UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Work-related learning efforts of school principals : an exploratory study 1978

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1978_A2 S86.pdf
UBC_1978_A2 S86.pdf [ 13.92MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0064580.json
JSON-LD: 1.0064580+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0064580.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0064580+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0064580+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0064580+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0064580.ris

Full Text

WORK-RELATED LEARNING EFFORTS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY by VERNON JAMES STOREY B.Ed., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969 M.Ed., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 19 78 (c) Vernon James Storey, 19 78 In presenting this thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for s c h olarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of E d u c a t i o n The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date ^ l y 15, 1978 i i ABSTRACT The study was exploratory i n nature, and had two major emphases. One thrust of the research was to describe the learning e f f o r t s of school p r i n c i p a l s . The other was to determine the existence and nature of re- lati o n s h i p s between learning e f f o r t s and several independent v a r i a b l e s . Learning e f f o r t s were described as having two major components: learning i n t e r e s t s and learning a c t i v i t i e s . Two categories of learning i n t e r e s t s , recent and p r i o r i t y , were examined. Recent i n t e r e s t s were those r e l a t i n g to the previous and the then-current school year. P r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s referred to the coming few months. Three dimensions of a learning a c t i v i t y were studied: recent use, desired greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference. Respondents reported the frequency with which they had used various learning a c t i v i t i e s during the previous year. Further, they i d e n t i f i e d those a c t i v i t i e s which they prob- ably would have used more frequently, given greater a v a i l a b i l i t y , and those which they would prefer to use i n learning more about areas of p r i o r - i t y i n t e r e s t . Learning a c t i v i t i e s were c l a s s i f i e d as formal, consultative and personal. Formal a c t i v i t i e s included workshops, conferences and s i m i - l a r a c t i v i t i e s . Consultative a c t i v i t i e s included various means of consul- t a t i o n with d i f f e r e n t categories of personnel. Personal a c t i v i t i e s were generally informal and c a r r i e d out alone. Three categories of independent variables were studied: school d i s t r i c t , school and respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . School d i s t r i c t v ariables included urban/rural d i s t r i c t group and i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . School variables studied were school l o c a t i o n , school type and p r i n c i p a l ' s r e l i e f i i i time. Respondents' experience and education were also examined. The study surveyed p r i n c i p a l s i n ten mid-sized B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s . A contrasting sample design was used to obtain urban and r u r a l d i s t r i c t s . The data c o l l e c t i o n process u t i l i z e d a questionnaire developed for t h i s project, which was i d e n t i f i e d to respondents as the P r i n c i p a l s ' P rofessional Development Study. The o v e r a l l response rate was 93.8 percent, and the study sample consisted of 212 p r i n c i p a l s . Generaliza- t i o n of the findings was l i m i t e d to the population of p r i n c i p a l s i n the ten d i s t r i c t s studied. The study found three areas to be the f o c i of most widespread i n - te r e s t : development and evaluation of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, provision of educational services to students with s p e c i a l needs, and supervision of the work of teachers. Learning a c t i v i t i e s f o r which most frequent recent use was reported tended to be consultative i n nature. Most formal a c t i v i t i e s tended to be less frequently used, but widely reported as preferred a c t i v i t i e s and as ones for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired. Greatest evidence of relationships between learning e f f o r t s and i n - dependent variables occurred for the variables school d i s t r i c t , school l o c a t i o n , school type, r e l i e f time and experience as a p r i n c i p a l . The f i r s t four of these might be c a l l e d s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . The findings of the study had t h e o r e t i c a l , methodological and p r a c t i c a l implications. At a t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , . consideration might be given to a re-conceptualization of independent variables to f a c i l i t a t e i v further study of s i t u a t i o n a l variables and experience as a p r i n c i p a l . Further study might also involve a re-examination of the scheme for c l a s s i - f y i n g learning a c t i v i t i e s and an exploration of the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e l a t i o n - ships between learning i n t e r e s t s i d e n t i f i e d and learning a c t i v i t i e s pre- ferred. At a methodological l e v e l , an interview approach was suggested for further study of the importance of experience i n p r i n c i p a l s ' learning e f f o r t s . The case study technique might be used to study s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i - ables . Recommendations at the l e v e l of pr a c t i c e were directed toward per- sonnel and agencies involved i n planning and d e l i v e r i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l de- velopment programs for p r i n c i p a l s . The study found that l o c a l and regional a c t i v i t i e s , and those which would f a c i l i t a t e ongoing study of a t o p i c , were important to p r i n c i p a l s . These a c t i v i t i e s might further f a c i l i t a t e such consultative a c t i v i t i e s as i n t e r v i s i t a t i o n , which was also seen as d e s i r - able and preferred. The need for further l o c a l research before u t i l i z a t i o n of the study's findings was also indicated. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY. 1 INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. 3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY. 4 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 5 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 8 INTRODUCTION 8 ADULT LEARNING PROJECTS 9 TASKS OF THE PRINCIPAL 12 Administrative S k i l l s . 13 Operational Areas 13 Managerial A c t i v i t i e s 14 Administrative processes 14 Managerial s k i l l s 14 Combined Approaches 14 Summary 16 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL 16 Profe s s i o n a l Development Needs of Educational Administrators 17 Professional development needs of combined groups 17 Professional development needs of higher education administrators 19 Professional development needs of p r i n c i p a l s 23 Professional Development of Teachers 28 SUMMARY 31 v i Chapter Page 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 36 INTRODUCTION 36 PILOT STUDY FINDINGS 37 THE NATURE OF LEARNING EFFORTS 39 Learning Interests 40 Learning A c t i v i t i e s 41 SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOL AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 42 SUMMARY 44 4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND STUDY PROCEDURES 47 INTRODUCTION 47 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 48 Question 1 49 Question 2 49 Sub-question 2.1 49 Sub-question 2.2 49 Question 3 49 Sub-question 3.1 49 Sub-question 3.2 49 Sub-question 3.3 49 Question 4 49 Sub-question 4.1 50 Sub-question 4.2 50 Question 5 50 Question 6 50 Sub-question 6.1 50 Sub-question 6.2 50 v i i Chapter Page 4. Question 7 ••• 50 Sub-question 7.1 50 Sub-question 7.2 50 Sub-question 7.3 51 Question 8 51 Sub-question 8.1 51 Sub-question 8.2 51 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 51 P r i n c i p a l 51 D i s t r i c t Group 51 School Location 53 School Type 53 Elementary 53 Secondary 53 Elementary-secondary 53 Re l i e f Time 53 Experience 53 Education 53 INSTRUMENTATION 54 P i l o t Study 54 Phases one and two 54 Phase three 55 Development of the Questionnaire 56 I n i t i a l development 56 Revision process 58 F i e l d t r i a l 58 v i i i Chapter Page 4. V a l i d i t y of the questionnaire 59 SAMPLING 59 Sampling Plan 59 Sampling Procedures 59 DATA COLLECTION 64 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 65 Types of Data Collected 66 Tabulation of Responses 67 V a r i a t i o n Among Response Categories 68 Nominal data 69 Ordinal data 70 Contributions to Significance 71 Summary 72 DELIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 72 Delimitations of the Study 72 Assumptions 73 Limitations... 73 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENTS 75 QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RATES 75 SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS 75 SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 77 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 79 SUMMARY 81 6. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: LEARNING INTERESTS 83 INTRODUCTION 83 i x Chapter Page 6. Recent and P r i o r i t y Learning Interests 83 Frequently and Infrequently Reported Learning Interests. 84 QUESTION 1: REPORTED LEARNING INTERESTS OF RESPONDENTS 87 Frequently Reported Interests 87 Infrequently Reported Interests 90 Additional Learning Interests Specified by Respondents 90 Summary 92 QUESTION 2: LEARNING INTERESTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS 93 Sub-Question 2.1: Learning Interests of Pr i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by D i s t r i c t Group 94 Sub-Question 2.2: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School D i s t r i c t 97 QUESTION 3: LEARNING INTERESTS AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 102 Sub.-Question 3.1: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School Location 102 Sub-Question 3.2: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School Type 107 Sub-Question 3.3: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by R e l i e f Time A l l o c a t i o n I l l QUESTION 4: LEARNING INTERESTS AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 117 Sub-Question 4.1: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by Experience 118 Teaching experience 120 Non-principal administrative experience 124 Experience as a p r i n c i p a l 129 X Chapter Page 6. Sub-Question 4.2: Learning Interests of Principals Classified by Education 138 SUMMARY 142 7. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: LEARNING ACTIVITIES 148 INTRODUCTION 148 RECENT USE, AVAILABILITY AND PREFERENCE 148 Rate of Recent Use 149 Desire for Greater Availability 150 Preferred Learning Activities 150 QUESTION 5: REPORTED LEARNING ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS 151 Overall Responses 151 Additional Learning Ac t i v i t i e s Specified by Respondents... 154 QUESTION 6: LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS 155 Sub-Question 6.1: Learning Activities of Principals Classified by Dist r i c t Group 156 Sub-Question 6.2: Learning Activities of Principals Classified by School Dis t r i c t 158 QUESTION 7: LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 162 Sub-Question 7.1: Learning Activities of Principals Classified by School Location 163 Sub-Question 7.2: Learning Activities of Principals Classified by School Type 166 Sub-Question 7.3: Learning Activities of Principals Classified by Relief Time Allocation 170 QUESTION 8: LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 173 Sub-Question 8.1: Learning Activities of Principals Classified by Experience 173 x i Chapter Page 7. Teaching experience 174 Experience as a non - p r i n c i p a l administrator 176 Experience as a p r i n c i p a l 179 Sub-Question 8.2: Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by Education I 8 5 SUMMARY 1 8 7 8. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 192 NATURE OF THE STUDY 192 The Research Problem 192 Li t e r a t u r e Review 193 Conceptual Framework 195 Study Procedures 196 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 197 G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the Findings 198 Learning Interests 198 School d i s t r i c t v a r i a b l e s 200 School v a r i a b l e s 201 Respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 203 Learning A c t i v i t i e s . . 205 School d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 208 School c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 209 Respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 212 Summary 214 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 214 The o r e t i c a l Considerations 214 Methodological Considerations • 217 x i i Chapter Page 8. Implications f o r P r a c t i c e 219 REFERENCES 222 APPENDICES A. PILOT STUDY. 227 B. INSTRUMENTATION 233 C. DATA COLLECTION 243 D. LEARNING INTERESTS 249 E. LEARNING ACTIVITIES 274 i x i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Operational Areas of School Administration 15 II Operational Areas and Administrative Processes 41 III P u p i l Population Groups of School D i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia 63 IV C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Data Collected i n the Present Study.... 67 V Questionnaires Issued and Returned: Response Frequencies and Percentage Rates of Return 76 VI School D i s t r i c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Response Frequencies and Percentage Rates of Return 77 VII School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Response Frequencies and Percentage Rates of Return 78 VIII Respondent C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Response Frequencies and Percentage Rates of Return 80 IX Frequently Reported Learning Interests: Numerical Frequency, Percentage and Rank 88 X Infrequently Reported Learning Interests: Numerical Frequency, Percentage and Rank 91 XI Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to D i s t r i c t Group 95 XII Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to D i s t r i c t Group 96 XIII Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School D i s t r i c t . . . . 98 XIV Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School D i s t r i c t . . . . 100 XV School D i s t r i c t s I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-In dependence 101 XVI Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School Location 104 xlv Table Page XVII Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School Location 105 XVIII School Location Groups I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence 106 XIX Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School Type 108 XX Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School Type 110 XXI School Type Groups I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to Si g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence 112 XXII Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to R e l i e f Time 113 XXIII Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to R e l i e f Time 115 XXIV R e l i e f Time Groups I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence 116 XXV Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to Teaching Experience 121 XXVI.J Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to Teaching Experience 123 XXVII Teaching Experience Categories I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi- Independence 124 XXVIII Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Experience as a Non-Principal Administrator 126 XXIX Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Experience as a Non-Principal Administrator 127 XV Table Page XXX Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square f o r Learning Interests 129 XXXI Learning Interests Reported Frequently Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Experience as a P r i n c i p a l , 131 XXXII Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Experience as a P r i n c i p a l 132 XXXIII P r i n c i p a l ' s Experience Categories I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square f o r Recent Learning Interests 134 XXXIV P r i n c i p a l ' s Experience Categories I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square f o r P r i o r i t y Learning Interests 135 XXXV Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Level of Formal Education 139 XXXVI Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Level of Formal Education 140 XXXVII Education Categories I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square f o r Learning I n t e r e s t s : Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence 141 XXXVIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s Reported by Respondents 152 XXXIX Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Between D i s t r i c t Groups ' 157 XL Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among School D i s t r i c t s 159 XLI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among School D i s t r i c t s for A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 161 XLII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among School Location Categories 164 x v i Table Page XLIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among School Location Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 165 XLIV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among School Type Categories 167 XLV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among School Type Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 169 XLVI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among R e l i e f Time Categories 171 XLVII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among R e l i e f Time Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 172 XLVIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories 176 XLIX Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories for A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 177 L Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a Non-Principal Administrator 178 LI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 180 LI I Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of experience as a P r i n c i p a l 181 L I I I Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a P r i n c i p a l f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 183 LIV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Present D i s t r i c t and Present School Experience Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 184 x v i i Table Page LV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks for Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among Education Categories 186 LVI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Education Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 188 LVII Most Widely Reported and Seldom Reported Interests of Respondents 199 LVIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s Which Tended to be Reported Among the Study Sample as Most Frequently and Least Frequently Used 207 LIX Learning A c t i v i t i e s Used With Moderate Frequency and Widely Reported as Needing to be More Available and as P r e f e r r e d 208 LX P i l o t Study Findings: Learning Interests 231 LXI P i l o t Study Findings: Learning A c t i v i t i e s 232 LXII Recent and P r i o r i t y Learning I n t e r e s t s : Numerical Frequency and Percentage Reporting 250 LXIII Recent Learning I n t e r e s t s Added by Respondents 251 LXIV Frequently and Infrequently Reported Learning Interests and Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Between D i s t r i c t Groups 253 LXV Recent Learning Interests Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by School D i s t r i c t 254 LXVI P r i o r i t y Learning I n t e r e s t s Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by School D i s t r i c t 255 LXVII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Location Categories 2 5& LXVIII Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Location Categories 257 LXIX Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Type Categories 258 x v i i i Table Page LXX Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Type Categories 259 LXXI Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among R e l i e f Time Categories 260 LXXII Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among R e l i e f Time Categories 261 LXXIII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories 262 LXXIV Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories 263 LXXV Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories 264 LXXVI Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories 265 LXXVII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a P r i n c i p a l 266 LXXVIII Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a P r i n c i p a l 267 LXXIX Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present D i s t r i c t Experience 268 LXXX Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present D i s t r i c t Experience 269 LXXXI Frequently and Infrequently Reported Learning Interests and Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present School Experience 270 x i x Table Page LXXXII Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present School Experience 271 LXXXIII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Education Categories 272 LXXXIV Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Education Categories 273 LXXXV A d d i t i o n a l Learning A c t i v i t i e s S p e c i f i e d by Respondents 275 LXXXVI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : V a r i a t i o n Among School D i s t r i c t s f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 276 XX LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Basic Components of a Learning E f f o r t 40 2. Learning E f f o r t s of School P r i n c i p a l s 46 3. Research Questions Related to Learning E f f o r t s 52 4. P u p i l Populations and Numbers of Schools i n B r i t i s h Columbia School D i s t r i c t s 61 5. Frequent and Infrequent Reporting of Learning Interests Across a l l Response Categories 144 6. P r i n c i p a l s ' Learning E f f o r t s 195 7. Relationships I d e n t i f i e d Between Learning E f f o r t s and Independent Variables 216 xxi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgments and sincere thanks are extended to the p r i n c i p a l s and superintendents i n the ten school d i s t r i c t s included i n the study, for t h e i r w i l l i n g cooperation and t h e i r very prompt and complete returns. The advice and constructive c r i t i c i s m of my research advisor, Dr. Ian Housego, and my research committee members, Dr. R.J. H i l l s , Dr. J.G.T. Kelsey and Dr. H. R a t z l a f f , were of immense help i n completing this study. My thanks are extended to Tom O'Shea, Stan K i t a and Jim B j e r r i n g for t h e i r assistance with computer analysis of the data, and to Mrs. H i l d a Boudreau for her work i n typing the d i s s e r t a t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r , I am g r a t e f u l to my wife, Assuiita, f or her constant support and encouragement, and to my daughters, Laurel and Deanna, f o r pa t i e n t l y waiting u n t i l "maybe next week." Chapter 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION The professional development of teachers and administrators seems widely acknowledged among educational personnel to be an important a c t i v - i t y . Many school d i s t r i c t s have some i n d i v i d u a l , committee or department s p e c i f i c a l l y designated to plan and coordinate i n - s e r v i c e education pro- grams. P r o v i n c i a l teacher bodies, u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t i e s of education and a v a r i e t y of professional organizations appear to d i r e c t considerable e f f o r t toward the continuing education of t h e i r membership. This emphasis i s apparently not l i m i t e d to the f i e l d of education. Nursing, medicine and business administration provide examples of voca- t i o n a l areas i n which professional development a c t i v i t i e s seem to be the focus of attention. Goldhammer (1968:13) suggests that "every i n d i v i d u a l engaged i n a professional career needs regular and continuing p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n various forms of i n - s e r v i c e education." This focus on professional development might p a r t i c u l a r l y be expected i n f i e l d s where new knowledge has resulted i n frequent and per-r- haps rapid change i n current thought and accepted p r a c t i c e . New techniques are developed, new information must be acquired, and upgrading or even r e - t r a i n i n g becomes necessary. In some f i e l d s , changes i n the s o c i a l or p o l i t i c a l contexts within which i n d i v i d u a l s and organizations operate may have led to altered expectations and demands. In education, enrolment decline and f i s c a l 2 retrenchment may have c e r t a i n implications f o r i n - s e r v i c e education. Public i n t e r e s t i n the perceived q u a l i t y of teaching and administrative p r a c t i c e seems to be increasing. In addition, the disappearance of jobs w i l l probably necessitate the r e t r a i n i n g of some personnel, p a r t i c u l a r l y classroom teachers (Schwartz, 1977 :36<-37) . In the case of the school p r i n c i p a l , the lack of any c l e a r l y de- fined pre-service t r a i n i n g requirements or programs probably contributes to a need f o r attention to be directed toward pr o f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t i e s . P r i n c i p a l s are almost always selected from the ranks of successful experienced teachers. These c r i t e r i a , however, seem to be among very few widely accepted q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . Although some advertised positions require graduate work i n education administration, there appears to be a lack of any generally required academic preparation sequence, except perhaps for the extent to which preparation f o r teaching can be thought of as preparation f o r the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . Kelsy and L e u l l i e r report (1978:6) that i n B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r example, "more than one-half of the school d i s t r i c t s . . . have no printed p o l i c i e s or established procedures for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , s e l e c t i o n or t r a i n i n g of t h e i r admin- i s t r a t o r s ." The development of knowledge, the problems of change and the lack of a c l e a r l y defined preparation sequence lend emphasis to the need to a s s i s t the school p r i n c i p a l "to modify h i s behavior, to obtain the new knowledge which he needs, and to b u i l d new s k i l l s based upon contemporary technology" (Goldhammer, 1968:183). There appears to be, however, a r e l a t i v e absence of sequential, needsr-based p r o f e s s i o n a l development oppor- t u n i t i e s f o r school p r i n c i p a l s attempting to 3 seek answers to puzzling and bothersome problems, to deter- mine better ways of r e l a t i n g to c l i e n t s and constituents, and to gain a more complete and comfortable grasp of the knowledge and technology. (Wagstaff and McCollough, 1962:3) PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In l i g h t of the foregoing discussion, i t seems reasonable to suggest that on-the-job learning i s an important aspect of the p r i n c i p a l ' s work and a relevant topic of inquiry. An e a r l y step i n such inquiry i s to obtain r e l i a b l e information about areas which are of i n t e r e s t and concern to p r i n c i p a l s and about the ways i n which they attempt to learn more about t h e i r jobs. The present study was an exploratory one which focussed on the learning e f f o r t s of p r i n c i p a l s i n ten mid-sized school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. There were three major dimensions to the research problem. One of these was to i d e n t i f y the work-related areas i n which p r i n c i p a l s reported a desire for greater knowledge and s k i l l . These areas are referred to i n the study as learning i n t e r e s t s . A second major focus of the study was on determining the a c t i v i - t i e s i n which p r i n c i p a l s engaged, or wanted to engage, as they sought to learn more about job-related topics. These are r e f e r r e d to throughout the study as learning a c t i v i t i e s . Learning i n t e r e s t s and learning a c t i v i t i e s might be thought of as the components of a learning e f f o r t . It i s important to recognize the p o s s i b i l i t y that relationship s may e x i s t between components of a learning e f f o r t and c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p r i n c i p a l and his/her work se t t i n g . The t h i r d major dimension of t h i s study was an exploration of 4 t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY There i s a need for further information about the learning i n t e r - ests and a c t i v i t i e s of school p r i n c i p a l s . In p a r t i c u l a r , there i s a need for r e l i a b l e findings about the B r i t i s h Columbia scene. The present study contributes at a descriptive l e v e l by providing information based on data obtained from the p r i n c i p a l s i n ten B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s - t r i c t s . Information of p r a c t i c a l value i s also needed. The findings of this exploratory study may lead to further research i n recommended areas. They may also f a c i l i t a t e l o c a l research and subsequent planning of pro- f e s s i o n a l development programs and a c t i v i t i e s . H i l l s (1977:5) notes that "there are few occasions to 'go anywhere' i n theory u n t i l one has some empirical r e g u l a r i t i e s that require explana- t i o n . " It would appear that, i n the case of educational personnel and t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l development, the necessary preliminary work has yet to be completed. A recent study of the professional development needs of Canadian college administrators (Konrad, Long and Small, 1976:42) observes that "previous approaches have not y i e l d e d a body of generalizations or s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between needs and administrator c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and job circumstances." This study makes what might be termed a pre- t h e o r e t i c a l contribution to knowledge, by reporting on an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of possible r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r i n c i p a l s ' learning e f f o r t s and c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school, of the school d i s t r i c t , and of the respon- dent. The development of knowledge i n this area has implications f o r i n - 5 t h e - f i e l d p r a c t i c e and for the eventual development of theory i n the area of p r o f e s s i o n a l development. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS Chapter One has provided an introduction to the study and a general statement of the research problem. Chapter Two contains a review of some s p e c i f i c portions of the l i t e r a t u r e from three major areas: adult learning, education administration and pr o f e s s i o n a l development, or i n - s e r v i c e edu- cation. With regard to the l i t e r a t u r e on adult learning, the topic of adult learning p r o j e c t s , as conceptualized by Tough (1967) i s examined. Within the broad area designated as education administration, there i s a body of l i t e r a t u r e which deals with analysis of the p r i n c i p a l ' s job. This material i s reviewed i n the second portion of Chapter Two. The t h i r d body of l i t e r a t u r e reviewed i s that dealing with the pr o f e s s i o n a l development of educational personnel. Two major groups of personnel are discussed: teachers and p r i n c i p a l s . The conceptual framework of the study i s developed i n Chapter Three. This chapter defines a learning e f f o r t and i t s two major components: learning i n t e r e s t s and learning a c t i v i t i e s . Several groups of variables which were selected for study are discussed: school d i s t r i c t character- i s t i c s , school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The con- ceptual framework was based p r i m a r i l y on the re s u l t s of a l i t e r a t u r e re- view supported by the findings of a p i l o t study which was c a r r i e d out a f t e r the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . The p i l o t study had two purposes. One of these was to a i d i n the development of the conceptual framework. 6 The findings r e l a t e d to this aspect are reported i n Chapter Three. The other main purpose was to a s s i s t i n developing the data c o l l e c t i o n i n s t r u - ment. This aspect, and the procedures used i n the p i l o t study, are re- ported i n Chapter Four. Chapter Four deals with the research design and study procedures used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The s p e c i f i c research questions and sub- questions are l i s t e d , and terms used i n a s p e c i a l i z e d sense are opera- t i o n a l l y defined. The section on instrumentation reports the procedures used i n the p i l o t study and i n the development of the data c o l l e c t i o n instrument for use i n the main study. Chapter Four also deals with the sampling plan and procedures used i n the study, and describes the process of data c o l l e c t i o n . Data analysis procedures used i n the study are de- lin e a t e d i n t h i s chapter, as w e l l as the study's d e l i m i t a t i o n s , assump- tions and l i m i t a t i o n s . Chapter Five describes the respondents i n terms of t h e i r distribu^-. t i o n within the t o t a l sample according to school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Chapters Six and Seven report the findings of the study. Chapter Six deals with the f i r s t four research questions, which r e l a t e to learning i n t e r e s t s . The findings regarding learning a c t i v i t i e s are reviewed i n Chapter Seven. The f i r s t section of each chapter presents the o v e r a l l findings regarding learning i n t e r e s t s (Chapter Six) or learning a c t i v i t i e s (Chapter Seven). The remaining three sections of each chapter deal i n chronological order with the questions and sub-questions related to 7 school d i s t r i c t , school and respondent characteristics. Chapter Eight, the concluding chapter of the thesis, summarizes the findings, states the conclusions of the study and presents recommenda- tions and considerations for action and for further research. 8 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION At a very general l e v e l , the professional development i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s of a school administrator might be thought of simply as the e f f o r t s of an adult to learn. In the context of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review, the term "adult" refers to one s p e c i f i c category of educational personnel, the school p r i n c i p a l . " E f f o r t s " applies to learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s which are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s work as a p r i n c i p a l . The school p r i n c i p a l who engages i n work-related e f f o r t s to learn i s one member of a group whose i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s may vary i n a manner which i s r e l a t e d to c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the job or of the person. With these considerations i n mind, three d i s t i n c t areas of the l i t e r a t u r e were reviewed. The f i r s t of these i s discussed under the heading Adult Learning Projects. This section examines a p a r t i c u l a r body of research which has sought to i d e n t i f y some r e g u l a r i t i e s associated with ways i n which adults to about t r y i n g to learn. An attempt to conduct inquiry into aspects of a p a r t i c u l a r job, i n t h i s case the school p r i n c i p a l s h i p , requires some useful conception of that job. The second major portion of t h i s review, Tasks of the P r i n c i p a l , examines several attempts to conceptualize the p r i n c i p a l ' s work. 9 The t h i r d section of the l i t e r a t u r e review i s t i t l e d P r o f e s s i o n a l Development of Educational Personnel. I t examines previous research i n this area, i n an attempt to ascertain the current state of knowledge and to determine useful d i r e c t i o n s for research. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings reported i n these three sections. This review of the l i t e r a t u r e provided material which was of value i n conceptualizing the e f f o r t s of p r i n c i p a l s to learn. This conceptual framework i s outlined i n Chapter Four. ADULT LEARNING PROJECTS This section of the l i t e r a t u r e review examines the research on the adult's learning projects. The concept of a learning p r o j e c t , and a precise d e f i n i t i o n of the term, were developed by Tough (196 7; 1968; 1971). Related research was c a r r i e d out by McCatty (1975) and others whose work i s reported by Tough (1971). Tough (19 71:13) defines a learning project as "a s e r i e s of c l e a r l y r e l a t e d episodes" comprising a t o t a l of at l e a s t seven hours i n a s i x - month period, during which "more than h a l f of the person's i n t e n t i o n i s to gain and r e t a i n c e r t a i n d e f i n i t e knowledge and s k i l l " (1971:17). In a se r i e s of in-depth interview studies, Tough and other researchers examined the learning projects of adults from a wide v a r i e t y of backgrounds, and found that an overwhelming majority of t h e i r respondents engaged i n highly deliberate e f f o r t s to learn. McCatty, i n a study of the learning projects of f i f t y - f o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l men, discovered that each had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n learning projects during the previous twelve months; the range was from 10 two to thirty-one projects, with an average of approximately eleven (1975:121). Tough (1971:33-34) found that "a great many learning projects are re l a t e d to the person's job or occupation." He suggests that these pro- j e c t s are necessary f o r entering an occupation, obtaining a promotion, maintaining and upgrading competence, keeping up with new knowledge and procedures, and dealing with immediate problems, cases or tasks. McCatty found that over f i f t y percent of learning projects were work-oriented and that they were frequently r e l a t e d to keeping current i n the f i e l d or re- sponding to s p e c i f i c problems (1975:122). This confirmed Tough's sugges- t i o n (1971:51) that When a person's c e n t r a l concern i s a task or decision, he w i l l not be very intere s t e d i n learning a complete body of subject matter. Instead, he w i l l want j u s t the knowledge and s k i l l that w i l l be us e f u l to him i n dealing with the p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the moment. Knowles (1967) c i t e d by Tough (19 71:38) comments that adults engage i n learning l a r g e l y i n response to pressures they f e e l from current l i f e problems . . . they tend to centre any a c t i v i t y i n a problem-centred (not subject-centred) frame of mind. Pursuing these ideas, Tough (1971:49) notes that the need to gain c e r t a i n knowledge and s k i l l i n order to perform a task or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y at a higher l e v e l was the strongest reason given, i n the studies he c i t e s , for undertaking a learning project. McCatty (1975:124-125) found that three-quarters of the learning projects of pro f e s s i o n a l men were learner-planned. Tough, c i t i n g h i s 1970 survey, reports a s i m i l a r figure ( s i x t y - e i g h t percent). The learners i n 11 McCatty's study, when embarking on a self-planned learning project, most frequently chose to learn by reading. The second most common method was discussion with one or more other i n d i v i d u a l s . Tough has defined a learning project i n highly s p e c i f i c terms. This seems a necessary step i f data are to be gathered about the phenomenon. It seems doubtful, though, that a person would always be able to r e c a l l his/her learning practices i n a way which would permit f r a c t i o n a l values, such as "more than one-half of the person's i n t e n t i o n " (Tough, 1971:17) to be accurately assigned. One other drawback of Tough's d e f i n i t i o n of a learning project i s associated with the requirement (1971:13) of a minimum of seven hours of attempted learning. This r e s t r i c t i o n might have ruled out the study of areas i n which the i n d i v i d u a l had desired to learn but was unable to locate suitable resources, or f o r some other reason did not a l l o c a t e s u f f i c i e n t time to allow the e f f o r t to be termed a learning project. There do appear to be, however, some major contributions i n Tough's work and i n the studies which grow out of h i s investigations of the adult's learning projects. F i r s t , learning projects were p r e c i s e l y defined i n terms which appear to have been r e a d i l y understood by respondents. This i s par-., t i c u l a r l y useful when one considers the p o s s i b i l i t y that i n d i v i d u a l s may not be accustomed to thinking about some of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s as e f f o r t s to learn. Second, Tough's findings regarding the steps taken by adults seek- ing to learn are of i n t e r e s t . These steps are: 12 1. Deciding what de t a i l e d knowledge and s k i l l to learn . . . the learner might try to detect s p e c i f i c errors i n h i s current knowledge, or s p e c i f i c weaknesses i n h i s current s k i l l or s t y l e . 2. Deciding the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s , methods, resources or equipment for learning. (Tough, 1971:94-96) A further value of Tough's work i s that i t constitutes an attempt to take a basic look at the ways i n which adults learn. As such, i t appears to be r e l a t i v e l y unencumbered by predispositions about, for example, the effectiveness of various learning a c t i v i t i e s , or by the l i m i t a t i o n s of a special-purpose needs assessment. This factor, coupled with the in-depth interview approach, appears to have generated some r e l i a b l e findings which have been substantiated by the research e f f o r t s of others. TASKS OF THE PRINCIPAL The research c a r r i e d out by Tough (1967; 1968; 1971) and McCatty (1975) supports the idea that d e f i n i t e e f f o r t s to learn are very widespread among adults, and that a large proportion of these e f f o r t s are work-related. Attempts to explore the learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s of a s p e c i f i c vocational group require that the researcher have some usable conception of the nature of the job being studied. Numerous schemes of de s c r i p t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n have been applied to the work of the school p r i n c i p a l , and four of these are reported below. They include: adminis- t r a t i v e s k i l l s , operational areas, managerial a c t i v i t i e s , and combined approaches which use elements from two or more other schemes. 13 Administrative S k i l l s Katz (1955) i d e n t i f i e d three basic requirements of an e f f e c t i v e administrator: t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s , which involve methods, processes, pro- cedures or techniques; human s k i l l s ; and conceptual s k i l l s , or the a b i l i t y to see the whole enterprise and plan and act accordingly. Downey (1961:12) applied t h i s scheme to education administration, and postulated four sets of s k i l l s : 1. technical-managerial: an e f f i c i e n t business manager. 2. human-managerial: an i n f l u e n t i a l leader of people. 3. t e c h n i c a l educational: a knowledgeable curriculum developer. 4. speculative-creative: a s e n s i t i v e agent of organizational change and improvement. Operational Areas Numerous c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of tasks and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s according to operational areas of school administration have been developed over the past twenty or more years. Because of t h e i r prevalence, and the s i m i l a r i t y of various l i s t s of descriptors, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h the o r i g i n of t h i s means of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , but some examples are shown i n Table I. Few of these writers indicate sources for the terms used, although some c i t e previous authors i n the l i s t . Newberry (1975:118) states that h i s categories were developed from "the free responses of the respondents" i n his study. These systems of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n deal with the substantive aspects of the p r i n c i p a l ' s job, or the topics which might be the focus of learning e f f o r t s r e l a t e d to the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. They do not, however, 14 provide any i n d i c a t i o n of what the p r i n c i p a l a c t u a l l y does i n each opera- t i o n a l area. This aspect i s dealt with by the two categorization systems outlined below. Managerial A c t i v i t i e s Administrative processes. Miklos (1968:3) outlines Gregg's scheme, developed i n the l a t e 1950's, describing Gregg's work as " e c l e c t i c ; he i n - cludes components which have been included since the e a r l i e s t analyses as well as those which have been included only recently." Gregg (1957), c i t e d by Miklos (1968:3-5), l i s t s the components of the administrative process as planning, decision-making, organizing, coordinating, communicating, i n f l u - encing and and evaluating. Managerial s k i l l s . Both Gregg's scheme and that developed by Mintzberg (19 73 i n h i s report of an intensive study of f i v e senior managers, emphasize the actions performed by managerial or administrative personnel. This approach might allow the combination of these a c t i v i t i e s with opera- t i o n a l areas for use i n d e s c r i p t i o n , t r a i n i n g and evaluation. Miklos (1968) used such a two-dimensional approach. This i s discussed i n greater d e t a i l i n a subsequent section of this chapter which deals with studies of the professional development needs of school p r i n c i p a l s (Robertson, 1975; Pawliuk and Pickard, 1976). Combined Approaches Miklos (1968:6) combined Gregg's operational areas and components of the administrative process to develop a two-dimensional conception of the tasks of the p r i n c i p a l , while Robertson (1975), as a means of describ- ing a s k i l l i n more d e t a i l , assigned each of Gregg's operational areas to Table I Operational Areas of School Administration Author Operational Area Gregg (1957) G r i f f i t h s (1962) Bargen (1963) Campbell et a l (1966) Hencley et a l (1970) Lipham and Hoeh (1974) Newberry (1975) School program Improving the educational program Improving the educational program Curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n Instruction and curriculum development I n s t r u c t i o n a l program I n s t r u c t i o n a l leadership St a f f personnel Selecting and developing personnel Select i n g and developing personnel St a f f personnel S t a f f personnel P u p i l personnel S t a f f Motivation of s t a f f P u p i l personnel problems Pupi l personnel P u p i l personnel Students Sound interpersonal relations School management Managing the school Managing the school Finance and business management Finance and business management F i n a n c i a l - physical resources E f f i c i e n t school administra- ti o n Physical f a c i l i t i e s Physical f a c i l i t i e s School plant and services School- community re l a t i o n s Working with the community Working with the community School- communi ty re l a t i o n s h i p s School- community re l a t i o n s Community E f f e c t i v e home-school community re l a t i o n s 16 one of the s k i l l s postulated by Downey. An unanswered question i s whether operational areas such as curriculum development can be neatly assigned to an administrative s k i l l s category. I t would appear that most, i f not a l l of the administrative s k i l l s would be used i n each of the categories. Summary At the outset, i t should be noted that no one scheme described above i s e n t i r e l y appropriate f o r analysis of the work of the school p r i n c i p a l . This i s not to suggest that the schemes reviewed lack accuracy or relevance. In f a c t , many of them appear to have reasonable substantia- tion i n the l i t e r a t u r e . They are, however, f o r the most part quite l i m i t e d i n scope and a p p l i c a b i l i t y . Miklos' two-dimensional scheme of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , which was also used by Robertson (1975), provides for two d i s c r e t e dimensions of the p r i n c i p a l ' s job: operational areas and administrative processes. This appears to be a p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l approach, i n that i t f a c i l i t a t e s the generation of statements about what p r i n c i p a l s a c t u a l l y do. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL The f i r s t two major sections of t h i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e have dealt with the conceptualization of adult learning, and with schemes for analyzing the work of school p r i n c i p a l s . The t h i r d major portion of the review examines previous research i n t o the p r o f e s s i o n a l development of educational personnel. This section of the review focusses on attempts to conceptualize p r i n c i p a l s ' p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s , on the s p e c i f i c findings of previous- research, and on possible areas f o r further study. I t i s divided into two parts. The f i r s t of these deals with studies of the p r o f e s s i o n a l development needs of administrators. The second examines two studies of the professional development of teachers. Professional Development Needs of Educational Administrators Although an examination of the educational l i t e r a t u r e revealed a sub s t a n t i a l body of information about i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and p r o f e s s i o n a l development, l i t t l e of t h i s material appeared to have been based on the res u l t s of research. Konrad, Long and Small (1976:42) suggest that there has been, at l e a s t i n the f i e l d of higher education, "a general f a i l u r e to develop research-based programs which meet the needs i d e n t i f i e d by administrators." There are, however, a number of studies which contribute knowledge about topics r e l a t e d to professional development: areas of need, learning a c t i v i t i e s and var i a t i o n s among administrators on the basis of s p e c i f i e d v a r i a b l e s , such as education. These studies may be divided i n t o three sub-categories: studies of combined groups of administrators, studies of administrators i n higher education and studies of school p r i n c i p a l s . P r o f e s s i o n a l development needs of combined groups. One study which examined pr o f e s s i o n a l development needs of administrators from various types of educational i n s t i t u t i o n s was an Ontario Council for Leadership i n Educational Administration needs assessment (Musella and Joyce, 1975:12-15) The primary purpose of t h i s study was "to i d e n t i f y p r o f e s s i o n a l development 18 need p r i o r i t i e s as indicated by the members" (1975:15), who represented a l l areas and l e v e l s of education administration. The OCLEA study i s examined f i r s t , as a general introduction to several other studies, each of which focussed on a s p e c i f i c category of educational personnel. Musella and Joyce directed t h e i r data c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t s toward obtaining "information concerning content areas of future workshops." Their findings are of i n t e r e s t , since f o r t y - s i x percent of the respondents (446 of 992) were elementary and secondary p r i n c i p a l s , and because t h e i r report i s one of very few which provide information based on data from Canadian sources. A d i f f i c u l t y i n using these findings, though, i s that no i n d i c a t i o n i s given of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p o s i t i o n held and p r i o r - i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d . Without t h i s information, i t would seem to be a d i f f i c u l t task to plan a c t i v i t i e s for a p a r t i c u l a r group, or to advance hypotheses about relationships which may e x i s t between variables such as p o s i t i o n held, and learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s . Musella and Joyce (1975:13-14) report that the f i v e areas most frequently i d e n t i f i e d as important were: s e l e c t i o n , supervision and evalua- t i o n of s t a f f ; curriculum development, implementation and evaluation; i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s o l u t i o n of external r e l a t i o n s problems; understanding of leadership, supervision and administration functions; and human r e l a t i o n s . The authors suggest that s t a f f s e l e c t i o n , supervision and evaluation, and curriculum development are l i k e l y to continue to be important areas of need. It i s also of i n t e r e s t to note that the OCLEA study found (1975:13) that "the preferred length of time of workshops was two days, with one 19 and three days showing high preference. The two-week workshop received l e a s t preference." The purpose of the OCLEA study, which was to increase the effectiveness of workshop planning, may have r e s t r i c t e d the scope of exploration of possible learning a c t i v i t i e s . However, the r e s u l t s do indi c a t e one group's preference, within a single category of a c t i v i t y , for a p a r t i c u l a r learning a c t i v i t y format. Because of i t s r e s t r i c t e d purpose, the OCLEA study o f f e r s a narrower range of useful information than do some of the others examined. The authors note (1975:13) that before l o c a l i n - s e r v i c e programs can be developed, i t i s necessary that "the needs of the organization and the i n d i v i d u a l s within i t " be i d e n t i f i e d . These findings might be more generally useful i f they could be used i n i d e n t i f y i n g patterns of need arid preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s which appear to be re l a t e d to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the job or the i n d i v i d u a l . Such findings might provide some basis for the eventual development of theory i n the area of p r o f e s s i o n a l development. Professional development needs of higher education administrators. Two of seven higher education research projects commissioned by the Univer- s i t y Council for Educational Administration (Konrad, Long and Small, 1976; Sweitzer, 1976) are examined here. Sweitzer (1976:4) sought to i d e n t i f y "the most s i g n i f i c a n t performance-related learning needs" of state college administrators, and to ascertain "key factors that should be taken into account when designing ways to address these learning needs." The emphasis i n Sweitzer's study was c l e a r l y on the f i r s t aspect of the i n - v e s t i g a t i o n . 