The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
School Leadership and Teaching Behaviors of Teachers Affecting Teaching Efficiency
in Schools under the Office of Khon Kaen Educational Service Area 5
Pimwarun Nunthaitaweekul 1 (pimwarun_n@kkumail.com)
Thanomwan Prasertcharoensuk2 (thapra@kku.ac.th)
Abstract
The research aimed to 1) investigate the school leadership factors level and the
teaching behavior factors level in schools under The Office of Khon Kaen Educational
Service Area 5, 2) investigate the Teaching Efficiency factors level in schools under The
Office of Khon Kaen Educational Service Area 5, 3) investigate the School Leadership and
teaching behaviors of teachers Affecting Teaching Efficiency in schools under The Office of
Khon Kaen Educational Service Area 5.
Sampling group, selected by method of multi-stage sampling, consisted of 483 persons
including 152 school administrators and 331 teachers. Research instrument was a
questionnaire. Statistical data was analyzed using the program of SPSS for Window version
11.5 in order to search for value of descriptive statistic and inferential statistic used for
analyzing Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling version 6.03.
Research findings found that:
1) all aspects of school leadership level were at high level. These aspects could be
orderly ranked from high to low level as follows; Ethical and Morality, Intellectual
Stimulation, Idealized Influence, Contingency Reward, Inspirational Motivation and
Individualized Consideration.
2) all aspects of teachers’ teaching behavior of teacher level were at high level. These
aspects could be orderly ranked from high to low level as follows; Activities that focus on the
Student-Centred Instructional Management, Use of Media and Technology, Classroom
Research, the authentic measurement and evaluation and Classroom Management.
3) all aspects of teaching efficiency of teachers level were at high level. These aspects
could be orderly ranked from high to low level as follows; justice, The relationship between
teachers and students, teachers’ personality, classroom management, classroom climate,
usage of Psychology of Learning, teaching strategy, Measurement and evaluation, and
instructional management.
4) school leadership level and teachers’ teaching behavior level were positively
correlated with teachers’ teaching efficiency with statistical significance at the level of 0.01
for all factors.
5) teachers’ teaching behavior affecting the teachers’ teaching efficiency with
statistical significance at the level of 0.01 for all variables. Independent variables of teachers’
teaching behavior could be used for explaining the teachers’ teaching efficiency variance at
87.01 %. school Leadership affecting the teachers’ teaching efficiency with statistical
1Student,
Educational Administration Program, Faculty of Education Khon Kaen University, THAILAND
Professor, Department of Educational Administration, Faculty of Education Khon Kaen University, THAILAND
2Associate
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
significance at the level of 0.01 and 0.05. as follows; intellectual stimulation and Contingency
Reward could be used for explaining the teachers’ teaching efficiency variance at 81.76%.
6) school Leadership level affecting the teachers’ teaching behavior with statistical
significance at the level of 0.01 and 0.05. as follows; Idealized Influence affecting the the
Student-Centred Instructional Management, Intellectual Stimulation affecting the the
Student-Centred Instructional Management, and Intellectual Stimulation affecting the
Classroom Management.
Keywords: Leadership, Teaching behavior, Teaching Efficiency
1.Introduction
Whereas the trend of changes as well as Educational Development under the strategy
of Educational Reform (2009-2018), the present time emphasized on dimension of
development 4. The important dimension was the Student Reform in New Age, School
Reform or Learning Source in New Age, and Management System Reform in New Age. To
accomplish goal of Thai Educational Reform in the second decade (2009-2018) in
Educational Reform, there was the precise advertisement by Ministry of Education that the
important thing of Educational Reform, was the Learning Reform. (Ministry of Education,
2008) The Teacher Development was an integral instrument leading to the Educational
Reform to be successful. Those changes might be occurred in practice, the administrators
played an important role as the persons who put the policy into practice concretely. To
recommend the teachers to be aware as well as see the important of teachers’ behavior
modification based on guidelines of Educational Reform so that the teachers would have
teacher efficiency, the school administrators’ leadership was an integral factor as successful
indicator of school success or failure. The leaders had to be analyzed and critiqued. These
things were like the major principles of colleagues or co-workers’ faith. (Kanonkorn
Somprach, 2003) It was supported by research findings of Kobsak Monmai (2011) in
“Relationship between Transformational Leadership of School Administrators, and Teaching
Efficiency of Teachers under the Office of Patoomtani Primary Educational Service Area 1,”
found that there was positive relationship in “Moderate” level. The Office of Khon Kaen
Primary Educational Service Area 5 established policy that “the Educational Quality
Development should be excellent continuously as well as the school administrators under
jurisdiction, should be stimulated to obtain self development in order to be useful for efficient
work practice, the teachers should be promoted to provide the efficient instructional
management as well as preparation themselves for the changes during the 21th century.
