Instructional Leadership and Faculty Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Students’ Achievement ()
1. Introduction
Self-efficacy is an important psychological concept that influences human behavior, motivation, and personal development. Self-efficacy, as defined by renowned psychologist Albert Bandura, is an individual’s belief in their ability to do certain tasks and achieve goals. It is an important part of one’s self-concept and influences how people handle difficulties, create objectives, and ultimately determine their success or failure.
Faculty self-efficacy and instructional leadership are essential variables in the global quality of higher education. Institutions have several problems in building effective instructional leadership and promoting faculty self-efficacy. One of these is the changing environment of higher education, which is marked by increased accountability and outcomes expectations. This can lead to an emphasis on outcomes and standardized testing at the expense of teaching creativity and innovation. In recent years, there has been growing concern regarding the quality of higher education in the Philippines, notably in terms of instructional leadership and faculty self-efficacy.
Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, an Act technically titled the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act” (ESEA), which President George W. Bush signed into law on January 8, 2002, stated that school administrators and teachers have shared several accountability tasks. Every kid, regardless of language or origin, is expected to pass the formal assessment test. With this requirement, as well as a number of obligations that a school leader must do, being a school leader/administrator is becoming increasingly difficult. School administrators must monitor school safety on a daily basis, ensure that instructional programs are appropriate for all children, and provide feedback on building planning and design.
A school administrator must be held accountable to students, teachers, parents, and the community. Classroom teachers must be supportive, motivating, and knowledgeable leaders. The success or failure of a school is mostly determined by how the teacher fulfills the role of developing an idea to improve the school’s quality. Thus, in addition to the deans, the teacher, who is also a leader in the school, plays an important and strategic role in improving the quality of education in the school (Agasisti et al., 2020; Sunaengsih et al., 2019) .
Instructional leadership is one of the leadership styles used by faculty members to carry out their tasks and responsibilities for increasing the quality of education in schools. Over the last 50 years, school leaders around the world have steadily accepted instructional leadership in their positions as academic heads (Bush, 2013; Hallinger & Wang, 2015; Walker et al., 2015) . This logic is supported by research findings on the impact of instructional leadership on student learning, school quality, and school improvement (Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2010; Robinson, 2006) .
Leadership defines an organization’s success and relevance, and it is a critical component of school reform (Maxwell, 1993; Goolamally & Ahmad, 2014) . Identifying and comprehending instructional leadership methods that contribute to college improvement is critical, with school improvement being a main responsibility of senior management, including the academic dean, and shared by program heads/coordinators and teachers.
Teachers must not only be aware of their effect through instructional leadership practices, but they must also engage in self-reflection to have a deeper understanding of their own instructional leadership practices. Teachers are also leaders who affect the direction of their departments through their thinking, practices, and relationships, reinforcing the idea that leaders think long-term, looking outside as well as inside, in order to influence constituents (Bolman & Deal, 2013) .
Noting examination of assessment results, work driven by clear morals and ethical values, respect and trust of and among staff and parents, varied learning opportunities and use of data as related strategies of instructional leadership practices are common strategies of faculty members for higher education institutions classified as effective and successful (Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016) .
Furthermore, competent academic faculty members possess intuition, knowledge, and strategy, as well as behaviors that encourage learning cultures, engagement, and greater student achievement. Successful teachers, in collaboration with supportive co-faculty members, influence student outcomes via an interactive process based on core values and beliefs (Mulford & Silins, 2011) . Furthermore, teacher leadership was found to be a factor influencing outcomes linked to academic achievement, social development, and student empowerment, as well as evaluation, capacity building, and student social skill development serving as common elements in effective schools.
Each faculty member has their own ideology that guides how they teach. Aspiring teachers in undergraduate classes are encouraged to construct a teaching philosophy, and most colleges and institutions even require a personal teaching philosophy statement to be included in a teaching philosophy statement.
