000 08099nam a2201225Ia 4500
000 06098ntm a2200217 i 4500
001 70601
003 0
005 20250921113152.0
008 180119n 000 0 eng d
010 _z
_z
_o
_a
_b
015 _22
_a
016 _2
_2
_a
_z
020 _e
_e
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
_x
022 _y
_y
_l
_a2
024 _2
_2
_d
_c
_a
_q
028 _a
_a
_b
029 _a
_a
_b
032 _a
_a
_b
035 _a
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
037 _n
_n
_c
_a
_b
040 _e
_erda
_a
_d
_b
_c
041 _e
_e
_a
_b
_g
_h
_r
043 _a
_a
_b
045 _b
_b
_a
050 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c0
051 _c
_c
_a
_b
055 _a
_a
_b
060 _a
_a
_b
070 _a
_a
_b
072 _2
_2
_d
_a
_x
082 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c
084 _2
_2
_a
086 _2
_2
_a
090 _a
_a
_m
_b
_q
092 _f
_f
_a
_b
096 _a
_a
_b
097 _a
_a
_b
100 _e
_e
_aAustria, Lourdes de Leon.
_d
_b4
_u
_c0
_q16
110 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
_k
111 _a
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
130 _s
_s
_a
_p
_f
_l
_k
210 _a
_a
_b
222 _a
_a
_b
240 _s
_s
_a
_m
_g
_n
_f
_l
_o
_p
_k
245 0 _a
_aThe instructional leadership tasks of secondary public school principals in selected districts of Manila /
_d
_b
_n
_cLourdes de Leon Austria.
_h6
_p
246 _a
_a
_b
_n
_i
_f6
_p
249 _i
_i
_a
250 _6
_6
_a
_b
260 _e
_e
_a
_b
_f
_c
_g
264 _3
_3
_a
_d
_b
_c46
300 _e
_e
_c28 cm.
_axvi, 100 pages
_b
310 _a
_a
_b
321 _a
_a
_b
336 _b
_atext
_2rdacontent
337 _3
_30
_b
_aunmediated
_2rdamedia
338 _3
_30
_b
_avolume
_2rdacarrier
340 _2
_20
_g
_n
344 _2
_2
_a0
_b
347 _2
_2
_a0
362 _a
_a
_b
385 _m
_m
_a2
410 _t
_t
_b
_a
_v
440 _p
_p
_a
_x
_v
490 _a
_a
_x
_v
500 _a
_aThesis (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1999.;A thesis presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in School Principalship.
_d
_b
_c56
504 _a
_a
_x
505 _a
_a
_b
_t
_g
_r
506 _a
_a5
510 _a
_a
_x
520 _b
_b
_c
_aABSTRACT: This study attempted to determine the instructional leadership tasks of secondary public school princi-pals in selected districts of Manila. Specifically, it aimed to answer the following questions: 1. How do the teacher-respondents perceive the instructional leadership tasks of principals in the following areas: a. providing and planning co-curricular program b. planning and conducting intra-visitation c. introducing instructional innovations. 2. Is there a significant difference in the perceptions of teachers in terms of the following: a. providing and planning co-curricular program b. planning and conducting intra-visitatin c. introducing instructional innovations 3. How do the principals oerceive themselves in terms of: a. providing and planning co-curricular program b. planning and conducting intra-visitation c. introducing instructional innovations. 4. Is there a significant difference between the teachers' perceptions and self-perception of principals regarding the instructional leadership tasks of school principals? This descriptive study made use of one-shot survey on the perceptions of the teacher-respondents regarding the instructional leadership tasks of secondary school principals in the areas of providing and planning co-curricular program; planning and conducting intra-visitation and introducing instructional innovations. There were 100 secondary school teachers coming from the three districts of Manila that served as sample of the study. Also, the study included the 10 school principals of the 10 selected schools. The selection of sample was done using the purposive sampling technique. The mean scores, weighted means, ranking, t-test (paired observations) and one-way analysis of vari-ance were the statistical test used to find answers to the specific questions of the study. FINDINGS 1. The perceptions of the teacher-respondents regarding the instructional leadership tasks of secondary public school principals were as follows: 1.1 The teacher-respondents rated the instructional leadership of school principals as: a. providing and planning co-curricular program (3.86) b. planning and conducting intra-visitation (3.95) c. introducing and instructional innovations (4.08) 1.2 The overall ratings of the teacher-respondents suggest that the principals have demonstrated the strongest instructional leadership tasks in the area of introducing instructional innovations. 