According to the above reasons, the researcher was interested in studying “The
School Administrators’ Leadership and Teachers’ Teaching Behaviour affecting the
Teachers’ Teaching Efficiency in Schools under The Office of Khon Kaen Primary
Educational Service Area 5,” in order to obtain information technology in developing the
school administrators’ leadership as well as being useful for planning in developing the
school administrators’ leadership during the age they had to face with the pressure throughout
the time which would be information leading to the development of school administrators’
leadership as well as the teachers’ teaching behaviour., affecting the teachers’ teaching
efficiency to be efficient in future.
2. Research Questions
2.1 What would be the level of school leadership, and teachers’ teaching behaviour under the
Office of Khon Kaen Primary Educational Service Area 5?
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
2.2 What would be the level of teachers’ teaching efficiency in schools under jurisdiction of
the Office of Khon Kaen Primary Educational Service Area 5?
2 .3 Was there relationship between the school leadership, and teachers’ teaching efficiency
in schools under jurisdiction of the Office of Khon Kaen Primary Educational Service Area 5?
2 . 4 What aspect of school leadership affecting the teachers’ teaching in schools under
jurisdiction of the Office of Khon Kaen Primary Educational Service Area 5?
3. Research Objectives
3.1 To study the school leadership behavior, and teachers’ teaching behavior, in school
under jurisdiction of the Office of Khon Kaen Primary Educational Service Area 5.
3.2 To study the teachers’ teaching efficiency in school under jurisdiction of the Office
of Khon Kaen Primary Educational Service Area 5.
3.3 To study the school leadership behavior, and teachers’ teaching behavior affecting
teachers’ teaching efficiency in schools under jurisdiction of the Office of Khon Kaen
Primary Educational Service Area 5.
4. Research Implementation
This research was a Descriptive Research.
4.1 Population : the population using in this study consisted of 258 school leadership,
and 2,408 teacher under jurisdiction of the Office of Khon Kaen Primary Educational Service
Area 5, total of 2,666 persons.
4.2 Samples, according to the study from document and related literature relating to
the Multi-level analysis of HLM. For data analysis, it was necessary to use the large sample
size by Hair et.al.,(Sirichai Kanchanawasee,2011) recommended that there should be not less
than 100 groups of sample size in order to be reliable. In addition, from calculation from
table, the samples size was obtained as foloows: 152 school administrators, 331 teachers,
total of 483 persons.
4.3 Variables of this study
In this study, was the study of 2 Multi-level as: the school leadership level as
Macro Level Data, and the teacher level as Micro Level Data.
The Independent Variable of teacher level, was the teachers’ teaching behaviour
including: 1) the Student-Centred Instructional Management, 2) Classroom Management, 3)
Media and Technology use, 4) the authentic measurement and evaluation and 5) Classroom
Research.
The Independent Variable of school leadership level, were: 1) Idealized
Influence, 2) Inspirational Motivation, 3) Intellectual Stimulation, 4) Individualized
Consideration, 5) Contingency Reward, and 6) Ethical and Morality.
Dependent Variable was the Teachers’ Teaching Efficiency including: 1) relationship
between teachers and students, 2) instructional management, 3) usage of Psychology of Learning, 4)
teaching strategy, 5) classroom management, 6) classroom climate, 7) justice, 8) meansurement and
evaluation, and 9) teachers’ personality.
