Chang, Norma N. 4 0
Prioritization of administrative competencies of school administration at San Juan de Dios College of Medical Technology School year, 1992 -1993 / 6 6 Norma N. Chang. - - - 118 pages 28 cm. - - - - - . - . - 0 . - . - 0 .
Thesis (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1994.;A thesis presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences, Education and Nursing in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Education.
5
This study attempted to identify the administrative competencies of the school administrators of San Juan de Dios College of Medical Technology through the use of a standardized instrument the Performance Evaluation of the Educational Leader (PEEL) developed by the College of Education of Arizona State University, U.S.A. The following questions guided the study: 1. What administrative competencies are expected of the school administrators of San Juan de Dios College of Medical Technology as perceived by: a. Administrators themselves? b. Faculty? c. Administrative Support personnel? And d. Students 2. How do administrators rank in the various administrative competencies 3. Are there significant differences in the ranking of these administrative competencies by respondent groups? The study used the descriptive approach. With the participation of four groups of respondents (360 students, 29 faculty, 10 school administrators, and 12 administrative support personnel), the research data were collected using the PEEL. Data collection was conducted in March 1993, while retest was done in June-July 1993. The statistical processes applied on the data included the analysis of variance, Newman-Keuls Method and Scheffe's method for pairwise comparison. The major findings of the study are the following: 1. School administrators are expected to vary in giving priorities to their functions with respect to being a. Leader/Director of Education Program (Area 1); b. Coordinator of Guidance and Special Educational Services (Area 2); c. Member of the School Staff (Area 3) d. Link Between the School Community and the School (Area 4) e. Administrator of Personnel (Area 5) f. Member of the Profession of Educational Administration (Area 6); and g. Director of Support Management (Area 7) 2. In actual practice, school administrators put highest premium in the area related to being Leader and Director of the Education Program and least on the aspect of being Link between Community and School. 3. The school administrators, as respondents often rated themselves differently from the other three respondent groups, ie., the students, faculty and administrative support personnel and staff. Some insights are drawn from the results of the study which serve as bases for the recommendation.
5
2 = =
2
2 --0------
6 --0-- 2 --------
0 2 --
--20------
--------20--
--------20--
----2
/ 2
/ 2
/
/
Prioritization of administrative competencies of school administration at San Juan de Dios College of Medical Technology School year, 1992 -1993 / 6 6 Norma N. Chang. - - - 118 pages 28 cm. - - - - - . - . - 0 . - . - 0 .
Thesis (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1994.;A thesis presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences, Education and Nursing in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Education.
5
This study attempted to identify the administrative competencies of the school administrators of San Juan de Dios College of Medical Technology through the use of a standardized instrument the Performance Evaluation of the Educational Leader (PEEL) developed by the College of Education of Arizona State University, U.S.A. The following questions guided the study: 1. What administrative competencies are expected of the school administrators of San Juan de Dios College of Medical Technology as perceived by: a. Administrators themselves? b. Faculty? c. Administrative Support personnel? And d. Students 2. How do administrators rank in the various administrative competencies 3. Are there significant differences in the ranking of these administrative competencies by respondent groups? The study used the descriptive approach. With the participation of four groups of respondents (360 students, 29 faculty, 10 school administrators, and 12 administrative support personnel), the research data were collected using the PEEL. Data collection was conducted in March 1993, while retest was done in June-July 1993. The statistical processes applied on the data included the analysis of variance, Newman-Keuls Method and Scheffe's method for pairwise comparison. The major findings of the study are the following: 1. School administrators are expected to vary in giving priorities to their functions with respect to being a. Leader/Director of Education Program (Area 1); b. Coordinator of Guidance and Special Educational Services (Area 2); c. Member of the School Staff (Area 3) d. Link Between the School Community and the School (Area 4) e. Administrator of Personnel (Area 5) f. Member of the Profession of Educational Administration (Area 6); and g. Director of Support Management (Area 7) 2. In actual practice, school administrators put highest premium in the area related to being Leader and Director of the Education Program and least on the aspect of being Link between Community and School. 3. The school administrators, as respondents often rated themselves differently from the other three respondent groups, ie., the students, faculty and administrative support personnel and staff. Some insights are drawn from the results of the study which serve as bases for the recommendation.
5
2 = =
2
2 --0------
6 --0-- 2 --------
0 2 --
--20------
--------20--
--------20--
----2
/ 2
/ 2
/
/