«by SILVIA GONAONE MAKGONE submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MAGISTER TECHNOLOGIAE in the subject HUMAN RESOURCE ...»
Quantitative methods were used to analyse the responses of the participants, and thus address research questions related to the null hypothesis. Statistical analysis of the data consisted of means for the 30 individual behaviours demonstrated by the principal surveyed, as well as the 6 subscales or job functions. The instrument is scored by calculating the mean for each job function. A high score on a function indicates active leadership in that area. Principals who obtain high ratings across the various job functions are perceived as engaging in instructional leadership behaviours associated with principals in effective schools (Hallinger & Murphy, 1987).
The assumption is that the lack of instructional leadership at the school is the cause of poor academic performance at the school. The researcher did an analysis of every job function to determine which behaviour is high and which is low, that would culminate in the existence or lack of instructional leadership at each school.
The drawn graphs helped with the analysis of the data, for conclusions to be made on whether a principal of a certain school has instructional leadership style which will contribute to positive academic performance and be associated with effective schooling.
The study also involved the analysis of scores between two groups (teachers and inspectors), which gave a comparative analysis of the data. It was also interesting to compare the analysis and note the variance to determine if a significant difference exists between the two groups in their assessment of the principal.
Another graph will be drawn that depicts all three schools’ results as per job function.
The analysis here will try to show which school does better in which job function and try to highlight the similarities and differences amongst the schools. The assumption is that the principals will use this part to know on which aspect they should work on to bring about improvement in their leadership.
3.9 Shortcomings and sources of error
Although questionnaires are popular and easy to handle, the respondents in some cases do not respond objectively when completing questionnaires. Creswell (2003) states that all statistical procedures have limitations; hence, the researcher also incorporated the interview part to understand the situation and to construct reality.
3.10 Ethical considerations Ethical issues were considered by the researcher and thus wrote a letter (Appendix D) to the Director of Education of Omaheke Region to get permission to do research at the identified schools.
The Director’s office sent a letter to the schools to notify them of the intended research.
Site respect was shown by not disrupting any formal programme of the schools.
Confidentiality and anonymity was maintained through the whole process, as no names were requested on the questionnaires.
Chapter three introduced the detailed research methodology needed to investigate the hypothetical relationship between the instructional leadership of a principal and learners’ academic performance. The next chapter presents the results found per leadership function and concludes with an interpretation of these results.
Chapter 4 RESULTS: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction Chapter three discussed the research method and the procedures involved in collecting, capturing and the analysis of data. Possible shortcomings and ethical considerations were looked at.
This chapter first presents a description of the responding sample of teachers, inspectors and principals who took part in the survey. The results are presented and the findings of the data are summarised. The discussion of the results is done to try and address the two null hypotheses. The latter will then be followed by the thematic analysis of the results to conclude the chapter.
4.2 Sample profiles
The purpose of this survey was to assess whether the Principals in the three schools that were sampled are strategically aligned through instructional leadership, as perceived by the teachers and inspectors, and to assess whether this leadership has any contribution to academic performance of the learners so that the Principals can be classified as strategic leaders.
Fourty six (46) teachers in the three schools were all included in the survey to get a valid sample. School A has eleven (11) teachers and ten (10) participated in the survey.
School B has twenty (20) teachers and nineteen (19) took part, while school C has ten (10) teachers and all ten (10) took part in the survey. The researcher thus reached more than the 80% response rate that was set for each school One inspector was responsible for schools A and C, while the other inspector was responsible for school B. Both inspectors participated in assessing the Principals of their respective schools. The Principals were not required to assess themselves but they completed a descriptive questionnaire.
4.3 Presentation of results 4.3.1 Results: Teacher’s questionnaire Part A The first question asked the respondents to indicate the number of years of their professional training. The tables below indicate the teachers’ responses. The total number of respondents will be indicated with n throughout the presentation.
The total population surveyed was 39 teachers. The table 4.1 above indicates that 37 teachers in the three schools had a qualification of 3 years and more, which is classified as professionally qualified and meet the requirement by the Ministry of Education to be appointed as a teacher. This is 95% of the teachers, while the remaining 2 teachers represent only 5% can be classified as un- or under- qualified.
The second question asked the respondents to indicate their number of years of teaching experience and the responses are indicated in the table below.
The tables above show that 60% of teachers in School A, 76% teachers in School B and 30% teachers in School C had teaching experience of six years and more. Only School C has a high percentage (70%) of teachers with teaching experience of five years and less.
The tables show that at School A 40% teachers have worked with the Principal for three to four years, which is the time the principal has been at the school. School B, indicated that 63,2% teachers worked three years and more with the Principal. School C indicated that 70% worked for three to four years with the Principal.
The fourth question asked the teachers to write down the mission statements of their schools.
This question was left open by the majority of the teachers and those who attempted wrote nothing close to the mission statements of their schools. This is an indication that all teachers (respondents) from the three schools did not know the mission statements of their schools. During the interviews it was mentioned at one school that each year they review the vision and mission of the school to see whether it is still relevant. One teacher at school A made the observation that the mission statement was not developed at the school, but it was sent from somewhere.
The latter may be true in all the schools and this cause the teachers not to understand the purpose of the mission statements as they did not own it.
