Validation of Principal Efficacy Survey– Rationale for Adding New Questions to the
ABSTRACT
In the process of validating principal self-efficacy connected to the corroborated Megan Tschannen-Moran Survey, important gaps in the questionnaire exist. The academic work presented here provides the essential and missing questions needing asked by principals in assessing the efficacy of his/her performance as an administrator, innovator, and advocate for quality educational practices in the 21st century. These suggested questions look at principal management abilities, consider the diversity of the demographics of public school learners and their families, professional development necessary for instructors' ability for enhancing teaching, and the critical acknowledgement educational technology.
Key Words: principal, self-efficacy, survey, education, diversity
Validation of Principal Efficacy Survey– Rationale for Adding New Questions to the
Introduction
Ongoing analysis and research on principal efficacy provides a viable and realistic assessment of these institutional leaders ability to be effective (Rice, 2010).
Methodology
The methodology used in the design of these proposed questions for inclusion in the principal self-efficacy questionnaire was derived from identified gaps in the Megan Tschannen -Moran self-efficacy survey. The statistics certifying the reliability of the proposed questions were completed prior to the meta-file research (I will be adding in the reliability information after I have completed the validity) of supporting literature validating the proposed research question for inclusion in the principal self-efficacy questionnaire.
In your current role as principal, to what extent can you effectively accomplish organizational tasks?
The question that Tschannen-Moran’s survey poses on principals’ ability to “handle the time demands of the job” shows the need for further inclusion of the question about the principal's involvement in daily tasks and how effectively he/she perceives the use of his/her time doing so. Time spent on organizational management duties such as hiring and managing staff, managing budgets, dealing with concerns from staff, and maintaining a safe school environment correlates with greater gains in student test performance (Karsh & Templin, 2013; Pfohl, 2012, p. 36; Logie, Trawley & Law, 2011, p. 1561; Horng, Klasik & Loeb, 2009; Marx, 2006; Schachter, 2005, p. 18; Farazmand, 2002).
Findings of research completed by Wang and Bird (2011) authenticated the positive significance of teachers responding to leadership through trust and engagement by the principal (p. 125). According to Ostrem and Wheeler (2006), "principal authenticity is positively and significantly related to teacher levels of trust and engagement is consistent with previous studies in business” (as cited by Wang & Bird, 2011, p. 125). Bird et al (2009) suggest that the same findings can be connected in education (as cited by Wang & Bird, 2001, p. 125).
Therefore, Wang and Bird (2011) view the reasonableness of positive teacher response to strong leadership of the principal, which is based on four authentic leadership characteristics including balanced processing, strong self-awareness, relational transparency, and moral integrity. Therefore, asking this question fills the gap for principals' self-examination of their efficacy when "faced with many varied and complex situations on a daily basis” (p. 125).
The principal asking him/her this question then looks at his/her ability of coming from a place of confidence, a percentage of courage, and consistency in the required areas of performance. As importantly, the principal managing these three self-efficacy factors engenders the type of leadership qualities his/her staff desire as an effective team leader. "This self-efficacy engenders trust amongst faculty and sets examples for teachers to follow as they perform their responsibilities" (Wang & Bird, 2011, p. 125). When teachers clearly know both what is and is not acceptable based on parameters exhibited and outlined by the leadership of proactive principals they dispatch their responsibilities with confidence (Wang & Bird, 2011). Filling an existing rift in the questionnaire, the question asking participating principals how effectively they accomplish organizational tasks clearly proves a source of invaluable feedback.
In your current role as principal, to what extent can you navigate between various managerial responsibilities?
Inclusion of the question asking principals to rate their own leadership qualities by gauging his/her ability to navigate between the job's various managerial responsibilities means that principals require management skills. The focus on management begins with the self. Mastery of emotions connects to self-awareness as well as self-management forming the framework for navigating between various managerial responsibilities. Therefore, inclusion of this question in the principal efficacy questionnaire asks whether self-awareness includes understanding of his/her personal emotional states and where they are derived. Having this cognitive approach to self-awareness of emotional management also enables understanding the effect he/she has on others. Consequently, with an understanding of the emotional dynamics of self-awareness, the principal's leadership abilities move into competencies including self-management, team leadership, and social awareness. Thus, having the ability to direct personal emotions frames how well a principal provides quality and meaningful navigation among the multiple varieties of his/her managerial responsibilities (Mersino, 2007, p. 32).