The belief that what he does is important is one of the most powerful predictors of teacher impact on students. This concept is known as teacher efficacy. Teachers who feel that children’s academic achievement is nearly entirely determined by their intrinsic intelligence, family environment, or other variables are reluctant to undertake attempts to promote their students’ learning. A teacher who believes in his or her own competence is more inclined to persevere in the face of adversity until every student is successful and hardworking (Bandura, 2001) . Efficient instructors develop a sense of competence by regular appraisal of the outcomes of their instruction, even if they did not complete their elementary education. As a result, they experiment with different tactics and gain new ideas from colleagues, books, and other sources.
Improving the quality of teaching is one of the most effective ways for instructors to improve their teaching ability and the quality of learning. The teacher’s function in this procedure is simply to give speeches and impart scientific knowledge to students, accumulating them in their minds. Through successful communication, the instructor provides background and experience to interested pupils in class, as well as lessons about the growth process, awareness of their conduct, and substantial information. In addition to planned activities, the attainment of educational goals using a consistent technique to evaluate the quality of instruction and the academic achievement of learners is critical (Wragg, 2003) .
In a research on the links between academic deans’ instructional leadership behaviors and collective teacher efficacy, Calik, Sezgin, Kavagaci, and Kilinc (2012) discovered that instructional leadership had a large direct and positive impact on collective teacher efficacy. Furthermore, teachers’ self-efficacy appeared to regulate the link between instructional leadership and collective teacher efficacy. Walker and Slear (2011) discovered a favorable relationship between dean behavior and teacher efficacy in another study on the impact of academic deans’ leadership behaviors on teacher efficacy.
From the viewpoints presented by the authorities in the fields considering the variables under study, the researchers of this study attempted to investigate faculty members’ instructional leadership and self-efficacy as determinants of students’ educational accomplishment in selected Higher Education Institutions in the National Capital Region.
2. Selected Literature Review
Instructional leadership is a type of leadership in which educational leaders, such as principals, department heads, and teachers focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning in their schools or educational institutions. It involves creating and supporting a culture of continuous improvement, setting high expectations for student achievement, and providing teachers with the resources, support, and professional development they need to deliver effective instruction.
Instructional leadership encompasses a range of activities, including setting academic goals and priorities, developing curriculum and assessment frameworks, designing professional development programs, providing instructional coaching and support, and evaluating and improving teaching and learning outcomes. The ultimate goal of instructional leadership is to improve the quality of education and academic achievement for all students.
In an inspirational study, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) presented one of the earliest highlights of instructional leadership as the core responsibilities of deans and teachers that impact student learning. This idea has evolved over time and is noted as a process to influence leaders in identifying a purpose for the school, supporting staff motivation, and coordinating evidence-based practices to positively impact teaching and learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 2013) .
Furthermore, instructional leadership can be categorized into three dimensions Defining the School Mission, Managing the Instructional Program, and Promoting a Positive Learning Climate.
Instructional leadership practices when compared to successful leadership involve setting a direction, developing people, and designing the organization, which provides significant contributions to student learning. Instructional leadership practices focused staff on teaching and learning, inspired teacher belief in the achievement of all students, built teacher capacity and commitment to change, provided practical assistance in developing faculty knowledge and instructional skills, and created school conditions for teacher potential to meet the needs of all students (Hallinger, Hosseingholizadeh, Hashemi, & Kouhsari, 2018) .
Additionally, instructional leadership, academic dean’s self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy were found to have statistically significant relationships as practices within a school that can be changed to potentially raise student learning and lead to school improvement. Instructional leadership practices influence a school’s climate when impacting the attitudes of students and staff through achievement recognition, clear expectations, value of time, and professional learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985) .
There were several researchers who discussed college faculty as instructional leaders. One such researcher is Conklin and colleagues (2016) , who argued that college faculty can be considered instructional leaders because they have a central role in shaping the educational experiences of students. According to Conklin et al., effective instructional leaders (including college faculty) use a range of strategies, including promoting active learning, creating a positive classroom environment, providing individualized support to students, and using assessment data to improve teaching and learning.
Another researcher who discussed the instructional leadership role of college faculty is Kezar (2015) . Kezar suggested that college faculties are key leaders in the higher education system and that they play a critical role in shaping teaching and learning practices. According to Kezar, effective instructional leaders (including college faculty) focus on developing students’ critical thinking skills, creating a sense of community in the classroom, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement.