4.4 Research Instruments
The instruments for data collection of this study , consisted of 2 issues of Questionnaire
including: The Questionnaire for School Leadership with 3 Parts. Part 1, was the school leadership’
demographic data. Part 2, the school leadership level. Part 3, was the teachers’ efficiency level. And
The Questionnaire for teacher with 3 Parts. Part 1, was the teachers’ demographic data. Part 2, the
teachers’ behaviour level. Part 3, was the teachers’ efficiency level.
4.5 Data Analysis
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
4.5.1 Data were analyzed by using the statistic as the Frequency, Percentage, Mean, and
Standard Deviation.
4.5.2 For data analysis of relationship data, was performed by calculating the Pearson’s
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. For hypothesis testing, it was performed by the ttest. For data analysis by using the Multilevel Analysis through the 2 levels of HLM
(Hierarchical Linear Model.
5. Conclusions and Discussions of research findings
5.1 Conclusions of research findings
5.1.1 The analysis findings of school leadership behaviour, teachers’
teaching teaching behavuior, and teachers’ teaching efficiency level. The school
leadership overall, was in “High” level. The aspect with highest level of average value, was
the ethical and morality based. The second order was the intellectual stimulation. The aspect
with lowest level of average value, was the individualized consideration. The teachers’
overall teaching behaviour, was in “High” level. The aspect with highest level of average
value, was the instructional activity management as student-centred. The second order, was
the usage of media and technology. The lowest level of average value, was the classroom
management. In addition, the teachers’ overall teaching efficiency, was the justice. The
second order, was the relationship between teachers and students. The aspect with lowest
level of average value, was the instructional management.
5.1.2 The findings of study in relationship between school leadership level; and
teachers’ teaching behaviour, and teachers’ efficiency. The findings of study in relationship
between the school leadership level and teachers’ teachers’ teaching behaviour, and the teachers’
teaching efficiency, found that there was positive relationship in every factor at 0.01 significant
level.
5.1.3 The findings of study in the school leadership behavior and teachers’
teaching behavior, affecting teachers’ teaching efficiency.
1) The analysis findings of Null Model using the teachers’ teaching
efficiency as dependent variable, found that the average value of teachers’ teaching efficiency
= 4.387643. Considering the influence of constant value, found that it was important for
teachers’ teaching efficiency at 0.01 significant level. Considering the random influence
testing found that the teachers’ average value of teaching efficiency was varied between
school. The variance of parameter was 0.01656 at 0.01 significant level.
2) The analysis findings of Simple Model of behavior level in the teachers’
teaching behavior, and their teaching efficiency, was 4.394442. The teachers’ teaching
behavior level affecting their teaching efficiency, were:
the instructional activity
management as student-centered, the classroom management, the usage of media and
technology, the authentic measurement and evaluation, and the classroom research at 0.01
significant level. Considering the random influence testing, found that the component of
variance in the teachers’ average value of teaching efficiency was 0.00315 at 0.01 significant
level. It indicated that the teachers’ teaching efficiency was varied between schools.
Moreover, the analysis findings of random influence of Regression Coefficient, found that the
variable of usage in media and technology, were varied between schools at 0.01 significant
level. The component of variance was = 0.01420.
