differences in public and private school teachers efficacy in other aspects of school life?


9/80


Methodology

The correlational design was deemed appropriate for the study, since the study sort to examine the

relationship among variables. All teachers in JHS in the Takoradi Metropolis constituted the target population.The stratified sampling was used to group the schools into public and private. The lottery with replacement

method of simple random sampling was employed in the selection of 22 JHS, comprising 15 public and seven

private schools. A total of 134 respondents was purposively selected for the study, which consisted of 90 and

44 teachers from public and private JHS respectively. These groups of teachers were selected because they

have been teaching in their respective schools for more than two years.

The questionnaire was the main research instrument designed to gather data for the study. Gibson and

Dembos (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale was adopted with minimal changes. This instrument has been widely

used (Reames & Spencer, 1998; Yisrael, 1996; Hipp, 1996), it is reliable and recognised as a standard measure

of teachers professional efficacy (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997, p. 453). The questionnaire consisted of 30 mainly

close-ended items on a 5-point Likert Scale with the following weightings: 1N (Nothing); 2VL (Very

little); 3SI (Some influence); 4QB (Quite a bit); and 5GD (A great deal).

Data Analysis Procedure

Data gathered were serially numbered, edited, and coded accordingly. Frequencies and percentages were

used to analyse biographic information. The rest of the items in the questionnaire were analysed using means.

The Pearsons product moment correlation coefficient was computed to ascertain the relationship between

teacher qualification and teacher efficacy. Relationships were interpreted within the confined ranges suggested

by Cohen (1988). That is:

R= 0.10 to 0.29 orR= -0.10 to -0.29, small;

R= 0.30 to 0.49 orR= -0.30 to -0.49, medium;

R= 0.50 to 1.0 orR = -0.50 to -1.0, large.

The independent sample t-test was also used in determining the differences between teacher efficacy in

public and private JHS. All the research questions were addressed at a significance level of 0.05.

Interpretation and Discussion of Results

Data in Table 1 indicate that there were more male teachers in the private schools (54.5%), but more

female teachers in the public schools (63.3%).

Table 1

Sex Distribution of Teachers

Sex Group Frequency %

MalePublicPrivate

3324

36.754.5

FemalePublic

Private

57

20

63.3

45.5

The distribution of the educational qualification of teachers in both public and private schools is presentedin Table 2.

It may be deduced from the data in Table 2 that an overwhelming majority of the public school teachers

constituting about 90. 1% are professional, whereas 63.5% of their counterparts in the private schools also


10/80


have education that qualifies them to become professional teachers. This is not surprising since most teachers

are now taking advantage of the certificate, diploma, and post diploma education programmes by regular,

part-time, or distance education, offered by various public and private tertiary institutions, to upgrade

themselves.

Table 2

Highest Educational Qualification of Teachers

Qualification Group Frequency %

High schoolPublic

Private

1

8

1.1

18.2

3/4 year post secondaryPublic

Private

22

9

24.4

20.4

Diploma with educationPublic

Private

38

13

42.4

29.5

Diploma without educationPublic

Private

3

5

3.3

11.4Degree with education

PublicPrivate

216

23.313.6

Degree without educationPublic

Private

4

3

4.4

6.8

Masters degreePublic

Private

1

-

1.1

-

Data in Table 3 sort to explore both public and private teachers efficacy levels.

It may be deduced from the data in Table 3 that with respect to influencing class sizes, teachers in the

public basic schools have very little influence as compared to their counterparts in the private schools, who

indicated that they have some influence. This may be attributed to the fact that enrolment in public basic

schools is heavily influenced by and controlled by government policies. For instance, in recent times,

enrolment figures and attendance in basic schools have doubled due to the introduction of policies, such as the

capitation grant, free school feeding (Osei-Fosu, 2011), and free school uniform without much corresponding

increase in facilities and infrastructure. However, in the private schools, admissions and enrolment figures are

controlled by the proprietors, who may seek the opinion of class teachers before admitting learners into their

classes.

With regard to how much teachers can do to get community members to be involved in working with the

school, whereas teachers in the public schools have some influence, and those in the private schools have little

influence. This may be due to the fact that public schools are community owned. As a matter of fact, most

communities provide land and other resources for the establishment of basic schools in their communities,

thus, they are major stakeholders and partners in school development. In order to strengthen the

community-school relationship, committees, such as the SMCs (school management committees) are formed,

apart from the traditional PTA (Parent Teacher Association) with some members of the community handling

key positions. Elders, groups, and individuals in the community are directly or indirectly obliged to take keen

interest in the activities of public schools in the community. Thus, it becomes easier for teachers in such

school to involve the community in the activities of the school when the need arises. On the other hand,

private schools are established and owned by private person(s). As a result, apart from the PTA or the parents

of wards, private school teachers have little influence when it comes to involving the community in what the

school does.


11/80


Table 3

A Distribution of Teachers Self-efficacy Levels

Efficacy statements GroupGD

Freq. (%)

QB

Freq. (%)

SI

Freq. (%)

VL

Freq. (%)

N

Freq. (%)Mean Remarks

How much can you influence decision-making in school?

PublicPrivate

11 (12.2)0 ( 0.0)

26 (28.9)19 (42.3)

23 (25.6)6 (13.6)

27 (30.0)16 (36.4)

3 (3.3)3 (6.8)

3.172.93

SISI

How much can you express your viewson matters?

PublicPrivate

28 (31.1)9 (20.5)

27 (30.0)18 (40.9)

13 (14.4)6 (13.6)

21 (23.3)11 (25.0)

1 (1.1)0 (0.0)

3.673.57

QBSI

How much can you do to get

instructional materials and equipment?

Public

Private

10 (11.1)

21 (47.7)

27 (30.0)

9 (20.5)

15 (16.7)

7 (15.9)

36 (40.0)

6 (13.6)

2 (2.2)

1 (2.3)

3.18

3.97

SI

QBHow much can you do to influenceclass sizes?

PublicPrivate

9 (10.0)7 (15.9)

15 (16.7)13 (29.5)

11 (12.2)3 (6.8)

29 (32.2)17 (38.6)

26 (28.9)4 (9.1)

2.473.04

VLSI

How much can you do to get throughto the most difficult students?

PublicPrivate

20 (22.2)12 (27.3)

32 (35.6)14 (31.8)

22 (24.4)13 (29.5)

15 (16.7)5 (11.4)

1 (1.0)0 (0.0)

3.613.75

QBQB

How much can you do to promotelearning when there is no support from

home?