20 Konrad, Long and Small (1976:43) stated an aim s i m i l a r to the f i r s t purpose noted by Sweitzer; determination of the "most important p r o f e s s i o n a l development needs." In addition, they attempted to determine the existence and nature of any rel a t i o n s h i p s between these needs and i n - dependent variables which s p e c i f i e d "job circumstances, personal character- i s t i c s and professional background." • The study done by Konrad, Long and Small i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t , for three reasons. F i r s t , the authors treated more extensively than did Sweitzer the question of rel a t i o n s h i p s between needs and independent v a r i - ables, which may also be applicable to school p r i n c i p a l s . Second, although the data were obtained from college administrators, the study dealt with a sample drawn from i n s t i t u t i o n s i n western Canada. This i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t when the findings r e l a t e d to B r i t i s h Columbia are examined. The t h i r d reason f o r the usefulness of t h i s study i s the authors' c l e a r l y stated i n t e n t i o n to develop a "research-based approach to p r o f e s s i o n a l development programs" (1976:41). This purpose may have contributed to the operational usefulness of the study's findings. Sweitzer (1976:4) defined need as a " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or an aspect of an assigned or assumed task f e l t by the administrator to be important . . . and which also tends to be a problem to the administrator." The d e f i n i t i o n of need developed by Konrad, Long and Small (1976:46) had three dimensions: Importance, urgency and occurrence. These authors found that "the importance respondents attached to any need statement was strongly i n d i c a t i v e of the measures of i t s urgency and occurrence." This suggests that although there may be some value i n a multi-dimensional description of what constitutes a professional development need, p a r t i c u l a r - 21 l y to a s s i s t respondents i n answering questions, there i s perhaps l i m i t e d value i n further exploration of each dimension separately. Each of these studies used a questionnaire which l i s t e d areas of possible need. Sweitzer does not indicate the means by which s p e c i f i c areas were selected or general categories developed. Konrad, Long and Small (1976:47) report a three-stage p i l o t study and data c o l l e c t i o n process, i n d i c a t i n g that the needs reported by respondents i n the f i r s t stage of data c o l l e c t i o n were used to develop a l i s t for use i n l a t e r stages. Sweitzer sought to i d e n t i f y areas which were both important and d i f f i c u l t . He found that u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g i n higher education or i n administration seldom a f f e c t e d the perceived l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y of a task, or the respondent's i n t e r e s t i n a p a r t i c u l a r learning a c t i v i t y . Sweitzer's study found the most widespread i n t e r e s t to be i n short regional seminars (1976:30). However, he presented a closed l i s t of f a i r l y stan- dard delivery means, which may have caused some a c t i v i t i e s to have been omitted from consideration. Konrad, Long and Small did not explore ways of meeting needs, although t h e i r two-dimensional conceptualization of types of learning a c t i v i t i e s does provide a basis for one p o t e n t i a l l y useful way of thinking about t h i s aspect of p r o f e s s i o n a l development. The respondent-generated l i s t of needs used by Konrad, Long and Small appears to be f a i r l y generally applicable to other groups of educa- t i o n a l administrators. The authors found the most important needs to be evaluation of programs, program planning, evaluation of teaching and learning, motivation of s t a f f and s t a f f evaluation (1976:48). They also 22 found s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between needs and several independent v a r i a b l e s , including province, previous p o s i t i o n , years of administrative and teaching experience and l e v e l of education, and the absence of any such r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n v o l v i n g years i n previous p o s i t i o n . Konrad, Long and Small found that both " f i r s t - t i m e " administrators and B r i t i s h Columbia administrators perceived t h e i r needs to be greater (more important, urgent and and frequently-occurring) than did others. Th finding , as i t relates to beginning administrators, suggests the need for further exploration of the importance of length of administrative experi- ence i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of work-related learning i n t e r e s t s . The second aspect of t h i s f i n d i n g suggests the need for further study of the professional development scene i n B r i t i s h Columbia, to see whether there are i n fact some i d e n t i f i a b l e r e g u l a r i t i e s . In summary, i t should be pointed out that the findings of these studies of higher education administrators are based on data c o l l e c t e d from target groups only. Sweitzer, i n acknowledging the l i m i t a t i o n s im- posed by this r e s t r i c t i o n , draws attention to the fact that there are at le a s t "two ways of defining a need," and that "a second way.is to compare (subjects') perceptions of need with those of other observers" (1976:15). Konrad, Long and Small also acknowledge t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n , and suggest that "the most promising way to bring about a matching of administrator needs and i n - s e r v i c e topics i s through co l l a b o r a t i v e planning and pro- gramme implementation" (1976:57). 23 The findings of these two studies of need provide a p a r t i a l basis for research-based planning. They are p a r t i c u l a r l y useful i n terms of t h e i r descriptions of research methods used, and of some p o t e n t i a l l y im- portant study vari a b l e s . Professional development needs of school p r i n c i p a l s . L i t t l e re- search appears to have been done on the nature of p r i n c i p a l s ' perceived needs for greater work-related knowledge and s k i l l . Two recent Alberta studies were located (Robertson, 1975; Pawliuk and Pickard, 1976). In addition, p r i n c i p a l s ' views were r e f l e c t e d to a c e r t a i n extent i n the previously c i t e d study c a r r i e d out by Musella and Joyce (1975). Robertson (1975) sought to i d e n t i f y p r i n c i p a l s ' perceptions of t h e i r present and needed l e v e l s of s k i l l i n s p e c i f i e d areas, and the degree of importance which they attached to s k i l l development i n these areas. Further, he attempted to re l a t e these findings to c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents (1975:3). Pawliuk and Pickard, i n a l a t e r study of the same population, also sought to i d e n t i f y the areas i n which p r i n c i p a l s f e l t they needed greater knowledge and s k i l l . Their study also gathered data about c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p r i n c i p a l s . It extended Robertson's work by examining preferred means of delivery, or learning a c t i v i t i e s , and the structures seen as desirable f o r organizing and administering i n - s e r v i c e programs. Pawliuk and Pickard also attempted to i d e n t i f y v a r i a t i o n s i n p o l i c y and pr a c t i c e among school j u r i s d i c t i o n s , although no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found. Robertson (1975:7) i d e n t i f i e d an administrative s k i l l as the " a b i l i t y to perform the components of the administrative process" which 24 had previously been i d e n t i f i e d by Gregg (1957). Need was seen by Robert- son as a function of the gap between actual and optimum s k i l l l e v e l and the p r i o r i t y attached to s k i l l development i n a given area. Pawliuk and Pickard (1976:7-8) developed a modified version of the three-dimensional conception of need outlined by Konrad, Long and Small, s u b s t i t u t i n g "willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e " for "occurrence." The rati o n a l e for t h i s change was not stated i n the report of the study. Despite t h i s change, the authors found that "importance i s i n d i c a t i v e of the measures of urgency and willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e " (1976:35). This f i n d i n g matches c l o s e l y a previously c i t e d f i n d i n g by Robertson, and supports the suggestion that further examination of the separate components of need may be of l i m i t e d usefulness. The studies done by Robertson and by Pawliuk and Pickard o f f e r somewhat more complete descriptions of the item generation process than do e i t h e r of the higher education studies (Konrad, Long and Small, 1976; Sweitzer, 1976). Robertson drew on the work of Miklos for a two-dimen- s i o n a l model showing administrative processes and the operational areas of school administration. Pawliuk and Pickard (1976:11) developed a framework which included as a t h i r d dimension the managerial s k i l l s i d e n t i - f i e d by Mintzberg (1973). Robertson's two dimensions are d i s c r e t e , i n that one represents operational areas and the other administrative processes. The rationale for the introduction by Pawliuk and Pickard of Mintzberg's managerial s k i l l s as a t h i r d dimension i s more d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n . Although the authors suggest (1976:10) that "the paradigm can serve as a guide i n 25 the generation and s e l e c t i o n of needs," managerial s k i l l s and administra- t i v e processes do not appear to be mutually exclusive. It would appear to be an extremely d i f f i c u l t task to develop a discrete item f o r each of the 336 c e l l s created by this model. Robertson found (1975:92).that p r i n c i p a l s "tend to consider the s k i l l s involved i n school administration i n terms of operational areas rather than the components of the administrative process which may be i n - volved." Further, he found (1975:59-60) that the operational areas which were assigned generally higher p r i o r i t y were s t a f f personnel, school management and p u p i l personnel, and that evaluation was the administrative process a l l o c a t e d highest p r i o r i t y . Pawliuk and Pickard (1976:30) l i s t e d evaluation of the teaching-learning process, evaluation of i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs, school program planning, s t a f f evaluation and curriculum development as the most important items, pointing out that "a synthesis of these items would indicate that the p r i n c i p a l s ' p r o f e s s i o n a l develop- ment needs centre around e f f e c t i v e evaluation and curriculum development." The s i m i l a r i t y of these findings to those of other studies reviewed suggests the existence of widespread perceived needs i n the areas of personnel evaluation and development and evaluation of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Findings reported by Pawliuk and Pickard (1976:36) support those of Sweitzer (1976:30) and Musella and Joyce (1975:13) that the short, intensive workshop was a highly preferred learning a c t i v i t y . This may be at l e a s t p a r t l y r e l a t e d to the p r i n c i p a l ' s work s e t t i n g , load and schedule. Pawliuk and Pickard also found reading and short courses to be highly desirable, but of these three a c t i v i t i e s , only reading was seen by p r i n c i p a l s as being r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . 26 Some findings should be noted regarding variables which are de- s c r i p t i v e of respondents. Robertson (1975:79) stated that "urban p r i n c i - pals perceive that i n general they have a higher l e v e l of s k i l l than t h e i r r u r a l counterparts." This may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to such factors as the r u r a l p r i n c i p a l ' s i s o l a t i o n from consultative opportunities, or perhaps his/her education or experience. Although Robertson c o l l e c t e d data about experi- ence, he did not report any analysis of these data. He rather assumed (1975:83) that age implied the length of teaching and administrative ex- perience. Further analysis of the available data might have helped to es t a b l i s h whether or not the "ruralness" of the school was a c t u a l l y associated with this f i n d i n g , and i f so, to what extent. Robertson (1975:96) found that post-graduate education may be associated with higher perceived l e v e l s of s k i l l . Pawliuk and Pickard, however (1976:36,40,42), found that education was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y re- la t e d to eit h e r perceived need or preferred learning a c t i v i t y . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to make a precise statement about the importance of education or experience on the basis of the information obtained from these studies, and further examination of these variables may be warranted. The approximately f i f t y percent return rate reported f o r these studies seems r e l a t i v e l y low, i n view of the fact that the focus was professional development. There may have been important differences be- tween respondents, as acknowledged by Robertson, who notes that "persons who are w i l l i n g to respond i n a questionnaire study may have perceptions which d i f f e r from those who did not reply" (1975:9). As was the case with the studies of administrators i n higher education, each of these two projects involved a study of the perceptions of a group which was to be the focus of professional development e f f o r t s . As such, they provide information about needs from one perspective, that of the target group. However, assuming that the respondent's need, as perceived by h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f , i s both a legitimate and an important con- s i d e r a t i o n i n planning, i t would seem important to gain as complete a picture as possible. Greater provision for respondent input of a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and desirable learning a c t i v i t i e s might have been u s e f u l . I t may be, for example, that i n addition to the standard delivery formats s p e c i f i e d by Pawliuk and Pickard, there are other, perhaps le s s formal approaches to professional development which are widely u t i l i z e d and which are seen by p r i n c i p a l s as h e l p f u l . Probably the most important findings of these studies are those having to do with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of areas of need. The s i m i l a r i t y of r e s u l t s i n the studies reviewed has d e f i n i t e implications for profes- s i o n a l development planning, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f further study confirms these findings. It also seems important to attempt to e s t a b l i s h more c l e a r l y the importance of c e r t a i n variables related to the job and to the i n d i v i d u a l i n that job. It may be that i n t e r e s t s vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y among p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of such v a r i a b l e s . It may also be the case that professional development a c t i v i t i e s should be more d i v e r s i f i e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f preference for c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s i s r e l a t e d to such factors as ex- perience or school l o c a t i o n . 2 8 P r o f e ssional Development of Teachers The studies i n t h i s section d i f f e r i n two important respects from the material examined previously: f i r s t , the data were gathered from classroom teachers rather than from school administrators, and second, the studies were based:on reported actual behavior rather than on per- ceived need. The relevance of these studies derives p r i m a r i l y from the fact that p r i n c i p a l s , almost without exception, have had experience as c l a s s - room teachers. I t seems pl a u s i b l e to suggest that patterns of behavior p r a c t i c e d as a teacher may, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the outcomes were perceived by the teacher as p o s i t i v e , continue to be practiced when that i n d i v i d u a l becomes a p r i n c i p a l . Haughey ( 1 9 7 6 ) studied consultative practices i n elementary schools. She found that most of the teachers sampled sought consultative help, and that actual proportions ranged from 1 1 . 3 percent to 8 5 . 0 percent of the t o t a l sample, depending on the task area surveyed ( 1 9 7 6 : 4 9 ) . Furthermore, although Haughey found that teachers were generally s a t i s f i e d with the consultative assistance they received, " d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . . . increased with years of post-secondary education and years of teaching experience" ( 1 9 7 6 : 1 8 8 ) . Haughey also found that "teachers consider colleagues to be a major source of consultative assistance" ( 1 9 7 6 : 1 9 1 ) , and that " p r i n c i p a l s were consulted i n almost a l l task areas, and e s p e c i a l l y those i n curriculum, and s p e c i a l students' needs" ( 1 9 7 6 : 1 9 2 ) . 29 Although Haughey's research was limited to eighty classroom teachers in a three-school sample, her findings may permit speculation about certain aspects of professional development. It may be, for example, that successful consultative experiences with colleague teachers and with principals w i l l increase the likelihood of continued use of peer consulta- tion. D i l l , Crowston and Elton, for example (1971:170), found that in a sample of seventy managers "choices of approach tended to rest on a man's abi l i t y , his personal preference, and his experience with different methods in the past." This aspect of on-the-job training has seldom been included in studies of util i z e d or preferred learning ac t i v i t i e s . Haughey's findings are of further interest when i t is noted that curriculum and program, and some pupil personnel topics, were identified as important subjects for teacher-principal consultation. Similar topics were reported as important professional development needs i n the previously reviewed studies of school administrators. It would appear that experience and education may have some re- lationship with consultative practices. If this is the case, i t i s possible that lessening satisfaction with consultation, and perhaps a resulting shift to other means of learning, might be part of an identifiable sequence of professional growth. Kass and Wheeler (1975:19) postulate A three phase developmental sequence of teacher professional concerns... such a view of professional development is based on the premise that subdivision into empirically established stages serves as a useful basis for identifying procedures which w i l l promote the developmental process in both pre-service and in-service teachers. 30 These phases are i d e n t i f i e d (1975:4) as Stage I - concern over s e l f (teacher-centred period) State I I - concern over i n s t r u c t i o n a l matters (content s t r u c - ture period) Stage I I I - concern over i n d i v i d u a l learning problems (student- centred period) The Stage I concerns of teachers involve assessment of the teacher's adequacy by himself, h i s students, h i s colleagues and others...the a b i l i t y . . . t o "survive" i n the classroom ...the establishment of working relationships with school personnel and...gaining acceptance as a professional within the s o c i a l organiza- t i o n of the school. (1975:4-5) In Stage I I , the emphasis i s c l e a r l y on teaching and teaching e f f i c i e n t l y . However, there i s a willingness to experiment, to try various i n s t r u c t i o n a l approaches, and to be less text-oriented than i n the i n i t i a l stage.... Stage II teachers tend to view further educa- t i o n as p r i m a r i l y a means of increasing p r o f i c i e n c y . (1975:6) While Stage I i s seen by Kass and Wheeler as pri m a r i l y a f i r s t - year phase, Stage IX " l i k e l y l a s t s f o r several years, and may p e r s i s t for the remainder of the teacher's career" (1975:6). In Stage I I I , which applies to the experienced teacher, concerns c l e a r l y centre on the student, with conscious e f f o r t ...to understand i n d i v i d u a l student c a p a b i l i t i e s , to assess i n d i v i - dual performance, and to separate h i s contributions to the student's successes and f a i l u r e s from those of the student. (1975:6) Kass and Wheeler acknowledge that these stages may not be e n t i r e l y d i s c r e t e , and that growth l e v e l s and t r a n s i t i o n times may vary among i n d i - viduals. They suggest that there may also be a fourth phase of development, during which 31 teacher concerns s h i f t from h i s classes and h i s students to a wider view of the educational enterprise both i n terms of the c u r r i c u - lum i n h i s f i e l d and a search for i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the various facets of the school experience. (1975:18) The study c a r r i e d out by Kass and Wheeler has been quoted at some length. Although i t was based on r e l a t i v e l y small samples, and the topic i n v i t e s further study, i t does represent an attempt to develop an empiri- c a l l y based conceptual scheme for de s c r i p t i o n , analysis and planning i n the area of p r o f e s s i o n a l development. I t has been noted previously i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review that experience may be an important variable i n the study of professional development concerns and a c t i v i t i e s . The need f o r further study of such variables as teaching and administrative experience seems c l e a r l y indicated. Findings i n t h i s area might strengthen, consider- ably the empirical basis of knowledge about p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s . SUMMARY Three areas of the l i t e r a t u r e have been reviewed: adult learning p r o j e c t s , tasks of the p r i n c i p a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l development of education- a l personnel. The work of Tough (1976; 1968; 1971), McCatty (1975) and others c i t e d by Tough (19 71) has made important contributions to knowledge about adult learning. Three major findings from this body of research seem p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to the study of p r o f e s s i o n a l development of educa- t i o n a l personnel. The f i r s t of these findings i s that e f f o r t s to learn appear to be widespread among adults. Tough's precise d e f i n i t i o n for respondents of 32 the term "learning project" probably a s s i s t e d the researchers i n obtaining the data which l e d to t h i s f i n d i n g . Another f i n d i n g of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s that a large proportion of adults' e f f o r t s to learn are directed toward work-related topics. I t would appear that the e f f o r t to gain increased knowledge and s k i l l which can be d i r e c t l y applied to the work s i t u a t i o n i s an important a c t i v i t y of many adults. A t h i r d f i n d i n g of importance points out the need for a broader conception of what constitutes a learning a c t i v i t y . Most studies seem to have examined only the t r a d i t i o n a l and standard i n - s e r v i c e education delivery formats, such as workshops and short courses. McCatty found, however, that a sample of professional men, when engaging i n self-planned learning, preferred reading, discussion and t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r doing as ways of learning. A view of learning a c t i v i t i e s i s needed which w i l l be more i n c l u s i v e of non-standard ways of learning. This may contribute, at the operational l e v e l , to an approach to planning which avoids the problems noted by Davis (1976:3): With the exception of t h e i r t opics, most i n - s e r v i c e programs f a l l into a handful of d i s t i n c t categories — workshops, seminars or conferences — and e x h i b i t few differences i n procedure. This observation seemingly supports the notion that a l l i n d i v i d u a l s have the same preferred s t y l e of learning and that t h i s s t y l e i s k n o wn— a notion unsupported by research. As noted above, the research on adult learning suggests that many e f f o r t s to learn are work-related. Before any attempt i s made to apply t h i s f i n d i n g to a s p e c i f i c type of work, some concept of the nature of that work i s necessary. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e dealing with the 33 analysis of the p r i n c i p a l ' s job, and of some studies which u t i l i z e d t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , revealed numerous c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems. I t would seem that a multi-dimensional scheme, which would allow d e s c r i p t i o n of both the substance and the processes of the p r i n c i p a l ' s work, would be more us e f u l than a s i n g l e set of descriptors. Of the systems examined, Miklos' two- dimensional scheme, which combines administrative processes and operational areas, seemed to be p o t e n t i a l l y the most us e f u l i n determining work-related learning i n t e r e s t s . The t h i r d area reviewed, p r o f e s s i o n a l development needs, of f e r s some p o t e n t i a l l y useful findings regarding the learning e f f o r t s of several categories of educational personnel, and s p e c i f i c a l l y of school p r i n c i p a l s . With regard to administrators, three sets of findings bear review: areas of i n t e r e s t , learning a c t i v i t i e s and the importance of s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent-related v a r i a b l e s . C l e a r l y , administrators have perceived important p r o f e s s i o n a l development needs i n the areas of educational program, s t a f f personnel and p u p i l personnel. Within these areas, many of t h e i r concerns have been re- lated to planning, communication and evaluation. The area of p r i n c i p a l s ' learning a c t i v i t i e s requires further study. There are scattered findings i n the administrators' p r o f e s s i o n a l studies which suggest a preference on the part of p r i n c i p a l s for some of the t r a d i t i o n a l d e l i v e r y means. However, both the adult learning projects l i t e r a t u r e and the studies of teachers' p r o f e s s i o n a l development suggest widespread use of, and perhaps some preference f o r , such non-standard a c t i v i t i e s as t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r and informal consultation. 34 The pr o f e s s i o n a l development studies also suggest that c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p r i n c i p a l and of the job may be rel a t e d to learning i n t e r e s t s and the s e l e c t i o n of learning a c t i v i t i e s . The find i n g s , however, are neither conclusive nor consistent. Several variables would appear to warrant further study: p r i n c i p a l ' s education, length of teaching and administrative experience, and school type and l o c a t i o n . From the point of view of research design, i t appears that the research into administrators' p r o f essional development has focussed pri± marily on respondents' own d i r e c t perceptions of need. Attempts to gather data have generally used closed questionnaires. A productive s h i f t of emphasis might be to investigate reported actual learning behavior, rather than stated need, and to attempt to capture as much relevant data as possible. This might be done by providing for a greater degree of respon- dent input to questionnaire returns, perhaps by allowing f o r a d d i t i o n a l items to be contributed, or by using an interview approach to data c o l l e c - t i o n . There i s also a need for information about the B r i t i s h Columbia scene. There i s a lack of research l i t e r a t u r e based on data obtained from p r i n c i p a l s i n th i s province, and there i s some evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Konrad, Long and Small, 1976) to suggest that the i n - s e r v i c e education picture i n th i s province may be quite d i f f e r e n t from that found elsewhere. As noted previously, Kelsey and L e u l l i e r (1978:6) point out that less than h a l f of the school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia have any formalized p o l i c i e s or procedures f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g of p r i n c i p a l s . 35 Findings re l a t e d to t h i s province may have s u b s t a n t i a l d e s c r i p t i v e value, and may also aid i n developing a viable base for p r o f e s s i o n a l development planning. The findings of the study c a r r i e d out by Kass and Wheeler represent a p o t e n t i a l l y valuable contribution, given further development and sub- s t a n t i a t i o n , to the eventual development of theory i n the area of profes- s i o n a l development. There appear to be at l e a s t two important questions which warrant further research. The f i r s t r e lates to whether further evidence can be found to support the concept bf a concern-based develop- mental sequence of teacher professional growth. The second and perhaps more important question concerns the extent to which the idea of such a sequence i s generalizable to other groups., p a r t i c u l a r l y school p r i n c i p a l s . The research l i t e r a t u r e i n the area of p r i n c i p a l s ' p r o f e s s i o n a l development i s not extensive. Several studies might be considered c o n t r i - butory and re l a t e d , but there i s no su b s t a n t i a l research base to o f f e r e i t h e r tested conceptions of p r i n c i p a l s ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as learners or s p e c i f i c findings r e l a t e d to t h e i r learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s . Both of these aspects are fundamental to the e f f o r t to develop a view of work- related learning on which further research, planning and the eventual de- velopment of theory might be based. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed i n t h i s chapter was used as the major basis for the development of the conceptual framework for the present study. This framework i s outlined i n Chapter Three. 36 Chapter 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION The major purpose of this chapter i s to present the conceptual framework on which the present study was based. This framework was de- veloped p r i m a r i l y from the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , supported by a p i l o t study, the r e s u l t s of which are also o u t l i n e d i n t h i s chapter. Two points about the p r i n c i p a l ' s job were noted i n Chapter One. F i r s t , with the exception of one's experience as a teacher, there i s no generally required sequence of preparation for the p o s i t i o n of school p r i n c i p a l . Second, major changes i n the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l context of educa- t i o n , such as general retrenchment and associated problems, may have im- portant implications for the p r i n c i p a l . These factors may be contributory to what appears to be a growing i n t e r e s t i n work-related learning. Learning i s considered i n the present study to be the process of gaining work-related knowledge and s k i l l . The learning e f f o r t s of p r i n c i - pals are described i n t h i s chapter as having two major components: learning i n t e r e s t s and learning a c t i v i t i e s . Variations i n these components may be rel a t e d to c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school d i s t r i c t , the school or the p r i n c i p a l . P r i o r to using the conceptual framework as the basis for the pre- sent study, the concepts developed from the review of the l i t e r a t u r e were tested and extended through the use of a p i l o t study. This p i l o t study was also used i n the development of a-data c o l l e c t i o n instrument for the 37 main study. PILOT STUDY FINDINGS The-procedures followed i n the p i l o t study, which consisted of interviews with p r i n c i p a l s , are reported i n Chapter Four. Several of the outcomes of t h i s p i l o t study bore d i r e c t l y on the attempt to develop a useful conceptualization of p r i n c i p a l s ' learning e f f o r t s . These i n - cluded information about the prevalence of learning e f f o r t s , about the s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d , and about the ways i n which p r i n c i p a l s tended to express t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . There also appeared to be some differences among p r i n c i p a l s with varying amounts of experience. P r i n c i p a l s were interviewed using the schedules tabled i n Appendix A. Responses indicated that each interviewer had, during the previous few months, directed e f f o r t toward some i d e n t i f i a b l e i n t e r e s t s or concerns, and that each had i n mind some p r i o r i t i e s for learning i n the near future. The learning i n t e r e s t s reported by p i l o t study p a r t i c i p a n t s re- f l e c t e d , i n a general way, some of the findings of e a r l i e r p r o f e s s i o n a l development studies. Considerable i n t e r e s t was expressed i n topics r e l a t e d to the development and evaluation of i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs and the super- v i s i o n of teachers- The p a r t i c i p a n t s generally described t h e i r learning i n t e r e s t s i n terms of the operational areas of school administration, a f i n d i n g which i s consistent with that reported by Robertson (1975:92). The s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s which were i d e n t i f i e d by p i l o t study p a r t i c i p a n t s are l i s t e d i n Appendix A, Table LX. 38 The principals who were involved in this phase of the research appeared to view various types of consultation, particularly consultation with peers, as valuable learning activities. They reported having applied such c r i t e r i a as perceived expertise and personal regard to a potential consultant before any discussion took place. It was also of interest to note that some principals appeared not to have previously considered some of their consultative efforts to be learning activities. Experience appeared to bear some relationship to consultative practices. The pilot study sample was small (seventeen respondents). However, i t appeared that the relatively inexperienced principals in the group tended to consult very frequently with a wider range of persons than did their more experienced colleagues. More experienced principals seemed to have a small group of consultants, reportedly selected on the basis of such c r i t e r i a as trustworthiness, friendship and perceived expertise in the area of interest. Highly experienced principals seemed to prefer other ways of learning, unless the consultant was perceived to be an expert in the f i e l d of inquiry. Haughey's finding that teachers satisfaction with consultative assistance tended to decrease with experience is of interest when these pilot study results are considered. The pilot study appeared to support some of the findings reported in the review of the literature. It also aided in the development of the conceptual framework on which the present study was based. 39 THE NATURE OF LEARNING EFFORTS Previously c i t e d research reports indicated that a large proportion of adults engage i n highly deliberate e f f o r t s to learn, and that t h e i r attempts to gain knowledge and s k i l l f o r on-the-job use constitute a major segment of these e f f o r t s (Tough, 1967, 1971; McCatty, 1975). A learning e f f o r t , for purposes of the present study, consists of two phases: the process of i d e n t i f y i n g an area i n which learning i s to take place, and the s e l e c t i o n and attempted u t i l i z a t i o n of appropriate learning a c t i v i t i e s . The f i r s t phase, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s , consists of knowing which work-related areas w i l l be the focus of e f f o r t s to gain work-related knowledge and s k i l l . Depending upon the i n d i v i d u a l and the s i t u a t i o n , t h i s i n t e r e s t i n learning may i n i t i a l l y be expressed as a.problem, a need, a requirement, an i n t e r e s t or a desire. The c r i t i c a l c r i t e r i o n i s that the i n d i v i d u a l wants to learn. In the learning a c t i v i t y phase, the learner attempts to i d e n t i f y , s e l e c t and u t i l i z e appropriate ways of learning more about a c e r t a i n topic, or of gaining s k i l l . Some emphasis should be placed on the word "attempt." An unsuccessful or p a r t l y successful learning e f f o r t i s , for purposes of this study, as important as a successful attempt, since the focus of the intended learning and, i n some instances, the preferred ways of learning, are i d e n t i f i e d . . In addition, an unsuccessful learning e f f o r t may provide useful information about preferred ways of learning and about the per- ceived s u i t a b i l i t y of available learning resources. 40 The e s s e n t i a l elements of a learning e f f o r t are depicted i n Figure I. It should be noted that although the l e f t - r i g h t progression indicated by the s o l i d arrows i s probably a l o g i c a l sequence which i s frequently followed, the order may be d i f f e r e n t for some learning e f f o r t s (broken arrows). For example, the learner may discover that an a r t i c l e located by chance and read because of general i n t e r e s t i s a c t u a l l y relevant to a previously i d e n t i f i e d learning i n t e r e s t . In another instance, such an a r t i c l e may have the e f f e c t of arousing a new i n t e r e s t , as a r e s u l t of which the learner may decide to seek further knowledge and s k i l l . IDENTIFICATION LEARNING ACTIVITY PHASE OF A S p e c i f i c a t i o n and Attempts to LEARNING INTEREST se l e c t i o n of —*• engage with learning a c t i v i t i e s various ways of learning Figure 1 Basic Components of a Learning E f f o r t Regardless of sequence, the c r i t i c a l elements of a learning e f f o r t remain: the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an i n t e r e s t , or a focus for learning, and s p e c i f i c a t i o n and attempted u t i l i z a t i o n of learning a c t i v i t i e s . P r i n c i p a l s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the p i l o t study, for example, were almost always able to state what they had done, had t r i e d to do, or had wanted to do, i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to learn more about some aspect of t h e i r work. Learning Interests A modification of Miklos' two-dimensional framework f o r describing the work of the p r i n c i p a l was used to i d e n t i f y areas of focus for learning 41 Table II Operational Areas and Administrative Processes Components of the Administrative Process Operational Areas of School Administration Planning Decision-making Organizing Coordinating Communicating Influencing Evaluation Educational Program P u p i l Personnel Staff Personnel External Relations General Management e f f o r t s (Table II) . Two modifications were made to Miklos' scheme. For purposes of c l a r i t y and ease of organization, the terms "school program" and "commun- i t y r e l a t i o n s " were changed to "educational program" and "external r e l a - t i o n s . " The two terms "physical f a c i l i t i e s " and "management" were com- bined into "general management" to make the categories more applicable to the work of the p r i n c i p a l . Learning A c t i v i t i e s The need for a broader conception of what constitutes a learning a c t i v i t y has been noted. To this end, the a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d by Musella and Joyce (1975), Pawliuk and Pickard (1976) and Robertson (1975) were examined, as were the statements obtained from p i l o t study respondents. 42 Learning a c t i v i t i e s appeared to be of several types (Appendix A, Table LXI). In some cases, the a c t i v i t y was t y p i c a l l y planned by someone other than the learner, although the learner may have had some influence on the plans. This category included such standard i n - s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y formats as workshops and annual conventions, which might be termed formal a c t i v i t i e s . In other cases, the learner talked with someone else about a learning i n t e r e s t , usually on an informal basis. This type of a c t i v i t y was generally learner-planned, although i t may have taken place i n the context of a formal a c t i v i t y . For example, the p r i n c i p a l may have used his/her attendance at a regional conference as an opportunity to discuss a concern with a group of colleagues. This category might be termed consultative a c t i v i t i e s . A t h i r d category of learning a c t i v i t i e s might be termed personal i n nature. In these instances, the p r i n c i p a l worked alone on some a c t i v i t y , such as reading, for the purpose of gaining work-related knowledge and s k i l l . In most cases, p r i n c i p a l s reported having engaged i n more than one a c t i v i t y , and often i n more than one category of a c t i v i t y , i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to learn. SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOL AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS The l i t e r a t u r e on the professional development of teachers and p r i n c i p a l s does not yet o f f e r a large body of r e l i a b l e findings about the importance of independent variables i n r e l a t i o n to learning e f f o r t s . There i s , however, s u f f i c i e n t information i n the l i t e r a t u r e to suggest that i n v e s t i g a t i o n of c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school d i s t r i c t , the school 43 and the p r i n c i p a l may y i e l d some useful findings and may also suggest some dir e c t i o n s for further research. I t has long been h e l d by teachers and p r i n c i p a l s , although there appear to be few supporting data i n the l i t e r a t u r e , that major differences e x i s t between urban and r u r a l schools and school d i s t r i c t s , and that pro- f e s s i o n a l development opportunities i n more remote d i s t r i c t s are much more l i m i t e d than i n those with easy access to large urban centres and univer- s i t y f a c i l i t i e s . These assertions, i f v a l i d , have important implications for p r o f e s s i o n a l development funding and planning. A d i s t i n c t i o n was made i n the present study between urban and r u r a l groups of d i s t r i c t s on the basis of c r i t e r i a outlined i n Chapter Four. This d i s t i n c t i o n r e f l e c t e d an e f f o r t to determine whether there were observable differences between these two types of d i s t r i c t s . I t also seemed p l a u s i b l e to suggest that findings might vary among i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t s , possibly i n d i c a t i n g the presence and importance of other, perhaps u n i d e n t i f i e d v a r i a b l e s . The previously c i t e d f i n d i n g (Robertson, 1975) of differences be- tween p r i n c i p a l s who i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r schools as r u r a l and the p r i n c i p a l s of urban schools l e f t open the question of whether or not these differences could be a t t r i b u t e d to the ruralness of the school. Rural schools are t y p i c a l l y small, and such factors as amount of r e l i e f time a v a i l a b l e , school type or a view of oneself as p r i m a r i l y a classroom teacher may have a f f e c t - ed this f i n d i n g . I t seems reasonable to suggest further examination of school l o c a t i o n i n terms of a v a i l a b i l i t y of consultative opportunities and school type i n terms of grades enrolled. The amount of time a l l o c a t e d f o r administrative and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s might be a useful measure of school s i z e . 44 The research findings with regard to r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r i n c i - pals' learning e f f o r t s and t h e i r experience and education are inconclusive at t h i s point. As noted e a r l i e r , the r e s u l t s of the present p i l o t study indi c a t e d varying patterns of consultative i n t e r a c t i o n which may have been re l a t e d to experience. The preliminary findings by Haughey (1976) and by Kass and Wheeler (1975) about teacher p r o f e s s i o n a l growth also r a i s e the question of whether the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p r i n c i p a l s ' learning e f f o r t s vary on the basis of experience. If t h i s were found to be the case, the need for i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the p o s s i b i l i t y of an i d e n t i f i a b l e develop- mental sequence of p r i n c i p a l s ' p r o f e s s i o n a l growth would be indicated. The existence of such a sequence could have important implications for the development of theory. For purposes of the present study, d i s t i n c t i o n s were made between p r i n c i p a l s who had graduate l e v e l education and those who did not. The p r i n c i p a l s with graduate education were further divided into two groups: those whose academic background was i n education administration and those from some other f i e l d of study. This d i s t i n c t i o n was seen as p o t e n t i a l l y h e l p f u l i n determining the existence of any r e l a t i o n s h i p s between education and the major components of learning e f f o r t s . Findings i n t h i s area would be of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t , i n view of the increasing frequency with which a master's degree, or work towards one, i s being s t i p u l a t e d as a job requirement for p r i n c i p a l s . SUMMARY The conceptual basis f o r the present study i s depicted i n the model shown i n Figure 2. Intrusion of the boxes l a b e l l e d school d i s t r i c t charac- 45 t e r i s t i c s , school characteristics and respondent characteristics into the rectangle which depicts a learning effort indicates that these variables may be related to learning efforts. Differences in these variables may be related to variations in one or both of the major components of a learning effort. The present study sought information about the learning interests and learning activities which were reported by the overall group of re- spondents. In addition to obtaining this descriptive information, a major emphasis of the study was on determining the existence and nature of any relationships between items specified and the independent variables studied. 46 L E A R N I N G E F F O R T I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a learning i n t e r e s t S p e c i f i c a t i o n and attempted u t i l i z a t i o n of l earning a c t i v i t i e s SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS * urban/rural * d i s t r i c t factors SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS * l o c a t i o n * type * r e l i e f time RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS * experience * education Figure 2 Learning E f f o r t s of School P r i n c i p a l s 47 Chapter 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND STUDY PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION The present study may be categorized as d e s c r i p t i v e f i e l d research (Helmstadter, 1970:28) of an exploratory nature. In contrasting descrip- t i v e research with an experimental approach i n which there i s a small number of c o n t r o l l a b l e v a r i a b l e s , Blalock (1970:35) raises the following question: But what i f there appear to be a much larger number of p o t e n t i a l variables of i n t e r e s t , with l i t t l e previous knowledge or theory that would t e l l one where to begin? In these kinds of s i t u a t i o n s , . . . a much more f l e x i b l e and exploratory approach w i l l be needed. The review of the l i t e r a t u r e indicated that there was not a great deal of r e l i a b l e knowledge about the learning e f f o r t s of school p r i n c i p a l s , or about variables which may be of importance i n the study of these learn- ing e f f o r t s . Findings were l i m i t e d to some f a i r l y general patterns, and there was no information available about the learning e f f o r t s of B r i t i s h Columbia p r i n c i p a l s . Moreover, a new conception of learning e f f o r t s was developed for the present study, and i t s usefulness required assessment. The s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent-related variables selected for study appeared to have some substantiation i n the l i t e r a t u r e as being p o t e n t i a l l y important. However, the lack of any f i r m base of knowledge indicated the need for an exploratory study. The present study attempted to gather data which would permit the reporting of de s c r i p t i v e findings about the occurrence of learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s . The s t a t i s t i c a l 48 hypotheses tested sought to determine the existence of any r e l a t i o n s h i p s between learning e f f o r t s and the independent variables studied. This chapter l i s t s the s p e c i f i c research questions and sub-questions formulated for the study, and o f f e r s operational d e f i n i t i o n s of terms which are used i n a s p e c i a l i z e d sense i n the study. Five major sections follow the research questions: operational d e f i n i t i o n s of terms, a des c r i p t i o n of the instrumentation process, a discussion of sampling, a de s c r i p t i o n of the data c o l l e c t i o n process and d e t a i l s of the analysis of data. The chapter concludes with a statement of delimitations, assumptions and l i m i t a - tions. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The present study sought to i d e n t i f y the work-related learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s of p r i n c i p a l s i n ten B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s - t r i c t s . The study also attempted to determine whether there were any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n response patterns among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school d i s - t r i c t , the school or the respondent. The eight research questions below are i n two p a r a l l e l groups. The f i r s t group of four questions examines learning i n t e r e s t s , and the second group deals with learning a c t i v i t i e s . Questions 1 and 5 examine the o v e r a l l findings, and Questions 2 and 6 deal with the returns by school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Questions 3 and 7 consider school charac- t e r i s t i c s , and Questions 4 and 8 focus on respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The research questions are rela t e d to the conceptual framework as shown i n Figure 3. 49 Question 1 What work-related learning i n t e r e s t s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s ? Question 2 What learning i n t e r e s t s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s grouped accord- ing to school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Sub-question 2.1. Do reported learning i n t e r e s t s vary between groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by d i s t r i c t group? Sub-question 2.2. Do reported learning i n t e r e s t s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by school d i s t r i c t ? Question 3 What learning i n t e r e s t s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s grouped accord- ing to school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Sub-question 3.1. Do reported learning i n t e r e s t s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by school location? Sub-question 3.2. Do reported learning i n t e r e s t s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by school type? Sub-question 3.3. Do reported learning i n t e r e s t s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by the amount of r e l i e f time a l l o c a t e d to them? Question 4 What learning i n t e r e s t s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s grouped accord- ing to respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? . 