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Table 1: The analysis findings of information in Hypothetical Model
Fixed Effect
Coefficient
Standar
d Error
t-ratio
df
pvalue
Overall Mean of Teaching Efficiency,
β0j, γ00
Idealized Influence , γ01
Inspirational Motivation , γ02
Intellectual Stimulation , γ03
Individualized Consideration ,γ04
Contingency Reward ,γ05
Ethical and Morality Based,γ06
Student-Centred Instructional
Management slope, β1j INTRCPT2,
γ10
Idealized Influence,γ11
Inspirational Motivation,γ12
Intellectual Stimulation, γ13
Individualized Consideration, γ14
Contingency Reward,γ15
Ethical and Morality Based ,γ16
Classroom Administration and
Management slope, β2jINTRCPT2, γ20
Idealized Motivation,γ21
Inspirational Motivation,γ22
Intellectual Stimulation, γ23
Individualized Consideration ,γ24
Contingency Reward,γ25
Ethical and Morality Based ,γ26
Media and Technology Use, β3j
INTRCPT2,γ30
Idealized Influence,γ31
Inspirational Stimulation,γ32
Intellectual Stimulation, γ33
Individualized Consideration,γ34
Contingency Reward,γ35
Ethical and Morality Based,γ36
Authentic Assessment slope,
β4jINTRCPT2,γ40
Idealized Influence ,γ41
Inspirational Motivation,γ42
Intellectual Stimulation, γ43
Individualized Consideration,γ44
Contingency Reward ,γ45
Ethical and Morality Based ,γ46
Classroom Research slope, β5j
4.402015**
0.007544
583.480
145
0.000
-0.096098
-0.054288
0.253768**
-0.023578
-0.144291*
0.008468
0.059423
0.028465
0.066353
0.023979
0.066277
0.025498
-1.617
-1.907
3.824
-0.983
-2.177
0.332
145
145
145
145
145
145
0.108
0.058
0.000
0.328
0.031
0.740
0.167281**
0.018627
8.981
145
0.000
0.503331**
-0.042574
-0.607895**
-0.071231
0.245580
0.101385
0.151476
0.075489
0.165606
0.053284
0.155001
0.074977
3.323
-0.564
-3.671
-1.337
1.584
1.352
145
145
145
145
145
145
0.001
0.573
0.001
0.184
0.115
0.179
0.084496**
0.021588
3.914
145
0.000
-0.089993
-0.091022
0.378136*
0.061891
-0.260983
-0.072602
0.185263
0.086751
0.155266
0.079197
0.168512
0.086204
-0.486
-1.049
2.435
0.781
-1.549
-0.842
145
145
145
145
145
145
0.627
0.296
0.016
0.436
0.123
0.401
0.120444**
0.025827
4.664
145
0.000
0.175332
0.015017
-0.201167
0.071132
-0.208186
0.138771
0.206614
0.072756
0.217447
0.104723
0.182958
0.083001
0.849
0.206
-0.925
0.679
-1.138
1.672
145
145
145
145
145
145
0.398
0.837
0.357
0.498
0.257
0.096
0.201067**
0.023151
8.685
145
0.000
-0.262424
-0.038988
0.357608
-0.069126
0.109466
-0.047380
0.208751**
0.213680
0.088161
0.264401
0.071348
0.179810
0.071818
0.020795
-1.228
-0.442
1.353
-0.969
0.609
-0.660
10.038
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
0.222
0.659
0.178
0.335
0.543
0.510
0.000
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
INTRCPT2, γ50
Idealized Influence ,γ51
Inspirational Motivation ,γ52
Fixed Effect
Intellectual Stimulation, γ53
Individualized Consideration ,γ54
Contingency Reward,γ55
Ethical and Morality Based ,γ56
Random Effect
The Mean of Teaching Efficiency,
slope,U0j
Student-Centred Instructional
Management, slope,U1j
Classroom Management , slope, U2j
Media and Technology Use, slope, U3j
Authentic Measurement and
Evaluation , slope, U4j
Classroom Research , slope, U5j
The residue in teacher level , R
* p0.05, ** p 0.01
-0.116241
0.102591
Coefficient
0.097943
-0.031832
0.031457
-0.085129
Standard
Deviation
0.225953
0.087375
Standar
d Error
0.330434
0.075244
0.180324
0.063423
Variance
Compon
ent
-0.514
1.174
145
145
0.607
0.243
pvalue
0.767
0.672
0.862
0.182
t-ratio
df
0.296
-0.423
0.174
-1.342
145
145
145
145
Df
χ2 – test
pvalue
0.05500
0.00302
145
197.11360**
0.003
0.07394
0.00547
145
65.95295
0.444
0.10433
0.11744
0.01088
0.01379
145
145
84.41174
104.75810**
0.063
0.004
0.08895
0.00791
145
92.29858*
0.026
0.05539
0.10721
0.00307
0.01149
145
67.70166
>.500
According to Table 1, the analysis findings of data in Hypothetical Model when the
teachers’ teaching efficiency was independent variable, found that the overall average of
teachers’ teaching efficiency was 4.402015 at 0.01 significant level. For the variable of
school leadership level affecting the teachers’ teaching efficiency, was the intellectual
stimulation affected positive effect on teachers’ teaching efficiency at 0.01 significant level.