2. The self-perceptions of principals revealed the following: 2.1 The principal-respondents rated themselves as follows: a. providing and planning co-curricular program (3.32) b. planning and conducting intra-visitation (3.30) c. introducing instructional innovations (3.31) 2.2 The overall rating of the principals suggests that they have demonstrated the strongest leadership tasks in the area of providing and planning co-curricular program. 3. As a result of one-way ANOVA, there was no significant difference in the perceptions and responses of the teacher-respondents regarding the instructional leadership tasks of their principals. 4. As a result of t-test, there was significant difference between the teachers' perceptions and self-perceptions of principals regarding the instructional leadership tasks of the latter. The perceptions of the teacher-respondents was relatively high compared to the self-perceptions of the principals. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The school principals perform better in introducing instructional innovations as perceived by the teachers. 2. As perceived by the principals themselves, they perform better in providing and planning co-curricular program. 3. The perceptions of teacher-respondents since there was no significant difference in their re-sponses. 4. The significant difference between the teachers' perception and self-perceptions of principals is a result of the relatively high ratings of the teacher-respondents regarding the instructional leadership tasks of principals. RECOMMENDATIONS In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are recommended: 1. The school principals in selected districts of the Division of City Schools Manila need to strengthen their instructional leadership tasks for a better instructional program. 2. That future researchers may consider other aspects or areas of instructional leadership in pursuing research undertakings. 3. An in-depth study on the assessment of instructional leadership tasks of secondary public school principals that will cover a wider scope of samples and areas of concern on instructional leadership. 4. That future researchers may consider the aspect of feedbacking in pursuing a research endeavor related to this particular topic. 5. That proper dissemination and implementation of the results of the study be given due attention by school principals to improve the school's instructional program.
_u
521 _a
_a
_b
533 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
540 _c
_c
_a5
542 _g
_g
_f
546 _a
_a
_b
583 _5
_5
_k
_c
_a
_b
590 _a
_a
_b
600 _b
_b
_v
_t
_c2
_q
_a
_x0
_z
_d
_y
610 _b
_b
_v
_t2
_x
_a
_k0
_p
_z
_d6
_y
611 _a
_a
_d
_n2
_c0
_v
630 _x
_x
_a
_d
_p20
_v
648 _2
_2
_a
650 _x
_x
_a
_d
_b
_z
_y20
_v
651 _x
_x
_a
_y20
_v
_z
655 _0
_0
_a
_y2
_z
700 _i
_i
_t
_c
_b
_s1
_q
_f
_k40
_p
_d
_e
_a
_l
_n6
710 _b
_b
_t
_c
_e
_f
_k40
_p
_d5
_l
_n6
_a
711 _a
_a
_d
_b
_n
_t
_c
730 _s
_s
_a
_d
_n
_p
_f
_l
_k
740 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c6
753 _c
_c
_a
767 _t
_t
_w
770 _t
_t
_w
_x
773 _a
_a
_d
_g
_m
_t
_b
_v
_i
_p
775 _t
_t
_w
_x
776 _s
_s
_a
_d
_b
_z
_i
_t
_x
_h
_c
_w
780 _x
_x
_a
_g
_t
_w
785 _t
_t
_w
_a
_x
787 _x
_x
_d
_g
_i
_t
_w
800 _a
_a
_d
_l
_f
_t0
_q
_v
810 _a
_a
_b
_f
_t
_q
_v
830 _x
_x
_a
_p
_n
_l0
_v
942 _a
_alcc
_cBK
999 _c35319
_d35319