50 Sub-question 4.1. Do reported learning i n t e r e s t s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by years of experience? Sub-question 4.2. Do reported learning i n t e r e s t s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by l e v e l of formal education? Question 5 What learning a c t i v i t i e s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s as being used or preferred f o r use i n t h e i r work-related learning e f f o r t s ? Question 6 What learning a c t i v i t i e s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s grouped accord- ing to school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Sub-question 6.1. Do reported learning a c t i v i t i e s vary between groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by d i s t r i c t group? Sub-question 6.2. Do reported learning a c t i v i t i e s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by school d i s t r i c t ? Question 7 What learning a c t i v i t i e s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s grouped accord- ing to school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Sub-question 7.1. Do reported learning a c t i v i t i e s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by school location? Sub-question 7.2. Do reported learning a c t i v i t i e s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by school type? 51 Sub-question 7.3. Do reported learning a c t i v i t i e s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by the amount of r e l i e f time allocated to them? Question 8 What learning a c t i v i t i e s are reported by p r i n c i p a l s grouped accord- ing to respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Sub-question 8.1. Do reported learning a c t i v i t i e s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by years of experience? Sub-question 8.2. Do reported learning a c t i v i t i e s vary among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by l e v e l of formal education? OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Terms used i n a s p e c i a l i z e d sense i n the research questions are de- fined as follows: P r i n c i p a l An elementary or secondary teacher who i s assigned as a p r i n c i p a l and who i s released from twenty percent or more of a f u l l t i m e teaching load to carry out administrative and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . D i s t r i c t Group A number of school d i s t r i c t s which are designated as either urban or r u r a l on the basis of p u p i l population and proximity to a large metro- p o l i t a n area with a u n i v e r s i t y . The s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a f o r group designa- ti o n are discussed i n the section of th i s chapter which deals with sampling procedures. (Pages 59r64). 52 L E A R N I N G E F F O R T I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a learning i n t e r e s t (1) ^7 , S p e c i f i c a t i o n and attempted u t i l i z a t i o n of learning a c t i v i t i e s (5) SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS (2, 6) * urban/rural * d i s t r i c t factors SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS (3, 7) * l o c a t i o n * type * r e l i e f time RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS (.4, 8) * experience * education N.B. Numbers i n th i s figure r e f e r to research questions. Figure 3 Research Questions Related to Learning E f f o r t s School Location An ordinal measure of the availability of consultative opportunities, based on the number of other schools of a l l types in that school d i s t r i c t which can be contacted through a local telephone c a l l from the respondent's school. School Type Classification of a school according to grades enrolled: Elementary. Kindergarten through grade seven, or any grade or grades within that range. Secondary. Grade eight through grade twelve, or any grade or grades within that range. Elementary-secondary. Any combination of grades which includes at least one from each of the elementary and secondary categories. Relief Time The percentage of time during regular school hours during which the principal is released from teaching duties to carry out administrative and supervisory responsibilities. Experience The number of school years for which the respondent occupied a specified teaching or administrative position. Education The university degree most recently completed or in progress. 54 INSTRUMENTATION P i l o t Study The p i l o t study had two main purposes: to apply and further develop the conceptual framework for the study, and to a s s i s t i n the development of a data c o l l e c t i o n instrument. The p i l o t study's function with regard to the f i r s t of these purposes was to allow preliminary use and refinement of the concepts developed from the l i t e r a t u r e review and outlined i n Chapter Three. As a part of the instrumentation process, the p i l o t study served two purposes. It aided i n the generation of l i s t s of learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s f o r use i n the study. I t also a s s i s t e d i n the i n i t i a l phrasing of questionnaire items i n a manner which was appropriate to the respondent group. Phases one and two. Following a review of the l i t e r a t u r e , a l o o s e l y - structured set of questions was developed. In the f i r s t phase of the p i l o t study, f i v e p r i n c i p a l s attending an i n - s e r v i c e function p a r t i c i p a t e d with the researcher i n an informal discussion of these questions. Following this discussion, a set of f i v e questions was prepared (Appendix A) for interviews to be held during the second phase of the p i l o t study. During the second phase, f i v e p r i n c i p a l s from one school d i s t r i c t were asked to p a r t i c i p a t e i n an i n d i v i d u a l interview based on these ques- tions which they chose to discuss. Most responded to a l l of the questions. Data from these interviews were tabulated with respect to the learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d by the p i l o t study p a r t i c i p a n t s . 55 Questions were rephrased and c l a r i f i e d as necessary during the i n d i v i d u a l interviews. This process a s s i s t e d i n preparing an interview schedule (Appendix A) for use i n the t h i r d phase of the p i l o t study. Phase three. The responses of p r i n c i p a l s to the questions asked i n the f i r s t two phases, and t h e i r requests for c l a r i f i c a t i o n and a m p l i f i - cation, a s s i s t e d i n the development of an interview schedule f o r use with a s e l f - s e l e c t e d group of p r i n c i p a l s attending a u n i v e r s i t y summer session. These p r i n c i p a l s volunteered to p a r t i c i p a t e i n response to a memo c i r c u l a - ted to summer session i n s t r u c t o r s . Seven p r i n c i p a l s were interviewed. The third-phase interviews focussed on p r i n c i p a l s ' experiences during the previous school year. This l i n e of questioning proved to be more useful than the more general questions used during the f i r s t two phases of the p i l o t study. Phases one and two yie l d e d s u b s t a n t i a l l i s t s of work-related areas i n which p r i n c i p a l s reported having sought to increase t h e i r knowledge and s k i l l , and of the types of a c t i v i t i e s used i n t h e i r search f o r t h i s know- ledge and s k i l l (Tables LXI and LXII). These items were presented to third-phase interviewees a f t e r t h e i r i n i t i a l responses had been obtained, i n an e f f o r t to encourage a more in-depth review of t h e i r learning i n t e r - ests and a c t i v i t i e s . Third-phase interviews involved more systematic examination of each area i d e n t i f i e d , the s p e c i f i c questions and concerns of the learner, and the learning a c t i v i t i e s s p e c i f i e d , than had the f i r s t two phases. 56 Development of the Questionnaire I n i t i a l development. One purpose of the p i l o t study was to a s s i s t i n the development of a data c o l l e c t i o n instrument for the main study. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the p i l o t study was used to help generate appropriate ques- tionnaire items and to phrase questions i n a su i t a b l e manner. This process included the development of a question sequence which would be l i k e l y to stimulate r e f l e c t i v e and honest responses, and which would allow common in t e r p r e t a t i o n by the respondents. The major source of assistance i n t h i s item-generation process, i n addition to p i l o t study r e s u l t s , was the two-dimensional framework developed by Miklos (1968) and modified as outlined i n Chapter Three. P i l o t study p a r t i c i p a n t s generated eighty-two statements i d e n t i f y i n g the topics of t h e i r recent learning e f f o r t s . These were most frequently stated i n terms of the operational areas of school administration. This f i n d i n g was s i m i l a r to Robertson's (1975:92) that p r i n c i p a l s "tend to con- side r the s k i l l s involved i n school administration i n terms of operational areas rather than the components of the administrative process which may be involved." These statements, and as a further reference the items contained i n the questionnaires designed by Robertson and by Pawliuk and Pickard, were used to develop statements of learning i n t e r e s t s for the questionnaire administered i n the present study. These statements were c l a s s i f i e d accord- ing to the operational areas s p e c i f i e d i n Table II (page 41) and generally used the descriptors which s p e c i f i e d the components of the administrative process. The operational areas, were used as headings for the learning i n - terests section of the questionnaire (Appendix B). Space was provided at the end of each category f o r a d d i t i o n a l learning i n t e r e s t s s p e c i f i e d by i n d i v i d u a l respondents. The p i l o t study also y i e l d e d a s u b s t a n t i a l l i s t of learning a c t i - v i t i e s which were then c l a s s i f i e d as formal, consultative and personal, as defined i n Chapter Three. These non-standard headings were not p r i n t e d i n the questionnaire, although the items i n the learning a c t i v i t i e s section were grouped on the page according to t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme. An attempt was made i n the questionnaire to provide a frame of reference and a l o g i c a l sequence which would encourage a r e f l e c t i v e approach to completion of the instrument by the respondent. This was seen as essen- t i a l to the attempt to gather data which would represent as f u l l and com- plete a picture as possible of p r i n c i p a l s ' learning e f f o r t s . A f t e r having provided data relevant to the s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent-related variables examined, respondents were asked to indicate t h e i r recent learning i n t e r e s t s . Following t h i s , they indicated the f r e - quency with which they had used various learning a c t i v i t i e s i n the recent past, and i d e n t i f i e d those a c t i v i t i e s which they probably would have used more frequently, had they been more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . The f i n a l section of the questionnaire d i r e c t e d respondents to i n d i c a t e t h e i r emerging p r i o r i t i e s i n various areas of i n t e r e s t , and to match each of these p r i o r i - t i e s with a set of preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s . The focus throughout the questionnaire was on actual i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s , past and proposed, rather than on a d i r e c t attempt to e l i c i t perceptions of learning needs and s u i t a b l e a c t i v i t i e s . A s p e c i f i e d time 58 frame and an emphasis on actual or contemplated action had appeared, i n the p i l o t study, to make i t easier f o r respondents to think about t h e i r learning e f f o r t s i n a way which would f a c i l i t a t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s . For th i s reason, the f i n a l version of the questionnaire i n s t r u c t e d respondents to consider t h e i r recent learning e f f o r t s i n terms of the previous and the then-current school years, and t h e i r proposed e f f o r t s i n terms of the coming few months. Revision process. The f i n a l version of the questionnaire was pro- duced as the s i x t h i n a serie s of re v i s i o n s . The f i r s t four versions were subjected to c r i t i c i s m and modification by the researcher, the research committee members and others who were asked to examine and comment upon various d r a f t s . The f i f t h draft was administered at a meeting of twenty p r i n c i p a l s from school d i s t r i c t s across B r i t i s h Columbia. This group also completed a written evaluation of the questionnaire (Appendix A). The comments provided on the evaluation sheets were used i n preparing the f i n a l version of the data c o l l e c t i o n instrument. F i e l d t r i a l . The data c o l l e c t i o n process f o r the main study i n - volved the researcher's attendance at a regular p r i n c i p a l ' s meeting i n each d i s t r i c t contained i n the sample, to introduce the study and to d i s t r i b u t e the questionnaire. A preliminary f i e l d t r i a l was c a r r i e d out, using forty-four administrators from a school d i s t r i c t not included i n the study sample. This f i e l d t r i a l a s s i s t e d i n the development of an adequate set of i n s t r u c t i o n s and a standard presentation for use at p r i n c i p a l s ' meet- ings i n sample d i s t r i c t s . 59 V a l i d i t y of the questionnaire. Face and content v a l i d i t y of the instrument were enhanced by the correspondence of the items generated to p i l o t study findings and the r e s u l t s of previous research, and by the fact that the items generated were compatible with the proposed two- dimensional framework of operational areas and administrative processes (Table I I ) . An e f f o r t was made to enhance the sampling v a l i d i t y of the instrument by 1. attempting to define c l e a r l y a learning e f f o r t , 2. developing schemes of categorization f or areas of i n t e r e s t and learning a c t i v i t i e s , and 3. c a r e f u l screening of items for mutual exclusiveness. SAMPLING Sampling Plan A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on p r o f e s s i o n a l development needs, and the responses of p i l o t study p a r t i c i p a n t s , suggested that a school d i s t r i c t ' s urbanness. may be an important variable a f f e c t i n g the learning e f f o r t s of school p r i n c i p a l s . In the present study, urbanness was defined i n terms of proximity to a large metropolitan area with a u n i v e r s i t y . It was also f e l t to be important that the d i s t r i c t s sampled provide adequate c e l l s izes for the analysis of data. School d i s t r i c t s e l e c t i o n was c o n t r o l l e d i n the manner described i n the following section of t h i s chapter. Since school d i s t r i c t urbanness was f e l t to be a p o t e n t i a l l y important v a r i a b l e , a contrasting sample design was selected. 60 The rationale of the contrasting sample design i s that the e f f e c t s or correlates of a variable thought to be important can be most c l e a r l y seen i f s i t u a t i o n s are studied which provide the greatest extremes i n the presence of t h i s independent v a r i a b l e . Presumably factors which do not vary even under these contrasting conditions are not being influenced by the v a r i a b l e i n question. (Campbell and Katona, 1953:23-24) Sampling Procedures School d i s t r i c t p u p i l enrolment was seen as another c r i t e r i o n i n designating a d i s t r i c t as e i t h e r urban or r u r a l . Enrolment alone, however, i s not n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t i v e of the number of schools a v a i l a b l e for data c o l l e c t i o n , and further examination of s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of various d i s t r i c t s was necessary. A graph was prepared showing B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t p u p i l populations i n r e l a t i o n to numbers of schools (Figure 4). In e f f e c t , t h i s gave an i n d i c a t i o n of average school s i z e . I t also i l l u s t r a t e d c e r t a i n other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the d i s t r i c t s as a group. Some of these charac- t e r i s t i c s have been noted by Kelsey and L e u l l i e r (1978:1): Most of the seventy-five school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia are small i n terms of p u p i l enrolment. The modal d i s t r i c t i s one e n r o l l i n g approximately 7,000 students. . . . The d i s t r i c t s also show a marked rural/urban s p l i t . At the southern t i p of Vancouver Island and i n the densely populated lower mainland areas are some 12 to 15 d i s t r i c t s which might be termed 'metropolitan.' Apart from a few c i t y d i s t r i c t s eleswhere i n the province, the other school j u r i s d i c t i o n s serve r u r a l areas with populations of less than 50,000 people. The authors also point out that "the three u n i v e r s i t i e s which o f f e r programs i n educational administration are located i n metropolitan areas" (1978:1). It may be noted that, owing to the l o c a t i o n of these metropolitan areas i n the southwestern corner of the province, the number of school d i s - Pupil Populations and Numbers of Schools l n B r i t i s h Columbia School D i s t r i c t s 62 t r i c t s within easy reach of large c i t i e s i s quite l i m i t e d . The school d i s t r i c t s shown i n Figure 4 were divided into three population groups. Summary information about each of these groups i s pro- vided i n Table I I I . Group B, the mid-sized school d i s t r i c t s , includes the modal d i s t r i c t . This group contains one-third of a l l the school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Colum- b i a , approximately t h i r t y percent of the t o t a l p u p i l population and t h i r t y - f i v e percent of a l l the public schools i n the province. The research sample was selected from t h i s group on the basis of the c r i t e r i a outlined below. A l i s t was made of the twenty-five d i s t r i c t s i n Group B, showing t o t a l enrolments and numbers of schools. Since p r i n c i p a l s with l e s s than twenty percent r e l i e f time would be excluded from the sample, and i t would be necessary to obtain adequate c e l l s izes for the analysis of data, twenty was selected as the minimum number of schools i n a sample d i s t r i c t . The enrolments of the fourteen d i s t r i c t s which met this c r i t e r i o n were examined, and i t was found that eight d i s t r i c t s of twenty or more schools also en- r o l l e d over 7,000 p u p i l s , the approximate siz e of the modal d i s t r i c t . Six d i s t r i c t s of twenty or more schools were found to have enrolments of fewer than 7,000 pu p i l s . The c r i t e r i o n of r e l a t i v e proximity to a large metropolitan univer- s i t y area was applied to the high enrolment group, and s i x d i s t r i c t s were found to be within three hours d r i v i n g time of such a centre. One d i s t r i c t was eliminated from further consideration because of the impending r e t i r e - ment of the superintendent, a factor which might have aff e c t e d both p a r t i c i - pation and outcomes. 63 Table I I I P u p i l Population^ Groups of School D i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia Group Number of d i s t r i c t s Population category Total p u p i l population Number of schools range Total number of schools A 13 10,000 + 311,963 36 to 116 724 B 25 4,000 to 9,999 162,568 10 to 43 552 C 37 under 4,000 68,157 4 to 21 306 Totals 75 542,688 1,582 1. Source of population figures: M i n i s t r y of Education, 1976 None of the school d i s t r i c t s i n the low enrolment group was within easy reach of a large metropolitan u n i v e r s i t y area. The nearest d i s t r i c t to the lower mainland area was some seven hours d r i v i n g time away. One d i s t r i c t was eliminated from this group because of the researcher's s o c i a l and employment connections with i t . These procedures y i e l d e d two groups of f i v e d i s t r i c t s each. Rather than drawing a random sample from among these d i s t r i c t s , or from the p r i n c i p a l s i n the d i s t r i c t s , a l l were included i n the present study. This resulted i n a contrasting rural/urban sample, and a sample of over two hundred p r i n c i p a l s . 64 One group of d i s t r i c t s , which might be c a l l e d the mid-sized urban group, had p u p i l populations ranging from 7,586 to 9,130 (Ministry of Edu- cation, 1976). Each d i s t r i c t i n t h i s group was r e l a t i v e l y accessible to a large metropolitan u n i v e r s i t y area. The other group of d i s t r i c t s might be termed the mid-sized r u r a l group. These d i s t r i c t s had p u p i l populations ranging from 5,550 to 5,932. They were a l l r e l a t i v e l y remote i n terms of a c c e s s i b i l i t y to a large metro^ p o l i t a n u n i v e r s i t y area. DATA COLLECTION Data were c o l l e c t e d during l a t e October, November and e a r l y Decem- ber, 19 77. Permission to conduct research was requested by l e t t e r to each d i s t r i c t superintendent (Appendix C) following a preliminary telephone c a l l . The process of data c o l l e c t i o n began with v i s i t s by the researcher to a p r i n c i p a l s ' meeting i n each d i s t r i c t . At these meetings, the study was explained, questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d , and questions were answered. The researcher agreed at this time to return to the d i s t r i c t a f t e r comple- t i o n of the study, on request, to review the findings. Returns were anonymous, and stamped, self-addressed envelopes were provided. A numbering system was designed to f a c i l i t a t e follow-up through a contact person i n each d i s t r i c t . This numbering system i d e n t i f i e d both the school d i s t r i c t and the respondent, but the matching respondent names were known, only to the l o c a l contact person, who did not have access to completed questionnaires. This system was explained at the p r i n c i p a l s ' meetings and through a l e t t e r to absentees (Appendix C) to attempt to ensure 65 awareness of the fac t that anonymity of returns would be preserved. The l o c a l contact person was nominated by the p r i n c i p a l s at the meeting. A standard presentation, which had been developed during the pre- viously reported f i e l d t r i a l , was used to explain the study to each group of p r i n c i p a l s . No i r r e g u l a r i t i e s were noted during any of the p r i n c i p a l s ' meetings, and the responses i n each d i s t r i c t appeared to be s i m i l a r . Returns from most d i s t r i c t s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y complete within three weeks of the p r i n c i p a l s ' meetings. An i n s t r u c t i o n sheet (Appendix C) had already been l e f t with each l o c a l contact person to describe a follow-up procedure which would be used i f necessary. One follow-up l e t t e r was sent to the contact i n each d i s t r i c t where questionnaire responses required c l a r i f i c a t i o n or where i n d i v i d u a l questionnaires had not been received within four weeks. S p e c i f i c d e t a i l s regarding return rates are reported i n Chapter Five. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This section describes the data c o l l e c t e d by the research instrument (Appendix B) and s p e c i f i e s the procedures used to analyze the data. The f i r s t part of the section deals with the types of data c o l l e c t e d . The next three parts describe the major aspects of data analysis. These included: tabulation of response rates, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of va r i a t i o n s among response categories and the lo c a t i o n of major contributors to these v a r i a t i o n s . The section concludes with a b r i e f summary. 66 Types of Data Collected Table IV shows that two! l e v e l s of data were c o l l e c t e d : nominal and o r d i n a l . Within these l e v e l s , three kinds of information were gather- ed. These were, information about s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent-related independent v a r i a b l e s , and information about learning i n t e r e s t s and learn - ing a c t i v i t i e s . Table IV indicates that nominal-level data were c o l l e c t e d about d i s t r i c t group and school d i s t r i c t . Each questionnaire was numbered i n a manner which i d e n t i f i e d the s p e c i f i c d i s t r i c t from which i t had been re- turned. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the school d i s t r i c t allowed the questionnaire to be categorized as having come from e i t h e r the urban or the r u r a l group of d i s t r i c t s . The s p e c i f i c response categories for each independent v a r i - able are tabled i n Chapter Five and i n the appropriate sections of Chapters Six and Seven. Data were gathered about two types of learning i n t e r e s t s . Recent i n t e r e s t s were those i n which, at some time during the previous or the then-current school year, the respondent has wanted to increase his/her knowledge and s k i l l . P r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s s p e c i f i e d the areas i n which the respondent most wanted to learn more over the next few months. Three types of data were c o l l e c t e d about learning a c t i v i t i e s . Re- spondents were f i r s t asked about t h e i r rate of recent use of each a c t i v i t y , on a four-point scale. These o r d i n a l response categories were: never, seldom (once or twice), occasionally (three or four times) and frequently ( f i v e or more times). Respondents were then asked to i d e n t i f y those a c t i v i t i e s which they probably would have used more frequently, had they 67 Table IV C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Data Collected i n the Present Study Information rel a t e d to Data c o l l e c t e d , c l a s s i f i e d by l e v e l and questionnaire section Nominal-level data O r d i n a l - l e v e l data about source about source Work s i t u a t i o n and respondent D i s t r i c t group School d i s t r i c t Education I d e n t i f i c a - Experience ti o n number I d e n t i f i c a - t i o n number A2 School l o c a t i o n R e l i e f time A l A3 A4 Learning i n t e r e s t s Recent i n t e r e s t s P r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s DI Learning a c t i v i t i e s Desired greater a v a i l a - b i l i t y Preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s Recent use of learning a c t i v i t i e s C2 D2 Cl 1. "Source" refers to the section of the questionnaire (Appendix B) from which the data were obtained. been more re a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . F i n a l l y , respondents were asked to i d e n t i f y the a c t i v i t i e s which they would prefer to use i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to learn more about t h e i r p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s . Tabulation of Responses Nominal and o r d i n a l data were gathered on s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent-related vari a b l e s . These were tabulated according to the number 68 and percentage of p r i n c i p a l s i n each response category f o r a given va r i a b l e . This information was used i n Chapter Five to describe the respondent group. The data on learning i n t e r e s t s ( a l l nominal-level) and the nominal- l e v e l data about learning a c t i v i t i e s were analyzed for the t o t a l sample. These data were also analyzed f o r the various response categories of each s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent-related va r i a b l e . These analyses consisted of tabulations of the numerical frequency and percentage with which each item was selected as an i n t e r e s t or a c t i v i t y . Designation of rank i n de- scending order of reporting frequency was also recorded. Ranks ranged from one through thirty-seven f o r learning i n t e r e s t s and from one through twenty- four f o r learning a c t i v i t i e s . The o r d i n a l - l e v e l data on rate of recent use of each learning a c t i - v i t y were tabulated by response categories f o r each s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent va r i a b l e . The number of respondents who reported each rate of use (never, seldom, occasionally, frequently) was used to determine the mean rank on the previously discussed four-point scale. Values assigned to the various use rate categories were one (never), two (seldom), three (occasionally) and four (Frequently). V a r i a t i o n Among Response Categories The tabulation of response rates provided d e s c r i p t i v e information about the reported learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s of the respondents. Another major purpose of the study was to determine whether there was any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n among groups of p r i n c i p a l s . These groups were established on the basis of variables which described the school d i s t r i c t , the school and the respondent. 69 Nominal data. A l l data on the s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent- r e l a t e d variables noted above were analyzed as nominal-level data. This treatment i s appropriate where a conservative s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t , such as the chi-square t e s t , i s used. For the nominal-level data about learning i n t e r e s t s and learning a c t i v i t i e s (Table IV), the chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used. The chi-square test seeks to e s t a b l i s h whether returns are d i s t r i b u t e d among response categories i n a manner which i s proportionate to some hypothec- sized d i s t r i b u t i o n . For purposes of th i s study, the hypothesized propor- t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n was the actual d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r i n c i p a l s among the response categories of the variable being studied. In each case, i t was hypothesized that: H^: There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference among the sam- ple populations represented by the k response categories of the v a r i a b l e . (oC = 0.10) HQ: There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference among the sam- ple populations represented by the k response categories of the va r i a b l e . (<* = 0.10) The n u l l hypothesis (HQ) was rejected where the observed value of chi-square was such that the p r o b a b i l i t y of i t s occurrence under HQ for the appropriate number of degrees of freedom was less than 0.10. In other words, the p r o b a b i l i t y of making a Type I error, or of mistakenly r e j e c t i n g the n u l l hypothesis, i s 0.10. Selection of th i s l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was based on the exploratory nature of the study and on the fact that chi-square i s a conservative t e s t which i s s e n s i t i v e to any systematic v a r i a t i o n i n a 70 contingency table. The chi-square test.requires no assumptions about under- l y i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s . For the d i s t r i c t group v a r i a b l e , there were only two response cate- gories: urban and r u r a l . Yates' corrected chi-square (Hays, 1973:724) i s an appropriate test f o r treatment of the data i n these cases, and was the one used i n the present study. Ordinal data. The data generated by part C l of the questionnaire resulted from a forced-choice question asking respondents to indi c a t e the frequency of t h e i r recent use of each learning a c t i v i t y . Responses were i n four categories, as has been noted. Tabulation of the data for each v a r i a b l e resulted i n large numbers of t i e s , owing to the fact that there were only four categories of response. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, corrected f o r t i e s , was used to obtain a te s t of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the contingency tables. S t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses i n each case were as follows: H^: The k samples come from d i f f e r e n t sample populations or from populations which are d i s s i m i l a r with respect to a measure of cen t r a l tend- ency. (oc = 0.10) H^: The k samples come from the same sample population or from populations which are s i m i l a r with respect to a measure of cen t r a l tend- ency, (oc = 0.10) The n u l l hypothesis (H^) was rejected i f a s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of 0.10 or les s was obtained. 71 The Kruskal-Wallis test assumes at l e a s t o r d i n a l - l e v e l data for dependent variables ( i n the present study, learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i - t i e s ) , a continuous rather than a discrete scale, and k independent sam- ples. A l l of these conditions were met by the data tested. Contributions to Significance Chi-square i s a t e s t which indicates the l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of any observed v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns. It does not, however, enable the researcher to i d e n t i f y the source of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n among the k groups being tested. Where a s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square value had been obtained, the c h i - square test of quasi-independence (Brown, 1977) was used to carry out a step-wise elimination of c e l l s i n each contingency table. Each te s t began with the c e l l which had reduced the chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l the most. This step-wise process of elimination ended i n each case when the r e s u l t s of the chi-square t e s t of quasi-independence were not s i g n i f i c a n t (0.10 l e v e l ) . The above analysis was c a r r i e d out on a l l items for which a s t a t i s - t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square l e v e l had been obtained for recent i n t e r e s t s or for both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . The test was also used where s i g n i f i c a n t values were found i n the p r i o r i t y category alone, but only i n instances where expected values were large enough (Hays, 1973:736) to permit meaningful analysis. The test was not used for the variable " d i s t r i c t group," since that variable had only two response categories. The tables used to report the r e s u l t s of the chi-square test of quasi-independence show, for each i n t e r e s t or a c t i v i t y , the name of the 72 response category deleted at each step. The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e before and a f t e r t e s t i n g i s reported, and also the expected and observed propor- tions of the t o t a l responses for the item. Summary The study generated a great deal of data, many of which w e r e tabu- l a t e d using d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s . These included: numerical frequency, percentage rate of response and rank order of frequency of response. The questionnaire l i s t e d thirty-seven p o t e n t i a l learning i n t e r e s t s and twenty-four learning a c t i v i t i e s . This, coupled with the number of separate questions and the fact that the i n d i v i d u a l item was the unit of analysis, necessitated a large number of tables. Data displayed i n the test are supplemented, where necessary, with information tabled i n Appen- dices D and E. Two aspects of the analysis of data were of primary i n - ter e s t : i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those items which were most and l e a s t frequently reported as learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s , and va r i a t i o n s among re- sponses on the basis of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the d i s t r i c t , the school and the respondent. Analysis and tab l i n g of data r e f l e c t these p r i o r i t i e s and the attempt to provide a l l information of d i r e c t relevance to the discussion of the findings. DELIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Delimitations of the Study The study sample consisted of p r i n c i p a l s i n ten mid-sized B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s . The study was further delimited to include only those p r i n c i p a l s who were regula r l y released from teaching duties f o r at l e a s t twenty percent of the regular school day. 73 Assumptions It was assumed that the study sample was of adequate siz e to permit meaningful analysis of the data as outlined i n t h i s chapter. On the basis of the findings of previous research and the r e s u l t s of a p i l o t study, i t was assumed that learning i n t e r e s t s and learning a c t i v i t i e s , as defined i n the present study, were relevant concepts for school p r i n c i p a l s . It was deemed l i k e l y that respondents would be able to i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c learning i n t e r e s t s and also t h e i r l e v e l of involvement i n learning a c t i v i t i e s . F i n a l l y , i t was assumed that respondents' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were con- s i s t e n t throughout the sample, and that the responses represented r e l i a b l e perceptions by the p r i n c i p a l s involved i n the study. Limitations The contrasting sample design u t i l i z e d f o r the present study r e s u l - ted i n a rural/urban sample. However, since the sample was not randomly drawn, generalization of the findings i s l i m i t e d to the population of p r i n - c i p a l s i n the ten mid-sized B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s studied. A l i m i t a t i o n imposed by the use of a questionnaire to gather data i s that respondents are unable to have face-to-face contact with the re- searcher at the time of completion of the instrument. An e f f o r t was made to ensure c l a r i t y and understanding by meeting with respondent groups p r i o r to completion of the questionnaire. Respondents were also given an oppor- tunity to add i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s which they perceived to have been omitted from the questionnaire. The study obtained data about respondents' own perceptions of 74 their learning efforts. It is recognized that this is only one dimension of the identification of a reference group's learning interests and acti- vities. 75 Chapter 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENTS This chapter reviews questionnaire return rates by school d i s t r i c t , by school d i s t r i c t group and for the t o t a l sample. Further, percentages of t o t a l returns are tabulated for the various response categories of each s i t u a t i o n - r e l a t e d and respondent-related v a r i a b l e . The chapter concludes with a summary which includes a generalized d e s c r i p t i o n of the t y p i c a l re- spondent. QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RATES Table V shows the rate of questionnaire return by school d i s t r i c t , by school d i s t r i c t group and for the o v e r a l l sample. Rates of return by school d i s t r i c t ranged from a low of 84.2 percent i n D i s t r i c t E to 100.0 percent i n D i s t r i c t s C, F and J. The return rates f o r urban (93.4 percent) and r u r a l (94.3 percent) d i s t r i c t groups were very close to the 93.8 percent return rate for the t o t a l sample. SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS Two school d i s t r i c t - r e l a t e d independent variables were studied: d i s t r i c t group and i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . A l l questionnaires were i d e n t i f i a b l e as to group and d i s t r i c t . With regard to d i s t r i c t group, respondents were c l a s s i f i e d as being from e i t h e r an urban or a r u r a l school d i s t r i c t . As Table VI shows, the two groups were of s i m i l a r s i z e . The urban group contributed 53.3 percent 76 Table V Questionnaires Issued and Returned: Response Frequencies and Percentage Rates of Return Category Number of Number of Percentage questionnaires questionnaires rate of issued returned return Total Sample 226 212 93.8 D i s t r i c t Group Urban Rural 121 105 113 99 93.4 94.3 School D i s t r i c t Urban d i s t r i c t s D i s t r i c t A D i s t r i c t B D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t C D E Rural d i s t r i c t s D i s t r i c t F D i s t r i c t G D i s t r i c t H D i s t r i c t J D i s t r i c t K 32 24 21 25 19 25 21 21 20 18 30 23 21 23 16 25 18 20 20 16 93.8 95.8 100.0 92.0 84.2 100.0 85. 7 95.2 100.0 88.9 of o v e r a l l returns, s l i g h t l y more than the 46.7 percent represented by the r u r a l returns. The ten school d i s t r i c t s were designated D i s t r i c t s A through K (with the l e t t e r " I " omitted to avoid confusion). These d i s t r i c t s c o n t r i - buted from 16 to 30 responses, or from 7.6 percent to 14.2 percent of t o t a l returns. 77 Table VI School D i s t r i c t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Response Frequencies and Percentages of Total Returns Variable Response category Number of responses (N:212) Percentage of N D i s t r i c t Group Urban 113 53.3 Rural 99 46.7 Total 212 100.00 School D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t A 30 14.2 D i s t r i c t B 23 10.8 D i s t r i c t C 21 9.9 D i s t r i c t D 23 10.8 D i s t r i c t E 16 7.6 D i s t r i c t F 25 11.8 D i s t r i c t G 18 8.5 D i s t r i c t H 20 9.4 D i s t r i c t J 20 9.4 D i s t r i c t K 16 7.6 Total 212 100.0 SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS Three school-related independent variables were studied: school l o c a t i o n , school type and a l l o c a t i o n of r e l i e f time to the p r i n c i p a l . A l l questionnaires were i d e n t i f i a b l e with respect to each of these vari a b l e s . School l o c a t i o n was measured by respondents' i n d i c a t i o n s of the number of other schools i n the same d i s t r i c t which could be contacted with a l o c a l telephone c a l l from the respondent's school. Table VII shows that of four categories s p e c i f i e d , a large majority (79.7 percent) reported i n 78 Table VII School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Response Frequencies and Percentages of Total Returns Variable Response Number Percentage category of of responses N (N:212) School Location 0 8 3.8 (number of other 1 to 3 20 9.4 schools within 4 to 10 15 7.1 l o c a l phone c a l l over 10 169 79.7 range) Total 212 100.0 School Type Elementary 161 75.9 Secondary 40 18.9 Elem.-sec. 11 5.2 Total 212 100.0 R e l i e f Time under 50% 55 25.94 (percentage of 50 to 75% 63 29.72 regular school over .75% 94 44.34 hours for which p r i n c i p a l i s r e l - ieved from teaching) Total 212 100.00 the highest category, i n d i c a t i n g that more than ten other schools could be reached with a l o c a l c a l l . Only 8 schools (3.8 percent) might be termed very i s o l a t e d because of the absence of any other school within l o c a l t e l e - phone c a l l range. School type was designated as elementary, secondary or elementary- secondary. Predictably, elementary schools (Table VII) accounted for a large proportion of a l l schools (75.9 percent). Only 5.2 percent of a l l schools (11 of 212) were reported as combined elementary-secondary schools. 79 The d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents among r e l i e f time categories (Table VII) was somewhat less diverse than f o r other v a r i a b l e s , although the cate- gory "over 75 percent" captured 94 responses, or 44.34 percent of the t o t a l . The lowest category, "under f i f t y percent," includes only p r i n c i p a l s who have at l e a s t twenty percent r e l i e f time. This category contained approximately twenty-six percent of the responses. I f the two lowest r e l i e f time cate- gories are combined, i t becomes cl e a r that s l i g h t l y over one-half (55.7 per- cent) of the p r i n c i p a l s sampled were released from teaching f o r les s than seventy-five percent of regular school hours. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS The two respondent-related variables studied were experience and education. Experience was further divided into f i v e sub-types, as shown i n Table VIII. A l l questionnaires were i d e n t i f i a b l e by respondents' educa- t i o n . Some were not i d e n t i f i a b l e by cer t a i n experience categories, as explained below. As Table VIII i n d i c a t e s , experience i n each of f i v e positions was measured. Responses for each p o s i t i o n s p e c i f i e d the number of years ex- perience i n that capacity. Respondents reported t h e i r experience as a teacher, as a "non-principal" administrator, as a p r i n c i p a l , as a p r i n c i - p a l i n t h e i r present d i s t r i c t and as a p r i n c i p a l i n t h e i r present school. It should be noted that the designation of experience "as a p r i n c i p a l " includes experience i n the present d i s t r i c t and i n the present school. S i m i l a r l y , present d i s t r i c t experience as a p r i n c i p a l includes present school experience. 80 Table VIII Respondent Characteristics: Response Frequencies and Percentages of Total Returns Variable Response category Number of responses (N:212) Percentage of N Years of experience a) as a teacher 0 to 1 2 to 5 6 to 1 0 over 1 0 unspecified Total 2 0 9 2 6 7 3 0 2 1 2 9 . 4 4 3 . 4 3 1 . 6 1 4 . 2 1 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 b) as an administrator (non-principal) 0 to 1 2 to 5 6 to 1 0 over 1 0 unspecified Total 76 80 26 5 2 5 2 1 2 3 5 . 8 3 7 . 7 1 2 . 3 2 . 4 1 1 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 c) as a principal 0 to 1 2 to 5 6 to 1 0 over 1 0 unspecified Total 4 2 62 42 64 2 212 1 9 . 8 2 9 . 3 1 9 . 8 3 0 . 2 0 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 d) as a principal i n present school d i s t r i c t 0 to 1 2 to 5 6 to 1 0 over 1 0 unspecified Total 56 65 3 4 56 1 2 1 2 26.4 3 0 . 7 1 6 . 0 26.4 0 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 e) as a principal i n present school 0 to 1 2 to 5 6 to 1 0 over 1 0 unspecified Total 8 6 8 7 21 1 7 1 2 1 2 4 0 . 6 4 1 . 0 9 . 9 8 . 0 0 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 Education (Degree most recently completed or i n progress) Bachelor's 1^8 6 9 . 8 Master's (ed. admin.) 4 3 2 0 . 3 Master's (not ed. admin.) 21 9 . 9 Total 2 1 2 1 0 0 . 0 81 Two to f i v e years of experience was the most common response for a l l kinds of experience except t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l . In t h i s category, the respondents who reported over ten years experience (30.2 percent) s l i g h t l y outnumbered the 29.3 percent i n the two to f i v e year category. Of importance i n the analysis of data was the fact that 11.8 per- cent of the sample (25 respondents) did not i n d i c a t e t h e i r experience i n administrative positions other than a p r i n c i p a l s h i p . Although i t seems pl a u s i b l e to suggest that these respondents may have omitted the category because i t seemed not to apply to them, a response l e v e l had i n fact been s p e c i f i e d which included zero years of experience. These respondents were omitted from this phase of the analysis. Despite an apparently increasing emphasis on the completion of graduate-level academic work by p r i n c i p a l s , a large majority of the respon- dents (69.8 percent) indicated, as shown i n Table VIII, that a bachelor's degree, or work towards one, was t h e i r most recently achieved educational l e v e l . Of the t o t a l sample, 30.2 percent reported having a master's degree completed or i n progress. The majority of these (20.3 percent of the t o t a l sample) indicated t h e i r graduate f i e l d of study to be education administra- t i o n , while 9.9 percent of the t o t a l sample indicated that they had done graduate work i n some other f i e l d . SUMMARY The response rate for the o v e r a l l sample, and for i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t s , was r e l a t i v e l y high. These return rates could be a t t r i b u t e d to a number of factors, some of which might have been: respondent i n t e r e s t i n 82 the topi c , face-to-face presentation of the proposed study to respondent groups, the researcher's agreement to return to the d i s t r i c t to report on the f i n d i n g s , and the use of a l o c a l contact person to a s s i s t with follow- up where necessary. I t i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t to describe the t y p i c a l respondent i n the present study, given the number of variables and response categories and the s i m i l a r i t y of some group s i z e s . I t might be said, though, that he/she was l i k e l y to have been the p r i n c i p a l of an urban elementary school ( a l - though perhaps i n a r u r a l school d i s t r i c t ) with more than seventy-five percent of his/her time a l l o c a t e d to administrative and supervisory r e - s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . This t y p i c a l respondent was also l i k e l y to have taught for ten years or l e s s before i n i t i a l appointment to an administrative p o s i t i o n , and would probably have completed, or have been working on, an under- graduate degree. For most questions, a l l responses were usable. ' Some exceptions occurred with regard to the experience v a r i a b l e . These are further dealt with i n the appropriate sections of Chapters Six and Seven. The next two chapters examine the responses with regard to the two major components of a learning e f f o r t : i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s . Each chapter begins with a report of the o v e r a l l findings i n one of these areas, followed by a d e t a i l e d review of the findings relevant to each research question and sub-question. 83 Chapter 6 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: LEARNING INTERESTS INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the findings of the present study with regard to learning i n t e r e s t s reported by the respondents. I t deals i n sequential order with the f i r s t four research questions and t h e i r associated sub- questions. The f i r s t question sought to i d e n t i f y the learning i n t e r e s t s of the t o t a l sample. Question Two examined the findings on the basis of two school d i s t r i c t v a r i a b l e s : d i s t r i c t group and i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . Question Three considered the findings according to school d i s t r i c t charac- t e r i s t i c s : l o c a t i o n , type and a l l o c a t i o n of r e l i e f time. The fourth ques- tio n dealt with respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : experience and l e v e l of formal education. Recent and P r i o r i t y Learning Interests Two types of learning i n t e r e s t s are examined i n these questions. Topics which were reportedly of i n t e r e s t at some time during the then-current or the previous school year were designated recent i n t e r e s t s . Areas i n which p r i n c i p a l s indicated an i n t e r e s t i n learning more over the next few months were designated p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . Part B of the questionnaire (Appendix B) focussed on recent learning i n t e r e s t s , while part Dl dealt with p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . There i s an important difference between the data c o l l e c t e d on re- cent i n t e r e s t s and that dealing with p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . In the question- 84 naire section on recent i n t e r e s t s , respondents were encouraged to i d e n t i f y as many items as were applicable, and to add further items i f they so wished. The data generated by the responses i n t h i s section of the ques- tionnaire permit observations to be made about the breadth of recent i n t e r e s t i n each item, within a given response category for a s p e c i f i e d independent v a r i a b l e . They do not, however, i d e n t i f y those items which are widely considered to be of p r i o r i t y importance as compared with other items. Responses to part DI provide this information. They also allow observations.to be made about s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t i n each item, on the basis of reporting frequency. Frequently and Infrequently Reported Learning Interests The reported learning i n t e r e s t s which are most relevant to the present study are those which were most frequently and l e a s t frequently reported. In th i s regard, some observations may be made i n advance about the data to be dealt with i n th i s chapter. Given school d i s t r i c t questionnaire returns (Table V) of between 16 and 30, i t might be suggested that i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any item by at le a s t f i f t y percent of the respondents i n any d i s t r i c t indicates quite widespread i n t e r e s t . Such a group (eight to f i f t e e n i n d i v i d u a l s ) i s l i k e l y to be a large enough portion of the t o t a l number of p r i n c i p a l s i n the d i s t r i c t that, at l e a s t f or planning purposes, the i n t e r e s t s p e c i f i e d would be of considerable importance. S i m i l a r l y , a group of fewer than twenty percent (three to f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s ) i s u n l i k e l y to warrant any major planning e f f o r t . These figures provided a us e f u l scheme for i d e n t i f y i n g boundaries for groups of i n t e r e s t s s p e c i f i e d as frequently and infrequently reported. 85 Some items had very low response rates, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the t o t a l reports were divided among the categories of an independent v a r i a b l e . A p p l i c a t i o n of the c r i t e r i a delineated above to recent i n t e r e s t s y i e l d s the f i n d i n g (Table IX, page 88) that seven items were i d e n t i f i e d by at l e a s t f i f t y per- cent of the respondents. Seven items (Table X, page 91) were reported by fewer than twenty percent of the respondents. Examination of the l i s t of p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s (Table IX) indicates that no item was reported by f i f t y percent or more of the:.respondents. In f a c t , only s i x were reported by twenty percent or more. These c r i t e r i a were used as guidelines i n the s e l e c t i o n bf data to be tabled and discussed. Frequently and infrequently reported recent i n t e r e s t s were examined and tabled. In the case of p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s , the very small frequencies often associated with these items suggested that further display and discussion would not be useful i n a l l cases. Only those p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s which were frequently reported are discussed. Some percentages i n tables i n the text are taken to the nearest whole number. However, exact percentages may be found i n Appendix D. The following types of information are reported i n the text: 1. Frequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s . 