The regression coefficient was = 0 .2 5 3 7 6 8 . In addition, the contingency reward caused
negative effect on teachers’ teaching efficiency at 0.05 significant level. The regression
coefficient was = -0 .1 4 4 2 9 1 . Considering the random influence, found that the average
value of teachers’ teaching efficiency was varied between schools at 0 .0 1 significant level.
The variance of parameter was = 0.00302.
Considering the variable of teachers’ teaching behavior level as the Dependent
Variable as well as the Constant Value of school leadership level, found that the idealized
influence caused positive effect of instructional management as student centered at 0.01
significant level. The Regression Coefficient was 0.503331, the intellectual stimulation
caused negative effect on the instructional activity management as student-centered at 0.01
level. The Regression Coefficient value was = -0 . 6 0 7 8 9 5 . In addition, the intellectual
stimulation caused positive effect on classroom management at .05 significant level. The
Regression Coefficient value was = 0.378136.
5.2 Discussions
5.2.1 The analysis findings of the school leadership behavior level.
The analysis findings of the school leadership behavior level, found that the
overall and each aspect, the average value was in “High” level. It might be because most of the school
school administrators gave an importance to self-development in leadership since it was important for
teachers’ morale in instructional management which might improve their teaching efficiency in higher
level. It was supported by research findings of Apichya Mepien (2009) in “School Administrators’
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Transformational Leadership affecting Work Satisfaction of Private School Teachers under
jurisdiction of The Office of Chaiyapume Educational Service Area 2,” found that the school
leadership was in “High” level in every aspect.
5.2.2 The analysis findings of teachers’ teaching behaviour level
The analysis findings of teachers’ teaching behaviour level, found that in
overall and each aspect, the average value was in “High” level. It might be due to the
findings of attempt in Educational Reform caused the teachers to modify their teaching
behaviour into Facilitators as well as considering the students as the most important persons.
It was congruent with research findings of Laongdao Papoting (2011) in “Relationship
between the School Administrators’ Academic Leadership, and Teaching Effectiveness of
Secondary School Teachers under The Office of Loei Secondary Educational Service Area,
”found that the teachers’ teaching behaviour, in overall, was in “High” level. Furthermore,
there was positive relationship between the school leadership, and the teachers’ teaching
behaviour in “Rather High” level.
5.2.3 The analysis findings of teachers’ teaching efficiency level
The analysis findings of teachers’ teaching efficiency, found that the overall
and each aspect, the average value was in “High” level. It might be because most of teachers
had knowledge and competency as well as experience in teaching. They also attended the
training of instructional development. It was supported by research findings of Somyod
phongSiritad (2011) in the School Administrators’ Academic Leadership, and the Condition
of School as the predictors of feeling in teachers’ efficiency, found that the teachers
perceived the teachers’efficiency in “High” level. There was positive relationship between
every aspect of the school leadership as well as condition in school, and feeling of teachers’
overall efficiency.
5.2.4 The analysis findings of relationship between the school leadership
behaviour and the teachers’ teaching behaviour, and the teachers’ teaching efficiency
level
There was relationship between the school leadership and the teachers’
teaching behaviour, and the teachers’ teaching efficiency level. There was positive
relationship in every factor at 0.01 significant level. It was congruent with research findings
of Ponpan Boottawong (2011) in “Comparison of Teachers’ Teaching Efficiency based on
Management Behavioural Model of School Administrators under the Office on Srisaked
Educational Service Area 4,” found that the school administrators’ management behaviour
affected the teachers’ teaching efficiency.