In addition, Braxton and Hirschy (2015) argued that college faculty can be considered as instructional leaders because they have a significant impact on student learning and success. According to their research, effective instructional leaders (including college faculty) use a range of strategies, including setting high expectations for student learning, creating a supportive learning environment, and using a variety of instructional methods to engage students.
Overall, these researchers suggest that college faculty can be considered as instructional leaders and that effective teaching practices are closely linked to instructional leadership. By focusing on strategies such as promoting active learning, creating a positive classroom environment, providing individualized support to students, and using assessment data to improve teaching and learning, college faculty can have a significant impact on student learning and success.
According to Hallinger and Murphy (1987) , outlined instructional leadership as a dean’s ability to effectively lead a department’s organization with the main thrust of focusing on promoting the teaching and learning processes with the involvement of parents, teachers, students, school management, and facilities, and also in building a superior school climate.
Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
The paradigm focuses on how teachers see their own abilities in terms of instructional leadership and self-efficacy, as well as the connection between these perceptions and the academic success of their students. In addition to this, the paradigm investigates the connections between these perspectives and the ways in which educators might enhance their own practice. To be more specific, the paradigm studies how teachers view the connection that exists between their students’ perceptions and their students’ academic achievements. To be more specific, the paradigm investigates the various ways in which educators evaluate their own capacity to effectively lead and instruct their students, as well as the ways in which these evaluations impact the academic performance of students who are taught by particular instructors.
The paradigm explains the conceptual paradigm of the study that compares the instructional leadership and self-efficacy of the faculty member and student toward student achievement.
Instructional leadership refers to the actions that school leaders take to promote teaching and learning in their schools. Instructional leadership is a crucial aspect of effective school leadership that focuses on the support and development of instructional practices among teachers. It involves creating a school culture that prioritizes teaching and learning, providing teachers with resources and opportunities for professional growth, and establishing clear expectations for student achievement.
Faculty self-efficacy, on the other hand, refers to a teacher’s belief in their ability to effectively carry out instructional tasks and achieve positive outcomes for their students. This belief can be influenced by a range of factors, including the teacher’s experience, training, and support from school leaders.
3. Methodology
A descriptive inferential research design was used for this particular piece of study that was carried out. In other words, the objective of this type of research is to describe the current state of the problem. It is only beneficial when the data that needs to be gathered links to the current situations, delivering the value of facts and concentrating attention on the most essential items that need to be reported. In other words, it is only useful when the current situations are connected to the data that needs to be collected. Inferential design is helpful in delivering the facts on which scientific judgment is based since it uses inference analysis to find the differences between two variables based on computed and analyzed data. This is done by applying inference analysis. This is due to the fact that inferential design is beneficial in providing data upon which scientific judgment can be founded.
Participants from Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in the National Capital Region were selected randomly for the Purpose of the Study. There were a total of 300 people who took part in the study; 150 students and 150 educators were among those who took part.
During the course of the data collecting process, the researchers relied heavily on the utilization of the questionnaire as the major tool. Respondents from both the faculty and the students were asked to submit basic demographic information about themselves in the first phase of the survey. This information included their ages and genders. Additionally, the respondents’ year level was profiled for the students, while the respondents’ work status, highest educational attainment, and duration of service were profiled for the faculty members. The second half of this study focused on the various features of instructional leadership and the various aspects of faculty self-efficacy as potential predictors of student performance. Both of these factors were considered to be important in the success of the students.
The creation of the questionnaires was based on the problems specified in the first chapter. The initial draft of the standardized questionnaire was presented to the adviser for critiquing. After incorporating all the possible suggestions, the researcher finalized the instrument. The final draft of the standardized questionnaire was submitted again to the adviser for her further suggestions. Improvements and revisions were incorporated based on the comments of the adviser and experts in the field. Final copies were reproduced and made ready for the gathering of data.
The first draft of the standardized questionnaire underwent a series of validations before its distribution to a selected university in Quezon City. Existing studies were used by the researcher to get suitable information aligned with the recreation of this study. Also, the researcher scrutinized the different variables considered essential in the research of relevant information.