1.1. Recent i n t e r e s t s which were reported by f i f t y percent or more of the respondents i n at le a s t one response category f o r a given i n - dependent v a r i a b l e . For example, i f the va r i a b l e was school type, and the only category i n which f i f t y percent or more of the respondents i n that category i d e n t i f i e d a given i n t e r e s t was the elementary school category, values of that variable i n a l l response categories (secondary, elementary- 86 secondary) were given for comparison purposes. 1.2. P r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s which were i d e n t i f i e d by twenty percent or more of the respondents i n at l e a s t one response cate- gory for a given independent v a r i a b l e . 2. Infrequently reported recent learning i n t e r e s t s . Recent i n t e r - ests which were reported by fewer than twenty percent of the respondents i n at l e a s t one response category f o r a given independent v a r i a b l e . 3. Contributions to chi-square. Where a s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square l e v e l or Kruskal-Wallis s t a t i s t i c was obtained f o r recent or f o r both re- cent and p r i o r i t y reporting patterns, the chi-square t e s t of quasi-indepen- dence was used to i d e n t i f y the major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n c e . I t was c also used for p r i o r i t y items where expected frequencies were of s u f f i c i e n t s i z e f o r analysis. Discussions of t h i s aspect of the analysis of data make frequent reference to "expected" proportions of t o t a l responses f o r a given item. As stated i n Chapter Four, i t was hypothesized that the t o t a l responses for a given item would be d i s t r i b u t e d i n a c e r t a i n manner among the re- sponse categories of the independent variable being considered. S p e c i f i - c a l l y , i t was expected that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses among response categories would be proportionate to the number of p r i n c i p a l s i n each cate- gory. For example, 75.9 percent of the t o t a l sample were elementary school p r i n c i p a l s . The term "expected" refers i n t h i s instance to the fac t that for each item, the elementary p r i n c i p a l s would be expected to contribute 75.9 percent of the t o t a l responses for that item. 87 QUESTION 1: REPORTED LEARNING INTERESTS OF OF RESPONDENTS This section deals with the findings with regard to reported re- cent and p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s for the t o t a l sample. The data on recent i n t e r e s t s were obtained from part B of the questionnaire. The i n s t r u c t i o n s for t h i s part s p e c i f i e d that each relevant item should be i d e n t i f i e d , regardless of whether the respondent had a c t u a l l y engaged i n any learning a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to the t o p i c . In section D2 of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to re- examine the t o t a l l i s t of learning i n t e r e s t s p r i n t e d i n Section B. They were then requested to i d e n t i f y at l e a s t three, but no more than f i v e areas i n which they would most l i k e to learn more over the next few months. These items were c l a s s i f i e d as p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s . The findings with regard to frequently and infrequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s are discussed below. The section concludes with an examination of the items which respondents added to the p r i n t e d l i s t of learning i n t e r e s t s . Frequently Reported Interests In order to provide s u f f i c i e n t information f o r comparison purposes, the ten most frequently reported recent and p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s are reported for t h i s question only. I t can be r e a d i l y noted by examining Table IX which of these items were i d e n t i f i e d by the percentage of p r i n c i - pals established as c u t - o f f points f o r l a t e r tables. The numerical f r e - quency, percentage occurrence and rank for a l l thirty-seven questionnaire items are s p e c i f i e d i n Appendix D, Table LXII. 88 Table IX Frequently Reported Learning Interests: Numerical Frequency, Percentage and Rank Learning i n t e r e s t and operational area Reporting as recent i n t e r e s t no. % (N:212) rank Reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t no. % (N:212) rank Educational Program 03 Implementing new i n s t r u c - t i o n a l programs 05 Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l 06 Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program Sta f f Personnel 10 Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers 11 Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n 19 Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n professional growth P u p i l Personnel 23 Providing f o r pupils with spec- i a l needs 25 Evaluating p u p i l achievement and progress External Relations 32 Determining community a t t i - tudes and p r i o r i t i e s General Management 44 Managing my time 45 Legal aspects of the job 106 50.0 7 115 54.2 6 166 78.3 1 129 60.8 4 141 66.5 3 120 56.6 5 147 102 69.3 2 48.1 8.5 94 44.3 10 *89 102 42.0 11 48.1 8.5 32 15.1 8 47 22.2 6 104 49.1 1 59 27.8 4 74 34.9 2 54 25.5 5 69 32.5 3 28 13.2 10 30 14.2 9 35 16.5 7 *20 9.4 15.5 * Not among the ten most frequently reported items for t h i s category 89 Of the ten items most frequently i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s table as recent or as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s , nine are on both l i s t s . Item 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, was the most f r e - quently reported item i n both the recent and the p r i o r i t y categories. In the recent i n t e r e s t category, 78.3 percent of the respondents selected t h i s item, while 49.1 percent s p e c i f i e d i t as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . I t can be r e a d i l y seen, by examining Table IX, that percentages are generally much la r g e r i n the recent than i n the p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t category. This holds true throughout, and can be a t t r i b u t e d to the fact that respondents were l i m i t e d to i d e n t i f y i n g a maximum of f i v e of the thirty-seven items as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . No s i m i l a r r e s t r i c t i o n was placed on the number of recent i n t e r e s t s which could be i d e n t i f i e d . In each case, item 06 i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y ahead of the second most frequently i d e n t i f i e d item. In the recent i n t e r e s t s category, item 06 leads item 23 - Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs, by nine per- cent. In the p r i o r i t y category, item 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n , was reported by 34.9 percent of the re- spondents, or approximately fourteen percent less than item 06. In each category, items 06, 11 and 23 were the three most frequently reported items. Items 44 and 45 each appeared i n only one of the two learning i n - terest categories displayed i n Table IX. Both, however, were w e l l within the top h a l f of a l l learning i n t e r e s t s i n both categories i n terms of frequency of reporting. 90 Infrequently Reported Interests There i s s l i g h t l y less commonality of items between recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s i n the "infrequently reported" category, as shown i n Table X. Seven items appear on both l i s t s . The other items on the recent l i s t (04, 13, 14) and on the p r i o r i t y l i s t (34, 40, 41) are i n the middle t h i r d of the l i s t of thirty-seven learning i n t e r e s t s i n terms of reporting frequency. Item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , ranked thirty-seventh i n both categories. This item was reported as a recent i n t e r e s t by only 8 respondents, and only 2 of 212 i d e n t i f i e d i t as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . Percentages i n the p r i o r i t y category are much lower than i n the recent category. Item 14, with a rank of 28, was i d e n t i f i e d as a recent i n t e r e s t by 25.9 percent of the respondents. Items 40 and 41 had a s i m i l a r rank (28.5) i n the p r i o r i t y category, but were each reported by only 4.7 respondents. Ad d i t i o n a l Learning Interests S p e c i f i e d by Respondents An e f f o r t was made to develop as comprehensive a l i s t of learning i n t e r e s t s as possible, f or i n c l u s i o n i n the questionnaire. However, i t was recognized that such a l i s t could never be a l l - i n c l u s i v e . Also, to have presented respondents with a completely closed l i s t of items might have resulted i n the loss of some p o t e n t i a l l y valuable data. Space was provided for respondents to add up to ten a d d i t i o n a l learning i n t e r e s t s , two i n each operational area. A t o t a l of fifty-two items were added by thirty-two of the respon- dents. Almost a l l of these items (Appendix D, Table LXII) could be con- 91 Table X Infrequently Reported Learning Interests: Numerical Frequency, Percentage and Rank Learning i n t e r e s t and operational area Reporting as recent i n t e r e s t no. % (N:212) rank Reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t no. % (N:212) rank Educational Program 04 Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l S t a f f Personnel 13 Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s 14 Handling the stresses of my job 16 Conducting s t a f f meetings 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel P u p i l Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g program External Relations 34 Conducting conferences and interviews with parents 36 Dealing with other depart- ments of the school d i s t r i c t General Management 39 P r o v i n c i a l educational finance 40 School d i s t r i c t budgeting procedures 41 Preparing annual school budget submissions 42 A l l o c a t i n g budgeted funds 46 21.7 30 40 18.9 32.5 55 25.9 28 40 18.9 32.5 39 18.4 34.5 8 3.8 37 42- 19.8 31 *72 34.0 24 35 16.5 36 39 18.4 34.5 *76 35.8 17 *69 32.5 25 50 23.6 29 *12 5.7 *14 6.6 *20 9.4 7 3.3 3 1.4 10 4.7 25 22 15.5 31.5 6 2.8 33.5 2 0.9 37 4 1.9 35 8 3.8 30 6 2.8 33.5 36 28.5 10 4.7 28.5 7 3.3 31.5 * Not among the ten l e a s t frequently reported items f o r t h i s category 92 sidered as p a r a l l e l to, or s p e c i a l cases of, items already p r i n t e d i n the questionnaire. Some, such as "working with s t a f f on s p e c i a l programs," were stated i n very general terms, and appeared to overlap several e x i s t i n g questionnaire items. Most, though, were stated i n terms which suggested r e l a t i v e l y s p e c i f i c and possibly s i t u a t i o n a l concerns, such as "Indian education" and "dealing with damage to school property." Summary The findings reported i n t h i s section apply to the t o t a l respondent group. Of the ten items most frequently reported i n the recent learning i n t e r e s t s category, nine re-appeared among the most frequently reported p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . Three items ranked as the top three i n both categories. These were: 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 23 - Providing for pupils with s p e c i a l needs. The items which ranked fourth, f i f t h and s i x t h on the recent i n t e r - ests l i s t were i d e n t i f i e d i n the same rank order on the l i s t of p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . These were, i n rank order: 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n p r o f e s s i o n a l growth. 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . Of the remaining four items i n the p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s l i s t , each was reported by fewer than twenty percent of the respondents. 93 Several items were reported very infrequently. Item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , was the l e a s t frequently re- ported item i n both the recent and the p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t categories. Six other items appeared i n the bottom ten i n both categories. These were: 16 - Conducting s t a f f meetings. 18 - Supervising non-teaching personnel. 26 - Developing a d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g program. 36 - Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . 39 - P r o v i n c i a l educational finance. 42 - A l l o c a t i n g budgeted funds. This discussion of the o v e r a l l findings about reported recent and p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s of respondents provides a necessary basis f o r the systematic examination of the findings within each of the three groups of independent v a r i a b l e s : school d i s t r i c t , school and respondent charac- t e r i s t i c s . The following sections of t h i s chapter deal with these findings. QUESTION 2: LEARNING INTERESTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS The present study examined two independent variables which described school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : d i s t r i c t group (sub-question 2.1) and i n - d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t (sub-question 2.2). The second research question sought to i d e n t i f y the items which had been selected as recent or p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s by p r i n c i p a l s grouped according to these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Fur- ther, an attempt was made to determine whether there were any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferences i n the response patterns of various groups. The o v e r a l l findings of t h i s research question are reported i n Appendix D and i n the tables i n t h i s section of the research report. 94 Sub-Question 2.1: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by D i s t r i c t Group Table XI l i s t s the recent and p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s which were most frequently reported within groups of school d i s t r i c t s i d e n t i f i e d as e i t h e r urban or r u r a l . Table XII l i s t s the l e a s t frequently reported i n t e r e s t s , c l a s s i f i e d by d i s t r i c t group. In these tables, the percentage of each d i s t r i c t group who reported a given i n t e r e s t i s shown to the nearest whole number. Exact percentages are tabled i n Appendix D (Table LXIV). Where a chi-square value of less than 0.10 was obtained, the fact i s noted i n Table XI. A l l s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square values are shown i n Appendix D, Table LXIV. Table XI shows that a l l of the items which were frequently reported by at l e a s t one d i s t r i c t group as e i t h e r a recent or a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t also appear i n the t o t a l sample l i s t (Table IX) of frequently reported items. Item 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, i s most widely reported as a recent and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t by both d i s t r i c t groups. Of the nine frequently reported i n t e r e s t s i n Table XI, f i v e appear i n both the urban and r u r a l categories as both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . These are, i n addition to item 06: 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n professional growth. 23 - Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs. 95 Table XI Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to D i s t r i c t Group Learning i n t e r e s t and operational area Percentage reporting as recent as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t i n t e r e s t urban r u r a l (N:113) (N:99) urban r u r a l Educational Program 03 Implementing new i n s t r u c - t i o n a l programs 05 Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l 06 Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program St a f f Personnel 10 Evaluating and w r i t i n g re- ports on the work of teachers 11 Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n 19 Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n p r o f e s s i o n a l growth P u p i l Personnel 23 Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs 25 Evaluating student achievement and progress General Management 45 Legal aspects of the job 52 50 59 80 62 66 58 69 50 50 77 60 67 56 70 51 30 37 26 34 33* 47 25 32 25 31 * Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.10 l e v e l N.B. Percentages i n t h i s table are taken to the nearest whole number. 96 Table XII Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to D i s t r i c t Group Learning i n t e r e s t and operational area Percentage reporting as recent i n t e r e s t urban r u r a l (N:113) (N:99) Educational Program 04 Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l S t a f f Personnel 13 Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s 16 Conducting s t a f f meetings 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel P u p i l Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g program External Relations 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t 19 18 17 18 16 5 17 16 General Management 39 P r o v i n c i a l educational finance 14 N.B. Percentages i n t h i s table are taken to the nearest whole number. 97 Item 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l , was among the frequently reported recent i n t e r e s t s f or both the urban and the r u r a l d i s - t r i c t group. While approximately 33 percent of the r u r a l group also i d e n t i - f i e d t h i s item as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t , i t was selected by only 12.4 per- cent (Table LXIV) of the urban group. This resulted i n a chi-square s i g - n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of 0.001 for item 04. A l l of the learning i n t e r e s t s reported infrequently within d i s t r i c t groups (Table XII) appeared i n the corresponding l i s t (Table X) for the t o t a l sample. Item 22 - Advising students about course and program se l e c - t i o n , was the item l e a s t frequently selected by both d i s t r i c t groups. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of recent i n t e r e s t responses between d i s t r i c t groups resulted i n s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square values f o r three items which are not displayed i n Tables XI and XII. These were, as i n d i - cated i n Table LXIV, items 33, 41.and 44. Item 33 - Working with home- school groups and parent committees, and item 41 - Preparing annual school budget submissions, were reported as recent i n t e r e s t s by a l a r g e r propor- t i o n of respondents i n the urban d i s t r i c t group than i n the r u r a l group. Item 44 - Managing my time, was reported as a recent i n t e r e s t by a larger proportion of r u r a l group members than had been expected. Sub-Question 2.2: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School D i s t r i c t Table XIII shows a l l items which were frequently reported as recent i n t e r e s t s , p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s , or both, by the respondents i n at l e a s t one school d i s t r i c t group. Twenty-four of a possible thirty-seven items met thi s c r i t e r i o n . The l i s t of reported i n t e r e s t s i s marked by wide v a r i a t i o n s 98 Table XIII Learning Interests. Frequently Reported Among Respondents Classified According to School District Item Percentage reporting A B C D N:30 23 21 23 recent interest in District E F 6 H 16 25 21 21 J K 20 18 as priority interest in District A B C D E F O H J K Educational Program 01 I 61 53 52 57 53 90 78 81 02 03 05 06 07 Staf 10 11 14 15 17 19 I 63 Pupil Personnel 23 25 52 70 57 Personnel 67 57 71 65 70 61 76 70 52 62 71 52 63 70 71 78 57 52 27 External Relations 32 52 33 34 57 35 52 General Management 63 52 68 56 56 64 61 60 75 76 72 70 50 50 60 50 65 50 76 75 50 50 50 60 67 63 68 72 70 63 50 56 56 64 69 50 50 63 70 80 88 80 75 63 50 56 75 63 50 55 40 50 41 53 • 43 53 50 44 53 56 61 65 * 45 50 57 56 61 55 22 22 25 28 44 25 30 44 53 57 21* 57 69 44 44 45 40 63 22 22 30 39 35 3' 22 25 50 25 47 39 33 35 25 24 22 35 50 31 23 20 33 29 24 35 2i» 20 35 31 23 39 24 52 31 40 22 35 25 31 24 22 25 25 20 20 40 24 20 24 28 20 30 * Chi-Gquare significant at the 0.10 level. N.B. Percentages in this table are taken to the nearest whole number. 99 i n reporting patterns, as outlined below. Percentages i n Both Table XIII and Table XIV, which deals with infrequently reported i n t e r e s t s , are rounded o f f to the nearest whole number. Item 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program, and item 23 - Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs, were frequently i d e n t i f i e d as both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s i n a l l ten school d i s t r i c t s (Table XIII). Item 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers, was i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s way i n seven d i s - t r i c t s , and item 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n p r o f e s s i o n a l growth, i n s i x d i s t r i c t s . Table XIII shows that item 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l , was f a i r l y widely reported as a recent i n t e r e s t of p r i n c i p a l s . How- ever, as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t , item 05 was frequently reported only i n d i s - t r i c t s E through K, the r u r a l d i s t r i c t s . No urban d i s t r i c t had a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t reporting rate of twenty percent or greater for item 05. Item 17 - Developing e f f e c t i v e communication among teachers and between teacher and p r i n c i p a l s , was frequently reported as both a recent and a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t only by the p r i n c i p a l s i n D i s t r i c t C. Table XV indicates that i n both cases, t h i s d i s t r i c t was responsible for a s i g n i f i - cantly larger proportion of the t o t a l responses for item 17 than had been expected. Items 33, 41 and 44 also had s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n response patterns i n the recent i n t e r e s t s category. In the case of item 44, t h i s v a r i a t i o n also occurred for p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . Various d i s t r i c t s were the major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r these items, and no patterns were observable. 100 Table XIV Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Hespondents Classified According to School District Learning interest and operational area Percentage reporting as recent interest District A B C D E F G H J K N: 30 23 21 23 16 25 21 21 20 18 Educational Program 01+ Developing curriculum at the dis t r i c t level 5 13 13 Staff Personnel 12 Managing and resolving conflict 9 13 Interpersonal relationships 17 1 If Handling the stresses of my Job 1? 16 Conducting staff meetings 9 17 Developing effective communication among teachers and between teachers and principal 13 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel T> 13 19 17 19 19 10 17 15 17 15 10 17 15 15 13 13 Pupil Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program selection 21f Evaluating student achievement and progress 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t testing program 27 Dealing with student problems 28 Developing school guidelines for pupil conduct 29 Student-teacher relations External Relations 33 Working with home-school groups and parent committees 3*» Conducting conferences and interviews with parents 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t General Management 39 Provincial educational finance I4O School d i s t r i c t budgeting procedures If 1 Preparing annual school budget submissions t»2 Allocating budgeted funds if3 General office management routines: record-keeping, f i l i n g systems, etc. HanaEing my time 13 0 if 6 0 17 0 17 10 19 9 6 .17 13 17 I V 17 13 17 19 9 13 16 11 0 13 10 13 19 19 0 10 19 10 13 19 • Chi-square significant at the 0.10 level N.B. Percentages in this table are tuken to the nearest whole number. 101 Table XV School D i s t r i c t s I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square f o r Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence Item ^ , .1 Step D i s t r i c t Percentage of ^ 2 deleted t o t a l responses (post) 3 3 E 0 Recent 17 33 41 44 P r i o r i t y 17 44 0.092 0.025 0.029 0.089 0.017 0.075 0.003 0.088 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 C E H D C F A C 9.9 7.5 9.4 10.8 9.9 11.8 14.2 9.9 17.6 14.9 1.4 3.4 27.3 0.0 34.3 0.0 0.452 0.215 0.233 0.196 0.075 0.174 0.088 0.231 1. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before d e l e t i o n . 2. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion. 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage. Examination of Table XIV reveals that item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , was selected very infrequently i n a l l ten d i s t r i c t s . Item 36 - Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t , was i n t h i s category i n seven d i s t r i c t s . Three other items were among the l e a s t frequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s i n s i x d i s t r i c t s : 13 - Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 18 - Supervising non-teaching personnel. 39 - P r o v i n c i a l educational finance. 102 With i n d i v i d u a l exceptions,.the findings regarding learning i n t e r - ests of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d according to school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were s i m i l a r to t o t a l sample findings. Several items were very frequently i d e n t i f i e d within most groups as learning i n t e r e s t s , while several other items were seldom reported within any group. As f a r as reporting patterns were concerned, there did not appear to be any general trends. In f a c t , the o v e r a l l pattern of reporting, p a r t i c u l a r l y where the data with regard to i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t were concerned, was one of wide v a r i a t i o n , as can be seen i n Tables XIII and XIV. QUESTION 3: LEARNING INTERESTS AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS This research question sought to i d e n t i f y the topics selected as recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s by respondents grouped according to c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r school. The p a r t i c u l a r variables examined were: school l o c a t i o n i n terms of a b i l i t y to consult by l o c a l telephone c a l l (sub-question 3.1), school type (sub-question 3.2) and percentage of r e l i e f time a l l o c a t e d to the p r i n c i p a l . The o v e r a l l findings are reported i n Appendix D and i n the tables i n the following sections of the text. Sub-Question 3.1: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School Location At the outset, i t should be noted that the respondents are d i s t r i - buted quite unevenly among school l o c a t i o n groups (Table VII). Only eight p r i n c i p a l s reported being unable to contact any other school with a l o c a l telephone c a l l . This was the smallest respondent group encountered for any variable i n the study, and i t was not greatly exceeded by the s i z e of the group reporting contact opportunities with from one to three other schools (twenty respondents), or by the group of f i f t e e n respondents who 103 reported that they could contact from four to ten other schools. These three groups, which t o t a l forty-three respondents, are quite small i n comparison with the group of 169 p r i n c i p a l s who reported being able to contact over ten other schools with a l o c a l telephone c a l l . These factors should be taken into account when examining returns such as those f o r items 07, 16, 17 and 28 (Table XVI), which were each reported by 50 percent of the group who i d e n t i f i e d themselves as being unable to contact any other school with a l o c a l telephone c a l l . The per- centage figure for each of these items represents only four respondents. Four items were frequently reported as recent and as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s by a l l four l o c a t i o n groups. These were: 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program. 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 23 - Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs. Again, while the figure of 75 percent of the "zero contacts 1 1 group who reported item 11 as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t seems very high, t h i s percent- age represents only s i x respondents of the t o t a l group of 212. Table XVII indicates that item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , was among the infrequently reported recent learning i n t e r e s t s i n a l l four l o c a t i o n groups. Item 18 - Supervising non-teaching personnel, was i n t h i s category i n three of the four groups. 104 Table XVI • Learning Interests frequently Reported Among Respondents Class i f ied According to School Location Learning interest and operational area Percentage reporting as recent interest 0 1-3 8 20 4-10 15 11 + 169 as priority interest 0 1-3 4-10 11+1 73 80 Educational Program 01 Assessing community and school needs for epecial courses and - programs 63 03 Implementing new instructional programs 63 53 05 Developing curriculum at the school level 50 50 06 Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's instructional program 75 85 07 Learning more about specific subject areas 50 Staff Personnel 10 Evaluating and writing reports on the work of teachers 75 70 11 Developing an effective approach to the supervision of instruction 63 70 16 Conducting staff meetings 50 17 Developing effective communication among teachers and between teacher and principal 50 19 Stimulating teacher Interest In professional growth ' 50 Pupil Personnel 23 Providing for students with special needs 25 Evaluating student achievement and progress 28 Developing school guidelines for pupil conduct External Relations 32 Determining community attitudes and pr ior i t i e s 33 Working with home-6chool groups and parent committees General Management 44 Managing my time 50 45 Legal aspects of the Job 63 50 53 50 56 67 79 58 65 60 75 60 73 69 50 50 50 63 50 53 53 25 20 30 20 22 25 50 27 52 50 20 40 27 75 30 33 33 25 38 30 25 20 27 27 26 .50 35 53 30 25 * Chi-square significant at the 0.10 l eve l N.B. Percentages i n this table are taken to the nearest whole number. 1. Groups are designated according to the number of other schools which can be contacted with a local telephone c a l l . 105 Table XVII Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School Location Learning i n t e r e s t and operational area Percentage reporting as recent i n t e r e s t 1 Group 0 8 1-3 20 4-10 15 11+ 169 Educational Program 04 Developing curriculum at the d i s - t r i c t l e v e l . 13 Staff Personnel 13 Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 13 16 Conducting s t a f f meetings. 17 Developing e f f e c t i v e communication among teachers and between teacher and p r i n c i p a l . 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel. P u p i l Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n . 0 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g program. External Relations 35 Working with agencies which provide services to students and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . 13 15 10 15 13 7 7 19 18 19 15 General Management 39 P r o v i n c i a l education finance. 41 Preparing annual school budget submissions. 17 Group designated according to number of other schools which can be contacted by a l o c a l telephone c a l l . * Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10 l e v e l . N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 106 Table XVIII School Location Groups I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence Item ^ Step Group ^ Percentage of 2 (pre) deleted t o t a l responses (post) 3 3 E 0 Recent 17 35 41 P r i o r i t y 17 41 0.082 0.040 0.098 0.099 0.071 1 1 1 1 1 4-10 4-10 4-10 1-3 1-3 7.1 7.1 7.1 9.4 9.4 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.0 30.0 0.605 0.516 0.512 0.182 0.308 1. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before deletion. 2. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion. 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage. 4. Group designated by number of other schools within l o c a l telephone c a l l range. Examination of Table XVIII, which reports the r e s u l t s of the c h i - square test of quasi-independence, reveals that two of the response cate- gories were always most responsible for the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the chi-square values obtained i n the o r i g i n a l analysis. However, examination of recent and p r i o r i t y categories does not reveal any repeated pattern of reporting. For neither item 17 nor item 41 was the same group c h i e f l y responsible f or the s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square l e v e l i n both the recent and the p r i o r i t y cate- gories. In other words, the v a r i a t i o n s i n response patterns across items and categories were not systematic or repeated. 107 In general, the l i s t s of items most frequently and le a s t frequently selected by respondents c l a s s i f i e d by school l o c a t i o n were very s i m i l a r to the l i s t s (Tables IX, X) which report the o v e r a l l findings of the study. Sub-Question 3.2: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School Type . The o v e r a l l findings r e l a t e d to learning i n t e r e s t s reported by p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d according to school type are displayed i n Appendix D and i n t h i s section of the text. Three types of school were designated: elementary, secondary and elementary-secondary. As was the case i n the previous sub-question, the respondents were spread rather unevenly among the response categories f o r the v a r i a b l e . A t o t a l of 161 respondents i d e n t i f i e d themselves as elementary p r i n c i p a l s , 40 as secondary p r i n c i p a l s and 11 as elementary-secondary p r i n c i p a l s . In p a r t i c u l a r , i n examining the findings reported i n Table XIX with regard to items 40, 41 and 43, i t should be noted that the number of elementary-secondary p r i n c i p a l s i s very small. The 55 percent figure shown for these items represents, i n each case, s i x respondents. Three items were frequently reported as both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s by p r i n c i p a l s of a l l types of schools. These items were: 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . Item 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l , and item 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n pr o f e s s i o n a l growth, were frequently re- 108 Table XIX Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School Type Learning interest and operational area Educational Program 01 Assessing community and school needs for sp e c i a l courses and program. 03 Implementing new i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs. 05 Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . 06 Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Staff Personnel 10 Evaluating and writing reports on the work of teachers. 11 Developing an effective approach to the supervision of instruction. 17 Developing effective communi- cation among teachers and between teacher and p r i n c i p a l . 19 Stimulating teacher interest i n professional growth. Pupil Personnel 23 Providing for students with speci a l needs. 25 Evaluating student achievement and progress. External Relations 40 School d i s t r i c t budgeting procedures. 41 Preparing annual school budget submissions. 43 General o f f i c e management routines: record-keeping, f i l i n g systems, etc. 44 Managing my time. 45 Legal aspects of the job. Percentage reporting as recent in t e r e s t as p r i o r i t y interest School type E S E-S E S E-S N: 161 AO 11 58 55* 53 55 53 22 25 79 80 64 48 58 36 63 50 64 28 25 36 66 73 55 34 38 46 20 * 57 68 * 26 28 81 * 34 2 8 36 51 55 55 * 55 20 50 1. School type designated as: elementary (E), secondary (S), elementary-secondary (E-S). * Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10 l e v e l . N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 109 ported as both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s by elementary and by secondary p r i n c i p a l s . Tables LXIX and LXX show that 45.5 percent of elementary-second- ary p r i n c i p a l s i d e n t i f i e d item 05 as a recent i n t e r e s t and 18.2 percent as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . Each of these values was j u s t s l i g h t l y lower than the c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the "frequently reported" categories. Although item 01 - Assessing community and school needs for s p e c i a l courses and programs, was not among the most frequently reported recent learning i n t e r e s t s for the t o t a l sample, i t did f a l l i n t h i s category for both secondary and elementary-secondary p r i n c i p a l s . The elementary group contributed an unexpectedly low proportion of the t o t a l returns for t h i s item, and was the major contributor (Table XXI) to a chi-square s i g n i f i c - ance l e v e l of 0.004. Item 23 - Providing f o r students with s p e c i a l needs, was one of the p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s most frequently i d e n t i f i e d by p r i n c i p a l s of a l l types of schools. In the recent category, i t was reported by 81 percent of elementary p r i n c i p a l s (Table XIX). However, t h i s item was reported as a recent i n t e r e s t by only 15.6 percent of secondary p r i n c i p a l s (Appendix D, Table LXIX). Table XXI shows that for t h i s item, the elementary p r i n c i p a l s ' disproportionately high proportion of the t o t a l reports was the major con- t r i b u t o r to the s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square value. Item 17 - Developing e f f e c t i v e communication among teachers and between teacher and p r i n c i p a l , was frequently reported only among secondary p r i n c i p a l s as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . This group was, i n t h i s case, the major contributor to a chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of 0.05 7. Table XXI i n d i - cates that the secondary p r i n c i p a l s contributed almost double t h e i r expect- ed proportion of the t o t a l returns for t h i s item. Table XX 110 Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to School Type Learning interest and operational area Percentage reporting as recent interest School type* E S E-S N: 161 40 11 Educational Program 02 Choosing i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs from among available alternatives. Staff Personnel 12 Managing and resolving c o n f l i c t . 13 Interpersonal relationships. 16 Conducting s t a f f meetings. 17 Developing e f f e c t i v e communication among teachers and between teacher and p r i n c i p a l . 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel. 19 Stimulating teacher interest i n professional growth. Pupil Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program select i o n . 23 Providing for students with spec i a l needs. 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t testing program. External Relations 34 Conducting conferences and interviews with parents. 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . General Management 39 Provincial educational finance. 42 Al l o c a t i n g budgeted funds. 19 15 19 10 15 17 9* 18 10 9 18 9* 1 10 18* 16 3* 10 18 18 18 15 1. School type designated as: elementary (E), secondary (S), elementary-secondary (E-S). * Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10 l e v e l . N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. I l l Item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , was infrequently reported by p r i n c i p a l s of a l l school types. The element- ary group, i n addition, was the major contributor to chi-square s i g n i f i - cance l e v e l s i n both categories (Table XXI), by providing a much smaller proportion of t o t a l responses than had been expected. Elementary p r i n c i p a l s also contributed a disproportionately large percentage of recent i n t e r e s t responses to item 02 - Choosing i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs from among ava i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . In t h i s case, they contributed 86.3 percent of t o t a l responses (Table XXI), rather than an expected 75.9 percent. Several differences between frequently and infrequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s for t h i s sub-question and those i d e n t i f i e d by the over- a l l respondent group have been discussed. Reporting trends f o r the v a r i - able "school type" are generally item-referenced, that i s , no p a r t i c u l a r patterns of reporting show up across a number of items. Sub-Question 3.3: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by R e l i e f Time A l l o c a t i o n This section examines the r e s u l t s of data analysis with regard to the i n t e r e s t s of p r i n c i p a l s grouped according to the a l l o c a t i o n of r e l i e f time. This term refers to the percentage of regular school time for which the p r i n c i p a l i s released from teaching duties to carry out administrative and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Three r e l i e f time categories were de- signated. The lowest of these, i n terms of time, was "under f i f t y percent." Because of study delimitations, a l l members of t h i s group had at l e a s t twenty percent r e l i e f time. The other categories included p r i n c i p a l s who 112 Table XXI School Type Groups I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence Item cc 1 Step Type Percentage of oC 2 (pre) deleted t o t a l responses (post) 3 3 E 0 Recent 01 0.004 1 Elem. 75.9 63.3 0.861 02 0.015 1 Elem. 75.9 86.3 0.256 07 0.025 1 Elem. 75.9 85.7 0.741 19 0.002 1 El.-s e c . 5.2 0.8 0.233 22 0.001 1 Elem. 75.9 25.0 0.456 23 0.028 1 Elem. 75.9 81.0 0.477 r i o r i t y 22 0.006 1 Elem. 75.9 25.0 0.319 1. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before deletion. 2. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion. 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage. reported having from f i f t y to seventy-five percent r e l i e f time, and those who reported having over seventy-five percent of t h e i r time a l l o c a t e d to administrative and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . A l l questionnaires were i d e n t i f i a b l e as to r e l i e f time category. Of the 212 t o t a l respondents (Table VII), 55 p r i n c i p a l s , or 25.9 percent, reported having less than f i f t y percent r e l i e f time and 63 (29.8 percent) reported having from f i f t y to seventy-five percent. The remaining 94 p r i n c i p a l s (44.3 percent of the t o t a l sample), reported that they were re- leased from teaching duties f o r over seventy-five percent of regular school hours. 113 Table XXII Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to R e l i e f Time Learning i n t e r e s t and operational area Percentage reporting as recent i n t e r e s t as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t R e l i e f time-'- L M H L M H N: 55 63 94 Educational Program 03 Implementing new i n s t r u c - 5 7 t i o n a l programs. 05 Developing curriculum at 51 59 the school l e v e l . 06 Evaluating the effectiveness 64 84 of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program. Sta f f Personnel 10 Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports 56 67 on the work of teachers. 53 83* 60 70* 11 Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach 55 71 to the supervision of i n s t r u c - t i o n . 19 Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t 56 62 i n p r o f e s s i o n a l growth. P u p i l Personnel 23 Providing f o r students with 69 76 65 s p e c i a l needs. 25 Evaluating student achieve- 50 ment and progress. General Management 43 General o f f i c e management rou- 51 * ti n e s : record-keeping, f i l i n g systems, e t c . 44 Managing my time. 45 Legal aspects of the job. 53 22 30 40 49 54 27 27 29 31 43 32 20 30 26 35 43 25* 21 1. R e l i e f time categories designated as: under 50% (L), 50% to 75% (M), over 75% (H). * Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10 l e v e l . N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 114 Table XXII shows that four learning i n t e r e s t s were frequently re- ported as recent and as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s by a l l groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of r e l i e f time. These were! 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 23 - Providing f o r students with s p e c i a l needs. Two other items were frequently i d e n t i f i e d by a l l three groups as ei t h e r a recent or a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t , and by two of the three groups i n the other category. These were item 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l , and item 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n p r o f e s s i o n a l growth. Items 06 and 11 were frequently reported both as recent and as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s by a l l r e l i e f time groups. In each case, however, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses among these groups was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than had been expected. The information given i n Table XXIV permits the statement that t h i s v a r i a t i o n was caused p r i m a r i l y by the fact that the "under f i f t y percent" r e l i e f time category contributed a smaller propor- t i o n of the t o t a l responses to items 06 and 11 than t h e i r numbers would suggest. With regard to item 43 - General o f f i c e management routines, the same group was the major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e . In t h i s case, how- ever, the group of p r i n c i p a l s reporting less than f i f t y percent r e l i e f 115 Table XXIII Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents Classified According to Relief Time Learning Interest and operational area Percentage reporting as recent interest Relief time* L M H N: 55 63 94 Educational Program 04 Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t level. Staff Personnel 13 Interpersonal relationships. 16 Conducting staff meetings. 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel. Pupil Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program selection. 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t testing program. External Relations 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . General Management 39 Provincial educational finance. 42 Allocating budgeted funds. 18 19 18 18 18 16 10* 4 2 5 16 9 18 18 19 18 19* 1. Relief time categories designated as: under 50% (L), 50% to 75% (M), over 75% (H). * Chi-square significant at 0.10 level. N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 116 Table XXIV R e l i e f Time Groups I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence 4 Item ^ Step, Group Percentage of oC 2 (pre) deleted t o t a l responses (post) 3 3 E 0 Recent 06 0.009 1 under 50% 25.9 21.1 0.850 11 0.091 1 under 50% 25.9 21.3 0.870 18 0.011 1 over 75% 44.3 23.1 0.677 35 0.077 1 over 75% 44.3 53.7 0.499 42 0.082 1 under 50% 25.9 38.0 0.819 43 0.072 1 under 50% 25.9 34.6 0.663 r i o r i t y 14 0.020 1 under 50% 25.9 50.0 0.185 17 0.058 1 over 75% 44.3 68.2 0.837 23 0.051 1 over 75% 44.3 33.3 0.356 1. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before deletion. 2. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion. 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage. 4. Group designated by percentage of r e l i e f time a l l o c a t e d to the p r i n c i p a l . time contributed a disproportionately large number of the t o t a l recent i n t e r e s t responses. The "over seventy-five percent" category was the major contributor to a s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square value f o r item 23 - Providing f o r students with s p e c i a l needs. This group i d e n t i f i e d item 23 as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t l e s s frequently than had been expected. 117 Two items were infrequently reported as recent i n t e r e s t s by a l l r e l i e f time groups. These items, 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , and 39 - P r o v i n c i a l educational finance, were also i n - frequently selected by the o v e r a l l respondent group (Table X). The following items were infrequently reported as recent i n t e r e s t s by two of the three groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d according to r e l i e f time a l l o c a t i o n : 04 - Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l . 13 - Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 16 - Conducting s t a f f meetings. 36 - Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . No item appeared on both the frequent and the infrequent l i s t f o r this v a r i a b l e . With the exception of item 43, which was frequently re- ported as a recent i n t e r e s t among the "under f i f t y percent" group, a l l items appearing on e i t h e r the recent or the p r i o r i t y l i s t f o r t h i s v a r i - able also appeared on the corresponding l i s t for the o v e r a l l respondent group. QUESTION 4: LEARNING INTERESTS AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS This research question examined the learning i n t e r e s t s of p r i n c i - pals grouped according to t h e i r experience i n s p e c i f i e d types of positions i n education (sub-question 4.1). I t also dealt with the variable "educa- t i o n , " which referred to the un i v e r s i t y degree most recently completed or i n progress (sub-question 4.2). 118 Sub-Question 4.1: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by Experience This sub-question was handled somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y than were the other sub-questions which examined learning i n t e r e s t s . In each of the previous questions, a single independent variable with two or more response categories was designated. School d i s t r i c t group, f or example, was c l a s s i - f i e d as e i t h e r urban or r u r a l . With regard to the p r i n c i p a l ' s experience, three sets of data were gathered: 1. Teaching experience. Years of experience as a teacher, with no administrative or supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 2. "Non-principal" administrative experience. Years of experience i n administrative p o s i t i o n s , but not as a p r i n c i p a l . 3. Experience as a p r i n c i p a l . This information was divided into three sub-categories: 3.1 Total years of experience as a p r i n c i p a l . 3.2 Years of experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n the present d i s t r i c t . 3.3 Years of experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n the respondent's pre- sent school. The findings r e l a t e d to the categories "teaching experience" and "non-principal administrative experience" are reported i n a s i m i l a r manner to that used f o r each of the independent variables i n the previous research questions. Reporting of the findings for the category "experience as a p r i n c i p a l " i s somewhat more complex, owing to the existence of the sub- 119 categories l i s t e d above. The approach taken to reporting these findings i s reported i n the appropriate section below. Four response categories were provided for each questionnaire item which dealt with experience. These were designated i n terms of the number of years, p r i o r to the then-current school year, i n each type of p o s i t i o n . The response categories were: zero to one year, two to f i v e years, s i x to ten years and over ten years. In a l l but one of the sub-categories of experience, a small number of respondents (varying from one to three) d i d not provide the necessary data. In each case, t h e i r responses were excluded from that phase of data analysis. In the "non-principal administrative experience" category, twenty- f i v e respondents omitted experience data. I t seems p l a u s i b l e to suggest that these i n d i v i d u a l s may have ignored the item because they had had no experience as a non-principal administrator. However, to have designated them as having had zero to one year of experience i n t h i s capacity would probably have been inappropriate, since a suitable response category had been provided on the questionnaire. These questionnaires were also ex- cluded from analysis for t h i s portion of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Even so, the group of respondents who reported zero to one year of experience as a non- p r i n c i p a l administrator was of s u f f i c i e n t s i z e to permit meaningful analy- s i s of the data. The following sections report the findings of the study with regard to the learning i n t e r e s t s of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of years of experience i n various p o s i t i o n s . 