Mersino (2007) explains the importance of being "present to win" as a key component of self-awareness. "Present, as in, at the moment. Self-awareness is about the ‘here’ and the ‘now’. With self-awareness, we are striving to get in touch with exactly what we are feeling right now. It is about knowing ourselves in the present moment (p. 32). This point of self-awareness only looks at events from yesterday in relation to the effect they have on the present and the way they influence emotions today. Other than that, using this understanding of self awareness, the past stays in the past. This understanding of self-awareness is also used for focusing on feelings existing in the present. Controlling personal emotions ensures emotions do not control the person while giving truth and power which spur self-management and behavior. Developing and using techniques regulating personal emotions includes identifying and preventing emotional triggers that lead to an emotional breakdown (Mersino, 2007).
Leadership managerial skills remain basic no matter the type of job description. Inclusion of this question for self-efficacy based upon self-awareness means honest scrutiny of the depth of emotional understanding and control as an individual. This ability develops self-confidence that projects onto others in a team within educational settings. This core component of self-management engenders self-control. Principals who seek to develop these vital self-control abilities have the necessary tools for developing social awareness needed for empathetic approaches to management. Empathy is necessary for guiding and facilitating work in a team setting. Facilitating teamwork in the educational setting uses self-management for organizational awareness while seeing others clearly within emotional boundaries. Within this scope, relationship management enables one to focus on the stakeholders, advocate for staff development, and manage transparency. Finally, as a team leader, self-management proves invaluable in communication skills, resolving conflicts, and inspiring both individual and group work (McIntosh, Lueke, & Davis, 2008). Again, the validity of inclusion of the self-efficacy question that gauges the ability of navigating between various managerial responsibilities and relationships begins with understanding the importance of self-management. It fills a critical gap in the existing self-efficacy questionnaire.
In your current role as principal, to what extent can you build relational trust with low-income families?
Including this question about building relational trust with low-income families in conjunction with the education of their children speaks for itself. Socio-economic characteristics of student and their families directly affect both the social and instructional aspects of learners (Gorski, 2013; Shockey, 2011; Miller-Adams, 2008; Iverson & Armstrong, 2006). Once children begin public education, the influence of parents becomes secondary to the influence of educational setting. Therefore, effectively building relational trust with all members of low-income families reinforces attaining academic outcomes. This enables family learners to have the tools necessary for acquiring better paying jobs and consequently enabling a better economic quality of life.
Ironically, according to Russakoff's "Los Angeles Times" article during the 1960s the federal government mandated schools serve poor children through parental involvement in their education. Additionally, in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, a little-noticed section also directs schools to engage low-income parents as learning partners with their children in other ways than merely volunteering as chaperones on school field trips or in the classroom. This directive outlines the two-way characteristic of schools reaching out to parents – not waiting for those parents to call the schools. Parents who speak English as a second language or who do not speak English, parents who never earned high school diplomas or their G.E.D.s, and those parents holding down two or even three jobs are the NCLB directives (2009).
Gaining trust with low-income families looks to close exclusionary practices in the school setting. Exacerbating this psychological characteristic is that low-income families retain a consciousness without a voice – in the educational environment as well as in society. These two dynamics reflects the low-income families' lack of power for making decisions affecting their lives. Income equality historically proves that students from low-income families leave school educationally ill equipped with few qualifications having carried the burden of industrial change. Consequently, the children of low-income parents continue facing probable unemployment with one training program after another too often ineffectually sustaining their lot (Cartmel, 2000 as cited by Tett, 2006).
This typically inter-generational experience again historically proves that children of low-income families have twice the likelihood of facing unemployment in comparison to those students coming from families with no unemployment (Cartmel, 2000 as cited by Tett, 2006). Macdonald (1997) corrects contentions by certain commentators accusing low-income students as avoiding employment as untrue. "Research has shown, however, that they see the work as very important because it is ‘a key source of self-respect, the principal definer of personal identity and a social duty” (p. 195 as cited by Tett, 2006, p. 49).
