Within the field of educational research, self-efficacy has primarily been studied in four different areas: student self-efficacy (Bandura 1994; Schunk and Meece, 2005), teacher self-efficacy (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2007), collective teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard et al., 2000; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010) and, more recently, principal self-efficacy (Brama, 2004; Sierman Smith, 2007; Smith and Guarino, 2005; Tschannen, Moran, and Gareis, 2004, 2005).
1.1. Professional self-efficacy and principal self-efficacy
The self-efficacy concept has been applied in organizational psychology, termed “professional self-efficacy”, and defined as the belief in one’s ability to control events and behaviors affecting professional activities and life (Cherniss, 1993). Professional self-efficacy has to do with the complexity of the profession (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Therefore, it is necessary to define self-efficacy for specific occupations or for groups or clusters of occupations that share a common denominator (Gist, 1987).
Principals’ self-efficacy (PSE) is of great importance with respect to the overall managing of schools. It may be defined as a type of leadership self- efficacy, involving a certain level of confidence in one’s knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are associated with the task of leading others (Hannah et al., 2008). Research on principal self-efficacy usually includes measures of multidimensional self-efficacy, in order to capture the various aspects of principals’ work.
The job of school leaders has changed radically, as countries have transformed their education systems to prepare young people for today’s rapid technological change, economic globalization, and increased migration (Pont, Nusche, and Hopkins, 2008). Principals play a vital role in setting the direction for successful schools (Fisher, 2008), but there is as yet no knowledge on the best way to prepare and develop highly qualified candidates (Davis, Darling- Hammond, LaPointe and Meyerson, 2005).
1.2. Objectives and Hypotheses
The major objective of the study was to analyze the structure of the Principal’s Self-Efficacy domain. A systematic definitional framework was developed based on Facet Theory (Guttman, 1959).
An additional objective was to retestBrama and Friedman’s (2007) Principal Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES). The PSES was originally developed ten years ago (Brama, 2004). Since the leadership skills required of principals have changed radically in the last decade, it is of most interest to retest the PSES. The effect of changing demands on principals’ professional self-efficacy has not yet been tested. 1959).
In addition to that the study intends to investigate the relationship between Self-efficacy and work experience.
Previous studies have shown that the principals’ preservice studies and the school that they lead are predictors of professional self-efficacy (Brama and Friedman, 2007; Friedman and Brama, 2010). Thus, it seems that very few studies have considered the relationship between principal self-efficacy and work experience (Dembo and Gibson, 1985; Imants and De Brabander, 1996). The results of the few studies that have been done are contradictory. Dembo and Gibson (1985) found that perceived principal self-efficacy levels increased with experience, while Imants and De Brabander (1996) did not find an overall increase in perceived self-efficacy of principals related to experience. Both of these studies were conducted more than two decades ago.
1.3. Defining the Principal’s Self-Efficacy domain
Two basic facets could be distinguished: Facet A area of functioning, with three elements and Facet B freedom of action with three elements, and the range facet (self-efficacy level). The following mapping sentence presents the definitional framework for the Principal’s Self-Efficacy domain.
Fig. 1. A mapping sentence definition of principals’ self -efficacy domain
2. Methodology
2.1. Sample
Participants in the study were 123 principals of public schools, including elementary, middle and high schools (1st–12th grade) in Israel.
The sample consisted of 32.5% (40) males and 67.5% (83) females. The age of the principals ranged from 29 to 55+ years old: 0.8% (1) below the age of 30; 23.6% (29) between the ages 31-40; 60.2% (74) between the age 41-55; and 15.4% (9) were above the age of 55. First year principals (23) comprised 18.7% of the sample; 30% (37) had between 2 and 5 years of experience; 24.4% (30) had between 6 and 10 years; and 26.8% (33) had more than 10 years of experience. Only 3.3% (4) of the principals were single; 85.4% (105) were married; 8.9% (11) were divorced; and 2.4% (3) were widows or widowers. In terms of school assignment, 78.2% (93) worked in elementary schools and 21.8% (26) worked in combined middle and high-schools.