120 Teaching experience. Of the 212 questionnaires returned, 209 (Table VIII) were i d e n t i f i a b l e by p r i n c i p a l s ' experience as a teacher. Twenty respondents, or 9.6 percent of the analyzed portion of the returns, report- ed zero to one year of experience as a teacher. Ninety-two, or 44.0 per- cent, reported i n the two to f i v e year category. Sixty-seven p r i n c i p a l s (32.1 percent) reported having had from s i x to ten years of experience as a teacher, and 30 respondents, or 14.4 percent, reported i n the "over ten years" category. Three questionnaires were not i d e n t i f i a b l e as to experi- ence as a teacher, and were eliminated from t h i s phase of the analysis. Three items were frequently reported both as recent and as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s among p r i n c i p a l s i n a l l teaching experience categories. These were: 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 23 - Providing f o r students with s p e c i a l needs. Item 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n professional growth, was frequently reported as a recent i n t e r e s t i n three of the four teaching experience categories, and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t , i n a l l four categories. Item 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers, was f r e - quently reported as a recent i n t e r e s t i n three experience categories. The same was true i n the p r i o r i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , although the actual cate- gories showed some change, as shown i n Table XXV. Analysis of the data f o r these widely reported items revealed some s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses among categories 121 Table XXV Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d According to Teaching Experience Learning interest and Percentage reporting operational area as recent interest as p r i o r i t y interest Years of experience 0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ 0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ N: 20 92 67 30 Educational Program 04 Developing curriculum at the d i s - * 30 * t r i c t l e v e l . 05 Developing curriculum at the school 65 60 60 34 * l e v e l . 06 Evaluating the effectiveness of the 80 83 70 80 60 54 42 43 school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Staff Personnel 10 Evaluating and writing reports on the 70 54 60* 25 33 33 work of teachers. 11 Developing an effective approach to the 50 76 57 67* 25 37 30 40 supervision of instruction. 19 Stimulating teacher interest i n pro- 75 61 57 30 27 21 27 fessional growth. Pupil Personnel 23 Providing for students with special 70 71 64 73 35 26 40 43 needs. 25 Evaluating student achievement and 50 51 progress. External Relations 33 Working with home-school groups and 50 parent committees. 34 Conducting conferences and interviews 53* with parents. 35 Working with agencies which provide * 20* services to students and t h e i r families. General Management 44 Managing my time. 20 45 Legal aspects of the job. 60 51 20 *Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10 l e v e l . N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 122 of experience. For items 10 and 11, the p r i n c i p a l s who reported having had from two to f i v e years of experience as a teacher were the major con- t r i b u t o r s to s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square l e v e l s (Table XXVII). In each case, t h i s group contributed a disproportionately high proportion of t o t a l res- ponses for item 10 or 11. Item 04 - Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l , appears on the infrequently reported i n t e r e s t s l i s t s f o r several of the independent variables examined i n t h i s study. The only instance i n which t h i s item i s frequently reported as a learning i n t e r e s f i s shown i n Table XXV. Six of the twenty p r i n c i p a l s i n the lowest experience category i d e n t i f i e d item 04 as a p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t . This accounted for 20.0 percent of the t o t a l responses for item 04, compared with an expected contribution by the "zero to one year" group of 9.6 percent. Item 04 does not appear as a frequently reported recent i n t e r e s t i n any response category f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e . It was, however, more s i d e l y reported by p r i n c i p a l s i n the lowest teaching experience category (45.0 percent) than by any other group (Appendix D, Table LXXIII). Again, the disproportionately high proportion of t o t a l reports contributed by t h i s group of p r i n c i p a l s was p r i m a r i l y re- sponsible for a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns for item 04. Item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , appears i n the "infrequently reported i n t e r e s t s " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r a l l teaching experience categories (Table XXVI). No item appears on the l i s t which was not also included among the l e a s t frequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s f o r the t o t a l sample (Table X). 123 Table XXVI Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents Classified According to Teaching Experience Learning interest and operational area N: Percentage reporting as recent interest Years of experience 0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ 20 92 67 30 Educational Program OA Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l . Staff Personnel 13 Interpersonal relationships. IA Handling the stresses of my job. 16 Conducting st a f f meetings. 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel. Pupil Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program selection. 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t testing program. External Relations 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . General Management 39 Provincial educational finance. A2 Allocating budgeted funds. 15 15 15 17 16 17* 18 17 12 9 * 2 10 IA 16 16 10 17 *Chi-square significant at 0.10 level. N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 124 Table XXVII Teaching Experience Categories Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square f o r Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence 4 Item ^ Step Category Percentage of oC 2 (pre) deleted t o t a l responses (post) 3 3 E 0 Recent 04 0.046 1 0- 1 yr. 9.6 20.0 0.656 10 0.091 1 2- 5 yr. 44.0 50.4 0.581 11 0.029 1 2- 5 yr. 44.0 50.7 0.473 35 0.011 1 6-10 yr. 32.1 18.5 0.990 r i o r i t y 04 0.000 1 0- 1 yr. 9.6 50.0 0.155 05 0.002 1 2- 5 yr. 44.0 66.0 0.090 0.090 2 over 10 yr. 14.4 2.1 0.329 1. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before deletion. 2. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion. 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage. 4. Category designated by years of teaching experience. Non-principal administrative experience. This section deals with reported learning i n t e r e s t s c l a s s i f i e d by respondents' years of experience as a non-principal administrator. As has been noted, twenty-five respondents omitted any designation of t h e i r experience i n th i s type of p o s i t i o n , and t h e i r responses were de- let e d from t h i s phase of analysis. Of the remaining 187 respondents (Table VI I I ) , 76, or 40.6 percent of the responses analyzed, indicated zero to one year of experience as a 125 non-principal administrator. Eighty respondents (42.8 percent) reported having had from two to f i v e years, and 26, or 13.9 percent, indicated s i x to ten years i n this capacity. I t i s important, i n examining the findings r e l a t e d to non-principal administrative experience, to note that only f i v e of 187 respondents (2.7 percent) reported having had over ten years of experience as a non-principal administrator. Five items were frequently reported both as recent and as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s among a l l experience groups. These were: 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n pr o f e s s i o n a l growth. 23 - Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs. Item 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers, was widely reported as a recent i n t e r e s t i n three of four experience cate- gories, and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t i n a l l four. Nine of the frequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s l i s t e d i n Table XXVIII do not appear on the corresponding l i s t (Table IX) for the t o t a l sample. In a l l but two cases, these items appear i n Table XXVIII only be- cause return rates i n the "over ten years" category met the c r i t e r i a f o r designation as a frequently reported i n t e r e s t . As noted previously, there were only f i v e respondents i n t h i s category. The e f f e c t of t h i s can be c l e a r l y seen i n several cases where a response by two p r i n c i p a l s r e s u l t e d i n i n c l u s i o n of an item i n the recent i n t e r e s t s l i s t (Table XXVIII). In 126 Table XXVIII Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Experience as a Non-Principal Administrator Item Percentage reporting as recent i n t e r e s t as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t Years of experience 0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ 0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ N: 76 80 26 5 .02 80 40* 03 51 05 59 51 58 60 22 20 31 20 06 75 81 69 80 47 51 46 40 10 62 63 62 30 28 27 20 11 66 74 54 80 38 38 23 40 15 20 17 50 20 19 53 58 58 100 24 23 31 20 23 75 65 62 80 34 36 23 20 25 53 20 28 20 32 50 33 50 35 50 36 60* 20* 41 60 43 60 * 44 54 35 * 45 54 60 127 Table XXIX Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents Clas s i f i e d by Experience as a Non-Principal Administrator Learning interest and operational area N: Percentage reporting as recent interest Years of experience 0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ 76 80 26 5 Staff Personnel 12 Managing and resolving c o n f l i c t . 13 Interpersonal relationships. 14 Handling the stresses of my job. 16 Conducting staff meetings. 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel. Pupil Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program. 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t testing program. 0 17 12 0 0 18 19 0 16 19 19 12 19 12 0* External Relations 34 Conducting conferences and interviews with parents. 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . General Management 39 Provincial educational finance. 43 Allocating budgeted funds. 11 15 15 19 0* *Chi-square significant at 0.10 lev e l . N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 128 the p r i o r i t y category, only one response was needed to obtain the twenty percent rate which would q u a l i f y that item f o r i n c l u s i o n . Two items were frequently reported as recent i n t e r e s t s by other experience categories. Item 33 - Working with home-school groups and parent committees, was i d e n t i f i e d by 50.0 percent of the respondents i n the s i x to ten year category. Item 35 - Working with agencies which pro- vide services to students and t h e i r f a m i l i e s , was i d e n t i f i e d by 50.0 per- cent of the p r i n c i p a l s i n the two to f i v e year category. Item 36 - Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t , was reported as a recent and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t by the "over ten years" group to the extent that i t was included i n Table XXVIII. Again, i t should be noted that there were only f i v e respondents i n t h i s category. This fact should be taken into consideration when examining the r e s u l t s of the chi-square t e s t of quasi-independence (Table XXX) c a r r i e d out on thi s item. The addition or deletion of one response from t h i s experience category makes a major difference i n the proportion of p r i n c i p a l s report- ing or of t o t a l returns f o r an item. Item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , was infrequently selected by a l l experience groups,as a recent i n t e r e s t (Table XXIX). Item 16 - conducting s t a f f meetings, appears f o r three groups. The small number of respondents i n the "over ten years" category was responsible f o r the i n c l u s i o n of items 12, 14, 34 and 42 i n the i n - frequently reported recent i n t e r e s t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 129 Table XXX Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests Item oC Step Category Percentage of ^ (pre) deleted t o t a l responses (post) 3 3 E 0 Recent 36 0.022 1 over 10 yr. 2.7 9.1 0.174 P r i o r i t y 36 0.090 1 over 10 y r . 2.7 20.0 0.710 1. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before deletion. 2. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion. 3. E = expected percentages. 0 = observed percentages. 4. Category designated by years of experience as a non- p r i n c i p a l administrator. With the exception of item 12, a l l items appearing i n Table XXIX also appeared i n Table IX, which i d e n t i f i e s items infrequently reported within the t o t a l sample. Experience as a p r i n c i p a l . Tables XXXI and XXXII i d e n t i f y the frequently and infrequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s of respondents c l a s s i f i e d according to t h e i r experience as a p r i n c i p a l . These tables provide e s s e n t i a l l y the same types of information as did the corresponding tables f o r other types of experience discussed i n previous sections. There i s , however, an a d d i t i o n a l dimension i n these tables. The outcomes of analysis are reported i n each table f or a l l three classes of experience as a p r i n c i p a l : t o t a l , i n the d i s t r i c t and i n the school. 130 Each of these classes of experience i s considered as a separate e n t i t y i n terms of i t s e f f e c t s on learning i n t e r e s t response frequencies. However, when the question of va r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns i s discussed, a closer look i s taken at the interrelatedness of these experience groups. Four items are widely reported for a l l types of experience. Of twenty-four opportunities (Table XXXI) to appear i n the "frequent" cate- gory, these appeared i n a l l twenty-four instances. These items were: 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 23 - Providing f o r pupils with s p e c i a l needs. Item 10 - Evaluating and wr i t i n g reports on the work of teachers, appeared i n twenty-three of a possible twenty-four. Only item 28 - Developing school guidelines f o r p u p i l conduct, appeared both as a frequently and as an infrequently reported i n t e r e s t . This item appeared only i n the "present school" c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as a recent i n t e r e s t , and only i n the "present d i s t r i c t " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . Also, i n each instance i t appeared only i n one response category. As a recent i n t e r e s t , item 28 was frequently i d e n t i f i e d by p r i n c i p a l s who reported having been i n t h e i r present schools for more than ten years. This group (Table XXXIV) was responsible for almost twice as many responses on item 28 as had been expected. Ten items reported i n Table XXXI as frequently reported i n t e r e s t s do hot appear on the corresponding l i s t f o r the t o t a l sample. These items occur i n Table XXXI i n only a few places, and several of them w i l l be Tabic XXXI Learning Interests Reported Frequently Among Respondents Classified by Experience as a Principal Percentage reporting as recent interest as priority interest Years of experience 0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ 0-1 2-5 8-10 11+ Item C l . 1 N I 1 42 62 P 42 64 Nd: 56 65 34 56 N 1 86 87 • 21 17 01 P SO * • 53 02 P 21 03 P 52 58 d 54 57 • 52 59 24 05 P 60 57 58 24 29 20 d 57 54 50 55 21 26 24 • 54 60 53 21 25 24 06 P 79 66 79 89* 55 37 48 59* d 79 65 85 89* 60 32 53 57* • 83 74 71 88 55 46 43 47 10 P 76 65 57 50* 36 34 24 20 d 71 65 53 50* 36 31 21 21 a 64 61 52 59 33 28 24 11 p 69 63 64 69 52 29 31 30* d 71 62 65 68 52 31 27 27* • 72 60 62 77 44 30 24 24* 15 • 53 17 • 24 19 p 60 67 53 26 26 28 d 65 71 * 34 24 25 • 66 65* 22 33 * 23 P 69 66 67 73 36 29 36 31 d 70 66 65 75 34 29 32 26 • 69 70 71 65 33 31 38 29 25 P 53 50 d 55 56 24 • 51 53 24 27 d 20* • 24 28 • 65* 29 • 53 • 32 P 50 24 d 52 23 a 53 35 a S3 Al P 55 • d 52 * 43 P 55 • 44 P SO 22 d 24 * 1. Experience clasi ilflcation (cl.) designated as: p - total experience aa a principal d " experience as a principal in present district 8 " experience as a principal in present school * Chi-square significant at 0.10 level N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. Table XXXII 132 Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Experience as a P r i n c i p a l Learning Reporting as recent interest interest C l . Years of experience 0-1 yr. 2-5 yr. 6-10 yr. over 10 yr. N z 1 42 P 62 . 42 64 N.: 56 d 65 34 56 N : 86 8 87 21 17 04 P d 8 19 19 16 14 6 12 8 14 13 P d 8 14 14 19 14 18 10 18 16 P d 8 12 16 13 19 18 19 16 18 18 18 P d 8 ' 19 14 17 14 12 14 11* 13* 18 22 P d 8 5 4 2 7 6 5 0 0 0 3 4 2 26 P d 8 18 6 19 5 17 18 18* 28 d 15 * 33 8 14 36 P d 8 10 13 13 18 10 14 13 39 P d , 8 16 14 18 14 14 13 18 42 P d 8 19 9 14 14* 16* 1. Experience c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( cl.) designated as: p • t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l d «> experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n present d i s t r i c t s » experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n present school * Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10 l e v e l N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number 133 examined i n the discussion which follows. The chi-square test of quasi-independence was c a r r i e d out for two sets of items. Items which were frequently reported as both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s for at l e a s t one type of experience, and for which the chi-square l e v e l was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.10 l e v e l , were tested. The other items analyzed were any which, although they d i d not q u a l i f y on the basis of reporting frequency, r e f l e c t e d a pattern of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square values. A pattern was considered to e x i s t when chi-square was s i g n i f i c a n t for both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s i n a given experience c l a s s i f i c a - t i o n , such as "present school." A pattern was also considered to e x i s t when chi-square was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r e i t h e r recent or p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s i n two or three classes of experience, such as "present d i s t r i c t " and "present school." The major emphasis of t h i s phase of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was on the lo c a t i o n of va r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns according to experience as a p r i n c i p a l . For t h i s reason, the discussion of the findings displayed i n Tables XXXIII and IIIIV focusses mainly on those instances where c h i - square was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l . In other words, discussion centres on v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns among groups of respondents categorized according to t h e i r t o t a l experi- ence as a p r i n c i p a l . In s i x cases, a s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square f o r experience as a p r i n c i - p a l was p r i m a r i l y caused by p r i n c i p a l s i n the "zero to one year as a p r i n - c i p a l " category. In each case, the proportion of t o t a l responses c o n t r i - buted by this group was unexpectedly high. The s p e c i f i c items were: 134 Table XXXIII Principal's Experience Categories Identified as Contributing to Significant Chi-Square for Recent Learning Interests Learning interest Class.* (pre) 2 Step Category deleted Percentage of responses E 3 total o 3 2 (post) 06 P 0.077 1 2- 5 yr. 29.5 22.1 0.493 d 0.011 1 2- 5 yr. 30.8 20.2 0.855 11 P 0.053 1 0- 1 yr. 20.0 30.6 0.978 d 0.017 1 0- 1 yr. 26.5 39.7 0.855 s 0.096 1 0- 1 yr. 40.8 52.1 0.777 19 s 0.091 1 2- 5 yr. 41.2 54.7 0.500 25 d 0.076 1 6-10 yr. 16.1 28.6 0.162 27 P 0.069 1 11+ yr. 30.5 50.0 0.226 d 0.071 1 2- 5 yr. 30.8 12.5 0.346 41 P 0.001 1 0- 1 yr. 20.0 70.0 0.945 d 0.001 1 0- 1 yr. 26.5 80.0 0.747 s 0.009 1 2- 5 yr. 41.2 0.0 0.124 42 P 0.000 1 0- 1 yr. 20.0 85.7 0.423 d 0.004 1 0- 1 yr. 26.5 85. 7 0.498 44 d 0.073 1 0- 1 yr. 26.5 8.8 0.833 45 s 0.093 1 6-10 yr. 10.0 0.0 0.164 1. Experience classification (class.) designated as: p = total experience as a principal d = experience as a principal in present d i s t r i c t s = experience as a principal in present school 2. pre = chi-square significance level before deletion post = chi-square significance level after deletion 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage 135 Table XXXIV P r i n c i p a l ' s Experience Categories I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for P r i o r i t y Learning Interests Learning Class. Step Category Percentage of t o t a l 2 i n t e r e s t (pre) deleted responses (post) 3 3 E 0 01 P 0.041 1 2- 5 yr. 29.5 39.7 0.331 06 P 0.021 1 11+ - yr. 30.5 34.8 0.244 d 0.007 1 2- 5 yr. 30.8 25.5 0.293 10 P 0.048 1 0- 1 yr. 20.0 25.0 0.258 d 0.083 1 0- 1 yr. 26.5 31.3 0.237 18 P 0.058 1 2- 5 yr. 29.5 46.2 0.504 d 0.023 1 2- 5 yr. 30.8 51.3 0.932 19 d 0.039 1 6-10 yr. 16.1 20.2 0.083 0.083 2 2- 5 yr. 30.8 35.3 0.850 s 0.081 1 2- 5 yr. 41.2 47.9 0.427 27 d 0.064 1 11+ yr. 26.5 37.0 0.575 28 s 0.015 1 11+ yr. 8.1 15.1 0.207 29 s 0.070 1 0- 1 yr. 40.8 29.7 0.540 41 P 0.008 1 0- 1 yr. 20.0 33.3 0.739 d 0.003 1 0- 1 yr. 26.5 42.0 0.540 s 0.011 1 2- 5 yr. 41.2 27.5 0.228 42 P 0.002 1 0- 1 yr. 20.0 38.0 0.465 d 0.004 1 0- 1 yr. 26.5 44.0 0.136 43 P 0.035 1 11+ yr. 30.5 21.0 0.234 45 s 0.018 1 11+ yr. 8.1 13.7 0.467 1. Experience c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (class.) designated as: p = t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l d = experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n present d i s t r i c t 2 = experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n present school 2. pre = chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before deletion post = chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage. 136 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers (as a recent i n t e r e s t ) . 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n (as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t ) . 41 - Preparing annual school budget submissions (as a recent arid as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t ) . 42 - A l l o c a t i n g budgeted funds (as a recent and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t ) . The value of chi-square was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a large number of the items analyzed by respondents' t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i - p a l . Only where t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t value was pr i m a r i l y a t t r i b u t e d to the group of respondents with zero to one year of experience as a p r i n c i p a l was there a consistent pattern of response. In each of these cases, the percentage of t o t a l responses contributed by th i s group of p r i n c i p a l s was disproportionately high. The s p e c i f i c learning i n t e r e s t s reported i n t h i s manner by the minimally experienced group are those discussed above (10, 11, 41, 42). In many cases, v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns within the " t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l " category are repeated for other c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s (Tables XXXIII, XXXIV). This may be p a r t i a l l y accounted f o r by the fact that t h i s group i s a subset of the two other experience c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The group of p r i n c i p a l s who reported zero to one years t o t a l experience i s a sub-group of those who, regardless of t h e i r t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l , have zero to one year of experience i n the d i s t r i c t . This group, i n turn, i s a subset of the p r i n c i p a l s who reported having been i n t h e i r present school f o r zero to one year. 137 Respondents i n the "two to f i v e years as a p r i n c i p a l " category contributed a disproportionately large percentage of recent i n t e r e s t re- sponses f or two items. These were item 01 - Assessing community and school needs for s p e c i a l courses and programs, and item 18 - Supervising non-teaching personnel. Respondents with s i x to ten years of experience as a p r i n c i p a l were responsible f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square value i n one instance only. For item 02 - Choosing i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs from among av a i l a b l e a l t e r - natives, t h i s group contributed 42.9 percent of t o t a l responses i n the p r i o r i t y category (Table XXXIV). Their expected contribution was 20.0 percent, less than one-half of the observed value. The group of respondents with the greatest number of years of ex- perience as a p r i n c i p a l (over ten years) made disproportionately large contributions to the t o t a l responses f o r two items. In the recent i n t e r e s t s category, t h e i r t o t a l contribution was higher than expected f o r item 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l pro- gram. The same was true for item 27 - Dealing with student problems, i n the p r i o r i t y category. However, for item 43 - General o f f i c e management routines, the highly experienced group contributed a smaller percentage of t o t a l recent i n t e r e s t responses than expected, based on t h e i r group s i z e . Many of the va r i a t i o n s among response categories f o r experience were item-referenced. However, there did appear to be a pattern of v a r i a - t i o n for several items. In a number of cases, these v a r i a t i o n s could be att r i b u t e d to the group of respondents with from zero to one year of ex- 138 perience as a p r i n c i p a l . In each case, the pattern was repeated when re- turns f o r the same item were considered i n the l i g h t of experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n the present d i s t r i c t . The items which were widely reported among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by types and years of experience were generally the same as those which had been frequently i d e n t i f i e d (Table IX) within the o v e r a l l respondent group. The same statement may be made about infrequently re- ported items. Sub-Question 4.2: Learning Interests of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by Education This section reports the findings of the study with regard to the learning i n t e r e s t s i d e n t i f i e d by groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d according to t h e i r most recently achieved educational l e v e l . Three categories were designated: Bachelor's degree (148^respondents), Master's degree i n edu- cation administration (N:43) and Master's degree, but not i n education administration (N:21). In each case, the degree s p e c i f i e d could e i t h e r have been completed or i n progress. Five items were frequently reported both as recent and as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s among a l l groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d according to l e v e l of formal education. These were (Table XXXV): 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program. 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 139 Table XXXV Learning Interests Frequently Reported Among Respondents C l a s s i f i e d by Level of Formal Education Learning interest and operational area Percentage reporting as recent i n t e r e s t as p r i o r i t y interest 1 Degree Bach. Admin. Other Bach. Admin. Other 148 43 21 Educational Program 03 Implementing new i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l . 05 Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . 06 Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Staff Personnel 10 Evaluating and wr i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 19 Stimulating teacher interest i n pro- fessional growth. Pupil Personnel 23 Providing for students with special needs. 25 Evaluating student achievement and progress. External Relations 32 Determining community attitudes and p r i o r i t i e s . General Management 44 Managing my time. 45 Legal aspects of the job. 51 53 56 62 22 76 62 66 51 72 50 84 56 65 70 81 76 63 67 67* 52 46 62 29 35 67* 23 34 23 58 23 30 33 52 29 43 35 24 23 43 24 38 1. Level of formal education designated by university degree most recently completed or i n progress: Bachelor's (Bach.), Master's i n administration (Admin.), Master's i n some other f i e l d (Other). * Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10 l e v e l . N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 140 Table XXXVI Learning Interests Infrequently Reported Among Respondents Classified by Level of Formal Education Learning interest and operational area Percentage reporting as recent interest Degree Bach. N: 148 .1 Admin. Other 43 21 Educational Program 04 Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l . 18 Staff Personnel 13 Interpersonal relationships. 14 19 16 Conducting staff meetings. 16 19 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel. 16 19 Pupil Personnel 22 Advising students about course and program selection. 3 5 5 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t testing program. 18 19 External Relations 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . 13 General Management 39 Provincial educational finance. 13 * 42 Allocating budgeted funds. 16 1. Level of formal education designated by university degree most re- cently completed or in progress: Bachelor's (Bach.), Master's in administration (Admin.), Master's in some other f i e l d (Other). * Chi-square significant at 0.10 level. N.B. A l l percentages taken to nearest whole number. 141 Table XXXVII Education Categories I d e n t i f i e d as Contributing to S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-Square for Learning Interests: Chi-Square Test of Quasi-Independence 4 Item o£ ^ Step Category Percentage of °c 2 (pre) deleted t o t a l responses (post) 3 3 E 0 Recent 12 19 27 32 39 P r i o r i t y 44 0.081 0.062 0.063 0.095 0.006 0.004 1 1 1 1 1 Other Bach. Admin. Other Bach. Admin. 9.9 69.8 20.3 9.9 69.8 20.3 17.2 63.3 12.2 14.9 48.7 40.0 0.634 0.802 0.357 0.997 0.802 0.255 1. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l before deletion. 2. Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a f t e r deletion. 3. E = expected percentage. 0 = observed percentage. 4. Bach. = bachelor's degree Admin. = Master's degree i n education administration. Other = Master's degree, not i n education administration. 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n pro f e s s i o n a l growth. 23 - Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs. Item 32 - Determining community attitudes and p r i o r i t i e s , was among the most frequently reported i n t e r e s t s f o r the t o t a l sample (Table IX), but was frequently reported for t h i s variable only by the p r i n c i p a l s with a master's degree i n education administration completed or i n progress. For t h i s item, and for item 12 - Managing and reso l v i n g c o n f l i c t (Table XXXVII), t h i s group contributed a disproportionately large number of the t o t a l re- sponses i n the recent i n t e r e s t s category. 142 As Table XXXVII shows, there were two other items f o r which a pat- tern of v a r i a t i o n from expected reporting patterns was observed. These were items 19 and 39, for which the group of p r i n c i p a l s reporting education at the Bachelor's degree l e v e l were responsible f o r a smaller proportion of t o t a l contributions than had been expected. Only item 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n , was placed i n the "infrequently reported recent i n t e r e s t s " category by a l l three education groups. No item appeared i n both l i s t s , and a l l items i d e n t i f i e d for t h i s variable e i t h e r as frequently or as infrequently re- ported i n t e r e s t s also appeared i n the corresponding l i s t f o r the t o t a l sample. SUMMARY This chapter has examined the findings of the present study with regard to the learning i n t e r e s t s i d e n t i f i e d by respondents. These i n t e r - ests were c l a s s i f i e d as recent and p r i o r i t y items. Discussion focussed on those learning i n t e r e s t s which were frequently reported and on those which were only infrequently reported i n terms of the number of p r i n c i p a l s who i d e n t i f i e d them. The chapter began with a report of the findings f o r the t o t a l sam- ple. This section was followed by examination of the data for three re- search questions which focussed on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school d i s t r i c t , the school and the p r i n c i p a l . The findings were examined i n two ways. F i r s t , the extent to which each item had been i d e n t i f i e d as a recent and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t 143 was ascertained. Second, an attempt was made to ascertain whether report- ing patterns for each item showed s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n across the response categories of a given independent v a r i a b l e . The t o t a l of a l l response categories f o r a l l variables was f o r t y - f i v e . A record was kept of the categories within which each item was f r e - quently reported as a recent and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t , and of the cate- gories i n which i t was infrequently reported as a recent i n t e r e s t . Figure 5 h i g h l i g h t s t h i s information by showing the number of response categories f o r which each item was i d e n t i f i e d i n one of the three ways l i s t e d above. The learning i n t e r e s t s which most often met the c r i t e r i o n of having been reported as recent i n t e r e s t s by at l e a s t f i f t y percent of the p r i n c i - pals i n various response categories were: 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program. 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 19 - Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n p r o f e s s i o n a l growth. 23 - Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs. Item 11 was frequently reported both as a recent and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t i n a l l response categories of a l l v a r i a b l e s . The other items l i s t e d above were also widely reported as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . In t h i s case, the c r i t e r i o n f o r i n c l u s i o n was that at l e a s t twenty percent of the p r i n c i p a l s i n a category had i d e n t i f i e d the item as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . 144 Number of c a t e g o r i e s i n which the item was i n f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d as a . recent i n t e r e s t ^ ( N : 4 5 ) Number of c a t e g o r i e s i n which the item was f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d as a recen t or p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t ' ( N : 4 5 ) 4 5 30 1 5 1 5 30 45 1.- —= r e c e n t = p r i o r i t y 01 02 oi 01 OS ot 07 10 II IZ 12 Ii IS Ib 11 IB zz 23 Z1 ZU Z1 z& Z9 e 35 3fc 59 •90 4/ 42 43 44 45 Figure 5 Frequent and Inf r e q u e n t Reporting of L e a r n i n g I n t e r e s t s Across a l l Response C a t e g o r i e s 145 Items which were reported by fewer than twenty percent of the p r i n - c i p a l s i n a given response category were c l a s s i f i e d as infrequently re- ported i n t e r e s t s . Several recent i n t e r e s t items were designated i n t h i s way for numerous categories, as shown i n Figure 5: 13 - Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 16 - Conducting s t a f f meetings. 18 - Supervising non-teaching personnel. 22 - Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n . 26 - Developing a d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g program. 36 - Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . 39 - P r o v i n c i a l educational finance. Item 22 was i n the "infrequently reported recent i n t e r e s t " category for a l l response categories of a l l independent v a r i a b l e s . While the above summary gives an i n d i c a t i o n of the breadth of i n t e r e s t i n various items, i t does not deal with v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns among the response categories of each v a r i a b l e . Generally, v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns were r e l a t e d to s p e c i f i c s i n g l e items i n the l i s t of p o t e n t i a l learning i n t e r e s t s . These v a r i a t i o n s permit some discussion of the s p e c i f i c learning i n t e r e s t s of various groups of p r i n c i - p a l s , and how these might be r e l a t e d to the independent variables studied. This discussion appears i n Chapter Eight. Response rates among p r i n c i p a l s separated into urban and r u r a l d i s - t r i c t groups were generally quite consistent between groups and with the t o t a l sample. Reporting patterns v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r several items, but no repeated patterns were observed. 146 There was wider v a r i a t i o n among i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t s . Ap- proximately two-thirds of the items l i s t e d i n the questionnaire q u a l i f i e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the l i s t of frequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s . The same was true f o r infrequently reported items. Although widespread varia-^ t i o n i n reporting patterns was observed, there was no repeated pattern i n which these v a r i a t i o n s could be a t t r i b u t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t or group of d i s t r i c t s . A s i m i l a r summary statement may be made about the variables which represented school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : l o c a t i o n , type and r e l i e f time. In general, l i s t s of frequently and infrequently reported learning i n t e r e s t s were s i m i l a r among response categories to those i d e n t i f i e d by the o v e r a l l respondent group. Numerous examples of disproportionate reporting patterns were i d e n t i f i e d . In some cases, one group was the primary cause of s i g n i - f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n f o r several items. However, no consistent patterns were observed, such as a repeatedly high proportion of responses being c o n t r i - buted by one group over several items. Two respondent-related independent variables were examined: ex- perience i n various p o s i t i o n s , and l e v e l of formal education. In some instances, v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns appeared to be r e l a t e d to edu- cation, although not i n any systematic or repeated manner. There were some d e f i n i t e patterns of v a r i a t i o n among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of experience. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y noticeable f o r the sub-categories r e l a t e d to teaching experience and to experience as a p r i n c i p a l . Patterns were of two types. In some cases, a p a r t i c u l a r group was the major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n 147 reporting patterns for both recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s and because the same reporting patterns occurred ( i . e . disproportionately high or low) i n both instances. In other instances, one group was mainly responsible;, for v a r i a t i o n over several items as e i t h e r a recent or a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . Again, the reporting trend was consistently e i t h e r high or low, Often, these patterns were f i r s t noticed i n considering t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l and were repeated f o r experience i n present d i s t r i c t . In summary, there was considerable agreement among respondents grouped according to several d i f f e r e n t variables that several items were of widespread i n t e r e s t , and that several others were of i n t e r e s t to very few p r i n c i p a l s . There were numerous examples of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns. Many of these v a r i a t i o n s permit discus- sion and speculation about the i n t e r e s t s of groups of p r i n c i p a l s . The s p e c i f i c findings with regard to the learning i n t e r e s t s of respondents have been reported i n th i s chapter. Further discussion, i n - cluding some conclusions, implications and recommendations, i s presented i n Chapter Eight. Chapter Seven deals with the findings r e l a t e d to learning a c t i v i t i e s . 148 Chapter 7 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: LEARNING ACTIVITIES INTRODUCTION This chapter reports the findings of the present study with regard to the learning a c t i v i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d by respondents. It deals i n chrono- l o g i c a l order with Research Questions Five through Eight, and with the sub- questions which focus on s p e c i f i c independent v a r i a b l e s . The general or- ganization of the chapter i s s i m i l a r to that of Chapter Six, since the order of questions about learning a c t i v i t i e s p a r a l l e l s that of the questions which r e l a t e to learning i n t e r e s t s . Question Five examined the learning a c t i v i t i e s of the t o t a l sample. Question Six considered school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and s p e c i f i c a l l y , the variables designated as d i s t r i c t group and school d i s t r i c t . Question Seven examined the learning a c t i v i t i e s of p r i n c i p a l s grouped by school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (location, type and a l l o c a t i o n of r e l i e f time). The f i n a l research question dealt with the learning a c t i v i t i e s of p r i n c i p a l s grouped according to t h e i r experience and education. RECENT USE, AVAILABILITY AND PREFERENCE Three dimensions of an o v e r a l l view of learning a c t i v i t i e s were studied i n three types of questions on the research instrument (Appendix B). These dimensions might be termed recent use, a v a i l a b i l i t y and pre- ference. 149 Rate of Recent Use P r i n c i p a l s were presented with a l i s t of twenty-four learning a c t i - v i t i e s , which became the focus of the three types of questions noted above. The f i r s t of these questions (questionnaire part Cl) dealt with the report- ed rate of recent use of each a c t i v i t y . "Recent" was considered to be the previous and the then-current school year. Respondents reported t h e i r rate of recent use of each a c t i v i t y , on a four-point scale, as: never, seldom (once or twice), occasionally (three or four times) or frequently ( f i v e or more times). These rates were converted to numerical values as follows: One (never), two (seldom), three (occasionally) and four (frequently). From these values, mean ranks were computed for the t o t a l sample and f o r the response categories of each independent v a r i a b l e . It should be noted that the s t a t i s t i c s obtained by the above pro- cedure are means of ranks, not mean rates of use. A value of 2.5, for example, indicates that the mean of reported ranks was at the mid-point of the four-point scale, halfway between seldom (once or twice) and occasionally (three or four times). This value does not indicate..that the a c t i v i t y tended to be used on 2.5 occasions during recent months. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, corrected f o r t i e s , was used to e s t a b l i s h l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n re- porting patterns among groups of respondents. The chi-square t e s t of quasi-independence was used to locate the source of each s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n (0.10 l e v e l ) . 150 Desire for Greater A v a i l a b i l i t y In part C2 of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to i d e n t i f y those a c t i v i t i e s which they probably would have used more often during re- cent months, had these a c t i v i t i e s been more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . The number and percentage reporting t h i s desire f or greater a v a i l a b i l i t y were tabulat- ed. The chi-square t e s t was used to e s t a b l i s h l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e for v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns. The chi-square t e s t of quasi-independence enabled the major contributors to these v a r i a t i o n s to be i d e n t i f i e d . Preferred Learning A c t i v i t i e s In the f i n a l portion of the questionnaire (item D2), respondents were asked to match each of t h e i r p r e v i o u s l y - i d e n t i f i e d p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s with learning a c t i v i t i e s which, given ready a v a i l a b i l i t y , they would prefer to use. These were to be a c t i v i t i e s perceived by the respon- dent to be the most useful i n learning more about t h e i r areas of p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . These data were analyzed i n the same manner as those r e l a t e d to a c t i v i t i e s for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired. These types of information provided a three-dimensional view of the learning a c t i v i t i e s of respondents. The data on these dimensions might be considered as responses to three questions, which asked how frequently the a c t i v i t y was reportedly used, whether that frequency of use was perceived as adequate, and whether the a c t i v i t y was widely considered to be very useful. The following section discusses the findings as they r e l a t e to the o v e r a l l sample of p r i n c i p a l s studied. 151 QUESTION 5: REPORTED LEARNING ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS The findings regarding the reported learning a c t i v i t i e s of the whole sample are reported i n Table XXXVIII. This table shows the mean of recent use ranks, and the number and percentage of p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t i n g a desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y or a preference f o r a given a c t i v i t y . O v e r a l l Responses Six items had a mean recent use rank of at l e a s t 3.0: 08 - Consultation with teachers. 10 - Consultation with d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f . 12 - Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s . 13 - Informal get-togethers with other administrators. 14 - Discussions with family or friends. 18 - Professional reading: books, journals, b u l l e t i n s , etc. These items had the highest mean ranks of recent use rates of the twenty-four learning a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n the questionnaire. I t may also be noted (Table XXXVIII) that r e l a t i v e l y few p r i n c i p a l s reported a desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y of these a c t i v i t i e s . Three of the items l i s t e d above were widely reported as preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s . These were items 08 - Consultation with teachers, item 10 - Consultation with d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f , and item 12 - Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s . For s i x other learning a c t i v i t i e s , the mean of recent use ranks was less than 2.0, i n d i c a t i n g generally infrequent use among the o v e r a l l re- spondent group. These items were: 152 T a b l e XXXVIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s Reported by Respondents Learning a c t i v i t y Mean of Greater a v a i l a b i l i t y Preferred by recent use desired by no. (N: 212) % no. (N: 212) X 01 I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days) 2.7 82 38.7 149 70.3 02 Out-of d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days) 2.2 56 26.4 70 33.0 03 Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c topic 2.1 93 43.9 152 71.7 04 Short course (1-2 weeks) 1.3 82 38.7 114 53.8 05 Annual conference or convention 2.0 25 11.8 14 6.6 06 D i s t r i c t orientation or administra- tive training session 2.1 76 35.8 97 45.8 07 University course 1.6 38 17.9 53 25.0 08 Consultation with teachers 3.8 4 .1.9 76 35.8 09 Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l 2.3 16 7.5 13 6.1 10 Consultation with d i s t r i c t central o f f i c e s t a f f 3.4 22 10.4 86 40.6 11 Consultation with an outside s p e c i a l i s t 2.4 50 23.6 122 57.5 12 Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s 3.5 28 13.2 82 38.7 13 Informal get-together with other administrators 3.2 4 11.3 47 22.2 14 Discussions with family or friends 3.0 0 0.0 10 4.7 15 Informal contacts at committee meetings 2.9 5 2.4 17 8.0 16 V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t 2.5 51 24.1 52 24.5 17 V i s i t s to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s 1.7 92 43.4 76 35.8 18 Professional reading: books, journals, b u l l e t i n s , etc. 3.3 31 14.6 65 30.7 19 Reference to a personal f i l e of collected a r t i c l e s 2.7 8 3.8 3 1.4 20 Reviewing university course notes 1.7 2 0.9 2 0.9 21 Writing a paper or giving a presenta- tion 1.8 6 2.8 1 0.5 22 Purposeful trial-and-error and experimentation 2.7 2 0.9 16 7.5 23 Reviewing the results of research 2.3 37 17.5 39 18.4 24 Use of information r e t r i v a l 1.6 27 12.7 8 3.8 systems, i . e . ERIC 153 04 - Short course (1-2 weeks). 07 - University course. 17 - V i s i t s to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s . 20 - Reviewing u n i v e r s i t y course notes. 21 - Writing a paper or giving a presentation. 24 - Use of information r e t r i e v a l systems, i . e . ERIC. R e l a t i v e l y few p r i n c i p a l s indicated e i t h e r a desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y or a preference for four of these learning a c t i v i t i e s : items 07, 20, 21 and 24. Table XXXVIII shows, however, that both item 04 - Short course, and item 17 - V i s i t s to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s , were frequently designated both as a c t i v i t i e s for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired, and as preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s . Several other items f e l l i n the middle range of recent use ranks, but were frequently reported both as "greater a v a i l a b i l i t y desired" and as preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s : 01 - I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days). 02 - O u t - o f - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days). 03 - Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c t o p i c . 06 - D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session. 11 - Consultation with an outside s p e c i a l i s t . 16 - V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t . Item 03 - Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c topic, was the item for which a desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was most frequently reported. It was also the item which was most widely i d e n t i f i e d 154 as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y . Items 01, 04 and 06 also ranked among the top f i v e of a l l twenty-four items i n terms of frequency of reporting i n both categories. Table XXXVIII shows that the a c t i v i t i e s which appear to have been more frequently used tended to c l u s t e r i n the consultative group of items (08 through 17). Except for items 11 and 17, the a c t i v i t i e s which were widely reported both as needing to be more a v a i l a b l e and as preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s were formal a c t i v i t i e s (items 01 through 07). In general, although there were a number of exceptions, the items f o r which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was generally not desired, and which were not i d e n t i - f i e d as preferred a c t i v i t i e s , were found i n the personal group (items 18 through 24). The data on learning a c t i v i t i e s of the t o t a l sample have provided an o v e r a l l p i c t u r e of reporting trends i n terms of recent use, desire f o r greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference for each a c t i v i t y . Following a d i s - cussion of some ad d i t i o n a l learning a c t i v i t i e s s p e c i f i e d by respondents are the sections dealing with school d i s t r i c t , school and respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In each of these sections, the emphasis i s on v a r i a t i o n s from the findings reported for the o v e r a l l sample, and p a r t i c u l a r l y on va r i a t i o n s among the response categories for each independent v a r i a b l e . Where such v a r i a t i o n did not occur, response patterns were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t among groups of p r i n c i p a l s . A d d i t i o n a l Learning A c t i v i t i e s S p e c i f i e d by Respondents Provision was made i n the questionnaire f o r p r i n c i p a l s to speci f y a d d i t i o n a l learning a c t i v i t i e s which were of value to them, and which they 155 perceived to have been omitted from the questionnaire. These items are l i s t e d i n Appendix E, Table LXXVI. Several of the added items, such as "informal get-togethers," were almost i d e n t i c a l to learning a c t i v i t i e s which had been included i n the questionnaire. Several others were v a r i a t i o n s or s p e c i f i c examples of l i s t e d a c t i v i t i e s . There were also some added items which appeared to be combinations of two or three l i s t e d a c t i v i t i e s . Some of the a d d i t i o n a l items appeared not to be learning a c t i v i t i e s as defined for the present study, but a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out to accomplish objectives implied by c e r t a i n of the learning i n t e r e s t statements. " S t a f f - community sporting a c t i v i t i e s , " f o r example, appear to be part of a program of external r e l a t i o n s , rather than a way of gaining increased knowledge and s k i l l about the processes involved i n developing and maintaining exter- na l r e l a t i o n s . QUESTION 6: LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS The learning a c t i v i t i e s of respondents grouped according to two school d i s t r i c t variables were examined i n t h i s research question. The s p e c i f i c variables were d i s t r i c t group (sub-question 6.1) and i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t (sub-question 6.2). The discussion i n t h i s section focusses on reporting trends and s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s between d i s t r i c t groups and among school d i s t r i c t s . 