Authors : Daniel B. Peña; Margie Belga – Cenita

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 12 - December

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/7zkm6x82

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3a88wb9b

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14730653

Abstract : This study aimed to examine the decision-making strategies employed by school heads in the secondary schools of Bacacay Districts for the school year 2023 to 2024, as perceived by the teachers. It also evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies from the perspective of secondary teachers. The study addressed several specific questions: 1. What decision-making strategies do school heads use in instructional supervision? 2. How frequently are these strategies practiced in areas such as analytical, command, collaborative, expertise, and consensus-based decision-making? 3. Are there significant differences in the level of practice of these strategies among the three Bacacay districts? 4. How effective are the strategies in the mentioned areas? 5. What factors influence the decision-making strategies in instructional supervision? 6. What activity proposal can be developed to address the factors affecting decision-making? The null hypothesis, stating no significant difference in the level of practice of decision-making strategies among the districts, was tested using the F-test at a 0.05 significance level. The study used a descriptive-survey methodology with a comparative design, focusing on exploring differences in decision-making practices among the three Bacacay districts. The study involved a population of 284 secondary teachers, with a 92.76% response rate, resulting in 269 valid responses. Statistical methods used for analysis included frequency counts, percentages, weighted means, rankings, and the F-test.

References :

1. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. New York: McGraw Hill.
2. Martin, R. (2007). How successful leaders think. Harvard Business Review, 85(6).
3. Duze, C. O. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ participation in decision-making and impact on school work and school internal discipline in Nigeria. International Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 5(2).
4. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Educational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Boscardin, M. A. (2005). The administrative role in transforming secondary schools to support inclusive evidence-based practices. American Secondary Education, 33.
6. Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2).
7. Donnelly, M., Gibson, B., & Mancervich, G. (1995). Fundamentals of management (6th ed.). United States of America: Von Hoffman Press.
8. Musaazi, J. C. S. (1992). The theory and practice of educational administration. Hong Kong: Macmillan Publishers Limited.
9. Bernard, T. (2002). From student voice to shared responsibility: Effective practice in democratic school governance in European schools. London: Citizenship Foundation.
10. Cheng, C. K. (2008). The effect of shared decision-making on the improvement in teachers’ job development. New Horizons in Education, 56(3).
11. Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications Inc.
12. Donkoh, K., & Baffoe, S. (2018). Instructional supervisory practices of head teachers and teacher motivation in public basic schools in Anomabo education circuit. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1170351.pdf
13. Calik, T., et al. (2012). Examination of relationships between instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 2498-2504.
14. Charles, T., et al. (2012). The influence of supervision of teachers’ lesson notes by head teachers on students’ academic performance in secondary schools in Bureti District, Kenya. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(3), 299-306.
15. Cudjoe, B., & Sarfo, F. K. (2016). Supervisors’ knowledge and use of clinical supervision to promote teacher performance in basic schools. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(1), 87–100.
16. Stark, M. D., et al. (2017). Reclaiming instructional supervision: Using solution-focused strategies to promote teacher development. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 12(3), 215–238.
17. Allida, V., et al. (2018). Best practices in instructional supervision: A study of Adventist secondary schools in Ranen Conference. Baraton Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 8(Special Issue), 1–7.
18. Maisyaroh, B., Hardika, A., Mangorsi, S., & Canapi, S. (2021). The implementation of instructional supervision in Indonesia and the Philippines, and its effect on the variation of teacher learning models and materials. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1962232
19. Tesema, A., & Abeshu, G. (2014). The practices and challenges of school-based supervision in government secondary schools of Kamashi Zone of Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State. Jimma EdU.
20. Kurebwa, M. (2015). Challenges faced by deputy heads in supervising teachers in primary schools. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2015/09.02.011
21. Sunaryo, Y. (2020). Academic supervision of school principals and teacher performance: A literature review. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/ASUS/ Downloads/29094-69497-1-PB.pdf
22. Muring, J. (2014). The challenging roles of a school principal. Retrieved from https://www.depedmalay balay.net
23. Toralde, F. C. (2013). Leadership and management skills of school heads in Iriga City Division: Bases for developing competency qualifiers. 1st International Research Conference on K to 12 Education.