PublicPrivate

13 (14.4) 9 (20.5)

18 (20.0)14 (31.8)

32 (35.6)19 (43.2)

25 (27.8)2 (4.5)

2 (2.2)0 (0.0)

3.173.70

SIQB

How much can you do to keep studentson tasks? PublicPrivate 26 (28.9)13 (29.5) 27 (30.0)17 (38.6) 31 (34.4)12 (27.3) 4 (4.4)2 (4.5) 2 (2.2)0 (0.0) 3.793.93 QBQBHow much can you do to increasestudents memory of previous lessons

taught?

PublicPrivate

38 (42.2)19 (43.2)

32 (35.6)19 (43.2)

14 (15.6)6 (13.6)

6 (6.7)0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)0 (0.0)

4.134.30

QBQB

How much can you do to motivatestudents who show low interest in

school work?

Public

Private

32 (35.6)

17 (38.6)

34 (37.8)

18 (40.9)

19 (21.1)

8 (18.2)

4 (4.4)

1 (2.3)

1 (1.1)

0 (0.0)

4.02

4.16

QB

QB

How much can you do to get studentsto work together?

PublicPrivate

38 (42.2)22 (50.0)

32 (35.6)12 (27.3)

15 (16.7)10 (22.7)

4 (4.4)0 (0.0)

1 (1.1)0 (0.0)

4.134.27

QBQB

How much can you do to minimize theinfluence of adverse community

conditions on students learning?

Public

Private

7 (7.8)

2 (4.5)

19 (21.1)

13 (29.5)

29 (32.2)

18 (40.9)

26 (28.9)

11 (25.0)

9 (10.0)

0 ( 0.0)

2.88

3.14

SI

SI

How much can you do to get students to

do their homework?

Public

Private

42 (46.7)

24 (54.5)

30 (33.3)

13 (29.5)

14 (15.6)

7 (15.9)

4 (4.4)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

4.22

4.39

QB

QB

How much can you do to get studentsto follow classroom rules?

PublicPrivate

55 (61.1)25 (56.8)

21 (23.3)9 (20.5)

9 (10.0)10 (22.7)

5 (5.6)0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)0.(0.0)

4.404.34

QBQB

How much can you do to get students tocontrol disruptive classroom behaviours?

PublicPrivate

43 (47.8)29 (65.9)

31 (34.4)10 (22.7)

13 (14.4)4 (9.1)

3 (3.3)1 (2.3)

0 (0.0)0 (0.0)

4.274.52

QBQB

How much can you do to preventproblem behaviours on school grounds?

PublicPrivate

21 (23.3)15 (34.1)

36 (40.0)13 (29.5)

22 (24.4)12 (17.3)

9 (10.0)3 ( 6.8)

2 (2.2)1 (2.3)

3.723.86

QBQB

How much can you do to get parents to

be involved in school activities?

Public

Private

10 (11.1)

7 (15.9)

26 (28.9)

18 (40.9)

29 (32.2)

9 (20.5)

19 (21.1)

9 (20.5)

6 (6.7)

1 (2.3)

3.17

3.48

SI

SIHow much can you assist parents in

helping their children to do well inschool?

PublicPrivate

12 (13.3)5 (11.4)

28 (31.1)19 (43.2)

33 (36.7)16 (36.4)

15 (16.7)3 (6.8)

2 (2.2)1 (2.3)

3.373.55

SISI

How much can you do to get parents tofeel comfortable coming to school?

PublicPrivate

29 (32.2)22 (50.0)

32 (35.6)10 (22.7)

21 (23.3)9 (20.5)

5 (5.6)2 (4.5)

3 (3.3)1 (2.3)

3.884.14

QBQB

How much can you do to get

community groups involved in workingwith the school?

PublicPrivate

6 (6.7)2 (4.5)

20 (22.2)6 (13.6)

31 (34.4)12 (27.3)

26 (28.9)18 (40.9)

7 (7.8)6 (13.6)

2.912.55

SIVL

How much can you do to get churchesinvolved in working with the school?

PublicPrivate

6 (6.7)2 (4.5)

13 (14.4)9 (20.5)

23 (25.6)9 (20.5)

25 (27.8)18 (40.9)

23 (25.6)6 (13.6)

2.742.61

SISI

How much can you do to get local

colleges and universities involved inworking with the school?

Public

Private

4 (4.4)

1 (2.3)

12 (13.3)

5 (11.4)

24 (26.7)

11 (25.0)

30 (33.3)

19 (43.2)

20 (22.2)

8 (18.2)

2.49

2.31

VL

VL

How much can you do to get businessesinvolved in working with the school?

PublicPrivate

6 (6.7)9 (20.5)

13 (14.4)10 (22.7)

23 (25.6)15 (34.1)

25 (27.8)10 (22.7)

23 (25.6)0 ( 0.0)

2.442.41

VLVL

How much can you do to make theschool a safe place?

PublicPrivate

21 (23.3)21 (47.7)

38 (42.2)17 (38.6)

24 (26.7)3 (6.8)

7 (7.8)2 (4.5)

0 (0.0)1 (2.3)

3.814.25

QBQB

How much can you do to make studentsenjoy coming to school?

PublicPrivate

43 (47.8)24 (54.5)

28 (31.1)11 (25.0)

15 (16.7)8 (18.2)

4 (4.4)1 (2.3)

0 (0.0)0 (0.0)

4.224.25

QBQB


12/80


(Table 3 to be continued)

How much can you do to get students

to trust teachers?

Public

Private

40 (44.4)

26 (59.1)

34 (37.8)

7 (15.9)

12 (13.3)

6 (13.6)

4 (4.4)

5 (11.4)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

4.22

4.23

QB

QBHow much can you do to help other

teachers with their teaching skills?

Public

Private

22 (24.4)

7 (15.9)

36 (40.0)

17 (38.6)

19 (21.1)

15 (34.1)

13 (14.4)

5 (11.4)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

3.74

3.60

QB

QBHow much can you do to enhance

collaboration between teachers andadministration?

PublicPrivate

19 (21.1)12 (27.3)

27 (30.0)17 (38.6)

21 (23.3)10 (22.7)

22 (24.4) 5 (11.4)

1 (1.1)0 (0.0)

3.463.82

SIQB

How much can you do to reduceschool drop out?

PublicPrivate

9 (10.0)14 (31.8)

32 (35.6)4 ( 9.1)

31 (34.4)18 (40.9)

13 (14.4)8 (18.2)

5 (5.6)0 (0.0)

3.303.54

SISI

How much can you do reduce school

absenteeism?

