University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN EXPLORATION OF PRINCIPAL SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS ABOUT
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS

by

Jon Eyler

____________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Jon Eyler
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am privileged to have worked with and been supported by such a phenomenal team
of faculty. To my Chairperson, Dr. Reed, I am grateful for the opportunities you
orchestrated through the Pennsylvania Department of Education for me to conduct
research in and around Philadelphia. Additionally, your encouragement, patience,
and commitment to my success is much appreciated. To Dr. Hentschke, I am
grateful for your keen insights, your support, and your important reminders about the
implications of research in practice. To Dr. Riconscente, I am grateful for your
honest critique and your commitment to my success.
Additionally, I am grateful to my wife and two daughters for the sacrifices you made
to support me through this process.
Finally, I thank the school staff and principals at the two sites involved in this study.
It was their openness, flexibility and commitment of time that made this project
possible.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………….. ii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….. v
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………. vi
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………….. vii
Chapter I: Overview of the Study ………………………………………………… 1
Chapter II: Literature Review …………………………………………………… 17
Chapter III: Methodology ………………………………………………………. 67
Chapter IV: Research Findings …………………………………………………. 88
Chapter V: Summary, Implications and Recommendations …………………... 171
References ……………………………………………………………………… 192
Appendix A: Letter from Dr. Zahorchak, Pennsylvania Secretary of Education 199
Appendix B: Letter to Principals ……………………………………………… 200
Appendix C: List of Documents and Artifacts ………………………………… 202
Appendix D: Alignment of NISL Curriculum with Pennsylvania Leadership . 204
Standards

Appendix E: Summary of VAL-ED Psychometric Properties ………………… 207
Appendix F: Principal Interview #1 Protocol …………………………………. 212
Appendix G: Principal Interview #2 Protocol …………………………………. 214
Appendix H: Teacher Interview #1 Protocol ………………………………….. 216
Appendix I: Teacher Interview #2 Protocol ………………………………….. 217
iv
Appendix J: Observation Protocol …………………………………………….. 218
Appendix K: Consent Form for Participants …………………………………... 219
Appendix L: Letter from Dr. Andrew Porter, author of the VAL-ED in ……… 223
support of the use of the VAL-ED in this study

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of students assessed in the East Valley School District ……… 71
and the percentage of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and
subject area for the 2006-2007 school year

Table 2. Triangulation table demonstrating the sources of data used to ………... 83
address each research question

Table 3. Timeline for the research project ……………………………………... 84

Table 4. The percentage of students graduating as determined by comparing …. 90
the number of students receiving a regular high school diploma against the
total number dropouts

Table 5. Number of students assessed in The Lakeside Area School District …. 91
and the percentage of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and
subject area for the 2006-2007 school year

Table 6. Comparison of student demographics before and after restructuring … 93

Table 7. Number of students assessed at River Valley Middle School and …….. 95
the percentage of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and subject
area for the 2006-2007 school year

Table 8. Demographic composition of students at Jefferson Middle School …. 128

Table 9. Number of students assessed at Jefferson Middle School and the …… 129
percentage of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and subject
area for the 2006-2007 school year

Table 10. Comparison of self-efficacy ratings in two different contexts ……… 167
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Bandura’s (1986) model of triadic reciprocality …………………….. 38
Figure 2. Sample VAL-ED survey detailing three of the six key processes ……. 77
with illustrative effectiveness ratings and sources of evidence
vii
ABSTRACT
Though the research about educational leadership over the past twenty-five
years has yielded greater descriptions of effective leadership practices and behavior,
it has been lacking in a thorough understanding of how these leadership practices and
behaviors are developed and influenced, especially in urban settings. The purpose of
this investigation was to examine changes in transformational leadership behavior
and core self-efficacy beliefs of principals in both urban and suburban school
systems as they participate in an executive leadership development program through
the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders initiative. This study utilized a qualitative
comparative case study design in an effort to shed light on the “hows” and “whys” of
changes in principal leadership behavior and self-efficacy beliefs. This research
found that both the self-efficacy beliefs and practices of principals changed in
relation to the feedback they received from both current and past leadership
experiences. Using contemporary theories of educational leadership and cognitive
psychology to analyze the self-efficacy beliefs and leadership practices of both urban
and suburban leaders, this research yielded critical recommendations for future
investigations of school leadership. In addition, these findings reaffirm the
importance of considering social cognitive factors in the study of educational
leadership. They also carry significant implications for the future of leadership
preparation programs and the ongoing support of leaders throughout their tenure. It is
hoped that the results of this investigation will bring researchers and practitioners
viii
one step closer to understanding the intricacies and complexities of effective
leadership in both urban and suburban settings.

1
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The ratification of the Federal “No Child Left Behind” Act (NCLB) in 2001
ignited a national focus on standards and accountability for state departments of
education and local education agencies. The NCLB legislation enacted four major
“pillars”—stronger accountability, more freedom for states and communities, proven
education methods, and more choices for parents (US Department of Education).
These accountability provisions have created an urgent focus on the evaluation of
educational leadership and its influence on student achievement. This is critical to
state departments of education as the NCLB Act set in motion the expectation that all
students would be performing at a proficient level in Math and Language Arts by
2013-2014.
Though all school reform efforts have focused on improving teaching and
student outcomes, there are vast differences in the way education agencies approach
these reform efforts. Some have maintained a macro lens of reform in which an
entire state is led through a process of change. Others have adopted a micro lens of
reform in which each local district or school is responsible for the development of an
improvement plan. Regardless of the level of reform, the leadership capacities and
practices of school leaders have been a primary focus of inquiry in recent years. As
the research about educational leadership has evolved over the past twenty-five years
both researchers and practitioners have gained a greater understanding of specific
leadership behaviors that are demonstrating high degrees of effectiveness in various
settings. With a clearer direction of desired leadership behavior the most current
2
research has focused more acutely on how these leadership behaviors and capacities
are developed and sustained. This study is designed to better understand changes in
principal practices and self-efficacy beliefs over time as leaders participate in an
executive leadership development program.
Urban settings create a unique set of challenges for educational
administrators. With the induction of several external accountability initiatives at
federal, state and local levels the challenges of educating students in urban settings
are exacerbated. Some have argued that these reform initiatives have even
marginalized low performing students by forcing teachers to limit instruction to the
essential components of standardized testing (Clotfelter & Ladd, 1996 in Spillane
2004). Others have argued that these initiatives are misguided as the true problems
facing education (i.e. ineffective teaching strategies, limited resources) are not being
adequately addressed (Darling-Hammond, 1994).
The research surrounding the dynamics of education in urban systems has
established a dense basis of knowledge about the specific challenges facing these
schools. Urban systems are generally characterized by schools with high
concentrations of students who are living in poverty, have limited English
proficiency, and have traditionally low academic achievement. These urban schools
are also faced with challenges such as: high dropout rates, school violence, cultural
conflicts, limited resources, and high rates of turnover among staff. It is clear that the
challenges facing urban schools extend far beyond the walls of the classroom. With
the increased demands of accountability and the changing dynamics of urban
3
settings, greater focus has been given to the role of the principal in effecting change
in these systems.
The extant research regarding the effects of school leadership on student
outcomes is suggesting significant effects on student learning, particularly in schools
with historically low performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Seashore-
Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). The role
of the principal has gained much attention in recent years as this position is
considered by some to be most critical to the ultimate success of students. Principals
today are expected to be charismatic visionaries who are experts in instructional
design and curriculum. They are expected to be advocates of social justice, role
models, experts in assessment, disciplinarians, fiscal managers, policy makers, and
community leaders while creating and maintaining a culture of high expectations and
exceptional ethics. With this job description and the external pressures of high stakes
accountability initiatives it is no wonder that districts are struggling to recruit and
maintain highly qualified educational leaders (Knapp, Copland & Talbert, 2003).
Though a shortage of highly qualified leaders has been a consistent concern of
districts across the nation, California has faced challenges specific to the recruitment
of qualified leaders in urban settings. California’s supply of certificated
administrators is not in short supply; it’s the recruitment and maintenance of leaders
who are committed to working in urban communities that has been the problem
(Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). This has led many
researchers and practitioners to further analyze the preparation of school leaders in
4
hopes of identifying ways of building greater leadership capacity to not only
maintain leaders in urban settings but to help them thrive in urban systems.
Much of the existing literature on educational leadership and principal
preparation programs focuses on leadership behavior (Hallinger & McCary, 1990).
Many researchers have approached this leadership phenomenon from an inductive
approach resulting in myriad studies of descriptive nature detailing “successful” or
“effective” leader behavior. Ironically, these definitions of “successful” and
“effective” are vaguely defined in the literature. Regardless, less is known about why
leaders choose to engage or not engage in these specific behaviors. Evidence from
the fields of cognitive and social psychology suggest that individual leaders behave
quite differently depending on the context in which they find themselves and the
people with whom they are working (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson &
Wahlstrom, 2004).
Not only do we need to develop leaders with an impressive repertoire of
practices and behaviors, but we need to develop leaders who are confident strategists
who know when to engage and when not to engage certain behaviors or strategies.
Successful leaders are those who not only have a large repertoire of behaviors but
those who are responsive to the context in which they are working.
The framework for this study is grounded in social cognitive theory which
suggests that self-efficacy beliefs of specific leadership behaviors are mediators of
actualized leadership behavior in specific contexts. In other words, an individual
with high self-efficacy beliefs about his or her ability to navigate the socio-economic
5
demands of an urban community will be more likely to take the risks necessary to
actualize that dimension of leadership despite the difficulties he or she may
encounter. Social learning theory provides a well established theoretical framework
through which we can analyze and understand the effectiveness of certain training
methods over others. “Unfortunately, the majority of organizational research has
focused on outcomes of efficacy beliefs, whereas considerably less is known about
the antecedents of efficacy beliefs” (Chen & Bliese, 2002).
This study focuses specifically on self-efficacy beliefs pertaining to two
dimensions of transformational leadership. Two principals are interviewed and
observed in an effort to gain a better understanding how their self-efficacy beliefs
and behaviors changed over time as they participated in an executive leadership
training program. The study also seeks to gain a deeper understanding of which
components of the training contribute to changes in self-efficacy beliefs and/or
behaviors from the perspective of the participating principals.
Statement of the Problem
To date, very few leadership preparation programs have been empirically
studied through the lens of social cognitive theory. Much of the research in
educational leadership relies heavily on rich descriptions of effective leadership
behavior in particular contexts (i.e. urban, suburban). However, the literature on how
these leadership behaviors are developed and maintained across time and context is
sparse. Self-efficacy has demonstrated strong predictive validity in the performance
of students (Patrick & Ryan, 2001), teachers (Bandura, 1997), managers (Paglis &
6
Green, 2002), subordinates (Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002) and athletes
(Prussia & Kinicki, 1996; Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 2001). In addition, research
about self-efficacy in organizational management has found that self-efficacy posi-
tively predicts job attitudes (Saks, 1995), training proficiency (Martocchio & Judge,
1997), and job performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). From a social cognitive
theoretical perspective our understanding of how educational leaders think about and
apply knowledge might best be understood by analyzing the specific belief systems
which shape the application of this knowledge in multiple contexts. This knowledge
is critical for gaining a deeper understanding of how leadership capacity is developed
and sustained in both urban and suburban systems. If leadership preparation
programs seek to change the practice or behaviors of leaders, specific attention must
be paid to the mechanisms or belief systems that drive these behaviors.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the changes in two principals’ self-
efficacy beliefs and practice through their participation in the Pennsylvania Inspired
Leaders (PIL) initiative. The PIL initiative is a state-wide leadership development
initiative involving both training and mentoring components. The leadership training
is through the direction of the National Institute for School Leaders (NISL). The
mentoring component involves the assignment of an experienced administrator to
each principal with less than five years of experience. These mentors support new
principals by sharing their experiences, providing guidance and identifying resources
for novice principals. Because of the value placed on this mentoring relationship, the
7
Pennsylvania Department of Education has made this component mandatory for all
novice principals participating in the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) initiative.
The investigation seeks to understand, qualitatively, the development and changes in
principal efficacy beliefs and leadership practices with regard to two dimensions of
transformational leadership- Charisma/Inspiration/Vision and Goal Consensus. In
addition, this study is designed to elicit qualitative evidence about which components
of the leadership training program most influenced efficacy beliefs from the
perspective of the participants.
Significance of the Study
This research contributes to the existing literature on leadership development
in several ways. One contribution is in the analysis of self-efficacy beliefs of
principals through their participation in a comprehensive leadership preparation
program. Though much more is known today about effective leadership practices,
less is known about what influences these practices. This study operates on the
assumption that principal self-efficacy beliefs influence behavior and that these
beliefs can be shaped and maintained through training and continued professional
development. This is vastly different from the currently available research on
educational leadership as it embraces a social cognitive framework for analyzing
leadership development.
A second contribution of this research is in the examination of how a
particular leadership development program influences leader self-efficacy beliefs and
behaviors. My third research question seeks to uncover, from a leader’s perspective,
8
the elements of the training which most significantly influence his or her self-
efficacy beliefs and behaviors. This study assumes a motivational pathway in which
leader self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors in urban (or
suburban) settings influence their actual behavior.
Another contribution of this research is found in the attention to leadership in
urban settings. Much of the research on educational leadership has resulted in rich
descriptions of practices and behaviors which have been deemed effective by both
researchers and practitioners. The problem with this is that urban settings demand
leadership that is not confined to a core set of leadership practices and behaviors
where the demonstration of these practices have proven effective in other settings.
Leadership in urban settings is multi-faceted and dynamic, and it requires strategic
leaders who are skilled at adjusting behaviors and practices to achieve a desired
outcome. This study doesn’t solely focus on changes in leader behavior, but the
mechanisms (i.e. beliefs) that drive leadership behavior as well.
Research Questions
This study is designed to address the following research questions:
1. How and why do principals’ self-efficacy beliefs about transformational
leadership behaviors and their practices surrounding vision setting and
goal consensus change over time?
2. In what ways do the principals’ self-efficacy beliefs and practices
surrounding vision setting and goal consensus differ in consideration of
school context (urban vs. suburban)?
9
3. From the participant’s perspective what is it about the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leaders (PIL) initiative that influences participants’ self-efficacy
beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors?
Assumptions of the Study
This study is based on the following assumptions:
1. All participants will participate in Units 1 through 4 of the National
Institute for School Leadership executive training program, a component
of the PIL initiative. Each unit will be two days in length, and it is
assumed that each participant will participate in both days of each unit,
and complete the homework associated with each unit.
2. All participants will receive the same instruction and training regardless
of the region to which the participant is assigned.
3. All participants will produce honest responses to the questions used in
this study.
Delimitations of the Study
The primary delimitation of this investigation is the sample of principals,
teachers and other educational leaders. The participating schools and districts are
limited to the state of Pennsylvania. The results of this study are indicative of this
sample only and should be interpreted with caution when attempting to generalize to
the population at large. The design of this study is that of a descriptive, qualitative
analysis in which the investigator seeks to describe, in depth, the phenomenon of
changes in leader self-efficacy beliefs and behavior. The results of this study will not
10
yield causal inferences about the success of a particular training program. Rather, the
results of this study are limited to inferences of emerging patterns or themes among
two case studies. In addition, this study uses two theoretical frameworks through
which changes in leadership behavior are studied—social cognitive theory and
transformational leadership theory. This descriptive analysis uses these theoretical
foundations to produce rich descriptions of the phenomenon of leadership within the
context of social cognitive theory and transformational leadership theory. This
particular study does not encompass a deductive approach in the utilization of these
frameworks; rather, it is inductive by design. This study is also delimited by the
length of time the principals will be studied. The investigation will take place over a
period of five months which may limit the likelihood of observing substantive
changes in leadership self-efficacy beliefs and behavior.
Limitations of the Study
The nature of a case study design is that inferences are made based upon the
interviews and documentary evidence collected by the researcher. The limitation in
this case is that the interviews, observations and documentary evidence provide only
a glimpse of reality, and this glimpse of reality is what the researcher is utilizing to
make inferences about principal practice (Yin, 1984, p. 38). The limitation is that
these inferences are made through the perception of the researcher which causes a
degree of subjectivity. The comparative case study design is intended to contribute to
the base of theoretical knowledge not necessarily to test a specific theoretical
proposition. As a result, the generalizability of this study to larger populations is a
11
limitation. This study is designed to expand upon the knowledge of educational
leadership within the context of social cognitive theory.
Another limitation is the possibility of a pre-test treatment interaction. The
administration of an interview prior to the treatment may lead participants to indicate
their knowledge in the follow up interview in relation to the intent of the study rather
than their actual behavior or beliefs. Due to the design of an intentional, purposive
sample selection this study is limited by the pool of participants who have indicated
agreement to participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
Self Efficacy
The concept of self-efficacy is often mistaken for other similar, but very
different, constructs. The definition of self-efficacy used in this study is derived from
social cognitive theory and the work of Albert Bandura. Bandura defines self-
efficacy as the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive
resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992).
Self-efficacy is commonly confused with self-esteem, expectancy-outcome
beliefs (Vroom, 1964), and locus of control. Though seemingly similar in many
aspects, self-efficacy beliefs are vastly different in that they are specific to ability
beliefs about a particular task in a given context. Self-efficacy beliefs are not simply
global affective appraisals of oneself or expectancy beliefs about one’s future
behavior(s), they are appraisals of task-specific capabilities (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
12
Self-efficacy is a significant motivational construct as it has demonstrated influences
on goals (Bandura & Cervone, 1983), emotional reactions (Bandura, 1982)
performance (Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson & Watson, 2003), choice (Paglis & Green,
2002) and effort (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Bandura, 1999).
Transformational Leadership
What is transformational leadership? To some it may sound like the
characteristics of an extroverted, charismatic leader who is able to bring about
sweeping changes within an organization. Bass and Avolio (1994) set out to quantify
transformational leadership behaviors by defining four unique but interrelated
behavioral components of transformational leadership: idealized influence
(charismatic role modeling), inspirational motivation (communicating an dynamic
vision), intellectual stimulation (promoting creativity and innovation), and
individualized consideration (coaching and mentoring). The definition of
transformational leadership used in this study follows the work of Leithwood, Jantzi
& Steinback (1999) who expand upon the four dimensions of Bass and Avolio
(1994). In their extensive review of the literature Leithwood and his colleagues
found 9 common dimensions of transformational leadership (Leithwood, Jantzi &
Steinbach, 1999). All dimensions were determined relevant to school settings with
the exception of management-by-exception. The operational definition of
transformational leadership behavior for this study will include the first two of the
nine dimensions relevant to school settings. The following is a summary of these two
dimensions with a brief description (Leithwood, 1996):
13
1. Charisma/Inspiration/Vision: influencing the personal goals that motivate
follower behavior. It is more likely that followers will strive to achieve
more ambitious goals than they would in the absence of visionary
charisma (p.802). This dimension requires the leader to have a high
degree of trust and respect among his/her colleagues. There are eight
measureable behaviors associated with the creation of a vision within this
dimension:
a. Providing colleagues with an overall sense of purpose
b. Initiating processes (i.e. retreats) which engage staff in the
collective development of a shared vision
c. Espousing a vision for the school, but not in a way that pre-empts
others from expressing their vision
d. Exciting colleagues with visions of what they may be able to
accomplish if they work together to change their practices
e. Helping clarify the meaning of the school’s vision in terms of its
practical implication for programs and instruction
f. Assisting staff in understanding the relationship between external
initiative for change and the school’s vision
g. Assisting staff in understanding the larger social mission of which
their vision of the school is a part, a social mission which may
include such important end values as equality, justice and integrity
14
h. Using all available opportunities to communicate the school’s
vision to staff, students, parents, and other members of the school
community (Leithwood, 1996)
2. Goal Consensus: the purpose of vision building is to create a shared sense
of purpose. The development of goal consensus is the process of focusing
followers on what will need to be accomplished to progress toward the
vision. This dimension is specific to the promotion of cooperation among
employees and getting them to work together toward a shared set of
goals. Embedded in this dimension is a strong emphasis on setting goals
and goal structures. The following is a list of ten measurable behaviors
that define this dimension:
a. Providing staff with a process through which to establish school
goals and to regularly review these goals; this is likely to be a
‘problem solving’ process and to include careful diagnosis of the
school’s context.
b. Expecting teams of teachers and individuals to regularly engage in
goal setting and reviewing progress toward those goals
c. Assisting staff in developing consistency between school vision
and both group and individual goals
d. Working toward the development of consensus about school and
group goals and the priority to be awarded such goals
15
e. Frequently referring to school goals and making explicit use of
them when decision are being made about changes in the school
f. Encouraging teachers, as part of goal-setting, to establish and
review individual professional growth goals
g. Having ongoing discussion with individual teachers about their
professional growth goals
h. Clearly acknowledging the compatibility of teachers’ and school’s
goals
i. Expressing one’s own views about school goals and priorities
j. Acting as an important resource in helping colleagues achieve
their individual and school goals (Leithwood, 1996)
The seven other dimensions of transformation leadership include: Individual
Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, Modeling, High Performance Expectations,
Culture Building, Structuring, and Contingent Reward. Due to the narrowed focus of
this study only the following dimensions and related behaviors are used to define
transformational leadership: Charisma/Inspiration/Vision and Goal Consensus.
Conclusion
The extant literature on educational leadership has demonstrated great
progress over the past twenty-five years. Thanks to the efforts of several great
researchers and practitioners we now have a more defined picture of effective
leadership in particular settings and its impact on student achievement. Though the
research has yielded greater descriptions of effective leadership practices and
16
behavior, it is lacking an understanding of how these leadership practices and
behaviors are developed and influenced, especially in urban settings. The purpose of
this investigation is to examine changes in leadership behavior and core self-efficacy
beliefs of principals in both urban and suburban school systems as they participate in
an executive leadership development program through the Pennsylvania Inspired
Leaders initiative. The following chapter will review the existing literature on
leadership effectiveness, self-efficacy, and leadership development.
17
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The phenomenon of educational leadership has ignited tremendous
engagement in the scientific communities of organizational and cognitive
psychology, education, and sociology for the past 30 years. To many this comes as
no surprise given the increasing demands of Federal initiatives such as the No Child
Left Behind Act and vast accountability efforts throughout the country. Specifically,
the leadership of the principal has been of greater interest as it is believed by several
researchers to be the key leadership position essential to improving student outcomes
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Spillane, 2004; Gurr, Drysdale, Mulford, 2006; Mullen,
Gordon, Greeniee & Anderson, 2002).
Much of the existing literature on educational leadership and principal
preparation programs focuses on perceived leadership behavior as the primary
dependent variable (Hallinger & McCary, 1990). Many researchers have approached
this leadership phenomenon from an inductive approach resulting in myriad studies
of descriptive nature detailing “successful” or “effective” leader behavior. Ironically,
the definitions of “successful” and “effective” are often vaguely defined in the
literature. Though there is much left to be understood about the behaviors of leaders,
less is known about why leaders choose to engage or not engage in these specific
behaviors.
In addition to the vast descriptive studies of leader behavior the literature
about educational leadership is riveted with descriptions of curriculum and
18
leadership theory that form the basis of current leader preparation programs. “Most
of the literature on leadership preparation programs focuses on Master’s or Doctoral
degree programs designed to prepare principals and assistant principals.” (Preis,
Grogan, Sherman & Beaty, 2007)
Though we have advanced our knowledge about what is considered effective
with regard to leadership behaviors, curriculum, theory and current delivery models
of leadership preparation programs, this study attempts to take a different perspective
in the analysis of leadership preparation programs. This study will analyze leadership
development through the lens of social cognitive theory.
The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of existing literature
regarding leadership theory, specifically transformational leadership, social cognitive
theory, specifically self-efficacy, and current leadership preparation programs
offered throughout the United States. The theoretical framework for analyzing
outcomes of leadership preparation programs is Bandura’s (1977) Social Cognitive
Theory.
Research in Educational Leadership
Defining leadership
In the world of academia the term “leadership capacity” is used quite
frequently. It’s seen primarily in courses on organizational management and
educational leadership, but the term is also found in other disciplines such as public
policy, government, military leadership, business and psychology. For a term so
prevalent one might expect a definitive, concrete definition. Unfortunately, the term
19
“leadership capacity” is often vaguely defined in the scholarly literature. In general
researchers have used “leadership capacity” in reference to a set of broad-based
skills and practices that produce desired outcomes in education.
In the extant research on educational leadership two primary inconsistencies
regarding definitions surface. Both the definition of leadership and the specific
definition of leadership effectiveness are often nebulous variables in the literature.
Many studies attempt to define leadership by listing a set of skills, abilities, and
behaviors that are believed to produce a desired outcome. In fact, a greater majority
of the research in educational leadership is focused on rich descriptions of leadership
practice and behavior (Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Hallinger, Leithwood & Murphy,
1993). It is from these comprehensive descriptive analyses that we have begun to
define effective leader practices in education. These descriptions of leadership have
led to the formation of various leadership models (i.e. transformational leadership,
instructional leadership, distributive leadership). In fact, in articles summarizing
highly regarded, scholarly investigations, it is not uncommon to find terms such as
“instructional leader” or “transformational leader.” In these particular studies,
leadership is defined, often implicitly, by the particular set of skills, abilities and
behaviors associated with the leadership model or theory. Though these descriptions
of leadership via adjectives and behaviors are a tremendous step forward in
educational leadership research some would suggest a sense of caution in narrowing
definitions of effective leadership to a broad set of observed skills and/or behaviors
(Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004).
20
Another gray area in the literature concerns how researchers define
effectiveness. Since 1980, scholars have most frequently studied the effectiveness of
leadership in relation to student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). However,
increasing evidence is pointing to an indirect relationship between school leadership
and student achievement. Leader behavior has shown to have direct correlations to
teacher practices, and teacher practices have demonstrated direct correlations with
student achievement (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). A growing trend in this
area of research is the assessment of leader behavior and changes in subordinate
practice as indicators of effectiveness.
We know from the literature that certain leader behaviors and practices are
more effective than others in shaping follower behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1990; 1994;
Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999; Yu, Leithwood & Jantzi, 2002). Though we
know much more about effective leadership behavior in relation to its influence on
teacher behavior, we still lack in the understanding of what drives leaders to use
these behaviors. The caution in assessing leadership effectiveness solely by measure
of leader behavior is that a single set of behaviors will not necessarily define
successful leadership across all settings. The needs of urban versus suburban schools
are very different; thus, they require different leadership approaches. Though a
leader may have all the knowledge, skills and abilities as defined by the models of
successful leadership, it is the decisions of how, when and why the leader chooses to
engage the particular behaviors that distinguish successful leaders from those who
are less effective.
21
Prevalent leadership theories
Leadership in education has remained a central topic of controversy and
discussion over the past several decades. The subject has spurred thousands of
studies involving the analysis of multiple variables in hopes of identifying precisely
what it takes to initiate and sustain lasting school reform resulting in greater student
achievement. Two of the most prevalent and frequently studied leadership models to
date are instructional leadership and transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003).
Instructional leadership surfaced in the 1980’s from the growing focus and
attention to research on effective schools. This model was developed from the work
of Leithwood & Montgomery (1982) and Edmonds (1979) (as cited in Hallinger,
2003) in urban elementary schools, and it was further developed through the work of
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) (as cited in Hallinger, 2003). The model grew in
popularity in the 1990s as many principal leadership preparation programs adopted
the instructional leadership model as the predominant approach to effective school
leadership (Hallinger, 2003). Instructional leadership focuses primarily on the school
principal as a strong, directive instructional leader. Principals under this model were
trained to take a hands-on approach to curriculum development and instructional
practices in the classroom. These principals maintained a high standard of
achievement and had a narrowed focus on the improvement of student academic
outcomes. This model was a primary area of focus for educational researchers in the
1980s and 1990’s. Hallinger (2000) completed a thorough review of the myriad
22
studies that were completed during these decades and summarized some of the key
conclusions. Some of these findings are described below:
• School principals influence student achievement indirectly through their
influences on practices in the classrooms.
• The most influential effect on school effectiveness concerns the
principal’s role in establishing a mission and purpose.
• Principals who align school structures with the mission of the school
produce greater outcomes school-wide.
• Very few studies found significant relationships between a principal’s
supervision of classroom instruction, teacher effectiveness and student
achievement.
• The school context does have an effect on the principal’s practice of
exercising instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2003).
With time this instructional leadership model began to be viewed as
somewhat utopian and impossible for some educational leaders. Some critics argued
that, in some cases (e.g. secondary schools), principals have less expertise than
teachers, making it nearly impossible for them to carry out the roles of an
instructional leader (Barth, 1990 as cited in Hallinger, 2003). With the advent of
national school reform in the 1990s and the introduction of Goals 2000 from the first
Bush administration, the focus began to shift from instructional leadership to other
models such as transformational leadership and distributed leadership.
23
Transformational leadership theory grew primarily from the work of Bernard
Bass in the 1980s. Leithwood and his colleagues later created an adapted model of
transformational leadership specific to the educational arena. This model of
leadership was well received in the education community as it was drastically
different than the directive approach of instructional leadership which had dominated
the practice through much of the 1980s. The model is characterized by individualized
support for teachers, personal vision and goal setting and intellectual stimulation.
The emphasis of transformational leadership is the development of the teacher. In
contrast to instructional leadership, this approach to school improvement is bottom-
up in which some of the leadership may be shared with teachers. In his review of
both instructional and transformational leadership, Hallinger (2003) characterized
transformational leadership with the following statement, “transformational
leadership models may explicitly conceptualize leadership as an organizational entity
rather than the property of a single individual, accounting for multiple sources of
leadership” (p.338). Though the body of research on transformational leadership in
education is fairly young there are growing trends in the findings thus far:
• Transformational leadership has significant direct effects on school
conditions which have significant direct effect on classroom conditions
(Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999)
• Transformational leadership has significant impacts on teachers’
perceptions of school conditions and teacher commitment
24
• Transformational leadership has also shown to have direct effects on
followers’ psychological states, behaviors, and performance (Jung &
Sosik, 2002; Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003; Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach,
1999; Pillai & Williams, 2004; Ross & Gray, 2006; van Knippenberg,
van Knippenberg, De Cremer & Hogg, 2004)
Emerging Trends in Educational Leadership Research
Miklos (1992) conducted an interesting study of doctoral dissertations at the
University of Alberta over the span of 33 years. His study provided vivid indicators
of trends in educational leadership research at large. The purposes of his work were:
(a) to describe the general characteristics of research methodologies used in these
studies, (b) to search for trends in the research, and (c) to offer suggestions about
further areas of emphasis for doctoral studies (p. 2). He found an increasing trend in
the utilization of descriptive studies. The percentage of descriptive studies nearly
tripled from the first decade to the third with a large majority of data collected via
questionnaires and/or interviews (p.35). The use of interviews increased from
roughly 28% in the first decade to over 75% in the third decade (p. 35). Overall,
Miklos found that the proportion of descriptive studies increased over the three
decades, and these studies placed greater emphasis on qualitative analysis strategies
(i.e. interviews, document analysis). With an overarching perspective he described
the research as fragmented, in that many of the studies did not necessarily follow an
already established line of research (p.174). Though Miklos’ study was delimited to
a sample of investigation conducted through the University of Alberta, similar trends
25
are seen in the research on educational administration in the United States. Future
research in educational leadership must move past the identification of specified sets
of behaviors and begin investigating mediators of leader practice and behavior to
better understand the mechanisms which drive decisions, practice, and behavior.
Much of the current research about educational leadership analyzes leader
behavior in relation to specified outcomes, but it fails to address why leaders display
these behaviors or how these behaviors were developed (Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003; Hallinger & McCary, 1990). This is particularly important to urban
settings where a particular set of leader behaviors may not have the same impact
throughout the district, county or state. A single set of behaviors is not well-suited
for all settings, especially in urban settings where there is great variation with regard
to needs of the school and community. We need to shift focus from the surface
variables of leadership behavior to the foundational variables (e.g. self-efficacy, goal
orientation) which are thought to drive leader behavior regardless of context.
Trends in Quantitative Methods
One trend, specific to quantitative analyses, in education leadership is the
abundant use of descriptive statistics, correlational analysis and test of differences
between groups of principals (Hallinger and Heck, 1999). Hallinger and Heck argue
that these approaches do not allow for the testing of complex models. They suggest
the use of multilevel or hierarchial modeling techniques as these studies have
identified promising mediating variables between school leadership and school
effectiveness. Furthermore, they suggest that some possible mediating variables ripe
26
for study include goal development, decision-making participation, teacher
commitment and expertise, monitoring of change implementation, staff development,
and changes in teacher classroom practices (Hallinger and Heck, 1999).
Trends in Qualitative Methods
The focus of qualitative inquiry has changed over the past 10-15 years to
incorporate an emphasis on how leaders think about and resolve problems as well as
how leadership is defined across a variety of settings. More and more ethnographic
studies are being conducted to reveal what shared norms or values drive principal
behavior (Hallinger and Heck, 1999). The literature is also demonstrating promising
results in the study of school leadership from the perspectives of teachers, students,
and parents. In addition, another focus of inquiry is the cultural context of school
leadership. Much of the current comparative studies of educational leadership have
been conducted in settings where Western culture predominates. In their review of
methodologies used in the study of educational leadership, Hallinger and Heck
(1998) point out the fact that personal variables (i.e. experience, educational
background, gender, ethnicity) have received minimal consideration in studies of
leadership effects (p.152). This provides another area of need for continued inquiry
about educational leadership.
While qualitative methods of inquiry will yield more descriptive definitions
of leadership across multiple settings and personal variables, quantitative methods
will allow researchers to compare these definitions and their effects across settings
(Hallinger and Heck, 1999).
27
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership theory has been a prominent framework through
which educational leadership is studied. Over the past two decades this approach to
leadership has been of particular interest as there has been a growing body of
evidence in social psychology about the positive impact of subordinate participation
in decision making practices (Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999).
Within this framework the development of teachers is the targeted outcome
of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Current research is now providing evidence of
an indirect relationship between leadership behavior and student achievement, and a
direct relationship between teacher practice and student achievement (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996). Teacher practice and overall instructional capacity are essential units of
analysis in studies of leadership effectiveness. Numerous studies of leadership
effectiveness have focused solely on student outcomes as a dependent measure of
leadership effectiveness without giving consideration to the relationship between
leader practices and teacher behavior.
Defining transformational leadership
What is it that defines transformational leadership? Bass and Avolio (1994)
set out to quantify transformational leadership behaviors by defining four unique but
interrelated behavioral components of transformational leadership: idealized
influence (charismatic role modeling), inspirational motivation (communicating an
dynamic vision), intellectual stimulation (promoting creativity and innovation), and
individualized consideration (coaching and mentoring) (Jung & Sosik, 2002).
28
Podsakoff et al. (1990) offered a more comprehensive definition of transformational
leadership behaviors with the following dimensions: identifying and articulating a
vision; fostering the acceptance of group goals; providing an appropriate model; high
performance expectation; providing individual support, providing intellectual
stimulation; contingent reward; and management-by-exception. Later in 1996,
Leithwood and colleagues synthesized a sample of 34 studies specific to the
components of transformational leadership. Of the 34 studies included in the
synthesis, 21 offered specific dimensions of transformational leadership behavior in
the school context. From these studies 9 common dimensions of transformational
leadership emerged, most of which are also found in scholarly literature pertaining to
transformational leadership behaviors outside the educational setting (Leithwood,
Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999). All dimensions were determined relevant to school
settings with the exception of management-by-exception. The operational definition
of transformational leadership behavior for this study will include two of the nine
dimensions found relevant to school settings. The following is a summary of these
two dimensions (Leithwood, 1996):
1. Charisma/Inspiration/Vision: influencing the personal goals than motivate
follower behavior. It is more likely that followers will strive to achieve
more ambitious goals than they would in the absence of visionary
charisma (p.802). This dimension requires the leader to have a high
degree of trust and respect among his/her colleagues. There are eight
29
observable behaviors associated with the creation of a vision within this
dimension:
a. Providing colleagues with an overall sense of purpose
b. Initiating processes (i.e. retreats) which engage staff in the
collective development of a shared vision
c. Espousing a vision for the school, but not in a way that pre-empts
others from expressing their vision
d. Exciting colleagues with visions of what they may be able to
accomplish if they work together to change their practices
e. Helping clarify the meaning of the school’s vision in terms of its
practical implication for programs and instruction
f. Assisting staff in understanding the relationship between external
initiative for change and the school’s vision
g. Assisting staff in understanding the larger social mission of which
their vision of the school is a part, a social mission which may
include such important end values as equality, justice and integrity
h. Using all available opportunities to communicate the school’s
vision to staff, students, parents, and other members of the school
community
2. Goal Consensus: the purpose of vision building is to create a shared sense
of purpose. The development of goal consensus is the process of focusing
followers on what will need to be accomplished to progress toward the
30
vision. This dimension is specific to the promotion of cooperation among
employees and getting them to work together toward a shared set of
goals. Embedded in this dimension is a strong emphasis on setting goals
and goal structures. The following is a list of ten observable behaviors
that define this dimension:
a. Providing staff with a process through which to establish school
goals and to regularly review these goals; this is likely to be a
‘problem solving’ process and to include careful diagnosis of the
school’s context.
b. Expecting teams of teachers and individuals to regularly engage in
goal setting and reviewing progress toward those goals
c. Assisting staff in developing consistency between school vision
and both group and individual goals
d. Working toward the development of consensus about school and
group goals and the priority to be awarded such goals
e. Frequently referring to school goals and making explicit use of
them when decision are being made about changes in the school
f. Encouraging teachers, as part of goal-setting, to establish and
review individual professional growth goals
g. Having ongoing discussion with individual teachers about their
professional growth goals
31
h. Clearly acknowledging the compatibility of teachers’ and school’s
goals
i. Expressing one’s own views about school goals and priorities
j. Acting as an important resource in helping colleagues achieve
their individual and school goals
Transformational Leadership and Its correlates
Numerous studies of transformational leadership have offered compelling
evidence of the positive effects of these leadership behaviors on students, followers’
psychological states, followers’ behaviors, and performance (Jung & Sosik, 2002;
Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003; Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999; Pillai &
Williams, 2004; Ross & Gray, 2006; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer
& Hogg, 2004). As stated previously, much of the research on educational leadership
is supporting the findings of significant indirect relationships between leader
behavior(s) and student outcomes (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). What is
becoming more evident in the literature is that this relationship between leader
behavior(s) and student outcomes is mediated largely by teacher behavior. Many of
the studies assessing the relationships between transformational leader behavior and
student outcomes have relied on “teacher-perceived” student outcomes. Using these
“teacher-perceived” student outcomes has provided support for the claim of an
indirect relationship, but some researchers (i.e. Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999)
add that there is substantial evidence of high correlations between “teacher-
perceived” student outcomes and direct measures of student achievement (i.e.
32
standardized assessments) (Egan and Archer, 1985 as cited in Leithwood, Jantzi &
Steinbach, 1999). Given the sample of 21 studies in Leithwood’s synthesis, five
reported significant indirect effects of transformational leadership on “teacher-
perceived” student outcomes (p.33). In addition, previous studies conducted by
Leithwood et al (1993, 1997, as cited in Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999) found
weak, direct but significant indirect effects of transformational leadership on student
participation in and identification with school.
Some researchers have also found significant positive relationships between
transformational leadership and additional commitment to the organization. Orr’s
(1990) study of superintendents in the United States found positive correlations
between extra efforts of subordinates and practices of transformational leadership
from their superintendent. Additionally, Koh’s (1990) study of principal’s in
Singapore found a significant negative relationship between transformational
leadership and subordinate non-compliance. In a separate study conducted by
Leithwood et al. (1994, as cited in Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999), evidence
was found to support the claim that transformational leadership, as a composite, had
both direct and indirect effects on teachers’ commitment to change.
Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir (2002) conducted a longitudinal, randomized
field experiment which measured follower development and performance in relation
to the practice of transformational leadership through training. The sample included
54 military leaders and over 800 followers, both direct and indirect. They
hypothesized that the experimental group of leaders, who received transformational
33
leadership training, would have “a positive impact on the development of followers’
motivation in terms of their self –actualization needs and extra effort” (p.736). They
also hypothesized that transformational leaders would have a positive impact on the
active engagement, critical thinking, and specific self-efficacy of subordinates.
Results of the study provided support for the hypotheses that predicted relationships
between transformational leadership and self-efficacy, extra effort and critical
thinking strategies. Given the experimental design of the study these findings
strengthen conclusions drawn from previous studies with less rigorous
methodological designs.
Overall, the evidence on transformational leadership suggests strong support
for the use of charisma/inspiration/vision, intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration in school settings. Though they suggest promising results in education,
the dimensions of contingent reward, high performance expectations, goal consensus
and modeling have not yet demonstrated strong empirical support in school settings,
and are in need of additional investigation. Finally, the dimension, management-by-
exception has demonstrated little to no positive effect to leadership outcomes in
school settings (Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999).
A key aspect of transformational leadership is the emphasis on follower
development through the improvement of self-confidence, self-efficacy, and self-
esteem. As stated previously, several studies have demonstrated support for the claim
that transformational leaders have a strong, positive influence on their followers’
motivation, performance, and thinking strategies. Within the context of school
34
settings this is vitally important as additional research has pointed to teacher practice
(i.e. follower development) as a mediator of student achievement. It is because of
these findings that this study focuses on the development of transformational
leadership self-efficacy beliefs and behaviors in school principals as dependent
variables.
Given the extant literature on the effects of transformational leadership
behavior in educational settings, the next item of inquiry is the process by which
these leadership behaviors are developed. Some researchers have suggested that
leadership behaviors are developed through previous experience, accumulation of
knowledge over time, personal characteristics and the values and beliefs of the leader
(Murphy, Elliott, Goldring & Porter, 2006). Much of the research in educational
leadership relies heavily on rich descriptions of effective leadership behavior.
However, the literature on how these leadership behaviors are developed and
maintained across time and context is sparse. The work of Hallinger, Leithwood &
Murphy (1993) really set the stage for investigating antecedents of school leadership
behavior through the theoretical lenses of cognitive psychology. Their book,
Cognitive Perspectives on Educational Leadership, offers numerous suggestions of
how these cognitive perspectives might enhance our understanding of how
leadership capacity is developed. From a social cognitive theoretical framework our
understanding of how educational leaders think about and apply knowledge might be
best understood by analyzing the specific belief systems which shape the application
of this knowledge in multiple contexts. It is hoped that the theoretical framework
35
used in this study will provide insight about how leadership capacity is developed
and maintained across time and contexts.
Social Cognitive Theory
As stated previously, much of the available research involving leadership
effectiveness and the construction of leadership capacity relies heavily on the
measure of leader behaviors as the primary dependent variable. It’s clear that the
objectives of many leadership preparation programs weigh heavily on changes in
leader behavior (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Teitel, 2005). The danger in simply
assessing leader behavior is the assumption that the identified effective behaviors are
required in all settings regardless of contextual factors (i.e. socio-economic status,
school culture, demographics, history of performance, decision rights). Prior research
studies (Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Hallinger, 2003) have
asserted that not all school settings require the same set of leadership behaviors to
elicit strong instructional leadership. For example, an elementary school located in a
very high socio-economic region with traditionally high student achievement ratings
will require a different set of leadership skills, abilities, and behaviors than a high
school located in a very low socio-economic region with traditionally low student
achievement ratings. Specific to this example, the principals from both schools may
participate in the same leadership preparation program giving them equal knowledge
and skills. However, each principal may be required to demonstrate vastly different
leadership behaviors from one context to the next. What is it that prompts one
principal to engage in specific behaviors while the other abstains? Beyond the
36
measure of isolated leader behaviors in a given context the greater focus of inquiry
might be the investigation into the variable(s) that serve as mediators of leadership
behavior regardless of contextual variables. This study makes the assertion that
leadership self-efficacy beliefs serve as mediators of leader behavior. Because self-
efficacy is not a static construct it is important to analyze these specific task beliefs
of leaders in relation to the current context. Though both principals from the example
given above may be exceptional instructional leaders in their respective schools, a
reversal of their assignments would likely yield different leadership strategies and
behaviors from one setting to the next.
Self-Efficacy
Social cognitive theory and the work of Albert Bandura provide a robust
theoretical framework from which we can assess the effectiveness of leadership
preparation programs throughout the United States. Self-efficacy is defined as
“beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and
courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood and Bandura,
1989). Self-efficacy influences the choices people make, the amount of effort they
commit to tasks, and the degree of persistence in light of pressing challenges
(Bandura, 1997). These beliefs form the foundation of human motivation and
performance. If people lack the beliefs in their ability to produce a rewarding
outcome it is highly unlikely that they will persist in the pursuit of that outcome. For
example, if a principal has low self-efficacy beliefs about his ability to create a
shared vision with the staff at ABC School it is highly unlikely that he will pursue
37
that endeavor. On the contrary, if this same principal has high self-efficacy beliefs
about his ability to create a shared vision with the staff at XYZ School it is likely that
he will pursue that endeavor as his perception is that it will produce a rewarding
outcome. In the scenarios above, the knowledge, skills and abilities of the principal
did not differ from one situation to the next. I would suggest that, within the
framework of social cognitive theory, it is a system of beliefs that influences a
principal’s behavior. Self-efficacy judgments, whether accurate or faulty, influence
choice of activities and whether people take an optimistic or pessimistic perspective
(Bandura, 2001).
In their daily lives people continuously make decisions about what courses of
action to pursue and how long to continue those they have undertaken. As a result,
people avoid activities that they believe exceed their capabilities, but they take on
and perform confidently those that they consider themselves capable of managing
(Bandura, 1977).
Unlike other self-appraisal constructs, self-efficacy beliefs are specific to a
particular task and context. The development of this construct stems from the notion
that human behavior is explained in terms of reciprocal determinism (Bandura,
1986). Several sources of influence, including personal, behavioral and
environmental factors, interact bidirectionally (see Figure 1) to define human
behavior (Pajaras, n.d.). From the social cognitive perspective, behavior is neither
shaped by inner forces nor external factors in isolation; rather, behavior is the result
of interactions among personal, environmental and behavioral variables. For
38
example, the way in which a principal interprets her behavior alters her environment
(i.e. reinforcement from subordinates) which interacts with her personal factors (i.e.
affective or cognitive responses) which then influences subsequent behavior.
This bidirectional interaction does not suggest that each factor bears equal
strength on the influence of an individual’s behavior. Rather it suggests an unequally
weighted interaction among all three components to describe human action. Because
of this bidirectionality the social cognitive perspective suggests that individuals are
both products and producers of their environment (Wood & Bandura, 1989).