Brynner (2001) explains there is confusion why the link between work and education is not clear to this group of learners (or perhaps their parents) and a low value is often placed on education, with priority being given to get a ‘proper job’. In general, young adults (11th and 12th grade students) may typically "display apathy towards politics and the political system" and may result from "lack of political culture and understanding that is derived from their being excluded from any contact with politics through the school curriculum until very recently" (as cited by Tett, 2006, p. 49).
Furthermore, according to Brynner (2001) low-income students with such attitudes are compounded with the inadequacy of social support that young people receive in making transitions from school to work and from the parental home to independence. This leads to difficulties in engaging with young people in ways that are responsive to their needs (as cited by Tett, 2006).
Principals have the power of overriding the prevalent debates focusing on the deficiencies of low-income students and the wrongful attributions assigned to them as lacking in responsible behavior rather than the fact of their marginalized status or the effect of the "structural inequalities on their lives" as explained by Tett (2006, p. 49: Smith, 2006).
Tett (2006) finds:
Little value is placed on their (low income students) views aspirations and analyses of their situations, with the result that young people rightly view society as treating them unjustly as they continue to have messages about their lack of worth reinforced. Without, a commitment to engagement and participation of marginalized young people they will be perceived only as a problem with their voices excluded from the debate. (p. 50) [Sic]
Consequently, the inclusion of this important question for principals fills the identified gap in self-assessment of their focus to create meaningful relationships with low-income families. Principals’ desiring to develop effective relationships with low income families focuses on reducing individual and collective vulnerability for ongoing marginalization from society where they typically have no voice, where they exist as "passive consumers”, can reduce their exclusion from society as explained by Tett (2006, p. 50).
Tett (2006) further clarifies:
Educators are often unaware of how they come across to low-income families. Low-income and E minority parents often perceive teachers and principals as demanding a great deal from them and offering little in return. Working with low-income parents has proven to me that the best ways for schools to encourage parents to be involved with schooling is for schools to be involved with helping families, not just helping students. (p. 50)
The time principals devote in their professional leadership focused on the diversity of distinct needs of different student populations reveals the extent of their effectiveness as a proactive educational administrator. In this role, the relationships nurtured with all demographics of the student body including low-income families only requires a sincere expression of their value as people, as part of society, and in the process of educating their children. Self-efficacy as principal on this principle makes the inclusion of this question a vital part of personal development principals continue to engage in his/her career.
Teicher (2007) looks at the tradition of low-income families to view schools to be asking for more than what they provide in the form of hidden fees, bake sale contributions, or the fund-raising activities where the parents find themselves in awkward circumstances asking co-workers, neighbors, and even strangers for donations. These results in numerous low-income parents having the perception that tax from local, state, and federal governments already provide enough financial support to public schools. They therefore believe that school asking for more money from families is out of line (p. 13).
Identifying and seizing opportunities for lowering barriers that low-income students face makes the most sense, especially in light of the fact those school districts granted funds of more than $500,000 a year supporting low-income children must use one percent of those monies engaging their parents in meaningful relationships with the schools their children attend. That one percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, is nearly $225 million nationally (Russakoff, 2009).
In his article for the "Los Angeles Times" about educational leaders building relationships with low-income families, Russakoff also found experts advising the offering of free meals before major school events including sports contests, musicals, and plays. This provides a good faith measure of offering something for something while providing a meal to families too often scrambling to feed their children (2009).
Principals asking themselves whether he/she has made an effort for building effective relationships with low-income families might include how much they look to create community-based involvement. Combining efforts with churches located in school districts and community service organizations often proves cost worthy and broadens the outreach efforts into the neighborhood around the school. The point is for principals to ask if he/she exhibits a genuine attitude of caring. In doing so, as Tett (2006) points out, “consider the message that educators would send if they organized themselves to clean up the school yard or were visible in an effort like Habitat for Humanity that was building homes in the neighborhood served by their school” (p. 50).
According to Jeynes (2007, 2010), where schools exist in high-crime neighborhoods, educators have the opportunity with the leadership of principals for collaboration with community leaders. Many police departments work with educators and other community leaders including churches, Boys Club, YMCA, and Boy and Girl Scouts for involving parents and students alike in successfully showing low-income parents their voice, aids in reducing crime, contributing to their community, and promoting the role model they serve for their children (as cited by Tett, 2006, p. 50).