Public

Private

17 (18.9)

9 (20.5)

27 (30.0)

21 (47.7)

27 (30.0)

10 (22.7)

16 (17.8)

4 (9.1)

3 (3.3)

0 (0.0)

3.43

3.80

SI

QBHow much can you do to get studentsto believe they can do well in school?

PublicPrivate

42 (46.7)22 (50.0)

31 (34.4)13 (29.5)

16 (17.8)9 (20.5)

1 (1.1)0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)0 (0.0)

4.274.30

QBQB

Note. Mean ranges: 0.00-1.59: N; 1.60-2.59: VL; 2.60-3.59: SI; 3.60-4.59: QB; and 4.60-5.00: GD. Mean of means: Public

schools3.54 and private schools3.69.

On the issue of how much can be done to get local colleges and universities involved in working with their

schools, both public and private school teachers indicated that they have very little influence. This may be

attributed to the fact that, especially in Ghana, because universities are highly placed, pre-tertiary institutions

have a difficulty in soliciting assistance from them. More often, it has been the universities rather getting

institutions at that level involved in their activities. For instance, universities sometimes involve basic and high

schools in their teaching practice and attachment programmes. Similarly, both public and private school

teachers indicated that they can do very little in involving cooperate bodies in school activities. Though

well-established cooperate bodies have vaults for social responsibilities, they decide what to use such resources

for. Individual teachers can therefore hardly do something in this regard.

Summarily, data in Table 3 suggest that private school teachers have a slightly higher efficacy level

than public school teachers. This is confirmed by a cumulative mean of 3.69 for the former and 3.54 for thelatter.

Table 4

T-test Results for Level of Efficacy of Public and Private School Teachers

Group N X SD T df Sig. (2-tailed)

Public 90 106.18 16.019 -1.654 132.000 0.101

Private 44 110.75 12.735 -1.788 104.914

Note.p < 0.05

A t-test for independent samples was used to ascertain the differences in the efficacy levels of public and

private school teachers. The result of the analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the efficacylevels of teachers in public and private schools. This was indicated by a significance value of 0.101, which is

greater than the conventional marker of 0.05 (see Table 4). It was thus concluded that teachers in public and

private basic schools did not differ significantly in efficacy levels.

The relationship between public and private basic school teachers qualification and teacher efficacy level

was investigated using Pearsons product moment correlation coefficient. The data suggest that there is a low,

negative correlation between the two variables (r= -0.066, n= 134, and p< 0.05), high level of qualification

associated with lower levels of efficacy (see Table 5). The significant differences in the private and public

school teachers level of efficacy in various areas of school improvement are demonstrated in Table 6.


13/80


Table 5

Results of Correlation Between Teacher Qualification and Teacher efficacy

Qualification Efficacy

Qualification (Pearsons correlation)Sig. (2-tailed)No.

1

134

-0.0660.445

134

Efficacy (Pearsons correlation)Sig. (2-tailed)

No.

-0.0660.445

134

1

134

Table 6

T-test Results of Public and Private School Teachers Level of Efficacy in Various Areas of School Improvement

Areas Group N X SD T df Sig. (2-tailed)

Decision-makingPublic

Private

90

44

6.80

6.50

1.98

1.90

-93

-94

132

88.7130.355

Ns

Resources PublicPrivate

9044

3.083.95

1.111.18

-4.195-4.112

13281.170

0.000 S

Self-efficacyPublicPrivate

9044

32.4234.66

5.513.64

-2.442-2.799

132120.328

0.016 S

DisciplinePublicPrivate

9044

12.3912.73

2.032.36

-0.860-0.816

13274.977

0.391 Ns

Parental involvementPublicPrivate

9044

10.599.93

3.832.89

1.0071.107

132109.447

0.316 Ns

Community involvementPublic

Private

90

44

10.59

9.93

3.83

2.89

1.007

1.107

132

109.4470.316 Ns

School climatePublic

Private

90

44

30.46

31.82

4.95

4.93

-1.500

-1.501

132

85.7090.136 Ns

Notes.Ns: Not significant; S: Significant; andp< 0.05.

The significant differences in private and public school teachers level of efficacy in various aspects of

school improvement were tested at a p value of 0.05. The data above illustrate that there were significant

differences in the private and public school teachers level of efficacy in influencing the provision of resources

and self efficacy. This was because their significance values (0.000 and 0.016) were less than the conventional

marker (0.05). The means show that the public school teachers level of efficacy in influencing the provision of

resources is higher than the teachers in private schools. Contrarily, the private school teachers seem to have a

higher self-efficacy than teachers in the public schools.

Discussion of Findings

Self-efficacy refers to an individuals belief on his or her capacities to execute behaviors necessary to

produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1977; 1997). It also reflects confidence in the ability to

exert control over ones own motivation, behaviour, and social environment. An individuals own

self-evaluations not only influence his or her goals for which he or she strives, but also affect the amount of

efforts used toward the attainment of goals. Moreover, self-efficacy beliefs are varying depending on the

domain of functioning and surrounding circumstances (Khurshid, Qasmi, & Ashraf, 2012).

The present study was designed to explore the differences between public and private teachers

self-efficacy and its influence on school improvement. The investigation revealed that though public school

teachers have more professional (qualified) teachers, teachers in the private schools have a slightly higher

self-efficacy than teachers in the public schools. This is contrary to the findings of Khurshid et al. (2012) that


14/80


highly educated teachers have higher self-efficacy. However, further analysis showed that there is no

significant difference in the efficacy levels of public and private school teachers. This may be as a result of the

slight differences in the means. Ashton and Webb (1986) found that teachers with a high sense of efficacy have

high expectations for all students, they establish classroom environments that encourage warm interpersonal

relationships and promote strong academic work.

It also came to light that the relationship between teachers professional qualification and their level of

efficacy is negative and low. This suggested that an increase in one variable does not bring about an

appreciation in the other. More so, out of the seven areas of school improvement, there was a significant

difference in their self-efficacy and how they influence resource availability. The latter may be due to the fact

that, in public schools, teachers are supposed to make inputs with regard to the materials to buy with the

capitation grant that government gives to schools before the SPIP (School Performance Improvement Plan) is

drawn. As a result, individual teachers have some influence when it comes to what resources should be

procured for a school.

Conclusions

(1) Private school teachers level of efficacy is slightly higher than that of public school teachers;

(2) There is no significant difference in the level of efficacy of public and private school teachers;

(3) There is a low relationship between teachers professional qualification and their level of efficacy;

(4) Out of the seven areas, there is a significant difference only in the extent to which teachers influenced

resources availability and self-efficacy.