Figure 1. Bandura’s (1986) model of triadic reciprocality

This is in direct contrast to behaviorist theorists who have traditionally
explained human behavior and learning as a direct result of external stimuli from the
environment. “Much of the early psychological theorizing was founded on
behavioristic principles that embraced an input-output model linked by an internal
39
conduit that makes behavior possible but exerts no influence of its own on behavior”
(Bandura, 2001). Behavioral theorists hold to the belief that humans simply react to
environmental stimuli, and the internal phenomenon of self-control, will, feelings
and emotion simply do not exist outside of observable and quantifiable biological
interactions. The following excerpts from B.F. Skinner’s (1971) book illustrate this
behaviorist perspective:
Careless references to purpose are still to be found in both physics and
biology, but good practice has no place for them; yet almost everyone
attributes human behavior to intentions, purposes, aims, and goals. (p.8)

We can follow the path taken by physics and biology by turning directly to
the relation between behavior and the environment and neglecting supposed
mediating states of mind. (p. 15)

We shall not solve the problems of alcoholism and juvenile delinquency by
increasing a sense of responsibility. It is the environment which is
'responsible' for the objectionable behavior, and it is the environment, not
some attribute of the individual, which must be changed. (p.74)

Alternatively, social cognitive theorists suggest that individuals have the
ability to participate in their own development and to exercise control over their
thoughts, feelings and actions. Furthermore, they would argue that this power over
one’s life is the “essence of humanness” (Bandura, 2001). Bandura (1986)
summarizes this concept quite simply with the following statement, “what people
think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (p.25). If people don’t believe they
can bypass unsuccessful situations and produce desired results they have little
incentive to persevere when challenges arise (Bandura, 2001). Though there may be
several contributing motivational factors to spur leader performance, the decision to
40
act boils down to the individual’s core beliefs of his or her ability to perform the
task(s) required to produce the desired outcome. In stark contrast to many behavioral
theorists of his time Bandura had a “profound influence on psychological thinking
and theorizing during the last two decades of the twentieth century and into the new
millennium” (Pajaras, n.d.).
Self-efficacy is commonly confused with other self-evaluative constructs
such as self-esteem, expectancy-outcome beliefs (Vroom, 1964), and locus of
control. Though seemingly similar in many aspects to other constructs, self-efficacy
beliefs are vastly different in that they are specific to ability beliefs, specific to a
task, and specific to a particular context. Self-efficacy beliefs are not simply global
affective appraisals of oneself or expectancy beliefs about one’s future behavior(s),
they are appraisals of task-specific capabilities within a defined context (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992).
Self-esteem is predominantly the most identified construct in terms of
similarity to self-efficacy. Though these two measures may be closely related there
are distinct differences worth noting. Self-esteem is typically considered an overall,
global appraisal of self-worth or self-liking across a wide variety of situations (Gist
& Mitchell, 1992). In contrast, self-efficacy is an appraisal of specific task
capability in a specific context. For example, the principal of ABC school located in
Rancho Santa Fe, California, one of the wealthiest cities in the United States, has a
very low global appraisal of self-worth (i.e. low self-esteem). However, this principal
is highly successful in his career as an educational leader and holds extremely high
41
self-efficacy beliefs about his abilities as a principal (i.e. communication with
community, creating and articulating a vision, intellectually stimulating
subordinates) in this community. On the other hand, a principal of a school located in
Camden, New Jersey, one of the poorest cities in the United States, has very high
overall appraisals of self-worth (i.e. high self-esteem). However, his career is marked
by numerous challenges and stumbling blocks which have led to the adoption of low
self-efficacy beliefs about his abilities as a principal (i.e. communication with
community, creating and articulating a vision, intellectually stimulating
subordinates) in this community. What has become evident through the research on
self-evaluative judgments is that self-efficacy beliefs are predictive of persistence
and performance (Bandura, 1982; Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Bandura & Wood,
1989; Meece, Wigfield & Eccles, 1990; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Zimmerman, 2000;
Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson & Watson, 2003) whereas measures of self-esteem have
demonstrated insignificant correlations to performance (Chemers, Watson & May,
2000). This is particularly important to researchers of leadership behavior because it
provides support for continued analysis of leadership development and effectiveness
through the lenses of social cognitive theory.
Self-efficacy also has been compared to Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory
that is based on the notion that people are motivated by what they believe to be the
impact (outcomes) of their actions. Locke et al. (1984) highlighted several
differences found between effort-performance and self-efficacy measures. Self-
efficacy generally encompasses a broader range of predictors of ability to perform a
42
specific task, whereas expectancy focuses on a narrower behavioral predictor of
overall performance on a job (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Locke et al., 1984).
Self-efficacy is a significant motivational construct which has demonstrated
considerable influences on goals (Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Locke et al., 1984;
Taylor et al., 1984; Ryan & Patrick, 2001) emotional reactions (Bandura, 1977;
1982) task performance (Locke et al 1984; Barling & Beattie, 1983; Gist, 1989;
Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson & Watson, 2003), choice and effort (Bandura & Locke,
2003; Bandura, 1999; Paglis & Green, 2002). In addition, research about self-
efficacy in organizational management has found that self-efficacy positively
predicts job attitudes (Saks, 1995), training proficiency (Martocchio & Judge, 1997),
and job performance (Gist, 1989; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). It has also
demonstrated significant influences on minimizing the negative effects of work
stressors on employees’ psychological well-being (Jex & Bliese, 1999; Bandura,
1988; Stumpf, Brief, & Hartman, 1987). Furthermore, additional studies about self-
efficacy have suggested that various training methods can enhance self-efficacy in
the areas of self management (Frayne & Latham, 1987), cognitive modeling (Gist,
1989), and behavioral modeling (Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989).
Self-Efficacy and Leadership
Because a comprehensive review of the literature on self-efficacy is beyond
the scope of this study, the following is an abbreviated review of the most prominent
studies pertaining to self-efficacy and leadership development. Paglis and Green
(2002) conducted a comprehensive study of managers in two separate industries: a
43
real estate management company and an industrial chemical firm. The purpose of
their study was to test a leadership model that focused on managers’ motivation for
leadership attempts (p.231). Their central argument was that managers with high
leadership self-efficacy will be seen by direct subordinates as engaging in more
leadership attempts (p.221). They also listed 12 additional hypotheses regarding the
antecedents of leadership self-efficacy. The results of their investigation indicated
significant positive correlations between leadership self-efficacy for direction setting
and subordinate ratings of leadership attempts. Likewise, higher leadership self-
efficacy for gaining commitment was significantly correlated with subordinate
ratings of leadership attempts. These results suggest that a leader’s beliefs about his
or her ability create a vision and gain commitment of subordinates is highly related
to the degree to which he or she is perceived to take risks in leadership. These
findings are of particular importance to leaders in urban school settings because
leadership attempts are often diminished by the numerous external variables
characteristic of the urban context (i.e. poverty, inadequate funding, violence, and
health concerns). Self-efficacy beliefs are context and task specific. These results
suggest that an increase in a leader’s belief about his or her ability to navigate the
myriad external variables of an urban school system would produce greater
leadership attempts and a higher degree of resiliency.
The importance of these results are underscored by additional evidence that
suggests that direction setting accounts for the largest proportion of a leader’s impact
on an organization (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004).
44
People who set goals for themselves craft courses of action that are likely to produce
successful outcomes. People are driven by goals they find intellectually challenging
but reasonably attainable. Establishing goals helps people attach meaning to their
work when they are rooted in personal values and identity (Bandura, 2001). In a
study involving 233 middle school students, Patrick and Ryan (2001) found that the
promotion of performance goals in the classroom related negatively to dependent
measures of social efficacy with the teacher and peers, academic efficacy, and self-
regulated learning. These results also suggest that the promotion of mastery goals in
the classroom should relate positively to self-efficacy beliefs and the use of complex
metacognitive strategies. Research investigating the application of goal theory and its
relation to academic outcomes is beginning to extend beyond measures of academic
performance. Several researchers have found significant correlations between goal
orientations and adaptive patterns of behavior (Ryan & Patrick, 2001) and, more
generally, general well being (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999). These findings suggest that
goal orientations not only relate to cognitive outcomes, but social and emotional
constructs as well.
Collective Efficacy
A growing area of inquiry in light of Bandura’s work in efficacy is collective
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Bandura offers a definition of collective efficacy
through the following statement, “Collective efficacy represents a group’s shared
belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given levels of attainments” (p. 477). Collective efficacy beliefs
45
are important to the field of educational leadership because these beliefs have
potential motivational and behavioral consequences for subordinates. Furthermore,
Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, (2001) suggests that an important function of
leadership may be to strengthen the efficacy beliefs of subordinates. This sounds
strikingly similar to the goals of transformation leadership theory.
In 2001, Watson, Chemers & Preiser conducted a study of 30 NCAA
Division III basketball teams to analyze both antecedents and consequences of
collective efficacy beliefs. One hypothesis central to the purpose of their study was
that confident leadership is related to stronger collective efficacy. They found that
players who believed they had an effective leader had greater confidence in their
team than did players who perceived their leader as less confident. In summary the
study revealed that teams with more confident leaders had stronger collective
efficacy beliefs at the beginning of the season. These results were also supported
through the work of Prussia and Kinicki (1996). Their study also found that effective
leadership had a greater impact, in terms of collective efficacy beliefs, on teams that
performed poorly during the previous season (p.1066). Moreover, the study found
that players who had strong self-efficacy beliefs also believed strongly in their
team’s collective efficacy (p.1065). These findings also lend support to the theory
underlying transformational leadership in that the focus of the leadership model is on
the development of teacher capacity.
High leadership self-efficacy has also been found to be negatively related to
anxiety. Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson & Watson (2003) conducted a study of college
46
students to evaluate the construct of self-efficacy with regard to leadership
effectiveness. One of the targeted hypotheses was that leader anxiety will be
negatively related to leadership self-efficacy. The study strongly supported this claim
with a correlation of

-.40 (p > .001). These results are especially significant to the
study of resiliency in urban school leaders.
Another well documented and strongly supported correlate of self-efficacy is
problem solving and complex cognitive strategy use. Though much of these findings
come from studies of academic performance they have significant implications for
adult learning and leadership development. In their study of 173 seventh grade
students, Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found that higher levels of self-efficacy and
intrinsic value were correlated with higher levels of cognitive strategy use and higher
levels of self-regulation. In addition, they found that higher levels of self-efficacy
and intrinsic value were associated with increased student achievement across all
types of tasks in the study (pg. 36). Though this particular study did not address
causality, the implications for adult learning and leadership development are
substantial. This study suggests that improving leaders’ self-efficacy beliefs may
lead to the use of more complex cognitive strategies which may, in turn, lead to
greater leadership performance.
The relationship between leadership self-efficacy and leadership performance
was the focus of a two-part study conducted by Chemers, Watson, & May in 2000.
Their study involved 96 ROTC cadets from eight California and Arizona university
programs. The primary hypotheses were that leadership efficacy and optimism would
47
be related to and predictive of objective ratings of leadership potential. The results of
the study revealed solid predictive strength for leadership efficacy and overall
performance. Whereas, self-esteem and optimism failed to independently predict
performance. Moreover, self-esteem and optimism did not independently contribute
to the prediction of peer ratings; however, self-efficacy was strongly related to
leadership ratings by peers, instructors and objective observers (p.273). The authors
concluded their study by stating “a key feature of preparing leaders may involve the
development of confidence.” (p.275).
The extensive body of scholarly literature on self-efficacy yields support for
the notion that perceptions of efficacy influence motivation and performance through
the goals individuals set, the choices they make and the effort and persistence they
exhibit. People engage in activities they see themselves capable of undertaking, and
once they have engaged, these efficacy beliefs shape how much effort they commit
to the task and how long they persist (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
In their review of methodologies commonly used in studies of educational
leadership, Hallinger and Heck (1998) point out the fact that personal variables (i.e.
experience, educational background, gender, ethnicity) have received minimal
consideration in studies of leadership effects (p.152). Recently, researchers have
begun to reveal different conceptions of leadership that seem related to personal
background (Heck and Hallinger, 1999). These findings have a tremendous potential
for broadening our understanding of leadership in urban settings. These studies lend
support to the notion that context is a contributing variable to effective school
48
leadership. Family structures, cultural values and traditions, economic conditions,
education and socioeconomic status largely affect leadership behavior through their
influence on efficacy beliefs, personal goals and expectations, and affective state
(Baldwin et al, 1989; Bandura, 1993).
Bandura (2001) references the cross-cultural research of Earley (1993, 1994)
to address the ways in which culture shapes the development of efficacy beliefs.
People from individualistic cultures tend to have higher self-efficacy beliefs in an
individually oriented system. On the other hand people from collectivistic cultures
have greater beliefs of efficacy in group-oriented systems (p.16). Earley (1994) also
concluded that people are most productive in environments that are congruent with
their psychological orientation. Regardless of cultural background, people achieve
the greatest personal efficacy and productivity when their psychological orientation
is congruent with the structure of the social system (Earley 1994). These findings
suggest that we need to analyze both the personal backgrounds of school leaders and
the context in which they are leading to better understand why leaders engage in
particular behaviors and make the choices they make.
Self Efficacy and Leadership Capacity Building
The malleable nature of self-efficacy brings about several questions regarding
the development of self-efficacy in leaders in urban settings. Efficacy judgments
change over time as people experience new situations and interpret new information
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Given the example in the beginning of this chapter of the
49
two principals working in very different contexts, how might the efficacy beliefs of a
principal recently placed in an urban setting be changed through training?
According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory there are four predictors of
self-efficacy: enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and affective
states (Chen & Bliese, 2002). These predictors provide new sources of information
upon which we build self-efficacy beliefs. Enactive experiences are the greatest
source of efficacy information as they are based on real, authentic mastery
experiences. As one might expect, repeated successful experiences increase
perceived self-efficacy; whereas, multiple failures lower self-efficacy beliefs.
Fortunately, enactive experiences are not the only mechanism for developing
efficacy beliefs.
Another effective source of information is vicarious experience. Observing
others perform successfully can increase efficacy beliefs when the individual
observing the event believes he or she has the capabilities to perform the same task
in similar fashion (Bandura, 1982). Vicarious experiences are more effective sources
of efficacy information when the model is similar to the observer. For example, a
young, male, Latino principal in an urban school will likely form stronger efficacy
beliefs vicariously from observing the successful experiences of another young,
male, Latino principal with a similar background in a similar context as opposed to
an older, African American principal with a dissimilar background in a suburban
setting.
50
The third source of efficacy information is derived from verbal persuasion.
This is a widely used strategy utilized to persuade people to believe they have the
capabilities to perform successfully given a specific task and context (Bandura,
1982). Though verbal persuasion may cause increases in efficacy beliefs, they are
typically temporary unless they are further supported through enactive mastery
experiences. If a principal is persuaded to believe that he or she has the ability to get
through to a historically reluctant staff, it is believed that the chances of the principal
taking action on the task and performing successfully are greatly increased when
compared to the performance of the task minus the verbal persuasion.
The final source of efficacy information is derived from individuals’
physiological states in judging their capabilities. When people are in a state of high
aversive arousal they tend to have higher perceptions of vulnerability. This increased
perception of vulnerability usually debilitates performance as people are more apt to
expect successful outcomes when they not as susceptible to vulnerability and
potential failure (Bandura, 1982).
Given the four mechanisms for increasing individual self-efficacy beliefs,
training methods composed of cognitive modeling with practice and reinforcement,
coaching and modeling, reflection on enactive practices with constructive feedback,
and continued encouragement is likely to produce significantly higher participant
self-efficacy and performance than methods involving lecture and practice alone
(Gist, 1989).