Again, according to Jeynes (2007, 2010), low-income parents have more involvement with their children than some educators realize. This knowledge derives from increased research on the subject indicating although parents of low-economic backgrounds "may trail other parents in the more overt manifestations of engagement" they nonetheless hold their own in more subtle areas. Meta-research analysis in recent studies provides how parental involvement aligns with them having strong communication bonds and high expectations for their children in school and the world after graduation proving more important than some of the more transparent indicators among "more involved" parents (as cited by Tett, 2006, p. 50).
Keeping in mind the purpose of NCLB as yet another accountability measure for quality education in public schools across America, there exists little monitoring of how tens of thousands of public schools use parent-involvement money and even less on outcomes when the money does get used (2009). This speaks volumes as to why this proposed question as an addition to principals' self-efficacy gauging remains a critical inclusion.
In your current role as principal, to what extent can you engage and connect parents to school and their classroom teachers?
Adding this question that asks principals to gauge their administrative role in engaging and connecting parents to the school and classroom teachers marks another means of filling an identified gap in the principal’s evaluation of professional characteristics. Traditionally, schools have reached out to mothers for engagement in their children’s education. This was connected to the institution and to the classroom. Pragmatically, in the 21st century there are more single parents, including fathers, than ever before. Keeping this in mind, the proactive principal will facilitate and encourage the understanding that schools provide an opportunity for creating a community environment that involves the participation of parents (Warren & Mapp, 2011).
Russakoff's article also lists the numerous ideas across the nation for building hard-won relationships with low-income families. What educators need is the hard evidence of what types of interactions make the kind of difference needed to achieve this goal. They need to offer strategies where parents are involved in learning opportunities and strategies for discussing books their children read in class even if the parents have not read the book. Weekend and early morning workshops for parents worked in New York's Department of Education Office project. They succeeded in providing advocacy for families working together in all subjects toward each student’s academic goals with parent participation (2009).
Investigating the subject on engaging parents in their children’s education, Russakoff found out that experts’ advice is important. It is best suit rather than taking on what everyone in education understands about the benefits of parental involvement regardless of income level. Everyone in education tends to look at tackling why the existing approaches fail to win parental interaction for so many schools across the nation (Cetron & Davies, 2010, p. 38).
Including a question of this caliber looks at the manner they facilitate the process of engaging with parents in school. In doing so, the principal asks him/herself whether there is merit in the way they connect parents with teachers. For instance, the principals need often tell the parents when their children do well in class because the parents are directly involved with homework. This type of connection with parents engenders establishing a significant relationship especially when teachers get the prompt from the principal to in turn ask parents what they feel the teacher has succeeded in accomplishing with their child. This fosters a two-way relationship with teacher and parent working together – suggesting to one another what the other can do or continue doing to reach those academic goals set for the learner (Jeynes, 2011).
Jeynes (2011) also reports accrued evidence of espousing the positive results of parental involvement with their children’s schools and teachers. This involvement remains one of the best ways to assure their children graduate from public school. "Ultimately, schools must acknowledge that they cannot ensure a child's success in school on their own. But, they can work with parents and communities to help students achieve success (p. 38)."
The parent-teacher relationship helps students in improving math and reading skills. Getting to know the families of students, sending home parent-child engaging learning activities, and routinely communicating with parents with the aim of advising and sharing the needs and accomplishments of the student proves a successful three-pronged outreach for teachers. Parents who are not in a position to attend teacher/parent group meetings at school report that they nonetheless appreciate the phone or email communication with the teacher about their child (Teicher, 2007).
At the same time, Teicher (2007) explains that keeping parents engaged remains an ongoing challenge. This exacerbates the desirability of the principal's self-efficacy issue on the subject. Getting parents' participation in broader decision-making issues connected to the teacher/student work remains an ongoing challenge. The Center for Education statistics reports an increase in national parent involvement. It rose from 75 to 85 percent between 1993 and 2003 without any clear reason behind the increase. The most difficult challenge remains getting the participation of high school parents (p. 13). The ongoing challenge here may require more of thinking outside the box. Nonetheless, this type of question needs to be included in the assessment because it tasks the right individual as a leader in education.