Recommendations

Since teachers beliefs and orientation largely influence their self-efficacy, in the long term, it isimportant that colleges of education that turn out teachers, through seminars encourage pre-service teachers to

develop a positive orientation and belief towards their learners and the teaching profession in general. It is a

common knowledge that most people who enter the teaching profession in Ghana do not do so with a positive

mindset.

In the meantime, circuit supervisors who visit public schools more than any other education officer, as part

of their responsibilities, should encourage teachers to change their beliefs and orientation about the teaching

profession in order to increase their level of efficacy, since it has implications for learners outcomes or

achievements in particular and school improvement in general.

ReferencesAdu, E. O., Tadu, R., & Eze, I. (2012). Teachers self-efficacy as correlates of secondary school students academic achievement

in South Western Nigeria.Discovery, 2(4), 8-16.

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and

consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.

Anderson, R., Green, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers and students thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and

student achievement.Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2),148-165.

Ankomah, Y. A. (2002). The success story of private basic schools in Ghana: The case of three schools in Cape Coast. Journal of

Educational Management, 4, 1-14.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York:

Longman.


15/80


Awoniyi, T. (1979). Principles and practice of education. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

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

Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991). A path analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in

first-year teachers experiences, reactions and plans. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association,Chicago, I.L..

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Elrbaum.

Coladaraci, T. (1992). Teachers sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching.Journalof Experimental Education, 60,323-337.

Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982).High school achievement: Public, private, and catholic schools compared. New

York: Basic Books.

Czerniak, C. M., & Schriver, M. L. (1994). An examination of pre-service science teachers beliefs and behaviors as related to

self-efficacy.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5(3), 77-86.

DaCosta, J. L., & Riordan, G. (1996). Teacher efficacy and the capability to trust. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y..

DeMesquita, P. B., & Drake, J. C. (1994). Educational reform and the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers implementing nongraded

primary school programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 291-302.Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher

self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79(1), 63-75.

Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching among preservice

teachers.Journal of Educational Research,80(2), 81-85.

Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of

instructional.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,

503-511.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.

Guskey, T., & Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions . American Educational Research Journal, 31,

627-643.Hall, J. C., & Vedder, R. K. (2004). The impact of private schools on public school performance: Evidence from Ohio. Journal of

Economics and Politics, 16(1), 2003-2004.

Hallack, J. (1977).Investment in future setting educational practice in developing world. Paris: UNCESCO International Institute

of Educational Planning.

Hipp, K. A. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y..

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Parent involvement: Contribution of teacher efficacy,

school socio-economic status, and other school characteristics.American Educational Research Journal, 24,417-435.

Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Khurshid, F., Qasmi, F. N., & Ashraf, N. (2012). The relationship between teachers self-efficacy and their perceived job

performance.International Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(10), 86-99.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and related- beliefs in mathematicsduring the transition to junior high school.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.

Osei-Fosu, A. (2008). Evaluating the impact of the capitation grant and the school feeding programme on enrollment, attendance

and retention in schools: The case of Weweso circuit.Journal of Science and Technology,31(1), 55.

Reames, E. H., & Spencer, W. A. (1998, April 13-17). Teacher efficacy and commitment: Relationships to middle school

culture. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the 179 American Educational Research Association,San Diego, C.A..

Ross, J. A. (1995). Beliefs that make a difference: The origins and impacts of teacher efficacy. Paper presented to The Annual

Meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Alberta, Canada.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation.Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.

Stoll, L. (1998).International handbook of educational change(pp. 297-321). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.


16/80


Vasquez, A. (2008). Teacher efficacy and students achievement in ninth and tenth grade reading: A multi-level analysis

(Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of South Florida).

Welden, V. (1985). Quality in schools: Developing a model for school improvement. In International handbook of educational

change (768-789). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teacher

and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.

Yisrael, R. (1996). Extending the concept and assessment of teacher efficacy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(6),

1015-1025.


17/80


December 2013, Vol. 3, No. 12, 914-917

Teachers Perspectives on Principals Leadership

in Mexican Schools

Rubi Surema Peniche Cetzal

Autonomous University of Yucatn, Merida, Mexico

This paper aims to examine the perceptions of school principals and teachers about principals leadership

competencies. The study was conducted in schools located in rural communities in southern Mexico. Data

collection involved document analyses and surveys addressed to principals and teachers. Findings of the study

indicate that principals perspectives are different from those of teachers. Principals emphasized on motivation and

leadership competencies, while teachers were more concerned about principals school management competencies.

Some differences were found on teachers perceptions about principals effectiveness in relation to teachers level

of preparation and years of experience.

Keywords:educational administration, perspectives, leadership, principal

Introduction

One of the main challenges for improving Mexican education is to provide education opportunities for all

students, increasing the quality of educational process and the transition between educational levels, as well as

improving the integration of the whole educational system (Presidency of the Republic, 2006). These

challenges are particularly important in the case of Mexican high school education.

High school education has a very important role in national development (Presidency of the Republic,

2006). According to the Mexican National Plan of Development (2006-2012) (Presidency of the Republic,

2006), Mexico needs to improve the quality of this educational level by increasing innovation and providing

more access opportunities for all students. Thus, administrators at this educational level need to innovate and

provide quality education for all students, particularly those who live in remote rural areas. However, this is a

challenge for most principals, since most rural schools in Mexico confront serious educational problems, such

as low academic achievement, lack of preparation of the administrative staff, and limited resources (Blair,

2002). Given the important role of principals in school effectiveness and innovation, more research is needed

on principals competencies. Particularly, more studies are needed on the competencies of principals of schools

located in remote rural areas in Mexico (Fernndez & Gonzlez, 1997; Fernndez, 1998; Cisneros-Cohernour,

2009; Cisneros-Cohernour & Merchant, 2005).

Objective

This study focused on examining the leadership competencies of school principals from the perspectives

of the principals and teachers from two schools, which were located in rural communities in southern Mexico.

Rubi Surema Peniche Cetzal, Ph. D., professor, Faculty of Education, Autonomous University of Yucatn.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D


18/80

TEACHERS PERSPECTIVES ON PRINCIPALS LEADERSHIP IN MEXICAN SCHOOLS 915

Perspective or Theoretical Framework

Lashway (1996) and Deal and Peterson (1994) stated that effective principals need to be well-organized

passionate and creative leaders. Stolp (1994) also stated that school principals have to be both managers andleaders. As leaders, they have to promote a vision expressing the central values of the school. As managers,

they develop structures and policies that help to institutionalize the vision.