51
Leadership Capacity Building Models and Supports
In leadership preparation programs the transfer and application of new
knowledge has largely been assumed. It is this assumption that has led to an
increased attention to the study of leadership preparation in the United States
(Leithwood, 1996).
The majority of research on the effectiveness of leadership preparation
programs has relied heavily on student satisfaction or participating administrators’
opinion surveys as measures of effectiveness. Miklos (1992b) described the body of
research on the effectiveness of preparation programs as “fragmented.” He attributed
this to a lack of definitive research questions that are analyzed in depth and vague
patterns of findings. (p.27) The lack of depth and vagueness of substantive
conclusions provides additional support for the continued emphasis on research of
leadership preparation which incorporates the current knowledge from cognitive
psychology.
In 1987 The National Commission on Excellence in Educational
Administration, sponsored by the University Council of Educational Administration
(UCEA), published a report offering a list of recommendations to universities, state
and federal policy makers and the private sectors regarding the preparation of
educational leaders. In summary, the recommendations included fewer but more
rigorous preparation programs with higher licensing standards. Specifically, the
NCEEA cited a number of deficiencies found in leadership preparation programs,
including the following:
52
• Lack of definition of good educational leadership
• Lack of leader recruitment program in the school
• Lack of collaboration between school districts and universities
• Lack of minorities and women in the field
• Lack of systematic professional development for school administrators
• Lack of quality candidates for preparation programs
• Lack of preparation program relevant to the job demands of school
administrators
• Lack of sequence, modern content, and clinical experience in preparation
programs.
• Lack of licensure systems to promote excellence
• Lack of a national sense of cooperation in preparing school leaders
(Jackson & Kelley, 2002)

After recognizing the need to create a concerted and collaborative effort to
improve educational leadership practices through the county, the UCEA convened
the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership
Preparation in 2002 to address the needs for strengthening school and district
leadership for the 21st century (Jackson & Kelley, 2002).
In the early 1990’s Leithwood & Steinbach (1995) initiated a growing body
of research on educational administration using a social cognitive framework. This
approach to the study of school leadership is extremely new but offers promising
results in better understanding the nature of expertise and problem solving in
educational administration (Leithwood, 1996). Another prevalent focus in the study
of leadership development is values. As you can imagine this is an increasingly
sensitive topic with regards to which values are to be promoted and assessed in
school leadership (Leithwood, 1996).
Many leadership preparation programs are content rich and knowledge driven
which brings about many concerns regarding transfer of learning. Current research in
53
learning and motivation (social cognitive theory) point to several positive
correlations between self-efficacy and complex strategy use. However, the research
on leadership training programs as viewed through the lens of social cognitive theory
is sparse. Much of the research on leadership preparation programs is descriptive in
nature and limited to a review of training components utilized (Teitel, 2005; Jackson
& Kelly, 2002; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, Porter, 2006; Gurr, Drysdale & Mulford,
2006). A general observation of the literature has found that the dependent variables
or outcomes of these trainings are vaguely defined. Typically, outcomes are
measured in terms of leader behavior. This presents a challenge in this area of
research as not all behaviors or combinations of behavior are effective in every
setting.
In the late 1990s the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) established a set of standards for the professional practice of school leaders.
The purpose of the ISLLC standards was to raise the bar for the practice of school
leadership by providing an organized set of content and performance standards that
could be used to shape the preparation of school leaders. (Educational Testing
Service, 2008) Sixteen states currently use the School Leaders Licensure Assessment
as part of their licensure process (Educational Testing Service, 2008).
The ISLLC standards in conjunction with national educational reform
initiatives (e.g. No Child Left Behind Act) began a revolution in the development
and design of leadership preparation programs. In years past the development of
leaders in education rested solely on the shoulders of higher education. Today, there
54
are multiple avenues through which educational leaders are trained and licensed. The
following is a review of the different approaches employed in the development of
administrators.
Problem-based learning (PBL)
PBL refers to an instructional strategy in which small teams of learners are
given real problems related to their profession. Each team works together to
collaboratively solve the problem as the instructor facilitates the development of
problem solving strategies. Once a solution to the problem is materialized the
facilitator leads the group through a process of reflection. This process leads learners
through a process of analyzing their thinking and use of strategy in the development
of their solution. Great emphasis is placed on metacognitive reflection and strategy
use (Bridges & Hallinger, 1993). This approach to administrator preparation is
especially relevant through the lens of social cognitive theory because cognitive
modeling is a vicarious influence through which self-efficacy and performance can
be increased. In an experimental study of 60 managers from a federal scientific
research and development agency, Gist (1989) found that managers who received
cognitive modeling training developed higher self-efficacy when compared to
managers who received lecture training. The study also found that the managers who
received cognitive modeling training performed better on idea-generation tasks than
those who received the lecture training (p.801).

55
Cohorts
The cohort approach in leadership preparation programs has gained increased
attention in the last 15 years. A study conducted by the Center for the Study of
Preparation Programs in 1995 found that nearly 80% of University Continuing
Education Association (UCEA) units used cohorts at the doctoral level (McCarthy,
1999, p. 128). The literature on the utilization of cohorts has produced both
advantages and disadvantages with this approach in leadership preparation. Some of
the advantages include: increased motivation and program completion rates,
obligation and commitment to other team members, problem based learning
scenarios, increased collaboration with faculty, greater cohesiveness and stronger
relationships with others in the cohort (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000;
Scribner & Donaldson, 2001 as cited in McCarthy, 1999).
Some of the disadvantages include the possibility of adversarial situations
among the cohort, an overriding member of the cohort exerts influence on the others,
and strained relationships between students and faculty due to power play (Barnett et
al., 2000; Scribner & Donaldson, 2001; Teitel, 1997 as cited in McCarthy, 1999).
Partnerships among Schools, Universities, and Communities
A common criticism of educational leadership research as preparation has
been the connection between the two (Preis, Grogan, Sherman & Beaty, 2007). It
seems as though the gap between theory and practice is widening. As new leaders are
trained using current research and theory via university programs their decision
rights as a new administrator are often limited to the point not being able to effect
56
change within the organization. For example, a newly trained assistant principal has
limited rights on how s/he practices leadership. Instead of applying the newly learned
leadership skills the new leader is acculturated and trained in the ways of the
organization. However, partnerships between schools and universities have the
potential to bridge this gap between theory and practice (Preis, Grogan, Sherman &
Beaty, 2007). These partnerships are not necessarily limited to schools and
universities. Some educational institutions have partnered with corporate leaders,
professional organizations, community organizations, colleges of Business or
Management and the State Departments of Education (Preis, Grogan, Sherman &
Beaty, 2007). Some examples of these partnerships include: Chicago Leadership
Academies for Support Success (CLASS), Georiga’s Leadership Institute, Arkansas
Leadership Academy and the Association of California School Administrators
(ACSA) Academies.
Educational Leadership Preparation Outside of Higher Education
With increased attention being paid to educational reform via local leadership
more and more districts and State Departments of Education are turning to leadership
preparation programs outside of higher education. Some of the prevalent leadership
preparation organizations and programs outside of higher education include: New
Leaders for New School (NLNS), National Institute for School Leadership (NISL),
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), and Institute for Learning (IFL).
Several State Departments of Education have already contracted with agencies
57
outside academia to provide training for their educational leaders (e.g.
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas)
Technology
To accommodate the balance of full time employment and continued
education, many institutions of higher education have developed distance learning
solutions that offer flexibility and convenience for the learner. In fact, at the turn of
the new millennium over 50% of all institutions of higher education offered online
courses for students (US Department of Education). Of the institutions that offered
online courses 19% of them offered degree programs that could be completed solely
online. The primary methods of content delivery were video and internet
technologies. Though these advances in technology were seen as tremendous
accomplishment in providing access to high education, the idea of distance learning
brings about many concerns regarding the transfer and application of knowledge.
From a social cognitive standpoint this brings about several concerns such as
development of self-efficacy, cognitive modeling, and strategy development. Online
preparation programs are heavily reliant on the delivery of content with limited
interaction with colleagues and the instructor. Though the advent of online courses
and degree programs may have brought about greater access to higher education it
has also raised concern regarding the preparation of leaders in education (Preis,
Grogan, Sherman & Beaty, 2007).

58
Field Experiences
A common critique of distance learning programs is a lack of emphasis on
the transfer of knowledge to practice. Many university-based leadership preparation
programs target aspiring leaders which poses a challenge with regard to the transfer
of learning. For example, an individual currently completing coursework for an
administrative license is most likely not in an administrative position while s/he is
completing the program. This ability to directly apply what is learned and receive
immediate and specific feedback is critical to the success of the new leader. A field
experience requirement is often the solution to assist with the transfer and
application of new knowledge and skills. Researchers examining cognitive
approaches to leadership preparation suggest that field experiences should provide
opportunities for learners to observe and participate in leadership, thus providing
them opportunities to analyze the cognitive processes involved in the identifying and
solving of problems (Jackson and Kelly, 2002). Bridges and Hallinger (1997)
summarize the concern with the following statement:
Students learn about leadership primarily through reading and discussing
theories of leadership, rather than acquiring experience in what leaders
actually do and what it feels like to be a leader. This approach to leadership
preparation mistakenly assumes that students who acquire knowledge about
leadership out of the context in which it later will be used will recognize
when to use this knowledge and how to use it appropriately. (p.131)

Much of the current research on the effectiveness of leadership preparation
programs has focused on the perceived effectiveness of the program as the primary
dependent variable. The measures of effectiveness are often generated from the
59
participant or faculty perceptions. However, with the continued focus from federal
initiatives on outcomes of school reform we are seeing that more attention is being
given to the explicit identification and measure of training outcomes (Preis, Grogan,
Sherman & Beaty, 2007).
More recently we have been seeing a concerted focus on the measure of
leader behavior within a given framework (i.e. transformational leadership or
distributed leadership behaviors) as a dependent variable in studies of leadership
preparation program effectiveness. In conjunction with the measure of change in
leader behavior, some researchers have suggested the measure of self-efficacy as a
dependent variable in studies of leadership preparation program effectiveness as it
is a well established mediator of human behavior (Gist, 1989; Hallinger, Leithwood
& Murphy, 1993; Leithwood, 1996). To conclude, the existing literature on the
efficacy of the various models of leadership development programs described above
is extremely limited. The two challenges facing this area of research are (a) explicitly
defining measures of effectiveness and (b) explicitly identifying which components
of leadership development programs yield greater measures of effectiveness.
Leadership Capacity Building Programs (NISL)
The National Institute for School Leadership offers an executive development
program for school principals as well as other school district, and state leaders.
Specifically, NISL targets populations (districts) with a history of high poverty, low
performance and urban dynamics. The NISL program is the result of six years of
extensive research related to the most effective leadership programs worldwide (e-
60
Lead, n.d.). The purpose of the NISL program is to build district and state capacity to
sustain long term instructional improvement. At the core of the organization is the
belief that great schools have great leaders. NISL’s theory is rooted in the notion that
effective school leadership ultimately leads to increased student achievement. The
program focuses on the principal as a strategic, instructional leader who creates a fair
and just community of learning in which all students achieve high standards.
Specifically, the program trains participants to build and sustain a collaborative and
ethical learning culture with shared decision making, to train principals on how to
use data to improve instruction and to develop strategic and systemic processes for
sustained improvement. Specifically, NISL has adopted the view of Richard Elmore
in that “instructional leadership is the guidance and direction of improved
instruction—leading to higher student achievement.” (e-Lead, n.d.)
The program design is modeled after that of the corporate university with
cohorts of leaders within a single district or state. The model incorporates strategies
or approaches currently being used in the education agency to enhance student
achievement. Within this design NISL trains a leadership team from the local
district. This team is then responsible for working with NISL facilitators to train
subsequent cohorts of leaders throughout the local education agency. This process
not only builds local capacity but sustains leadership capacity as the training
strategies and approaches remain consistent throughout the agency regardless of
turnover or transfer of leaders within the institution. In addition to the initial training
61
of the cohorts NISL provides technical assistance and continuing support for up to
three years.
The curriculum is closely aligned with the Interstate School Leadership
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. After a thorough review of exemplary
leadership programs worldwide, the NISL program is composed of roughly 65%
face-to-face interaction, 15% web-based learning and 20% individual work in the
field (Hughes, 2005). The curriculum includes several case studies (printed and
video), simulations and computer-assisted exercises. Each unit is designed to use
practical application and gap analysis strategies to identify and problem solve areas
of needed improvement. Not only does the curriculum equip leaders with the
knowledge, skills and tools necessary for being an agent of change it is designed to
shape the attitudes and beliefs of participating school leaders to deepen their capacity
as an instructional leader. The NISL curriculum stresses the importance of the
principal as the instructional leader. Principals learn how to align instructional
materials, teaching strategies and curriculum frameworks. Principals also learn how
to develop processes for creating distributed leadership teams who become
entrenched in the fidelity of instructional strategies. In all, the program has 14 units
with two simulations and two institutes (National Institute for School Leadership,
2008). The program is supported by instructors who have experienced great
successes as principals, superintendents or state department of education officials.
NISL also utilizes facilitators with expertise in other backgrounds applicable to
effective leadership in education (e.g. business, military, government). The program
62
relies little on direct instruction, but weighs heavy on interactive methods of learning
(i.e. Socratic questioning, group discussions, role playing and case studies).
NISL was created in July 2001 to provide states and school districts with a
highly sophisticated executive development program for school leaders. The
organization was supported, in part, by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, The
Broad Foundation, the Stupski Foundation, and the New Schools Venture Fund
(National Institute for School Leadership, 2008). The leading researches in the
development of this program are Marc Tucker and Judy Codding from the National
Center of Education and the Economy. Through this initial research it became
evident that the field of educational leadership had much to learn from other
professions such as law, medicine and engineering. The study found that these other
professions had a higher standard for the identification and implementation of best
practices (Hughes, 2005) whereas the field of educational leadership held a position
of “once trained and certified, always trained and certified.” With the current state of
education in the United States it is quite evident that this position of mediocrity is
ineffective and more importantly intolerable. Our educational system requires
rigorous training and continuous certifications for our leaders. It cannot be assumed
that our leaders will always know what they need to know without extended training
throughout their careers (Hughes, 2005). In addition, the study found that many
college and university programs were disconnected from current knowledge in
teaching and learning. The study also revealed that these formal training programs,
for the most part, did not focus on building leadership capacity through strategic
63
thinking, data analyses strategies or gap analysis strategies. To conclude, the study
found that many principals did not feel prepared to lead their schools to high student
achievement (Hughes, 2005). Principals spent the majority of their time on issues
such as schedules, bussing, food services, facilities, sports programs and discipline;
only 15 to 30 percent of their time was spent on improving instruction in their
schools (Hughes, 2005). For the purpose of this study the lack of preparation
explained in the NISL study might be described in terms of low self-efficacy as an
instructional leader or agent of change. This low belief in ability as an instructional
leader and low commitment of time to instructional improvement support the
premise of this study in that specific self-efficacy beliefs are mediators of leadership
practice.
As of 2008, the cost of the Leadership Team program is $12,000 per
leadership team member. The cost of the Principals Program which is taught by the
state or district team leaders is $5,000 per participant. The Leadership Team training
is composed of roughly 33 days of training delivered in two phases. This training
typically takes 1½ to 2 years to complete. Since the development of this program
four state departments have adopted NISL as their executive training for school
leaders- Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Minnesota. With regard to
program evaluations the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) at the
University of Pennsylvania has begun a five year longitudinal study of the effects of
the NISL program on leadership practices and ultimately student outcomes.
64
In summary, the NISL program is designed to build instructional leaders who
are able to think strategically, build effective academic programs, lead instructional
improvement efforts, design effective professional development programs and create
a culture of ethical and moral behavior.
Influence of Leadership on Teacher Practice and Student Outcomes
It seems somewhat antithetical to think of principals not having a positive
impact on schools and, specifically, student outcomes. Despite the common belief
that principal are essential to successful schools, very few empirical studies
supported this notion until recently (Heck & Hallinger, 1992). The 1980’s brought
about increasing concern and skepticism regarding the accountability of schools and
their leaders (Heck & Hallinger, 1992). The current literature on the effects of school
leadership on student outcomes demonstrate few direct relationships but significant
indirect effects on student achievement which are mediated by teacher practice and
classroom activities (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998). Some researchers have
suggested that the existing research about leadership effects on students learning
underestimated the actual effects on student learning as it is often confusing to
interpret (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004).
Gaps in the Literature
As with professionals in other fields, successful educational leaders
demonstrate a set of skills and abilities that extend beyond the basics of their
practice. They have developed the ability to adjust to the unique demands of various
contexts. The extant research about educational leadership has been clear in
65
suggesting that leaders behave quite differently from one context to the next given a
particular set of circumstances (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom,
2004). With this knowledge we must focus our attention on variables beyond a
particular set of leadership behaviors that are defined as effective in a unique
context. We must focus our attention to the mediators of leadership behavior. The
existing literature on leadership development has given great descriptions of
generally effective leadership behavior, but more insight is needed to identify the
determinants of these behaviors. Not only do leaders need to build a large repertoire
of leadership skills, they need to build the capacity to know when to use them and
why they are needed. However, before leadership development efforts can develop
the capacity to understand when to apply these skills and why, we must first
understand what drives leader behavior. To date very few studies have analyzed
leadership training approaches from a social cognitive perspective. To better
understand these changes in leader behavior, I assert that leadership preparation
programs and studies of leadership should be viewed through the lens of social
cognitive theory. This study focuses on the effectiveness of one particular leadership
development program as measured by changes in leader behavior and changes in
self-efficacy beliefs.
Conclusion
It is no secret that leading urban schools to a place of high academic
achievement is a monumental task given the challenges of the urban context. It is
also apparent that many leadership preparation programs have fallen short of
66
adequately preparing educational leaders for the challenges involved in educating
today’s children (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). However, the literature has brought to the
surface one particular leadership approach that has gained much attention. The
engagement of transformational leadership behaviors has demonstrated strong
influences on teacher practice and ultimately on student achievement. Moreover, the
research from cognitive psychology suggests that task-specific judgments of ability
in particular contexts (e.g. self-efficacy beliefs) mediate human action. Self-efficacy
is an important motivational construct, and it is vital to the study of leadership
behavior and development. “The question of how self efficacy can be changed (e.g.
through training) may be a question about how beliefs about abilities or motivation
may be changed” (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
The proposed study will use contemporary theories of educational leadership
and cognitive psychology to analyze how leadership capacities of both urban and
suburban leaders are developed through the participation in an executive leadership
training program. It is hoped that this study will bring researchers and practitioners
one step closer to understanding the intricacies and complexities of effective
leadership in urban settings.
67
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Federal policies, as well as State accountability initiatives, have placed
tremendous pressure on school leaders across the nation. These reform efforts have
left the greatest challenge in the hands of educational leaders in urban settings. Ill-
prepared principals often fall short of addressing the external variables, beyond the
walls of the school building, which influence the success of students in school.
Educational leaders in urban contexts are expected to navigate challenges such as
poverty, school violence, historically high dropout rates, low academic achievement,
and factors associated with second language acquisition. Yet the expectation of
NCLB remains—all students proficient by 2013-2014. As a result, these leaders are
in need of dynamic leadership training that can prepare them to effectively lead these
schools down a path of greater success. Unfortunately, our knowledge of exactly
what it takes to build and sustain the capacity of these leaders is lacking.
The purpose of the study was to better understand changes in practices and
self-efficacy beliefs as leaders participate in the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL)
project. The current research on leadership is very descriptive in nature, in that, it
provides rich explanations of what effective leadership looks like. Though we have
great descriptions of effective leadership behavior we are faced with a monumental
challenge because the nature of human behavior is that it differs from one context to
the next. This is particularly challenging for researchers investigating educational
leadership because much of the data we have used to define effective leadership
68
practice is specific to the context in which it was collected. Though we have these
vivid depictions of effective practices in various contexts, we don’t know much
about what exactly shapes or influences these behaviors.
This study focused on the journey of two principals through the first seven
months of a leadership development program. It is through the documentation and
analysis of this journey that the field of educational leadership has a more brilliant
illustration of the phenomenon of leadership behavior. Prior to the start of this study
the Pennsylvania State Department of Education contracted with the National
Institute for School Leadership (NISL) to provide an advanced leadership training
program to principals, directors and superintendents throughout the state as part of
the Principal Inspired Leaders initiative. Both NISL and the State Department of
Education invited a team of graduate student researchers, under the direction of Dr.
Margaret Reed, from the University of Southern California to study the
implementation of this leadership preparation program and its impact on leadership
development. This study is embedded within a larger, four-year, longitudinal
research project funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, The
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) Evaluation Study.
The PIL initiative is a state-wide leadership development initiative involving
both training and mentoring components. The leadership training is through the
direction of the National Institute for School Leaders (NISL) which was described in
detail in Chapter 2. The mentoring component involves the assignment of an
experienced administrator to each principal with less than five years of experience.
69
These mentors support new principals by sharing their experiences, providing
guidance and identifying resources for novice principals. Because of the value placed
on this mentoring relationship, the Pennsylvania Department of Education has made
this component mandatory for all novice principals participating in the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leaders (PIL) initiative.
Participants were identified initially at the State level for this mandated
intervention (N=3019), through the registration process coordinated by regional
coordinators across the state’s either regions. The first cohort of 200 principals
identified to participate in the longitudinal study was identified in the fall of 2008.
My particular study sought to qualitatively study the self-efficacy beliefs and
changes in principal practice within the context of transformational leadership
behaviors over the first five months of training through PIL.
This study is designed to address the following research questions:
1. How and why do principals’ self-efficacy beliefs about transformational
leadership behaviors and practices surrounding vision setting and goal
consensus change over time?
2. In what ways do the principals’ self-efficacy beliefs and practices
surrounding vision setting and goal consensus differ in consideration of
school context (urban vs. suburban)?
3. From the participant’s perspective, what is it about the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leaders (PIL) initiative that influences participants’ self-efficacy
beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors?
70
Sample Criteria and Process
Participants and Setting
The Pennsylvania State Department of Education has mandated that all
principals and other district and school leaders throughout the state participate in the
PIL program within the next five years. The dissertation chair for my committee was
instrumental in securing access to the districts and schools across the eight regions of
Pennsylvania. Through a research proposal designed to have graduate student
researchers from the University of Southern California study the impact of the
State’s PIL program on leader practice, teacher practice, and student outcomes, the
State department awarded the University a $109,000 grant to put this longitudinal
study into place beginning in the fall of 2008. The Secretary of Education for the
state of Pennsylvania drafted a letter of support of this project and encouraged all
district superintendents to support this endeavor (Appendix A).
Participants in this study were drawn from among K-12 suburban and urban
Pennsylvania public schools serving an ethnically diverse student population and
substantial numbers of low income families. Specifically, participants were drawn
from underperforming urban and suburban Pennsylvania public secondary schools in
Region I. The region serves a predominance of students from racial and ethnic
minorities, second language learners, and low income families. The East Valley
School District is the largest district in Region 1 with 210,432 students who are
served in 270 schools (Pennsylvania Department of Education). The student
demographics in Philadelphia are as follows: 64.4% African American, 5.6% Asian,
71
15.8% Hispanic, .02% Native American. Table 1 provides a visual representation of
Philadelphia’s student achievement results in 2006-2007.

Table 1. Number of students assessed in the East Valley School District and the
percentage of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and subject area for
the 2006-2007 school year

Student Group
# Students
Assessed Reading
# Students
Assessed Math
All Students Grades 3-11 84,925 41% 84,534 45%
White 11.382 60% 11,417 65%
Black 52,973 36% 53,214 39%
Latino/Hispanic 14,012 34% 14,080 41%
Asian 4,768 63% 4,800 77%
Native American 135 53% 137 55%
Multiracial 792 50% 801 56%
IEP 12,681 11% 12,750 15%
English Language Learners 5,996 23% 6,097 39%
Economically Disadvantaged 68,540 38% 68,856 42%

To facilitate administration of the VAL-ED, participants for the in-depth case
studies were selected from among those scheduled to begin the NISL training in
October 2008. Region 1 is the only region that started during the data collection
time frame. This region is composed of school districts in the following counties:
Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Philadelphia, and Montgomery. The participants in
this study were selected from the cohort of secondary principals in the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leaders Program (PIL) as identified by the Pennsylvania Department of
72
Education. Priority was given to schools based upon school performance criteria
from suburban and urban public schools serving students from ethnically diverse and
low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds. Participation in the PIL program is
mandated for all school administrators within the first five-years of employment.
For the purposes of this study, two secondary principals participating in the PIL
intervention were the focus of the study. In addition to the selected principals several
teachers from each administrator’s school were invited to participate in the study.
Gaining Access to Participants
In August 2008 letters of invitation to participate in this study were sent to all
principals of the larger study who were scheduled to participate in the PIL training
across the state’s eight regions (Appendix B). Principals in Region 1 were invited
through a second letter to also participate in the case study portion of this study. A
follow up letter with the official informed consent form was sent to each principal
selected for the study. Purposive sampling strategies were used to identify two
principals from among those in Region 1 who had expressed an interest in
participating in this study. The cases for this study were selected because they are
“information rich” and enlightening about leadership practices in both urban and
suburban settings (Patton, 1990, p.40). Principals were selected based on the
following criteria:
1. Demographics of School Site: greater than 75% minority population for
urban school site and less than 50% minority population for the suburban
school site.
73
2. Social Economic Status (SES) of Community Served: greater than 60%
low SES for urban school site and less than 20% low SES for the
suburban school site.
3. English Language Learner Population at School Site: greater than 8%
ELL population for the urban school site, and less than 5% ELL
population for the suburban school site.
4. Years of Experience: less than 5 years of experience as a site principal
5. School Type: urban or suburban secondary school as defined by the
criteria in items one through three above.
6. Participation in PIL Intervention: principals for the case study were
selected from the first cohort of principals registered for the PIL
intervention.
A follow up letter with the official informed consent form was sent to each
principal selected for the study. A follow up phone call to each of the thirteen
principals from the East Valley School District was made to personally invite them
to participate in the study. Following each principal’s consent and receipt of the
signed informed consent forms, a letter of invitation was distributed to their teachers
informing them of the principal’s commitment to the study and inviting them to
participate. The letter also explained the assurances of confidentiality, and an official
informed consent form was included with the letter.
74
Data Collection Procedures
This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design. In general,
case studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and
the development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are most
appropriate in situations where the researcher has little control over the events in the
context surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore the focus of this study
centered on descriptive questions which sought to shed light on the “hows” and
“whys” of changes in principal leadership behavior through the first seven months of
the principals’ participation in the PIL program.
Yin 1984 defines a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (p. 23). For this study it was important to analyze the
phenomenon of educational leadership in a real-life context to gain a better
understanding of what factors about the context seemed to influence principal
behavior. As such, a multiple case study design was the best methodological
approach for this study as I was able to purposefully analyze the leadership
phenomenon in two very distinct contexts: urban and suburban school settings. Not
only does a comparative case study design contribute to the robustness of the study,
it contributes to the base of knowledge supporting the importance of context or
setting in behavior change.
75
Instrumentation
Multiple sources of data were used in this study. For both case studies the
following sources were used to gather descriptive data: interviews with each
principal and a sub-set of their teachers, observations, and a collection of artifacts
relevant to the study. A full list of documents and artifacts utilized in this study are
found in Appendix C. In addition, the study collected data from the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey (see Appendices D
through I) which was administered, twice, to each principal and their teachers. The
first administration was given prior to the principals’ participation in Course 1 of the
PIL training (NISL) and once following the completion of Course 1. However, only
one principal completed Course 1 in the fall of 2008. Patton (1990) contends that,
“multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single source of
information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective…” (pg.244). In
an effort to triangulate the data reflecting possible changes in leader practices, data
from the VAL-ED surveys were analyzed against national norm-referenced
standards. The VAL-ED surveys are being used as part of the overarching
longitudinal study. The two principals participating in this study were administered a
“post” survey in the spring of 2009, following the completion of Course 1 of the PIL
training program. The purpose of administering the VAL-ED survey after just five
months was to strengthen the overall study as it provided another source of
information for the triangulation of data.
76
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The VAL-ED is a survey of educational leadership which is closely aligned
with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and the
Pennsylvania Leadership Standards (Appendix D). Learning-centered leadership
theory is the framework for the VAL-ED. The learning centered leader is one who
establishes clear vision, exhibits instructional proficiency, aligns the curriculum to
assessment, personally knows his or her staff, implements a culture of learning for
adults and children, encourages a safe and orderly environment, and communicates
with all actors in the teaching and learning process. It is through this leadership
perspective that the behaviors for this instrument were developed. The survey is
composed of 72 items which are broken down into six core component subscales and
six process subscales. The six key processes are: planning, implementing,
supporting, advocating, communicating, and monitoring. The six core components
are: high standards for student performance, rigorous curriculum, quality instruction,
culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to external communities,
and systemic performance accountability. The VAL-ED was funded by a grant from
the Wallace Foundation and developed by a team of well-respected researchers in
educational leadership (Joseph Murphy, Ellen Goldring, Stephen Elliot and Andrew
Porter). Respondents indicate their perceptions of how well the principal engages in
actions (the key processes) that impact effective school characteristics supported by
research (the core components). The survey also seeks to identify the source(s) of
evidence that support these perceptions. The instrument is designed to provide a 360-
77
degree evidence-based assessment of leadership; the principal, supervisor and all
teachers at the school site complete the survey. Respondents rate the perceived
effectiveness of the principal on a scale of 1-5 (1= Ineffective to 5= Outstandingly
Effective) for each of the 72 items. In addition, each respondent indicates the source
of evidence upon which each rating of effectiveness is based. Parallel forms of the
assessment are used to measure growth over time. The VAL-ED survey yields both
criterion-referenced and norm-referenced scores. Refer to Figure 2 for a sample of
the VAL-ED survey.