In your current role as principal, to what extent can you guide staff to enhance instruction?
Thomlinson’s and Mctighe’s (2006) approach to answering this self-assessment principal question is connected to how the principal generates opportunities for training teaching staff. These opportunities have to be geared at enhancing instruction and to consider the varieties of ways teachers assist learners. The role of the principal in this should include working with teachers for differentiating instruction as they identify what works for both individual students and student groups. Further suggestions looked to curriculum development as the signifier for principals facilitating the training of their teachers for better instruction (p. 6).
Quality curriculum development serves as a guidepost for directing quality instruction. Where principals find the caliber of instruction lacking in the teaching staff the focus will be on getting those instructors the training to match the curriculum for delivering the excellence in teaching. Principals keeping abreast of the research know too often that without his/her focus on this type of quality of instruction delivery; too many teachers will fail to translate it into practice. Principals' self-assessment on this issue as educational architect looks at his/her role providing the model of what a responsive classroom aligned to a quality curriculum looks and runs like (Tomlinson & Mctighe, 2006).
The lack of individual teacher experience connected to such a concept continues in the public school system. It is only through the direct intervention of the informed principal that the situation has any chance for change by identifying effective instructional attitudes and necessary skills for proactive, responsive instruction and differentiation of the instruction when needed (Tomlinson & Mctighe,, 2006). In addition, principal self-efficacy assessment directed at this question of staff training earmarks the quality, the attitude, and initiates curriculum design for the 21st century classroom. Combining curriculum development with quality and meaningful assessment of instructors and learners alike, frames an effective way for accomplishing the desired instructional enhancement.
Tomlinson and Mctighe (2006) suggest effective teaching requires focused, comprehensive, and particular understanding by the instructor about the curriculum design, assessment, and teaching as a shared process among educators and students alike. "In the instructional planning of teachers guided by backward design and differentiation, then, we should expect to see systematic attention to content goals they plan to teach and to the students who will learn them" with "clarity of goal and flexibility in arriving at the goal” (p. 144).
Thomlinson and Strickland (2005) approach differentiated instruction connections to curriculum design combined with instructional methods focused on academically diverse learners. This makes the classroom become a place for honoring the instructional needs of each student, including maximizing learning capacities. The principal leadership approach to teaching in the 21st century takes the view that instructors focus effectively efforts of teaching on two learning environments, including student characteristics as individual and collective learners and the underpinnings of the meaning of the curriculum (p. 6).
Further, when the principal's self-assessment using this proposed question for measuring the efficacy of his/her involvement in the instructors' needs for delivering the best teaching practices connected with the curriculum, the focus in answering this looks at what types of individual intelligences comprise the student population in any classroom setting. Instructional flexibility that includes visual/spatial, audio, interpersonal group work, working alone, using linguistic methodologies in reading/vocabulary, logic/mathematical, tactile, and the combination of these, assures meeting the best learning abilities of each student. This means the delivery of effective instruction connected to a meaningful curriculum (Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005).
Regarding instructional differentiation of teaching, Tomlinson and Strickland (2005) provide elements for teachers that include process, content, affect, products, and readiness (Borba, 2009; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005). Principals asking the self-efficacy question whether his/her teaching staff provides student access to the ideas behind the subject they learn means the principal understands that students need such tools for taking ownership of his or her personal learning. When students understand this, the empowerment they gain leads to building their own skills about the subject and/or topic as part of the process. Students exhibiting the newfound comprehension on the different subjects taught link their thoughts with their own feelings as part of enhancing the learning process. “Differentiation in response to student readiness does not suggest we abandon the curriculum, but rather that we adapt our teaching in ways that make the curriculum appropriately challenging for a range of learners” (p. 6). This is part of the framework for direction and facilitation of effective principals as the proposed question on self-efficacy intends.
In your current role as principal, to what extent do you believe that your principal training master’s program prepared you to be an effective principal?
The learning outcomes provide fresh attitudes other than before learning and changes the behavioural models of the learners pedestal on the emotional attitude of the learner along with the surrounding social experience that he interacts regularly where the conventional framework of teaching (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 1). Principals assessing their own efficacy are asked to examine the degree to which their masters training program prepares them to be effective principals (Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005). Including this question about principal effectiveness resulting from their training in the masters program implies being able to develop a wholesome individual with both management and leadership skills. It also implies evaluating the amount of financial need for putting together administrative costs, technological equipment, and programming
In your current role as principal, to what extent can you lead your teachers in utilizing and promoting technology to enhance student learning?