Kyrillidou and Blixt (1992) also examined the competencies of effective principals. They stated that all

principals need to develop essential competencies required for effectively accomplishing their roles. Studies on

principals leadership in Mexico found that most principals in elementary and junior high schools start their

positions without having prior preparation in the required competencies for the position (Cuellar, 1989;

Cisneros-Cohernour, Barrera, Polanco, Len, Gonzlez, & Rodrguez, 2004; Cisneros-Cohernour & Merchant,

2005).

Given the limited number of studies examining the competencies of school administrators in Mexico,

Cisneros-Cohernour and Merchant (2005) conducted a study examining the competencies of school principals

for elementary and secondary schools, as well as for higher education administrators in southern Mexico. This

study was part of that research, conducted in rural schools in Yucatan, Mexico.

Methods

This was a descriptive study conducted in two high schools in the southeast of Mexico. Two

questionnaires were used to collect information from the principals and the teachers about principals

leadership competencies. Participants were two principals and 79 teachers37 teachers from school A and 42

teachers from school B. The survey addressed to principals was a self-assessment questionnaire designed by

Cisneros-Cohernour et al. (2004). This survey was developed after a review of the literature on principals

competencies that was later validated with a Delphi of experts from the US and Mexico who worked for the last

10 years on principal preparation in Mexico. Then, the survey was validated with a sample of principals from

elementary, junior high, and high schools in southern Mexico. The final version of the survey has 110 items

measuring the following nine competencies: (1) management; (2) communication; (3) human relations; (4)

academic development; (5) education for a globalized society; (6) legislation; (7) leadership; (8) motivation;

and (9) ethical, social, and professional responsibility.

The second survey addressed to the teachers was an adaptation of the Principal Evaluation Form

Questionnairedeveloped by Kyrillidou and Blixt (1992). This survey includes 30 items focused on measuring

the following competencies of the principal: management, professional development, and personal

characteristics.

Results

Findings of the study indicate that the principal of school A believed that she demonstrated in her work the

competencies related with motivation and leadership. She believed that the competencies she used less were

ethical, social, and professional responsibility and education for a globalized society. She added that she would

like to receive preparation in these two sets of competencies. Although this principal indicated that she

considered all competencies to be important, she believed that motivating school personnel and leading the

school were essential for an effective school leadership.

On the other hand, the principal of school B stated that what he used more in his job were the


19/80

TEACHERS PERSPECTIVES ON PRINCIPALS LEADERSHIP IN MEXICAN SCHOOLS916

competencies related to academic development and ethical, social and professional responsibility. He stated

interest on receiving professional development about the competency related to education for a globalized

society. Although this principal also stated that all competencies were important, but he believed that the

essential competencies for an effective principalship were motivation and ethical, professional, and social

responsibility.

Results from the teachers survey show that school personnel have a different perspective of the

principals competencies. The teachers gave a high assessment to the principals in the following aspects of the

competency of professional development:

(1) Allowing a harmonious relationship among teachers;

(2) Promoting a high morale of the staff;

(3) Being respected by students;

(4) Promoting harmony among school stakeholders;

(5) Making the staff feel trusted by the administration;(6) Attends;

(7) Attending the school every day.

Both principals obtained high assessment from the teachers in relation to certain personal characteristics:

(1) Dressing in an appropriate way;

(2) Demonstrating maturity and emotional stability.

However, the principals obtained lower scores from the teachers in the following aspects of the

management competency:

(1) Providing clear and consistent instructions to the staff;

(2) Reducing non-academic work that affect academic responsibilities

(3) Having resources for schools to support school work available for teachers;

(4) Organizing academic meetings only when they were necessary;

(5) Establishing a working schedule according to the school and staff needs.

Of the two principals, the principal of school A was better evaluated by the staff in relation to her personal

characteristics. However, teachers who had low experience in the job (1-10 years of experience) or high

experience (21-30 years of experience) rated this principal more positively than those with medium experience

in the job (11-20 years of experience). It was also found that teachers who were less prepared (bachelor degree)

provided a higher assessment of the two principals in the competency related to management than those with a

higher degree (graduate degree).

Conclusions

Findings of the study were consistent with the work of Cuellar (1989), Cisneros-Cohernour and Merchant

(2005), and Cisneros-Cohernour et al. (2004) regarding the lack of experience and preparation of the principals

prior to their appointment. It was also found that the principals do not use all the expected competencies for

their job, nor are prepared in all of them. Although both principals considered all the competencies as important,

they were not interested in receiving professional development in all of them.

The teachers evaluated higher the principal of school A than did the teachers of school B. These findings

were consistent with school department officials who indicated that the performance of students in school A

was higher than those of school B. The principal of school A also had a strong positive reputation within the


20/80

TEACHERS PERSPECTIVES ON PRINCIPALS LEADERSHIP IN MEXICAN SCHOOLS 917

community surrounding her school.

In spite of these findings, it is desirable for both principals to receive professional development in all the

competencies, primarily in those related to school management, ethical, social, and professional responsibility,

and education for a globalized world. Future studies will examine deeper differences in teachers and

administrators perceptions and the challenges faced by principals in their real work. This research should use

multiple methods of data collection and examine deeply the complexities of the school context and the reasons

for possible explanations of principal behavior.

Educational Significance

The study is important, because it adds to the literature on school leadership in Mexico, primarily on

effective competencies for principals of rural schools in Latin America. This research is necessary given that

most of the studies have been conducted in other countries and cultures. The inclusion of teachers and

principals perceptions was important, because it allowed examining similarities and differences between these

two stakeholders at the school level. The research also permitted to validate findings of prior studies on school

leadership competencies from abroad (Harris, Day, & Hadfield, 2003; Checkley , 2000), as well as other

studies on principal leadership conducted in Yucatan in other educational levels (Cisneros-Cohernour et al.,

2004; Que, 2005). Results of the study can be used for designing and implementing professional development

for school principals.

References

Blair, M. (2002). Effective school leadership: The multi-ethnic context.British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(2), 179-191.

Cisneros-Cohernour, E. (2009, April). Leadership preparation in Mexico. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Seattle, W.A..

Cisneros-Cohernour, E., & Merchant, B. (2005, March). The Mexican high school principal: The impact of the national and local

culture in the principalship.Journal for School Leadership, 15(2), 215-231.

Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J., Barrera, M., Polanco, M., Len, G., Gonzalez, M., & Rodrguez, G. (2004). Issues of using a

competencies approach for identifying needs of professional development for school administrators in Mexico. Paper

presented at The Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, C.A., USA.

Cuellar, A. (1989). School principal in Mexico: A research agenda. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ERIC document No. ED318113.

Checkley, K. (2000). The contemporary principal: New skills for a new age.Educational Update, 43(3), 1-8.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools . San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. ERIC document No. ED371455.

Fernndez, R. (1998). Obstculos para una eficacia escolar (Barriers to school effectiveness).Mxico: Trillas.

Fernndez, M., & Gonzlez, A. (1997). Desarrollo y situacin actual de los estudios de eficacia escolar (Development and current

situation of school effectiveness studies).Revista Electrnica de Evaluacin Educativa (Journal of Educational Evaluation),

3(1), 45-68.

Harris, A., Day, C., & Hadfield, M. (2003). Teachers perspectives on effective school leadership. Teachers and Teaching: Theory

and Practice, 9(1), 34-59. Retrieved from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/digests/ThuJul291445142004/

Kyrillidou, M., & Blixt, S. (1992). Teachers perceptions of a successful principal. Catalyst, 4, 11-14.

Lashway, L. (1996). Cleringhouse on educational management. Retrieved from http://eric.ouregon.edu./publications/digest

/spanish/digest105.html

Presidency of the Republic. (2006).Mexican national plan of development 2006-2012.Retrieved from http://pnd.presidencia.gob.

mx

Que, G. (2005). Determining needs and interests of professional development among school administrators from high school.

(Unpublished thesis, Faculty of Education, UADY).

Stolp, S. (1994).Leadership for school culture.Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/escolar.htm


21/80


December 2013, Vol. 3, No. 12, 918-923

Classroom Management and Feedback Systems

Yavich Roman

Ariel University, Ariel, Israel

Starichenko Boris, Egorov Artem

Ural State Pedagogical University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

This article devoted to discuss the contemporary techniques of students educational work activation during lectures.

The necessity for a lecturer to apply CRS (classroom response systems) is substantiated. Consider some of the

technical aspects of CRS, possible models of using of RS in the lectures are discussedtraditional and activating

the educational work of students. Three groups of didactic functions of RSmotivation, activating, and

management are assigned. On the basis of this classification and didactic functions of CRS, teachers can build

various options, lectures, including those that enhance the learning activities of students. Such experience is

available from the authors of this article. Highlight issues requiring decisions in connection with the use of CRS in

the educational process.

Keywords: teacher feedback, CRS (classroom response systems), management training, modern lecture, clicker

Introduction

A tool paradigm refers to the usage of a new invention and assimilation of that invention in human lives,

such as the telephone, the personal computer, and every other innovative invention that changed our lives. The

term uses to articulate todays status in education, whereas ICTs (information and communication technologies)

recently revolutionized in its field, as they compel teachers to adapt to the new environment:

(1) Will the new ideas regarding what is needed to be studied chang?

(2) How effective is the new technology in students learning experience?

(3) How students see the effectiveness of the new technologies?

(4) How can we estimate the effectiveness of the new technologies?

(5) How should we run the course and the direct connection with students?

Proper use of ICTs in education can help achieve two major educational goals: individualization of

education and enhanced training of students. The importance of these tasks has long been declared, however,

real opportunities to address them in the traditional educational process (without the use of ICTs) were absent.

According to Starichenko (1998), this is due to teachers difficulty in organizing exchanges of information

among many students, in view of the volume and speed of communications needed for active learning activities

(pp. 106-110). Contemporary uses of ICTs in higher education institutions, including universities digital

libraries, distance learning, websites of academic disciplines, computer control systems, and so on, offer

students effective access to diverse sources of information and allow students to develop an individualized

learning path. Availability and access to such emerging resources is also a condition for enhancing training,

Yavich Roman, Ph.D, Responsible for Support of Computing Systems, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Ariel University.Starichenko Boris, Doctor of Pedagogic, professor, head, Department of Information Educational Technologies, Ural State

Pedagogical University.

Egorov Artem, postgraduate student, Department of Information Educational Technologies, Ural State Pedagogical University.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D


22/80

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK SYSTEMS 919

improving cognitive independence, and a shift of emphasis to individual students work.

Another condition for intensification of educational activity is feedback between students and teachers,

which corresponds to general theory of systems control. In the works of Bespalko (2002), Itelson (1964),

Mashbitz (1987), and Starichenko (1998), which dealt with informational aspects of educational processthe

great didactic importance of feedback between students and teachers is stressed. It is on the basis of information

obtained through feedback channel that a teacher can manage the course of obtaining and adoption of

educational information.

The theory of feedback in educational process is rooted in the works of Thorndike written in 1911. It

touches upon the issues of feedback model construction in educational process, effective means and methods of

its realization, timing of feedback, and feedback learning outcomes (Mory, 2003). In the control theory for a

general case, the requirements for information obtained through feedback channels are defined: completeness,

adequacy, and immediacy. It is very difficult (or even impossible) to provide this requirements at the lecture

without using a teacher of technical means. It is connected with the limited information bandwidth teacher, andas a consequence, impossibility to properly manage the progress of the learning process, which involves

simultaneously many students.

Main problems can be solved if the teacher use RS (classroom response systems). Many papers on

various aspects of CRS have been published (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Fies & Marshall, 2006; Martyn, 2007;

Lasry, 2008; Mayer; 2008). However, the above-mentioned works mostly are dedicated to technological and

organizational aspects of the use of CRSs or describe the authors (private) experience of the application of the

RSs. The questions connected with pedagogical and methodical peculiarities of CRS use are discribed in the

literature much weaker. The discussion of some didactic aspects related to the use of CRS in lectures is the

subject of this article

Formulation of Research Problem

According to Crouch and Mazur (2001) and Fies and Marshall (2006), proper organization of educational

resources and the use of modern means of communication not only improve information delivery and

management of educational process in traditional university forms of educational process, but also create a

fundamentally new form of education involving remote lectures, seminars, forums, consultations, self-testing,

and the use of Wiki-resources (Fies & Marshall, 2006). The use of these resources significantly change the

content and organization of practical classroom courses (laboratory work, seminars, practice sessions, and tests),

and especially, self-learning activities. Management of educational work of the students under any form of

training is carried out on the basis of inspection results.