Figure 2. Sample VAL-ED survey detailing three of the six key processes with
illustrative effectiveness ratings and sources of evidence
78
Though the VAL-ED is a new instrument in the research of educational
leadership it has gone through extensive field testing to establish high standards of
content validity and reliability. In Fall 2007 a nine-school pilot test was completed
to establish both face and content validity. Estimated reliability coefficients for each
of the twelve subscales were also established as a result of this pilot. Overall, the
investigation revealed high reliability coefficients for the seventy-two-item scales (α
= >.98). Confirmatory factor analysis was done to investigate data fit to the
conceptual model. The factor analytic model was designed to parallel the conceptual
framework for the VAL-ED by incorporating higher-order factors for core
components, key processes, and an overall score. Because each item contributed to
both a core component and a key process, the factor analytic model was split into
two separate analyses: one on core components and the other on key processes.
Results from the confirmatory factor analyses reveal that both the core components
and the key processes models fit the data very well, having goodness of fit indices
between .96 and .99. A primary source of validity evidence is the core component
and key process intercorrelations. The correlations were high, both for core
components and for key processes, though they appear somewhat higher for key
processes. For core components, correlations ranged from a low of .73 (Connections
to External Communities and High Standards for Student Learning) to a high of .90
(Quality Instruction and High Standards for Student Learning). For key processes,
correlations ranged from a low of .89 (Supporting and Monitoring) to a high of .94
(Monitoring and Communicating). Correlations of core components and key
79
processes with total score were all quite high, with none lower than .9. These high
intercorrelations, along with the factor analysis results described above, suggest that
the instrument is measuring a strong underlying construct, principal leadership. A
full description of the VAL-ED reliabilities and psychometric properties is found in
Appendix E. In the winter of 2008 a 300-school field test was completed. The
purposes of this test were; (a) to replicate reliability and validity tests from the initial
nine-school pilot in the fall of 2007, (b) to conduct differential item functioning to
determine biases, and (c) to establish norms.
For this study the VAL-ED was administered via a paper and pencil survey
that was mailed to principals in the fall of 2008 prior to their beginning the PIL
intervention. All teachers were invited to complete an on-line version of the survey
in the fall of 2008 prior to principals participating in the Pennsylvania Inspired
Leaders intervention. The actual number of participant for the fall and spring
administrations of the VAL-ED were seven and twenty-eight respectively. Because
fewer than 50% took the survey, the results were interpreted with caution. All
respondents were assigned a unique ID to protect the confidentiality of each
participant. The use of IDs prevented the possibility of retaliation against teachers as
the identities of all participants were unknown to the principal and the principal’s
supervisor.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with each principal and a sub-set of teachers
(N=6,7) and staff from each principal’s school site. Each principal was interviewed
80
one time for approximately forty-five minutes just prior to the principal’s
participation in NISL and once in the spring of 2009 just after each principal had
completed Course 1 of the PIL training (i.e. NISL). A semi-structured interview
process was utilized for all interviews. Both pre and post-NISL protocols were
developed for each participant in the study: teachers/staff members, and principals
(see Appendices L through O). Teachers and staff members were selected based on
the number of years they had been working under the leadership of the principal (two
or more years) and the level of involvement in leadership roles at the school site
(staff members who hold a leadership role in the school such as department chair,
mentor teacher, etc.). A minimum of six teachers and/or staff members were
interviewed at each site. Teachers were also selected based upon academic
department affiliation. Only one teacher from any particular department was selected
so that no two teachers represented the same department. Teachers were also selected
based upon years of experience as a teacher so that the sample of teachers
represented a range of experience levels. The interview protocols were designed to
elicit responses targeting principal self-efficacy beliefs and practices within the
context of transformational leadership behavior. Questions were designed to not
mislead or guide the responses of the participants. In addition, probes were used
when the responses required more elaboration or clarification. The interviews, which
lasted roughly forty-five minutes in duration, were recorded and later transcribed for
analysis.
81
Observations and Documents
In addition to interviews, four observations at each school site were
conducted to gather additional data. Observational data were necessary to strengthen
data obtained through interviews and the VAL-Ed. Interview and survey data are
based solely on individual perceptions. Observations and document analysis provide
additional data that are somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in some
cases, bias of those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational data
added to the strength of the study as they provided another source of data for
triangulation. Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings
(i.e. staff meetings, professional learning community meetings)
2. Teachers instructing students in Math and Language Arts
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities
4. School level professional learning opportunities in which the principal
was guiding the learning process
In total, an entire day was spent collecting data at each school site prior to the
principals participating in NISL and one additional day after the principals had
completed their participation in Course1 of the leadership development program
(NISL). Reflective field notes from these observations were recorded using the
observation protocol found in Appendix J. The notes were later transcribed for
analysis using NVIVO qualitative analysis software. Table 2 (below) details the
82
triangulation of data in relation to each research question identified at the beginning
of this chapter.
Data Analysis Procedures
A common critique of case study research designs is the massive amount of
data to analyze and upon which to draw inferences upon (Yin, 1984, p.20). To
protect the integrity of the individual case studies, each case was fully analyzed (i.e.
coding, pattern matching, etc.) prior to the comparative analysis. Once the two case
studies were fully coded and analyzed, data from both cases were analyzed again in
search of patterns and themes.
There is no single, accepted approach to analyzing qualitative data, although
several guidelines exist for this process (Creswell, 2005). This study utilizes
Creswell’s guidelines for data reduction and analysis:
1. Collect data from various sources (interviews, observations, documents)

2. Transcribe all interviews and observations

3. Read through the data to explore and get a general sense of the data with
researcher observations/notes/hunches in the columns

4. Segment each section of the documents and assign a code—sentences or
paragraphs that relate

5. Reduce the initial coding to eliminate redundancy and explicate the
general themes

6. Read through the text again and apply the newly reduced coding scheme

7. Reduce the list of codes to categories

8. Descriptive analysis of the categories
83

Table 2. Triangulation table demonstrating the sources of data used to address each
research question

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
VAL-ED Observations
(Pre/Post)
Interviews Artifacts
Research Question 1:
How and why do
principals’ self-efficacy
beliefs about
transformational
leadership behaviors and
practices surrounding
vision setting and goal
consensus change over
time?
1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10,
29, 30, 33, 34,
36
Principal’s
involvement in
staff/department
meetings

Principal
interactions with
staff
Principal
Interview #1
(3-13)

Teacher
Interview #1

Principal
Interview #2

Teacher
Interview #2
Review of
Artifacts
1-12
Research Question 2:
In what ways do the
principals’ self-efficacy
beliefs and practices
surrounding vision
setting and goal
consensus differ in
consideration of school
context (urban vs.
suburban)?
1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10,
29, 30, 33, 34,
36
Comparison of…

Principal’s
involvement in
staff/department
meetings

Principal
interactions with
staff
Comparison
of…

Principal
Interviews #1
(3-13)
Review of
Artifacts
1-12
Research Question 3:
From the participant’s
perspective, what is it
about the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leaders (PIL)
initiative that influences
participants’ self-
efficacy beliefs about
transformational
leadership behaviors?
Principal
Interview #2

84
This research project was completed over a five month period of time. Below
is a table demonstrating the timeline for the study.

Table 3. Timeline for the research project

Task Timeline
Letter of Invitation Sent to NISL Cohort Program
Participants
August 2008
NISL Cohort Program Participants Identified August 2008
VAL-ED Survey Administered to NISL Cohort
Program Participants
September 2008
Conducted Principal and Teacher Interviews
October 2008 and
February 2009
Conducted On-Site Observations
October 2008 and
February 2009
Conducted Document Analysis
September 2008 to March
2009
Administered VAL-ED Survey to Case Study
Participants
February 2009

Validity
Validity strategies are used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985 as cited in Creswell, 2005) and accuracy of interpretations and findings.
The accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study were established via the
following validation strategies: data triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation
is the process of corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources and
methods. Data collected in this study came from a variety of individuals (i.e.
principals, supervisors, and teachers), sources and methods (i.e. survey, interviews,
85
observations, and review of artifacts). Peer debriefing was also utilized by
identifying a colleague who reviewed and asked questions about the interpretations
and findings. This was done to ensure clarity from someone other than myself.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter 1, it is important to recognize additional threats to validity. Some threats to
internal validity include:
1. Length of the Study: The principals in the study will have only completed
one of the four NISL program courses during the time period of the study.
The fact that the post-assessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively
soon after the pre-assessment (approximately seven months) limits the
degree to which it could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas
assessed. In addition, time for the fieldwork in this study was limited to
five months.
2. Pre-test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration
of the VAL-ED has inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in
the second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors
other than the participants’ participation in PIL.
3. The “halo effect:” Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), participants may have had a tendency to
assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression.
However, to mitigate the effect of this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-
86
ED survey required that raters identify the primary source of evidence for
their ration on each item (i.e. personal observation, documents, etc.).
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research were utilized in the development of
this research design. Prior to participation in this study each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each
participant signed a consent form indicating their voluntary participation (Appendix
K). To protect the anonymity of each participant pseudonyms were assigned for
teachers, staff members, and principals. In addition, the names of the schools with
which the participants were associated were changed to avoid any possible
association that might lead to the identification of participants in this study. In
addition, all data were stored in a qualitative data analysis program which restricted
access to the data to the researcher only, thus further protecting the data. The
proposal for this study was also submitted to the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB), and approved, prior to the start of data collection
in the fall of 2008.
Summary
In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research
methodology used to accomplish that purpose. Justification for the use of a
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions was given in the
beginning of the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the
87
sample and how the individual cases were selected for study. Data collection and
analysis procedures were explained as were instrumentation considerations. Due to
its infancy and limited use in research of educational leadership to date, a brief
review of the VAL-ED survey and its psychometric properties was given to assure
readers of its validity and reliability in assessing leader behavior in this study. Other
topics covered in this chapter included ethical considerations of the study. Also
included in this chapter was a brief description of the larger longitudinal study
funded by the Pennsylvania State Department of Education. This study was nested
within the framework of the larger PIL initiative through the State Department of
Education. The next chapter will provide a summary of the data collected and a
review of the analysis and findings of this research study.
88
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents the research findings related to both case studies as
outlined in Chapter 3. This chapter was structured in such a way that each of the two
case studies was analyzed independently. Within the research findings for each case
study, the leadership behaviors were addressed in the first portion of the analysis.
The findings regarding self-efficacy appraisals are presented following the analysis
of leadership practices. Each case study was organized in the following format: (1)
contextual information, (2) leadership behavior and practice, (3) principal self-
efficacy beliefs. The last section of the chapter utilizes data from both case studies to
address the specific research questions as outlined in Chapters 1 and 3.
Case Study One
District: Location and Demographic
The Lakeside School District is situated in a suburb roughly 15 miles outside
the major metropolitan area of Philadelphia, PA. The district serves roughly 6,800
students in Kindergarten through twelfth grade (NCES, n.d). Of this student
population 56% qualify for free and reduced lunches and 19% were reported as
having an Individual Education Plan (IEP) under the statutes of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (New America, n.d). In 2005-2006 the school
district reported the following student demographic data: Asian 1.9%, Black 51.0%,
Native American .01%, White 31.1%, Hispanic 15.8%. The district is composed of
six elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools which are staffed
89
with roughly 489 classroom teachers and 392 additional staff members (of which
roughly 28% of the 392 staff members are instructional assistants).
District: Fiscal Summary
In the 2005-2006 school year the district reported an average student to
teacher ratio of 14 to 1. For the 2006 fiscal year the school district reported a revenue
of $102, 143,000 (73% of which came from local sources) with a per-pupil
expenditure of $14, 944 (NCES, n.d).
District: Academic Performance
The most recent data available reflects academic assessment data from the
2006-2007 school year. The following tables summarize the district’s assessment
data.
90

Table 4. The percentage of students graduating as determined by comparing the
number of students receiving a regular high school diploma against the total number
dropouts

Student Group Percentage of Students Graduating
Gender
Male 78%
Female 82%
Ethnicity
White 86%
Black 77%
Latino/Hispanic 66%
Asian 92%
Native American ---
Multiracial ---
Other Groups
IEP 90%
English Language Learners ---
Migrant ---
Economically Disadvantaged 72%
--- data withheld to protect the privacy of individual students. The corresponding subgroup contained
less than 10 students.
91

Table 5. Number of students assessed in The Lakeside Area School District and the
percentage of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and subject area for
the 2006-2007 school year

Student Group
# Students
Assessed Reading
# Students
Assessed Math
All Students
1
3,355 53% 3,358 61%
Gender
Male 1,770 49% 1,772 60%
Female 1,584 58% 1,585 62%
Ethnicity
White 1,016 74% 1,018 77%
Black 1,701 45% 1,702 53%
Latino/Hispanic 553 38% 553 51%
Asian 56 86% 56 93%
Native American --- --- --- ---
Multiracial 25 40% 25 44%
Other Groups
IEP 759 16% 761 22%
English Language
Learners 250 12% 249 27%
Migrant 12 17% 12 50%
Economically
Disadvantaged 1,842 44% 1,847 53%
---

data withheld to protect the privacy of individual students. The corresponding subgroup contained
less than 10 students.
1
The percentages of students scoring proficient or above include those who took the alternate state
assessment.
92
School: Location and Demographics
The River Valley Middle School is situated in a quiet, suburban community
roughly 15 miles outside of Philadelphia, PA. The school is geographically located
in a part of the township in which 88% of the residents are White, 6.1% are Black
and 1.2% are Latino/Hispanic. During the 2004-2005 school year River Valley
Middle School served a total of 382 students in grades 6-8. At that time the school
had a staff of 28 teachers which translated to a student to teacher ratio of 13 to 1.
Roughly 38% of the students qualified for free or reduced lunches and roughly two
ethnic groups represented 92% of the total school population: White 55% and Black
37% (NCES, n.d.). In 2004-2005, 79% of the students in 8
th
grade scored proficient
or advanced on the state assessments for Math and 71% scored proficient or
advanced on the assessments for Reading. (NCES, n.d.)
Starting with the 2006-2007 school year the River Valley Middle School
began to experience drastic changes. Due to the district’s restructuring strategies the
total student enrollment jumped from 382 to 735 over night. With the addition of
new students came the addition of new teachers and even a new grade level. This
restructuring process added roughly 24 teachers to the faculty and it added another
grade level (5
th
grade) to the middle school. In just over a year the school nearly
doubled in size and added an additional grade level; today the school serves just
under 900 students in grades 5-8.
The following table illustrates the changes in demographic composition prior
to and just following the restructuring.
93

Table 6. Comparison of student demographics before and after restructuring

Student Group
# of Students
(04-05 SY)
% of
Students
(04-05 SY)
# of
Students
(06-07
SY)
% of
Students
(06-07
SY)
Total Enrollment 382 100% 735 100%
Gender
Male 215 56% 391 53%
Female 167 44% 344 47%
Ethnicity
White 209 55% 298 38%
Black 142 37% 335 46%
Latino/Hispanic 24 6% 83 14%
Asian 7 2% 10 1%
Other Groups
IEP --- --- 130 18%
English Language
Learners
--- --- 36 5%
Economically
Disadvantaged
144 38% 332 45%
--- data were not found for these subsets
94
At the time of the study there were over 850 students in grades 5 through 8
currently attending River Valley Middle School. The school has met Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) every year since the restructuring. However, they continue to
face challenges related to increased academic achievement and school culture. In
addition to the school’s strong emphasis on academic achievement they offer a
variety of performance programs including: Concert Band, Orchestra, Chorus,
Marching Band, Drama, Jazz Band, Drumline, and Color Guard. In addition,
students in the 7th and 8th grades are provided opportunities to participate in sports
such as: Baseball, Basketball, Field Hockey, Football, Lacrosse, Softball, Soccer,
Track, Volleyball, and Wrestling.
School: Academic Performance
The most recent data available reflects academic assessment results from the
2006-2007 school year. The following tables summarize the school’s assessment
data.
95
Table 7. Number of students assessed at River Valley Middle School and the
percentage of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and subject area for
the 2006-2007 school year.

Student Group
# Students
Assessed Reading
# Students
Assessed Math
All Students 734 61% 735 69%
Gender
Male 390 58% 391 68%
Female 344 65% 344 70%
Ethnicity
White 297 79% 298 87%
Black 335 50% 335 58%
Latino/Hispanic 83 43% 83 47%
Asian 10 90% 10 100%
Other Groups
IEP 129 20% 130 31%
English Language Learners 36 11% 36 11%
Economically Disadvantaged 331 46% 332 54%

School: School Culture
Prior to 2006, River Valley Middle School was commonly referred to as the
“country club” school because it was composed, primarily, of White students from
mostly affluent families. The current principal described it as a “little school nestled
in the woods, isolated from the rest of [name of district].” When the school jumped
from roughly 380 students to just under 900 students the school district expanded the
campus nearly doubling its size through new construction. The addition of these
new students brought sudden diversity in the areas of ethnicity and socio-economic
96
status. As a result the staff at the school has been in a state of culture shock since the
expansion. In addition to the recent changes in student population, the school has
been experiencing substantial changes with regard to the change in administration.
Under the previous administration the faculty was divided into four small
learning communities, each of which operated independently of the others. The
faculty did not collaborate with each other, and the administration did not solicit
feedback or input from the faculty. Prior to the expansion of the campus the school
always made their AYP targets with ease. However, with the fairly recent changes in
student demographics it has been much more of a challenge for the school to meet
their AYP targets. As a result this has caused great frustration and unrest with several
members of the faculty. One teacher explained the change as “growing pains.”
Another explained that there has been an increased degree of negativity and
skepticism among the faculty and many teachers have turned to the union for
support. As explained by the principal, it has become increasingly difficult for the
current administration to focus on elements of instructional improvement with some
of the veteran faculty members as several of these teachers have attributed the lack
of student achievement on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) to
external factors associated with the change in student demographics (i.e. home life,
lack of parental involvement, poverty).
The current principal and administrative team is working diligently to build
an atmosphere of collaboration and teamwork. Unfortunately, not everyone sees the
need to embrace this shift in philosophy and practice. To help establish this ideology
97
of teamwork the principal has adopted the FISH! philosophy, and he has initiated
several staff outings designed to bring people together. The FISH! Philosophy is an
approach to creating a positive, collaborative workplace. The principal’s effort to
establish a collaborative environment was evidenced throughout several teacher
interviews. One teacher shared how the principal intentionally paired her up with
teachers with whom she had never worked with in the past. She explained that she
appreciated the fact that he made that arrangement, and she explained that it
supported the goal of creating unity amongst the staff. Another teacher explained the
change with the following statement, “He’s using unity; we’re one school. Instead of
division into the four we’re united. We’re one school.” Another teacher shared that
during staff meetings the principal solicits input on how things are going and how
things could be run better. She stated, “I feel like we’re listened to now.” Another
teacher commented, “…we can talk to our administrators more openly.” Finally, the
following statement from one of the teachers provided a great summary of the
general direction in which this new principal and administration are headed with
regard to school culture, “It’s about unity and keeping a positive attitude no matter
what the situation. I believe he’s a positive guy and a positive leader so what I think
our vision is going to be is a positive outlook and nothing is too small and nothing is
too big to overcome.”
Introduction of the Principal
The 2008-2009 school year marked the start of Mr. Cain’s tenth year in
education. He began his career in education during his senior year in college when he
98
was asked to teach two physical education courses at a local parochial school. After
completing his undergraduate degree he moved out of the state and began working
full- time for another parochial school teaching Math and Social Studies for grades
six, seven, and eight. Following his experience in the parochial schools he began
teaching students with behavioral and/or emotional challenges in a non-public
school. Upon moving back to Pennsylvania he started teaching at a public middle
school in Philadelphia while completing his Master’s degree in educational
administration.
After roughly six years of teaching he moved into administration as an intern
assistant principal. The large district for which he was working offered a one year
apprenticeship program which provided on-the-job training and mentoring as a
school administrator. During the interview process for this study he described his
tremendous growth as an instructional leader during this time as he was intentionally
paired with a principal who was very strong in the areas of curriculum and
instruction. Soon after his one year of residency he accepted a position as an
instructional assistant principal at a high school. Having only served as an assistant
principal at the high school for one year he quickly moved into a principal position at
a local elementary school. In sharing his experience as the principal of this
elementary school it was evident that he felt he had a tremendous impact on the
academic achievement of the students at this school. He was enthusiastic in sharing
that Reading scores increased 14% and Math scores increased 8% under his
leadership. Following a change in executive leadership in the Lakeside Area School
99
District he was presented with an opportunity to serve as the principal of River
Valley Middle School beginning in the Fall of 2008. At the start of this study, Mr.
Cain had been in his position as principal of River Valley Middle School less than
three months.
Challenges
One of the first questions asked of both teachers and the principal at River
Valley Middle School was, “What are some of the challenges you face here at this
school?” The responses varied considerably depending on the role of the participant.
The principal cited challenges that focused on the entire organization. For example,
he explained the challenge of division and isolation through the building. Under the
previous administration teachers were divided into smaller learning communities
which functioned independently of one another. The staff was not in the practice of
working collaboratively across the learning communities. In fact, one of the teachers
explained that, prior to the current principal coming to the school, the staff never had
meetings in which the entire faculty was together. The principal further explained
that this isolation and independence created an “us vs. them” divide between the
faculty and the administration. Another set of challenges the principal shared were
related to the changes in student population over the past few years. Because this
school now serves students from more diverse communities in terms of ethnicity and
socio-economic status, the staff is presented with a set of challenges that they have
never encountered in years past.
100
In contrast to the types of challenges the principal shared, the teachers
generally gave responses specific to their current assignment at the school. Below are
examples of the responses shared by the teachers:
“…trying to organize all of the events I am doing such as helping [name of
principal] with Demin Day”
“…there are no computers in my room…”
“…trying to come up with different ways of pulling kids into my lessons.”
“Lack of materials.” (this was specific to materials for the teacher’s
classroom)
“…I’m supposed to teach every other day a different subject”
On the other hand, one teacher cited challenges pertaining to the organization
as a whole:
“…we have some negativity that causes the most headaches for me.” The
teacher further explained, “it is not an easy thing to do any consensus type issues
with us.” Interestingly, these responses came from a teacher who is in an
administrative training program. In general, the responses from the principal
indicated a collective mindset in which the entire organization was considered. On
the other hand, the responses from the teacher were, for the most part, indicative, of
an individualistic mindset in which the individual needs of the teacher were
considered. Clearly, the varied responses to this initial question were indicative of a
potentially divided staff.
101
Goals
For each site visit the teachers and the principal were asked to explain the
goals for the school. In general, the responses varied significantly between and
within visits. The responses differed according to role (e.g. principal or teacher); they
differed with regard to orientation and target of the goals, and they differed in
substance from the first site visit to the second. In all, the responses provided little
evidence that the organization had a clear set of goals for which both faculty and
administration were united.
On the first visit the principal explained the school goals to be the following:
1. “… they [referring to students] perform well on the PSSA as a byproduct
of the high quality education that we provide them.”
2. “To ensure that we’re providing the high quality education that truly
prepares our students and that would be measured using the PSSA.”
3. “… expose our kids to a lot of the world.” The context for this goal
related to the lack of background and/or prior knowledge for students
from lower socio-economic areas of the township, and the need to build
that foundation of prior knowledge through the exposure to more diverse
life experiences.
In a letter to parents at the beginning of the year, the principal writes,
”EVERY decision will be made on the premise of what is best for ALL children. To
accomplish this goal…” However, this goal was never explicitly mentioned during
the interviews.
102
On the second visit the principal explained the school goals to be the
following:
1. “…to meet and exceed the state mandates.” The principal was referring to
performance on the standardized assessments for the state (i.e. PSSA).
2. “… one of my goals is we really need more supports here.” He explains
further that he wants to increase the safety nets at the school through the
additional support of counselors.
3. “We want to reduce the amount of discipline referrals.” Specifically, he
referenced ethnic disproportionality regarding the number of discipline
referrals at his school.
In analyzing the description of goals noted above it is important to point out
the perspectives from which the statements were made. In some cases the principal
used individualistic language such as “one of my goals…” However, in other
instances he used collective language such as, “We want to reduce the amount of
discipline referrals.” This indicates a possible conflict between the goals set by the
principal and the goals of the faculty. In either case, the variance in responses from
the principal from one visit to the next provided support to the notion that this school
site lacked clearly defined goals.
When teachers were asked to describe the goals for the school, variance
across the responses were evident as well. Upon analysis of the responses from the
first visit to the second visit it was clear that the goals were more defined. For
example, of the seven teachers interviewed on the first visit, four explicitly stated
103
that they did not know the goals for the school. Of the remaining three teachers
interviewed, one described a vaguely defined goal – “positive student success with
the support of the advocacy system,” and the other two teachers described goals
targeting improved performance on the PSSA, building a collaborative culture and
decreasing the number of discipline events. When asked about the goals on the
second visit the responses were much more united and consistent with the principal’s
responses. Of the same seven teachers interviewed on the first visit all seven
provided a response that pointed to the increased performance on the PSSA, four
provided a response that pointed to the creation of a safer, more respectful
community on campus, and three specifically referenced goals regarding discipline
practices. In comparing the responses of the teachers from the first visit to the second
it is clear that the overall direction of the school was more defined on the second
visit (i.e. building a collaborative and respectful culture, increasing academic
performance on the PSSA and reducing discipline events). However, the specific
goals within each of these categories remain vaguely defined (i.e. they were neither
observable nor measureable). Should one attempt to measure progress on these goals,
based on the description given by the respondents, it would be nearly impossible.
Upon further analysis of the teacher responses it was evident that there was a
definite lack in distinction among a school’s mission statement, vision and goals.
When asked about the goals of the school, the following response from one of the
teachers speaks directly to this point, “I don’t know; I feel that’s the same thing as
the vision. The goal is to create every child as a citizen of the U.S., now I sound like
104
one of those mission statements…” Interestingly, this is coming from a teacher who
has received formal training in educational leadership and has a goal of becoming a
principal in the next five years. In comparing the responses of all participants
regarding goals and vision, it is evident that this lack of distinction is shared across
the organization.
An analysis of the general orientation of the goals revealed a greater tendency
to indicate a performance orientation as opposed to a mastery orientation (Patrick
and Ryan, 2001). With regard to the consideration of social cognitive variables in
leadership it is important to acknowledge the general goal orientation of school goals
as this orientation has demonstrated significant correlations to adaptive patterns of
behavior (Ryan & Patrick, 2001) and general well being (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).
Though some of the goals stated by the participants indicate a mastery orientation, a
larger majority pointed to a performance goal orientation. Orientation of the goal is
important because it provides an indication of where the priorities for the
organization lie. For example, performance based goals focusing on student scores
places a strong emphasis on the end result—scores. A mastery-oriented goal
focusing on instruction places a strong emphasis on the means or process by which
students would demonstrate greater achievement. Another example specific to this
case study involves discipline goals. A goal of “cutting down on suspensions” is a
performance oriented goal in which the focus is on the end result, not necessarily the
mechanism for obtaining the result. A goal of implementing a school-wide positive
105
behavior support system with fidelity is a mastery oriented goal in which the focus is
a change in practice that will likely result in a reduction in suspensions.
This distinction is important as the literature surrounding goal orientation has
demonstrated significant positive correlations with effort and persistence (Bandura,
1982; Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Bandura & Wood, 1989; Meece, Wigfield &
Eccles, 1990; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Zimmerman, 2000; Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson
& Watson, 2003)—two factors that are critical to the establishment and maintenance
of shared group goals. Some examples of goals indicating a mastery orientation
include:
“to ensure we are providing the high quality education that truly prepares our
students”
“to become better educators”
“for teachers to have relationships with students”
Examples of goals indicating a performance orientation include:
“raise test scores”
“cut down on suspensions”
“reduce the amount of discipline referrals”
In addition to the consideration of orientation, the goal statements were
categorized into one of three “target” areas. The three goal targets used in this
analysis were: School, Staff, and Students. The importance of making this distinction
was to determine where one might look to evaluate progress on the goal. For
example, if the school goal was to increase student performance on a test one would
106
likely look to student variables (i.e. foundation of prior knowledge required to
perform well on the test, test taking strategies, student benchmark assessments). If a
school goal was to improve quality of instruction one would likely look to staff
variables (i.e. instructional strategies used in the classroom, instructional goals of the
lesson plans, organization and delivery of content). Finally, if a school goal was to
increase safety on the campus one would likely look to school variables (i,e, level of
supervision during passing periods and breaks, interactions of students, availability
of resources for managing emotional and behavioral risk factors).
In an analysis of both teacher and principal responses, the school goals
targeted all three categories. However, the mechanisms used to measure progress on
these goals were not clearly defined. This has significant implications with regard to
measuring success in various goal areas. For example, when asked about the goals
for the school, the principal gave the following response: “to ensure that we are
providing the high quality education that truly prepares our students and that would
be measured using the PSSA.” Though this goal targets staff (i.e. providing high
quality education/instruction), there is an indication that performance on the PSSA
will be used to inform the administration about the quality of instruction among staff.
In the context of establishing goal consensus with a large staff this is concerning. If
the determination of whether or not teachers are providing quality instruction is
based on PSSA performance it will likely be difficult to establish consensus among
the staff as the instrument intended to measure instruction is neither fair nor accurate
in assessing individual teacher instruction. If teachers don’t feel the goals involving
107
them personally and professionally (i.e. instructional practice) will be measured
objectively and accurately they will likely be less willing to buy-in to them. It may,
in fact, create an adverse consequence as teachers will likely focus on filling their
classrooms with students most likely to perform well on the PSSA. Another
possibility is that they would attribute substandard performance on the PSSA to
external factors (i.e. home life, parental involvement) and reject the notion that their
instructional practices may be a contributing factor.
Results from the VAL-ED survey provide support to the notion that there is a
clear disconnect with the approach to establishing academic accountability. One of
the lowest scoring areas for this principal was the core component Performance
Accountability. The description of this component includes the following:
Leadership holds itself and others responsible for realizing high standards of
performance for student academic and social learning. There is individual and
collective responsibility among the professional staff and students.