Principals assessing their own efficacy are asked to examine the degree to which they lead and direct their staff in using technology in classroom to enhance instruction. While new generations of teachers prove eager to embrace the new instructional technologies in the 21st century, without the principal's direct advocacy and work to ensure this happens, the aim falls short.
In order to encourage and support this focus on technology, the extent to which the individual principal's include educational technology learning tools should be evaluated. Every day, educational technology standards become an integral part of students' education. Principals lacking in first-hand instruction in educational technology logistically fall short as examples for their teaching staff and this remains the question they need ask themselves. Without the support and direction of knowledgeable principals leading this contemporary instructional methodology, teachers may find themselves falling short effectively incorporating such practices in the classroom curriculum. Teachers bringing technology into the classrooms as instructional tools understand it as another method for differentiating his/her instruction (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 1).
Whether the principal's masters program included instruction of technological learning tools or not, the fact remains the 21st century is the age of technology. Education today means having an understanding of this fact by all stakeholders at all levels. Principals must embrace technology, advocate its use in their schools and in each classroom, imparting how it provides an exciting instructional and learning tool with specific strategies focused on assisting students as lifelong learners in a new world demanding the use of technology. Principals' self-efficacy connected to the question of educational technology must increase instructors' knowledge and understanding of effective classroom strategies supporting and enhancing the role of this amazing instructional and learning tool (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007; Hasan & Ali, 2006).
Technology's role in educational instruction and learning does not remain in the classroom. Data collection, analysis, and presentation of the data according to Wolf (2006) means having the proper online technology to support the process of knowing how to use the data as a cost and time effective tool. The principal creates a system gathering learning elements and indicators on each student in the school, setting a framework of academic goal benchmarks for validity and reliability. In turn, providing the teachers with this information gives both timely summative and formative feedback on each student, allowing important assessment for deciding differentiation of the instruction when identifying individual needs.
Again, in the process of principal self-efficacy assessment connected to the 21st century educational technology for quality instruction, the individual must ascertain where he/she stands in preparedness in this area of administrative facilitation. The systematic establishment of technology-rich learning environments in the 21st century, according to Kiker (2007), means principals as educational strategists approach this as “reform-minded” educators. These systems already exist in more proactive states across the nation. Where principals fall short in their self-efficacy evaluations either in graduate school or currently with educational technology savvy, it is up to the individual principal to identify and correct this shortfall.
Douglas (2009) suggests educational leaders create a technological vision with five activities. This means identifying the educational technology goals, analyzing where gaps exist between the status quo and the desired goal, and investigating and identifying the causes of these gaps. Selecting solutions to close these identified gaps and effectively evaluating resolution choices enables principals to integrate educational technology in his/her school.
O’Hanlan (2009) advises different government funding assures opportunities for initiating and improving school district technology. Title monies for school districts with 40 percent low-income student populations due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus package provides for needed monies directed toward educational technology start-ups and improvements to existing technology systems in school districts.
Including this question about principal readiness connected with educational technology as part of the self-efficacy assessment means evaluating the amount of financial need for putting together administrative costs, technological equipment, and programming (Mok, 2011). Principals must focus on staff professional development, improving student achievement, and engaging both the parent and community when asking themselves to what extent, they can facilitate and promote the use of technology by their education team.
Proactive strategies toward this end mean implementing the vision of an educationally technological application that enhances administrative, training, and educational processing opportunities. Effective technological equipment and programming persuades and provides instructional and learning flexibility by allowing every student access to this type of system (O’Hanlan, 2009).
Principal self-efficacy focused on educational technology looks at how well they maintain core values of the educational process through advancing technologically rich learning environments. This additional question filling the existing gap in the principal self-efficacy connection to educational technology requires he/she understands the importance of maintaining core values when using this methodology of instruction and learning. According to Levy (2007), without the correct facilitation and leadership to incorporate educational technology principals provide the teaching staff, core values connected to curriculum and instruction may easily be overlooked or underestimated.