In educational practice, methods of control are well developed and widely used. The inspection results are

useful to evaluate the quality of teaching. It should be noted that the control, and accordingly, the adoption of

decisions on the management of the learning process are suspended characters (performed in off-line mode):

The inspection is conducted in the course of the training session, and the verification and analysis of its results

in extracurricular time. Apparently, this situation can be considered acceptable during training of a practical

nature. However, management of the learning process should be carried out by the teacher during the lectures

too.

We can identify two main features of the lecture form of training sessions complicating the organization of

feedback:


23/80

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK SYSTEMS920

(1) A significant number of students (50-200 persons), with whom communication should be supported

simultaneously;

(2) The connection must be made directly during presentation materials (in the on-line mode).

Feedback from the audience allows the teacher to identify and assess mastery of the material in the

audience during the presentation, and if necessary, adjust the presentation. Usually, a lecturer sets the

connection through questions addressed to the audience: Is it clear?, Are there any questions?, and so on,

but the verbal poll of the audience, at which the participants should give answers publicly, as a rule, does not

reflect the true understanding and mastery of the material, due to the psychological characteristics of an

individuals conduct in the large group.

In this regard, it seems to be important to explore the use of technical means in lectures conducting, which

could provide operational feedback to the teacher with a large audience in real time. Problem involves many

aspects of technology (What technical means are needed?), substantial (What are the peculiarities of

representation and presentation of the material?), organizational (How to organize the work of the listeners?),and analytical (What should be the content of information in the feedback circuit and what conclusions can the

teacher make in the course of lectures on the basis of this information?)Obviously, this list can be continued.

Any of the above aspects of the problem can be adopted as the primary and by them will be determined by

decision of the remaining aspects. In our research, as a primary was adopted the technology of CRS, based on

ICTs. Such systems are quite actively used in educational institutions in the USA, however, experience in

universities of Russia and Israel are much more modest. This work, performed in the Ural State Pedagogical

University (Yekaterinburg, Russia) and Ariel University of Samaria (Ariel, Israel), is a development of joint

research on various aspects of application of information technologies in educational process at universities

(Yavich, Starichenko, Makhrova, & Davidovich, 2007; Starichenko, Egorov, Davidovich, & Yavich, 2010;

Egorov, Davidovitch, & Yavich, 2012; Starichenko, Egorov, & Yavich, 2013). In particular, it considers the

didactic possibilities of CRS and discusses the conditions for their efficient use.

Technical Aspects of CRS

Electronic surveys, introduced in the mid-20th century, were the forerunners of classroom-based feedback

systems. Electronic surveys were bulky, wired systems, and used mainly for ongoing or final test control. In the

1970s-1980s, many universities had such systems in place, although, their use was not associated with the task

of enhancing students learning.

With the introduction of PCs (personal computers) into higher education, electronic survey systems were

replaced by computerized control systems, which provide teachers with greater pedagogical options relating to

developing tasks, and automating surveys and evaluations. Computer control systems continue to perform

successfully, but they are not suitable for use in lectures with large audiences.

The first wireless device suitable for large classrooms, remotely connected to a PC, appeared in the US in

the 1990s. These devices were called response systems (or distant response systems) and were designed to

process and present survey results to teachers or participants almost instantaneously. These systems were

originally used primarily in various polls and were first implemented in education field in the late 1990s.

Since then, devices that poll and present survey results in real time have not changed fundamentally:

Systems comprise personal wireless devices, a signal receiver, and hardware and software installed on a PC. In

recent years, the entire system is installed in a notebook, which also offers portability.


24/80


Wireless remote control is a device with one or more keys, which participants use to respond to the survey

and send a signal to a receiver connected to a computer. In English literature, such devices were unofficially

coined clickers. Recently, clickers were supplemented with an independent memory that not only sends the

responses to the signal receiver in the form of alphanumeric expressions, but also stores them in memory for

later use.

Reception and transmission use infrared or radio frequency communication. Systems based on infrared

communication require a line of sight between the transmitter and the receiver, and these systems also have

problems registering a large number of simultaneous signals from the transmitters. Therefore, in our view, they

are ill-suited for large lecture halls. In terms of quality, systems based on radio communications should offer

two-way transfers. The receiver is typically connected to a computer using a USB (universal serial bus) port.

The software package usually contains tools for designing surveys and classroom management tools.

Software integrates with Microsoft PowerPoint, which allows teachers to design, aggregate, and display survey

results in the form of interactive presentations in real time.The described array includes a laptop, a receiver, and 30-50 remote devices, and it is very compact and

can be easily deployed in all types of audiences, and does not require significant technological teacher training.

Didactic Models and Functions of CRS

Based on previous studies and our own experience, we distinguish two models of application of CRS

when conducting lectures.

In the first model (traditional), the survey system is considered as a superstructure over the traditional

lecture. The teacher is the central active figure in the classroom, while the students play the role of passive

listeners, and the teacher occasionally involve the students in some activities. Surveys during the lecture take

the form of questions pertaining to the factual parts of the material presented or formal evaluations of the

students level of assimilation (such as Is everything clear? and Should I repeat the material?).

The second model (activating), known as peer instruction, represents a much-needed paradigm shift to

active learning in the classroom. In this case, the students are the central active figures, while the teacher

develops the materials, manages the students discussions, and guides the students in the necessary direction.

Discussions are took place in pairs (student-student) or groups, and are typically limited in time. Questions are

presented twice: after the first presentation, each student answers individually; the question is presented once

again after the debate. A good question can be considered as the question which causes even distribution of

answers in the first round of voting, but it has a concrete answer, which students must find in the process of

discussion.

Apparently, it is possible to combine the models of the application of CRSChoice should be determined

by the didactic expediency and objectives of the lecture, which are set by the teacher. In all cases, CRS

performs the same technological functionIt provides rapid feedback between students and teachers.

The listed models using CRS can be associated with its pedagogical functions. The following

classification is based on the authors experience with CRS at the Ural State Pedagogical Universite in Russia

and Ariel University of Samaria in Israel, and on existing literature. We distinguish between three groups of

functions of CRS: motivation, activation, and management. The first two groups relate to students activities in

the classroom, while management pertains to teachers activities.

(1) Motivationalfunctions include:


25/80

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK SYSTEMS922

(a) Audit attendance;

(b) Provide an interactive and engaging classroom experience;

(c) Anonymous survey;

(d) Check students understanding and assimilation of new materials.

(2) Activating functions include:

(a) Ensure participation;

(b) Enhance learning;

(c) Develop analytical thinking;

(d) Develop skills of scientific discussion.