In the preparation of the research instrument, numerous readings from books, journals, internet surfing, and related studies at the different Libraries were conducted to determine the forms and styles in the preparation of the draft of the questionnaire at the same time the indicators and variables of the study. The main instrument used in this study was the standardized Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) survey questionnaire anchored in the context of social learning and social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura (Bandura, 2001) .
The researchers asked experts to check the content of the research instrument and asked permission from the school administrators from the randomly selected colleges and universities in Quezon City for the pilot testing of the research instrument. Moreover, the researcher consolidated the result of the pilot test and presented it to the adviser for further evaluation. The standardized questionnaire was submitted to the dissertation adviser for comments and suggestions. The approved draft was finally prepared and administered to the selected respondents.
In gathering the data needed, the researchers asked permission from the selected school administrators of Colleges and Universities in the National Capital Region to conduct the study. Upon approval, the approved letter was attached to the standardized questionnaire for permission to administer the questionnaire to the faculty members and students as respondents of the study. Afterward, retrieval of all the questionnaires, tabulation of the data, and analysis followed by the interpretation of the data gathered were prepared.
As to the faculty and student respondents on age and gender, the highest frequency of thirty-five (35) teacher responders and a percentage of 23.33 was in the age bracket 41 years old and older. Following closely was the 36 - 40 age group with 33 responses and 22%. Further, data showed that the 26 - 30 age group had a frequency of 29 at 19.33%. Twenty-seven (27) respondents (18%) and twenty-six (26) (17.33%) were found in the 31 - 35 age group. On the other hand, students aged 16 - 20 had the highest frequency at 72 (48%). Sixty-two (62) or 41.33 percent were 21 - 25. Ten responders (6.66%) were 26 - 30. The lowest frequency was six (4%), aged 31 and older.
The frequency and percentage of teacher and student respondents by gender showed that female teachers made up 84% and male teachers 44%. For student responses, females made up 79% and males 47%. An in-depth analysis of the data shows that 54% of the study’s respondents are female and 46% are male. This illustrates that women dominate education. As for employment status, the majority of teacher’s answers are full-time faculty members (72%). Part-time faculty were 42, or 23%. Today’s schools’ most valuable resource is teachers. Investing in the professional development and working circumstances of full-time and part-time teachers will immediately increase education quality.
4. Results and Discussions
Table 1 assesses the instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of vision, mission, and learning-focused culture. The assessment is based on four indicators, namely embracing a vision of academic success, clear goals focused on student learning, a culture of learning with high expectations for every student and adult, and a results-focused learning environment responsive to individual student needs.
The data show that both teachers and students have a high mean score in all four indicators, with a weighted mean of 4.77 for teachers and 4.73 for students, and both are verbally interpreted as Great Extent. This indicates that both teachers and students have a strong understanding and commitment to the vision, mission, and learning-focused culture of the educational institution.
Specifically, the highest mean scores were obtained in the indicators related to embracing a vision of academic success and a culture of learning, with mean scores of 4.85 and 4.79, respectively, for teachers, and mean scores of 4.80 and 4.75, respectively, for students. These scores suggest that both teachers and students have a clear understanding of the importance of academic success and a culture of learning with high expectations for all.
Table 2 assesses the dimension of instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of the improvement of instructional practice. The assessment is based on three indicators, namely the use of data, evidence, and inquiry to analyze student learning, the use of the research-based instructional framework, and the use of data and evidence of student learning to provide feedback to teachers.
The data show that both teachers and students have a high mean score in all three indicators, with a weighted mean of 4.76 for teachers and 4.71 for students, and both are provided with a descriptive value of Great Extent. This indicates that both teachers and students are committed to improving instructional practices through the use of data, evidence, and inquiry.
![]()
Table 1. Dimension of instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of vision, mission, and learning-focused culture.
Specifically, the highest mean score was obtained in the indicator related to the use of data and evidence of student learning to provide feedback to teachers, with a weighted mean of 4.80 for teachers and 4.75 for students.
Table 3 represents the dimension of instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of the improvement of allocation of resources, with three indicators: resources, clear processes and procedures for instructional support, and data-driven decision-making for equitable allocation of resources.