The fifth question asked the respondents to indicate how many times the current Principal observed their class presentation in his/her term of office at the school. The
tables under table 4.4 indicate the responses of the teachers:
Table 4.4 Number of class observations by Principal during term of office.
Principal of School A was for two years at the school, Principal of school B was six years while School C’s Principal was three years at that school. The total number of class observations done by the Principal in each school divided by the total number of teachers in a school gave the average of class observations done by each principal.
This number weighted against the years of the principal being at that school gave the mean of observations done in that number of years.
School A shows 29/10 = 2.9 mean, 2.9/2 =1.45 observations per year per teacher.
School B shows 70/19 = 3.68 mean, 3.68/6 = 0.61 observations per year per teacher.
School C shows 32/10 = 3.2 mean, 3.2/3 = 1.06 observations per year per teacher.
The results show, that on average all three Principals made one class observation per teacher per year. This shows that class observation is not getting the deserved attention at all three schools. The research concentrated on the leadership and guidance of the principal given to the teachers and did not research on the observations done by the entire management staff.
The sixth question asked the respondents to write down the overall pass percentage targeted for the school for 2011, and the responses were as follows.
SCHOOL A: Two (2) teachers did not write any percentage, two (2) gave 65%, while other two (2) gave 50%. The remaining four indicated varying percentages of 30, 40, 55 and 60.
SCHOOL B: Nine (9) of the respondents here wrote 50%, six (6) of the respondents did not write any percentage, two (2) indicated 35%, while two (2) indicated 26% and 45% respectively.
SCHOOL C: Seven (7) of the respondents indicated 50%, one (1) respondent gave the range of 50 -59%, one (1) gave 80%, while the last one (1) wrote no percentage.
Diverse responses were received from the teachers of the three schools making it look like a guessing exercise. This indicates that there is no commonness in the school goals.
4.3.2 Results: Teachers’ questionnaire Part B The research question asked the teachers which of the instructional leadership job functions identified by the PIMRS instrument they saw being demonstrated by the
• 1 = Sets the school goals, • 2 = Communicates school goals, • 3 = Supervises and evaluates instruction, • 4 = Monitors student progress, • 5 = Protects instruction time, • 6 = Promotes school improvement;
A range of 45-55% in a job function shows an average performance, while higher than 55% indicates an above average performance, while below 45% shows a below average performance within a job function.
The teachers assessed the school Principals on 30 individual behaviours using a 4point Likert scale with the two extremes of “almost never” and “almost always”.
The teachers’ responses were calculated per school using the two extremes to get a percentage for 6 leadership job functions. The results per school are as reflected in the following charts.
Figure 4.1 Teachers’ assessment of principal’s leadership
School teachers at A School rated the Principal’s performance of leadership functions below 39% in every way, which is very low. This indicates that the Principal “almost never” demonstrates all the instructional leadership behaviours. The highest score on a job function is 38% which is job function 2 (communicates school goals), while the lowest score is on job function 6 (promotes school improvement) with 20%.
Figure 4.2 Teachers’ assessment of principal’s leadership
Figure 4.2 shows that the principal of School B “almost always” demonstrates the behaviours of five of the six functions as they are all rated above 64%.
Job function 1 (sets the school goals) got the highest score of 75%, while function 4 (monitoring student progress) got the lowest score of 49%.
Figure 4.3 Teachers’ assessment of principal’s leadership
The results for the Principal at School C, as shown in chart 4.3 show that the Principal demonstrates job function 1 (sets school goals) the highest with 60%, while job function 4 (monitoring student progress) is the lowest with 30%. Two job functions show an average score, which is function 2 and 5 (communicates school goals and protects instruction time).
4.3.3 Results: Inspectors’ questionnaire The two inspectors assessed the Principals on only four job functions and the results are indicated in the figures 4.4 to 4.6 Figure 4.4 Inspector’s assessment of principal’s leadership
The inspector indicates that the Principal in School A demonstrates leadership function 2 (communicates the school goals) the highest with 80%, while leadership function 1 (sets the school goals) is the lowest with 0%.
Figure 4.5 Inspector’s assessment of principal’s leadership
The results show that the Principal in School B does not demonstrate any of the four leadership functions as perceived by the inspector. This can be seen in chart 4.5 The highest job function is 40% for both functions 1 and 6 (sets the school goals and promotes improvement), while the lowest is 0% for job function 3, which is supervises and evaluates instruction.
Figure 4.6 Inspector’s assessment of principal’s leadership
The results show that the Principal in School C does not demonstrate all four leadership functions as perceived by the inspector. The highest job functions are 2 and 3 (communicates school goals and supervises and evaluates instruction) rated 40% which is performance below average. The lowest scores are for function 1(sets school goals) and 6 (promotes school improvement) which are rated 20%.
Table 4.5 indicates the leadership job functions of all three schools’ principals as assessed by the teachers.
The highlighted (red) scores are under or in the range of 45-55% which indicates below average performance, while above 55% indicates above average performance.
4.3.4 Results across three schools Comparison of the results across the three schools was done by the assessment of the six goals calculated through all job functions of each school so that a comparison of the three schools could be made. The results are plotted in figure 4.7 Figure 4.7 Comparison of leadership across three schools
Figure 4.7 is based on the results of figures 4.