5.2.5 The analysis findings of the school leadership level and teachers’
teaching behaviour, affecting teachers’ teaching efficiency
1) Every variable of teachers’ teaching behaviour, was important and affect
the teachers’ teaching efficiency at 0.01 significant level. The research findings indicated
that the teachers’ teaching behaviour was integral as well as affect the teaching efficiency. It
was necessary to be given an importance. It was supported by research findings of Laongdao
Papoting (2011) in) “Relationship between the School Administrators’ Academic Leadership,
and Teaching Effectiveness of Secondary School Teachers under The Office of Loei
Secondary Educational Service Area,” found that the teachers’ effective teaching behaviour
was in “High” level. Moreover, there was positive relationship between the school
administrators’ academic leadership, and the teachers’ effective teaching behaviour in
“Rather High,” level.
2) The school leadership affected the teachers’ teaching efficiency level at
0.01 significant level and 0.05 significant level were as follows: the intellectual stimulation,
and the contingency reward. It indicated that the in addition to the teachers’ teaching
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
behaviour, the school leadership should be considered by school. It was congruent with
research findings of Ponpan Bootawong (2011) in “Comparison of Teachers’ Teaching
Efficiency based on Management Behavioural Model of School Administrators under the
Office on Srisaked Educational Service Area 4,” found that the school administrators’
management behaviour could have and effect on the teachers’ teaching efficiency in schools.
6. Recommendations
6.1 Recommendations obtaining from research study
6.1.1) The policy for developing the school leadership development, should be
developed by the Office of Educational Service Area so that they would have selfdevelopment to be successful based on specified goal.
6.1.2) The school administrators should have their own leadership since it was an
important thing to promote the teachers’ morale for instructional management which would
lead to the teachers’ teaching efficiency to be improved.
6.1.3) The teachers should develop themselves in various aspects in order to be
used for improving their teaching to be suitable with the students.
6.2 Recommendations for future research
6.2.1) The school leadership, and teachers’ teaching behaviour affecting the
students’ learning achievement, should be studied.
6.2.2) The relationship between the school leadership in other variables, and the
school teachers’ teaching efficiency, should be studied.
6.2.3) The causal factors affecting the school teachers’ teaching efficiency,
should be studied in order to study the other aspects of factors affecting the teachers’ teaching
efficiency.
7. References
Bootawong, Ponpan. (2009). Comparison of Teachers’ Teaching Efficiency based on
Management Behavioural Model of School Administrators under the Office of
Srisaked Educational Service Area 4. Master of Education Thesis in Education,
Sukotai Dharma Tirach University.
Kanjanawasee, Sirichai. (2011).Multi-level analysis. The 5th ed. Bangkok:Chulaongkorn
University.
Mepien, Apichaya. (2009). School Administrators’Transformational Leadership
affecting Work Satisfaction of Private School Teachers under The Office of
Chaiyapume Educational Service Area 2. Master of Education Thesis in
Educational Administration, Graduate School, Khon Kaen University.
Ministry of Education. (2007).Guidelines for Educational Reform of Ministry of
Education. Bangkok: Ministry of Education.
Moonmai, Kobsak.(2011).Relationship between Transformational Leadership of
School Administrators and Teaching Efficiency of Teachers under the Office of
Patoomtani Primary Educational Service Area 1. Master of Education Thesis in
Educational Administration and Technology, Faculty of Industrial Education,
Tanburi Rajamongkon Technology College.
Papoting, Laongdao. (2011). Relationship between the School Administrators’
Academic Leadership, and Teaching Effectiveness of Secondary School
Teachers under The Office of Loei Secondary Educational Service Area.
Master of Education Thesis in Education, Graduate School, Sukotai Dharma Tirach
University.
The 7th International Conference on Educational Research:
13-14 September 2014, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Pongsiripat, Sompong. (2011). The Administrators’ Leadership, and Condition in
School as the Predictors of Feeling in Teachers’ Efficiency. Master of Education
Thesis in Education,Graduate School, Kasetsat University.
Somprach, Kanokorn. (2003). Educational Leadership. Khon Kaen: Department of
Educational Administration, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University.