The weighted mean for the assessment of both teachers and students is high, with a value of 4.63, indicating a Great Extent of improvement in the allocation of resources. The weighted mean for the assessment of teachers for each indicator is also high, with values of 4.68, 4.76, and 4.67 for resources, clear processes and procedures, and data-driven decision-making, respectively. Similarly, the weighted mean for the assessment of students for each indicator is high, with values of 4.56, 4.55, and 4.52 for resources, clear processes and procedures, and data-driven decision-making, respectively.
![]()
Table 2. Dimension of instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of improvement of instructional practice.
![]()
Table 3. Dimension of instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of allocation of resources.
In summary, the data presented suggest that the instructional leadership of teachers and students has contributed significantly to the improvement of the allocation of resources, as indicated by the high weighted means and low deviation values. The indicators of resources, clear processes and procedures, and data-driven decision-making have been perceived to be effective in promoting the equitable allocation of resources.
Table 4 reveals the dimension of instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of the improvement of the management of people and processes, with three indicators: strategically recruiting, hiring/retaining, inducting, supporting, and developing the most qualified staff; employing critical processes such as planning, implementing, advocating, supporting, communicating, and monitoring to all leadership responsibilities; and creating supportive working environments—time and space for collaboration, professional learning community, professional development opportunities.
The weighted mean for the assessment of both teachers and students is high, with a value of 4.69, indicating a Great Extent of improvement in the management of people and processes. The weighted mean for the assessment of teachers for each indicator is also high, with values of 4.71, 4.68, and 4.77 for strategically recruiting, employing critical processes, and creating supportive working environments, respectively. Similarly, the weighted mean for the assessment of students for each indicator is high, with values of 4.67, 4.64, and 4.71 for strategically recruiting, employing critical processes, and creating supportive working environments, respectively.
Table 5 interprets that there were significant differences in the assessment of the faculty and student respondents on the dimensions of instructional leadership.
![]()
Table 4. Dimension of instructional leadership of teachers and students in terms of management of people and processes.
![]()
Table 5. Test of significant difference in the assessment of the faculty and student respondents on the dimensions of instructional leadership.
Considering the dimension of Vision, Mission, and Learning-Focused Culture, the computed t-value of 1.954 exceeded the critical t-value of 1.943. This indicates a statistically significant difference in the assessment between the faculty and student respondents regarding this dimension. Consequently, the null hypothesis (Ho) is Rejected, suggesting that the faculty and student respondents hold differing perspectives on Vision, Mission, and Learning-Focused Culture.
As regards the dimension of Improvement of Instructional Practice, the computed t-value of 2.971 was higher than the critical t-value of 2.131. This suggests a significant difference in the assessment between the faculty and student respondents. Hence, the null hypothesis (Ho) is Rejected, indicating that the faculty and student respondents have varying views on the Improvement of Instructional Practice.
The dimension of Allocation of Resources displayed a substantial difference in assessment between the faculty and student respondents. The computed t-value of 5.175 exceeded the critical t-value of 2.353. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) is Rejected, emphasizing a statistically significant difference in the assessment of Allocation of Resources between the faculty and student respondents.
Lastly, the dimension of Management of People and Processes did not demonstrate a significant difference in assessment. The computed t-value of 1.400 was lower than the critical t-value of 2.131. Consequently, the null hypothesis (Ho) is Accepted, implying that there is no statistically significant difference in the assessment of Management of People and Processes between the faculty and student respondents.
Table 6 shows the assessment of teachers and students on the component of faculty self-efficacy in terms of mastery experiences. The indicators include successful implementation of new teaching strategies, positive student outcomes, collaborative problem-solving, and professional development opportunities.
For teachers, all indicators received a weighted mean score of 4.58 or higher, indicating a Great Extent of mastery experiences. Among the indicators, positive student outcomes received the highest weighted mean score of 4.75, while collaborative problem-solving received the lowest score of 4.58. The overall weighted mean score for teachers is 4.67, which also indicates a great extent of mastery experiences.
