Mathematics Instructional Leadership

Self-Efficacy Development for Elementary School Administrators

Authors

  • Kelly Gomez Johnson University of Nebraska at Omaha
  • Tamara Williams University of Nebraska at Omaha

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v8i1.3692

Keywords:

Mathematics Leadership, Professional Development, Self-efficacy, Administrators

Abstract

To optimize teacher support, administrators need subject-specific knowledge, skills, and beliefs to lead, not just manage, instructional change. Professional development (PD) is needed with the many roles administrators are already called to fill. In this study, 38 elementary administrators participated in PD in mathematics instructional leadership. Findings from the Administrator Self-Efficacy Survey for Mathematics, derived from the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (Smith & Guarino, 2005), show that subject-specific, district-led PD designed around sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986) had a significant impact on increasing administrators’ mathematics instructional leadership self-efficacy. Specifically, administrators increased their beliefs to influence effective mathematics practice, apply district PD to instructional leadership practices, and justify change during reform. These results show promise for future mathematics-specific instructional leadership development. Results from this study can inform PD design for districts and leaders aiming to promote and support school administrators as instructional leaders and advocates for evidence-based practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Kelly Gomez Johnson, University of Nebraska at Omaha

    Kelly began her professional career as a high school mathematics teacher and Dual Enrollment Education and Mathematics instructor for local community colleges and the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO). In 2013, she joined the UNO as a Secondary Instructional Coach for the Teacher Education Department and later transitioned to a STEM Instructor role teaching both undergraduate and graduate coursework. Kelly is currently an Assistant Professor of STEM Education.

  • Tamara Williams, University of Nebraska at Omaha

    Tami Williams, EdD, is assistant professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha in the educational leadership department. She is former Director of Assessment, Research, and Evaluation of Millard Public Schools, also in Nebraska, where she supervised buildings, led assessment innovations, program evaluations, data storage and reporting, and data professional development. Williams has been an educator since the 90s with background as a teacher, behavior interventionist, assistant principal, and district administrator in Nebraska. Tami has also presented as several local and national conferences. Her research agenda includes social justice, program evaluation, and school improvement. Williams received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and teacher endorsement in secondary education from the University of Nebraska Lincoln. She earned her master’s degree in educational leadership, principal certificate, doctorate in education, and superintendent certificate from the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

References

Augustine, C.H., Gonzalez, G., Schuyler Ikemoto, G., Russell, J., Zellman, G.L., Constant, L., Armstrong, J., Dembosky, J.W. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. RAND Corporation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e647032010-001

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 82(2), 191-2au15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 747-755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.7.747

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.

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

Boston, M. D., & Steele, M. (2014). Analyzing students’ work to reflect on instruction: The instructional quality assessment as a tool for instructional leaders. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 15, 21-33.

Burch, P. (2007). The professionalization of instructional leadership in the United States: Competing values and current tensions. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 195-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930601158943

Cansoy, R., & Parlar, H. (2018) Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550-567. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0089 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0089

Coburn, C. (2005). Shaping teacher sense-making: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143

Creswell. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed). Sage Publications.

Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e565212006-012

Federici, R., & Skaalvik, E. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work engagement: Assessing a Norwegian principal self-efficacy scale. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 14(4), 575-600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4

Federici, R., & Skaalvik, E. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job satisfaction and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 15(3), 295-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9183-5

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & Adam, E. (2016). The taking action guide to building coherence in schools, districts, and systems (1st ed.). Corwin.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/258770 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279530

Gomez Johnson, K. (2017). Elementary administrators’ mathematics supervision & self-efficacy development. (Publication No. 3642) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha]. Student Work.

https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/3642

Grissom, J.A., Egalite, A.J., Lindsay, C.A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect-Students-and-Schools.pdf

Guskey, T.R., (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin.

Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change: Teachers and teaching, Theory and Practice, 8(3-4), 381-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson.

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 157-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2009). Change wars. Solution Tree.

Hauserman, C., & Stick, S. L. (2014). The leadership teachers want from principals – transformational. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne De l’éducation, 36(3), 184–203.

Katterfeld, K. (2014). Measuring leadership of math instruction: Investigating the validity of a survey scale for principals’ leadership of middle school mathematics. Journal of School Leadership, 24(6), 1125–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461402400604 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461402400604

Kavanagh, D., & Bower, G. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9(5), 507–525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173005

Kleinsasser, R. (2014). Teacher efficacy in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 168-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.007

Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341-359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.013

Lai, E. (2015). Enacting principal leadership: exploiting situated possibilities to build school capacity for change. Research Papers in Education, 30(1), 70-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.880939

Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2010). Starting with what we know. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change. Springer.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. University of Minnesota Press.

Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. Jossey-Bass.

Ma, X., & Marion, R. (2021). Exploring how instructional leadership affects teacher efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 188-207. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1741143219888742 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219888742

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. ASCD.

McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-Efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8, 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal: Opening the conversation. (pp. 173-192). Teachers College Press.

Munter, C. (2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584–635. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.5.0584 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.5.0584

National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM) (2008). PRIME leadership framework: The principles and indicators for mathematics education leaders.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2007). Effective strategies for teaching students with difficulties in mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Research-and-Advocacy/Research-Brief-and-Clips/Effective-Strategies-for-Teaching-Students-with-Difficulties/

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2020). Catalyzing change in early childhood and elementary education.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf

Nelson, B. (1999). Building new knowledge by thinking: How administrators can learn what they need to know about mathematics education reform (Center for the Development of Teaching paper series). Education Development Center.

Nelson, B., & Sassi, A. (2003). Shifting approaches to supervision: The case of mathematics supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 553-584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021969100

Nunley, K.F. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Paglis, L., & Green, S. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers' motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23(2), 215-235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.137

Phillips, M. (2021). Supporting school administrators with math observations and feedback (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles).

Puja Kesuma, T. A. R., Sudjarwo, S., Pargito, P., Ridwan, R., Tusianah, R., Isnainy, U. C., Zainaro, M.A., Maydiantoro, A., & Irawan, E. (2021). Influence and influenced between self-efficacy and principal leadership: A systematic review. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 15, 157-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46300/9109.2021.15.16

Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change: the challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations (1st ed.). Currency/Doubleday. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140380511

Smith, W., & Guarino, A. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the principal self-efficacy survey (PSES). Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Culture, 9(1), 81-86.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003023

Stajkovic, A., Bandura, A., Locke, E., Lee, D., & Sergent, K. (2018). Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 238-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.014

Stein, M., & Nelson, B. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004423

Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353043

Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/605771

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of notice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 944-956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

Versland, T. M. (2016). Exploring self-efficacy in education leadership programs: What makes the difference? Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(3), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115618503 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115618503

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the US and abroad. Technical Report. National Staff Development Council.

Downloads

Published

2023-04-21

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2023): Spring Issue

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of School Administration Research and Development

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

All published articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License.