Summary
This study sought to determine the principals’ leadership styles and instructional variables affecting the performance of high schools and with an endview of developing a strategic action plan at Hai Phong City, Vietnam, for school year 2012-2013.Specifically, it aimed to determine the leadership styles of the respondent principals in terms of authoritative, democratic, and delegative; find out the instructional variables that may affect the performance of high schools in terms of self-regulated learners, teacher characteristics, classroom climate, technology and learning, and motivation in diversity;
analyze if there is a significant relationship between the leadership styles of principals and the instructional variables; determine the level of performance of the respondent high schools; find out which of the instructional variables predict school performance; and develop a strategic action plan.
The descriptive method of research was employed to 896 respondents drawn from 14 high schools in the city. The instrument used for the types of leadership styles was adapted from the questionnaire of Clark (2002), and instructional variables from that of Mentilla (2011). The weighted mean, chi- square test, percentage formula and mean, and multiple regressions were the statistical treatments used to analyze the data. The developed strategic action plan served as the main output of the study.
Findings
The following are the findings of the study based on the analysis of data gathered:
1. The leadership styles of the respondent principals are as follows:
1.1 Authoritative with 3.34 AWM described as “sometimes carried out”;
1.2 Democratic with 3.81AWM described as “oftentimes carried out”;
and
1.3 Delegative with 3.52AWM described as “oftentimes carried out.”
2. The instructional variables that may affect high schools’ performance are:
2.1. Self-regulated learners with 2.93 AWM (agree);
2.2. Teacher characteristics with 2.74 AWM (agree);
2.3. Classroom climate with 2.76 AWM (agree);
2.4. Technology and learning with 2.35 (disagree), and 2.5. Motivation in Diversity with 2.60 (agree).
3. Significant Correlation between the headmasters’ leadership styles and the instructional variables are observed in the following:
3.1 Authoritative leadership to sending memos, or letters to get information out, calls meeting rarely but expects teachers to act upon information to motivation in diversity with chi= .001;
3.2 Democratic leadership to asking for teachers’ ideas and input on upcoming plans and projects (018), calling a meeting to get teachers’ advice when things go wrong and strategy is needed to keep project or process running on schedule (001), and using leadership power to help subordinates grow (.042) under teacher’s
characteristics; counting himself and teachers to vote whenever a major decision has to be made (.007), seeking approval of each individual or the majority for a major decision to pass in the department (.087), working with teachers to resolve differences when there are differences in role expectations (.026), using leadership power to help subordinates grow (.047), and making teachers exercise self-direction once committed to objectives (.019) under classroom climate; statement 2 (.004) for technology in learning; and trying to include one or more teachers in determining what and how to do it but is still the final decision making authority (.035) and telling teachers that procedure is not working correctly when something goes wrong and establishes a new one (.011) for motivation in diversity; and
3.3 Delegative leadership to wanting to create an environment where teachers take ownership of project and allows them to participate in decision making (.034), allowing teachers to set priorities with his guidance (.019), believing that teachers can lead themselves just as well as he can (.005), and allowing teachers complete freedom in work (.007) under self-regulated learners; statements 1 (.037), 2 (.009) and 6 (.021) under teacher characteristics; letting the teachers know more about their jobs than himself and allows them to carry out decisions to do their job (.041) under classroom climate, and allowing the teachers to seek mainly security (.047) under technology in learning; and statements 2 (.001) and 7 (.032) under motivation in diversity.
4. With an average of 66.4, there are nine (9) high schools above the average and five (5) below average level of performance where the highest mean is obtained by Ngo Quyen High School with 94.8 and is consistently leading while the least is Phan Dang Luu High School with 36.3. On the basis of academic years, 2012-2013 got the highest mean of 76.8 while the least is 2008-2009 with 58.1.
5. Motivation in diversity can predict school performance up to 1% while the classroom climate by up to 0.5% which indicates negligible correlation.
6. A strategic action plan has been developed based on the results of the study.
Conclusions
Based on the findings, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Most of the headmasters practice democratic leadership style through the shared decision-making, participative and permissive leadership.
2. The instructional variable which is self-directed learners in comparison to teachers’ attributes, classroom atmosphere and encouragement is greatly influential to the performance of the high schools.