For students, all indicators received a weighted mean score of 4.59 or higher, indicating a descriptive value of the Great Extent of mastery experiences. Among the indicators, positive student outcomes received the highest weighted mean score of 4.66, while collaborative problem-solving received the lowest mean score of 4.59. The overall weighted mean score for students is 4.62, which also indicates a great extent of mastery experiences.
Table 7 shows the assessment results of the component of faculty self-efficacy of teachers and students in terms of vicarious experiences. The indicators used are observing successful teaching and learning practices, collaborating with colleagues, peer mentoring/coaching, and reflecting on metacognitive skills.
The overall weighted mean for teachers is 4.72, which indicates a descriptive value of the Great Extent of faculty self-efficacy in terms of vicarious experiences. Among the indicators, observing successful teaching and learning practices and collaborating with colleagues obtained the highest assessment results with a weighted mean of 4.77 and 4.75, respectively. Peer mentoring/coaching and reflecting with metacognitive skills also scored high with a weighted mean of 4.73 and 4.65, respectively.
Table 8 shows the results of the assessment of college teachers and students in terms of moral persuasion, with four indicators: feedback from students, feedback from colleagues or mentors, supportive work and conducive learning environment, and encouraging ethical leadership.
The overall weighted mean for the teachers’ assessment was 4.73, which suggests that they believe moral persuasion is an important component of their self-efficacy. Among the indicators, the teachers rated feedback from students the highest at 4.80, followed closely by feedback from colleagues or mentors at 4.77. Supportive work and a conducive learning environment received a rating of 4.70, while encouraging ethical leadership received a rating of 4.65 and are all verbally interpreted as Great Extent.
![]()
Table 6. Component of faculty self-efficacy of teacher and student in terms of mastery experiences.
![]()
Table 7. Component of faculty self-efficacy of teacher and student in terms of vicarious experiences.
![]()
Table 8. Component of faculty self-efficacy of teacher and student in terms of moral persuasion.
Table 9 displays the results of an assessment of faculty self-efficacy for teachers and students in terms of physiological affective states. The assessment evaluated four indicators: stress levels, work-life balance, positive teacher-student relationships, and a sense of autonomy and control.
The results show that all indicators were perceived to have a descriptive value of Great Extent (GE) by both teachers and students. Among the indicators, stress levels and work-life balance received the highest scores from both groups, with a weighted mean of 4.85 and 4.83, respectively, for teachers, and 4.51 and 4.54, respectively, for students. Positive teacher-student relationships and a sense of autonomy and control received slightly lower scores but were still perceived to a great extent by both groups.
The overall weighted mean for the assessment was 4.78 for teachers and 4.64 for students, indicating that faculty self-efficacy in terms of physiological affective states is high for both groups. The results suggest that creating a supportive work environment and promoting positive teacher-student relationships can contribute to enhancing faculty self-efficacy in terms of physiological affective states.
Table 10 reveals the computed t-value for Mastery Experiences was 2.546,
![]()
Table 9. Component of faculty self-efficacy of teacher and student in terms of physiological affective states.
![]()
Table 10. Test of significant difference between the student and teacher respondents to the components of faculty self-efficacy.
which was higher than the critical t-value of 2.131. This indicates that there was a statistically significant difference in the assessment of Mastery Experiences between the student and teacher respondents. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) is Rejected, suggesting that the student and teacher respondents hold different perceptions regarding Mastery Experiences.
As regards the Vicarious Experiences, the computed t-value was 5.286, which was higher than the critical t-value of 1.943. This implies that there was a significant difference in the assessment of Vicarious Experiences between the student and teacher respondents. As a result, the null hypothesis (Ho) is Rejected, emphasizing that the student and teacher respondents have different perceptions of Vicarious Experiences.
For Moral Persuasion, the computed t-value was 3.606, which was higher than the critical t-value of 2.015. This suggests that there was a significant difference in the assessment of Moral Persuasion between the student and teacher respondents. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) is Rejected, indicating that the student and teacher respondents hold different perceptions regarding Moral Persuasion.