156 Sub-Question 6.1: Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by D i s t r i c t Group In general, reporting patterns showed no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n be- tween urban and r u r a l d i s t r i c t group. Their responses i n these cases were very s i m i l a r to those of the o v e r a l l sample. In seven instances, however (Table XI, page 95), there was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference be- tween groups for one or more of the dimensions measured. In s i x of these cases, s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n existed i n the returns from which the means of recent use ranks was determined (items 03, 04, 09, 12, 23, 24). For purposes of a n a l y s i s , returns i n each of the four use rate categories (never, seldom, occasionally, frequently), were expected to be d i s t r i b u t e d between d i s t r i c t groups i n a manner proportionate to t h e i r s i z e . Where t h i s was not the case, the l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i s shown i n Table XXXIX beside the mean of recent use ranks. Disproportionate reporting patterns f o r f i v e of the s i x items noted above resulted i n lower means of recent use rates i n r u r a l than i n urban school d i s t r i c t s . In other words, the rates of recent use reported by r u r a l group members tended to be lower than those reported by urban group members to the extent that t h e i r reporting patterns were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . These items were: 03 - Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c t o p i c . 09 - Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l . 12 - Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s . 23 - Reviewing the r e s u l t s of research. 24 - Use of information r e t r i v a l systems, i . e . ERIC. Table XXXIX Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns between D i s t r i c t Groups of . 1 Respondents reporting 1 . 1 Learning Mean Sig. Sig. Respondents reporting Sig. a c t i v i t y recent desire for greater as a preferred use ranks a v a i l a b i l i t y a c t i v i t y Group: urban r u r a l urban r u r a l urban r u r a l no. % no. % no. % no. % N: 113 99 03 2.3 1.9 0.009 04 1.3 1.4 0.097 09 2.5 2.0 0.010 3 2.7 13 13.1 0.009 12 3.5 3.4 0.072 51 45.1 31 31.3 0.055 18 11 9.7 20 20.2 0.050 23 2.4 2.2 0.048 24 1. 7 1.5 0.081 1. Sig. = l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . L n 158 Only i n the case of item 04 - Short course (1-2 weeks) was the mean of recent use ranks higher i n the r u r a l than i n the urban group f or an item where s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e was shown. Two of the items shown i n Table XXXIX were reported more frequently by r u r a l than urban group members as items f o r which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired. These were items 09 - Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , and 18 - Professional reading: books, journals, b u l l e t i n s , etc. Item 12 - Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s , was much more widely reported as a preferred a c t i v i t y within the urban group than within the r u r a l group. Only about thirty-one percent of the urban group respondents i d e n t i f i e d item 12 as preferred, compared with approximately f o r t y - f i v e percent of the urban group. Sub-Question 6.2 - Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School D i s t r i c t This sub-question examined the learning a c t i v i t i e s of p r i n c i p a l s grouped by i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . Tables XL and XLI show the res u l t s of analyses c a r r i e d out on items f o r which reporting patterns varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y among school d i s t r i c t s . Where a s u f f i c i e n t number of p r i n c i - pals reported a desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y of an item or i d e n t i f i e d i t as a preference, the chi-square t e s t of quasi-independence was u t i l i z e d to locate the major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n . In these cases, the major contributors are marked with an a s t e r i s k (*).in the table. In general, p r i n c i p a l s i n D i s t r i c t s F through K, the r u r a l d i s t r i c t s , reported less frequent recent use of the learning a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n Table XL than did the p r i n c i p a l s i n D i s t r i c t s A through E. An exception was Table XL Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t Variation i n Reporting Patterns Among School D i s t r i c t s Learning a c t i v i t y Mean of recent use ranks D i s t r i c t Level of Significance A B C D E F G H J K N: 30 23 21 23 16 25 18 20 20 16 01 3.2 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.6 3.0 2.3 0.027 02 1.9 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.9 0.043 03 2.7 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 0.007 04 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.073 06 2.7 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.4 1.4 1.6 1.9 0.000 09 2.6 1.6 3.6 2.3 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 0.004 20 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.5 0.065 160 item 04 - Short course (1-2 weeks), which appeared to have been used more frequently by p r i n c i p a l s i n the r u r a l school d i s t r i c t s . This f i n d i n g was also r e f l e c t e d i n the means of recent use ranks f o r d i s t r i c t groups, which were discussed i n the previous section. Over the whole group of items i n Table XL, urban school d i s t r i c t means were above t o t a l sample means i n twelve instances, and below i n fourteen. Rural d i s t r i c t means were above sample means i n eleven instances, and below i n twenty-three. Item 09 - Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , appears i n Table XL and i n both categories of Table XLI. There would seem to be a f a i r l y d e f i n i t e urban/rural d i s t r i c t s p l i t with regard to t h i s item. Means of recent use ranks f o r t h i s item are above the t o t a l sample mean i n three of the f i v e urb an d i s t r i c t s (A, C, E). The means i n a l l f i v e r u r a l d i s - t r i c t s are lower than the t o t a l sample mean. Item 03 - Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c t o p i c , and item 06 - D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session, appear i n Table XL and i n the " a v a i l a b i l i t y " portion of Table XLI. For each of these items, mean ranks of recent use rates i n D i s t r i c t s A through E were more often below the means for the t o t a l sample than was the case i n D i s t r i c t s F through K. In each case, the number of responses i n the " a v a i l a b i l i t y " category permitted further analysis to locate the major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n c e . Both for item 03 and f o r item 06, a d i s t r i c t which contributed a disproportionately small percentage of t o t a l returns was i d e n t i f i e d . For item 03, t h i s was D i s t r i c t A, and f o r item 06, D i s t r i c t K. D i s t r i c t A was categorized as an urban d i s t r i c t , and Dis- t r i c t K as a r u r a l d i s t r i c t . In each of these d i s t r i c t s , the desire f o r greater a v a i l a b i l i t y of the item concerned was r e l a t i v e l y infrequently 16.1 Table XL I Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among School D i s t r i c t s i n Reporting Patterns for A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators Item R Percentage reporting D i s t r i c t A B C D E F G H J K N: 30 23 21 23 16 25 18 20 20 16 %: 3 14 11 10 11 8 12 9 9 9 8 03 c 20 52 43 48 63 52 22 45 60 44 i 7* 13 10 12 11 14 4 10 13 8 0.063 06 c 20 39 43 44 56 12 45 50 40 25 i 8 12 11 13 12 4* 11 13 11 5 0.052 09 c 3 0 5 4 0 12 28 15 0 13 i 6 0 6 6 0 19 31 19 0 13 0.021 18 c 20 0 10 13 0 52 6 0 20 13 i 19 0 7 10 0 42 3 0 13 7 0.000 19 c 13 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 6 i 50 0 0 0 0 13 0 25 0 13 0.099 09 c 10 4 19 0 0 0 0 20 0 6 i 23 8 31 0 0 0 0 31 0 8 0.016 1. A l l percentages are taken to nearest whole number. 2. Reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - percentage of respondents i n th i s category who reported t h i s item, i - percentage of t o t a l reports f o r th i s item. 3. Percentage (to nearest whole number) of t o t a l respondents. * Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r th i s item. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e 162 reported. It i s also the case (Table XL) that the mean of recent use ranks for item 03 i n D i s t r i c t A and for item 06 i n D i s t r i c t F were considerably higher than the corresponding mean f o r the t o t a l sample. Items 18 and 19 showed l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e below 0.10 for re- turns i n d i c a t i n g desired greater a v a i l a b i l i t y . The same was true f o r the returns which indicated a preference for item 09. In each instance, though, there were r e l a t i v e l y few responses, a fact which l i m i t s the usefulness of further a n a lysis. The most noticeable trend with regard to i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t s i s the f i n d i n g that several learning a c t i v i t i e s ( including s i x of seven formal a c t i v i t i e s ) appear to have been used les s frequently by p r i n c i p a l s i n r u r a l school d i s t r i c t s than by those i n urban d i s t r i c t s . QUESTION 7: LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS This section examines the findings r e l a t e d to the learning a c t i v i - t i e s of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d according to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r school. Three independent variables were studied. The f i r s t , school l o c a t i o n (sub-question 7.1) was measured by the number of schools i n the same d i s - t r i c t which could be contacted by a l o c a l telephone c a l l from the respon- dent's school. The second variable (sub-question 7.2) was school type, designated as elementary, secondary or elementary-secondary. The t h i r d was r e l i e f time (sub-question 7.3), or the percentage of the regular school day for which the p r i n c i p a l reported being released from teaching to carry out administrative and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 163 Sub-Question 7.1: Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School Location Respondents were grouped into four school l o c a t i o n categories, based on the number of other schools i n the same d i s t r i c t which could be contacted with a l o c a l telephone c a l l . These categories were: zero, or no other schools, one to three, four to ten and over ten other schools. The l a t t e r group was by f a r the l a r g e s t , with 169 respondents, or 79.7 percent of the t o t a l sample. In contrast, only 8 respondents (3.8 percent of the t o t a l sample), indicated that no other school could be contacted with a l o c a l phone c a l l . Table XLII shows that a l l of the items for which reporting patterns varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y were i n the consultative category of learning a c t i v i - t i e s . Furthermore, i n each of the f i v e instances l i s t e d i n the table, the mean of recent use ranks for the "zero contacts" group was s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than the mean for the t o t a l sample. The difference between means was p a r t i c u l a r l y wide for three items: 09 - Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l . 11 - Consultation with an outside s p e c i a l i s t . 13 - Informal get-togethers with other administrators. Items 09 and 13 also appear i n Table XLII. A higher-than-expected proportion of t o t a l responses for each of these items was contributed by each of the three lowest l o c a t i o n categories. In both cases, the group who reported being able to contact over ten other schools contributed much smaller proportions of t o t a l returns than t h e i r percentage of the t o t a l sample would have suggested. 164 Table XLII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks for Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among School Location Categories Mean of recent use ranks Learning ^ Level of a c t i v i t y School l o c a t i o n group: s i g n i f i c a n c e 0 N: 8 1-3 20 4-10 15 over 10 169 09 1.0 2.2 2.2 2.4 0.082 11 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.5 0.027 12 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.5 0.051 13 2.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 0.065 16 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.068 1. Location designated by number of other schools i n the same d i s t r i c t which can be contacted with a l o c a l phone. The "zero contacts" category was i d e n t i f i e d by the chi-square test of quasi-independence as being the major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r two items shown i n Table XLIII. These were items 04 - Short course (1-2 weeks) and 05 - Annual conference or convention. A disproportionately high percentage of responses i n d i c a t i n g a desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y of these a c t i v i t i e s was contributed by the "zero contacts" category. Item 03 - Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c t o p i c , r e f l e c t s a marked departure from the reporting pattern most often displayed i n Table XLIII. In t h i s case, the percentages of t o t a l responses provided by each of the three lowest contact categories were l e s s than had been ex- pected. This was also the only learning a c t i v i t y f o r which the "over 10" category was responsible for a larger proportion of responses than the 165 Table XLIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among School Location Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators 2 1 Item R School l o c a t i o n group: Level of 0 1-3 1-10 over 10 s i g n i f i c a n c e N: 8(3.8) 3 20(9.4) 15(7.1) 169(79.7) no. % no. % no. % no. % 04 c i 6 75.0 7.3* 11 55.0 13.4 4 26.7 4.9 61 36.1 74.4 0.044 05 c i 3 37.5 12.0* 3 15.0 12.0 3 20.0 12.0 16 9.5 64.0 0.068 06 c i 6 75.0 7.9 5 25.0 .S6.6 5 2 33.3 6.6 60 35.5 78.9 0.094 09 c i 2 25.0 12.5 4 20.0 25.0 2 13.3 12.5 8 4.7 50.0 >> •w •rl r-l •rl 10 c i 1 12.5 4.5 4 20.0 18.2 4 26.7 18.2 13 7.7 59.1 0.055 •s tH •rl CO 12 c i 2 25.0 7.1 5 25.0 17.9 4 26.7 14.3 17 10.1 60.7 0.065 r* <3 13 c i 4 50.0 16.7 3 15.0 12.5 3 20.0 12.5 14 8.3 58.3 0.002 15 c i 2 25.0 40.0 1 5.0 20.5 2 13.3 40.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 : 16 c i 5 62.5 9.8 5 25.0 9.8 4 26.7 7.8 37 21.9 72.5 0.073 u 03 c i 3 37.5 2.0 13 65.0 8.6 9 60.0 5.9 127 75.1 83.6* 0.070 ti OJ S-i OJ M-l 16 c i 5 62.5 9.6 5 25.0 9.6 3 20.0 5.8 39 23.1 75.0 0.086 0.086 1. School l o c a t i o n designated by number of other schools i n the same d i s t r i c t which can be contacted with a l o c a l phone c a l l . 2. R=reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c-number and percentage of respondents i n this category who reported t h i s item; i-percentage of t o t a l reports f o r th i s item. 3. Figures i n parentheses indicate percentage of t o t a l sample. *Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h i s item. 166 si z e of the group would have suggested. The "over 10" category was i d e n t i - f i e d as the major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n among groups report- ing item 03 as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y - Six of the nine items shown i n the " a v a i l a b i l i t y " section of Table XLIII were l i s t e d i n the consultative group of learning a c t i v i t i e s on the questionnaire. The reporting pattern for each of these items shows higher- than-expected proportions of t o t a l responses contributed by the p r i n c i p a l s who were able to contact ten or fewer other schools. In each instance, those who reported being able to contact more than ten other schools pro- vided fewer responses than had been expected. Sub-Question 7.2: Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by School Type For t h i s phase of the analysis, respondents were placed i n one of three groups on the basis of school type. Schools e n r o l l i n g any grade or grades from kindergarten to grade seven were designated elementary schools. Those e n r o l l i n g grades eight through twelve, or any portion thereof, were designated secondary schools. Any school which enrolled at l e a s t one grade from each of these categories was designated elementary-secondary. There were r e l a t i v e l y few (11 of 212) elementary-secondary school p r i n c i - pals i n the o v e r a l l sample. There were s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns f o r recent use rates of twelve items (Table XLIV). Eight of these items were i n the consultative category of learning a c t i v i t i e s . For nine of the twelve a c t i - v i t i e s which showed s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n , a d e f i n i t e pattern was observable. For each of these a c t i v i t i e s ( s i x of which were consultative i n nature) the mean of recent use ranks was higher f o r secondary p r i n c i p a l s than f o r e i t h e r 167 Table XLIV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks for Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among School Type Categories Learning Mean of recent use ranks Level of a c t i v i t y School type: s i g n i f i c a n c e Elementary Secondary Elem. - sec. N: 161 40 11 01 2.9 2.4 2.3 0.003 08 09 10 11 12 13 16 17 3. 7 1.9 3.3 2.5 3.4 3.1 2.4 1.6 3.9 3.9 3.6 2.4 3. 7 3.4 2.7 2.1 3.6 1.8 3.7 1.7 3.4 2.6 2.4 1.8 0.042 0.000 0.019 0.046 0.095 0.067 0.077 0.042 21 23 24 1.8 2.3 1.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.5 0.042 0.009 0.017 168 of the other two categories of respondents. Further, the means for second- ary p r i n c i p a l s were i n a l l instances higher than the means for the o v e r a l l sample. For both elementary and elementary-secondary p r i n c i p a l s , they were almost always lower. The items which followed t h i s pattern of report- ing were: 08 - Consultation with teachers. 09 - Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s . 12 - Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s . 13 - Informal get-togethers with other administrators. 16 - V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t . 17 - V i s i t s to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s . 21 - Writing a paper or giving a presentation. 23 - Reviewing the re s u l t s of research. 24 - Use of information r e t r i e v a l systems, i . e . ERIC. Only f o r items 01 - I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days) and 11 - Con- s u l t a t i o n with an outside s p e c i a l i s t , did elementary.principals tend to report more frequent recent use of an a c t i v i t y shown i n Table XLIV than did the other groups. Item 16 - V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t , also appeared i n both sections of Table XLV. The secondary p r i n c i p a l s category had a higher mean of recent use ranks f o r th i s item than did the other two cate- gories. Further, the secondary group was i d e n t i f i e d as the major c o n t r i - butor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r scores i n d i c a t i n g desired greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference. In each case, the secondary category contributed a smaller proportion of the t o t a l responses f o r item 16 than had been expected. This 169 Table XLV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among School Type Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators Item R 1 Reported by School Type: Elementary Secondary N: 161(75.9)2 40(18.9) Elem. • 11(5 - Sec. .2) Level of si g n i f i c a n c e no. % no. % no. % 13 c i 20 12.4 83.3 1 2.5 4.2 3 27.3 12.5 0.048 16 c i 43 26.7 84.3 4 10.0 7.8* 4 36.4 7.8 0.054 01 c i 121 75.2 81.2* 22 55.0 14.8 6 54.5 4.0 0.022 06 c i 84 52.2 86.6 8 20.0 8.2* 5 45.5 5.2 0.001 16 c i 46 28.6 . 88.5 4 10.0 7.7* 2 18.2 3.8 0.045 1. R = reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - number and percentage of respondents i n this category who reported this item. i - percentage of t o t a l reports f o r t h i s item. 2. Figures i n parentheses i n d i c a t e percentage of t o t a l sample. * Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h i s item. 170 was also the case f o r responses which i d e n t i f i e d item 06 - D i s t r i c t o r i e n - t a t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session, as a preferred learning a c t i v i - ty. The mean of recent use ranks f o r item 01 - I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days) was highest among elementary p r i n c i p a l s (Table XLIV). This group also contributed a disproportionately high percentage of the respons- es which i d e n t i f i e d item 01 as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y . Sub-Question 7.3: Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by R e l i e f Time A l l o c a t i o n R e l i e f time categories were designated by the percentage of regular school hours f o r which the p r i n c i p a l reported being released from teaching to carry out administrative and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The category "under f i f t y percent" was made up of p r i n c i p a l s who had at l e a s t twenty percent r e l i e f time, since those with l e s s were excluded from the study. The other two r e l i e f time categories were " f i f t y to seventy-five percent" and "over 75 percent." Most of the learning a c t i v i t i e s f o r which s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n recent use reporting patterns occurred were consultative a c t i v i t i e s (Table XLVI). In almost a l l cases, i n c l u d i n g a l l s i x consultative a c t i v i t i e s , the mean of recent use ranks was highest for the group of p r i n c i p a l s who re- ported over seventy-five percent r e l i e f time. Item 06 - D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a - t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session, was an exception. The mean of recent use ranks for t h i s item was lower i n the "over seventy-five percent" r e l i e f time category than i n e i t h e r of the other two categories. • 171 Table XLVI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks for Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among Re l i e f Time Categories Learning Mean of recent use ranks Level of a c t i v i t y R e l i e f time a l l o c a t i o n : s i g n i f i c a n c e under 50% 50-75% over 75% N: 55 63 94 06 2.3 2.3 1.9 0.007 08 09 12 13 16 17 3.5 1.3 3.3 2.9 2.3 1.7 3.8 1.7 3.4 3.0 2.3 1.4 3.9 3.1 3.6 3.4 2.7 1.8 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.004 0.002 0.003 20 21 24 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.8 0.040 0.094 0.005 .172 Table XLVII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Rel i e f Time Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators „1 Item R Reported by Re l i e f time a l l o c a t i o n : Level of under 50% 50-75% over 75% si g n i f i c a n c e N: 55(25.9)2 63(29.7) 94(44.3) no. % no. % no. % 4-J •rl •H 08 20 c i c i 5.5 75.0 3.6 100.0 1.6 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.060 0.056 0) o c cu u oi 4-1 ai u PH 09 14 15 c i c i c i 1.8 7.7 5.5 30.0 12.7 41.2 1.6 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0* 11 10 11.7 84.6 7.4 70.0 10.6 58.8 0.011 0.093 0.018 1. R = reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - number and percentage of respondents i n th i s category who reported t h i s item. i - percentage of t o t a l reports for th i s item. 2. Figures i n parentheses represent percentage of t o t a l sample. *Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e for t h i s item. 173 Table XLVII l i s t s the a c t i v i t i e s for which s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n occurred i n reporting patterns re l a t e d to a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference. With one exception, the t o t a l number of responses for each of these items was very small. There was, however, a s u f f i c i e n t number of responses to permit further analysis of item 15 - Informal contacts at committee meet- ings. This item was seldom i d e n t i f i e d within the o v e r a l l respondent group as a preferred a c t i v i t y (Table XXXVIII). None of the respondents i n the group of p r i n c i p a l s who reported f i f t y to seventy-five percent r e l i e f time i d e n t i f i e d item 15 as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y . This category was the major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r item 15. A d e f i n i t e pattern e x i s t s with regard to mean ranks of recent use rates, as noted above. For most learning a c t i v i t i e s f o r which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired or a preference indicated by enough p r i n c i p a l s to permit meaningful a n a l y s i s , no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n was noted. QUESTION 8: LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS This question examined the learning a c t i v i t i e s reported among p r i n - c i p a l s grouped according to years of experience i n s p e c i f i e d positions i n education (sub-question 8.1) and l e v e l of formal education (sub-question 8.2). Four response categories were s p e c i f i e d f or each kind of experience: zero to one year, two to f i v e years, s i x to ten years and over ten years. Sub-Question 8.1: Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by Experience A major difference between t h i s sub-question and the others examined i n the present study, as discussed i n Chapter 6, was that three sets of data 174 were gathered about the p r i n c i p a l ' s experience. These were: 1. Teaching experience. Years of experience as a teacher, with no administrative or supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 2. "Non-principal" administrative experience. Years of experience i n administrative p o s i t i o n s , but not as a p r i n c i p a l . 3. Experience as a p r i n c i p a l . This information was divided into three sub-categories: 3.1 To t a l years of experience as a p r i n c i p a l . 3.2 Years of experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n the present d i s t r i c t . 3.3 Years of experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n the respondent's pre- sent school. The findings r e l a t e d to each of these sub-groups are tabled i n a s i m i l a r manner to that used for the other v a r i a b l e s . The three groups c l a s s i f i e d according to experience as a p r i n c i p a l , however, are discussed together. As was the case for learning i n t e r e s t s , the questionnaires which were not i d e n t i f i a b l e as to years of experience i n a given category were excluded from that phase of the analysis. In the case of non-principal administrative experience, the number of usable questionnaires was 187 of 212. Teaching experience. S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n among the reporting patterns from which means of recent use ranks were derived was noted f o r f i v e items (Table XLVIII). Three of the f i v e were formal a c t i v i t i e s . 175 For a l l f i v e of these items, the p r i n c i p a l s who reported zero to one year of experience as a teacher tended to report use rates which re- sulted i n higher means than those f o r the t o t a l sample. The same was true among the p r i n c i p a l s who reported having had over ten years of experience as a teacher. In general, means of recent use ranks f o r these items among the middle two teaching experience categories were lower than t o t a l sample means. A l l of the learning a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n Table XLIX were r e l a t i v e l y widely reported, e i t h e r as items for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired, or as preferred a c t i v i t i e s . As a r e s u l t , further analysis to locate major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n c e was possible. Items 01, 06 and 16 were widely reported among the t o t a l sample as items for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired. In each case, the group of p r i n c i p a l s with zero to one year of experience as a teacher was a major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e (Table XLIX). For items 01 and 06, t h i s groups proportion of t o t a l responses was very low. The same was true f o r the "over ten years" category f o r item 01. The "zero to one year" category was also a major contributor to si g n i f i c a n c e for item 16 - V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t . How- ever, i n th i s case, these p r i n c i p a l s contributed a disproportionately large percentage of t o t a l responses. The group of p r i n c i p a l s who reported two to f i v e years of experience as a teacher contributed a larger proportion of the preferred a c t i v i t y re- sponses for items 02, 03 and 04 than t h e i r number would have suggested. 176 Table XLVIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories Learning Mean of recent use ranks Level of a c t i v i t y Years of experience s i g n i f i c a n c e 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 20 92 67 30 01 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.9 0.005 02 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.5 0.030 05 2.4 1.9 1.9 2.4 0.001 17 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.8 0.093 22 2.9 2.7 2.5 3.0 0.055 For items 02 and 04, these response rates were the major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n c e . For item 03, t h i s was a t t r i b u t e d to the r e l a t i v e l y low re- sponse rate of the "over ten years" category. Item 23 - Reviewing the r e s u l t s of research, was reported as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y by a disproportionately small number of p r i n c i - pals with two to f i v e years of experience as a teacher. A l l other categor- i e s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y the "zero to one year" group contributed a higher proportion of t o t a l responses i n d i c a t i n g a preference f o r item 23 than t h e i r numbers would have suggested. Experience as a non-principal administrator. Only f i v e respondents (Table L) reported having had over ten years of experience as an administra- tor i n positions other than the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . This factor should be con- 177 Table XLIX Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories for A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators Reported by Item R 1 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 Level of „ „ s i g n i f i c a n c e N: 20(9.6) 92(44.0) 67(32.1) 30(14.4) no. % no. % no. % no. % 01 c 3 15.0 39 42.4 33 49.3 7 23.3 i 3.7* 47.6 40.2 ' ,8.5* 0.010 06 c 2 10.0 34 37.0 27 40.3 12 40.0 i 2.7* 45.3 36.0 16.0 0.084 16 c 11 55.0 .21 22.8 10 14.9 8 26.7 i 22.0* 42.0 20.0 16.0 0.003 02 c i 15.0 4.3 39 42.4 56.5* 19 28.4 27.5 8 26.7 11.6 0.050 03 c i 13 65.0 8.7 68 73.9 45.3 53 79.1 35.3 16 53.3 10.7* 0.058 04 c i 12 60.0 10.6 58 63.0 51.3* 29 43.3 25.7 14 46.7 12.4 0.070 23 c i 8 40.0 20.5 10 10.9 25.6* 14 20.9 35.9 23.3 17.9 0.016 1. Reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - number and percentage of respondents i n th i s category who reported this item. i - percentage of t o t a l reports for th i s item. 2. Total N for th i s v a r i a b l e : 209. 3. Figures i n parentheses indicate percentage of t o t a l N f or t h i s v a r i a b l e . * Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r th i s item. 178 Table L Learning A c t i v i t i e s . : Means of Recent Use Ranks for Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a Non-Principal Administrator Learning Mean of recent use ranks Level of a c t i v i t y Years of experience s i g n i f i c a n c e 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 76 80 26 5 05 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.8 0.092 08 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.8 0.006 09 1.5 2.8 2.6 2.8 0.000 12 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.6 0.099 18 2.1 3.5 3.4 3.6 0.003 21 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 0.057 23 2.1 2.4 2.4 3.2 0.054 24 1.4 1.8 1.6 2.6 0.016 179 sidered when examining the data related to the learning a c t i v i t i e s of re- spondents c l a s s i f i e d by non-principal administrative experience. For each of the seven items l i s t e d i n Table L, the means of recent use ranks for p r i n c i p a l s i n the lowest experience category were lower than the mean for the o v e r a l l sample. In general, the means for a l l other groups c l a s s i f i e d by non-principal administrative experience were higher than t o t a l sample means. In several cases, the mean for the "over ten years" category was considerably higher than the t o t a l sample mean. However, the very small si z e of t h i s group ( f i v e respondents) should be kept i n mind when examining the data. Only f o r item 04 - Short course (1-2 weeks) was there a s u f f i c i e n t number of returns to warrant discussion and further analysis of v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns (Table L I ) . The response rate of the group with s i x to ten years of non-principal administrative experience was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than had been expected. Experience as a p r i n c i p a l . Three aspects of respondents' experi- ence as a p r i n c i p a l were examined: t o t a l years of experience, years i n present d i s t r i c t and years i n present school. Table LII i d e n t i f i e s those items f o r which mean ranks of recent use rates were derived from reporting patterns which varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y among categories. There were no such items f o r the variable "years i n present school." Two items appeared for both t o t a l experience and present d i s t r i c t experience. These were items 02 - O u t - o f - d i s t r i c t workshop;, (1-3 days) .180 Table LI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories for A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators Reported by Item R* Years of experience Level of ~ 0-1 _ 2-5 6-10 over 10 s i g n i f i c a n c e N: 76(40.6) 80(42.8) 26(13.9) 5(2.7) no. % no. % no. % no. % 04 c i 29 38.2 35 43.8 4 15.4 2 40.0 41.4 50.0 5.7* 2.9 0.079 •H • § t-H •rl CO 10 15 c i c i 12 15.8 70.6 5 6.6 100.0 4 5.0 23.5 0 0.0 0.0 3.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.068 0.058 cu o (3 <D l-i 0) <4H <U U PH 20 c i 1.3 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 50.0 0.004 1. Reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - number and percentage of respondents i n th i s category who reported t h i s item. i - percentage of t o t a l reports for this item. 2. Total N for th i s v a r i a b l e : 187. 3. Figures i n parentheses indicate percentage of t o t a l N f or th i s v a r i a b l e . * Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h i s item. 181 Table LII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks f o r Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a P r i n c i p a l Learning Mean of recent use ranks Level of a c t i v i t y Years of experience: s i g n i f i c a n c e 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 a. Total experience as a p r i n c i p a l N: 42 62 42 64 02 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.2 0.093 12 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.6 0.035 23 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 0.034 b. Experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n present d i s t r i c t N: 56 65 34 56 02 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.2 0.037 05 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 0.067 12 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.6 0.038 19 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.6 0.061 182 and 12 - Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s . For each of these learning a c t i v i t i e s , the mean ranks of recent use showed s i m i l a r trends for both groups. For item 02, both the zero to one year and the two to f i v e year category had means of recent use ranks which were lower than those of the t o t a l sample. The "over ten years" category mean was equal to the t o t a l sample mean, and the s i x to ten year group mean was higher. In the case of item 12, means f o r both of the lower experience categories were les s than t o t a l sample means of recent use ranks, while those f o r the higher categories were greater than t o t a l sample means. Although these patterns occurred between the findings f o r two types of experience, there were no general trends evident i n the data displayed i n Table L I I . The only marked consistency was a tendency f o r p r i n c i p a l s i n the lowest experience categories to report le s s frequent use of these a c t i v i t i e s than had the o v e r a l l respondent group. Of the learning a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n Table L I I I , items 08 and 20 received too few responses for further analysis. Item 11 - Consultation with d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f , appears i n both parts of Table L I I I . Item 11 was i d e n t i f i e d as an a c t i v i t y f o r which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired, and as a preferred a c t i v i t y , by fewer inexperienced p r i n c i p a l s than had been expected. Reports of desired greater a v a i l a b i l i t y by the zero to one year category constituted 10.0 percent of the t o t a l for item 11, although the group comprised 20.0 percent of the t o t a l sample. A s i m i l a r pattern was observed with regard to the reporting of item 02 as a preferred a c t i v i t y . 183 Table LIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a P r i n c i p a l f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators Reported by Item R 1 Years of experience Level of o-•1 2--5 6 -10 over • 10 s i g n i f i c a n c e N: 42(20.0) 62(29.5) 42(20.0) 64(30 .5) no. % no. % no. % no. % 08 c 3 7.1 1 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 i 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.041 11 c 5 11.9 11 17.7 13 31.0 21 32.8 i 10.0* 22.0 26.0 42.0 0.035 02 c 8 19.0 18 29.0 19 45.2 25 39.1 i 11.4* 25.7 27.1 35. 7 0.046 11 c 21 50.0 30 48.4 22 52.4 47 73.4 i 17.5 25.0 18.3 39.2* 0.017 20 c 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 4.8 0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.045 1. Reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - number and percentage of respondents i n th i s category who reported this item. i - percentage of t o t a l reports for th i s item. 2. To t a l N for th i s v a r i a b l e : 210. 3. Figures i n parentheses ind i c a t e percentage of t o t a l N for t h i s v a r i a b l e . * Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r th i s item. 184 Table LIV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Present D i s t r i c t and Present School Experience Categories for A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators ^ Reported by Item R Level of Years of experience: s i g n i f i c a n c e 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 u •H rH •H •3 rH •rl CO 3 11 12 c i c i a. In present d i s t r i c t N: 2 56(26.5) 3 65(30.8) 7 12.5 14 21.5 14.0* 28.0 10 17.9 35. 7 8 12.3 28.6 34(16.1) 56(26.5) 12 35.3 24.0 28.5 28.6 17 30.4 34.0 3.6 7:.i* 0.047 0.038 01 c 32 57.1 48 73.8 26 76.5 43 76.8 i 21.5* 32.2 17.4 28.9 0.078 06 c 30 53.6 25 38.5 20 58.8 21 37.5 i 31.3 26.0 20.8* 21.9 0.084 11 c 30 53.6 32 49.2 17 50.0 42 75.0 i 24.8 26.4 14.0 34.7* 0.019 b. In present school N: 2 86(40.8) 3 87. 41.2 21(10.0) 17(8.1) 14 c 5 5.8 1 1.1 1 4.8 3 17.6 i 50.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 0.030 15 c 5 5.8 8 9.2 0 0.0 4 23.5 i 29.4 47.1 0.0 23.5 0.045 23 c 17 19.8 21 24.1 1 4.8 0 0.0 i 43.6 53.8 2.6 0.0 0.038 1. Reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - number and percentage of respondents i n th i s category who reported this item. i - percentage of t o t a l reports for th i s item. 2. N for present d i s t r i c t experience: 211. N for present school experience: 211. 3. Figures i n parentheses ind i c a t e percentage of t o t a l N f or th i s v a r i a b l e . * Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r th i s item. 185 Respondents with over ten years experience as a p r i n c i p a l provided a disproportionately large' percentage of the preferred a c t i v i t y returns for item 02 - O u t - o f - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days). This group accounted for 39.2 percent of the returns f o r item 02, although they represented only 30.5 percent of the t o t a l sample. The patterns of reporting noted i n the foregoing two paragraphs are repeated i n Table LIV. With regard to experience as a p r i n c i p a l i n the present d i s t r i c t , the same disproportionately low contribution by the zero to one year category was noted f o r item 11. The high proportion of returns contributed by the high experience group was also repeated. In no case was there a s u f f i c i e n t number of returns to warrant further analysis of an item i n the section of Table LIV which deals with data pro- vided by p r i n c i p a l s grouped according to experience i n present school. Sub-Question 8.2: Learning A c t i v i t i e s of P r i n c i p a l s C l a s s i f i e d by Education Respondents were placed i n one of three groups on the basis of the un i v e r s i t y degree most recently achieved or i n progress. Three categories were designated: bachelor's degree, master's degree i n education administra- t i o n and master's degree i n some other f i e l d of study. S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n response patterns r e l a t e d to recent use were noted f o r twelve items, or h a l f of the t o t a l l i s t (Table LV). Six of these were consultative a c t i v i t i e s , and f i v e were formal. In general, means of recent use ranks tended to be lowest for the bachelor's degree group and higher f o r those having or working on master's degrees, both i n and out of education administration. The mean of recent use ranks f o r item 29 - Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , was considerably higher f o r the two 186 Table LV Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Means of Recent Use Ranks for Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n i n Reporting Patterns Among Education Categories Learning Mean of Recent use ranks Level of Degree: s i g n i f i - Bachelor's Master's Master's cance (ed. admin.) (not ed. admin.) N: 148 43 21 07 1.5 1.9 1.6 0.097 08 09 12 13 16 17 3. 7 2.1 3.4 3.1 2.4 1.5 3.8 2.7 3.6 3.4 2.8 1.9 4.0 3.0 3.8 3.4 2.5 2.1 0.065 0.005 0.009 0.064 0.030 0.003 18 19 20 21 24 3.3 2.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 3.4 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 3.7 3.2 1.6 2.2 1.7 0.041 0.023 0.000 0.004 0.013 187 master's degree groups than for the o v e r a l l sample. For f i v e of the seven learning a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n Table LVI, a d e f i n i t e reporting pattern was observed. In each case, the proportion of t o t a l returns contributed by the bachelor's degree group was higher than expected, while the proportions contributed by each of the two master's degree groups were lower than expected. The items were: Greater a v a i l a b i l i t y desired: 06 - D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session. Preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s : 06 - D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session. 08 - Consultation with teachers. 10 - Consultation with d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f . 16 - V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t . For item 06 ("greater a v a i l a b i l i t y desired" indicator) and item 16 ("preferred a c t i v i t y " i n d i c a t o r ) , the high response rate of the bachel- or's degree group was p r i m a r i l y responsible for s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n . The group who had or were working on master's degrees outside of education administration made the major contribution to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r three items (06, 08, 10) i n the preferred a c t i v i t y category. SUMMARY This chapter has examined the findings of the present study with regard to the reported learning a c t i v i t i e s of respondents. Three dimen- sions of an o v e r a l l view of learning a c t i v i t i e s were discussed: rate of 188 Table LVI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Among Education Categories f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators Item Reported by Degree Level of si g n i f i c a n c e Bachelor's Master's Master's (ed. admin.) (not ed. admin.) N: 148(69 43(20.3) 21(9 .9) no. % no. % no. % 02 c 31 20.9 16 37.2 9 42.9 i 55.4* 28.6 16.1 0.021 06 c 60 40.5 12 27.9 4 19.0 i 78.9* 15.8 5.3 0.075 24 c 16 10.8 10 23.3 1 4.8 i 59.3 37.0* 3.7 0.050 06 c 75 50. 7 19 44.2 3 14.3 i 77.3 19.6 3.1* 0.007 08 c 58 39.2 15 34.9 3 14.3 i 76.3 19.7 3.9* 0.083 10 c 67 45.3 15 34.9 4 19.0 i 77.9 17.4 4.7* 0.051 16 c 44 29.7 6 14.0 2 9.5 i 84.6* 11.5 3.8 0.026 1. Reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c - Number and percentage of respondents i n the category who reported this item. i - Percentage of t o t a l reports for th i s item. 2. Figures i n parentheses indicate percentage of t o t a l sample. * Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h i s item. 189' recent use, desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and the extent to which each item was i d e n t i f i e d as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y . Question Five dealt with the findings r e l a t e d to the t o t a l sample. Six l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s tended to be reported as more widely used than other a c t i v i t i e s (Table XXXVIII). 08 - Consultation with teachers. 10 - Consultation with d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f . 12 - Consultation with other administrators. 13 - Informal get-togethers with other administrators. 14 - Discussions with family or friends. 18 - Professional reading: books, journals, b u l l e t i n s , etc. With the exception of item 18, each of the above a c t i v i t i e s might be categorized as consultative i n nature. In general, these a c t i v i t i e s appeared to have been available enough; that i s , r e l a t i v e l y few p r i n c i - pals indicated that they would have used these a c t i v i t i e s more often, given greater a v a i l a b i l i t y . With the exception of item 14 - Discussions with family or friends, over twenty percent of the respondents i d e n t i f i e d each of the items l i s t e d above as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y . Six a c t i v i t i e s appeared to have been used f a i r l y infrequently by most respondents (Table XXXVIII): 04 Short course (1-2 weeks). 07 University course. 17 V i s i t to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s . 20 Reviewing u n i v e r s i t y course notes. 190 21 - Writing a paper or giving a presentation. 24 - Use of information r e t r i e v a l systems, i . e . ERIC. Of these, only items 04 and 17 were widely reported as learning a c t i v i t i e s for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired, or as preferred a c t i v i t i e s . Five other items f e l l i n the middle range i n terms of means of re- cent use ranks, but were r e l a t i v e l y widely reported as the f o c i of a de- s i r e for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and as preferred learning a c t i v i t i e s : 01 - I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days). 02 - O u t - o f - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days). 03 - Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c topic. 06 - D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session. 11 - Consultation with an outside s p e c i a l i s t . The discussion of Questions 6, 7 and 8 focussed p r i m a r i l y on learning a c t i v i t i e s for which s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n re- porting patterns was noted. Such v a r i a t i o n occurred when the data were analyzed i n terms of independent variables r e l a t e d to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school d i s t r i c t , the school and the respondent. A major difference was noted between the outcomes of analysis of the data on learning a c t i v i t i e s and that r e l a t e d to learning i n t e r e s t s . In general, v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns with respect to learning i n t e r e s t s tended to be item-referenced. With the exception of the var i a b l e 191 "experience,'! there appeared to be few reporting trends which occurred over several items for a given variable. With regard to learning a c t i v i t i e s , however, the existence of trends was much more evident. The specific findings with regard to patterns of reporting as they appear to be associated with independent variables have been reported in this chapter. They are further discussed in Chapter Eight, which summarizes the study and presents conclusions and recommendations. 192 Chapter 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Three main tasks are undertaken i n th i s chapter. The f i r s t i s a review of the present study, in c l u d i n g problem, design and procedures. The second aspect of the discussion i s a presentation of the major findings and the conclusions of the study. The t h i r d section of the chapter deals with the implications of the study's findings and discusses major considerations and recommendations a r i s i n g from the study. NATURE OF THE STUDY The Research Problem The main focus of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n the present study was on the e f f o r t s of school p r i n c i p a l s to gain work-related knowledge and s k i l l . The study had three major dimensions: 1. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the work-related areas i n which p r i n c i p a l s sought to increase t h e i r knowledge and s k i l l . These areas were termed learning i n t e r e s t s . 2. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a c t i v i t i e s i n which p r i n c i p a l s engaged, or wanted to engage, as they sought to learn more about job-related topics. These were termed learning a c t i v i t i e s . 3. An attempt to determine the existence and nature of relationships between learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i - t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school d i s t r i c t , the school and the p r i n c i p a l . Eight s p e c i f i c research questions were developed to investigate these dimensions of the problem. Four of these questions dealt with learning i n t e r e s t s , and four with learning a c t i v i t i e s . For each set of 193 four questions, an i n i t i a l question dealing with the o v e r a l l findings of the study was followed by three questions which focussed on independent v a r i a b l e s : school d i s t r i c t , school and respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These s p e c i f i c questions were intended to gather descriptive information and to test the usefulness of a conceptual framework developed from a review of the l i t e r a t u r e and a p i l o t study. L i t e r a t u r e Review Two major a c t i v i t i e s contributed to the development of a conceptual framework, a study design and a research instrument. One of these a c t i v i - t i e s was a review of relevant l i t e r a t u r e , and the other was a p i l o t study which preceded the main research e f f o r t . The learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s of school p r i n c i p a l s were thought of, at a general l e v e l , as the e f f o r t s of an adult to learn. Associating these e f f o r t s with a s p e c i f i c job, the p r i n c i p a l s h i p , necessi- tated some useful conceptualization of that job and some awareness of the state of current knowledge. Accordingly, three bodies of l i t e r a t u r e were reviewed. The f i r s t area of the l i t e r a t u r e to be examined was a portion of the adult education l i t e r a t u r e which dealt with adults' learning projects. This p a r t i c u l a r body of research sought to i d e n t i f y some r e g u l a r i t i e s as- sociated with the ways i n which adults go about trying to learn. The re- search found that deliberate e f f o r t s to learn were widespread among adults, and that a large proportion of these e f f o r t s were work-related. , The second body of l i t e r a t u r e reviewed was that which dealt with the attempt to conceptualize the p r i n c i p a l ' s work. The information obtained 194 from this portion of the review was used p r i m a r i l y i n the development of the learning i n t e r e s t s aspect of the conceptual framework and of the re- search instrument. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t led to the use of operational areas to categorize aspects of the p r i n c i p a l ' s work. The t h i r d section of the l i t e r a t u r e review examined the recent research into the professional development of educational personnel. This section dealt with studies of the profe ss io na l development needs of several categories of educational administrators, p a r t i c u l a r l y school p r i n c i p a l s . It also reviewed two studies of the p r o f e s s i o n a l development of teachers. The studies of administrators' p ro fe ss io na l development needs iden- t i f i e d three main areas of perceived need: educational program, s t a f f personnel and p u p i l personnel. Within these areas, the major concerns re- ported by p r i n c i p a l s were associated with the tasks of evaluation, communica- ti o n and planning. These studies also presented findings which suggested that c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p r i n c i p a l and of the job may be r e l a t e d to learning e f f o r t s . Although the findings i n t h i s area were inconclusive, further i n v e s t i g a t i o n of such variables as education, experience and school type and l o c a t i o n appeared to be warranted. The findings of the studies r e l a t e d to teachers' p r o f e s s i o n a l de- velopment suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y that an i d e n t i f i a b l e sequence of pro- f e s s i o n a l growth may e x i s t . Such a sequence would be characterized by the nature of the teacher's i n t e r e s t s and perhaps by the learning a c t i v i t i e s selected. These findings raised the question of whether such a sequence might e x i s t with regard to the school p r i n c i p a l . 