3. Democratic and delegative leadership styles are mostly related to some areas of instructional variables.
4. High schools in Hai Phong City generally have average performance on the basis of five curriculum years from 2008-2013.
5. Motivation in diversity and classroom climate strongly determine the high schools’ performance.
6. The developed strategic action plan is ready for validation.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions deduced, the following recommendations are offered:
1. A balance of the authoritative, democratic and delegative leadership stylesmay be constantly practiced by the headmasters, since each holds benefits to the organizations they serve.
2. Hai Phong City Department of Education may set a training course for the enhancement of headmasters’ leadership styles.
3. Technology in learning may be improved by maximizing its use in the said department to further boost the performance of the high schools in Hai Phong City.
4. A parallel or follow-up study of similar nature with the present investigation may be conducted in other districts in Vietnam.
REFERENCES
Acikgoz, G. I. (2005) The Challenge. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Amborse, P. et al. (2010). On Leadership. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://ctb.
ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1122.aspx.
Antoine (n.d.) Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html Bass, J.and D. Bass (2008). Leadership. Washington, DC: Education Writers
Association. ED 306660.
Beaman, S. (2005). Types of leadership. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://www.
buzzle.com/ types-of-leadership-styles-in-education.html
Bedeian, M. and R. Glueck (2000). Leadership and New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Barrett-Koehler Publishing.
Buckner, N. (2006). Transformational Leadership.ERIC Digest #72, ERIC no.
ED347636
Chen, Y. C. (2003). A synthesis of job analysis research on the job of the school principal. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Chernoff, H. (2004). "Maximum Likelihood Estimates in Tests for Goodness of Fit". The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 25 (3): 579-586.
Chrislip, C. and K. Larson (n.d.) Modern day Leaders. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/principal.
Clark (n.d.). Leadership Styles. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://www.nwlink.
com/don_clark/html.
Conway, R. (2012). Idea Bridge.CA: Brown University Press.
Drucker, F.(2007). Modern study of management. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Ekpo, D., et al. (2009). Pew Civic Entrepreneur InitiativeSpokes: Resources for Non-profits. Harvard Business Review, 52, 90-120.
Fielder, H. (2004). Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hall, F. (2002). Characteristics of a good teacher. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://voices.yahoo.com/characteristics-good-teacher.html
Hickey, T. (2000). Role of the School. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://ahea.
org/files/pro1999wlodkowski.pdf .
Hirschy, S. and T. Braxton (2004). Emerging Leader. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Karori, K. et al. (2013). Published Doctoral Dissertation. Texas, USA. Sam Houston State University
Karunanayake, S. (2012) Power and Leadership Practices by Superintendent:
What Do They Mean to Leaders and Followers?Draft position paper prepared for the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International.
Scottsdale, AZ.
Liao, X. W. (2009). Connective Leadership and Achieving Styles.Journal of Educational Management and Society, 11(4), 229-245.
McCombs, D. and A. Lambert (2001). Motivation in Diversity. Retrieved 3 Feb.
2013 at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/penn sylvania_department_of_education
Mentilla, L. (2011). Leadership behaviors and Instructional Variables: Basis for Strategic Plan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Lucban, Quezon:
Southern Luzon State University.
Murray, A. (2013). Style of Management and Leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.
On Technology and Learning. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://www.nsba.org/
toolkit.html.
Oyetunji, W. (2006). Strategic planning: A leadership imperative. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Pearson, R. (2010). Solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pierce, J. (2006) Management. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of School Business Officials International in Detroit, Michigan. ED 300929.
Schunk, S. and B. Zimmerman (2007). Exploring theSelf-regulated learners.
Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 athttp://education.purduecal.edu/Vockell/EdPsy Book/ Edpsy7.htm).
Technology in classroom Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http://www.sedl.org/pubs /tec26/cnc.html.
Toshalis, A. and W. Nakkula (2012). Students at the Center. Retrieved 3 Feb.
2013 athttp://www.studentsatthecenter.org/scl.dldev.com/pdf.
Wlodkowski, G. (2003). Motivating students. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 athttp://
www.uww.edu/learn/ motivating_students.php.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Self-regulated learners, Retrieved 3 Feb. 2013 at http:
//www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/selfregulation/section2.html.