Lastly, regarding the component of Physiological and Affective States, the computed t-value was 4.054, which was higher than the critical t-value of 2.353. This suggests that there was a significant difference in the assessment of Physiological and Affective States between the student and teacher respondents. Hence, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected, indicating that the student and teacher respondents have different perceptions regarding Physiological and Affective States.
Table 11 indicates that there is a relationship between the assessed dimensions of instructional leadership and the components of faculty self-efficacy. The computed Pearson correlation coefficient (r) is 0.8515, which suggests a strong positive relationship between the two variables. The p-value of 0.2372 suggests that the observed correlation between the assessed dimensions of instructional leadership and the components of faculty self-efficacy is not statistically Significant.
Table 12 exposes the teacher’s efficacy in terms of student engagement. Efficacy in student engagement pertains to the teacher’s potential to reach their students and stimulate them to learn.
The data show that the overall weighted mean is 4.81 and rated with a descriptive value of A Great Deal on the five-point Likert scale. The highest mean among the indicators in the TSES items is the question that asks how much can a teacher do to help her student value learning that has WM=4.86, ranks 1, and is rated as A Great Deal. Followed by the items that answer the questions how much can a teacher do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork and how much can a teacher do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing have WM = 4.84, rank 2.5, and is also rated as A Great Deal. Next, is the item that answers the question of how much can a teacher do to foster student creativity has a WM = 4.83, ranks 4, and gives a rate of A Great Deal. Another item that answers the question of how much can a teacher do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork with WM = 4.82, rank 5 and verbally interpreted as A Great Deal. The next item that answers the question of how much can a teacher do to get through to the most difficult students has a WM = 4.81, ranks 6 and is rated as A Great Deal. Another item that answers the question of much can a teacher do to help her students think critically has a WM = 4.80, ranks 7, and is interpreted as A Great Deal. The item that got the lowest mean of 4.74 and ranks 8 is the question of how much can the teacher assist families in helping their children do well in school but still verbally interpreted as A Great Deal.
Table 13 indicates the indicators that answer the question of to what extent can the teacher craft good questions for her students had the highest weighted mean of 4.84, ranks 1, and provided a descriptive value of A Great Deal. Followed by the item that answers the question of how much can a teacher gauge student comprehension of what she has taught has a 4.83 as it’s computed weighted
![]()
Table 11. Relationship between the assessed dimensions of instructional leadership and the components of faculty self-efficacy.
![]()
Table 12. Teacher’s efficacy in terms of student engagement.
![]()
Table 13. Teacher’s efficacy in terms of instructional strategies.
mean. This item is also rated as A Great Deal. The next items answer the questions of how much can a teacher do to adjust her lessons to the proper level for individual students, how much can the teacher use a variety of assessment strategies, and to what extent can the teacher provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused had a WM = 4.82, in rank 4 is rated as A Great Deal. Another item that answers the question of how well can the teacher respond to difficult questions from her students has a WM = 4.81 and is also rated as A Great Deal.
The next item is to answer the question of how well can a teacher provide appropriate challenges for very capable students. This item gives a WM = 4.79 and a descriptive value of A Great Deal. The item that got the lowest mean of 4.76 is the question that asks how well can a teacher implement alternative strategies in her classroom but still verbally interpreted as A Great Deal.
The data suggest that teachers are highly effective in using a range of instructional strategies to support student learning. The weighted mean score for all questions is 4.81, which is high and indicates that the teachers are highly effective in using a range of instructional strategies. These instructional tools will definitely increase retention of the lessons, especially for those who are academically challenged, students.
The data even suggest that teachers are highly effective in using a range of instructional strategies to support student learning. The high scores and low standard deviations suggest that the teachers are performing consistently well across different areas of instructional strategy.
The teachers reported a high level of efficacy in all indicators, as evidenced by the overall weighted mean score of 4.81. This suggests that they feel confident in their ability to use instructional strategies effectively to support student learning.
Table 14 presents the teacher’s efficacy in terms of classroom management. When a class demonstrates a well-disciplined, organized, and orderly classroom routine, the teacher is being able to manage the classroom very well.
Based on the data provided, the teacher’s efficacy in terms of classroom management is high. The overall weighted mean of 4.83 with a computed standard deviation of 1.853 suggests that the teacher is effective in managing their classroom.