195 These studies provided l i t t l e information which was s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to the B r i t i s h Columbia scene. They did, however, provide con- siderable guidance i n the development of a useful conception of p r i n c i p a l s ' learning e f f o r t s and i n the design of a research instrument. Conceptual Framework The learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s of school p r i n c i p a l s were considered to be the components of a learning e f f o r t , as shown i n Figure 6. Two sets of learning i n t e r e s t s were examined: recent and p r i o r i t y . An L E A R N I N G E F F O R T Learning Interests Learning A c t i v i t i e s Independent Variables School d i s t r i c t School Respondent Figure 6 P r i n c i p a l s ' Learning E f f o r t s item was considered "recent" i f i t had been the focus of i n t e r e s t during the previous or then-current school year. P r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s were those which the respondent i d e n t i f i e d as the most important for learning about over the next few months. Three dimensions of a learning a c t i v i t y were examined. The study considered frequency of recent use, desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of an a c t i v i t y as preferred for use. 196 Three sets of independent variables were investigated to determine the existence and nature of any r e l a t i o n s h i p with learning e f f o r t s . One set of variables included two school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : d i s t r i c t group (urban or rural) and i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . School characteris- t i c s included l o c a t i o n , type and a l l o c a t i o n of p r i n c i p a l ' s r e l i e f time. Respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s examined were the p r i n c i p a l ' s experience and education. Study Procedures Following the l i t e r a t u r e review, and as an i n t e g r a l part of de- veloping the conceptual framework and the research instrument, a p i l o t study was c a r r i e d out. This p i l o t study, which consisted of interviews with seventeen p r i n c i p a l s , was intended to c l a r i f y and r e f i n e some of the major concepts used i n the study. I t was also c a r r i e d out to a s s i s t i n developing appropriate items f o r the questionnaire. The main study examined the learning e f f o r t s of p r i n c i p a l s i n ten mid-sized B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s . A contrasting sample design was used to obtain f i v e urban and f i v e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s . Urban d i s t r i c t s were larger and located i n closer proximity to a large metropolitan area with a u n i v e r s i t y than were r u r a l d i s t r i c t s . The study instrument was a questionnaire which obtained information about the independent variables studied, about learning i n t e r e s t s and about learning a c t i v i t i e s . Opportunity was given for respondents to enter addi- t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s which were of personal i n t e r e s t , and which were perceived to have been omitted from the questionnaire. Respondents were also provided with an opportunity to provide further, more general comments about the topic of p r o f e s s i o n al development. 197 The study was explained, and questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , at a p r i n - c i p a l s ' meeting i n each school d i s t r i c t . The researcher also agreed to return to the d i s t r i c t , i f requested, to report the findings of the study. Data c o l l e c t i o n was c a r r i e d out during October, November and early December, 1977. Returns were completed by the end of December, 1977, and the o v e r a l l return rate was 93.8 percent. Individual school d i s t r i c t returns ranged from 84.2 percent to 100.0 percent. The unit of analysis i n the study was the i n d i v i d u a l learning i n - t e r e s t or learning a c t i v i t y . Numerical frequency and percentage rate of reporting were s p e c i f i e d for each recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t , with regard to the t o t a l sample and each category of every independent v a r i a b l e . The chi-square t e s t and the chi-square test of quasi-independence were used to i d e n t i f y the existence and sources of v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns among the response categories of each independent v a r i a b l e . The above analysis was also c a r r i e d out for the " a v a i l a b i l i t y " and "preference" i n d i c a t o r s used to examine learning a c t i v i t i e s . Rate of recent use of each a c t i v i t y was presented as a mean of four possible use rates. These means were calculated for the o v e r a l l sample and for each response category of each independent v a r i a b l e . The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance was used to i d e n t i f y items for which there was s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns among categories. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The major findings of the study are summarized, and conclusions drawn, with reference to the two main components of l e a r n i n g e f f o r t s : i n - terests and a c t i v i t i e s . The conclusions are numbered consecutively through- out this section. 198 G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the Findings The present study was exploratory i n nature, i n that i t attempted to determine whether observed r e g u l a r i t i e s warranted further study of cer- t a i n aspects of p r i n c i p a l s ' p r o f e s s i o n al development. Sampling was c a r r i e d out according to s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a r elated to independent v a r i a b l e s , to obtain a contrasting urban/rural sample. The conclusions of the study, therefore, are l i m i t e d to the popula- t i o n of p r i n c i p a l s i n the ten school d i s t r i c t s studied. Further generaliza- t i o n i s l i m i t e d to recommendations for further research. Learning Interests Several learning i n t e r e s t s were widely reported throughout the t o t a l sample both as recent and as p r i o r i t y learning i n t e r e s t s . These items, which were also among the more widely reported learning i n t e r e s t s i n most response categories of many of the independent variables studied, are shown i n Table LVII. These learning i n t e r e s t s f a l l i nto three categories. Items 05 and 06 are concerned with the development and evaluation of the school's i n - s t r u c t i o n a l program. Item 23 focusses on the provision of i n s t r u c t i o n a l services to students with s p e c i a l needs. Items 10, 11 and 19 r e l a t e to various aspects of the supervision of teachers. Further, a l l of these items are d i r e c t l y concerned with work c a r r i e d out within the i n d i v i d u a l school. In contrast to the items discussed above, several learning i n t e r e s t s were infrequently reported within the o v e r a l l sample, and were also i n f r e - quently reported within most categories of many of the independent variables studied. These items are displayed i n Table LVII. 199 Table LVII Most Widely Reported and Seldom Reported Interests of Respondents Item Learning i n t e r e s t number Widely reported i n t e r e s t s : 05 Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . 06 Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. 10 Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 19 Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n professional growth. 23 Providing f o r students with s p e c i a l needs. Learning i n t e r e s t s which were seldom widely reported: 13 Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 16 Conducting s t a f f meetings. 18 Supervising non-teaching personnel. 22 Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n . 26 Developing a d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g program. 36 Dealing with other departments of the school d i s t r i c t . 39 P r o v i n c i a l education finance. The seldom reported items l i s t e d i n Table LVII are les s e a s i l y cate- gorized than are the widely reported items. Three of these i n t e r e s t s , though, rel a t e p r i m a r i l y to matters which are outside the d i r e c t concern of the i n d i v i d u a l school and i t s s t a f f (items 26, 36, 39). Items 18 and 22 may be seen by p r i n c i p a l s e i t h e r as routine, (a designation which might also apply to item 16) or as pr i m a r i l y someone else's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 200 These findings permit two conclusions about the population studied: 1. The development and evaluation of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, the provision of educational services to pupils with s p e c i a l needs, and the supervision of teachers, were learning i n t e r e s t s of major impor- tance to p r i n c i p a l s . 2. P r i o r i t y of attention, i n terms of the desire to learn more, was generally given to topics which were d i r e c t l y relevant to the work of the p r i n c i p a l within the i n d i - v i d u a l school, rather than to matters of p r o v i n c i a l or even d i s t r i c t - l e v e l concern. Beyond the examination of the learning i n t e r e s t s reported within the t o t a l sample, the study was concerned with the existence and nature of relationships between learning i n t e r e s t s and the independent variables studied. While there were numerous instances of s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns among the response categories of independent v a r i a b l e s , there was less evidence of any trends or repeated patterns. Findings re- lat e d to the three groups of independent variables are discussed below. School d i s t r i c t v a r i a b l e s . Two school d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were studied as independent v a r i a b l e s : d i s t r i c t group, designated as urban or r u r a l , and i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . In general, the findings f o r the two d i s t r i c t groups were s i m i l a r . There were several items for which s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n existed between groups. However, no consistent pattern was noted as to proportions or responses from one group or the other, or across a number of items. There was very wide v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns among school d i s t r i c t s . Approximately two-thirds of the questionnaire items were widely i d e n t i f i e d as learning i n t e r e s t s i n at le a s t one school d i s t r i c t . 201 The same was true f o r the items which were seldom i d e n t i f i e d . In f a c t , nine of the thirty-seven learning i n t e r e s t s l i s t e d on the questionnaire were very frequently reported i n at l e a s t one school d i s t r i c t , and very infrequently reported i n at le a s t one other. There was no evidence of major contributions to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n having been repeatedly made by a p a r t i c u l a r school d i s t r i c t . The only item for which v a r i a t i o n was at t r i b u t a b l e to an i d e n t i f i a b l e group of d i s t r i c t s was item 05 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . This item was reported by over twenty per- cent of the p r i n c i p a l s i n each of the r u r a l school d i s t r i c t s (Table XIII, page 98), but i n none of the urban d i s t r i c t s . The major conclusion which may be drawn from these findings i s that, f o r the population studied: 3. The i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t was an important variable i n r e l a t i o n to the learning i n t e r e s t s of the p r i n c i p a l s i n that d i s t r i c t . Further, i t s importance was probably r e l a t e d to some fac- tor or factors other than the d i s t r i c t ' s urban- ness or ruralness as defined i n the present study. School v a r i a b l e s . Three independent variables which described c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school were studied. These were: school l o c a t i o n , school type and r e l i e f time. The findings with regard to the learning i n t e r e s t s of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d by school l o c a t i o n were very s i m i l a r to those of the o v e r a l l sample. Variations i n reporting trends across response categories showed no repeated patterns between recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s . 202 Some varia t i o n s i n reporting patterns among school type categories warrant discussion. For two i n s t r u c t i o n - r e l a t e d items there were s i g n i f i - cant differences among p r i n c i p a l s whose schools were c l a s s i f i e d as elemen- tary, secondary and .elementary-secondary. Item 01 - Assessing community and school needs for s p e c i a l courses and programs, was very widely reported as a recent learning i n t e r e s t among secondary and elementary-secondary p r i n c i p a l s , but s i g n i f i c a n t l y less frequently among elementary p r i n c i p a l s . Elementary p r i n c i p a l s , however, contributed a disproportionately large percentage of t o t a l reports f o r item 02 - Choosing i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs from among available a l t e r n a t i v e s . The variable " r e l i e f time" was a measure of school s i z e . The exact r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s i z e of the school and the percentage of r e l i e f time a l l o c a t e d to the school varies among d i s t r i c t s . However, i t i s gener- a l l y the case that as school s i z e increases, the amount of p r i n c i p a l ' s r e l i e f time also increases. The "under f i f t y percent r e l i e f time" group of p r i n c i p a l s were the major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n reporting patterns for f i v e items. These respondents, who were the p r i n c i p a l s of the smaller schools, reported items 06 - Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c - t i o n a l program and 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s often than did the p r i n c i p a l s i n the other r e l i e f time categories. Both of these items were widely i d e n t i f i e d among the t o t a l sample and f o r many other response categories. The same group (low r e l i e f time) contributed disproportionately large percentages of the returns for three items. Among the recent i n t e r - ests, item 43 - A l l o c a t i n g budgeted funds, and item 43 - General o f f i c e 203 management routines, were widely reported within t h i s group. The low re- l i e f time category also provided a disproportionately large percentage of the i n d i c a t i o n s of p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t i n item 14 - Handling the stresses of my job. Several conclusions may be drawn about the population of p r i n c i p a l s i n the ten school d i s t r i c t s studied: 4. The l o c a t i o n of the school, measured i n terms of the extent to which the p r i n c i p a l was able to consult with colleagues by l o c a l telephone c a l l , was not r e l a t e d i n any systematic way to the learning i n t e r e s t s of p r i n c i p a l s . 5. The learning i n t e r e s t s of p r i n c i p a l s , i n areas re l a t e d to the development and d e l i v e r y of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, varied i n a manner which suggested d i f f e r e n t emphases among elementary than among secondary school p r i n c i p a l s . 6. The amount of r e l i e f time available to a p r i n c i p a l was an important factor i n r e l a t i o n to his/her learning i n t e r e s t s . The findings suggested that p r i n c i p a l s of small schools wanted to know how to handle routine operational tasks more e f f e c t i v e l y . Respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The two respondent-related variables examined i n the present study were experience and education. In the case of experience, several dimensions were examined: experience as a teacher, as a non-principal administrator and as a p r i n c i p a l . There were several examples of s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns among response categories for teaching experience. However, only two instances of repeated patterns were noted. P r i n c i p a l s who reported zero to one year of teaching experience before becoming a p r i n c i p a l re- . ported item 04 - Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l , disproportion- ately h e avily, both as a recent and as a p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t . P r i n c i p a l s 204 i n the two to fi v e year category f o r teaching experience were the major contributors to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n f o r recent i n t e r e s t returns on items 10 and 11. Both of these i n t e r e s t s were r e l a t e d to the supervision of personnel. In each case, the two to f i v e year group contributed a larger proportion of t o t a l responses than had been expected. S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n also occurred for several items when experi- ence as a non-principal administrator was examined. There was, however, i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of any repeated pattern to warrant conclusions about any r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s type of experience and the learning i n t e r e s t s of p r i n c i p a l s . Three categories of experience as a p r i n c i p a l were studied: t o t a l years of experience, years i n present d i s t r i c t and years i n present school. Several examples of repeated patterns i n reporting trends were noted, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r t o t a l experience as a p r i n c i p a l . Items 10 - Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers, and 11 - Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n , were widely reported among many groups of p r i n c i p a l s . In addition, respon- dents with zero to one year of experience as a p r i n c i p a l reported these items very frequently. The same group indicated widespread recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t i n items 41 - Preparing annual school budget submissions, and 42 - A l l o c a t i n g budgeted funds. In each instance, t h i s low experience group contributed a disproportionately large percentage of t o t a l i n d i c a t i o n s of i n t e r e s t . Several other examples of v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns were a t t r i b u t e d to other "experience as a p r i n c i p a l " categories. 205 Reporting frequencies and patterns among groups of p r i n c i p a l s c l a s s i f i e d according to l e v e l of formal education showed l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n of systematic v a r i a t i o n . Although s p e c i f i c examples existed, there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of any repeated patterns to permit conclusions to be drawn about r e l a t i o n s h i p s between education and i n t e r e s t s . Based on the findings of the present study, the following conclu- sions were drawn about the population of p r i n c i p a l s represented by the sample: 7. There was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support the suggestion of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between learning i n t e r e s t s and previous experience as a teacher or as a non-principal administrator, or between learning i n t e r e s t s and l e v e l of formal education. 8. Length of previous experience as a p r i n c i p a l was an important factor r e l a t e d to the p r i n c i p a l ' s learning i n t e r e s t s . Minimal previous experience, i n p a r t i c u l a r , was associated with widespread reporting of items not generally seen as important by other experience groups. Learning A c t i v i t i e s Three dimensions of learning a c t i v i t i e s were examined: rate of recent use, desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference for the a c t i v i t y . Learning a c t i v i t i e s were c l a s s i f i e d as being p r i m a r i l y formal, consultative or personal i n nature. Six learning a c t i v i t i e s tended to be reported within the t o t a l sam- ple as having been used at l e a s t three or four times during recent months. Six others tended to be reported as having been used on two occasions or l e s s . These frequently and infrequently used items are shown i n Table LVIII. 206 The frequently used learning a c t i v i t i e s were generally seen by p r i n c i p a l s as having been av a i l a b l e enough. Four items (08, 10, 12, 18), three of which were consultative i n nature, were widely reported as a c t i v i - t i e s which p r i n c i p a l s would prefer to use to lea r n more about t h e i r p r i o r - i t y i n t e r e s t s . Of the a c t i v i t i e s which tended to be reported as infrequently used, two were widely reported as needing to be more ava i l a b l e and as preferred a c t i v i t i e s . These were items 04 - Short course (1-2 weeks), and 17 - V i s i t s to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s . Several other learning a c t i v i t i e s appeared to have generally been used with moderate frequency, but were the focus of a r e l a t i v e l y widespread desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and of designation as preferred a c t i v i t i e s . Four of the s i x learning a c t i v i t i e s f o r which this was the case (Table LIX) were i n the formal a c t i v i t i e s category. One item was most widely designated both as an a c t i v i t y for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired and as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y . This was item 03 - Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c topic. Item 01 - I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days) was also very widely reported i n both categories. Some conclusions, relevant to the sample population were drawn, based on an examination of the o v e r a l l findings of the study: 9. Principals, tended to make most frequent use of learning a c t i v i t i e s which were consultative i n nature. With the exception of inter-school v i s i t a t i o n and consultation with an outside s p e c i a l i s t , opportunities to consult were gener- a l l y seen as re a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . 207 Table LVIII Learning A c t i v i t i e s Which Tended to be Reported Among the Study Sample as Most Frequently and Least Frequently Used „1 Item Learning a c t i v i t y R number Frequently used a c t i v i t i e s : 08 Consultation with teachers. P 10 Consultation with d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f . P 12 Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s . P 13 Informal get-togethers with other administrators. 14 Discussions with family or frie n d s . 18 Professional reading: books, journals, b u l l e t i n s , etc. P Infrequently used a c t i v i t i e s : 04 Short course (1-2 weeks). A,P 07 University course. 17 V i s i t s to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s . A,P 20 Reviewing u n i v e r s i t y course notes. 21 Writing a paper or giving a presentation. 24 Use of information r e t r i e v a l systems, i . e . ERIC. R = reporting frequency, where A = item widely reported as an a c t i v i t y for which greater a v a i l a b i l i t y was desired. P = item widely reported as a preferred learning a c t i v i t y . 208 Table LIX Learning A c t i v i t i e s Used With Moderate Frequency and Widely Reported as Needing to be More Available and as Preferred Item Learning a c t i v i t y number 01 I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days). 02 O u t - o f - d i s t r i c t workshop (1-3 days). 03 Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c t o p i c . 06 D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a t i o n or administrative t r a i n i n g session. 11 Consultation with an outside s p e c i a l i s t . 16 V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t . 10. Most of the a c t i v i t i e s of which p r i n c i p a l s tended to make infrequent or moderate use, but which they desired to use more often and which they also per- ceived as important, were formal a c t i v i t i e s of a workshop or short course nature. 11. Learning a c t i v i t i e s which are held i n the d i s t r i c t , and/or which f a c i l i t a t e ongoing study of an area of i n t e r e s t were widely viewed as important a c t i v i t i e s which should be more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . School d i s t r i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Two school d i s t r i c t v a r i a b l e s were examined: d i s t r i c t group, s p e c i f i e d as urban or r u r a l , and i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . The findings re l a t e d to rates of recent use of learning a c t i v i t i e s suggested that use of several a c t i v i t i e s was less frequent i n r u r a l than i n urban school d i s t r i c t s . However, apart from t h i s trend, reporting pat- terns i n d i c a t i n g desired greater a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference were generally 209 s i m i l a r among school d i s t r i c t s . There was a strong trend i n d i c a t i n g a more widespread desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y among r u r a l d i s t r i c t p r i n c i p a l s . The only major conclusion which i s warranted by the findings i s that, i n the population studied: 12'. P r i n c i p a l s i n more remote d i s t r i c t s tended to report having used some learning a c t i v i t i e s l e s s often than did those i n urban d i s t r i c t s . However, v a r i a t i o n i n rates of recent use was generally referenced to the i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t rather than to the majority of d i s t r i c t s i n e i t h e r the urban or the r u r a l group. School c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Three school variables were considered: l o c a t i o n , type and r e l i e f time a l l o c a t i o n . School l o c a t i o n was measured i n terms of the number of schools which a respondent could contact with a l o c a l telephone c a l l . Most instances of v a r i a t i o n from expected patterns of reporting were associated with the most i s o l a t e d schools and with consultative a c t i v i t i e s . A l l f i v e a c t i v i t i e s f o r which reporting patterns showed s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n recent use rates among l o c a t i o n categories were consultative i n nature. In each case, the mean rate of recent use was lowest i n the category of p r i n c i p a l s who reported being unable to contact any other school with a l o c a l phone c a l l . For some learning a c t i v i t i e s for which s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n was noted i n reporting patterns for desired greater a v a i l a b i l i t y , the small number of responses l i m i t e d the v a l i d i t y of a n alysis. However, for the items which had s u f f i c i e n t reports (items 04, 05) the "zero contacts" group were the primary contributors to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n . In each case, 210 t h e i r percentage of reports was disproportionately high. This pattern was repeated for the items mentioned above, which had r e l a t i v e l y few reports. Altogether, nine items showed s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n reporting patterns among l o c a t i o n groups. Six of these items were consultative learning a c t i - v i t i e s . In almost every case, more p r i n c i p a l s than had been expected i n the three groups who were able to contact somewhere between zero and ten other schools reported a desire for greater a v a i l a b i l i t y . In every case, those who could contact more than ten other schools contributed at a d i s - proportionately low rate. School type was s p e c i f i e d as elementary, secondary or elementary- secondary. A d e f i n i t e pattern appeared i n the means of recent use ranks for items showing s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n among school type categories. For twelve of the twenty-four lea r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n the questionnaire, recent use reporting trends r e s u l t i n g i n s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a - t i o n . For nine of these twelve items, the mean of recent use ranks was higher among secondary p r i n c i p a l s than among e i t h e r elementary or elemen- tary-secondary p r i n c i p a l s . Six of the nine a c t i v i t i e s were consultative i n nature. Although these consultative a c t i v i t i e s tended to be more frequently used among secondary p r i n c i p a l s , there was generally no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a - t i o n i n indi c a t i o n s of preference f o r the same items. In f a c t , f o r item 16 - V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t , secondary p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r i - buted much smaller proportions of t o t a l responses than expected for i n d i - cators of a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference. These findings suggest that although secondary p r i n c i p a l s tended to use cer t a i n consultative a c t i v i t i e s more 211 frequently than did t h e i r colleagues, they did not more often see these as preferred a c t i v i t i e s . R e l i e f time was measured i n terms of the percentage of regular school hours f or which the p r i n c i p a l was released from teaching to carry out administrative and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . As might have been expected, p r i n c i p a l s with the greatest amount of r e l i e f time also reported using c e r t a i n learning a c t i v i t i e s more frequently than did others. S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n patterns of recent use occurred f o r ten of the twenty-four learning a c t i v i t i e s . In eight of these cases, s i x of which were consultative, p r i n c i p a l s with over seventy-five percent r e l i e f time had the highest mean ranks of recent use rate. In almost every case, the mean ranks f o r those with under f i f t y percent and for those with f i f t y to seventy-five percent were below the mean for the t o t a l sample. Reporting trends f o r indi c a t o r s of the desire for greater a v a i l a - b i l i t y and of preference were generally consistent among groups. Other than for some a c t i v i t i e s where the number of responses was very low, only one item was unevenly reported among r e l i e f time groups. Item 15 - Infor- mal contacts at committee meetings, was i d e n t i f i e d as a preferred a c t i v i t y by more p r i n c i p a l s i n the lowest and highest r e l i e f time categories than had been expected. No p r i n c i p a l i n the f i f t y to seventy-five percent cate- gory i d e n t i f i e d item 15 as a preferred a c t i v i t y . The findings related to school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s permit the following conclusions about the population studied: 212 13. A v a i l a b i l i t y was an important factor i n the use of consultative a c t i v i t i e s . Further, there was evidence to suggest that p r i n c i p a l s who had l i m i t e d opportunities to consult with others would have preferred greater a v a i l a b i l i t y of a c t i v i t i e s of t h i s nature. 14. Consultative a c t i v i t i e s tended to be most frequently used among secondary p r i n c i p a l s . These p r i n c i p a l s did not, however, tend to express more of a preference fo r consultative a c t i v i t i e s than did t h e i r colleagues. This suggests that the frequent use of c e r t a i n consulta- t i v e a c t i v i t i e s may i n d i c a t e some major differences be- tween elementary and secondary schools i n some aspects of the p r i n c i p a l ' s job. 15. The amount of r e l i e f time available to the p r i n c i p a l was related to the use of learning a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i - c u l a r l y consultative a c t i v i t i e s . Those with more r e l i e f time tended to consult more frequently. Respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents were examined as independent v a r i a b l e s : experience and education. Experience as a teacher, as a non-principal administrator and as a p r i n c i p a l were studied. For experience i n the f i r s t two categories, some patterns were noted among items f o r which recent use rates v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The items themselves were spread across a l l three cate- gories of learning a c t i v i t i e s . With regard to previous teaching experi- ence, the "zero to one year" group tended to report l e s s frequent use than did the other three experience categories. The opposite was true for non- p r i n c i p a l administrative experience. There was l i t t l e evidence of any re- peated patterns with regard to desired greater a v a i l a b i l i t y or preference for e i t h e r of these categories of experience. Examination of the findings regarding the learning a c t i v i t i e s of respondents categorized by experience as a p r i n c i p a l reveals l i t t l e evidence of association. Numerous examples of v a r i a t i o n were i d e n t i f i e d , but there was l i t t l e evidence of repeated patterns of v a r i a t i o n . 213 Education was measured i n terms of the u n i v e r s i t y degree most re- cently achieved or i n progress. Three degrees were designated: bachelor's degree, master's degree i n education administration, master's degree i n some other f i e l d . For twelve of the twenty-four le a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s l i s t - ed, the bachelor's degree group reported use rates which led to mean ranks lower than those of the o v e r a l l sample. In almost every one of these cases, the mean of recent use ranks for the bachelor's degree category was lower than f o r e i t h e r of the master's degree groups. Six of the twelve a c t i v i t i e s were consultative i n nature, and f i v e were personal. This repeated pattern among items f o r recent use ranks was not generally c a r r i e d over to measures of a v a i l a b i l i t y and preference. Although several instances of v a r i a t i o n were noted, various groups were pri m a r i l y responsible for t h i s v a r i a t i o n . It should be noted that there was wide discrepancy as to group s i z e . Of 212 respondents, 148, or approximately seventy percent, f e l l i n the bachelor's degree category. It seems l i k e l y that t h i s category would have included a large percentage of the small schools, the elementary schools and the more i s o l a t e d schools. I t would be d i f f i c u l t to assert that evidence e x i s t s to ind i c a t e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between education and the various dimensions of learning a c t i v i t i e s . It may be concluded that, f o r the population studied: 16. There was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to suggest that the p r i n c i p a l ' s experience or education were important factors i n the learning a c t i v i t i e s component of h i s / her learning e f f o r t s . 214 Summary This section has reviewed the major findings of the study, and has presented conclusions r e l a t e d to those findings. The following section draws on these findings and conclusions, and on other observations made during the study, to state several implications and to make recommendations. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Theoretical Considerations A major task performed by th i s exploratory study was the t e s t i n g of a p a r t i c u l a r conception of the learning e f f o r t s of school p r i n c i p a l s . H i l l s (1975:444) suggests that useful conceptions provide the i n t e l l e c t u a l tools that an i n d i v i d u a l must have i f he i s to . . . analyze what . . . , others are doing, or what i s going on i n terms other than those of common sense. The two main aspects of the conceptual framework developed for the present study were the d e f i n i t i o n of a learning e f f o r t and the idea that c e r t a i n independent variables may be re l a t e d to one or both of the major components of a learning e f f o r t : i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s . The general consistency of the data obtained from various groups of p r i n c i p a l s , the completeness of the questionnaires and the nature of the items added by respondents suggest that the terms "le a r n i n g i n t e r e s t " and "learning a c t i - v i t y " were r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r and commonly interpreted. Figure 7 shows the areas i n which the findings of the study most strongly suggested re l a t i o n s h i p s between independent variables and compo- nents of a learning e f f o r t . There would seem to be two main v a r i a b l e s , or groups of va r i a b l e s , which seem important i n t h i s regard. One of these i s 215 the p r i n c i p a l ' s experience as a p r i n c i p a l . There i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n the findings to suggest that the number of years for which one has been a p r i n c i p a l i s r e l a t e d to the kinds of learning i n t e r e s t s which one has. Another group of variables appears to be r e l a t e d to the p r i n c i p a l ' s learning e f f o r t s . These variables might be termed s i t u a t i o n a l or contex- t u a l factors. School l o c a t i o n seems to be a factor which a f f e c t s learning a c t i v i t i e s . School type, the amount of r e l i e f time a l l o c a t e d to the p r i n - c i p a l and some unspecified c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school d i s t r i c t appear to be r e l a t e d both to learning i n t e r e s t s and to learning a c t i v i t i e s . There i s not a s u b s t a n t i a l body of research i n the area of p r i n c i - pals' p r o f e s s i o n a l development. A major purpose of t h i s exploratory study has been to i d e n t i f y , i n a preliminary way, some r e g u l a r i t i e s which may warrant further study. Corwin, Lane and Monahan (1975:80) assert that At the early stages of theory formulation, exact l i m i t s often remain unknown, and the t h e o r i s t must content himself with e s t a b l i s h i n g whether or not c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s occur at a l l and must postpone more refined analyses of the l i m i t i n g conditions for further research. Care should be taken not to ignore the p o s s i b i l i t y that there may be r e l a t i o n s h i p s other than those noted i n Figure 6. There was, however, s u f f i c i e n t evidence of r e g u l a r i t i e s , such as those described above, to suggest further research, perhaps on the basis of a revised conceptual framework. The following suggestions f o r research are offered: 1. A revised conceptual framework might be used to guide further study. Such a framework could u t i l i z e the conception of a learning e f f o r t developed for the pre- sent study, r e t a i n i n g the ideas of recent and p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t s and the three dimensions of a learning a c t i v i t y 216 F i gure 7 Relationships I d e n t i f i e d Between Learning E f f o r t s and Independent Variables SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS - urban/rural group - LEARNING ACTIVITIES RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS - experience - (teacher) (non-principal administrator) ( p r i n c i p a l ) - education - 217 (recent use, a v a i l a b i l i t y , preference). Independent variables might be designated as s i t u a t i o n a l and as e x p e r i e n t i a l . 2. Further research might explore i n greater depth and breadth the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the work s e t t i n g , or s i t u a t i o n , and should be structured to f a c i l i t a t e i s o l a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of one variable from those of another. 3. The "developmental sequence of teacher p r o f e s s i o n a l growth" postulated by Kass and wheeler (19 75) should be applied to a study of school p r i n c i p a l s . Such a study might help to e s t a b l i s h whether a growth pat- tern e x i s t s which might explain the apparent r e l a t i o n - ship between experience and learning i n t e r e s t s . Find- ings of th i s nature would have important implications for the development of theory i n the area of p r o f e s s i o n a l development. 4. The present study did not explore r e l a t i o n s h i p s between learning i n t e r e s t s and the a c t i v i t i e s preferred for learning more i n these areas. Future research might attempt to determine whether such relationships e x i s t . 5. There i s a need for a more rigorous conceptual scheme to c l a s s i f y learning a c t i v i t i e s . The system used i n the present study (formal, consultative, personal) appeared to be usable by respondents, but i t i s d i f f i - c u l t to avoid overlap, p a r t i c u l a r l y between formal and consultative a c t i v i t i e s . I t may be, for example, that some p r i n c i p a l s attend c e r t a i n formal a c t i v i t i e s i n order to consult with others. Methodological Considerations The p o s s i b i l i t y that learning e f f o r t s may be r e l a t e d to combinations of independent v a r i a b l e s , and the apparent importance of s i t u a t i o n a l factors, suggest the need f o r a more in-depth study. Such a study might take the form of a s i n g l e - d i s t r i c t or t w o - d i s t r i c t case study, or an interview study intended to explore the idea of experience-related differences among p r i n - c i p a l s . 218 The present study had a high return rate and a high proportion of usable data. These facts might be explained by examining some aspects of the data c o l l e c t i o n procedure. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the returns may have been enhanced by respondent i n t e r e s t i n the t o p i c , attendance of the researcher at p r i n c i p a l ' s meetings, agreement of the researcher to return with a re- port of the findings, and the appointment of a l o c a l contact person. The cost of s i t e v i s i t s , however, may be p r o h i b i t i v e for many studies. The research instrument would be n e f i t from some minor modifications before further use. The i n s t r u c t i o n s for part A l might be made somewhat more e x p l i c i t , i n an e f f o r t to ensure that respondents make an entry opposite each kind of experience. I f a shorter l i s t of items i s desired, some seldom- reported i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s could be deleted. The two extra spaces at the end of each group of learning i n t e r e s t s could be replaced by two or three spaces at the end of the page. The study sample was not randomly selected. To carry out a survey which would provide enough data for meaningful a n a l y s i s , some adjustments would have to be made i n operational d e f i n i t i o n s . The terms "urban group" and " r u r a l group" were defined i n such a way that twelve school d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia q u a l i f i e d . Ten of these d i s t r i c t s were studied. Sam- ple s i z e would also need to be greatly increased to ensure s u f f i c i e n t data. The foregoing comments might be summarized i n several methodological recommendations: 6. Further study might employ an in-depth interview approach which would f a c i l i t a t e exploration of the possible existence and nature of i d e n t i f i a b l e differences among p r i n c i p a l s with varying backgrounds of experience on the job. 219 7. A case study approach might be used to further explore a wide range of s i t u a t i o n a l variables which may be im- portant to the p r i n c i p a l ' s learning e f f o r t s . 8. Where appropriate, s i t e v i s i t s should be c a r r i e d out before and a f t e r research i n a school d i s t r i c t , i f such research involves a large proportion of the personnel i n the d i s t r i c t . Such v i s i t s serve not only to enhance re- turn rates. They may also a id i n the dissemination of knowledge. 9. I f further research i s to be c a r r i e d out with the i n s t r u - ment used i n the further study, minor modifications might be made to c l a r i f y one item and to shorten the l i s t of learning i n t e r e s t s , as suggested i n the text of t h i s re- port. Implications f o r Practice A number of t h e o r e t i c a l and methodological considerations have been i d e n t i f i e d i n the previous two sections of t h i s chapter. The findings of the study also have implications r e l a t e d to the planning and delivery of professional development opportunities f o r school p r i n c i p a l s . In the area of learning i n t e r e s t s , three major topics were of wide- spread i n t e r e s t . In addition, there was evidence to suggest that p r i o r i t y of concern rests with matters of d i r e c t relevance to the work c a r r i e d on i n the i n d i v i d u a l school. The findings and conclusions i n t h i s area lead to several recommendations: 10. I f professional development functions of i n t e r e s t to a wide range of p r i n c i p a l s are to be planned, three general areas of study might be considered. These are: development and evaluation of the i n - s t r u c t i o n a l program, provision of educational ser- vices to students with s p e c i a l needs, and the supervision of teachers. 11. Further research at the l o c a l l e v e l i s pr e r e q u i s i t e to e f f e c t i v e planning, for several reasons. The present study has i d e n t i f i e d general concerns, but more s p e c i f i c information i s needed. There i s evidence of d i f f e r i n g p r i o r i t i e s among d i s t r i c t s . 220 F i n a l l y , such factors as school type and s i z e , and the p r i n c i p a l ' s experience, appear to be associated with differences i n i n t e r e s t s . 12. Despite the fact that a number of general trends have been i d e n t i f i e d , there were many instances where learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s were reported by only a few p r i n c i p a l s . Although the numbers were l i m i t e d i n these cases, the perceived importance of the i n t e r e s t or a c t i v i t y may have been very high. Planning e f f o r t s should f a c i l i t a t e meeting i n d i v i d u a l s ' stated needs. 13. This study surveyed p r i n c i p a l s only. I t may be that the responses of others associated with the p r i n c i p a l ' s work should be surveyed, to obtain a multi-dimensional view of p o t e n t i a l areas of s tudy. Interest i n the topic examined appears to have been high among the p r i n c i p a l s studied. The questionnaire return rate was high i n a l l school d i s t r i c t s , and a large number of p r i n c i p a l s entered comments on the back page of the questionnaire. Many of these comments r e f l e c t e d a desire f o r more pr o f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t i e s at a l o c a l or regional l e v e l , and for a more systematic approach to planning. The findings re l a t e d to learning a c t i v i t i e s were consistent with these remarks. Widespread i n t e r - est was expressed i n l o c a l and regional a c t i v i t i e s , and i n a c t i v i t i e s which permitted ongoing study of a problem. These findings l e d to the following recommendations: 14. Greater emphasis should be given to the i n - d i s t r i c t and regional workshop as p r o f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t i e s . 15. Ongoing study groups might be established to provide oppor- t u n i t i e s f or sustained learning e f f o r t s . Both of these recommendations, i f implemented, would be l i k e l y to lead to increased consultation among p r i n c i p a l s . The contacts established at such sessions might also f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r v i s i t a t i o n , an a c t i v i t y widely 221 reported among p r i n c i p a l s as being preferred and as needing to be more ava i l a b l e . I t i s recommended that, i n the d i s t r i c t s studied: 16. Provision be made for inter-school v i s i t a t i o n , within and outside of the d i s t r i c t , as a part of the e f f o r t to gain knowledge and s k i l l i n s p e c i f i c areas. There was also an i n d i c a t i o n that, where p r i n c i p a l s were r e l a t i v e l y i s o l a t e d and/or had a s u b s t a n t i a l teaching assignment, they were unable to consult as often or as broadly as they would have l i k e d . Sometimes t h i s appeared to be because of l o c a t i o n , and sometimes because of a lack of time. The findings of the study suggested that, i n the d i s t r i c t s studied, consultative a c t i v i t i e s of several kinds were widely f e l t to be important. It i s recommended that: 17. Ways to increase consultative opportunities for p r i n c i p a l s i n i s o l a t e d and/or small schools be explored, and that the question of available time be considered i n such exploration. C l e a r l y , there are many factors to be considered i n planning pro- f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t i e s . The present study, has i d e n t i f i e d some learning i n t e r e s t s which were widely reported among the p r i n c i p a l s i n ten mid-sized B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s . I t has also gathered informa- t i o n about the learning a c t i v i t i e s of these p r i n c i p a l s . Some major ques- tions, p a r t i c u l a r l y those having to do with r e l a t i o n s h i p s between learning e f f o r t s and the p r i n c i p a l ' s experience and job s i t u a t i o n , require further research. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the present ex- ploratory study may provide a p a r t i a l basis for l o c a l research and planning i n the d i s t r i c t s studied. They may also provide some d i r e c t i o n for further research into the nature of the learning e f f o r t s of school p r i n c i p a l s . 222 REFERENCES Bargen, P.F. 1963 "Of p r i n c i p a l s and leaders." The Tasks of the P r i n c i p a l , ed. F. Enns. Edmonton: Leadership Course f o r School P r i n c i p a l s Blalock, H.M. 1970 An Introduction to S o c i a l Research. Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice- H a l l Brown, M. 19 77 "Two-way contingency tables: empty c e l l s and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of departures from independence." Biomedical Computer Program - P Series, eds. W.J. Dixon and M.B. Brown. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Campbell, A.A. and G. Katona 1953 "The sample survey: a technique for s o c i a l science research." Research Methods i n the Behavioral Sciences, eds. L. Festinger and D. Katz. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Campbell, R.F., J.E. Corbally and J.A. Ramseyer 1966 Introduction to School Administration, 3rd e d i t i o n . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon Corwin R.G., W.R. Lane and W.G. Monahan 1975 "The nature of theory." Theoretical Dimensions of Educational Administration, ed. W.G. Monahan. New York: Macmillan Davis, W.J. 1976 "In-service s t a f f development programs for school p r i n c i p a l s . " Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, A t l a n t i c C i t y , New Jersey D i l l , W.R., W. Crowston and E. Elton 19 71 "Strategies f o r self-education." Developing Executive Leaders, eds. E.C. Bursk and T.B. Blodgett. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 223 Downey, L.W. 1961 "The s k i l l s of an e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l . " Canadian Administrator,, 1:3 (December, 1961) Goldhammer, K. 1968 "Implications for change i n t r a i n i n g programs." Knowledge Produc- t i o n and U t i l i z a t i o n i n Education Administration, eds. T. E i d e l l and J . K i t c h e l l . Eugene: University of Oregon Gregg, R.T. 195.7 "The administrative process." Administrative Behavior i n Education, eds. R.F. Campbell and R.T. Gregg. New York: Harper and Brothers G r i f f i t h s , D. et a l 1962 Organizing Schools for E f f e c t i v e Education. Danville, I l l i n o i s : Interstate Haughey, M.L. 1976 Consultative Practices i n Elementary Schools. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . Edmonton: University of Alberta Hays, W.L. 1973 S t a t i s t i c s f o r the S o c i a l Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Helmstadter, G.C. 1970 Research Concepts i n Human Behavior. Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice- H a l l Hencley, S.P. et a l 1970 The Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s h i p . New York: Dodd Mead H i l l s , R.J. 19 75 "The social-behavioral sciences and educational administration." Theoretical Dimensions of Educational Administration, ed. W.G. Monahan. New York: Macmillan 19 77 "The place of theory i n an applied profession." Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration: Eugene 22 A Kass, H. and A.E. Wheeler 1975 "Toward a concern-based developmental sequence of teacher profes- s i o n a l growth." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education: Edmonton Katz, D. 1953 " F i e l d studies." Research Methods i n the Behavioral Sciences, eds. L. Festinger and D. Katz. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston' Katz, R.L. 1955 " S k i l l s of an e f f e c t i v e administrator." Harvard Business Review, 33:1 (January-February, 1955) Kelsey, J.G.T. and B. L e u l l i e r 1978 "School d i s t r i c t p o l i c i e s f or the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g of p r i n c i p a l s . " Canadian Administrator, XVII:5 (February, 1978) Knowles, M.S. 1967 "Program planning for adults as learners." Adult Leadership, 15 Konrad, A.G., J.C. Long and J.M. Small 1976 "Canadian administrators have needs too." The Administrator i n Higher Education: An Assessment of Professional Development Needs, eds. C.W. Edwards and J.W. Pruyne. Columbus: Uni v e r s i t y Council for Educational Administration Lipham, J.M. and J.A. Hoeh 197A The P r i n c i p a l s h i p : Foundations and Functions. New York: Harper and Row McCatty, C. 1975 "Patterns of learning projects among pr o f e s s i o n a l men." Alberta Journal of Educational Research (June, 1975) Miklos, E. 1968 "The administrative process." The P r i n c i p a l as Administrator, ed. D.A. MacKay. Edmonton: Leadership Course for School P r i n c i p a l s 225 M i n i s t r y of Education 1976 Report on Education 1975-76. V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r Mintzberg, H. 19 73 The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper and Row Musella, D.F. and H.D. Joyce 1975 "Professional development needs of educational administrators." OCLEA, 4 ( A p r i l , 1975) Newberry, A.J.H. 19 75 Practices and C r i t e r i a Employed i n the Selection of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . Indiana University Pawliuk, R.J. and B.W. Pickard 1976 Professional Development Needs of Alberta School P r i n c i p a l s . Edmonton: University of Alberta Robertson, J.P. 1975 Administrative S k i l l s Development Needs of Alberta School P r i n c i - pals. Unpublished M.Ed, t h e s i s . University of Alberta Schwartz, A.M. 1977 Declining Enrolment: Implications for B r i t i s h Columbia's Public School System. Vancouver: Educational Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia Sweitzer, R.E. 1976 "The professional continuing education needs of state college admini- s t r a t o r s . " The Administrator i n Higher Education: An Assessment of Professional Development Needs, eds. C.W. Edwards and J.W. Pruyne. Columbus: University Council for Educational Administration Tough, A. 196 7 Learning Without a Teacher. Toronto: Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education 1968 Why Adults Learn. Toronto: Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education 226 19 71 The Adult's Learning Projects. Toronto: Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education Wagstaff, L. and T. McCollough 1962 "In-service education: education's d i s a s t e r area." Administrator's Notebook, XXI:8 ( A p r i l , 1962) APPENDIX A PILOT STUDY 228 Interview Questions Used i n P i l o t Study (Phase Two) These questions are not i n any p a r t i c u l a r order, and as you can see, some of them overlap with others. Choose any which you f i n d to be of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t (as many as you wish) to use as a basis f or discussion. Space has been l e f t for any notes you may wish to make to guide your think- ing and our discussion. Thank you for your i n t e r e s t and help. 1. As you think about your work, and your e f f o r t s to become in c r e a s i n g l y e f f e c t i v e as a p r i n c i p a l , can you think of any areas i n which you are p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n gaining more knowledge and s k i l l ? 2. Are there any aspects of your job which you see as problematic at l e a s t p a r t l y because you need to know more about a p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c , or to increase your s k i l l i n a p a r t i c u l a r area? 3. Are there any p a r t i c u l a r aspects of your job about which you f e e l that you have recently ( i n the past year or so) learned a l o t ? 4. When you decide that you want to learn more about some aspect of your job, what do you usually do? 5. I f you were asked to o f f e r suggestions for pr o f e s s i o n a l development topics to a p r i n c i p a l s i n - s e r v i c e education committee, what might you suggest as the "most important" topics? Interview Schedule and Personal and School Data Sheet Used l n P i l o t Study, Phase Three Interview Schedule (obtain completed data sheet from respondent) The study I am proposing i s r e l a t e d to the p r o f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t i e s of • p r i n c i p a l s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , I am Interested l n the areas and topics p r i n c i p a l s I d e n t i f y as Important, and l n the ways In which they go about l e a r n i n g . This Interview i s part of the l a t t e r phase of a p i l o t study which w i l l lead to the development of a questionnaire to be administered to p r i n c i p a l s i n eight school d i s t r i c t s . Do you want to know anything e l s e about the study before we look at some s p e c i f i c questions? (provide further information i f requested) As you think about your work during the past year, can you think of any aspects which stand out as areas l n which you have wanted to learn more, or learn how to do something more e f f e c t i v e l y ? (obtain items) It doesn't matter whether the item i s s t i l l of i n t e r e s t or concern, or not. I'm Interested i n knowing about any topic which comes to mind and which Is, or was at the time, quite Important. (obtain a d d i t i o n a l items) Here are some items that other p r i n c i p a l s have mentioned. (supply l i s t ) Do any of these b r i n g to mind any a d d i t i o n a l areas of recent i n t e r e s t or concern to you? (obtain a d d i t i o n a l items) Let's look at the topics you have mentioned, i n some d e t a i l . What s p e c i f i c questions/concerns do/did you have with regard to (specify each item)? (record d e t a i l s ) What do you think prompted your Interest i n (specify each item)? Were there any s p e c i f i c Incidents/situations/demands? (record d e t a i l s ) You have i d e n t i f i e d ( l i s t areas). Which of these arc most Important, i n terms of t h e i r urgency, frequency of recurrence, or your general i n t e r e s t ? (record means) Of these methods that you commonly use ( l i s t those s p e c i f i e d ) , which are of tbe greatest value? Why? ( l i s t responses) Are any of these methods sometimes not very u s e f u l at a l l ? Why? ( l i s t responses) Are there any other methods or l e a r n i n g resources which you would l i k e to use or have a v a i l a b l e , but which are unavailable or d i f f i c u l t to obtain access to? ( l i s t responses) That completes my l i s t of questions - i s there anything you'd l i k e to add about your e f f o r t s to learn - any other areas or ways i n which you try to increase your know- ledge or s k i l l ? Thanks very much for your help - t h i s information w i l l be of r e a l value i n de- veloping the f i n a l form of the questionnaire. 230 Personal and School Data Sheet Of which type of school were you a p r i n c i p a l during 1976-77? elementary secondary elementary-secondary How many other schools are located within 10 miles of your school? 0 to 3 4 to 10 more than 10 How many years of experience do you have? years as a teacher, with no administrative/supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . years i n administrative p o s i t i o n s , but not as a p r i n c i p a l . years as a p r i n c i p a l . years i n t o t a l . Which of the following most c l o s e l y describes your current educational l e v e l ? (check one) Bachelor's degree completed or i n progress. Master's degree completed or i n progress, i n education administra- t i o n . Master's degree completed or i n progress, but not i n education administration. How f a r i s your school from e i t h e r Vancouver or V i c t o r i a (whichever i s more r e a d i l y accessible)? 0 to 100 miles more than 100 miles Would you consider your d i s t r i c t to be: prim a r i l y urban (almost a l l schools f a i r l y large and i n town)? f a i r l y r u r a l (25% or more of the schools are quite small and scattered)? 231 Table LX P i l o t Study Findings: Learning Interests - selection and development of i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs - evaluation of programs - school-level curriculum development: needs assessment, materials development, evaluation - program evaluation - curriculum development - curriculum area expertise - s t a f f i n g practices: deployment, u t i l i z a t i o n - supervision practices - s t a f f i n g : interview techniques - s t a f f s e l e c t i o n , a l l o c a t i o n - s t a f f development - c l i n i c a l supervision - use of substitute teachers - use of non-teaching personnel - an ov e r a l l approach to teacher evaluation - personnel management: personal counselling - development of teaching s k i l l s i n teachers - alternate teaching styles - dealing verbally with s t a f f members - evaluation of non-teaching personnel - personnel r e l a t i o n s : motivation - formation and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of s t a f f committees - interpersonal relations - approaches to supervision - supervision of inst r u c t i o n - evaluation of teaching - management of c o n f l i c t - getting s t a f f involved i n professional reading - student d i s c i p l i n e : approaches - d i s t r i c t programs of student evaluation - interpersonal relations - special education: ethnic, s p e c i a l c l a s s , remedial - dealing with student and family problems - conducting parent and other interviews - role of personnel from other agencies - community involvement - public relations - dealing with student and family problems - finances: methods of school budgeting - preparation of reports to board - school d i s t r i c t budgeting procedures - general o f f i c e management - management of time - long-term and short-term planning - accounting and f i l i n g procedures - building programs - budget record-keeping systems - scheduling, timetabling - school law as i t pertains to school operation Table LXI 232 P i l o t Study Findings: Learning A c t i v i t i e s - university extension course - summer session course - workshops - i n - d i s t r i c t - workshops - o u t - o f - d i s t r i c t - conferences: m u l t i - d i s t r i c t - orientation sessions for new p r i n c i p a l s - arranged a reading workshop - arranged for a university course - attempted unsuccessfully to attend workshops - attended d i s t r i c t t r a i n i n g functions - discussions with teachers - talked to other p r i n c i p a l s - met with d i s t r i c t s t a f f coordinators - served on a d i s t r i c t committee - talked to d i s t r i c t s t a f f - approached s p e c i a l i s t s in the area - talked to superintendent - talked to mature, experienced teachers - contacts trustworthy colleagues - contacted d i s t r i c t s t a f f for s p e c i f i c information - discussed with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l - i n t e r v i s i t a t i o n i n the d i s t r i c t - i n t e r v i s i t a t i o n outside the d i s t r i c t - shared copies' of good material - met with friends for lunch regularly to discuss - talks to university personnel - consult an expert colleague - discussions at PSA meetings - mutual cooperative school assessment - consult a colleague who works close by - consult someone with s i m i l a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s or problems - talk to co-participants at workshops - committee work - discussion with family, friends - professional reading, writing - implementation attempts ( t r i a l and error) based on reading and thinking - personal research: testing of students, etc. - university course content and note review - r e f l e c t i o n , pondering, independent thought - t r i a l use of programs - reading of departmental b u l l e t i n s - developing own f i l e s - review of research - participated i n accreditation process - reading of curriculum guides, administrative b u l l e t i n - changed routines, deleted a c t i v i t i e s , stopped some projects APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTATION 234 Evaluation Sheet Used i n F i n a l Phase of Questionnaire Development Were there any questions or phrases that you did not understand or thought were ambiguous? Please specify question number and comment further. Is there any information which you have l i k e d to provide (relevant, of course, to the purposes of the study), but were not given the opportunity to do so on t h i s questionnaire? Please specify. Were the i n s t r u c t i o n s to each question clear? YES NO If not, which i n s t r u c t i o n s were unclear?" ' O v e r a l l , i n terms of the ease of f i l l i n g out t h i s questionnaire compared to others that you have completed, how would you rate i t ? ( c i r c l e one) OUTSTANDING GOOD AVERAGE POOR Explanatory comments, i f any: Thank you for completing the questionnaire and t h i s evaluation. 235 PRINCIPALS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT STUDY Thank you for p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the P r i n c i p a l s ' P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Study, which 1B currently being c a r r i e d out i n several B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s . The information gathered i s expected to be of considerable importance t o p r i n c i p a l s , t h e i r pro- f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , school d i s t r i c t s and other groups involved i n the i n - s e r v i c e education of school administrators. An important premise of the study i e that the planning of professional development a c t i v i t i e s and programs should be based s u b s t a n t i a l l y on the p r i o r i t i e s of those involved. This queBtion- a i r e w i l l provide an opportunity for you to r e f l e c t on your own learning i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s , and to contribute to a process which may y i e l d very useful r e s u l t s . A. PERSONAL AND SCHOOL INFORMATION Al Experience In Educational Positions How many years of experience have you had i n each category? PleaBe do not include the current school year. Please check one box opposite each category below. • As a teacher with no administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , • In administrative p o s i t i o n s , but not as a p r i n c i p a l . . • As a p r i n c i p a l . . • As a p r i n c i p a l i n your present d i s t r i c t • As a p r i n c i p a l i n your present school Yes p r i o r 0 - 1 irs of ex to thlB 2 - 5 perience school ye 6 - 1 0 ar over 10 A2 Education Which of the following best describes your most-recently-achieved educational level? Check one item only. • Bachelor's degree completed or i n progress • Master's degree completed or i n progress (a) i n education administration (b) not i n education administration. • Other (please specify) A3 School Location Of a l l the other schools i n your d i s t r i c t , how many can you contact from your school with a l o c a l (not long-distance) phone c a l l ? • none • 1 to 3 • k to 1 0 • more than 1 0 . .• ro AI+ School Type Please c i r c l e a l l grades enrolled i n your school. >. K . I 2 3 h 8 9 10 11 12 A5 R e l i e f Time For what portion of your time during regular school hours do you have time o f f from teaching to carry out administrative and/or supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? • l e s s than 50% • 50% to 7 5 % . . . . • over 75% , B. AREAS OF INTEREST As you think about your work during the past year or 60, you can probably i d e n t i f y some areas i n which you have p a r t i c u l a r l y wanted more knowledge and s k i l l . In some cases , you may have learned what you wanted to know. In others, time or resources may not have been a v a i l a b l e , or your int e r e s t s may have changed. Some topics might s t i l l be important to you. g Instructions L i s t e d below are some aspects of your .lob.' C i r c l e the number of each area i n which, at some time during this or the previous school year, you have p a r t i c u l a r l y wanted to Increase your knowledge and s k i l l , regardless of whether you a c t u a l l y engaged i n any learning a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to those t o p i c s . 01 Asse66ing community and school needs for s p e c i a l courses and programs. 0 2 Choosing i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs from among available a l t e r n a t i v e s . 0 3 Implementing new i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs. 01+ Developing curriculum at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l . 0 5 Developing curriculum at the school l e v e l . Educational Program 06 07 Evaluating the effectiveness of the school's i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Learning more about s p e c i f i c subject areas. Other "educational program" items not Included i n t h i s l i s t : 08 0 9 Staff Personnel 1 0 Evaluating and w r i t i n g reports on the work of teachers. 11 Developing an e f f e c t i v e approach to the supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n . 12 Managing and r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t . 1 3 Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 11* Handling the stresses of my Job. 15 Involving s t a f f i n planning and d e c i s i o n - making a c t i v i t i e s . 16 Conducting s t a f f meetings. 1 7 18 19 Developing e f f e c t i v e communication among teachers and between teacher and p r i n c i p a l . Supervising non-teaching personnel. Stimulating teacher i n t e r e s t i n professional growth. Other "6taff personnel" items: 2 0 21 to OJ 00 2 2 Advising students about course and program s e l e c t i o n . 2 3 Providing for students with s p e c i a l needs. 2/4 Assigning, grouping and scheduling students for i n s t r u c t i o n . 25 Evaluating student achievement and progress. 2 6 Developing a d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g program. P u p i l Personnel 2 7 28 29 Dealing with student problems. Developing school guidelines for pupil conduct. Student-teacher r e l a t i o n s . Other "pupil personnel items: 3 0 . 31 External Relations 3 2 Determining community a t t i t u d e s and 3 5 Working with agencies which provide services p r i o r i t i e s . to students and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . 3 3 Working with home-school groups and parent 3 6 Dealing with other departments of the school committees. d i s t r i c t . ^ P a r e n t s ^ 8 C 0 n f e r e n C e 8 a n d l n t e r v i e W B w i t h Other "external r e l a t i o n s " items: P 3 7 3 8 General Management 3 9 P r o v i n c i a l educational finance. Managing my time. liO School d i s t r i c t budgeting procedures. l»5 Legal aspects of the Job. M Preparing annual school budget submissions. o t h e r „ g e n e r a l m a n a g e m e n t „ i t e m s . If2 A l l o c a t i n g budgeted funds. ^ A3 General o f f i c e management routines: record-keeping, f i l i n g systems, etc. 4 7 ^ ^ ^ ^ C. LEARNING ACTIVITIES - USE AND AVAILABILITY C l Instructions As you re-examine the learning i n t e r e s t s you i d e n t i f i e d i n Part B (opposite) consider those for which you have engaged i n d e f i n i t e e f f o r t s to learn more, - and try to r e c a l l what you d i d . Opposite each item i n the l i s t below, c i r c l e the symbol which best describes your actual use of that a c t i v i t y during thi6 or the previous school year. Symbols; N - NEVER S - SELDOM 0 - OCCASIONALLY F - FREQUENTLY (once or twice) (3 or /+ times) (5 or more times) N S 0 F 01 I n - d i s t r i c t workshop (1 - 3 days). N S 0 F 02 O u t - o f - d i s t r i c t workshop (1 - 3 days). N S 0 F 03 Series of workshops or study sessions on a s p e c i f i c t o p i c . N S 0 F 01+ Short course (1-2 weeks). N S 0 F 05 Annual conference or convention. N s 0 F 06 D i s t r i c t o r i e n t a t i o n or administrative training session. H s 0 F 07 University course. N s 0 F 08 Consultation with teachers. N s 0 F 09 Consultation with v i c e - p r i n c i p a l . N s 0 F 10 Consultation with d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f . N s 0 F 11 Consultation with an outside s p e c i a l i s t . N s 0 F 12 Consultation with other p r i n c i p a l s . N s 0 F 13 Informal get-togethers with other administrators. N s 0 F 11+ Discussions with family or f r i e n d s . N . s 0 F 15 Informal contacts at committee meetings. N s 0 F 16 V i s i t s to other schools i n the d i s t r i c t . N s 0 F 17 V i s i t s to schools i n other d i s t r i c t s . N s 0 F 18 Professional reading: books, journals, b u l l e t i n s , etc. N .s 0 F 19 Reference to a personal f i l e of c o l l e c t e d a r t i c l e s . N s 0 F 20 Reviewing u n i v e r s i t y course notes. N s 0 F 21 Writing a paper or g i v i n g a presentation. N s 0 F 22 Purposeful t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r and experimentation. N s 0 F 23 Reviewing the r e s u l t s of research. N s 0 F 21+ Use of information r e t r i e v a l systems, i . e . ERIC. Other a c t i v i t i e s used or d e s i r e d : N s 0 F 25 N N s s 0 0 F F 26 27 Instructions: Which learning a c t i v i t i e s (items 01 through 27 above) would you probably have used more often i f they had been more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e ? C i r c l e the numbers of those items i n the l i s t above. D, PRIORITY AREAS AND PREFERRED ACTIVITIES J DI Instructions Of a l l the areas l i s t e d i n Part B (preceding page), which would you most l i k e to le a r n more about, over the next few months? Enter the numbers of these areas i n any order i n the boxes below, and then go on to D2. 1 P r i o r i t y Areas (at TeaR.t 3 and up to 5) CD m Q2 i n s t r u c t i o n s Opposite each p r i o r i t y area you have just i d e n t i f i e d i n D1 , enter the numbers of three learning a c t i v i t i e s you think would be most useful i n learning about that aspect of your work. Choose these a c t i v i t i e s from items 01 through 27 above. Assume that a l l are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . You may wish to vary a c t i v i t i e s according to the topic. Preferred Learning A c t i v i t i e s . • E J . . . G 3 . . L • C Z 3 G 3 . . m G 3 . . C D CO..CD APPENDIX C DATA COLLECTION Sample L e t t e r to D i s t r i c t Superintendents 244 Dear Further to our telephone conversation, I am forwarding d e t a i l s of my doctoral research p r o j e c t . Thank you f o r your expression of i n t e r e s t . I have attached an o u t l i n e of the P r i n c i p a l s ' P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Study, which i s being c a r r i e d out i n ten school d i s t r i c t s i n the province t h i s f a l l . The findings of the study should be of considerable use to your d i s t r i c t i n planning p r o f e s s i o n a l development programs f o r school adminis- t r a t o r s . In t h i s regard, I am w i l l i n g to return to a f t e r com- p l e t i n g the study, should you so wish, to review the findings with you and the p r i n c i p a l s . As we discussed, I have set aside (date) f o r attendance at your p r i n c i - p a ls' meeting to introduce the study and d i s t r i b u t e the questionnaire. This should take about twenty minutes. W i l l you use the enclosed consent form and return envelope to confirm permission to conduct research? Could I also get from you a l i s t of the p r i n c i p a l s i n your d i s t r i c t who have at l e a s t 20% administrative/supervisory time? I f you would l i k e further information about the study, please contact me or Dr. Ian Housego (Phone numbers attached). I look forward to the meeting, and t r u s t that t h i s research a c t i v i t y w i l l be of value to your d i s t r i c t as w e l l as being h e l p f u l i n the completion of my d i s s e r t a t i o n . Thank you. Yours t r u l y , Enclosure Vernon J . Storey APPENDIX D LEARNING INTERESTS 250 Table LXII Recent and P r i o r i t y Learning Interests: Numerical Frequency and Percentage Reporting Learning Reported as i n t e r e s t Recent i n t e r e s t s Number of Percentage of Rank p r i n c i p a l s p r i n c i p a l s reporting reporting N: 212 Reported as P r i o r i t y Interests Number of Percentage of Rank p r i n c i p a l s p r i n c i p a l s reporting reporting 01 79 37.3 16 16 7.5 19 02 80 37.7 15 21 9.9 14 03 106 50.0 7 32 15.1 8 04 46 21.7 30 12 5.7 25 05 115 54.2 6 47 22.2 6 06 166 78.3 1 104 49.1 1 07 84 39.6 12 25 11.8 11 10 129 60.8 4 59 27.8 4 11 141 66.5 3 74 34.9 2 12 58 27.4 26 16 7.5 19 13 40 18.9 32.5 14 6.6 22 14 55 25.9 28 20 9.4 15.5 15 74 34.9 20 11 5.2 27 16 40 18.9 32.5 7 3.3 31.5 17 74 34.9 20 22 10.4 13 18 39 18.4 34.5 6 2.8 33.5 19 120 56.6 5 54 25.5 5 22 8 3.8 37 2 0.9 37 23 147 69.3 2 69 32.5 3 24 56 26.4 27 18 8.5 17 25 102 48.1 8.5 28 13.2 10 26 42 19.8 31 4 1.9 35 27 74 34.9 20 24 11.3 12 28 73 34.4 23 12 5.7 25 29 74 34.9 20 16 7.5 19 32 94 44.3 10 30 14.2 9 33 74 34.9 20 . 12 5.7 25 34 72 34.0 24 8 3.8 30 35 82 38.7 13 13 6.1 23 36 35 16.5 36 6 2.8 33.5 39 39 18.4 34.5 3 1.4 36 40 76 35.8 17 10 4.7 28.5 41 69 32.5 25 10 4.7 28.5 42 50 23.6 29 7 3.3 31.5 43 81 38.2 14 15 7.1 21 44 89 42.0 11 35 16.5 7 45 102 48.1 8.5 20 9.4 15.5 251 Table LXIII Recent Learning Interests Added by Respondents Item Item number 08 Hearing impaired programs 08 How to increase effectiveness of i n s t r u c t i o n i n small schools 08 Evaluation of "pre-vocational" materials 08 Kindergarten 08 Developing s p e c i f i c behavioral objectives for subjects 08 Training program for prospective administrators 08 Counselling 08 Metric programme 08 F a m i l i a r i t y with primary curriculum, methods 08 Indian education 08 Impact of French i n elementary schools 08 Physical handicap - i n s t r u c t i o n 08 Ideas f o r new courses 08 Techniques of developing s p e c i f i c course objectives 08 Better work habits 08 Integrated studies technique 09 Learning diagnostic s k i l l s for s p e c i a l needs students 09 Developing knowledge of how to behave 20 Communication between school boards and teachers 20 Dealing with the 9 to 3 teacher 20 Evaluating effectiveness of part-time s t a f f 20 Working with s t a f f on s p e c i f i c programs 20 Improving parent-teacher relationships 20 Assistance to new teachers 20 Changing teacher behavior 20 Helping teachers to be more e f f e c t i v e 20 A s s i s t i n g weak teachers 20 Improving teacher-pupil communication s k i l l s 20 Helping beginning teachers 21 Boosting teacher morale 21 Helping " t i r e d " teachers 30 Developing a school newspaper 30 Dealing with former teachers of t r a n s f e r s - i n 30 Dealing with damage to school property 30 Developing r e a l i s t i c d i s c i p l i n e s f o r item 28 30 Inter-agency i n f o f o r counselling, etc. 30 Integrating EMR pupils 30 Drug and alcohol abuse 30 Developing a school t e s t i n g program /continued 252 Recent Learning Interests Added by Respondents (cont.) Item Item number 31 E f f e c t i v e anti-smoking campaign 37 Developing a handbook for parents 37 Dealing with area counsellor (other s p e c i a l i s t s ) 37 Developing and d i s t r i b u t i n g school p o l i c i e s 37 Dealing with our board o f f i c e 37 PR to improve teacher image 37 Family counselling 38 Dealing with maintenance s t a f f , etc. 46 P r i o r i t y of demands 46 Improving e f f i c i e n c y 46 A s s i s t i n g teachers to manage t h e i r time 46 O f f i c e management - le v e l s of expectation 47 Sound general management 253 Table LXIV Frequently and Infrequently Reported Learning Interests and Items Showing S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a t i o n Between D i s t r i c t Groups Item Reported as a recent i n t e r e s t by d i s t r i c t group p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t by d i s t r i c t group urban r u r a l Sig." urban r u r a l Sig.' N. no. 113 % no. 99 % no. 113 % no. 99 % 03 55 48.7 51 51.5 04 21 18.6 25 25.3 05 57 50.4 58 58.6 14 12.4 33 33.3 0.028 06 90 79.6 76 76.8 58 51.3 46 46.5 10 70 61.9 59 59.6 34 30.1 25 25.3 11 75 66.4 66 66.7 42 37.2 32 32.3 13 22 19.5 18 18.2 14 13 11.5 7 7.1 0.081 15 9 8.0 2 2.0 0.091 16 20 17.7 20 20.2 17 41 36.3 33 33.5 0.092 14 12.4 8 8.1 0.017 18 23 20.4 16 16.2 ! 19 65 57.5 55 55.6 29 25.7 25 25.3 22 3 2.7 5 5.1 0.058 23 78 69.0 69.7 38 33.6 31 31.3 25 57 50.4 45 45.5 26 25 22.1 17 17.2 1 0.9 3 3.2 0.097 33 47 41.6 27 27.3 0.025 36 19 16.8 16 16.2 39 25 22.1 14 14.1 41 45 39.8 24 24.2 0.029 44 41 36.3 48 48.5 0.007 18 15.9 17 17.2 0.003 45 57 50.4 45 45.5 1. Significance l e v e l reported only i f less than 0.10. 254 Table LXV Recent Learning Interests Reported Among Respondents Classified by School District Respondents reporting as recent Interest Item District: A B C D E T 0 H J K N: 30 23 21 23 16 25 18 20 16 no. . * no. . * no. . % no. , * no. . * no. % no. . * no. . % no. no. % 01 7 23-3 8 34.8 8 38.1 7 30.1+ 10 62.5 13 52.0 7 38.9 7 35.0 8 1+0.0 1> 25.0 02 11 36.7 11+ 60.9 8 36.1 9 39-1 4 25.0 11 l+l+.O 6 33.3 4 20.0 8 1+0.0 5 31.3 03 16 53.3 12 52.2 12 57.2 9 39.1 6 37.5 17 68.0 10 55.6 • 20.0 10 50.0 10 62.5 01* 6 20.0 5 21.7 1 1+.8 3 13.0 6 37.5 6 21+.0 6 33.3 6 30.0 5 25.0 12 12.5 05 16 53.3 11 47.8 9 42.9 12 52.2 9 56.3 16 61+.0 11 61.1 12 60.0 '4. 70.0 5 31.3 06 27 90.0 18 78.3 17 81.0 16 69.6 12 75.0 19 76.0 13 72.2 11+ 70.0 16 80.0 14 87.5 07 11 36.7 6 26. t 10 1+7.6 13 56.5 8 50.0 9 36.0 9 50.0 6 30.0 5 25.0 7 43.8 10 20 66.7 13 56.5 15 71.1+ 15 65.2 7 1+3-8 15 60.0 9 50.0 13 65.0 16 80.0 6 37.5 11 21 70.0 11+ 60.9 16 76.2 16 69.6 8 50.0 19 76.0 7 38.9 15 75.0 15 75.0 10 62.5 12 10 33.3 2 8.7 9 1+2.9 6 26.1 3 18.8 9 36.0 1+ 22.2 2 10.0 8 1+0.0 5 31.3 13 5 16.7 6 26.1 3 11+.3 3 13.0 5 31.3 5 20.0 3 16.7 3 15.0 5 25.0 2 12.5 a 26.7 4 17.1+ 6 28.6 8 34.8 6 37.5 9 36.0 3 16.7 5 25.0 4 20.0 2 12.5 15 12 1+0.0 5 21.7 11 52.1+ 6 26.1 8 50.0 9 36.0 5 27.8 5 25.0 8 1+0.0 5 31.3 16 6 20.0 2 8.7 1+ 19.0 4 17.4 i+ 25.0 6 21+.0 i+ 22.2 3 15.0 2 10.0 5 31.3 17 11 36.7 3 13.0 13 61.9 6 26.1 8 50.0 9 36.0 6 33.3 5 25.0 7 35.0 6 37.5 18 8 26.7 9 39.1 1 it.8 2 8.7 3 18.8 6 21+.0 3 16.7 3 15.0 3 15.0 1 6.3 19 19 63.3 11 1+7.8 15 71.4 12 52.2 8 50.0 15 60.0 12 66.7 9 45.0 10 50.0 9 56.3 22 0 0.0 1 4.3 0 0.0 1 1+.3 1 6.3 0 0.0 3 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 12.5 • 23 19 63.3 16 69.6 15 71.4 18 78.3 10 62.5 17 68.0 13 72.2 14 70.0 15 75.0 10 62.5 24 10 33.3 5 21.7 6 28.6 5 21.7 6 37.5 17 28.0 3 16.7 2 10.0 8 1+0.0 4 25.0 25 14 46.7 15 56.5 11 52.1+ 9 39.1 10 62.5 12 1+8.0 6 33-3 10 50.0 9 1+5.0 8 50.0 26 7 23.3 7 30.1+ 4 19.0 2 8.7 5 31.3 5 20.0 1 5.6 1+ 20.0 2 10.0 5 31.3 27 11 36.7 9 39.1 9 42.9 6 26.1 9 56.3 7 28.0 7 38.9 6 •1+0.0 6 30.0 2 12.5 28 11 36.7 8 34.8 9 1+2.9 1+ 17.4 7 1+3.8 11 l+l+.O 6 33-3 5 25.0 9 45.0 3 18.8 29 9 30.0 5 21.7 9 1+2.9 9 39.1 2 12.5 12 1+8.0 6 33.3 7 35.0 8 1+0.0 7 43-8 • 32 13 43.3 8 31+.8 11 52.4 9 39.1 9 56.3 16 61+.0 6 33.3 6 30.0 11 55.0 5 31.3 33 12 1+0.0 6 26.1 10 47.6 8 34.8 11 68.8 6 21+.0 1+ 22.2 10 50.0 4 20.0 3 18.8 34 13 43.3 13 56.5 7 33.3 4 17.4 7 1+3.8 7 28.0 5 27.8 6 35.0 5 25.0 5 31.3 35 14 46.7 11 47.8 11 52.1+ 8 34.8 5 31.3 6 21+.0 5 27.8 9 45.0 8 1+0.0 5 31.3 36 4 13-3 6 26.1 3 14.3 i+ 17.4 2 12.5 7 28.0 i+ 22.2 0 0.0 2 10.0 3 18.8 39 7 23-3 6 26.1 5 23.8 i+ 17.1+ 3 18.8 7 28.0 2 11.1 1 5.0 2 10.0 2 12.5 40 12 1+0.0 10 43-5 7 33.3 6 26.1 7 43.8 11 l+l+.O 4 22.2 10 50.0 6 30.0 3 18.8 41 16 53.3 10 43-5 9 42.9 5 21.7 5 31.3 6 21,.0 4 22.2 1 5.0 8 1)0.0 5 31.3 42 7 23.3 5 21.7 5 23.8 2 8.7 1+ 25.0 1+ 16.0 7 38.9 7 35.0 5 25.0 i+ 25.0 43 16 53.3 7 30.1+ 8 38.1 2 8.7 8 50.0 10 1+0.0 8 i+i+.i* 9 1+5.0 6 30.0 7 43.8 44 16 53.3 8 34.8 7 33-3 3 13.0 7 1+3-7 11+ 56.0 11 61.1 5 25.0 13 65.0 5 31.3 45 15 50.0 10 43.5 12 57.1 11 47.8 9 56.3 12 1+8.0 11 61.1 11 55.0 6 30.0 5 31.3 * Level of significance for item 22 = 0.058 255 Table LXVI Priority Learning Interests Reported Among Respondents Classified by School District- Respondents reporting as priority interest Item District: A B C D E F G H J K N: 30 23 21 23 16 25 18 20 20 16 no, , % no. . * no. . * no. no. . % no. . ' % no. . % no, . % no. . % no. . % 01 2 6.7 3 13.0 2 9.5 1 k. 3 1 6.3 2 8.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 3 15.0 1 6.3 02 2 6.7 4 17.4 3 14.3 5 21.7 1 6.3 1 4.0 2 11.1 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 6.3 03 4 13.3 5 21.7 2 9.5 4 17.4 1 6.3 3 12.0 3 16.7 3 15.0 3 15.0 4 25.0 04 2 6.7 0 0.0 1 4.8 1 h.J> 2 12.5 2 8.0 1 5.6 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 6.3 05 4 13.3 4 17.4 1 4.8 2 8.7 3 18.8 7 28.0 8 44.4 5 25.0 6 30.0 7 43-8 * 06 16 53-3 13 56.5 5 23.8 13 56.5 11 68.8 11 44.0 8 44.4 9 45.0 8 40.0 10 62.5 07 3 10.0 2 8.7 2 9'5 . 5 21.7 3 18.8 2 8.0 4 22.2 1 5.0 2 10.0 1 6.3 10 9 30.0 9 39.1 3 14.3 8 34-8 5 31.3 2 8.0 4 22.2 5 25.0 10 50.0 4 25.0 11 14 46.7 9 39.1 7 33-3 8 34.8 4 25.0 6 24.0 4 22.2 7 35.0 10 50.6 5 31.3 12 2 6.7 0 0.0 3 14.3 1 4.3 2 12.5 4 16.0 1 5.6 0 0.0 3 15.0 • 0 0.0 13 2 6.7 4 17.4 1 4.8 0 0.0 1 6.3 2 8.0 1 5.6 0 0.0 3 15.0 0 0.0 14 7 23.3 0 0.0 2 9.5 3 13.0 1 6.3 4 16.0 2 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 * • 15 0 0.0 1 4.3 3 14.3 2 8.7 3 18.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 16 2 6.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.3 1 6.3 1 4.0 1 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 17 6 20.0 0 0.0 6 28.6 2 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 16.7 1 5.0 3 15.0 1 6.3 18 1 3.3 1 4-3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 1 4.0 1 5.6 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 10 33-3 4 17.4 5 23.8 8 34.8 2 12.5 6 24.0 3 16.7 4 20.0 7 35.0 5 31.3 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 23 7 23.3 9 39.1 5 23.8 12 52.H 5 31.3 10 40.0 4 22.2 7 35.0 5 25.0 5 31.3 24 2 6.7 2 8.7 3 14.3 0 0.0 3 18.8 2 8.0 1 5.6 2 10.0 2 10.0 1 6.3 25 5 16.7 2 8.7 4 19.0 4 17.4 3 18.8 4 16.0 0 0.0 3 15.0 0 0.0 3 18.8 26 • 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 12.5 27 4 13.3 3 13.0 5 23.8 0 0.0 4 25.0 2 8.0 1 5.6 2 10.0 3 15.0 0 0.0 28 2 6.7 1 4-3 0 0.0 2 8.7 0 0.0 2 8.0 1 5.6 1 5.0 2 10.0 1 6.3 29 2 6.7 2 8.7 1 4.8 1 4.3 0 0.0 1 4.0 3 16.7 2 10.0 1 5.0 3 18.8 32 3 10.0 5 21.7 2 9.5 1 4.3 4 25.0 5 20.0 0 0.0 3 15.0 4 20.0 3 18.8 33 0 0.0 1 4.3 0 0.0 1 4.3 3 18.8 2 8.0 0 0.0 2 10.0 1 5.0 2 12.5 3A 1 3.3 0 0.0 3 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 8.0 0 0.0 1 . 5.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 35 2 6.7 3 13.0 1 4.8 3 13.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 15.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 36 0 0.0 1 4. 3 0 0.0 1 4. 3 0 0.0 2 8.0 2 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 39 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.8 1 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 40 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 9.5 0 0.0 1 6.3 2 8.0 1 5.6 2 10.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 41 1 3.3 1 4.3 1 4.8 1 4.3 1 6.3 1 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 10.0 2 12.5 42 1 3-3 1 4.3 2 9.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 6.3 43 2 6.7 2 8.7 2 9-5 0 0.0 1 6.3 5 20.0 1 5.6 2 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 12 40.0 3 13.0 0 0.0 1 4.3 2 12.5 6 24.0 5 27.8 1 5.0 4 20.0 1 6.3 45 4 13.3 1 4.3 2 9.5 0 0.0 1 6.3 2 8.0 2 11.1 6 30.0 1 5.0 1 6.3 • Level of significance for item 05 = 0.028 Level of significance for item 14 = 0.081 256 Table LXVII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Location Categories Learning Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t : Sig."'" i n t e r e s t , , , .. 2 Accessible schools: 0 1-3 4-10 over 10 N: 8 20 15 169 no. % no. % no. 7o no. i 01 5 62.5 9 45.0 5 33.3 60 35.5 03 5 62.5 9 45.0 8 53.3 84 49.7 04 1 12.5 4 20.0 5 33.3 36 21.3 05 4 50.0 10 50.0 7 46.7 94 55.6 06 6 75.0 17 85.0 10 66.7 133 78.7 07 4 50.0 5 25.0 6 40.0 69 40.8 10 6 75.0 14 70.0 11 73.3 98 58.0 11 5 62.5 14 70.0 12 80.0 110 65.0 13 1 12.5 4 20.0 3 20.0 32 18.9 16 4 50.0 4 20.0 2 13.3 30 17.8 17 4 50.0 6 30.0 1 6.7 63 37.3 18 3 37.5 3 15.0 1 6.7 32 18.9 19 4 50.0 8 40.0 7 46.7 101 59.8 22 0 0.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 6 3.6 23 6 75.0 13 65.0 11 73.3 117 69.2 25 2 25.0 10 50.0 5 33.3 85 50.3 26 2 25.0 3 15.0 4 26.7 33 19.5 28 4 50.0 4 20.0 6 40.0 59 34.9 32 5 62.5 10 50.0 8 53.3 71 42.0 33 3 37.5 6 30.0 8 53.3 57 35.7 35 2 25.0 7 35.0 1 6.7 72 42.6 36 1 12.5 5 25.0 3 20.0 26 15.4 39 3 37.5 4 20.0 3 20.0 29 17.2 41 2 25.0 9 45.0 1 6.7 57 33.7 44 2 25.0 10 50.0 6 40.0 71 42.0 45 5 62.5 10 50.0 8 53.3 79 46.7 0.082 0.040 0.098 1. Significance l e v e l reported only i f less than 0.10. 2. Schools accessible by l o c a l telephone c a l l from respondent's school. 257 Table LXVIII Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Location Categories Learning i n t e r e s t Respondents reporting 2 Accessible schools: as recent i n t e r e s t : S i g . 1 N: 0 8 1 -3 20 4 -10 15 over 10 169 no. % no. % no. % no. % 05 1 12.5 6 30.0 3 20.0 37 21.9 06 2 25.0 10 50.0 4 26.7 88 52.1 10 4 50.0 4 20.0 6 40.0 45 26.6 11 6 75.0 7 35.0 5 33.3 56 33.1 17 2 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 11.8 0.099 23 4 50.0 7 35.0 8 53.3 50 29.6 33 0 0.0 1 5.0 4 26.7 7 4.1 0.004 41 1 12.5 3 15.0 0 0.0 6 3.6 0.071 44 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 26.7 31 18.3 0.070 45 0 0.0 5 25.0 2 13.3 13 7.7 0.061 1. Significance l e v e l reported only i f less than 0.10. 2. Schools accessible by l o c a l telephone c a l l from respondent's school. 258 Table LXIX Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Type Categories Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t : Sig. School type: Elementary Secondary Elem.-sec. N: 161 40 11 no. % no. % no. % 01 50 31.1 23 57.5 6 54.5 0.004 02 69 42.9 10 25.0 1 9.1 0.015 03 86 53.4 15 37.5 5 45.5 05 89 55.3 21 52.5 5 45.5 06 127 78.9 32 80.0 7 63.6 07 72 44.7 9 22.5 3 27.3 0.025 10 102 63.4 20 50. o: 7 63.6 11 106 65.8 29 72.5 6 54.5 12 44 27.3 12 30.0 2 18.2 13 35 21.7 4 10.0 1 9.1 16 30 18.6 6 15.0 4 36.4 17 54 33.5 18 45.0 2 18.2 18 31 19.3 4 10.0 4 36.4 19 92 57.1 27 67.5 1 9.1 0.002 22 2 1.2 4 10.0 2 18.0 0.001 23 119 81.0 23 15.6 5 45.5 0.028 25 82 50.9 17 42.5 3 27.3 26 36 22.4 4 10.0 2 18.2 34 62 38.5 7 17.5 3 27.3 36 24 14.9 9 22.5 2 18.2 39 28 17.4 8 20.0 3 27.3 40 56 34.8 14 35.0 6 54.5 41 54 33.5 9 22.5 6 54.5 42 39 24.2 6 15.0 5 45.5 43 64 39.8 11 27.5 6 54.5 45 77 47.8 20 50.0 5 45.5 1. Significance l e v e l reported only i f less than 0.10. Learning i n t e r e s t 259 Table LXX Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among School Type Categories Learning Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t Sig. School type: Elementary Secondary Elem.-sec. N : 161 40 11 no. % no. % no. % 05 35 21.7 10 25.0 2 18.2 06 77 47.8 23 57.5 4 36.4 10 45 28.0 10 25.0 4 36.4 11 54 33.5 15 37.5 5 45.5 13 14 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.093 17 14 8.7 8 20.0 0 0.0 0.057 19 41 25.5 11 27.5 2 18.2 22 0 0.0 1 2.5 1 9.1 0.006 23 54 33.5 11 27.5 4 36.4 28 7 4.3 5 12.5 0 0.0 0.096 41 6 3.7 2 5.0 2:.. 18.2 0.091 44 26 16.1 8 20.0 1 9.1 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 260 Table LXXI Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Re l i e f Time Categories Learning i n t e r e s t Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t Sig. R e l i e f time: under 50% N: 55 no. % 50 - 63 no. 75% % over 94 no. 75% % . , 03 27 49.1 36 57.1 43 45.7 04 10 18.2 18 28.6 18 19.1 05 28 50.9 37 58.7 50 53.2 06 35 63.6 53 84.1 78 83.0 0.009 10 31 56.4 42 66.7 56 59.6 11 30 54.5 45 71.4 66 70.2 0.091 13 12 21.8 11 17.5 17 18.1 16 10 18.2 10 15.9 20 21.3 18 13 23.6 17 27.0 9 9.6 0.011 19 27 49.1 35 55.6 58 61.7 22 2 3.6 1 1.6 5 5.3 23 38 69.1 48 76.2 61 64.9 25 26 47.3 29 46.0 47 50.0 26 9 16.4 13 20.6 20 21.3 35 16 29.1 22 34.9 44 46.8 0.077 36 5 9.1 13 20.6 17 18.1 39 10 18.2 12 19.0 17 18.1 42 19 34.5 13 20.6 18 19.1 43 28 50.9 20 31.7 33 35.1 45 23 41.8 29 46.0 50 53.2 261 Table LXXI Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing Va r i a t i o n Among R e l i e f Time Categories Learning ^ i n t e r e s t Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t Sig. Re l i e f time: under 50% 50 - 75% over 75% N: 55 63 94 no. % no. % no. % 05 12 21.8 19 30.2 16 17.0 06 22 40.0 31 49.2 51 54.3 10 15 27.3 17 27.0 27 28.7 11 17 30.9 27 42.9 30 31.9 14 10 18.2 6 9.5 4 4.3 0.020 17 3 5.5 4 6.3 15 16.0 0.059 19 11 20.0 19 30.2 24 25.5 23 19 34.5 27 41.9 23 24.5 0.051 26 1 1.8 3 4.8 0, 0.0 0.099 44 9 16.4 13 20.6 13 13.8 1. Significance l e v e l reported only i f less than 0.10. 262. Table LXXIII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories Learning Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t : Sig. i n t e r e s t Years of experience: 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 20 92 67 30 no. % no. % no. % no. % 04 9 45.0 20 21.7 11 16.4 5 16.7 0.046 05 13 65.0 55 59.8 29 43.3 18 60.0 06 16 80.0 76 82.6 47 70.1 24 80.0 10 9 45.0 64 69.6 36 53.7 18 60.0 0.091 11 10 50.0 70 76.1 38 56.7 20 66.7 0.029 13 4 20.0 19 20.7 .12 17.9 5 16.7 14 3 15.0 22 23.9 18 26.9 11 36.7 15 9 45.0 29 31.5 20 29.9 16 53.3 0.088 16 3 15.0 20 21.7 8 11.9 9 30.0 18 5 25.0 20 21.7 6 9.0 8 26.7 0.089 19 15 75.0 45 48.9 41 61.2 17 56.7 22 0 0.0 4 4.3 1 1.5 3 10.0 23 14 70.0 65 70.7 43 64.2 22 73.3 25 10 50.0 42 45.7 34 50.7 14 46.7 26 3 15.0 16 17.4 16 23.9 7 23.3 33 5 25.0 34 37.0 18 26.9 15 50.0 34 6 30.0 31 34.8 17 25.4 16 53.3 0.061 35 9 45.0 43 46.7 15 22.4 14 46.7 0.011 36 4 20.0 13 14.1 11 16.4 7 23.3 39 7 35.0 15 16.3 14 20.9 3 10.0 42 4 20.0 25 27.2 16 23.9 5 16.7 45 12 60.0 47 51.1 29 43.3 12 40.0 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 263, Table LXXIV Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and /Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Teaching Experience Categories Learning Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t : Sig. in t e r e s t Years of experience: 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 20 92 67 30 no. % no. % no. % no. % 04 6 30.0 5 5.4 0 0.0 1 3.3 0.000 05 2 10.0 31 33.7 13 19.4 1 3.3 0.002 06 12 60.0 50 54.3 28 41.8 13 43.3 10 5 25.0 30 32.6 13 19.4 10 33.3 11 5 25.0 34 37.0 20 29.9 12 40.0 19 6 30.0 25 27.2 ; 14 20.9 8 26.7 23 7 35.0 24 26.1 27 40.3 10 33.3 29 0 0.0 5 5.4 11 16.4 0 0.0 0.007 35 2 10.0 3 ,3.3 2 3.0 6 20.0 0.005 36 1 5.0 0 0.0 2 3.0 3 10.0 0.037 44 3 15.0 15 16.3 9 13.4 6 20.0 45 4 20.0 9 9.8 5 7.5 2 6.7 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. • 264 Table LXXV Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories Learning Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t : S i g . 1 i n t e r e s t Years of experience: 0-•1 2-•5 6-10 over 10 N: 76 80 26 5 no. % no. % no. % no. % 02 29 38.2 30 37.5 8 30.8 4 80.0 03 37 48.7 41 51.3 12 46.2 2 40.0 05 45 59.2 41 51.3 15 57.7 3 60.0 06 57 75.0 65 81.3 18 69.2 4 80.0 10 47 61.8 50 62.5 16 61.5 2 40.0 11 50 65.8 59 73.8 14 53.8 4 80.0 17 25 32.9 27 33.8 13 50.0 2 40.0 19 40 52.6 46 57.5 15 57.7 5 100.0 22 1 1.3 2 2.5 3 11.5 0 0.0 23 57 75.0 52 65.0 16 61.5 4 80.0 25 32 42.1 42 . 52.5 11 42.3 2 40.0 32 33 43.4 38 47.5 13 50.0 2 40.0 33 25 32.9 26 32.5 13 50.0 1 20.0 35 27 35.5 40 50.0 7 26.9 2 40.0 36 8 10.5 16 20.0 6 23.1 3 60.0 41 26 34.2 24 30.0 10 38.5 3 60.0 42 26 34.2 16 20.0 5 19.2 0 0.0 43 27 35.5 31 38.8 9 34.6 3 60.0 44 35 46.1 27 33.8 14 53.8 1 20.0 45 41 53.9 38 47.5 11 42.3 3 60.0 0.073 0.022 0.086 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 265 Table LXXVI Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Non-Principal Administrative Experience Categories Learning Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t : Sig. in t e r e s t Years of experience: 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 76 80 26 5 no. % no. Z no. % no. 7o 02 6 7.9 9 11.3 0 0.0 2 40.0 0.030 05 17 22.4 16 20.0 8 30.8 11 20.0 06 36 47.4 41 51.3 12 46.2 2 40.0 10 23 30.3 22 27.3 7 26.9 1 20.0 11 29 38.2 30 37.5 6 23.1 2 40.0 15 1 1.3 7 8.8 2 7.7 1 20.0 17 8 10.5 10 12.5 2 7.7 1 20.0 19 18 23.7 18 22.5 8 30.8 1 20.0 23 26 34.2 29 36.3 6. 23.1 1 20.0 25 10 13.2 8 10.0 4 15.4 1 20.0 28 5 6.6 4 5.0 2 7.7 1 20.0 36 2 2.6 2 2.5 0 0.0 1 20.0 0.090 43 7 9.2 5 6.3 1 3.8 0 0.0 0.045 44 11 14.5 . 6 7.5 9 34.6 0 0.0 0.005 1. Significance l e v e l reported only i f less than 0.10. 266 Table LXXVII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Experience as a P r i n c i p a l Respondents reporting as a recent i n t e r e s t : Sig. Years of experience: 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 42 62 42 64 no. % no. % no. % no. % 01 13 31.0 31J 50.0 10 23.8 24 37.5 0.041 03 19 45.2 32 51.6 16 38.1 37 57.8 04 12 28.6 16 25.8 8 19.0 10 15.6 05 25 59.5 35 56.5 18 42.9 37 57.8 06 33 78.6 41 66.1 33 78.6 57 89.1 0.021 10 32 76.2 40 64.5 24 57.1 32 50.0 0.048 11 29 69.0 39 62.9 27 64.3 44 68.8 13 6 14.3 15 24.2 6 14.3 13 20.3 16 5 11.9 17 27.4 8 19.0 10 15.6 17 12 28.6 26 41.9 9 21.4 27 42.2 0.075 18 8 19.0 18 29.0 6 14.3 7 10.9 0.058 19 19 45.2 37 59. 7 28 66.7 34 53.1 22 2 4.8 4 6.5 0 0.0 2 3.1 23 29 69.0 41 66.1 28 66.7 47 73.4 25 19 45.2 33 53.2 17 40.5 32 50.0 26 9 21.4 14 22.6 8 19.0 11 17.2 28 14 33.3 16 25.8 12 28.6 30 46.9 0.069 32 21 50.0 28 45.2 16 38.1 28 43.8 36 4 9.5 13 21.0 9 21.4 9 14.1 39 9 21.4 15 24.2 6 14.3 9 14.1 41 23 54.8 15 24.2 13 31.0 18 28.1 0.008 42 19 45.2 14 22.6 8 19.0 9 14.1 0.002 43 23 54.8 25 40.3 16 38.1 17 26.6 0.035 44 16 38.1 26 41.9 14 33.3 32 50.0 Learning i n t e r e s t 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 267 i n t e r e s t Table LXXVIII Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Total Experience as a P r i n c i p a l Learning Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t : Sig."*" Years of experience: 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 42 62 42 64 no. % no. % no. % no. % 02 3 7.1 6 9.7 9 21.4 3 4.7 0.037 05 10 23.8 18 29.0 6 14.3 13 20.3 06 23 54.8 23 37.1 20 47.6 38 59.4 0.077 10 15 35.7 21 33.9 10 23.8 13 20.3 11 22 52.4 18 29.0 13 31.0 19 29.7 19 8 19.0 16 25.8 11 26.2 18 28.1 23 15 35.7 18 29.0 15 35. 7 20 31.3 32 10 23.8 5 8.1 7 16.7 7 10.9 44 2 4.8 11 17.7 7 16. 7 14 21.9 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 268 Table LXXIX Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present D i s t r i c t Experience Learning Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t : Sig. i n t e r e s t Years of experience: 0-•1 2-•5 6-10 over 10 N: 56 65 34 56 no. % no. % no. % no. % 03 23 41.1 35 53.8 15 44.1 32 57.1 04 15 26.8 15 23.1 8 23.5 8 14.3 05 32 5 7.11. 35 53.8 17 50.0 31 55.4 06 44 78.6 42 64.6 29 85.3 50 89.3 0.007 10 40 71.4 42 64.6 18 52.9 28 50.0 0.083 11 40 71.4 40 61.5 22 64.7 38 67.9 13 8 14.3 16 24.6 6 17.6 10 17.9 16 9 16.1 15 23.1 6 17.6 10 17.9 18 8 14.3 20 30.8 40 11.8 7 12.5 0.023 19 26 46.4 42 64.6 24 70.6 27 48.2 0.039 22 2 3.6 4 6.2 0 0.0 2 3.6 23 39 69.6 43 66.2 22 64.7 42 75.0 25 24 42.9 36 55.4 15 44.1 26 56.4 26 10 17.9 14 21.5 8 23.5 10 17.9 27 19 33.9 19 29.2 8 23.5 27 48.2 0.064 28 16 22.2 19 26.4 11 32.4 26 36.1 32 29 51.8 31 47.7 11 32.4 22 39.3 36 7 12.5 15 23.1 6 17.6 7 12.5 39 11 19.6 15 23.1 6 17.6 7 12.5 41 29 51.8 14 21.5 9 26.5 17 30.4 0.003 42 22 39.3 16 24.6 3 8.8 9 16.1 0.004 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 269 Table LXXX Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present D i s t r i c t Experience Learning Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t : Sig. i n t e r e s t Years of experience: O-.l N: 56 2-5 65 6-10 34 over 56 10 no. % no. % no. % no. % 05 12 21.4 17 26.2 8 23.5 10 17.9 06 33 58.9 21 32.3 18 52.9 32 57.1 0.011 10 20 35.7 20 30.8 7 20.6 12 21.4 11 29 51.8 20 30.8 9 26.5 15 26.8 0.017 19 10 17.9 22 33.8 8 23.5 14 25.0 23 19 33.9 19 29.2 11 32.4 20 35.7 25 4 7.1 6 9.2 8 23.5 10 17.9 0.076 27 7 12.5 3 4.6 3 8.8 11 19.6 0.071 32 13 23.2 7 10.8 4 11.8 5 :8.9 41 8 14.3 1 1.5 0 0.0 1 1.8 0.001 42 6 10.7 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.004 44 3 5.4 12 18.5 8 23.5 11 19.6 0.073 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 270 Table LXXXI Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing Va r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present School Experience Learning Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t : Sig. i n t e r e s t Years of experience: 0-•1 2-•5 6-10 over 10 N: 86 87 21 17 no. % no. % no. % no. % 01 32 37.2 33 37.9 5 23.8 9 52.9 03 41 47.7 45 51.7 9 42.9 10 58.8 04 21 24.4 20 23.0 4 19.0 1 5.9 05 46 53.5 52 59.8 8 38.1 9 52.9 06 71 82.6 64 73.6 15 71.4 15 88.2 10 55 64.0 53 60.9 11 52.4 10 58.8 11 62 72.1 52 59.8 13 61.9 13 76.5 12 22 25.6 26 29.9 3 14.3 7 41.2 13 16 18.6 18 20.7 2 9.5 4 23.5 15 28 32.6 31 35.6 6 28.6 9 52.9 16 11 12.8 22 25.3 4 19.0 3 17.6 18 15 17.4 18 20.7 3 14.3 3 17.6 19 41 47.7 57 65.5 10 47.6 11 64.7 0.081 22 2 2.3 4 4.6 0 0.0 2 11.8 23 59 68.6 61 70.1 15 71.4 11 64.7 25 40 46.5 44 50.6 9 42.9 9 52.9 26 14 16.3 24 27.6 1 4.8 3 17.6 0.072 28 28 32.6 24 27.6 10 47.6 11 64.7 0.015 29 22 25.6 34 39.1 11 52.4 7 41.2 0.070 32 39 45.3 38 43.7 8 38.1 9 52.9 33 30 34.9 33 37.9 3 14.3 7 41.2 35 35 40.7 30 34.5 8 38.1 9 52.9 36 11 12.8 17 19.5 2 9.5 5 29.4 39 19 22.1 14 16.1 3 14.3 3 17.6 41 37 43.0 19 21.8 5 23.8 8 47.1 0.011 42 26 30.2 17 19.5 3 14.3 4 23.5 45 39 45.3 42 48.3 7 33.3 14 82.4 271 Table LXXXII Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Categories of Present School Experience Learning Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t : Sig. in t e r e s t Years of experience: 0-1 2-5 6-10 over 10 N: 86 87 21 17 no. % no. % no. % no. % 03 12 14.0 12 13.8 5 23.8 3 17.6 05 18 20.9 22 25.3 5 23.8 2 11.8 06 47 54.7 40 46.0 9 42.9 8 47.1 10 28 32.6 24 27.6 5 23.8 2 11.8 11 38 44.2 26 29.9 5 23.8 4 23.5 0.096 17 9 10.5 7 8.0 2 9.5 4 23.5 19 19 22.1 29 33.3 3 14.3 2 11.8 0.091 23 28 32.6 27 31.0 8 38.1 5 29.4 25 9 10.5 11 12.6 5 23.8 3 17.6 27 12 14.0 6 6.9 2 9.5 4 23.5 41 9 10.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.9 0.009 45 9 10.5 7 8.0 0 0.0 4 23.5 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f l ess than 0.10. 272 Table LXXXIII Frequently and Infrequently Reported Recent Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Education Categories Learning Respondents reporting as recent i n t e r e s t : S i g . 1 i n t e r e s t Degree. Bachelor's Master' rs Master' s (admin, .) (other) N: 148 43 21 no. % no. % no. % 03 75 50. 7 21 48.8 10 47.6 04 27 18.2 14 32.6 5 23.8 05 78 52. 7 24 55.8 13 61.9 06 113 76.4 36 83.7 17 81.0 10 92 62.2 24 55.8 13 61.9 11 97 65.5 28 65.1 16 76.2 12 36 24.3 12 27.9 10 47.6 0.081 13 30 20.3 6 14.0 4 19.0 16 29 19.6 7 16.3 4 19.0 18 23 15.5 12 27.9 4 19.0 19 76 51.4 30 69.8 14 66.7 0.062 22 5 3.4 2 4.7 1 4.8 23 106 71.6 27 62.8 14 66.7 25 74 50.0 18 41.9 10 47.6 26 27 18.2 11 25.6 4 19.0 27 55 37.2 9 20.9 10 47.6 0.063 32 62 41.9 18 41.9 14 66.7 0.095 36 21 14.2 10 23.3 4 19.0 39 19 12.8 13 30.2 7 33.3 0.006 42 36 24.3 7 16.3 7 33.3 44 58 39.2 20 46.5 11 52.4 45 67 45.3 25 58.1 10 47.6 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 2. University degree most recently completed or i n progress, s p e c i f i e d as bachelor's, master's i n education administration, master's i n some other f i e l d . 273 Table LXXXIV Frequently Reported P r i o r i t y Learning Interests and Items Showing V a r i a t i o n Among Education Categories Learning Respondents reporting as p r i o r i t y i n t e r e s t : i n t e r e s t _ 2 Degree: Sig. Bachelor's Master' (admin. s ) Master' (other) s N: 148 43 21 no. % no. % no. % 05 33 22.3 10 23.3 4 19.0 06 68 45.9 25 58.1 11 52.4 10 43 29.1 10 23.3 6 28.6 11 52 35.1 13 30.2 9 42.9 17 11 7.4 8 18.6 3 14.3 0 .088 19 34 23.0 15 34.9 5 23.8 23 50 33.8 10 23.3 9 42.9 32 17 11.5 8 18.6 5 23.8 44 20 13.5 14 32.6 1 4.8 0 .004 1. Level of s i g n i f i c a n c e reported only i f less than 0.10. 2. University degree most recently completed or i n progress, s p e c i f i e d as bachelor's, master's i n education administration, master's i n some other f i e l d . APPENDIX E LEARNING ACTIVITIES . 275 Table LXXXV Addi t i o n a l Learning A c t i v i t i e s s p e c i f i e d by Respondents - meetings with the Board formally/informally - preparation of monthly and annual reports - preparation of u n i v e r s i t y course assignments - u n i v e r s i t y course - informal get-togethers - resource centre - community organizations - meetings with school parents - committee of department heads - s t a f f meetings - comparing test r e s u l t s with other p r i n c i p a l s - p r i n c i p a l - t e a c h e r retreats - consultation with parent groups - consultation with personnel from other agencies - working with school board members - parent-teacher conference - pa r e n t - p r i n c i p a l conference - meetings with community groups - staff-community sporting a c t i v i t i e s - school open house - frequent classroom v i s i t s - consultation with parents - discussion i n l o c a l teachers centres - exchange program - thinking - resource centre - d i s t r i c t curriculum development - discussion and work with parents Table LXXXVI Learning A c t i v i t i e s : Variation Among School D i s t r i c t s f o r A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preference Indicators Item Respondents reporting, by d i s t r i c t Sig. D i s t r i c t : A B C D E F G H J K 2 N : 3 0 ( 1 4 . 2 ) 2 3 ( 1 0 . 8 ) 2 1 ( 9 . 9 ) 2 3 ( 1 0 1.8) 1 6 ( 7 . 5 ) 2 5 ( 1 1 . 8 ) 1 8 ( ! 3 . 5 ) 2 0 ( S » . 4 ) 2 0 ( 9 ' • 4 ) 1 6 ( 7 . 5 ) R Z no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % 0 3 c 6 2 0 . 0 1 2 5 2 . 2 9 4 2 . 9 1 1 4 7 . 8 1 0 6 2 . 5 1 3 5 2 . 0 4 2 2 . 2 9 4 5 . 0 1 2 6 0 . 0 7 4 3 . 8 i 6 , 5 * 1 2 . 9 9 . 7 1 1 . 8 1 0 . 8 1 4 . 0 4 . 3 9 . 7 1 2 . 9 7 . 5 0 . 0 6 3 0 6 c 6 2 0 . 0 9 3 9 . 1 9 4 2 . 9 1 0 4 3 . 5 9 5 6 . 3 3 1 2 . 0 8 4 4 . 9 1 0 5 0 . 0 8 4 0 . 0 4 2 5 . 0 i 7 . 9 1 1 . 8 1 1 . 8 1 3 . 2 1 1 . 8 3 . 9 * 1 0 . 5 1 3 . 2 1 0 . 5 5 . 3 0 . 0 5 2 0 9 c 1 3 . 3 0 0 . 0 1 4 . 8 1 4 . 3 0 0 . 0 3 1 2 . 0 5 2 7 . 8 3 1 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 1 2 . 5 i 6 . 3 0 . 0 6 . 3 6 . 3 0 . 0 1 8 . 8 3 1 . 3 1 8 . 8 0 . 0 1 2 . 5 0 . 0 2 1 1 8 c 6 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 9 . 5 3 1 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 3 5 2 . 0 1 5 . 6 0 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 2 1 2 . 5 i 1 9 . 4 0 . 0 6 . 5 9 . 7 0 . 0 4 1 . 9 3 . 2 0 . 0 1 2 . 9 6 . 5 0 . 0 0 0 1 9 c 4 1 3 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 6 . 3 i 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 2 . 5 0 . 0 2 5 . 0 0 . 0 1 2 . 5 0 . 0 9 9 0 9 c 3 1 0 . 0 1 4 . 3 4 1 9 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 6 . 3 i 2 3 . 1 7 . 7 3 0 . 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 8 0 1 0 7 . 7 0 . 0 1 6 1 . Sig. = l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 2 . R = reporting c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , designated as: c = number and percentage of respondents i n t h i s category who reported this item; i = percentage of t o t a l reports f o r th i s item. 3 . Figures i n parentheses ind i c a t e percentage of t o t a l sample represented by th i s d i s t r i c t . * = Category i d e n t i f i e d as major contributor to si g n i f i c a n c e for th i s item. to v j ON

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 8 35
United States 3 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 4 0
Shenzhen 4 35
Redmond 2 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items