Continued sharing of the achieved successes of educational technology becomes an inherent part of the efficacy of principals in the 21st century as part of the larger public school educational institution. Making specific educational technology efforts of administrators, school boards, and community groups transparent assures these stakeholders share the responsibility with principals when directing the program. Sharing successes of student achievements look at engaging all stakeholders, identifying individual and classroom achievements as a way for principals engaging a connection to this methodology of instruction and learning (Costen, 2009).
Much of the focus of integrating this principal self-efficacy question for the identified gap concentrates on the point that an educational technology is already here. Everyone needs to get on board and use it and do remarkable instruction and learning from it. The role of the principal when taken from the view of Holbeche (2006) looks at the issue as part of the 21st century's incumbent changes resulting from the shrinking global community.
In Holbeche's (2006) opinion, the importance of staying abreast of the technological demands spurring all global activities applies to educational organizations, as well. When resistance to organizational change exists at the principal level concerned with educational technology, no win situation is created. Principals' self-efficacy grows in his/her role of enacting educational technology changes within the educational organization by consulting, informing, and involving all stakeholders in the process. Promoting input and enacting influence by forming trusting relationships through perpetual communication underscores the efficacy of the principal in achieving this (Holbeche, 2006).
In your current role as principal, to what extent can you lead your staff in professional development?
Head teachers need to provide special attention to train other leaders as well as the teaching staff because skilled management team can manage the schools and co-workers more effectively. If managers and staff of schools are less skilled, this can become a serious challenge for the school in a competitive world. Skills mismatches between the skills available and skills required constrain schools from being proficient to meet market demands, scopes or goals (Karsh & Templin, 2013; Pfohl, 2012, p. 36; Logie, Trawley & Law, 2011, p. 1561; Horng, Klasik & Loeb, 2009; Marx, 2006; Schachter, 2005, p. 18; Farazmand, 2002).
There are diverse opinions to defining the terminology ‘’skills development’’, DFID (4) clarified that it is a continuous process to integrating technical and vocational learning as a supply-led scheme that deliver enhanced productivity as an unavoidable learning outcome regardless to the time space and or person who provided it. The attainment of skills specifies the needs of the workplace, whether it is generic or technically, the modification of emphasis shifts the accord between training scheme as well as labour market by granting wider variety of learning environment, quite flexible learning detail required by the individual with obligation of the stakeholders. It includes a broader area including competence of capabilities, learners’ age group, and features of the industry where the employees intend to serve, minimum qualification to attain in the training integrating with the concurrent business needs as well as future prospect.
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction of this academic paper, teacher efficacy is defined as one’s belief and working ability to make a difference or positively affect the learning outcomes of students. However, the exhibited efficacy of the principal in charge of the educational facility carrying out his/her job affects the continuity of teachers achieving this goal. Identifying the gaps in the principal self-efficacy questionnaire, constructing the questions presented for inclusion in this process, and identifying existing literature validating the legitimacy of including these questions underpins the discourse presented.
The methodology design of these proposed questions for inclusion in a principal self-efficacy questionnaire was derived from identified gaps in the Megan Tschannen-Moran principal self-efficacy survey. Completion of the statistics certifying the reliability of the proposed questions occurred prior to the meta-file research of the supporting literature, validating the proposed research questions for inclusion in the principal self-efficacy questionnaire.
Clearly, effective curriculum, instruction, differentiation of instruction, engaging the diversity of demographics of students and their families, as well as advocating educational technology as discussed here means having a principal who continually assesses his/her efficacy as a leader. Self-assessment at all levels of educational processes remains the truest measure for enabling all stakeholders to remain effective in teamwork. The global community starts with the individual, and it is especially important that these suggested principal self-efficacy questions become a part of the self-assessment process of principals as effective educational leaders.
References
Borba, M. F. (2009). What's Teaching Got to Do with It? Leadership, 38(5).
Cetron, M. J., & Davies, O. (2010). Trends Shaping Tomorrow's World Forces in the Natural and Institutional Environments. The Futurist, 44.
Costen, W. M. (2009). The Value of Staying Connected with Technology: an Analysis Exploring the Impact of Using a Course Management System on Student Learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports, and Tourism Education. 8; 2: 47+. OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved
Douglas, I. (2009). An Object and Performance Framework for Implementation of Web-based Knowledge Sharing Technology. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 4(1), 57+.