Looking at each individual question, it appears that the teacher is particularly strong in establishing a classroom management system with each group of students (question 16) with a WM = 4.86 and ranks 1 with a descriptive value of A Great Deal. The teacher also appears to be effective in controlling disruptive behavior in the classroom (question 1) and in getting children to follow classroom rules (question 13) with a WM = 4.85, and verbally interpreted as A Great Deal. There are a few areas where the teacher’s efficacy is not quite as strong. Question 5, which asks to what extent can a teacher make her expectations clear about student behavior and how much can a teacher do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy, has a slightly lower weighted mean of 4.84 and is verbally interpreted as A Great Deal. Additionally, question 8, which asks how well can a teacher establish routines to keep activities running smoothly, has a 4.83 as its
![]()
Table 14. Teacher’s efficacy in terms of classroom management.
weighted mean. This item gives a descriptive value of A Great Deal. Another item that asks how well can you respond to defiant students has a 4.81 weighted mean. The lightly lowest among all the items is the question that asks how well a teacher can keep a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson has a weighted mean of 4.80 and is verbally interpreted as A Great Deal.
5. Conclusion
Both faculty and student responders to the evaluation of instructional leadership at the university or college showed a remarkable performance in the evaluated factors. Comparing staff and student opinions on various facets of instructional leadership, however, led to an interesting discovery. These variations highlight how critical it is to address these inequalities in order to improve instructional leadership’s overall effectiveness and its influence on the academic community.
Additionally, the evaluation of faculty self-efficacy showed that both teachers and students had a favorable opinion of their capacity to support student learning. To better support instructors and eventually enhance the learning experience, it is necessary to have a greater knowledge of these divergent opinions. However, considerable differences in their assessments emerged. Notably, the study also showed a significant positive association between faculty self-efficacy and instructional leadership aspects, highlighting the potential influence of good instructional leadership on faculty members’ self-efficacy with regard to student accomplishment. These conclusions serve as the foundation for an improved institutional faculty development plan. In conclusion, the study’s findings not only show the positive and negative aspects of faculty and student perspectives but also open the door to positive advancements in faculty development and instructional leadership initiatives.
On the other hand, the proposed institutional faculty development plan was designed to support faculty members in their ongoing professional growth and development through a cyclical process of assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation, and improvement.
6. Limitations and Future Directions
To ensure ongoing and improved performance, higher education institutions (HEIs) should continue to prioritize and intensify their efforts in instructional leadership. Within these institutions, encouraging good teaching and learning requires a commitment to instructional leadership. HEIs may stay ahead in the rapidly changing educational landscape and steadily raise the caliber of education they offer to their students by continuing to invest in instructional leadership. Additionally, it is critical to address the notable discrepancies between faculty and student respondents’ judgments of the characteristics of instructional leadership. For these two stakeholder groups to align their perspectives and improve instructional leadership practices, HEIs should promote collaboration and open communication. The needs and expectations of both students and professors can be better recognized and satisfied in a collaborative atmosphere, which can result in a more unified and successful learning environment.
The self-efficacy of faculty members is another area where HEIs should concentrate. This can be accomplished by providing opportunities for collaboration, mentoring, and professional development. HEIs can enhance the overall educational experience by providing faculty members with the self-assurance and abilities needed to effectively encourage student learning. Academic leaders should also take the initiative to investigate and comprehend how student and teacher respondents’ assessments of the components of faculty self-efficacy differ. This investigation is crucial for bridging divides and cultivating a common knowledge that supports cooperative learning environments. Another action HEIs could take is to incorporate techniques and programs linked to instructional leadership into the institutional faculty development plan, with an emphasis on faculty self-efficacy and student achievement. In order to maintain a pleasant learning environment, academic leaders should continue to support teachers in developing their classroom management skills through focused professional development. HEIs should create a more organized framework for the cyclical process, allot enough resources, promote reflective and collaborative practices, and carry out routine evaluations with a dedication to making changes in response to feedback and results. This all-encompassing strategy will help HEIs continue to offer top-notch education in the long run.