The fact that this was one of the lowest scoring areas gives strength to the
assertion that there is a misalignment with the principal’s expectation of academic
achievement and his measurement of the means of how students will get there. Valid
evaluation tools for holding himself and others responsible for realizing high
standards of performance were not evidenced through this survey nor were they
evidenced through the interviews and observations.
In addition, the school improvement plan “Getting Results” yielded another
area in which this misalignment was evident. The plan identified a goal of training
teachers on the Comprehensive Literacy Model and implementing it. The section
108
calling for the identification of monitoring strategies contained the following, “The
successful implementation of each Comprehensive Literacy Program component as
evident from walkthroughs, observations, and teacher dialogue/feedback. Success
will be measured by the growth of Instructional Reading Levels.” This is concerning
in that the strategies for measuring the implementation of the model are either
subjective or inaccurate. The walkthrough protocols contain non-descript language
which demands a high degree of subjectivity.
“Teacher demonstrates solid to extensive knowledge of the subject matter,
important concepts and instructional pedagogy.”
“Teacher listens to student answers and responds with prompts to encourage
a deeper level of thinking.”
“Instructional outcomes, activities and assignments, and classroom
interactions convey high expectation for most students.”
It’s clear that the items on the walkthrough protocol are non specific to the
implementation of the model identified in the school improvement plan.
Additionally, the plan states that growth of Instructional Reading Levels will provide
information as to the success of the new model. Though the new model may lead to
increased student academic achievement, the increase in independent reading levels
do not speak to the fidelity of implementing the new model.
Data and tools used to establish and measure the goals for the school must be
objective and clearly defined. If the objective data on teacher instruction pointed to
the need for more precise lesson planning, it would likely be easier to build
109
consensus around that goal as opposed to building consensus based on subjective or
inaccurate data presented by the administration. If data from the PSSA are used to
evaluate instructional practices among teachers, it will likely be more be more
difficult to build consensus as the PSSA results do not necessarily speak to
individual teacher performance and instruction in the classroom. Though the laser-
like focus on the PSSA was a common emphasis through the interviews there was
sufficient evidence to suggest that other evaluation tools (i.e. walk through protocols,
lesson plan reviews) were utilized at the site to assess instruction. These tools were
only evidenced upon a review of documents collected from the site, specifically, the
school improvement plan. These tools, however, were never mentioned through the
interview process.
In addition, it was obvious, upon review of an email sent to staff in October
2008, that the principal had communicated to the faculty a set of instructional
expectations. In the email he outlines the results of his walkthroughs in relation to
objectives and agendas posted in the classroom, lesson plan details and accessibility
of the lesson plans. Through this email he also provided feedback on instruction.
This feedback was listed under a section titled “Suggestions/ Goals/ Expectations/
Comments.” He explains, “the end intent is just to align the practices of our building,
while implementing best practices to enhance the work we are doing every day.”
Though he communicated the goal of improving instruction and using best practices,
neither he nor his staff communicated specific instructional goals through the
interview process. The primary goals shared through the interviews were distal goals
110
related to desired outcome expectations (i.e. student performance on the PSSA), not
proximal, short term goals that could somehow be quantified. Additional support for
this assertion was found within the results of the VAL-ED, specifically in the area of
Performance Accountability as discussed previously.
In light of this analysis it is important to point out that the goal targets (i.e.
students, staff, and school) varied across the goals, yet the primary mechanism for
measuring progress on the goals relied on student performance on the PSSA. It
seemed as though the focus was so heavily concentrated on the end results of the
PSSA that the measurement of goals designed to better prepare students for the
PSSA (i.e. improved instructional practices, collaboration among staff, decreasing
punitive discipline practices that take kids away from instruction) were overlooked.
Vision
For each site visit the teachers and the principal were asked to explain the
vision for the school. When asked about the vision for the school on the first visit,
the teachers gave a variety of responses. Of the seven teachers interviewed, two
explicitly stated that they did not know the vision for the school. While the
remaining five teachers provided some type of response to the question, two of the
five implied that the vision was not well established. One teacher sighed when asked
the question (indicating discomfort with providing an explicit answer), and started
the response with “I think the vision for the school is…” Another teacher began her
response to the question with “Well, I guess…” indicating the lack of certainty about
a clearly defined vision. Of the five who provided some explanation of the vision
111
only two were consistent in content. Overall, the responses from the teachers
regarding vision addressed the following areas: making AYP, becoming the best
school in the county, becoming a Blue Ribbon school, to build a collaborative staff
(a family-like community), and to shore up the discipline challenges. It is also
important to highlight the perceived source of the vision for the school. Of the seven
responses from the teachers, five made reference to the vision coming from the
principal and/or the administration. In other words, more often than not teacher
indicted “his” (referring to the principal) vision as opposed to “our” vision; thus,
providing another indicator that the vision was neither shared nor collaboratively
developed.
When asked about the vision for the school on the first visit the principal
responded with the following statement, “I want this school to be not only the best in
this district…, but I want us competing with the neighboring districts as well.” In
comparison with the teacher responses regarding the vision it is clear that the
principal has communicated, at some point, this vision to staff, but it is difficult to
substantiate a claim that the vision is well-defined and shared throughout the
organization. The individualist language evident in the principal’s response provides
support to the understanding that this vision was not collectively developed, and it is
evident that it is not shared across the board. In addition, evidence found in the
documents collected from the school site also suggested a “top-down” approach to
setting the direction (e.g. vision and goals) of the school. In an email to teachers the
112
principal uses the following statements indicating the individualistic nature of his
leadership regarding the establishment of a vision and goals:
“I want my expectations to be transparent. I hope I have been clear…”
“I just want to establish some universal expectations in a fun way”
A vision establishes a collective sense of purpose and direction for an organization.
If a vision is imposed upon the members of an organization, it is possible that the
adoption and alignment of individual practices with that vision will likely be met
with challenge as people are generally not compelled to conform to a standard if they
feel it is being imposed on them (Aronson, 2008).
During the second visit the same teachers interviewed during the first visit
were asked, again, to articulate the vision for the school. Though the responses from
the seven teachers still varied, the degree of variance seemed much smaller. Of the
seven responses from the teachers, five indicated a vision that spoke to the
importance of student achievement on the PSSA, two mentioned an emphasis on
building a positive and supportive, family-like community, one mentioned becoming
a Blue Ribbon school and one mentioned competition with surrounding districts (this
response implied competition regarding academic performance). When asked about
the vision for the school on the second visit the principal provided a response that
indicated a strong emphasis on building a collaborative staff that displays
compassion and empathy. He also shared the vision to be that of creating a “top
notch academic facility where kids are getting the top notch education to compete
with neighboring districts and also on the global society.” This vision was also
113
communicated to parents in the August 2008 newsletter, “I thank you for joining me
on this mission as we make [name of school] the best middle school in the
surrounding area.” In comparison to the response from the principal from the first
visit this is consistent in the sense of competing with neighboring schools; however,
it is different in that it contains two additional components: (1) a focus on the global
mission of education and (2) a focus on the establishment of a collaborative
organization that displays compassion and empathy. The principal also explained
that he wants this school to be a well respected institution in the community. This
was interesting in light of the VAL-ED data regarding the component Connections to
External Communities. This core component contains the following description:
"There are linkages to family and/or other people and institutions in the community
that advance academic and social learning." Though this area appears to be a priority
for this principal, results of the VAL-ED demonstrated the opposite. This component
was the lowest scoring component by both the principal and the teachers who
participated in the survey. An overall mean score of 2.85 on a 5-point scale
demonstrated the greatest area of weakness for this principal on the VAL-ED
assessment of leadership.
It is also important to point out the continued use of individualistic language
in the principal’s response to the vision. The following are segments of his response
indicating the individualistic nature of the vision:
“…my vision is for staff to be more of a collaborative unit.”
“I want to see a staff that is student centered…”
114
In contrast, when providing a response concerning the goals for the school one of the
teachers spoke to the collaborative nature or intent of the principal. She shared that
he did not come to the school saying, “this is what I want to do, here’s how we’re
gonna do it, it’s my way or the highway, too bad.” She proceeded to share that “he’s
really brought a lot of it to us.” This collaborative nature is also evident in excerpts
taken from the principal’s letter to parents at the start of the school year:
I am confident that as we strengthen the bonds throughout our community we
will see the success of our students…

Through unified collaboration, we will set a course of action to ensure the
achievement of our greatest asset—our children

I respectfully request that all members of our community make a concerted
effort to come together as one ‘family’

Though the intent of the principal is to establish a collaborative process for
leading the school, it seems as though the foundational components that define the
identity and direction of the organization (vision and goals) have not been developed
collaboratively. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that these collaborative
efforts are expended to build buy-in to the principal not necessarily the vision or goal
itself. During the first interview with the principal, he alluded to this notion with the
following statement regarding how one goes about building consensus, “For me, like
I said, it’s getting them to buy into me.” Though the consistency among teacher
responses and between teacher and principal response appears to be more closely
aligned, it is clear that the vision for this organization is not firmly established nor
truly shared.
115
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
At each of the two visits the principal was asked to provide an assessment of
his beliefs about his ability to carry out tasks related to transformational leadership.
Specifically, these tasks target behaviors associated with the establishment and
maintenance of a vision and goals for the organization. These appraisals of task
specific capabilities were solicited in two ways. The first was a rating based on a
scale of 1 to 10. A rating of one indicated a low assessment of ability and a rating of
one indicated a high assessment of ability. The principal was also asked a series of
open ended questions regarding these transformational leadership tasks to elicit
responses that would provide information about the foundation or basis for the
appraisals.
Self-efficacy has long been established as a motivational construct specific to
individual tasks and contexts (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). The principals in this study
were asked to provide ratings of task specific capabilities relating to the context in
which they are currently working as well as a hypothetical context through the use of
a scenario. Each scenario was designed to provide a drastically different context than
that in which the principal was currently working. The information provided in the
scenario gave details about student demographics, student academic performance,
challenges at the school and staff dynamics. For the principal at River Valley Middle
School the scenario represented an urban middle school with less student diversity
(primarily African American) and a staff with little to no teaching experience. The
116
scenario was very similar to the actual description of Jefferson Middle School; the
second case study in this investigation.
Addressed below are the responses from the principal at River Valley Middle
School regarding the appraisal of his ability to perform specific transformational
leadership tasks in two contrasting contexts.
How would you rate your ability to develop a vision for the school in a way
that does not pre-empt others from expressing their vision?
Scaled Rating (first visit): between 7 and 8
Scaled Rating (second visit): between 7 and 8
Scaled Rating (scenario): between 7 and 8
When asked about how he came to this assessment during the first interview,
the principal explained that he was hesitant to rate his capability at a nine or a ten
because he is a new administrator and he has a lot yet to learn. For this initial rating
it was evident that he relied heavily on past experiences to formulate this assessment:
“I think one of the strengths that I do have is I’ve been successful in past
experiences; having people follow me, motivating them, rallying them to come
together as a unit and that goes all the way back to youth sports.”
A comparison of this response to the response given on the second visit
demonstrates a shift from relying on past experiences outside of the current context
(River Valley Middle School) to experiences in the current context (River Valley
Middle School):
I think the expression of my vision probably raises the score because I think
I’m pretty good at [it], I wear my emotions and my heart on my sleeve. I’m
pretty transparent and open on what my vision is. I lowered it a little bit just
117
for the simple fact that am I sometimes too stubborn? I realize that I do listen
to people’s visions and wishes and stuff like that, but sometimes I’ll be
honest, I guess I can be dismissive with them, like not with them as a person
but like once [inaudible] I’m like yeah ok, whatever, yeah, just because it
doesn’t align with what I want.

This is more meaningful in light of the fact that the principal, at the time of
the second interview, still had a divided staff with regard to the overall direction of
the school. For example, when teachers were asked to estimate the percentage of buy
in with the current vision, the responses ranged from 40 to 60 percent, with the
majority estimating buy in to be 50 percent or less. Five of the seven teachers
estimated the percentage to be 50 percent or less. The principal, on the other hand
estimated the buy-in to be closer to 70 percent:
…seventy percent buy into the fact that they like the vision that I share. I
know my administrative team and a lot of the people that I’m building around
me as the leadership of this building share that philosophy.

The principal’s comment at the end of the statement below also speaks to his
assessment of the percentage of staff currently buying-in to the direction of the
leadership:
It depends on where they’re at in their careers and I’m hoping that some
decide to pack it up and move on if they don’t share in the philosophy. We
can’t let the twenty to thirty percent hold the seventy to eighty percent back.

Upon further analysis of the data it appears as though the principal was
basing the appraisal of his capabilities on feedback he had received from his most
recent experiences related to the task. The concern, however, was that the feedback
he had received regarding his capability to carry out the task may not be
representative of reality. If he bases his appraisal solely on feedback received from
118
his leadership team or a non-representative sample of staff (i.e those who clearly
buy-in to him or his direction), it is quite possible that his self-efficacy beliefs will be
much higher than if he bases his appraisal on the feedback received from the entire
staff. This is critical to understanding his leadership behavior in the area of
developing a vision in a way that does not pre-empt others from expressing their
vision.
When asked to provide a capability rating regarding his role as a principal in
the scenario, he provided a rating consistent with both of his previous ratings.
Though the ratings were exactly the same, the basis or foundation for each of the
ratings was different. The foundation for the first rating was related to his previous
experience in building consensus and he related this back to his experience with
youth sports:
I think one of the strengths that I do have is I’ve been successful in past
experiences; having people follow me, motivating them, rallying them to
come together as a unit and that goes all the way back to youth sports.

The foundation for the second rating was his current experience at River
Valley Middle School. The foundation for the third rating (scenario) was related to a
combination of experiences from his previous principal position (prior to coming to
River Valley Middle School) and his current experiences. What was most interesting
about his response regarding the third rating was the attribution components he used
in speaking about the experiences in his previous principal position. He explained
that it was much easier to establish consensus about the vision because the school
had a smaller staff. He also explained that members of that staff sat on his interview
119
committee and had an opportunity to hear his vision through the interview process
prior to hiring him. He shared that when they hired him they essentially gave an
implied approval of the vision he was bringing with him. He interpreted this offer of
the principalship as an indication of the school’s support of his vision and direction;
thus, his need to commit efforts towards establishing consensus was minimized. In
this case, his attributions contained components that were external. He didn’t
necessarily attribute his success in establishing a shared vision to something of his
doing, rather he attributed it, partially, to the circumstances specific to being hired
into position. Regardless, it was evident in all three cases that he relied heavily on his
enactive experiences (Chen & Bliese, 2002) and the feedback he received from those
around him (i.e. his leadership team).
How would you rate your ability to inspire colleagues with visions of what
they may be able to accomplish if they work together?
Scaled Rating (first visit): between 7 or 8
Scaled Rating (second visit): between 6 or 7
When asked about the foundation for this assessment, the principal did not
give an explanation on the first visit. However, the response on the second visit
provided support to the understanding that self-efficacy beliefs are context specific
and based largely upon enactive experiences (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Bandura, 1997).
When asked the question above, the principal provided the following response:
(Chuckling) Prior to coming to this school I would have rated it pretty high.
Like I said it’s been a little challenging. I mean I’m confident in my ability
to do it. I think it’s taken longer now. I mean I’m probably wavering a little
bit so I’d probably say like a seven or maybe a six.
120
It is evident, from this statement, that the principal is relying on both past and current
experiences to formulate an assessment of his capability. Though he is confident in
his ability to perform the task there is some evidence to suggest that his leadership
behavior regarding collaboration and teamwork surrounding the vision are changing.
In addition, when teachers were asked about the purpose of staff meetings the same
teacher gave the following responses below indicating a possible shift in the
principal’s practices and leadership behaviors.
[First visit] Right now they’ve been kind of open agenda/culture type
meetings. At the beginning of the year we had quite a few overall culture
ideas. We’re doing a fish program this year, which is kind of a, I wouldn’t
necessarily call it goals, but just ways to conduct yourself.

[Second visit] Disseminate information. They used to be [able] to come to
decisions. That did not work” and “…the focus has changed it seems”.

Though not a causal inference, the data presented in this section suggest a
possible relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and leadership behavior—a
relationship worthy of future investigation. In the beginning of the year it seemed as
though the focus of staff meetings was that of building a more collaborative culture
based on teamwork.
…I’m equitable and that I truly believe in working as a group
collaboratively…

I think it’s part of the process that if they’re part of the planning that it’s easy
to sell it…

I make sure that in staff meetings I’m very transparent. I listen to what
they’re saying.

121
However, within the first six months there appears to be a shift with this priority as
the focus has apparently shifted to the dissemination of essential information. As his
self-efficacy beliefs, as indicated by his ratings, decreased, so has his practices
regarding the establishment of a collaborative culture during staff meetings.
How would you rate your ability to clarify the meaning of the school’s vision
in terms of its practical implication for programs and instruction?
Scaled Rating (first visit): between 7 or 8
Scaled Rating (second visit): between 7 or 8
For this assessment the basis of the principal’s assessment in this area wasn’t
blatantly apparent. On the first visit he spoke about how he liked to be a “straight
shooter” by putting things boldly and marketing what it is he wants or needs. An
assumption with this statement is that he is relying on successful past experiences
with using these strategies; however, it is not clear if these past experiences are
specifically related to his experiences as a site administrator. On the second visit the
principal didn’t reference any past experiences rather he described a challenge in
getting staff on the same page with regard to the vision indicating his utilization of
current enactive experiences:
I don’t think the structure of the building aligns with what I and the people
that are rallying around me see as the vision of the school. I don’t think the
structure matches the vision.

Based on the lack of depth in the principal’s responses, it appears as though the
principal doesn’t have sufficient experience (neither enactive nor vicarious) to make
a clear assessment of his ability in this area.
122
How would you rate your ability to assist staff in developing consistency
between the school’s vision and individual goals?
Scaled Rating (first visit): between 6 or 7
Scaled Rating (second visit): between 6 or 7
With this assessment the principal gave very consistent responses on both
visits. Not only were the scaled ratings consistent, but his basis for the ratings were
similar. Though not explicitly stated it was evident that he was referencing
experiences from his current position at River Valley Middle School. In both cases
he spoke of the disconnect between what people say and what people do.
[First visit] …people could say one thing but that’s really not what they truly
believe. They’re just saying it because it’s the right thing to say or they’re
afraid to give the right perspective.

[Second visit] …what they say might not always match what they do, or what
they say and do in front of a certain population might not be what they say or
do when that population isn’t around.

From these responses it was apparent that he was making reference to his
most recent experiences in trying to develop consistency with his staff. This was also
supported by his statements, earlier in the interview, about his goals for the school
(i.e. collaborative culture) as well as some of the challenges (i.e. disconnected staff)
he was facing as the principal of this school. In addition, it seems as though the
responses are somewhat protective in the sense that he was providing justification for
the fact that there was a lack of consensus regarding the vision and individual goals.
123
How would you rate your ability to develop consensus about school and
group goals.
Scaled Rating (first visit): between 6 or 7
Scaled Rating (second visit): between 7 or 8
Scaled Rating (scenario): 7
The basis for this assessment seems to change from the first visit to the
second. On the first visit the principal doesn’t explicitly reference previous
experiences; rather, he provides another protective response as he speaks to the level
of difficulty in building consensus with such as large staff.
[First visit] Consensus is, especially with a school this large, getting complete
consensus is gonna be difficult, but a general consensus where the majority-,
I think that’s a little bit easier. Again my belief is it’s just about being real,
being a real person, being accessible to them, talking to them.

He states that this task is a bit easier than the previous task (developing
consistency between the vision of the school and individual goals), but doesn’t give a
rationale for the assessment. A plausible reason for this is the lack of focus on
changing individual belief systems. Rather, this task involves the development of
consensus regarding school and group goals not the alignment of individual goals
and school goals. In addition, the principal included in his response a strategy and set
of beliefs about developing consensus around school and group goals.
…it’s just about being real, being a real person, being accessible to them,
talking to them. You have to deal with people’s anxieties and fears and them
worried about conspiracy.

This offers support to the notion that he has not yet had significant
experiences in establishing consensus regarding school and group goals; it appears to
124
be a work in progress. In his previous assignment, he had already established a
relationship with the staff, and the circumstances surrounding his transition into the
principalship were much different than his transition to the principalship at this
school. The principal alludes to this in his response to a question about the
establishment of consensus surrounding a vision for the school.
See at [previous school] it was easier because I had a smaller staff so there
were fewer opinions. Like I said it’s usually easy because those are the
people who interviewed me so I shared my vision and they hired me because
obviously my vision, the people who were on the committee, it matched what
their vision was.

From the statements given on the first visit it appears that the principal lacks
sufficient enactive experiences to inform his beliefs about his ability to build
consensus around school and group goals at this site. This is not surprising
considering the nature of self-efficacy appraisals; they are very specific to both
context and task (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
In contrast to the response from the principal on the first visit, the response
on the second visit was clearly based on feedback from the principal’s experience in
his current assignment. He uses his assessment of 70 to 80 percent of the staff buying
into the goals he has established as the foundation for his appraisal regarding his
ability to establish consensus surrounding school and group goals.
[Second visit] …based on the fact that that I think seventy to eighty percent
of the staff are buying into the fact that, I think people go into education for
specific reasons. They like working with kids. They want to help kids. If
I’m saying that I want to increase the academic performance of our students
and their abilities I think most staff are going to buy into that. If I say I want
to increase the safety nets, give the teachers more resources to support their
children I think they’re going to buy into that.
125
A comparison of the responses from the first visit to the second provide
support to the notion that self-efficacy judgments change over time as people
experience new situations and interpret new information (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). In
this case the scaled ratings of self-efficacy increased from the first visit to the
second, and it was apparent that the principal had more relevant (i.e. specific to the
current context) enactive experience with the task upon which he could formulate
another assessment of his ability to carry out this task. Though it is apparent, in this
case, that the feedback the principal received from his experiences at River Valley
Middle School shaped his self-efficacy beliefs, there is caution and concern with the
type and accuracy of the feedback the principal utilizes. Though not explicitly stated
it appears as though these assessments are based on the feedback he has received
from his leadership team and/or those who have already bought in to him or his
leadership. In this case, the principal references his assessment of 70 to 80 percent of
the staff buying into the goals for the school. However, when teachers were asked to
provide an estimation of total staff buy in, their responses ranged from 40 to 60
percent. If he continues to base his appraisal solely on feedback received from a
select few or a non-representative sample of staff members, it is quite possible that
his self-efficacy beliefs will continue to increase, thus influencing his leadership
behaviors involving the entire staff.
When asked about his self-efficacy beliefs in relation to the hypothetical
scenario the principal relied heavily on his current experiences as seen in the
response below.
126
I think it’s easier to get the buy in for the academic goals. The cultural goals,
again I think people want a more enjoyable work atmosphere. I think where
you have discrepancy is when you start getting into the belief systems on
discipline and the climate aspect of it. That’s the strongest tension for
philosophical beliefs and setting goals because you have people that, that’s
impacted by the way they were brought up and the schools that they went to
and it how well people adjust.

Not only did his overall rating of self-efficacy increase, in relation to his
original self-efficacy appraisal on the first visit, but it was evident that he utilized
current enactive experiences to inform his appraisal of his belief to build consensus
in the hypothetical context. In expanding upon the rationale for his rating, the
principal specifically makes reference to the challenges and difficulties with which
he is faced in his current assignment at River Valley Middle School. For example,
discipline challenges were not mentioned in the scenario; however, he makes
specific reference to the philosophical differences regarding discipline and applies
them to the hypothetical scenario. Though the challenges described in the scenario
provide a completely different context than that with which the principal is currently
familiar, his self-efficacy appraisal is consistent with that of his current context.
Case Study Two
District: Location and Demographics
The East Valley School District is located in the heart of Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia is a large urban city with a population of roughly 1.5 million people.
During the 2006-2007 school year, the district served over 178,241 students
(preschool through twelfth grade) in 274 schools (NCES, n.d.). Of this student
population 71.4% were considered economically disadvantaged, 7.4% of the students
127
were reported as English Language Learners (NCES, n.d.) and 21.0% were reported
as having an Individual Education Plan (IEP) under the statutes of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (NCES, n.d.). During the 2006-2007 school
year, the district employed over 15,281 individuals, of which 9,917 were teachers.
The 274 schools in the district are supported by 125 district administrators and a total
of 497 school administrators (NCES, n.d.).
District: Fiscal Summary
In the 2006-2007 school year the district reported an average student to
teacher ratio of 18 to 1. For the 2006 fiscal year the school district reported a revenue
of $2,291,777,000 (34.6% of which came from local sources) with a per-pupil
expenditure of $12, 220 (NCES, n.d.).
School: Location and Demographic
Jefferson Middle School is a small neighborhood school situated in a low
income urban community in Southwest Philadelphia. During the 2005-2006 school
year Jefferson Middle School served a total of 765 students in grades 5-8. At that
time the school had a staff of 35 teachers which translated to a student to teacher
ratio of 21 to 1. Currently Jefferson Middle School is serving roughly 400 students in
grades seven and eight. Roughly 92% of the students qualify for free or reduced
lunches, and one ethnic group represents a large majority of the total school
population (Black 96.8%). The remaining student population is represented by White
and Latino ethnic groups (Jefferson Middle School Annual Report 2008-2009- in SIP
binder).
128
The following table illustrates the demographic composition of Jefferson
Middle School

Table 8. Demographic composition of students at Jefferson Middle School

Student Group
# of Students
(06-07 SY)
% of Students
(06-07 SY)
Total Enrollment 405 100%
Ethnicity
White 4 1.0%
Black 393 96.8%
Latino/Hispanic 7 1.7%
Asian --- ---
Native American --- ---
Multiracial --- ---
Other Groups
IEP 59 14.6%
English Language Learners 19 4.7%
Mentally Gifted Program 2 0.5%
Economically Disadvantaged 340 84%
--- data were not available for these subsets

School: Academic Performance
The most recent data available reflects academic assessment results from the
2006-2007 school year. The following tables summarize the school’s assessment
data.
129
Table 9. Number of students assessed at Jefferson Middle School and the percentage
of students scoring proficient or above by subgroup and subject area for the 2006-
2007 school year

Student Group
% Students
Assessed Reading
% Students
Assessed Math
All Students 97.7% 44.6% 97.7% 44.9%
Ethnicity
White --- --- --- ---
Black 97.9% 44.6% 97.9% 44.3%
Latino/Hispanic --- --- --- ---
Asian --- --- --- ---
Native American --- --- --- ---
Multiracial --- --- --- ---
Other Groups
IEP 98.1% 18.8% 94.7% 15.2
English Language Learners --- --- --- ---
Migrant --- --- --- ---
Economically Disadvantaged 99% 44.7% 98.7% 45.5%
---

data withheld to protect the privacy of individual students. The corresponding subgroup contained
less than 10 students.