(3) Management functions include:

(a) Provide rapid feedbacks from audience, regardless of its size;

(b) Simultaneous collection of survey results from all students;

(c) Instantaneous processing and output survey results in a convenient form for subsequent analysis;(d) Opportunity to view and analyze individuals responses and detect clusters of patterns;

(e) Accumulate, store, and subsequently processing individual and group results of the survey.

In the development of the latter, it should be noted that due to the CRS, it is possible accumulation,

storage, and subsequent processing to facilitate the development of extensive databases on the ongoing work of

each student in each class. The use of automated statistical methods allows teachers to review and examine the

progress and predict the results of the learning process for students in groups and individual students. Thus,

CRS give teachers a wide range of opportunities associated with the organization of lectures and management

process transfer-receipt and uptake of educational information.

ConclusionsOn the basis of the above-mentioned classification of didactic functions of CRS, teachers can build various

options, lectures can enhance the learning activities of students. Such experience is available from the authors

of this article. However, the drafting of such lectures creates the need to address a diverse range of issues:

(1) Based on the results of voting (the distribution of responses identified by CRS), how teachers diagnose

the pedagogical situation in the audience and choose the optimal management action?

(2) How to include a variety of continuation of the lecture, depending on the distribution of votes in the

answers to check question?

(3) What type of and how many questions for the audience should be considered as pedagogically justified?

(4) How to estimate the lecture activities of the students and how it may affect the final evaluation of study

of academic subject?

(5) How to make a statistical analysis of the current results and build a forecast at the end of the training?

Our research is focused on the solution of the listed problems. Through solution, these issues can be

expected the fundamental change of the methodology of lectures, as they are adapted to the requirements of

modern education. This determines the relevance of our study.

References

Bespalko, V. P. (2002).Education and training with the participation of computers (pedagogy of the third Millennium)(p. 352).

Moskow: MPSI.


26/80


Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics,69(9),

970-977.

Egorov, A. N., Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. P. (2012). Features of the use of classroom feedback system at the lectures in

Russia and Israel. Pedagogical Education in Russia,2, 160-165.

Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 15(1), 101-109.

Itelson, L. B. (1964).Mathematical and cybernetic methods in pedagogy(p. 248). Moskow: Education.

Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46, 242-244.

Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 2, 71-74.

Mashbitz, E. I. (1987). Psychological bases of learning activity management(p. 179). Kiev: Higher School.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods.Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 34(1), 1-7.

Mory, E. H. (2003). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications

and technology(2nd ed., pp. 745-783). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Starichenko, B. E. (1998). Computer technology in matters of optimization of educational systems (p. 208). Yekaterinburg:

UrGPU.

Starichenko, B. E., Egorov A. N., Davidovich, N., & Yavich, R. P. (2010). Auditorium interrogation systems in a teachers lecture

work/Innovation techniques in educational process of higher school (Part 1, pp. 77-82). Materials of The VII International

Scientific Conference/USPU, Yekaterinburg.

Starichenko, B. E., Egorov, A. N., & Yavich, R. P. (2013). Feautures of application of classroom response system at the lectures

in Russia and Israel.International Journal of Higher Education, 2(3), 23.

Yavich, R. P., & Gerkerova, A. (2013). Teaching methods and assessment. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(7),

260-262.

Yavich, R. P., Starichenko, B. E., Makhrova, L. V., & Davidovich, N. (2007). Management training activities of students on the

basis of networked information technology.Education and Science, 6, 3-15.


27/80


December 2013, Vol. 3, No. 12, 924-932

Reforming Educational Measurement for National Security:

The Role of Item Response Theory in Test Fairness

John Nwanibeze Odili

Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria

Systematic error variables are those in which sub-population of test-takers do not have an equal standing in

achievement testing, such as English language. When it is not managed in achievement testing, it creates test

unfairness, which could be a source of imbalance in education, and hence, a threat to national security. This paper

demonstrated how IRT (Item Response Theory) of measurement can manage systematic error variables, such as

English language in test items, in order to enhance test fairness in a heterogeneous society, like Nigeria. The paper

recommended that in achievement testing, test items should be couched in positive phrase, items should be phrased

in few non-technical words as much as possible, as well as the use of contrasting terms of quantity in stems of

multiple-choice test items in order to ensure test fairness.

Keywords: systematic error variables, test fairness, IRT (Item Response Theory) of measurement, national security

Introduction

Security is freedom from fear, danger, or risk. Because it is essential for national development, nations of

the world invest billions of dollars on security budgets every year. Such budgets are used for procurement of

arms and ammunitions, employment, and maintenance of security personnel. In spite of such huge financial

investment on security, people all over the world still move with fear as a result of security risk posed by

terrorism, arm conflict, and armed robbery and rape. Education can foster national security by adopting

procedures in measurement of learning outcomes that can yield test fairness, and thus, minimize the problem of

educational imbalance which fosters insecurity. Test unfairness is a psychometric condition, in which a test

item presents differential difficulty to testees of the same subject matter ability, simply because they are from

different sub-population of test-takers. This happens when a test item measures the ability that is alien to the

subject matter, for example, English language and other cultural elements, in which standing in these are not

evenly distributed within test-taking population. Test unfairness could be a source of test invalidity, and

increases imprecision in understanding students academic achievement. At a national level, such as Nigeria

with heterogeneous population, test unfairness could foster educational imbalance and gender inequality. These

could be a source of threat to national security.

Instances of educational imbalance and gender inequality are evident and they have continued to be

sources of challenge to the national security in Nigeria. For instance, Jubril (n.d.), as far back as in 1975,

described educational imbalance in Nigeria as a time bomb. In his opinion, educational imbalance will lead to

outright political domination and oppression by those who can control events through their vantage

John Nwanibeze Odili, Ph.D., associate professor, Department of Guidance and Counselling, Delta State University.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D


28/80

REFORMING EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY 925

position, which is time-honored. The deprived (hewers of wood and drawers of water) will resort to survival

tactics which will attract appropriate anticipatory counter tactics. Under this condition, national exercises,

like census and elections cannot be conducted without drawing hostility, bitter disputes and clashes which may

be physical. The problems of Boko Haram in northern part of Nigeria and unrest in the Niger Delta of Nigeria

are instances of national insecurity, which are partly as a result of educational imbalance observed by Jubril

more than 30 years ago.

In many countries of the world, there have been agitations for gender equality in politics, government, and

science and technology. These led to the inclusion of gender equality as one of the Millennium Development

Goals in the 21st Century by United Nations Organisation. The desire to achiev

us-china education review 2013(12b)

Documents