2.2. Instruments
The research instrument was an anonymous quantitative self-report questionnaire entitled “The professional self-efficacy of school principals,”
which was based on a previous study (Brama and Friedman, 2007) of principals’ professional self-efficacy. The questionnaire contained three sections. The first section contained an opening letter to the principals explaining the aims and objectives of the research, committing to maintain responders’ anonymity, and asking for their sincere cooperation. The second section contained a seven- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not capable at all) to 7 (definitely capable), with items pertaining to different school managerial tasks (57 items), divided into 5 sections: managing school as an organization (11 items); working with people (14 items); relationships beyond the school perimeters, as with parents and the community (7 items); pedagogy and professional knowledge (6 items); and various personal capabilities (19 items).
Respondents indicated their perceived degree of capability on each item. The third part of the questionnaire contained items pertaining to the principal’s background variables (6 items: gender, age, education, type of school, and experience).
2.3. Data collection and analysis
The questionnaires were distributed directly to the school principals during 3 regional meeting of school principals. The aim was to distribute 350 questionnaires in an attempt to reach a sample of 300 principals. However, only 95 questionnaires were completed (27% return rate). It was decided then to try a different approach and e-mail the questionnaires to different groups of principals, who did not take part in the regional meetings. In this round, 300 questionnaires were emailed, but the return rate was even lower, and only 28 (9%) were fully completed. At this stage, it was decided to proceed and use the data as a pilot study. Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA) was applied to analyze the structure of the Principal’s Self-Efficacy domain. using the Hebrew University Data Analysis Program (HUDAP) (Borg and Shye, 1995; Shye, 1998), based on the calculated correlation matrix.
Computation of descriptive statistics, including means, variance, and item- total correlation for each item was performed. Internal consistency of the scale was measured using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scores in the whole scale was 0.96. One-way ANOVA analysis was performed to test the research hypotheses.
3. Results
Based on Facet Theory (Guttman, 1959) a formal definitional framework for analyzing the structure of the Principal’s Self-Efficacy domain was developed.
This study was based on Brahma and Friedman’s PSES (Brama, 2004, Brama and Friedman, 2007, and they both argued that five dimensions, each representing a different skill, were found: (1) Managing the school as an organization, (2) Directing the academic and administrative team, (3) Interrelationships with the neighbouring community, (4) Leadership, and (5). Directing the school pedagogy. Factor analysis was intended to assist with first stage confirmation, before examining the data with SSA. The correlation matrix of the scale’s item scores was subjected to factor analysis. The number of factors extracted was decided based primarily on Brama and Friedman’s findings (2007), and the procedure was treated as CFA (confirmatory factor analysis). Kaiser’s rule (Nunnally, 1978), Cattell’s (1966) scree test, and comparison with the observed correlation matrix revealed only three dimensions. The complete scale has a reliability level of α = .98. The three dimensions and their internal coefficient alphas were:
a. Organizational Leadership (OL) α = .97
(17 items: 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,20) b. Educational and Pedagogical Leadership (EPL) α = .96
(28 items: 2, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 56)
c. External and Communal Relations (ECR) α = .96 (12 items: 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57)
Data deployment was examined first in a 2-dimensional display. The coefficient of alienation in the 2-dimensional display was .24, a fair correlation between the correlation matrix and the graphic representation of the variables on the map. A 3-dimensional presentation yielded a better alienation coefficient of .18, but the general pattern of item deployment was highly similar to the
one obtained in the 2-dimensional presentation. Therefore, it was decided to present the 2-dimensional display, which is much more easily comprehended. Data deployment on the SSA map exhibited both a polarized form (or angular form) and a radial form in a Radex configuration.
Figure 1 presents the distribution of the items of Facet A. SSA map has an angular order (Facet A). Facet A divides the map into three regions that emanate from the origin (center), where each region faces a different direction away from the origin, they are polarising, see Figure 1. The findings demonstrate almost a perfect fit between the empirical data and the estimated structure (separation index =0.98).
Facet A is an unordered polarized facet, since it is not possible to prefer one management task to another. The facet’s regions (similar to factors or dimensions) were identical to the ones found in the CFA and include the following:
Fig.1. Polarising structure of Facet A: managerial tasks