School Culture
Beginning in July 2008 Jefferson Middle School experienced several changes
with regard to administrative leaders and teaching staff. At the start of the 2008-2009
school year roughly 80% of the teaching staff were first or second year teachers. In
fact, the Science department was composed entirely of new teachers; every person in
the department was brand new to teaching. The majority of these teachers came to
Jefferson Middle School through Teach for America. This organization places recent
130
college graduates in teaching positions in high need, urban schools for a minimum of
two years in exchange for loan repayment of their college loans. For most of these
teachers this is only a two year commitment before they are off to pursue graduate
degrees in other fields such as law, medicine or business. Needless to say, the change
in administration and faculty brought about several cultural changes and discomforts.
Under the previous administration the school was managed by a leader who took a
top-down administrative management approach to school leadership. Teachers were
told what they needed to do and they were expected to follow through with it. The
culture did not lend itself to collaboration or team work. Additionally, the school had
established several partnerships with various agencies throughout Philadelphia.
These organizations provided services such as tutoring, extra-curricular activities,
mentoring, and after school programs for the students. When the current principal
took the position in July 2008 he introduced a completely different approach to
leadership. He brought with him a focus on instructional leadership which translated
to greater administrative presence in the classrooms, and more instructional feedback
for the teacher. In addition, he valued a culture of collaboration and team work. He
refers to the school as a family in which everyone supports his/her colleague and the
entire unit works together towards a common goal. Each grade level is referred to as
a house, and each house has a lead teacher who is primarily responsible for what
occurs in his or her house. These lead teachers are the house representatives on the
leadership team, and they are responsible for the instruction, achievement and
discipline in their house. House team meetings are held on a regular basis, and they
131
are designed to recognize accomplishments, gather feedback and input for the
leadership team, discuss issues pertaining to the house, and address challenges. Due
to his background as an instructional coach the principal places a greater emphasis
on student achievement data, instructional improvement and accountability. This
shift in priorities has created a substantial impact on the schools ability to maintain
its partnerships with agencies outside the school. In an effort to create a full time
achievement team leader position and retain an assistant principal, the principal
canceled several agreements with the agencies to reallocate funds to these two
positions. These changes supported the overall focus on academic achievement and
instruction as the achievement team leader’s primary responsibilities include data
analysis, progress monitoring, providing teacher support and designing focused
interventions.
The principal has also worked to establish a collaborative, single school
culture at this school. Because a large majority of the staff is new to the profession of
teaching it was a natural tendency for them to pull together to help each other. For
example, the master schedule allows for daily opportunities for teachers to
collaborate through common prep periods. In speaking about the collaborative
culture at the school, one teacher shared, “…there’s always time for collaboration,
collegiality- for everyone to be on the same page.” The schedule also incorporates a
high degree of co-teaching as a way of providing instructional support to new
teachers. In talking about the culture of the school another teacher stated, “There’s a
really strong collaborative culture here.” On the other hand, collaboration with
132
administration has proven to be a much greater challenge. The following statement
from one of the teachers speaks to the divide between staff and administration,
“…the teachers love each other. There’s like a riff between the administration and
the teachers.” In addition, the following statement from one of the teachers
demonstrates the “us vs. them” mentality: “…they’re trying to create a strong school
culture and climate here.” From this statement it is clear that a single school culture
is not a shared priority rather it is something that is being brought in with the new
administration. Another teacher shared that the individual conferences with the
principal, which were designed to provide instructional support and consultation,
were more of an accountability provision than a support. From the principal’s
perspective this is an opportunity to support teachers and hold them accountable to
what they said they were going to do.
Prior to the current administration it was uncharacteristic of the school
leaders to solicit input from the faculty regarding goals for the school. It has become
a challenge for staff to adjust to this collaborative mentality with increased
instructional accountability under the current administration. Following the first visit
to the school there was a general sense that the staff was highly committed to the
students and to each other. They worked long hours and were committed to the
success of each of their students. However, the general feeling following the second
visit was that of great frustration and pressure on getting results. From the teachers
perspectives it seemed as though the demands and pressure increased to the point
that they were simply going through the motions. This was supported by two
133
teachers who stated that there has been greater talk among the staff about not
wanting to work in this environment next year. The enthusiasm from the first visit
was clearly not evident just five months later.
Introduction of the Principal
The 2008-2009 school year marked the beginning of Mr. Brown’s 14
th
year
as an educator. He began his career in education as a middle school teacher teaching
Math. He was then offered a position teaching Algebra at the high school level. After
teaching at the high school for three years he accepted a position as an instructional
coach for Math. He was an instructional coach for five years, of which the last year
and a half he was the lead instructional coach supervising seven schools in
Philadelphia. During our first interview he shared that because he interfaced with
school leaders as an instructional coach on such a regular basis it just made sense for
him to go back to school to get his Master’s degree in educational leadership. After
completing his graduate degree he was offered a position as an assistant principal at
a middle school in Philadelphia. Two years after he accepted the assistant principal
position his principal retired, and he assumed the principalship. After serving for one
year as the principal of this middle school the district decided to restructure some of
the elementary and middle schools throughout the city, and his school was dissolved
in the process. He was then offered the position at Jefferson Middle School. At the
start of this study he had been the principal at Jefferson Middle School for only three
months. Mr. Brown explained that the greatest shift in coming to this middle school
is getting the staff acclimated to working with an instructional leader. With that
134
comes a greater degree of instructional accountability, more collaboration and
coaching, and more communication.
Challenges
In following suit with the first case study the first question asked of both
teachers and the principal at the school site was “What are some of the challenges
you face here at this school?” The principal explained two primary challenges at this
school. The first challenge was “…staying the course with all of the change that we
just had…” His reference to staying the course was specific to the maintenance of
meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets again. The changes he explained
were centered on the revolving door of new teachers, and a change in administration.
Because a large majority of teachers at this school are from Teach for America, the
turnover among the faculty is extremely high. Most of the faculty is composed of
first of second year teachers, so the degree of teacher development required to
produce a quality instructional program for students is extremely high.
When asked about the challenges facing the school many teachers made
reference to the same challenges as the principal. Of the six teachers interviewed,
four shared challenges related to a novice teaching staff and continuous teacher
development. Three teachers shared that obtaining needed materials was a challenge
and three teachers mentioned classroom management and/or behavior as a challenge.
Other challenges shared by the teacher included meeting AYP again, collaboration
among the staff, and dealing with the conflict between community and school
expectations. Though the areas were similar it was interesting to see the perspectives
135
from which the challenges were viewed. Similar to the first case study, the
challenges explained by the principal pertained to the organization; whereas, many
of the challenges explained by the teachers were specific to their current position.
For example, one teacher explained that it was a challenge for her to provide support
to teachers (i.e. providing feedback and advice on instructional strategies) when it
was known by the faculty that she does not have many years of teaching experience.
Though this challenge was specific to the training of new teacher it was very specific
to her position. Another teacher explained that a lack of materials was a challenge.
However, he did not explain the lack of materials as a global concern. Rather, he
expanded on the need to obtain specific materials for his classroom. The principal,
on the other hand, used collective language in explaining the challenges of the
organization itself- “…our biggest challenge is staying the course…” Though many
of the challenges described by the teachers were expressed using individualistic
language (i.e. “my challenges,” “I have a few challenging students”) there was a
general sense of one collective challenge that impacted everyone… the training and
retention of new teachers. This was indicative of a potentially unified staff in which
many of the challenges were related and/or shared by all members of the
organization.
Goals
For each site visit the teachers and the principal were asked to explain the
goals for the school. In general, the responses from both teachers and the principal
demonstrated a small degree of variance; however, they were mostly consistent from
136
one visit to the next. On the first visit the principal explained the school goals to be
related to making AYP. He shared that the AYP targets for this year had just been
released, so his team just recently had an opportunity to look at the targets and set
their own goals. He explained that the achievement team just recently shared the
specific AYP goals with the staff. Specifically, the goals for the school are “67/55.”
These numbers represent the AYP targets for Math and Reading respectively.
Because these were just released to the staff the principal explained that his goal was
for everyone, including students, to know what “67/55” means. In addition, he
described the process through which he took his staff to analyze individual student
achievement data to identify specific students on the cusp of moving from one
category to the next (i.e. moving from Basic to Proficient). In speaking about this
process he shared that it “forces everybody not only to know the data, but it also
forces everybody to know how they’re going to impact the data.” Though not
explicitly stated it was evident that he, the leadership team and the achievement team
were very reliant upon the continuous collection and analysis of student achievement
data in alignment with the AYP targets for the year.
On the second visit the principal explained, without hesitation, that the goals
for the school are “67/55.” He then provided greater detail as to what the numbers
represented, “our goal is to do ten percent better than we did in the previous year…”
Though not explicitly stated his comments give the indication that the AYP targets
for the school were set by the achievement team and are above the state’s targets for
AYP:“we really have some lofty goals for ourselves, really, really, high expectations
137
for ourselves.” He ends this thought with the following statement, “We’ve just got to
really keep supporting good instruction, good teaching and we’ve gotta really keep
pushing and motivating our kids to give it everything that they have.” With this
statement it is important to note that the emphasis on improving the rigor and quality
of instruction was evident through both observation and informal conversation with
individuals at the site. However, specific measureable goals related to the
improvement of instruction were not found. The ultimate goal is to improve student
performance on state achievement tests, and the way to get there is through
improving the quality of instruction. However, explicit goals targeting quality
instruction were not evident through any of the interviews. Though the distal goal of
meeting AYP targets was well-defined, specific proximal goals regarding the
improvement of instruction were obsolete.
In analyzing the description of goals noted above it is important to point out
the perspective from which the statements were made. In all cases the principal used
collective language such as, “Our goal is to do ten percent better than we did in the
previous year....” Overall, the goals for the school, as described by the principal,
were found to be consistent from one visit to the next and it was evident that they
were developed collaboratively through the use of the achievement team.
When teachers were asked to describe the goals for the school on the first
visit the responses were fairly consistent which provided an early indication that the
goals were shared across the organization. For example, of the six teachers
interviewed on the first visit, five explicitly stated that meeting the AYP targets was
138
a school goal, and two of the five cited the actual targets- “67/55.” Two of the six
teachers shared that improved attendance rates of 92% or better, for both students
and teachers, was a goal for the school. Two teachers explained that improved
reading performance was a goal of the school, and one teacher mentioned discipline
goals for the school. Upon further analysis of the responses it is important to note
that the goals shared by all teachers were organizational goals not individual goals
related to the specific assignment of each teacher. This was in stark contrast to the
findings from the first case study.
In an analysis of the responses to this same question during the second visit,
it was evident that the goals were consistent with those shared on the first visit. Of
the same six teachers interviewed on the first visit all six described the AYP goal to
be the primary focus for the school. One teacher shared the specific goal of
increasing the attendance rate to 92% or better, one teacher spoke about the goal to
increase rigor of instruction and increased cohesion among the staff, and one teacher
shared the goal of “sustaining” teachers. Upon further explanation from the teacher
about this last goal it was evident that the statement was referring specifically to
retaining teachers at the school. In comparing the responses of the teachers from the
first visit to the second visit it was clear that over the course of five months the goals
were not drastically different; however, they were more defined in terms of priority.
When asked the question about school goals on the second visit five of the six
teachers cited the AYP targets as the primary goal. There was no hesitation from any
139
of the participants prior to giving an answer to the question which is indicative of a
well defined goal that is shared throughout the building.
An analysis of the general orientation of the goals shared by the participants
revealed a greater tendency to indicate a performance orientation as opposed to a
mastery orientation. However, it was evident through other sources of data (e.g.
documents and artifacts) that the school had implicit mastery goals. For example, in
a document describing purpose, responsibilities, and goals of the achievement team,
the second goal specifically targeted “consistent and measureable progress toward
content mastery in all subjects.” In addition, the program components section
describes the process for analyzing and interpreting data in both relative and absolute
gains. In other words, achievement is assessed in two ways, (a) individual gains
relative to each student’s baseline, and (b) individual gains in comparison to the
overall grade-level expectations (i.e. gains in relation to a normative sample). This
emphasis on mastery was also evidenced in a document introducing visitors to the
school which was included in a visitor’s packet. The summary states, “The students’
progress is tracked carefully and analyzed based on both relative growth (using
progress monitoring data) and grade-level progress (using benchmark scores).”
Furthermore, a general sense of mastery orientation was evidenced through a
statement from one of the teachers interviewed on the second visit, “When I say
academic growth…obviously you want it to be AYP but that’s not necessarily what
I’m saying. It’s…making growth every single year so that it is not like it’s a wasted
year.” Though the explicitly stated AYP goals carry a performance orientation, the
140
school maintains a set of mastery oriented goals related to student learning. As stated
previously it is important to acknowledge the general goal orientation of school goals
within school leadership as goal orientation has demonstrated significant correlations
to adaptive patterns of behavior (Ryan & Patrick, 2001) and general well being
(Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).
The goal statements of all participants were categorized into one of three
“target” areas. The three goal targets used in this analysis were: School, Staff, and
Students. The importance of making this distinction was to determine where one
might look to evaluate progress on the goal. For example, if the school goal was to
increase student performance on a test one would likely look to student variables (i.e.
foundation of prior knowledge needed to perform well on the test, test taking
strategies, student benchmark assessments). If a school goal was to improve quality
of instruction one would likely look to staff variables (i.e. instructional strategies
used in the classroom, goals of the lesson plans, organization and delivery of
content). Finally, if a school goal was to increase safety on the campus one would
likely look to school variables (i.e. level of supervision during passing periods and
breaks, interactions of students, availability of resources for managing emotional and
behavioral risk factors). In an analysis of both teacher and principal responses, the
school goals targeted all three categories. However, the mechanisms used to measure
progress on these goals were not clearly defined. This has significant implications
with regard to measuring success in various goal areas. The data used to establish
and measure the goals for the school should be objective and clearly defined. As
141
stated in the analysis of the first case study, if the objective data on teacher
instruction point to the need for more precise lesson planning, it would likely be
easier to build consensus around that goal as opposed to building consensus based on
subjective data presented by the administration. In light of this analysis it is
important to point out that the goal targets varied across the goals (i.e. some goals
target school culture (school), some targeted rigorous instruction (teacher), yet the
mechanism for measuring progress on the goals relied heavily on the performance on
the PSSA. It seemed as though the focus was so heavily concentrated on the end
results of the PSSA that the measurement of goals designed to better prepare students
for the PSSA (i.e. improved instructional practices, collaboration among staff,
decreasing punitive discipline practices that take kids away from instruction) were
overlooked.
Vision
In contrast to the findings regarding the goals for this school, the vision was
much less defined. For each site visit the teachers and the principal were asked to
explain the vision for the school. When asked about the vision on the first visit, the
teachers gave a variety of responses. Of the six teachers interviewed, five articulated
something pertaining to academic achievement, and two described a part of the
school vision as building a collaborative climate or culture. Other responses included
areas such as: critical thinking and social development of students, continuous
improvement with regard to teaching, global mission of education, and a change in
philosophy about the way staff interact with students (i.e. treat all kids as if they
142
were your own). One participant shared that the school didn’t have a clear vision
statement, but proceeded to provide a response about an implied vision for the
school. Of the six teachers who provided some explanation of the vision the only line
of consistency was that five expressed a vision that had something to do with
improving academic achievement. It is also important to highlight the perceived
source of the vision for the school. Of the six responses from the teachers, one made
reference to the vision coming directly from the principal. The following is an
excerpt from her interview, “…his vision is about academics and making sure that all
the kids are onboard…” and “his philosophy that he’s trying to share for the whole
entire school is treat all kids as if they were your own.” On the other hand another
participant explained that the leadership team met over the summer and devoted
much time to developing a mission statement and vision; however, they didn’t come
out with a vision statement that everyone could agree on. Ironically, both of the
participants referenced above are part of the leadership team.
When asked about the vision for the school on the first visit the principal
responded with the following statement, “My vision is that it’s a collaborative effort,
you know that everybody is vested in the progress of every individual student in this
building.” When asked about the degree to which this is a shared vision among the
staff he responded, “…it’s definitely a shared vision from the leadership team.”
Clearly there is a disconnect between the perception of the principal and members of
his leadership team. It is also important to point out another discrepancy within the
statements of the principal. As the conversation regarding a shared vision continued
143
the principal shared his experience with the vision as a new principal in the building.
He said, “The first thing that the staff wanted to know was, okay well, what’s your
vision, what’s your plan for Jefferson?” He proceeded to give his response to this
question, “I didn’t come with [principal’s name] plan for how to lead any school
building.” He explained that “good leadership is that you get to know your building,
figure out what the needs are as a family and then we figure out what we need to do
to get there. That’s a collaborative effort.” In consideration of these statements from
the principal and the statements from the leadership team members, there appears to
be a disconnect between the intent of the principal and the reality of what has
occurred regarding the development of a clear vision. Though the principal’s intent
was to use a collaborative process to develop a shared vision, it was clear that
consensus had yet not been reached, even among the leadership team, about the
development of a shared vision. It appears as though the principal was using a
collaborative process to find support and buy-in with his preconceived vision or
direction for the school, despite his statements to the contrary.
In both case studies it appears as though the definition of “shared” carries
different meanings. “Shared” can be interpreted in terms of a team collaboratively
crafting a vision in which the stakeholders of the organization share in the
development of the vision, or “shared” can be interpreted in terms of a leader
garnering support for his or her vision thus providing a sense of collectiveness. The
real question in this case is whether or not the vision came from the stakeholders or
whether it was brought to them to rally around.
144
Through an analysis of statements from both the teachers and the principal it
is quite possible that, in this case, the vision was brought to the leadership team
instead of coming from the leadership team. When asked specifically if the vision
the statement was created by the leadership team, the principal stated, “absolutely.”
In comparison with the teacher responses regarding the vision it is evident that the
principal has communicated to staff, at some point, a general set of values and
beliefs about the direction of the organization, but it is difficult to substantiate a
claim that a vision is well-defined and shared throughout the organization. The
individualist language evident in the principal’s response provides additional support
for the notion that this vision was not collectively developed and is not shared. As
stated previously, a vision establishes a collective sense of purpose and direction for
an organization. If a vision is imposed upon the members of an organization, the
adoption and alignment of individual practices with that vision will likely be met
with challenge.
During the second visit the same participants interviewed during the first visit
were asked to articulate the vision for the school. The responses from the teachers
were characteristic of the responses given during the first visit. They were vague and
varied in substance from teacher to teacher. Of the six responses five indicated a
vision that spoke to the importance of student achievement. Though there was some
consistency regarding student achievement the statements were very vague. To
demonstrate this ambiguity, some of the responses included the following;
“…help the kids and teach them well…”
145
“…to make academic growth…”
”…to prepare our kids to be successful…”
The responses from teachers regarding the vision for the school spoke to
other areas of education such as: teacher responsibility and ownership for student
learning, parental involvement, cohesiveness as a staff, and rigorous instruction. It is
also important to highlight the comments from two of the teachers regarding the
establishment of a vision for the school. In speaking about the presence of a vision
statement one teacher shared, “I don’t feel that we have a mission statement and
vision statement that everybody knows and is seen as being at the heart of our work.
I think it is more implicit and just what we focus on. I think it would be helpful to
have that, but we don’t.” Another teacher shared, “I think it’s kind of implicit, but I
don’t think one’s been clearly articulated…” From responses such as these and the
responses from the first visit it is apparent that a clearly articulated vision that is
shared throughout the organization is non-existent.
When asked about the vision for the school on the second visit, the principal
provided a response that indicated a strong emphasis on the global mission of public
education.
“…we’re trying to make children that will be prepared for this twenty-first
century…”
“We’re trying to get kids to grade level.”
“We’re trying to get kids used to being problem solvers and critical thinkers
and team players.”
146
“We’re trying to prepare these children to move on to high school and have a
strong foundation to be successful.”
“We have to be preparing these kids for a whole different way of doing
business.”
Though these are great aims of education, they are not specific to Jefferson
Middle School. A vision statement is designed to establish a common sense of
direction and purpose within an organization. Statements such as these provide little
purpose and direction specific to this particular organization. In comparison to the
responses from the principal from the first visit these statements are consistent in the
sense of collectively supporting the overall progress of students. However, this
vision statement has taken on a much larger scope in terms of preparing students for
the twenty-first century.
It is also important to point out the shift in language with the response from
the principal on the second visit. He now uses collective language in addressing the
various components of the vision statement he provides. Similar to what was found
in the first case study is seems as though the intent of the principal is to establish a
collaborative process for leading the school; however, it appears as though one of the
foundational components that defines the identity and direction of the organization
(the vision) has not been developed collaboratively. In similar fashion, it appears as
though these collaborative efforts in working with the leadership team are put forth
to establish greater consensus with the principal’s vision not necessarily the vision of
the collective unit. Though there is a general agreement on promoting the overall
147
success of students at this school, it is clear that the vision for this organization is not
firmly established nor truly shared.
Self Efficacy Beliefs
At each of the two visits the principal was asked to provide an assessment of
his beliefs about his ability to carry out tasks related to transformational leadership.
Specifically, these tasks targeted behaviors associated with the establishment and
maintenance of a vision and goals for the organization. These appraisals of task
specific capabilities were solicited in two ways. The first was a rating based on a
scale of 1 to 10. A rating of one indicated a lower assessment of ability and a rating
of one indicated a higher assessment of ability. The principal was also asked a series
of open ended questions regarding these transformational leadership tasks to elicit
responses that would provide information about the foundation or basis for the
appraisals.
As stated previously, self efficacy has long been established as a motivational
construct specific to individual tasks and contexts. The principals in this study was
asked to provide ratings of task specific capabilities relating to the context in which
he was currently working as well as a hypothetical context through the use of a
scenario. Each scenario was designed to provide a drastically different context than
that in which the principal was currently working. The information provided in the
scenario gave details about student demographics, student academic performance,
challenges at the school and staff dynamics. For the principal at Jefferson Middle
School the scenario represented a suburban middle school with greater student
148
diversity and a staff with years of teaching experience. The scenario was very similar
to the actual description of River Valley Middle School.
Addressed below are the responses from the principal at Jefferson Middle
School regarding the appraisal of his ability to perform specific transformational
leadership tasks in two contrasting contexts.
How would you rate your ability to develop a vision for the school in a way
that does not pre-empt others from expressing their vision?
Scaled Rating (first visit): 9
Scaled Rating (second visit): 8
Scaled Rating (scenario): 9
When asked about how he came to this assessment during the first interview,
the principal provided a long explanation of how teachers need to feel supported in
their jobs, which will lead to greater retention. He really didn’t give a foundation for
his rating that was specific to developing a vision for the school in such a way that
does not pre-empt others from expressing their vision. On the second visit, the
principal provided a response consistent with the question, but the focused more on
establishing buy-in as opposed to developing a vision that doesn’t pre-empt others
from expressing theirs. He explained that several of the teachers at this school come
from Ivy League institutions so they tend to have tendency to think that their way is
the correct way of doing things. He states, “I just have to keep working and doing a
better job of getting people to see the big picture, that we have to be a team in this
and we’re not gonna all think the same way.” Given the previous statement, it
appears that the task of developing a vision in a way that does not pre-empt others is
149
still a task to be completed; however, he provides a rating of an eight. Interestingly,
the rating given on the second visit is lower that the rating given on the first visit.
From the following statement it’s clear that he recognizes the fact that the vision has
not yet been widely accepted, “Until we can get to a point where we’re all in this
together, where we have a common vision…” It appears as through the feedback he
has received from his current experiences at Jefferson Middle School has influenced
the assessment of his ability in this area. For this rating it was clear that he was
relying on current enactive experiences to form an appraisal of his ability in this area.
When asked to provide a rating regarding his role as a principal in the
scenario given, the principal provided a rating higher than the most recent rating
related to his current experiences. When he expanded upon his answer it was evident
that he relied on previous experiences to inform him ability appraisal. The following
statement gives credence to the notion that he relied on past experiences to form his
appraisal: “I do just like I did in any school. Find out who the leaders of instruction
are in the building.”
On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that he used outcome
expectations in place of a self-efficacy rating. In describing some of the strategies he
would use in this new context he provides the following statement, “…just more of
the relationship building in the first couple of months, making sure that the vision is
agreed upon and everybody’s on the same page about it.” This is interesting in light
of the details of the scenario given to this principal. The teachers in the scenario are
described as experienced, autonomous professionals who are not easily moved by
150
change initiatives. The following is a portion of the description from the hypothetical
scenario.
You have teachers who are accustomed to having full rein of their classroom.
In the past they’ve had very little direction from administration. Many of the
teachers have taken to the belief that there is little to change at the school and
that what they have has been a good thing.

Given this increased difficulty with veteran staff resistant to change it is
interesting that the principal placed his rating at a nine when he placed his self-
efficacy rating in the current context at an eight. If his current experiences were
shaping his beliefs about his ability in the new context one would expect the rating
regarding the hypothetical scenario to be equal to or less than his most recent rating
of eight in his current setting. One reason for the increased rating may be that the
principal was applying an outcome expectancy rating as opposed to a rating of self-
efficacy.
How would you rate your ability to inspire colleagues with visions of what
they may be able to accomplish if they work together?
Scaled Rating (first visit): 7
Scaled Rating (second visit): 9
When asked about the foundation for this assessment on the first visit, the
principal did not provide a lengthy response. He simply stated, “I think this is where
we kinda are now.” Though this response wasn’t in depth it does give an indication
as to the basis for this rating. It is clear that he is using current experience to form his
beliefs about his ability to inspire colleagues with visions of what they may be able
to accomplish if they work together. He doesn’t rely on previous experience; rather,
151
he uses the limited enactive experiences he has in his current position. However, the
response on the second visit was much different. After giving the scaled rating of
eight, the principal proceeded to explain one of the challenges he sees on his site-
discipline. Because they are novice teachers and lack the behavior strategies, many
teachers approach him to address the behavior challenges in the classroom. He
attributes these discipline challenges to the lack of communication between teachers
and students. However, he shares that he sees a lot of growth in this area. He
proceeds to explain how he works with teachers on behavioral challenges by
modeling the interactions that need to occur in the classroom. He provided the
following statement about his leadership regarding discipline challenges in the
classrooms on his campus, “I think I’ve been able to really motivate our group.” It is
evident, from this statement, that the principal is using current experiences to
formulate an assessment of his capability. The caution here is the same found in the
first case study, in that, the basis for this assessment is reliant upon the principal’s
perception of the situation.
In this scenario the principal’s appraisal of his ability to inspire colleagues of
what they may be able to accomplish if they work together is based on perception,
but is the perception accurate? How might the responses from teachers regarding the
principal’s ability in this scenario compare to that of the principal? It is clear that the
principal has a perception of growth in this area as evidenced by his self-efficacy
rating and justification for that rating. Given the nature and definition of self-efficacy
152
beliefs (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), this principal would likely continue this practice due
to his perceived ability and effectiveness in this area.
In the evaluation of principal effectiveness it is critical to look at the possible
social cognitive influences on behavior (i.e. self-efficacy beliefs) as opposed to
simply looking to see whether or not a principal is practicing a particular set of
behaviors. Had this principal been given different feedback, possibly more objective
feedback, regarding the effectiveness of this strategy his behaviors would likely be
different if the feedback was in opposition to his appraisal.
How would you rate your ability to clarify the meaning of the school’s vision
in terms of its practical implication for programs and instruction?
Scaled Rating (first visit): 7
Scaled Rating (second visit): between 7 and 8
On the first visit the principal did not provide an explanation for his
appraisal. On the second visit, however, he provided a more insightful response as to
the foundation for this rating. He begins by explaining the current challenge he sees
in bringing his staff on board with the vision. He acknowledges the notion that the
vision must be shared, but he relies on his effectiveness in bringing people on board
to inform his appraisal for this particular task. This is troubling because the source
for his appraisal for this task doesn’t speak to his ability to communicate the vision
in practical terms. Rather, it speaks to his ability to gain consensus or buy in
surrounding the vision. This is also evidenced by his closing comment regarding the
assessment of his ability to perform this task, “If I haven’t been able to sell it then
153
there’s no way I can say I have the ability. I think we’re trying to get there. Some
people may just not be able to be convinced.”
In comparing the above comments from the principal to comments made by
some of the teachers, it brings about the realization that, in some cases, instructional
leaders may be misguided by their appraisals. In this case the principal rates his
ability to clarify the vision of the school in practical terms very high in which case he
focuses his attention to establishing more buy-in with the vision as opposed to
establishing clarity and practicality on how the staff will work toward the vision. In
considering the information provided by some of the teachers there is evidence to
suggest that his focus may need to shift from establishing buy-in to clarifying the
vision in practical terms. The following comments from teachers demonstrate this
lack of clarity and practicality of carrying out the vision.
“…it’s been mostly like here’s our destination and not enough in my opinion
of here’s how we get there. So I think that’s where we’ve all maybe fallen short.”
“…it’s more like we’re really not doing a good job; we need to do better
instead of more constructive, we’re not where we should be, here’s how we can get
to where we want to go.” [speaking about individual data conferences with the
principal]
“…most people will buy in to whatever it is that you’re asking of them, but
as far as executing it and follow through those are two different things.”
154
“Everybody in the whole school has to go sit before him to explain what
they’re doing to move the kids, you know get them to a certain point.” [speaking
about individual data conferences with the principal]
In the last example given it demonstrates the nature of accountability in these
data conferences as opposed the constructive feedback and clarity about how to carry
out the vision and/or goals of the school. The expectation of moving students to a
particular point, academically, is very clear; however, the plan for getting them there
was not evident through the interviews conducted with teachers.
In this case it appears that the principal was applying an outcome expectancy
appraisal to formulate his ability appraisal regarding the task of clarifying the vision
in practical terms. In other words, his expectancy of establishing buy in among the
staff informed the appraisal of his ability to clarify the vision in practical terms.
From the principal’s responses above it appears as though he doesn’t really have
sufficient experience (neither enactive nor vicarious) to make a clear assessment of
his ability in this area or he is using an inaccurate source of feedback (i.e.
establishing buy-in) to assess his ability in this area.
Because the principal’s self-efficacy rating for this task is high (though
possibly misguided), he may not see the need to focus more attention on clarifying
the vision when, in reality, this is exactly what is needed. This example is critical to
the study of leadership behavior because it provides insight to the possible social
cognitive factors (i.e. self efficacy) influencing leadership behavior. Current research
literature would tend to focus on the degree to which the principal had established a
155
vision at this school or clarified it in practical terms. Conversely, the research
literature would tend not to focus on why the principal may or may not be practicing
these behaviors (Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Hallinger, Leithwood & Murphy,
1993).
How would you rate your ability to assist staff in developing consistency
between the school’s vision and individual goals?
Scaled Rating (first visit): 8
Scaled Rating (second visit): between 8 and 9
Similar to the questions asked above, the principal did not provide a rationale
for his self-efficacy rating for this task on the first visit. After giving a rating on the
second visit, he provided more insight as to the source of his appraisal. He began his
response by referring to the individual conferences he has with teachers. It became
evident that this would form the foundation for the information he would use to
inform the appraisal of his ability in this area:
…because now with the individual conferences we always have a chance to
sit down and look at where we said we wanted it to go and then what actually
we’re doing. When you have the data in front of people they can sit and, you
know I’m not indicting people but I’m saying you know, trying to find a way
to motivate them and say hey you know this is what we agreed upon.

From this response it seemed as though he understood the question to be
specific to individual academic goals that he and the teacher set through the
individual data conferences. Based on this understanding he rated his appraisal
higher than his rating on the first visit. It seems that the creation of these meetings
formed a structure through which he could check in with teachers and make sure that
156
their goals were aligned with the vision of the school (or his vision). However, from
the teachers’ perspectives these conferences were not an effort to consider their
professional goals; rather, they explained these conference as more of a compliance
check to make sure teachers were following through with what was established at the
previous conference. In this area it appears that the principal is, again, relying on his
most recent experiences to make an assessment of his ability in this area. In addition,
it seems as though he may be looking to inaccurate sources of feedback to assess his
ability which suggests a lack of relevant experiences (either enactive or vicarious)
upon which he can formulate a better assessment of self-efficacy.
Considering the comments from the principal on both interviews it is clear
that he truly desired to establish a collaborative culture. However, the information he
uses here (i.e. success of individual data conferences) to inform his ability to develop
consistency between individual goals and the direction of the school is misleading as
it doesn’t truly take into consideration the individual professional goals of the
teachers. The individual goals in these data conferences are benchmark objectives
that may or may not be set by each teacher. They act as more of an accountability
provision than a support mechanism for building their professional capacity as a
teacher.
How would you rate your ability to develop consensus about school and
group goals?
Scaled Rating (first visit): 9
Scaled Rating (second visit): 9
Scaled Rating (scenario): 8
157
During the first visit the principal gave a thorough explanation of the process
he uses to establish consensus at his site. However, the entire response regarding his
ability to establish consensus about school and group goals was based on the
perceived effectiveness of the process he has established for developing consensus,
not on evidence of effectiveness. In this response he doesn’t give any reference to the
actual effectiveness of this process. If his ability appraisal is based on the degree to
which he followed his plan as opposed to the actual effectiveness of his efforts to
establish consensus, he is misled. Without any feedback on the outcomes of his
strategy to build consensus it is difficult to form an appraisal about one’s ability to
establish consensus. Though there may be valid efficacy feedback the principal is
utilizing to form this appraisal, it wasn’t evident in his response on the first visit.
…you know [we] have the groups meet. They’ve got to have it broken down,
you know where we meet as an individual group we talk about what the plan
is, have them go out and be able to discuss it in a comfortable setting, for a
group to come back together, for us to say this is what we’ve come up with.
Then it’s up to the leadership to figure out what are the common threads that
pull this all together? I feel good in that part…

On the second visit, the principal provided a very indirect response following
his scaled rating. In referring to his ability to build consensus he hesitated quite a bit
in an attempt to find sources of information that would support his ability rating. The
two responses below provide an example of the ambiguity in his responses:
Our staff has a consensus in the group that I’m consistent in what it is that I
believe and what I’m trying to do here. From that point I think we’re all …, I
can always get a consensus there as far as getting in our groups to do what we
need to do for children.

158
I think people clearly know, and I think there’s a consensus here about what
we’re trying to do here. I think from that point I’ve been able to do that. I
know for a fact that there are some people here saying I’m not sure I could
really live up to this man’s expectations, and seeing how he works and seeing
how he does things…

This disconnect between the high rating the principal provides and the basis for the
rating is also indicative of an outcome expectancy rating as opposed to a self-
efficacy rating. This is supported in the principal’s comment regarding the degree to
which his staff are on the same page.
We’re just at various degrees of expertise or competence so everybody being
able to carry it out on the same level; we’re just not there yet.

It is plausible that the principal’s use of an outcome expectancy rating is
indicative of insufficient feedback (i.e. vicarious or enactive experiences) to inform
an accurate ability rating. The nature and design of this study may have also
contributed this shift from an ability rating to outcome expectancy rating. Because
this study focuses, intently, on the leadership of only two principals, each principal
was put in a position of vulnerability which may have contributed to the utilization
of protective mechanisms that would eliminate the perception that the principal sees
himself as having a low perceived ability. In considering the nature of the study, the
fact that the self-efficacy appraisal was solicited during the interview adds an
additional layer of vulnerability, thus possibly contributing to a skewed rating. For
example, a principal with a low self-efficacy appraisal is less likely to disclose that
low appraisal to an interviewer as opposed to indicating the rating on paper.
159
When asked about his self-efficacy beliefs in relation to the scenario the
principal relied heavily on his past experiences with similar variables as seen it the
responses below.
…I know amongst them there are going to be differences just form the way
that this staff…, I’ve worked with similar staffs and this group is going to
have all kinds of cliques and everything involved here.

I can’t say we all know schools like this, but I’ve been affiliated with
different school structures like this and there’s absolutely no way I’m going
to go in there and win from day one.

Though it appears as if his rating speaks to his belief in his ability to carry out
the task of establishing consensus in this new school, it is clear from the statement
below that he is still using an expectancy outcome rating to form his appraisal:
You know I say eight just because I have enough confidence in my ability
that I can win eight out of ten times, but there’s no way that I could say a ten
and say I’m going to win them all. Its just not gonna happen, not with that
group.

Instead of basing his rating on the belief in his ability to perform the task, he
is providing a rating based on his expected outcome in the scenario. Interestingly, he
acknowledges, indirectly, that he doesn’t believe he has the ability to establish
consensus with the entire staff, and he lowers his appraisal rating for the scenario.
For this rating, it appears that he utilized previous experiences from his involvement
with other schools to form this appraisal, but it is evident that he also adds a
component of his expectancy to his appraisal. Not only did his overall rating of self-
efficacy increase, in relation to his original appraisal on the first visit, but it was
160
evident that he utilized past enactive experiences to inform his appraisal of his belief
to build consensus in the new context.
Though the challenges described in the scenario provide a completely
different context than that with which the principal is currently familiar, his self-
efficacy appraisal is lower than that of his current context. Given the definition and
nature of self-efficacy (see Gist & Mitchell, 1992), it is likely that his consensus
building behaviors in the scenario would be different than those in the current
context. This notion is supported by the principal’s explanation of how he might go
about establishing consensus in this new context. In comparing the principal’s
comments about how he might establish consensus in both settings it is clear that his
approach would be quite different.
[Scenario] …just address immediately, you know in a soft way and figure out
how to have those conversations. Even some of the backdoor meetings that
have to happen, you know calling people to some one on one meetings or
some smaller groups and figuring out who the players are.

[Current School Setting] They’ve got to have it broken down, you know
where we meet as an individual group we talk about what the plan is, have
them go out and be able to discuss it in a comfortable setting, for a group to
come back together, for us to say this is what we’ve come up with. Then it’s
up to the leadership to figure out what are the common threads that pull this
all together?