Farazmand, A. (Ed.). (2002). Modern Organizations: Theory and Practice (2nd Ed.). Westport, T: Praeger.
Gorski, P. C. (2013). Building a Pedagogy of Engagement for Students in Poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 48.
Harris, T. E. (2002). Applied Organizational Communication: Principles and Pragmatics for Future Practice (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hasan, B., & Ali, J. (2006). The Impact of General and System-Specific Self-Efficacy on Computer Training Learning and Reactions. Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, 9(1), 17+.
Holbeche, L. (2006). Understanding Change: Theory, Implementation, and Success. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Iversen, R. R., & Armstrong, A. L. (2006). Jobs Aren't Enough: Toward a New Economic Mobility for Low-Income Families. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Jeynes, W. (2011). Help Families by Fostering Parental Involvement: Show an Interest in Your Students' Families before Demanding That Parents Support Your School. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 38
Karsh, B., & Templin, C. (2013). Manager 3.0: A Millennial's Guide to Rewriting the Rules of Management. New York: American Management Association.
Kiker, J. (2007, October). Develop Education Systems That Integrate All Levels. Techniques, 82, 38+.
Levy, M. (2007). Culture, Culture Learning and New Technologies: Towards a Pedagogical Framework. Language, Learning & Technology, 11(2), 104+
Logie, R. H., Trawley, S., & Law, A. (2011). Multitasking: Multiple, Domain-Specific Cognitive Functions in a Virtual Environment. Memory & Cognition, 39(8), 1561+.
Marx, G. (2006). Future-Focused Leadership: Preparing Schools, Students, and Communities for Tomorrow's Realities. Alexandria, VA Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McIntosh, P., Luecke, R., & Davis, J. H. (2008). Interpersonal Communication Skills in the Workplace (2nd ed.). New York: American Management Association.
Mersino, A. C. (2007). Emotional Intelligence for Project Managers: The People Skills You Need to Achieve Outstanding Results. New York: AMACOM.
Miller-Adams, M. (2008). The Power of a Promise: Education and Economic Renewal in Kalamazoo. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Mok, H. (2011). UC’s Sustainability Program Helps Deal with Budget Crunch. UC Newsroom. Retrieved from http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=1300
O’Hanlan, C. (2009). Title I-And Then Some: School Districts Are Getting Creative in Finding Ways to Finance Technology Purchases, Blending Title I Dollars with Money from Numerous Other Funding Sources. T H E Journal. 36.5: 15+. COPYRIGHT 2009 1105 Media, Inc.; COPYRIGHT 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning
Pfohl, B. (2012, May). Is Multitasking Helpful or Harmful? National Association of School Psychologists. Communique, 40(7), 36.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rice, J.K. (2010). Principal Effectiveness and Leadership in an Era of Accountability: What Research Says. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/publications/1001370.html
Russakoff, D. (2009). Schooling Low-income Parents in Helping Students. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/23/opinion/la-oe-russakoff23-2009dec23
Schachter, D. (2005, June). The Importance of Understanding Organizational Culture. Information Outlook, 9(6), 18+.
Shockey, S. S. (2011). Old Assumptions, New Realities: Economic Security for Working Families in the 21st Century. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 103(3), 59+.
Smith, J. G. (2006). Parental Involvement in Education Among Low-Income Families: A Case Study. The School Community Journal. 16(1).
Teicher, S. A. (2007, February 15). Schools Strive for 'No Parent Left Behind' ; Public Schools Facing Pressure to Perform under No Child Left Behind Act Are Working to Help Parents Be More Engaged in Their Children's Educations. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 13.
Tett, L. (2006). Community Education, Lifelong Learning and Social Inclusion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Mctighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Strickland, C. A. (2005). Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum, Grades 9-12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wang, C., & Bird, J. J. (2011). Multi-Level Modeling of Principal Authenticity and Teachers' Trust and Engagement. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(4), 125+.
Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A Match on Dry Grass: Community Organizing as a Catalyst for School Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolf, M. A. (2006). Using Technology to Improve Achievement: Making Data Relevant. The Journal. 33(12). 32-34
