Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak

Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak

This research was to examine the influence of instructional leadership of headmasters on the level of efficacy of primary school teachers in Kapit district, Sarawak. The sample consisted of 121 teachers randomly chosen. Cross-sectional survey method using standardized questionnaires were used in th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nyangun, Anak Suring
Format: Thesis
Language:eng
eng
Published: 2010
Subjects:
LB2801-3095 School administration and organization
Online Access:https://etd.uum.edu.my/4819/1/s802765.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/4819/2/s802765_abstract.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-uum-etd.4819
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection UUM ETD
language eng
eng
advisor Sin, Ishak
topic LB2801-3095 School administration and organization
spellingShingle LB2801-3095 School administration and organization
Nyangun, Anak Suring
Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak
description This research was to examine the influence of instructional leadership of headmasters on the level of efficacy of primary school teachers in Kapit district, Sarawak. The sample consisted of 121 teachers randomly chosen. Cross-sectional survey method using standardized questionnaires were used in this study. The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) was utilized to measure the instructional leadership of headmaster while teacher's efficacy scale developed by Ever, Brouwers and Tomic (2002) was used to measure the level of teachers' efficacy. The pilot study showed that all instruments were high reliability to be used in the study. The finding showed that the headmasters in Kapit were high as instructional leaders. The mean score for all dimensions of instructional leadership were between 3.67 and 4.28. The two dimensions with high score were communicating the school goal and promoting professional development of teachers (mean = 4.26 and 4.28 respectively). While the three dimensions with low score were providing incentives for teachers (mean =3.90), supervising and evaluating instruction (mean = 3.79) and maintaining high visibility (mean = 3.67). The research also found that the level of teachers' self-efficacy were high (mean = 4.14). The study found that there was no significant difference of teachers' self-efficacy based on age, position, the length of service, and the category of teachers. The research also found that there were significant relationships between instructional leadership of headmasters and teachers' self-efficacy. Finally, regression analysis revealed that 29.4 percent of teachers' efficacy variance was explained by instructional leadership
format Thesis
qualification_name masters
qualification_level Master's degree
author Nyangun, Anak Suring
author_facet Nyangun, Anak Suring
author_sort Nyangun, Anak Suring
title Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak
title_short Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak
title_full Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak
title_fullStr Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak
title_full_unstemmed Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak
title_sort pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah kapit, sarawak
granting_institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)
publishDate 2010
url https://etd.uum.edu.my/4819/1/s802765.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/4819/2/s802765_abstract.pdf
_version_ 1747827808314327040
spelling my-uum-etd.48192015-08-06T02:14:15Z Pengaruh kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar ke atas efikasi kendiri guru-guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit, Sarawak 2010 Nyangun, Anak Suring Sin, Ishak College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) Awang Had Salleh Graduate School of Arts and Sciences LB2801-3095 School administration and organization This research was to examine the influence of instructional leadership of headmasters on the level of efficacy of primary school teachers in Kapit district, Sarawak. The sample consisted of 121 teachers randomly chosen. Cross-sectional survey method using standardized questionnaires were used in this study. The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) was utilized to measure the instructional leadership of headmaster while teacher's efficacy scale developed by Ever, Brouwers and Tomic (2002) was used to measure the level of teachers' efficacy. The pilot study showed that all instruments were high reliability to be used in the study. The finding showed that the headmasters in Kapit were high as instructional leaders. The mean score for all dimensions of instructional leadership were between 3.67 and 4.28. The two dimensions with high score were communicating the school goal and promoting professional development of teachers (mean = 4.26 and 4.28 respectively). While the three dimensions with low score were providing incentives for teachers (mean =3.90), supervising and evaluating instruction (mean = 3.79) and maintaining high visibility (mean = 3.67). The research also found that the level of teachers' self-efficacy were high (mean = 4.14). The study found that there was no significant difference of teachers' self-efficacy based on age, position, the length of service, and the category of teachers. The research also found that there were significant relationships between instructional leadership of headmasters and teachers' self-efficacy. Finally, regression analysis revealed that 29.4 percent of teachers' efficacy variance was explained by instructional leadership 2010 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/4819/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/4819/1/s802765.pdf text eng validuser https://etd.uum.edu.my/4819/2/s802765_abstract.pdf text eng public http://lintas.uum.edu.my:8080/elmu/index.jsp?module=webopac-l&action=fullDisplayRetriever.jsp&szMaterialNo=0000805888 masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Abdullah Ismail. (2001). Persepsi guru terhadap kepimpinan pengajaran pengetua-pengetua sekolah menengah daerah Temerloh dan Bera. Tesis Sarjana Sains. Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. Acheson, K.A., & Smith, W. (1986).Instructional Leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ahmad Tajudin Abdul Hamid. (1989). Peranan pengetua dalam kepimpinan pengajaran pengetua dalam kepimpinan pengajaran. Tesis Sarjana Pendidikan. Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Alias Baba (1992). Statistik Penyelidikan Dalam Pendidikan dan Sains Sosial. Bangi: Penerbitan UKM. Allinder, R.M. (1995). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practice of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. Ashton, P.T & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teacher S sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York : Conyman. Ashton. P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 7, 55-67. Ayob Jantan (2005). Pengetua sekolah yang efektif: Siri pengurusan sekolah. Bentong: PTS. Azizah Md. Isa. (2001). Adakah pengetua-pengetua di Malaysia menjalankan tugas sebagai pemimpin pengajaran atau pemimpin pentadbiran atau kedua-duanya. Jurnal Institut Pengetua Universiti Malaya 1(1): 29-39. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist. Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivated self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Oxford: Maiden. 120-136. Bandura, A. (Ed) (1995). Self-efficacy in changing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura. A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Benjamin, F. (1981). Supervisory Management. 6th Edition. London: Pittman. Bennet. N. (1995). Managing professional teachers: Middle management in primary and secondary school. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Berman, P., Mc Laughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Report N0.R-158917-HEW) Santa Monica The Rand Corporation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No 140432). Betz, N.E., & Hackett, G. (1988). Application of self-efficacy theory to understanding career choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 4: 279-289. Bossert, S.T., Dywer, D.C., Brown & Lee G.V (1982) The Instructional Management The Principal Role of The Principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3): 36-64. Clark, D.L. (2009). An analysis of research, development and evaluation reports on exceptional urban elementary school. In Phi Delta Kappa (Ed.) Why do some urban school succed?. Bloomington, Indiana. Davis N.M. (1971). Staff development and appraisal in future education and training. Dean, J. (1985). Managing the secondary school. London & Snyder: Croom Helm. DeBevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis Of Research On The Principal As Instructional Leader. Education Leadership. 41(5): 14-21. Dembo. M.H. , & Gibson. S. (1985). Teacher's sense of efficacy: an important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal. 34 (12): 45-55. Duke, D.L (1982). "What CaN Principals Do? Leadership Functions and Instructional Effectiveness". NASS Bulletin, 66(456): 1-12. Duke, D.L (1987). School leadership and Instructional Improvement. New York: Random House. Dwyer, D.C (1984). The search for instructional leadership: Routines and subtleties in the principal role. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1), 19-39. Dwyer, D.C (1989). Understanding the principal's contribution to instruction. The principal as instructional leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1) 3-17. Edmonds, R. (1978). Search of effective schools. The Identification and Analysis of City School: Are Instructionally Effective For Poor Children. Harvard University: Centre For Urban Study. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective School For The Urban Poor. Educational Leadership, 40(3), 4-11. Enoch, L.G., & Riggs, I.M (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A pre-service elementary scale. School of Science and Mathematics. Everston, C.M. (1986). Do teacher make difference? Issues for the eighties. Educational Research. 22 (12): 343-355. Evers, Will J.G., Brouwers, A, & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study teachers beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72: 227-243. Fedler, D.B., (1982). Improving The Principal's Performance as an Instructional Leader. Kertas kerja dibentangkan dalam mesyuarat tahunan American Associations of School Administrators, New Orleans. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 227 582. Fullan, M., (1979). Research in curriculum and instructional implementation. Review of Educational Research. 47 (4): 569-582) Gibbson. S., & Dembo, M.H (1984). Teacher efficacy: A Construct Validation. Journal of Education Psychology. 76(4): 569-582. Gideonse, H.D. (1982). The Necessary Revolution In The Teacher Education. Indiana: The Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. 64(11) : 15-18. Greenfield, W. (Ed). (1987a). Instructional Leadership: Concepts, Issues and Controversies. Newton, MA : Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Greenfield, W. (Ed). (1987b). Moral immigration and interpersonal competence: Antecedents to instructional leadership. Dalam W. Greenfield (ed). Instructional leadership concepts, issues and controversies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc, hlm 73-76. Guskey, T.R (1982). Differences in teacher's perception's of personal control of positive versus negative student learning outcomes. Contemporary Psychology, 7: 70-80. Guskey, T.R (1988). Staff development and the process of change, Educational Researcher 55 : 45-67. Hallinger, P. & Taraseina, P. (2001). The Principal's role as instructional leader: a review of studies using the principal instructional management rating scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle. Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principles. The Elementary School Journal 86(2): 217-247 Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principal: From managerial to instructional and transformational leader. Journals of Educational Administration. 30 (3): 35-48. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J.F. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 45(1): 54-61. Hanny, R. (1987). Used but don T abused, the principals of instructional effectiveness. The Clearing House. Haron Md. Isa (2002). Kepimpinan instruksional pengetua. Seminar Nasional Ke-11, Institut Aminudin Baki. Heck. R., Larson. T. & Marcoulides. G. (1990). Principal Instructional Leadership and School Achievement Validation of a Causal Model. Educational Administration Quaterly, 26: 94-125. Hipp, K.A (1997). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City. ED No 407734. Hoy, W.K & Miskel, A.W. (2003). Instructional Leadership : A Research-Based Guide to Learning in School. Boston, MA : Pearson Education. Hughes, L.W., (1974). Achieving effective human relations and morale: concepts and instrument. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 112-151. Husien Mahmood (1993), Kepimpinan dan keberkesanan sekolah, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Ibrahim Mamat (2001). Pengetua sekolah menangani isu dan cabaran kepimpinan. Kuala Lumpur: Kumpulan Budiman Sdn. Bhd. Ishak Sin (2004). Apakah yang tertulis dalam khazanah tulisan ilmiah tentang tret, tingkah laku dan tindakan yang diperlukan untuk menjadi seorang pengetua yang berkesan? Kertas yang dibentangkan dalam Seminar Nasional Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan ke-12. Institut Aminuddin Baki, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. Jacobson, W.C., (1987). Meeting the challenge: the rewards of instructional leadership for principals. NASSP, 7l(498): 57-66. Kamaruddin Kachar (1989). Kepimpinan profesional dalam pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Teks Publishing Sdn. Bhd. Krajewski, R.J (1977). Secondary school principal want to be instructional leader. Phi Delta Kappan. 42: 53-58. Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional leadership: A constructivism perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly. 65: 354-366. Leithwood, K.A & Montgomery. D.J (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: The principal profile. Toronto: OISE PRESS. Levin & H.M Lockheed (1991). Effective School in Developing Countries. The World Bank : Educational Employment Division, Population and Human Resource Development. Malaysia. (1982). Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, Pekeliling Ikhtisas bil. 3/67 : Penyeliaan pengajaran pembelajaran di dalam kelas oleh pengetua/guru besar. KP(BS) 8591/Jld. 11 (77). McIntryre, K.E., (1974). "Administering and Improving The Instructional Program: Concepts and Instrument. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 152- 169. Mohd. Majid Konting (1990). Kaedah penyelidikan pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Mortimore. P.(1995). Key Characteristic Of Effectiveness Schools, Kertas Kerja Seminar Sekolah Efektif Kernenterian Pendidikan Malaysia 13-14 1995 di Institut Aminuddin Baki, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia Sri Layang, Genting Highlands, Pahang. Noor Rezan (2008). Kolokium kebangsaan kepimpinan instruksional. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Peterson, K.D (1987). Administrative Control And Instructional Leadership. Dlm. Greenfield, W. (pnyt). Instructional Leadership: Concepts, Issues And Controversies. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 139-152. Purkey, S., & Smith, M.(1982). Synthesis of research on effectiveness schools. Educational Leadership, 40: 23-42. Ramaiah, A.L. (1992). Pengurusan sekolah: keperluan memperkukuhkan dimensi kepimpinan. Jurnal Pendidikan, Kuala Lumpur: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Ramaiah, A.L. (1993). Kepimpinan pendidikan cabaran masa kini, Kuala Lumpur: IBS Buku Sdn. Bhd. Robiah Sidin (1988). Asas pentadbiran pendidikan, Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Cipta Sdn. Bhd. Robiah Sidin (1994). Pendidikan di Malaysia: cabaran untuk masa depan, Kuala Lumpur: Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd. Saklofske, D.H., Michayluk, J.O., & Rondhawa, B.S. (1988). Teachers efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological Report. 63(2) : 407-414. Sapone, C. (1983). A research review-perception on characteristics of effective school. NASS Buletin. 67(446): 66-70. Schwarger. R.(Ed). (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. WA : Himesphere. Sekaran, U, (1992). Research methods for business a skill building approach, Second Edition. New York : John Wiley & Son, Inc. Sergiovanni, T.J (1984a). Handbook for effective department leadership: Concept and Practice. London: Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T. J (1984b). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Needhan Hieght, MA : Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T.J (1994). Constructing and changing theories of practice: The key to preparing school administrators. Urban Review. 23: 39-49 Shahril @ Chairil Marzuki. (1997). Kajian Sekolah Berkesan Di Malaysia: Model Lima Faktor. Tesis Ph.D. Tidak diterbitkan: Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Smyth, J. (1989). Is Supervision More Than the Surveillance of Instruction? In J. Glanz & R.F Neville (Eds), Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues and Controversies (pp 286-295). Norwood, MA : Christopher-Gordon. Sweeney, J. (1982). Research synthesis on effective school. Educational Leadership, 39: 346-353. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, W.K (2001). Teacher Efficacy: Capturing and Elusive Construct. Teaching and Teacher Educational. 17: 783-805. Wellisch, J.B (1978). School management and organization in successful school. Sociology of Education. 51: 211-216. Wood, R.J & Bandura. A (1989). School cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review. 14(3): 361-384.

Similar Items