This change in self-efficacy ratings paralleled with the principal’s proposed
changes in leadership behavior in the new context, is critical to understanding leader
behavior within the context of social cognitive theory. With the same knowledge,
skills and abilities this principal will likely behave very differently from one context
to the next based on the contextual variables, the feedback he receives regarding his
161
leadership, and his task specific beliefs about his ability to lead in that setting. Thus,
the focus on leadership research would benefit from further exploration into the
social cognitive variables contributing to the practice of leadership behavior.
Summary of Findings in Relation to the Research Questions
Research Question 1: How and why do principals’ self-efficacy beliefs about
transformational leadership behaviors and their practices surrounding vision setting
and goal consensus change over time?
An analysis of the self-efficacy appraisals of both principals regarding the
ability to perform five transformational leadership behaviors provided useful insight
about the potential influence of self-efficacy appraisals on leadership behavior.
Though causal inferences cannot be drawn from the data collected in this study, the
data presented herein provide reason to empirically explore the relationship between
self-efficacy beliefs and behavior in educational leadership.
The logic used in this study was to obtain a measure of self-efficacy
appraisals relating to five transformational leadership tasks and compare those
appraisals to the principal’s leadership behavior in that context. If there was a change
in self-efficacy appraisals from one visit to the next, it was expected that there would
be a change in leadership behavior. Establishing causal connections between the two
was not the intent of this study. Rather, the intent was to provide an explanation of
the changes in both appraisals and leadership behavior from a qualitative approach.
For the principal at River Valley Middle School three of the five self-efficacy
rating remained the same from the first visit to the second. One of the self-efficacy
162
ratings decreased and the other increased from the first visit to the second. In
following the logic presented above, the analysis focused on changes in leadership
behavior in each of those areas. For the tasks in which the principal’s self-efficacy
ratings remained the same, little change regarding the principal’s behavior in this
area was found. For example, the three tasks for which the self-efficacy ratings
remained the same involved (1) the development of a vision in a way that does not
pre-empt others, (2) the clarification of the vision in practical terms and the
development of consistency between the vision, and (3) the individual goals of the
staff. An analysis of the participants’ responses concerning the establishment of a
vision revealed no significant changes in the principal’s approach from the first visit
to the second. When asked about the establishment of a vision for the school it was
clear that the principal viewed this as a top-down process in which the principal
establishes the vision and creates buy-in among the staff.
The principal’s self-efficacy rating regarding his ability to inspire colleagues
with visions of what they may be able to accomplish if they work together decreased
from the first visit to the second, and there is some evidence to suggest that his
leadership behaviors in this area changed. During the second visit teachers were
asked to explain the purpose of meetings in which the entire staff is together. One of
the teachers indicated a definite shift in the way the principal utilized the times in
which the entire staff is together. It appears that the focus of these meetings changed
from establishing a collaborative culture and shared decision making to the
163
dissemination of information as evidenced by the teacher’s response on the second
visit when asked about the purpose of staff meetings:
“Disseminate information. They used to be to come to decisions. That did
not work”
“…the focus has changed it seems.”
It was also evident from the teacher responses that the staff at this school was
divided. From the information provided by the principal and teachers the following
observations regarding these transformational leadership tasks were observed.
1. In the beginning of the year the principal articulated an ambitious goal of
bringing the staff together and inspiring them with visions of what they
could accomplish if they worked together.
2. The principal’s self-efficacy rating in this area decreased from the first
visit to the second. In addition, his explanation of the rating indicated a
reliance on current enactive experiences regarding the utilization of time
when the entire staff was together to make this appraisal.
3. There is evidence to suggest that the principal’s leadership behavior
changed surrounding the task of inspiring staff of what they could
accomplish if they worked together
Within the context of social cognitive theory these observations are important to
understanding the potential social cognitive influences on principal behavior.
With regard to the ability to develop consensus about school and group goals,
the principal’s self-efficacy rating increased from the first visit to the second. An
164
analysis of participant responses revealed no explicit changes in the principal’s
leadership behavior in this area. However, the teacher responses regarding school
goals from the first visit to the second were much more consistent indicating some
change regarding the construction of consensus about school goals. It is not
understood whether or not the increased consensus was attributed to the principal’s
behavior, but it is evident from the principal’s responses in this area that he perceives
an increase in consensus and attributes this increased cohesiveness to his leadership.
For the principal at Jefferson Middle School the analysis of both self-efficacy
ratings and behavior was much more difficult as three of the five self-efficacy ratings
indicated possible outcome-expectancy appraisals based on the principal explanation
of how he came to the decision on a rating.
For the principal at Jefferson Middle School one of the five self-efficacy
ratings remained the same from the first visit to the second. One of the self-efficacy
ratings decreased and the other three ratings increased from the first visit to the
second. The principal’s self-efficacy rating regarding his ability to develop a vision
for the school in a way that does not pre-empt others decreased from the first visit to
the second and there is evidence to suggest a change in the principal’s behavior as
well. Data from the teachers interviewed were consistent with the principal’s
decreased appraisal of self-efficacy as it was very clear that a vision for the school
had not yet been established. Consider the following set of observations:
1. The principal’s self-efficacy rating in this area decreased from the first
visit to the second.
165
2. When asked about the vision for the school, the teachers provided
compelling evidence that a clear vision had not yet been established.
3. During the first visit one of the teachers explained that the leadership
team participated in a series of meetings in which the principal used a
process to establish a vision for the school. On the second visit, the same
teacher shared that the process did not yield a clear vision statement that
could be shared throughout the building.
4. Other teachers interviewed supported the claim that a clear vision
statement had not yet been developed.
5. Following the second visit, there was no evidence to suggest the principal
was persisting in the development of a shared vision. This lack of
evidence suggests a change in the principal’s behavior in that he was no
longer pursuing the task of establishing a shared vision. This may be a
result of feedback he received from the first attempt to establish a vision
with his leadership team or it could be the result of competing priorities.
Though the reason for the change is unknown there is evidence to suggest
a change in his behavior regarding the establishment of a vision.
Social Cognitive Theory would suggest that people avoid activities that they believe
exceed their capabilities, but they take on and perform confidently those that they
consider themselves capable of managing (Bandura, 1977). Given the fact pattern
above and the premise of social cognitive theory, it is reasonable to suggest that the
principal used the feedback from his current experiences related to establishing a
166
clear vision, re-evaluated his self-efficacy beliefs in this area, and altered his
leadership behavior accordingly.
In both case studies there is evidence to suggest changes in both self-efficacy
ratings and leadership behaviors regarding the tasks related to the self-efficacy
appraisals. The extent to which these changes are correlated is unknown given the
limitations of this study. The results of this study support the following conclusions:
1. Some self-efficacy ratings in both case studies changed over the course of
five months. This lends support to the notion that self-efficacy appraisals
are context specific and they are formed, in part, by enactive experiences.
2. Principal behaviors regarding the development of goals and a vision
changed over the course of five months. Though the changes in leader
behavior appear to parallel the direction of principal self-efficacy ratings
(i.e. lower self-efficacy ratings and less persistence related to the task),
causal and/or correlational inferences cannot be applied to the results of
this study.
Research Question 2: In what ways do the principals’ self-efficacy beliefs and
practices surrounding vision setting and goal consensus differ in consideration of
school context (urban vs. suburban)?
During the second visit each principal was asked to provide two self-efficacy
ratings about his ability to perform specific transformational leadership behaviors in
a completely different context than that in which he currently works. They were
asked to provide ratings related to the development of a vision in the hypothetical
167
context and the establishment of consensus surrounding school and group goals. Of
the four ratings given only one remained same as the principal’s rating for the same
task in the current school setting. The following table provides a comparison of the
principals’ ratings regarding the two tasks in two very different contexts.

Table 10. Comparison of self-efficacy ratings in two different contexts

Principal
Transformational
Leadership Task
SE Rating
Current
Context
SE Rating
Scenario
Mr. Cain from
River Valley
Middle School
Develop a vision for the school in a
way that does not pre-empt others
from expressing their vision.
7 to 8 7 to 8
Develop consensus about school
and group goals.
7 to 8 7
Mr. Brown
from Jefferson
Middle School
Develop a vision for the school in a
way that does not pre-empt others
from expressing their vision.
8 9
Develop consensus about school
and group goals.
9 8

The responses above support the claim of social cognitive theory that self-
efficacy beliefs are specific to context (Wood & Bandura, 1989). The principals in
each of these case studies provided different self-efficacy ratings based on the
hypothetical context in which they were expected to lead. They were asked to give
ratings for the hypothetical context just minutes after providing a rating related to
their current setting, thus making it difficult for any claim that the change in rating
168
was attributed to changes in knowledge, skills or abilities. In other words, the
principals’ beliefs in their ability to lead in the two contexts were not influenced by
new knowledge, skills and abilities. Rather, their beliefs were shaped by their
existing experiences in leadership. Assuming the accuracy of the claims of social
cognitive theory that human behavior is correlated with task/context specific
appraisals of ability (Bandura, 1977), the evidence presented in this study is critical
to understanding the motivations and decision of leaders in education. Though the
research of educational leadership has yielded rich descriptions of effective
leadership behavior in specific contexts, it has failed to address the underlying
mechanism contributing to the practice of these behaviors. The result of this study
which support the notion that individuals, specifically principals, form different self-
efficacy beliefs in different contexts suggests the importance of considering social
cognitive constructs in the future study of educational leadership.
Research Question 3: From the participant’s perspective what is it about the
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) initiative that influences participants’ self-
efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors?
At the onset of this study the design was such that both principals selected for
the case studies would be starting the initial stages of the Pennsylvania Inspired
Leaders (PIL) training following the first site visit in September 2008. The original
plan was that each principal would be interviewed prior to the start of the first PIL
training in October 2008. Following the first round of interviews and observations in
September the same principals would be interviewed a second time in February 2009
169
following their participation in the first PIL training. During the first interview with
each principal in September 2008, the principal from River Valley Middle School
shared that he was scheduled to start the PIL training in October 2008; however, the
principal at Jefferson Middle School was scheduled to begin the training series in the
Spring 2009. As of the conclusion of this study, the principal from Jefferson Middle
School had not yet started the PIL trainings. For the purpose of addressing this
particular research question, this unexpected logistical change made it nearly
impossible to fully address the question. However, the principal from River Valley
Middle School did have the opportunity to attend the PIL training in October 2008,
and he did offer some insight about the training and its potential influence on his
self-efficacy beliefs. When asked about which portions of the PIL initiative most
influenced his leadership as a principal he provided the following response:
There were many aspects I enjoyed about PIL, but the two I enjoyed the most
were the opportunity to hear what other colleagues in the region are doing in
their skills and the access to the NISL resources that explored
trends/strategies nationally and internationally.

From this brief response it is difficult to make connections between which
components of the PIL initiative had an impact or potential impact on self-efficacy
beliefs. From the statement provided, one element within the response provides some
insight as to the components of the PIL initiative that may have some influence on
principal self-efficacy beliefs. The principal shared that he enjoyed hearing what
colleagues around the region were doing. Within the context of Bandura’s (1977)
social cognitive theory, one of the key sources of information that shapes self-
170
efficacy beliefs is vicarious experience. Observing others perform successfully can
increase self-efficacy beliefs when the individual observing the event believes he or
she has the capabilities to perform the same task in similar fashion (Bandura, 1982).
Bandura (1977) also explains that vicarious experiences are more effective sources
of efficacy information when the model is similar to the observer. In this case, the
opportunity to see the challenges and/or successes of other principals throughout the
region may have influenced the principal’s self-efficacy beliefs about his ability to
collectively establish and maintain a vision and goals. However, sufficient evidence
to suggest a relationship between the two is nonexistent in this particular study.
Though sufficient evidence to substantiate a relationship between the principal’s
vicarious experiences and his self-efficacy beliefs is not present, we should not
dismiss the potential impact of vicarious experiences on individual self-efficacy
beliefs within the context of educational leadership.
Further discussion on the findings of this study as well as implications for the
field and suggestions for further research are addressed in the following chapter.
171
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the purpose of the study, the key
research questions, and the methodology utilized in this investigation. In addition, it
provides a summary of findings and pertinent implications for policy and practice.
Finally, it offers meaningful suggestions for further research in the area of
educational leadership.
Statement of the Problem
To date, very few leadership preparation programs have been empirically
studied through the lens of social cognitive theory. Much of the research in
educational leadership has relied heavily on rich descriptions of effective leadership
behavior in particular contexts (i.e. urban, suburban) (Teitel, 2005; Jackson & Kelly,
2002; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, Porter, 2006; Gurr, Drysdale & Mulford, 2006).
However, the literature on how these leadership behaviors are developed and
maintained across time and context is sparse (Hallinger & McCary, 1990). Self-
efficacy has demonstrated strong predictive validity in the performance of students
(Patrick & Ryan, 2001), teachers (Bandura, 1997), managers (Paglis & Green, 2002),
subordinates (Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002) and athletes (Prussia & Kinicki,
1996; Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 2001). In addition, research about self-efficacy
in organizational management has found that self-efficacy positively predicts job
attitudes (Saks, 1995), training proficiency (Martocchio & Judge, 1997), and job
performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). From a social cognitive theoretical
172
perspective our understanding of how educational leaders think about and apply
knowledge might best be understood by analyzing the specific belief systems which
shape the application of this knowledge in multiple contexts. This understanding is
critical for gaining a deeper understanding of how leadership capacity is not only
developed but sustained in both urban and suburban systems. If leadership
preparation programs seek to change the practice or behaviors of leaders, specific
attention must be paid to the mechanisms or belief systems that drive these
behaviors.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the changes in self-efficacy beliefs
and practices in two principals through their initial stages of participation in the
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) program, a state-wide leadership development
initiative involving both training and mentoring components. This investigation was
designed to understand, qualitatively, the development and changes in principal self-
efficacy beliefs and leadership practices with regard to two dimensions of
transformational leadership (Leithwood, 1996): Charisma/Inspiration/Vision and
Goal Consensus. In addition, this study was designed to elicit qualitative evidence
about which components of the PIL leadership training program most influenced
self-efficacy beliefs from the perspective of the participants.
173
Research Questions
This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How and why do principals’ self-efficacy beliefs about transformational
leadership behaviors and their practices surrounding vision setting and
goal consensus change over time?
2. In what ways do the principals’ self-efficacy beliefs and practices
surrounding vision setting and goal consensus differ in consideration of
school context (urban vs. suburban)?
3. From the participant’s perspective what is it about the Pennsylvania
Inspired Leaders (PIL) initiative that influences participants’ self-efficacy
beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors?
Methodology
This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design. In general,
case studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and
the development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are most
appropriate in situations where the research has little control over the events in the
context surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore the focus of this study
centered on descriptive questions which sought to shed light on the “hows” and
“whys” of changes in principal leadership behavior through the first seven months of
the principals’ participation in the PIL program.
For this study it was important to analyze the phenomenon of educational
leadership in a real-life context to gain a better understanding of what factors about
174
the context seemed to influence principal behavior. As such, a multiple case study
design was the best methodological approach for this study as I was able to
purposefully analyze the leadership phenomenon in two very distinct contexts: urban
and suburban school settings. Not only did a comparative case study design
contribute to the robustness of the study it contributed to the base of knowledge
supporting the importance of context or setting in behavior change.
Multiple sources of data were used in this study. For both case studies the
following sources were used to gather descriptive data: interviews with each
principal and a sub-set of their teachers, observations, and a collection of artifacts
relevant to the study. A full list of documents and artifacts utilized in this study are
found in Appendix C. In addition, I was able to use data from the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey (see Appendices D
through I) which was administered, twice, to each principal and their teachers. The
VAL-ED data from the case study involving River Valley Middle School (case study
1) was the only set of data available as very few participants from Jefferson Middle
School completed the surveys.
Interviews were conducted with each principal and a sub-set of teachers from
each principal’s school site. The original design of this study was to conduct
interviews and observations prior each principal starting the NISL curriculum and
again shortly following the completion of course one. However, only one of the two
principals completed course one during the length of this study. A semi-structured
interview process was utilized for all interviews, and a minimum of six teachers
175
and/or staff members were interviewed at each site. In addition, both pre and post-
training protocols were developed for each participant in the study: teachers/staff
members, and principals.
In addition to interviews, four observations at each school site were
conducted to gather additional data. Observations and document analysis provide
additional data that are somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in some
cases, bias of those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational data
added to the strength of the study as they provided another source of data for
triangulation. Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings
(i.e. staff meetings, professional learning community meetings)
2. Teachers instructing students in Math and Language Arts
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities
4. School level professional learning opportunities in which the principal is
guiding the learning process
To protect the integrity of the individual case studies, each case was fully
analyzed (i.e. coding, pattern matching, etc.) prior to the comparative analysis. Once
the two case studies were fully coded and analyzed, data from both cases were
analyzed again in search of patterns and themes. To protect the anonymity of each
participant pseudonyms were assigned for teachers, staff members, and principals. In
addition, the names of the schools with which the participants were associated were
176
changed to avoid any possible association that might lead to the identification of
participants in this study.
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1: How and why do principals’ self-efficacy beliefs about
transformational leadership behaviors and their practices surrounding vision setting
and goal consensus change over time?
The analysis of the self-efficacy appraisals of both principals regarding the
ability to perform five transformational leadership behaviors provided useful insight
about the potential influence of self-efficacy appraisals on leadership behavior.
Though causal inferences cannot be drawn from the data collected in this study, the
data presented herein provide reason to empirically explore the relationship between
self-efficacy beliefs and behavior in educational leadership.
In both case studies there is evidence to suggest that changes occurred in both
self-efficacy ratings and leadership behaviors regarding the tasks related to the self-
efficacy appraisals. For example, the principal from River Valley Middle School
reported a decrease in self-efficacy regarding the ability to inspire colleagues with
visions of what they may be able to accomplish if they work together. The
explanation he provides following the rating indicates a reliance on current enactive
experiences. It was clear that his attempts to inspire colleagues to work together were
met with challenge which is thought to have contributed to this decreased self-
efficacy rating from the first visit (Fall 2008) to the second (Spring 2009). In
addition, there was evidence to suggest that his leadership behavior in this area also
177
changed from the first visit (Fall 2008) to the second (Spring 2009). The ways in
which the principal utilized staff meetings indicated a shift from activities aimed at
building a collaborative culture and shared decision making to the simple
dissemination of information. This is an indication of weakened persistence and
lowered risk-taking regarding this particular transformational leadership behavior.
The change in leadership behavior with the decrease in self-efficacy rating in this
area lend support to the established correlation between self-efficacy beliefs and
persistence (Bandura, 1977) and risk-taking behavior (Paglis & Green, 2002). It
appears as though this change in leadership behavior parallels the principal’s drop in
self-efficacy beliefs in this area.
In the case study involving Jefferson Middle School a similar observation
was discovered. With regard to the ability to develop consensus about school and
group goals, the principal’s self-efficacy rating increased from the first visit (Fall
2008) to the second (Spring 2009). An analysis of participant responses revealed no
explicit changes in the principal’s leadership behavior in this area. However, the
teacher responses regarding school goals from the first visit to the second were much
more consistent indicating some change regarding the construction of consensus
about school goals. It is not understood whether or not the increased consensus was
attributed to the principal’s behavior, but it is evident from the principal’s responses
in this area that he perceived an increase in consensus and attributed this increased
cohesiveness to his leadership. Similar to the findings from River Valley Middle
School described above, it appears as though this change in establishing consensus
178
(i.e. evidence of greater consensus among the staff) parallels the direction of the
principal’s increase in self-efficacy in this area. In contrast, no significant changes in
leader behavior in either case study were found in areas where self-efficacy ratings
were consistent from the first visit to the second.
The extent to which these changes in behavior and self-efficacy are correlated
is unknown given the limitations of this study. The results of this study support the
following conclusions:
1. Some self-efficacy ratings in both case studies changed over the course of
five months. This lends support to the notion that self-efficacy appraisals
are context specific, changed over time, and they are formed, in part, by
enactive experiences (Bandura, 1977 and 1997; Chen & Bliese, 2002).
2. Principal behaviors regarding the development of goals and a vision
changed over the course of five months. Though the changes in leader
behavior appear to parallel the direction of principal self-efficacy ratings
(i.e. lower self-efficacy ratings and less persistence related to the task),
causal and/or correlational inferences cannot be applied to the results of
this study.
Research Question 2: In what ways do the principals’ self-efficacy beliefs and
practices surrounding vision setting and goal consensus differ in consideration of
school context (urban vs. suburban)?
During the second visit (Spring 2009) each principal was asked to provide
two self-efficacy ratings about his ability to perform specific transformational
179
leadership behaviors in a completely different context than that in which he currently
works. They were asked to (1) provide ratings related to the development of a vision
in the hypothetical context and (2) provide rating related to the establishment of
consensus surrounding school and group goals. Of the four ratings, only one
remained the same as the principal’s rating for the same task in the current school
setting. The differences in ratings from one context to the next provide support to the
understanding that self-efficacy ratings vary from context to context.
An analysis of the justification for these self-efficacy ratings revealed
differences in the sources of information and experiences used in forming the self-
efficacy ratings. For example, in the Jefferson Middle School case study it was clear
that the principal utilized information from past leadership experiences that were
most similar to the hypothetical scenario as opposed to recent experiences in the
current context. The principal from River Valley also relied heavily on his past
experiences for the first self-efficacy rating regarding the scenario. However, the
second self-efficacy rating regarding his leadership in the hypothetical setting was
grounded in recent experiences and feedback from his current position. Interestingly,
the primary source of information used to form these self-efficacy appraisals for both
principals were past experiences in setting in which the variables were most similar
to that of the hypothetical scenario. Each principal was asked to provide self-efficacy
ratings for both the current context and the hypothetical context during the same
interview. It is assumed that the knowledge, skills, and abilities of each principal did
not change during the course of the interview on the second visit (Spring 2009).
180
Interestingly, each principal provided different self-efficacy ratings (with the
exception of one rating) regarding their ability to perform specific transformational
leadership tasks in both their current setting the hypothetical setting. Their
knowledge, skills and abilities remained the same from one self-efficacy assessment
to the next; however, the belief about their ability to lead in a different context
changed. Assuming the accuracy of the claims of social cognitive theory that human
behavior is correlated with task/context specific appraisals of ability (Bandura,
1997), the evidence presented in this study is critical to understanding the
motivations and decisions of leaders in education.
The results of this study support the following conclusions about principal
self-efficacy beliefs in varying contexts:
1. The principals in this study formed different self-efficacy beliefs (with
the exception of one rating) regarding their ability to perform specific
leadership behaviors in different contexts.
2. The basis for these self-efficacy ratings appear to be related to past
experiences in settings that are most similar to those in the hypothetical
context, not necessarily related to experiences that are most recent.
Research Question 3: From the participant’s perspective what is it about the
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) initiative that influences participants’ self-
efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors?
Due to the unanticipated logistical changes in this study, sufficient evidence
to adequately address this research question is lacking. The original design of the
181
study was such that both principals were to begin the PIL training in the fall of 2008.
However, during the first site visit in the Fall it was discovered that only one of the
principals was scheduled to participate in the PIL training in October 2008. As such,
only one principal provided information regarding this research question. From the
brief response I received it was difficult to make connections between which
components of the PIL initiative had an impact or potential impact on self-efficacy
beliefs. From the statement provided, one element within the response provided
some insight about the components of the PIL initiative that may have some
influence on principal self-efficacy beliefs. The principal shared that he enjoyed
hearing what colleagues around the region were doing. Within the context of
Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory, one of the key sources of information that
shapes self-efficacy beliefs is vicarious experience. Observing others perform
successfully can increase self-efficacy beliefs when the individual observing the
event believes he or she has the capabilities to perform the same task in similar
fashion (Bandura, 1982). Bandura (1982) also explains that vicarious experiences are
more effective sources of efficacy information when the model is similar to the
observer.
The results of this study support the following conclusions about the potential
influence of the PIL leadership development program on principal self-efficacy
beliefs:
1. In the case study involving River Valley Middle School there is some
evidence to suggest that the opportunity to hear of the challenges and/or
182
successes of other principals throughout the region may have had an
impact on the principal’s leadership in the current context. The extent to
which this may have influenced the principal’s self-efficacy beliefs about
his ability to collectively establish and maintain a vision and goals is
unknown.
2. Though sufficient evidence to substantiate a relationship between the
principal’s vicarious experiences gained through the PIL leadership
develop program and his self-efficacy beliefs is not present, we should
not dismiss the potential impact of vicarious experiences on individual
self-efficacy beliefs within the context of educational leadership.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Initial Training and Continuous Development of Leaders
Though the research of educational leadership has yielded rich descriptions
of effective leadership behavior in specific contexts, it has failed to address the
underlying mechanism contributing to the practice of these behaviors. The problem
with this is that urban settings demand leadership that is not confined to a core set of
leadership practices and behaviors where the demonstration of these practices have
proven effective in other settings. Leadership in urban settings is multi-faceted and
dynamic, and it requires strategic leaders who are skilled at adjusting behaviors and
practices to achieve a desired outcome. This study hasn’t focused solely on changes
in leader behavior, but the mechanisms (i.e. beliefs) that are thought to drive
183
leadership behavior as well. This has various implications for policy and practice
regarding the development of leadership in the 21
st
century.
As mentioned in Chapter Two, Paglis and Green (2002) conducted a study of
managers in two separate industries. Their central argument was that managers with
high leadership self-efficacy will be seen by direct subordinates as engaging in more
leadership attempts (p.221). The results of their investigation indicated significant
positive correlations between leadership self-efficacy for direction setting and
subordinate ratings of leadership attempts. Likewise, higher leadership self-efficacy
for gaining commitment was significantly correlated with subordinate ratings of
leadership attempts. In consideration of the current literature on the effects of school
leadership on student outcomes, i.e. few direct relationships but significant indirect
effects on student achievement which are mediated by teacher practice and
classroom activities (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998) and the consideration of the
research of Paglis and Green (2002), the findings of this research are critical to the
understanding of effective school leadership. The results of this study add to the
strength of the findings of Paglis and Green (2002). These findings are of particular
importance to leaders in urban school settings because leadership attempts are often
diminished by the numerous external variables characteristic of the urban context
(i.e. poverty, inadequate funding, violence, and health concerns). The results of this
study also suggest that an increase in a leader’s belief about his or her ability to
navigate the myriad external variables of an urban school system would produce
greater leadership attempts and a higher degree of resiliency. With this knowledge,
184
policy makers and developers of leadership preparation programs must consider the
ways in which leader self-efficacy beliefs are shaped and developed when
establishing criteria for evaluating leader effectiveness and developing training
programs.
The way we think about our ability to perform in a particular context is
heavily shaped by the enactive experiences in that setting as well as our perceptions
of the successes of failures of our actions (Bandura, 1997). Thus, the way we think
about our ability to perform in a particular context will likely shape the way we
behave, not only in the current setting, but the next as well. As principals move from
one assignment to the next they not only bring with them the knowledge, skills, and
abilities they have acquired along the way, they bring their beliefs about their ability
to perform leadership tasks within the context of the new setting. Though their
application of knowledge, skills and abilities in the previous setting may act as a
predictor of success in the next, their beliefs about their ability to apply that
knowledge and skills in the new setting may yield very different leadership
outcomes.
Given the four mechanisms for increasing individual self-efficacy beliefs, i.e.
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, enactive mastery, affective states (Chen &
Bliese, 2002), leadership training approaches involving cognitive modeling with
practice and reinforcement, coaching and modeling, reflection on enactive practices
with constructive feedback, and continued encouragement are likely to produce
185
significantly higher participant self-efficacy and performance than methods
involving lecture and practice alone (Gist, 1989).
It is no secret that leading urban schools to a place of high academic
achievement is a monumental task given the challenges of the urban context. It is
also apparent that many leadership preparation programs have fallen short of
adequately preparing educational leaders for the challenges involved in educating
today’s children (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). Infusing the knowledge from cognitive
psychology into the knowledge about leadership development may yield some
promising implications for the future of leader preparation programs. The research
from the field of cognitive psychology suggests that task-specific judgments of
ability in particular contexts (such as self-efficacy beliefs) influence human action
(Bandura, 1977, 1982; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). If these belief systems can be shaped
through leadership development programs so might the leadership practices we have
focused so heavily on researching in the past 25 years. Self-efficacy is a critical
motivational construct, and it is vital to the study of leadership behavior and
development.
Evaluation of Leadership
The assessment and evaluation of leadership should also be considered in
light of the role of self-efficacy beliefs. A seemingly long standing assumption in
education is this notion that a particular progression of leadership positions prepares
an individual for more extensive leadership responsibilities within the system. For
example, a typical trajectory of leadership would include the following positions in
186
sequence: teacher, academic coach or department chair, assistant principal, central
office mid-level manager (e.g. director), assistant superintendent, superintendent. In
many areas of public education it is thought that an individual with a career goal of
being a superintendent would be adequately prepared for this role if he or she
fulfilled the trajectory of leadership positions listed above. To the contrary, the
individual would not be adequately prepared if he or she had missed or skipped a
step along the way. The difficulty with this line of reasoning is that successful
leadership in one position is not always indicative of successful leadership in
another. Because leadership is multi-faceted we must look beyond the surface of
leadership outcomes produced in one setting as the sole predictor of success in
another. An analysis of the foundational mechanisms thought to drive leader
behavior (i.e. self-efficacy, goal orientation, metacognitive strategies) (Hallinger &
McCary, 1990; Bandura, 1997; Paglis & Green, 2002) would yield a better
projection of leadership effectiveness in various executive positions.
Recommendations for Further Research
One recommendation for future research is the continued investigation of
how self-efficacy appraisals might influence leadership behavior in various contexts.
This motivational construct has been applied to empirical studies involving the
behavior of students (Patrick & Ryan, 2001); teachers (Bandura, 1997); managers
(Paglis & Green, 2002); subordinates (Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002), and
athletes (Prussia & Kinicki, 1996; Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 2001).
187
Self-efficacy has demonstrated considerable influences on goals (Bandura &
Cervone, 1983; Locke et al., 1984; Taylor et al., 1984; Ryan & Patrick, 2001);
emotional reactions (Bandura, 1977; 1982); task performance (Locke et al 1984;
Barling & Beattie, 1983; Gist, 1989; Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson & Watson, 2003);
choice and effort (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Bandura, 1999; Paglis & Green, 2002).
In addition, research about self-efficacy in organizational management has found that
self-efficacy positively predicts job attitudes (Saks, 1995), training proficiency
(Martocchio & Judge, 1997), and job performance (Gist, 1989; Stajkovic & Luthans,
1998). It has also demonstrated significant influences on minimizing the negative
effects of work stressors on employees’ psychological well-being (Jex & Bliese,
1999; Bandura, 1988; Stumpf, Brief, & Hartman, 1987). Furthermore, additional
studies about self-efficacy have suggested that various training methods can enhance
self-efficacy in the areas of self management (Frayne & Latham, 1987), cognitive
modeling (Gist, 1989), and behavioral modeling (Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989).
Further research is needed to empirically investigate the influence of self-
efficacy beliefs within the context of educational leadership. Research in this area
must move beyond the investigations involving rich descriptions of leadership
behavior. The preceding statement is not intended to minimize the contributions of
the many outstanding researchers who have laid the groundwork for research of
educational leadership. Rather, it is a call to researchers to look beyond the behaviors
that traditionally define effective leadership. The danger in simply assessing
leadership behavior is the assumption that the identified effective behaviors will be
188
effective in all settings regardless of contextual factors (i.e. socio-economic status,
school culture, demographics, history of performance, decision rights). Prior research
studies (Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Hallinger, 2003) have
asserted that not all school settings require the same set of leadership behaviors to
elicit strong instructional leadership. What is it that prompts one principal to engage
in specific behaviors while the other abstains? Beyond the measure of isolated leader
behaviors in a given context the greater focus of inquiry should be the investigation
of variables that serve as mediators of leadership behavior regardless of contextual
variables. It is not longer adequate to evaluate leadership on the extent to which
particular behaviors are existent or non-existent. Educational leadership is much
more complex than simply practicing a series of behaviors in a given context. It
involves the complex use of metacognitive strategies such as planning, organization,
problem solving and reflection. Research in this area must begin to look at the
motivational mechanisms that move leaders to utilize or not utilize the knowledge,
skills and abilities they posses.
A second recommendation for future research is the investigation of how
self-efficacy appraisals are formed in educational leadership. The findings of this
research suggest the utilization of multiple sources of feedback and information to
form self-efficacy appraisals. The two principals in this investigation relied heavily
on both current and past enactive experiences. However, it was unclear as to why
each principal relied on a particular source of information. For example, when asked
about his ability to develop a vision in a way that does not pre-empt others from
189
expressing their vision, one principal relied on current experiences to provide an
appraisal in the current setting. However, he used past experiences from another
setting to form an appraisal of his self-efficacy regarding the same task in the
hypothetical setting. An investigation targeting the reasons for utilizing particular
sources of information to form self-efficacy beliefs would shed light on how
leadership preparation programs might address the ways in which leaders shape their
beliefs about their abilities. More research is needed to investigate the factors that
prompt leaders to utilize past experiences versus current experiences in forming self-
efficacy appraisals.
Another recommendation for further research is the study of how leadership
training programs might influence the self-efficacy beliefs and practices of
educational leaders. Based on the findings about the influences of self-efficacy
beliefs with other populations (i.e. students, managers, subordinates and athletes) this
study operates on the assumption that principal self-efficacy beliefs influence
behavior and that these beliefs can be shaped and maintained through training and
continued professional development. This is vastly different from the current
approach to investigating educational leadership as it embraces a social cognitive
framework for analyzing leadership development. Several leadership programs are
now beginning to focus on the impact of mentoring and coaching on leader
effectiveness. Though this appears to be a promising practice in leadership
preparation programs, a recommendation, in light of this research, is the
investigation of the social cognitive influences of these mentoring or coaching
190
programs on leader behavior. Research targeting the influence of mentors/coaches on
the formation of self-efficacy beliefs is needed.
Through the course of this investigation it was evident that the principal in
Case Study One relied heavily on feedback from his leadership team to inform his
self-efficacy beliefs about establishing consensus about school goals. A change in
the source of feedback might drastically alter this principal’s practice regarding the
development of consensus. For example, the objective and unbiased feedback from a
coach or mentor may provide contrasting information to the principal about his
ability to establish goal consensus in his building. A mentor or coach may also be
used to provide verbal persuasion which is a known predictor of self-efficacy beliefs
(Chen & Bliese, 2002). In the case of the principal in this study who reported a lower
self-efficacy belief regarding the establishment of consensus, the application of
verbal persuasion techniques through the use of a mentor or coach may have
significant influences on the leader’s persistence in this area. This study assumes a
motivational pathway in which leader self-efficacy beliefs about transformational
leadership behaviors in urban (or suburban) settings influence their actual behavior.
Investigations exploring the social cognitive influences of mentoring and coaching
programs would provide an immense insight about the complexities of educational
leadership.
Conclusion
The extant literature on educational leadership has demonstrated great
progress over the past twenty-five years. Though the research has yielded greater
191
descriptions of effective leadership practices and behavior, it is lacking an
understanding of how these leadership practices and behaviors are developed and
influenced, especially in urban settings. The purpose of this investigation was to
examine changes in leadership behavior and core self-efficacy beliefs of principals in
both urban and suburban school systems as they participate in an executive
leadership development program through the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders
initiative. This study found that both the self-efficacy beliefs and practices of
principals changed in relation to the feedback they received from both current and
past leadership experiences. These findings carry significant implications for the
future of leadership preparation programs and the ongoing support of leaders
throughout their tenure. In addition, the findings of this research yielded critical
recommendations for future investigations of school leadership. This study utilized
contemporary theories of educational leadership and cognitive psychology to analyze
the self-efficacy beliefs and leadership practices of both urban and suburban leaders.
It is hoped that the results of this investigation will bring researchers and
practitioners one step closer to understanding the intricacies and complexities of
effective leadership in both urban and suburban settings.
192
REFERENCES
Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal. New York , NY: Worth Publishers

Bandura, A. & Locke, E.A (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1), 87-99.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 64, 191-215

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, JH:
Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 77-98

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

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

Bandura, A. (1999). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. Retrieved from www.csa.com

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory. An agentic perspective. Annual review
of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of personality
and Scoial Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.

Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and
performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.

Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self efficacy beliefs and sales performance.
Journal or Organizational Behavior Management, 5, 41-51

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

193
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research
and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1993). Problem-based learning in medical and
managerial education. In P. Hallinger, P., K. Leithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.).
Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1997). Using problem-based learning to prepare
educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 131-146.

Chemers, M.M., Watson, C.B., & May, S. (2000). Dispositional affect and
leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism and
efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267-277.

Chen, G., & Bliese, P.D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in
predicting self-and collective-efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 549-556.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute. Stanford, California: Stanford University, School of
Education.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-755.

e-Lead. National Institute for School Leadership and National Center on Education
and the Economy (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2008, from
http://www.e-lead.org/programs/nisl/summary.asp

Gist, M. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-
211.

Gist, M.E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea
generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787-805.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L, & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 26(4), 371-395.

194
Hallinger, P & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 9(2), 157-191.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1985. Educational
Administration Quarterly. 32(1), 5-44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1999). Next generation methods in the study of leadership
and school improvement. In J. Murphy, & J.S. Louis (Eds.). Handbook of
Research in Educational Administration (2nd ed., pp.141-162). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of
vision, mission, and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K.
Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.). Second international handbook of
educational leadership and administration. (pp. 653-696). The Netherlands:
Kluwer.

Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of
instructional leaders. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 89-108.

Hallinger, P., Leithwood, K., & Murphy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Cognitive perspectives on
educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.

Heck, R.H. & Hallinger, P. (1992). Next Generation Methods for the Study of
Leadership and School Improvement. In J. Murphy and K. Seashore-Louis
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration(2nd ed., pp
141-162). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Hoyt, C.L., Murphy, S.E., Halverson, S.K., & Watson, C.B. (2003). Group
leadership: Efficacy and effectiveness. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research
and Practice, 7, 259-274.

Jackson, B., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in
educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-
212.

Jung, D.I., & Sosik, J.J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The
role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived
group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.

195
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational
leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 246-255.

Knapp, M.S., Copland, M.A., & Talbert, J.E. (2003). Leading for learning:
Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy. Univeristy of Washington.

Leithwood, K. (1996). International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration

Leithwood, K. (1996). School restructuring, transformational leadership and the
amelioration of teacher burnout. Anxiety, Stress and Coping. 9, 199-215.

Leithwood, K. A., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004).
Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. The
Wallace Foundation.

Leithwood, K.A., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for
changing times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy,
goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 241-251

McCarthy, M.M. (1999). The evolution of educational leadership preparation
programs. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Lewis (Eds.), Handbook of research
in educational administration (p.119-139). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and
performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60-
70.

Miklos, E. (1992a). Administrator preparation, educational. In M.C. Alkin (ed.),
Encyclopedia of Educational Research (6th ed., pp.22-29). New York:
Macmillan.

Miklos, E. (1992b). Doctoral Research in Educational Administration at the
University of Alberta 1958-1991. Department of Educational Administration,
University of Alberta, Edmonton: Alberta

196
Mullen, C.A., Gordon, S.P., Greeniee, B.J., & Anderson, R.H. (2002). Capacities for
school leadership: Emerging trends in the literature. International Journal of
Educational Reform 11(2), 158-198.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A.C. (2006). Leadership for
learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Wallace Foundation State Action for
Educational Leadership Conference. Saint Louis, MO.

National Institute for School Leadership. (2008). Units, topics and themes
[Brochure].Washington DC: Bob Hughes

NCES. National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2008,
from http://nces.ed.gov/

New America. New America Foundation (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from
http://www.newamerica.net/education_budget_project/

Orr, D.R. (1990). An expectancy theory investigation of school superintendent job
performance. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services.

Paglis, L. & Green, S. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and mangers' motivation for
leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215-235.

Pajaras, F. (n.d.). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved
April 18, 2008, from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/eff/html

Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational
Psycholog, 86(2), 193-203.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E.A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group
cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 17(2), (n.p.).

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leaders' behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

197
Preis, S., Grogan, M., Sherman, W.H., & Beaty, D.M. (2007). What the research and
literature say about the delivery of educational preparation programs in the
united states [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, 2(2), (n.p.)

Ross, J.A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment
to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-199.

Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.

Spillane, J. P. (2004). Educational leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 26(2), 169-172.

Taylor, M.S., Locke, E.A., Lee, C., & Gist, M.E. (1984). Type A behavior and
faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 34, 402-418.

Teitel, L. (2005). Supporting school system leaders: The state of effective training
programs for school superintendents. In Working Papers Center for Public
Leadership, Kennedy School of Government , Harvard University, pp. 66-78.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. 4.
(2004). Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda.
Leadership Quarterly. Vol 15(6).

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Waters, T., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What thirty
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning. Retrieved April 18, 2008 from www.mcrel.org.

Watson, C.B., Chemers, M.M., & Preiser, N. (2001). Collective efficacy: A
multilevel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1057-
1068.

Wood, R.E. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational
management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.

198
Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The effects of transformational
leadership on teachers' commitment to change in Hong Kong. Journal of
Educational Administration, 40(4). 368-389.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology. Special Issue: Motivation and the Educational
Process, 25(1), 82-91.
199
APPENDIX A: LETTER FROM DR. ZAHORCHAK, PENNSYLVANIA
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
333 MARKET STREET
HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 717-787-5820
FAX 717-787-7222
TTY 717-783-8445
June 16, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:
The Pennsylvania Department of Education fully supports the University of
Southern California’s (USC’s) proposal to undertake a three-year, longitudinal study
of the impact of the National Institute for School Leaders Executive Leadership
Development program on leadership practice, teacher practice and student
achievement in Pennsylvania public schools.
The Pennsylvania Public Law, Act 45 of 2007, requires school administrators
to participate in professional education activities that are focused on practices that
have the greatest impact on improving student achievement and which are aligned
with the Pennsylvania School Leadership Standards. The Pennsylvania Department
of Education has selected the National Institute for School Leaders’ Curriculum for
this purpose. Research demonstrates that effective school leaders have an impact on
student achievement. A focused program of continuing professional education can
help leaders develop the knowledge and skills they need to become more effective in
improving the learning environment for teachers and students.
We will encourage the proposed sample of participants and schools to
participate in the study and to provide the researchers with full access to the PIL
program and the information necessary to accomplish the evaluation study.

Sincerely,

Gerald L. Zahorchak, D.Ed.
200
APPENDIX B: LETTER TO PRINCIPALS
July xx, 2008
Dear Principal:
On July 1, 2008 the University of Southern California and the Pennsylvania State
Department of Education entered a partnership to conduct a longitudinal study of
principal leadership as part of the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) project. The
purpose of this study is to determine whether a fully developed leadership
intervention program is effective in promoting and sustaining change in leadership
practice. A team of four doctoral candidates will be working with individual schools
and districts to conduct the initial phase of this longitudinal study.

As a registered participant of the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL)
training program starting in October 2008, our research team would like to invite you
to participate in the initial stage of this research project. This study utilizes a mixed
methods approach which involves the administration of an innovative online survey
as well as interviews and observations.

Your participation in this study would involve the completion of two interviews with
the principal investigator and participation in an online survey (2 administrations). In
addition, the principal investigator would like to conduct two observations at your
school site. These observations may include one or more of the following: staff
meetings, teacher instruction, principal led professional development, principal
interactions with teachers, parents, students, members of the community, and a
review of available documents.

It is anticipated that the online survey (2 administrations) and interviews will take
approximately 45 minutes to complete. It is anticipated that site visits would be
conducted over a period of 2-3 days. These site visits would include both interviews
and observations.

The data obtained through this study will be used as part of a 3-year longitudinal
study. In addition, the data will also be used for the completion of individual
dissertations. Should you choose to participate in the study you will have full access
to the results of the study, thus furthering your practice as a principal. All
information obtained through this study will remain confidential and will be
disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. Only members of the
research team will have access to the data associated with this study. Your name and
that of the school to which you are affiliated will not be used in the reporting of
research findings. Pseudonyms will be used to protect your confidentiality. No
201
personally identifiable information will be included in this study. As a participant
you will gain empirical data to inform and shape your practices as a site leader.

We invite you to participate in a brief conference call on August xx, 2008 to discuss,
in greater detail, the scope of this study and answer any questions you might have.
Please use the enclosed response card to RSVP for this conference call. You may
also RSVP using the following email address eyler@usc.edu. Once the responses
have been received, a confirmation email with details of the conference call will be
sent to each participant.

We look forward to discussing with you, the possibility of forming a partnership to
advance the field of educational leadership.

Sincerely,
Shawna Petit-Dinkins
Jon Eyler
Pamela Houston
Darnise Williams
202
APPENDIX C: LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS
1. School performance/improvement plan- evidence of the school’s vision and goals
should be seen in the schools performance plan. Is the vision in alignment with
what the principal and staff members shared as the vision for the school? Is there
consistency among what was shared in the interviews and what is in the school
plan?

2. Agendas for leadership team meetings- do leadership team meetings address the
goals for the school? Does the purpose of the staff meeting support the vision of
the school or the goals?

3. Agendas for grade/department areas- is the evidence from department meetings
that suggest the vision and goals of the school are being address?

4. Weekly/Monthly Bulletins- bulletins typically contain information that is seen as
most valuable for everyone to know. Do the school bulletins support the vision
and/or goals of the school?

5. Website-is there evidence on the website that the school is making attempts to
communicate the vision and goals to the community. Are there opportunities for
the community to participate in the promotion of the school vision/goals?

6. School Site Council meeting agenda- in what ways are the goals and vision
addressed in school site council meetings?

7. School Accountability Report Card- this will demonstrate the state of need
specific areas (i.e. Math, Language Arts, economically disadvantaged students,
second language learners)

8. Newsletters to parents- if the community was really involved in the promotion of
the vision and goals of the school, there should be evidence of such efforts
documented in newsletters to parents.

9. Morning announcements- what is communicated to students with regard to the
promotion of the school vision and goals?

10. Teacher evaluations or template for teacher evaluations- do teacher evaluations
center around the attainment or promotion of school goals? Do the components
of teacher evaluations align with the school vision and goals?

11. Observation notes from principal re: classroom observations- Does the principal
evaluate classroom performance through the lens of the vision and goals for the
203
school? What is valued during classroom observations and are those components
related to the vision and/or goals?

12. New employee training manuals (induction materials)- are the goals and vision
for the school clear to the new employee or are these elements of the
organization implied. A solid vision and set of goals should be explicitly stated.

13. Homework assignments from case study principals- this will show desired
changes in beliefs and/or behaviors. Reflective assignments may also provide
information about the principals’ beliefs about vision setting and goal consensus.

14. School Accountability Report Card- this will show focused areas of
improvement. It will also provide information as to the focus of the school’s
goals and vision.
204
APPENDIX D: ALIGNMENT OF NISL CURRICULUM WITH
PENNSYLVANIA LEADERSHIP STANDARDS

205

206

207
APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF VAL ED PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL ED) is designed to
provide a summary of the effectiveness of learning-focused leadership behaviors
during the current school year. It is a 360 degree survey (including teacher,
principal, and supervisor). The VAL-ED measures core components and key
processes known to influence student achievement. Core components include: High
Standards for Student Learning, Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior, Connections to External Communities, and
Performance Accountability. Key processes refer to how leaders create these core
components. Key processes measured by the VAL-ED include Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating, Communicating, and Monitoring.

The VAL ED assessment model does not envision direct effects of leadership
behaviors on student success. Instead, the leadership behaviors lead to changes in
school performance, which in turn lead to student success. Based upon a synthesis of
the literature on theories of leadership effectiveness and the (ISLLC) standards, the
VAL ED’s conception of leadership behavior is two dimensional; the behaviors
assessed are defined by the intersection of the two dimensions: core components of
school performance and key processes.

Core Components of School Performance
The first dimension consists of core components of school performance and has the
following elements:

High Standards for Student Performance—There are individual, team, and school
goals for rigorous student academic and social learning.

Respondents to the VAL-ED are asked “How effective the principal is at ensuring the
school …” carries out specific actions that effect core components of learning focused
leadership. The effectiveness ratings, based on documented evidence (e.g., observations
of principal behavior, review of documents that record principal leadership actions, and
communications with other people who have directly observed principal behavior) range
from 1 (Ineffective) to 5 (Outstandingly Effective) for each of 72 leadership behaviors.
The results are interpreted against both norm-referenced and standards-referenced
criteria and highlight areas of strengths and possible areas for improvement.

The VAL-ED behavior inventory provides a Total score, 6 Core Component subscale
scores and 6 Key Process subscale scores for each of the three respondent types. The
scores from the teachers are all based on the average item scores across all teacher
respondents. The total leadership core component and key process effectiveness ratings
are interpreted against a national representative sample of principals for which a
percentile rank score is provided. These scores are also interpreted against a set of
performance standards ranging from Below Basic to Distinguished as defined below.
208
Leadership Performance Levels

Below Basic Basic Proficient Distinguished
Leadership
behaviors of core
components and key
processes of
insufficient
effectiveness and
consistency that
over time are
unlikely to influence
teachers to bring the
school to a point
that result in
acceptable value
added to student
achievement and
social learning.
Leadership
behaviors of core
components and key
processes of
sufficient
effectiveness that
over time are likely
to influence teachers
to bring the school
to a point that
results in acceptable
value-added to
student achievement
and social learning
for some sub groups
of students but not
all.
core components
and key processes of
sufficient
effectiveness that
over time are likely
to influence teachers
to bring the school
to a point that
results in acceptable
value-added to
student achievement
and social learning
for all students.
Leadership
behaviors of core
components and key
processes at levels of
effectiveness that
over time are
virtually certain to
influence teachers to
bring the school to a
point that result in
strong value-added
to student
achievement and
social learning for
all students.

Assessment results are reported as an overall effectiveness score composed of the
mean score for all respondents, the performance level, and a national percentile rank
as shown in the example below.

209
Reliabilities and Validity

Reliability. An important component of any assessment instrument is its reliability.
In the nine school pilot study, only internal consistency reliability was estimated.
Reliabilities for both forms and all scales were high. According to the author’s,
Cronbach’s Alpha reliabilities for all twelve scales on both forms, were near perfect.
For the total score, reliabilities were greater than .98 on both forms. Reliabilities
tended to be somewhat higher for core components than for key processes.

The number of items on each form is 72 and 12 for each scale. Reliabilities for both
forms and all scales remained nearly as high. Scale reliabilities were all above or
near .9 and total score reliabilities were near perfect on these forms.

Validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was done to investigate data fit to the
conceptual model. The factor analytic model was designed to parallel the conceptual
framework for the VAL-ED by incorporating higher-order factors for core
components, key processes, and an overall score. Because each item contributed to
both a core component and a key process, the factor analytic model was split into
two separate analyses: one on core components and the other on key processes.
Results from the confirmatory factor analyses reveal that both the core components
and the key processes models fit the data very well, having goodness of fit indices
between .96 and .99. Even after adjusting for model complexity, the parsimonious
goodness of fit indices (PGFI, Mulaik et al., 1989) were still very high, ranging from
.93 to .96. All of the item factor loadings were salient, ranging from .41 to .94 with a
median loading of .82. The second order factor loadings were also salient, ranging
from .60 to 1.00 with a median loading of .92. Lastly, the third order factor loadings
were salient, ranging from .89 to 1.00 with a median loading of .98.

The increase in saliency across levels and the consistently high loadings at level 3
suggest that the core components and the key processes have similar degrees of
influence on the total score. In other words, the six core components and six key
processes all contribute to the overall measure of principal leadership.

A primary source of validity evidence is the core component and key process
intercorrelations. The correlations were high, both for core components and for key
processes, though they appear somewhat higher for key processes. For core
components, correlations ranged from a low of .73 (Connections to External
Communities and High Standards for Student Learning) to a high of .90 (Quality
Instruction and High Standards for Student Learning). For key processes,
correlations ranged from a low of .89 (Supporting and Monitoring) to a high of .94
(Monitoring and Communicating). Correlations of core components and key
processes with total score were all quite high, with none lower than .9. These high
210
intercorrelations, along with the factor analysis results described above, suggest that
the instrument is measuring a strong underlying construct, principal leadership.

Estimates of Internal Consistency Reliability

Intercorrelations of Core Components

211
Intercorrelations of Key Processes

Source:
Building a Psychometrically Sound Assessment of School Leadership:
The VAL-ED as a Case Study (2008)

Andrew C. Porter
Morgan S. Polikoff
University of Pennsylvania
Ellen Goldring
Joseph Murphy
Stephen N. Elliott
Vanderbilt University
Henry May
University of Pennsylvania
212
APPENDIX F: PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW #1 PROTOCOL

Time of Interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Interviewee:
Position of Interviewee:

The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs and behaviors of principal
leadership in both urban and rural settings. This is a comparative case study analysis
in which two cases (leadership in an urban school and leadership in a rural school)
will be studied in depth. This study involves several form of data collection such as
interviews with site leaders, teachers, school staff, parents and students (if possible).
In addition, I will be conducting observations and collecting documents that shed
light on the beliefs and behaviors of principals in both urban and rural settings. I am
anticipating that this interview will take between 30 and 40 minutes. Does this
timeframe work for you? Here is another copy of the consent form you received
prior to this interview. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute to read
and sign the form before we begin. This interview will be tape recorded for the
purpose of transcribing and analyzing the content later. The information you share in
this interview will be held in strict confidentiality and no personally identifiable
information will be used in the analysis or reporting of findings.

Questions

1. Please describe your role as a principal at ______school.
2. Please describe the challenges and or gaps in education that you face as a
principal in an urban/rural school.
3. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to address the challenges
or gaps you previously mentioned in question 1 (mention the specific
challenges or gaps)?
4. What is the vision or mission statement for your school?
a. How is a shared vision developed?
b. How is a shared vision maintained?
5. In practice, how would your vision work?
6. What are the goals of your school?
7. What is the relationship between individual goals of your teachers and school
goals?
8. How does a principal build consensus surrounding a goal or vision?
9. How does a principal create a sense of collective purpose for staff?
10. What would a school that embodied your vision look like?
213
11. What has informed the evolution of your beliefs (e.g. past experiences,
readings/research, field experience, mentoring)?

Vision (Efficacy)
12. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop a vision for
the school in a way that does not pre-empt others from expressing their
vision.
13. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to inspire colleagues
with visions of what they may be able to accomplish if they work together.
14. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to clarify the meaning of
the school’s vision in terms of its practical implication for programs and
instruction.

Goal Consensus (Efficacy)
15. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to assist staff in
developing consistency between the school’s vision and individual goals
16. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop consensus
about school and group goals.
214
APPENDIX G: PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW #2 PROTOCOL

Time of Interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Interviewee:
Position of Interviewee:

The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs and behaviors of principal
leadership in both urban and rural settings. This is a comparative case study analysis
in which two cases (leadership in an urban school and leadership in a rural school)
will be studied in depth. This study involves several form of data collection such as
interviews with site leaders, teachers, school staff, parents and students (if possible).
In addition, I will be conducting observations and collecting documents that shed
light on the beliefs and behaviors of principals in both urban and rural settings. I am
anticipating that this interview will take between 30 and 40 minutes. Does this
timeframe work for you? Here is another copy of the consent form you received
prior to this interview. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute to read
and sign the form before we begin. This interview will be tape recorded for the
purpose of transcribing and analyzing the content later. The information you share in
this interview will be held in strict confidentiality and no personally identifiable
information will be used in the analysis or reporting of findings.

Questions
1. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to address the challenges
or gaps you mentioned in the first interview (mention the specific challenges
or gaps)?
2. What has informed the evolution of your beliefs (e.g. past experiences,
readings/research, field experience, mentoring)?

Vision (Efficacy)
3. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop a vision for
the school in a way that does not pre-empt others from expressing their
vision.
4. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to inspire colleagues
with visions of what they may be able to accomplish if they work together.
5. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to clarify the meaning of
the school’s vision in terms of its practical implication for programs and
instruction.
215
Goal Consensus (Efficacy)
6. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to assist staff in
developing consistency between the school’s vision and individual goals
7. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop consensus
about school and group goals.

Pose 2 scenarios and ask how they would handle vision and goal components.

New principal at school (urban)- for the principal in the rural setting
1. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop a vision for
this school in a way that does not pre-empt others from expressing their
vision.
2. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop consensus
about school and group goals.
3. How might you go about creating a shared vision in this school?
4. How might you go about developing consensus about the schools goals?

New principal at school (rural)- for the principal in the urban setting
1. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop a vision for
this school in a way that does not pre-empt others from expressing their
vision.
2. Please share with me your beliefs about your ability to develop consensus
about school and group goals.
3. How might you go about creating a shared vision in this school?
4. How might you go about developing consensus about the schools goals?
216
APPENDIX H: TEACHER INTERVIEW #1 PROTOCOL

Time of Interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Interviewee:
Position of Interviewee:

The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs and behaviors of principal
leadership in both urban and rural settings. This is a comparative case study analysis
in which two cases (leadership in an urban school and leadership in a rural school)
will be studied in depth. This study involves several form of data collection such as
interviews with site leaders, teachers, school staff, parents and students (if possible).
In addition, I will be conducting observations and collecting documents that shed
light on the beliefs and behaviors of principals in both urban and rural settings. I am
anticipating that this interview will take between 30 and 40 minutes. Does this
timeframe work for you? Here is another copy of the consent form you received
prior to this interview. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute to read
and sign the form before we begin. This interview will be tape recorded for the
purpose of transcribing and analyzing the content later. The information you share in
this interview will be held in strict confidentiality and no personally identifiable
information will be used in the analysis or reporting of findings.

Questions

1. Please describe your role as a teacher at ______school.
2. Please describe the challenges and or gaps in education that you face as a
teacher in an urban/rural school.
3. How would you describe the current leadership practices at this school?
4. What is the vision for your school?
a. How was this vision developed?
b. How is this vision maintained?
5. How is your work in the classroom related to the vision of the school?
6. What are your professional goals?
7. What are the goals of your school?
8. How does your principal encourage you to pursue your individual
professional goals?
9. How is your work in the classroom related to the goals of the school?
10. How has your principal established a school-wide consensus surrounding the
goals for the school?
11. What is the purpose of meetings in which the entire staff is together?
217
APPENDIX I: TEACHER INTERVIEW #2 PROTOCOL

Time of Interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Interviewee:
Position of Interviewee:

The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs and behaviors of principal
leadership in both urban and rural settings. This is a comparative case study analysis
in which two cases (leadership in an urban school and leadership in a rural school)
will be studied in depth. This study involves several form of data collection such as
interviews with site leaders, teachers, school staff, parents and students (if possible).
In addition, I will be conducting observations and collecting documents that shed
light on the beliefs and behaviors of principals in both urban and rural settings. I am
anticipating that this interview will take between 30 and 40 minutes. Does this
timeframe work for you? Here is another copy of the consent form you received
prior to this interview. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute to read
and sign the form before we begin. This interview will be tape recorded for the
purpose of transcribing and analyzing the content later. The information you share in
this interview will be held in strict confidentiality and no personally identifiable
information will be used in the analysis or reporting of findings.

Questions

1. How would you describe the current leadership practices at this school over
the past 6 months?
2. What is the vision for your school?
a. How was this vision developed?
b. How is this vision maintained?
3. How is your work in the classroom related to the vision of the school?
4. What are your professional goals?
5. What are the goals of your school?
6. How does your principal encourage you to pursue your individual
professional goals?
7. How is your work in the classroom related to the goals of the school?
8. How has your principal established a school-wide consensus surrounding the
goals for the school?
9. What is the purpose of meetings in which the entire staff is together?
218
APPENDIX J: OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
(i.e. staff meetings; instruction; individual interactions in principal’s office;
department meetings)
Time of Observation:
Date:
Setting:
Observer:
Length of Observation:

Description Reflective Notes
219
APPENDIX K: CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

********************************************************************
An Exploration of Principal Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Transformational
Leadership Behaviors

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Jon Eyler, M.S.
(principal investigator) and Margaret Reed, Ph.D. (faculty sponsor), from the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California because you have been
identified by the Pennsylvania State Department of Education as a participant in
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) program starting October 2008. The results of
this study will contribute to the completion of an individual dissertation. You must
be at least18 years of age to participate. A total of 10 subjects will be selected from
two separate schools to participate in this study. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.
You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore the changes in principal beliefs and practices
following their participation in an executive development program for principals
through National Institute for School Leadership. The investigation seeks to
understand, qualitatively, the phenomenon of principal efficacy beliefs and
leadership practices with regard to two dimensions of transformational leadership. In
addition, this study is designed to elicit qualitative evidence about which components
of the leadership training program most influenced efficacy beliefs from the
perspective of the participants.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:

220
Your participation in this study would involve the completion of two interviews with
the principal investigator and participation in an online survey (2 administrations). In
addition, the principal investigator would like to conduct two observations at your
school site. These observations may include one or more of the following: staff
meetings, teacher instruction, principal led professional development, principal
interactions with teachers, parents, students, members of the community, and a
review of available documents.

It is anticipated that the online survey (2 administrations) and interviews will take
approximately 45 minutes to complete. It is anticipated that site visits would be
conducted over a period of 2-3 days. These site visits would include both interviews
and observations.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Though there are no substantial risks to you should you decide to participate in this
study, it is important to understand that the collection of data may cause an
inconvenience as it will place a slight demand on your time

POTENTIAL BENEFITS/RISKS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will significantly contribute to the field of
educational leadership as it will provide insights, from a social cognitive perspective,
about the phenomenon of leadership. With a greater understanding of how
educational leaders lead, the training and preparation of such leaders can be tailored
to better meet the needs new administrators entering the field.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation in this study.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Pennsylvania State Department of Education is funding the costs associated with
the completion of this research project. The investigators of this research do not have
any financial interest in the sponsor or in the product being studied.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. All data from interviews will be transcribed. All data from observations,
interviews and document analysis will be stored in a secured data analysis program
to which only the investigator has access. You name and that of the school to which
you are affiliated will not be used in the reporting of research findings. Pseudonyms
221
will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable information
will be included in this study. The data will be stored for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos,
or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity
will be protected or disguised.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. Though not anticipated, the investigator may withdraw you from this research
if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Jon Eyler, Principal Investigator or Dr. Margaret Reed, Faculty Sponsor.

Jon Eyler: jeyler@usc.edu
Margaret Reed: margarcr@usc.edu

EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures not done primarily for
your own benefit, you will receive medical treatment; however, you or your
insurance will be responsible for the cost. The University of Southern California
does not provide any other form of compensation for injury.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have
been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my
222
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this
form.

□ I agree to be audio-taped

□ I do not want to be audio-taped

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date
223
APPENDIX L: LETTER FROM DR. ANDREW PORTER, AUTHOR OF THE
VAL ED IN SUPPORT OF THE USE OF THE VAL ED IN THIS STUDY

June 10, 2008

Dr. Margaret Reed
USC, Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, 904D, MC 4039
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4039

Dear Professor Reed,

I am writing in support of your proposal to the Institute for Education Sciences to
identify the features of leadership training programs that produce effective principals
who exhibit desired knowledge, beliefs and behaviors. It is both important and
timely work. I understand that one of your measures will be the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) which is an instrument that I and
my colleagues have constructed with Wallace support. As you know we have
completed a number of studies, all of which support both the high internal
consistency reliability of the resulting total score and subscales, as well as support
for validity in the sense of a) being content valid for our 6x6 conceptual framework,
b) practitioners find it clear, easy to use and valuable, and c) assessment of
leadership behaviors from principals and supervisors correlate with assessments from
the principals’ teachers. We have received IES funding to continue this work and
those studies will begin in the fall.

Good luck with your proposal and please keep me informed of your findings.

Sincerely,

Andrew C. Porter

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Though the research about educational leadership over the past twenty-five years has yielded greater descriptions of effective leadership practices and behavior, it has been lacking in a thorough understanding of how these leadership practices and behaviors are developed and influenced, especially in urban settings. The purpose of this investigation was to examine changes in transformational leadership behavior and core self-efficacy beliefs of principals in both urban and suburban school systems as they participate in an executive leadership development program through the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders initiative. This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design in an effort to shed light on the “hows” and “whys” ofchanges in principal leadership behavior and self-efficacy beliefs. This research found that both the self-efficacy beliefs and practices of principals changed in relation to the feedback they received from both current and past leadership experiences. Using contemporary theories of educational leadership and cognitive psychology to analyze the self-efficacy beliefs and leadership practices of both urban and suburban leaders, this research yielded critical recommendations for future investigations of school leadership.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

Exploring the relationship of learning strategies and transformational leadership for business managers

PDF

Employing cognitive task analysis supported instruction to increase medical student and surgical resident performance and self-efficacy

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Keeping principals at the top of the class: an innovation study of principal leadership, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of leadership development

PDF

Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools

PDF

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

PDF

Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context

PDF

Self-regulation and online course satisfaction in high school

PDF

Promising practices: developing principal leadership succession

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Eyler, Jon (author)

Core Title An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/20/2009

Defense Date 05/04/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,social cognitive theory,transformational leadership

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Reed, Margaret (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Riconscente, Michelle (committee member)

Creator Email eylerfamily@verizon.net,jeyler@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2352

Unique identifier UC194556

Identifier etd-Eyler-2961 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-572009 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2352 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Eyler-2961.pdf

Dmrecord 572009

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Eyler, Jon

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu