Recently, the reports of poor academic
achievement of students especially in secondary schools have raised more
attention and greater concerns among stakeholders in Nigerian education.
Academic achievement or academic performance is the outcome of education, that
is the extent to which a student, teacher or institution has achieved their
educational goals (Ward, Stoker, & Murray-Ward, 2000). Academic achievement
is commonly measured by continuous assessment or examination but there is no
general agreement on how it is best tested or which aspects are most important,
whether procedural knowledge such as skills or declarative knowledge such as
facts (Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011). Irrespective of the
method of academic measurement, Isangedighi (1999) observed that indiscipline,
drug addiction, poor socio-economic background of the parents, inadequate
motivation on the part of students, lack of information coupled with teachers’
nonchalant attitude to work and students’ negative self-concept have often
resulted into students’ inconsistent and poor academic performances. Yoloye
(1999) submitted that theories of educational disadvantages and social-cultural
pathology have been most prominent in the explanation of poor academic
achievement of students in schools. On the contrary, a growing number of
scholars, have rejected this latter view and have suggested that many of the
problems of learning are the artefacts of discontinuities which are brought
about by the separation of learning from real-life functions and situations
(Fagbemi, 2001) and by the exclusion of the child’s language, values and mode
of cognition from the school environment (Ugodulunwa, 2007). It seems that the
causes of low academic achievement are diverse and cannot be associated with a single
factor alone. For instance, Adamu (1998) observed that self-concept and its
variables may be a paramount factor in academic failure. Tukur & Musa
(2001) attributed the causes of fluctuating performances among students to
teacher-student interactions, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, classroom
behaviour and other extraneous variables. The above may be responsible for the
academic achievement of students in the area of the study. In Enugu State, the
academic achievement of secondary school students has been observed to be
generally poor. A look at the West African Senior Secondary School Certificate
Examination results in the past eight years (2005-2012) shows clearly the
declining state of secondary school students’ achievements in external examinations
in the state. The West African Certificate Examinations Council’s (WAEC) result
analysis has it that in 2005, only 27.53% of candidates who sat for the senior
secondary school certificate exanimation had five credit passes and above
including English Language and Mathematics (WAEC, 2010). The same trend
continued in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011and 2012 where only 15.56%,
25.54%, 13.76%, 25.99%, 24.94%, 30.99% and 25.76% of candidates respectively
obtained five credit passes including English Language and Mathematics, which
are the minimum entry requirement for admission into Nigerian Universities.
It is believed that many factors could be responsible
for the poor achievements of the students in external examinations in the
State. Such factors may range from the nature of school administration, and
environment, to the qualification and teachers’ characteristics such as
emotional intelligence, locus of control and gender. Ali (2004) observed that
there was a statistically significant relationship between teacher
characteristics and students’ academic achievement. The author further
explained that teachers’ characteristics are strong determinants of students’
achievement in secondary schools. Teachers have a lot of influence on classroom
practices. Teachers are expected to apply specific abilities without which
their influence may not be reflected in their student's achievement in the
subject. These characteristics are very influential in students’ learning
experiences and critical in determining the extent of students’ achievement.
This means that teachers’ emotional intelligence, locus of control and gender
may predict teachers’ instructional leadership model which in turn determines
students’ achievement since teachers provide the vital human connection between
the content, environment and learner. It becomes necessary to examine such
teacher characteristics as emotional intelligence and locus of control to
determine the extent they predict teachers’ instructional leadership model in
secondary schools.
Leadership is very vital in every organization for the
effective management of human and material resources required for the
achievement of organizational objectives. Railey (2000) defined leadership as
the act of guiding or directing others to a course of action through persuasion
or influence. According to Bush (2003), leadership is the process of
influencing people so that they will strive willingly towards the achievement
of group goals. It is a relational attribute which emphasizes the behaviour of
the person leading in terms of the behaviour of the person being led.
Leadership in the context of this study refers to the process whereby the
teacher exercises authority over the students in the classroom and coordinates
the students’ activities toward achieving set educational goals. Leadership is
not a mere exertion of brute power over those who are led. It demands qualities
which make it possible for the leader to exercise authority beyond that
guaranteed by virtue of the position.
Leadership
is of fundamental importance in any system such as educational institutions.
Arinze (2011) postulated that a good leader manages resources efficiently to
achieve goals; provides a sense of direction towards attaining individual and
collective goals; allocates and utilizes limited resources for the satisfaction
of the basic needs of the citizenry. Akume (2012) asserted that a good leader
mobilizes resources for the attainment of consensus goals of the collective
interest; makes decisions for the attainment of societal goals; extracts,
produces and distributes channels towards promoting the good life for all in
the polity; disciplines and subjects individuals positively to the orderly
demand and sacrifice necessary to attain set goals. Based on the importance of
leadership in society, teachers provide leadership in schools to achieve
educational goals.
A teacher, according to Unachukwu (1990), is a person
who attempts to help someone acquire or change some knowledge, skills,
attitude, idea or appreciation. Obanewa (1994) stated that a teacher is someone
who has undergone the necessary and recommended training in teacher preparatory
programmes and is charged with the full responsibility of managing the
classroom in such a way as to enhance the learning behaviour of the students.
Obanewa further stated that some human qualities that may enable a teacher to
achieve most educational goals in the school include the ability to master the
subject; exercise self-control; take the right decisions and demonstrate good
instructional leadership all the time.
Instructional leadership according to Heywood (2006)
is actions taken by an individual to promote students’ learning. That is the
leadership that encourages educational achievement by making instructional
quality the top priority of the school. In the view of Zepeda (2008),
instructional leadership is the dynamic delivery of the curriculum in the
classroom through strategies based on different leadership models to ensure
optimum delivery. Zepeda further explained that instructional leadership
focuses on teaching and learning in order to realize the objectives. In the
context of this study, instructional leadership means the adoption of different
leadership models in the dynamic delivery of the curriculum to ensure the
realization of its objectives. The forms of leadership demonstrated by teachers
in schools, in this study, are referred to as teachers’ instructional
leadership models. When the instructional leadership model is effectively
utilized, all stakeholders can move forward in the knowledge that whatever the
current economic, political or social climate might be, optimum teaching and
learning are being achieved for their students.
Teachers adopt different models of leadership in
schools based on their varying backgrounds and experiences. Lewin, Lippit and
White (1939) stated that the major models of leadership include authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive. According to the authors, a teacher with
authoritative instructional leadership demonstrates respect for every student
in the classroom while sharing responsibilities with every student.
Decision-making and communication are based on consultation, deliberation and
participation among the students. This permits self-expression, creativity and
teacher-student interaction. The authoritarian model of instructional
leadership according to the authors emphasizes the achievement of the objective
at the expense of human consideration. That is, the teacher takes decisions
exclusively believing that students are weak, unwilling to study, incapable of
self-determination and have limited reasoning. Therefore, they must be
directed, pushed and forced to do work. With reference to the permissive model
of instructional leadership, the teacher allows complete freedom to the
students and they behave as they wish in the class due to the teacher’s
tolerance. Students are usually left to study under their own instruction or
supervision. These three models of instructional leadership are effective
depending on the situation in the classroom. Though, each has its own strengths
and weaknesses. For instance, an interaction between the researcher and 52
secondary school teachers in two external examinations (WAEC) marking centres
in the area of the study revealed that 43% of teachers are authoritarian, 19%
of teachers are authoritative while 38% of teachers are permissive in their
instructional leadership. For this study, how emotional intelligence and locus
of control predict teachers’ instructional leadership would be determined.
Emotional intelligence is defined by Mayer (2002) as
one’s ability to understand and regulate one’s own emotional responses as well
as adapt and respond to others. Salovey (2002) viewed emotional intelligence
more specifically as the ability to perceive emotions, access knowledge,
reflectively regulate emotions and promote emotional and intellectual growth.
Emotional intelligence could be concerned with understanding oneself and
others, relating to people, adapting to and coping with immediate surroundings
and being more successful in dealing with environmental demands. George (2000)
observed that an emotionally intelligent person has the ability to understand
the emotions of others and manage their moods in a social setting. This is in
line with the statement of Robbins (2009) that when teachers understand the
emotional state of their students, they may be more likely to convey a sense of
efficacy, competence, optimism and enjoyment. Robbins further asserted that
teachers who have high emotional intelligence are usually successful in the
classroom. Teachers who have low emotional intelligence hardly understand students’ emotions and find it difficult to
facilitate their learning and achievement. This implies that the level of
emotional intelligence of a teacher may predict how he/she can understand the
students and their environment and by implication the teachers’ instructional
leadership. According to Hallinger (2000), emotional intelligence enhances
instructional leadership by providing valuable information about practices
needed to support teaching and learning. It enhances instructional leadership
by creating a climate of support that thrives on interpersonal relationships. The
author further stated that the ability of the teachers to identify and
understand the emotions of students in the classroom manage their own and
others’ positive and negative emotions, control emotions in the classroom
effectively, utilize emotional information during problem-solving and express
their feelings to others are important conditions that determine the forms
of instructional leadership provided. Apart from emotional intelligence,
another factor that may predict teachers’ instructional leadership in secondary
schools is the locus of control.
Locus
of control according to Lefcourt (2000) is referred to as the extent to which
individuals believe that they can control events and causes of their
actions. This belief in turn guides what kinds of attitude, behaviour or
model of leadership people adopt. The two loci as established by Lefcourt are
the internal and external loci. Lefcourt stated that individuals who make
choices primarily on their own are considered as having an internal locus of
control. Such individuals see themselves as the main cause of what
happens to them and the success of the people they are leading. According
to Perkins (2008), teachers with an internal locus of control are considered
less susceptible to social influence; better information seekers; more
achievement-oriented and better adjusted psychologically. Bush (2005)
opined that individuals who exhibit high degrees of internal locus of control
tend to be more assertive, confident and authoritative; and actively seek
chances for achievement. Bush further maintained that this class of people have
higher levels of job satisfaction; are more motivated in their work and
encourage higher levels of participation in classroom work. This implies that
teachers who have an internal locus of control are likely to be committed to
their school work and demonstrate authoritative leadership for the achievement
of educational goals. It also means that the more the internal locus of control
of a teacher, the more the teacher engages the students in decision-making,
innovation, undertaking projects, and leading rather than imitating the moves
of competitors (Toulouse, 2002). According to Vanger (2006), some people have a
predisposition to believe that they have more control over their environment
than others. A teacher with an internal locus of control could view
work-related challenges as opportunities to learn or advance.
External locus of control is a belief of an individual who makes choices based on
external forces or influence. Teachers who make decisions based on what others
desire is said to have an external locus of control. Such teachers believe that
the achievements of students in examinations and the future depend on luck,
chance or the assistance of others. Sanders (2003) observed that people with an
external locus of control may display an authoritarian or permissive model of
leadership due to a lack of competence and dedication to duties. An individual
with an external locus of control may find little meaning in the learning
opportunity since it is believed that effort makes little or no impact on the
learning situation. Under such teachers, students may not be committed to
vigorously pursuing learning and the consequence may be a poor
achievement.
Gender is another factor which has been suggested to
influence the instructional leadership model. It is the role ascribed to males
and females by society. Richardson (2001) argued that one’s psychology, which
may include one’s model of leadership, could be influenced by one’s gender.
Ezeh (2013) stated that men and women flourish educationally when given the
same supportive environment. According to Ezeh, it means that gender does not
predict instructional leadership models. Therefore, one may wonder the extent
teachers’ instructional leadership models could be predicted by the emotional
intelligence and locus of control of teachers in Enugu State.
EDITOR SOURCE:
No comments:
Post a Comment