0.19 Watts, l., kolsun, c., cline, v., & Williams, l. (october 20  (Page 3/11)

Pajares (2002), in an overview of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy, stated:

Self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment. This is because unless people believe that their actions will produce the outcomes they desire, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties (p. 4).

By realizing the importance of a sense of self-efficacy in the classroom, it would be reasonable to presume that the same relationship between self-efficacy and effectiveness would apply to school leaders. Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) addressed the nature of a principals’ sense of efficacy:

A principal’s sense of efficacy is a judgment of his or her capabilities to structure a particular course of action in order to produce desired outcomes in the school he or she leads (Bandura, 1997). It is a principal’s self-perceived capability to perform the cognitive and behavioral functions necessary to regulate group processes in relation to goal achievement (McCormick, 2001, p. 30) (p. 573).

Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) provided a review of the literature on the construct of efficacy followed by a description of the development of an instrument similar to the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) , the Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSE) . In discussing the implications of their research and the development of the scale, the authors stated: “It is not enough to hire and retain the most capable principals—they must also believe that they can successfully meet the challenges of the task at hand” (p. 582). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2007) further explicated the relationship between self-efficacy and leadership:

It is important to recognize the inherent connection between a principal’s self-efficacy and the outward responsibilities of working with and leading others. As school leaders, principals must facilitate group goal attainment by establishing and maintaining conditions favorable to group performance…The emerging picture of the role of self-efficacy beliefs in principals suggest important potential ramifications considering the central leadership role that principals fulfill. Self-efficacy beliefs affect the development of functional leadership strategies and the skillful execution of those strategies (p. 91).

However, Smith, Guarino, Strom, and Adams (2006) found that compared to research on teacher self-efficacy, “…research into the self-efficacy beliefs of school administrators regarding their ability to create and facilitate effective instructional environments has not enjoyed as much attention” (p. 8). They conducted a study of 284 principals in twelve states who completed the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSE) , a 22-item instrument developed by the researchers. The results indicated that most principals believed their efforts to create an effective teaching and learning environment were successful (p. 5).

The task at hand, of course, for principals is that of leading their schools in order to maximize student achievement. However, schools and those who lead them do not operate in a culturally neutral environment. Johnson, Shope, and Roush (2009) simply said: “Schooling happens within a particular place” (p. 6). Schooling occurs in large urban centers and in sparsely-populated and remote rural communities. While certain factors will certainly be the same in all areas of the country, some characteristics and features may and in all likelihood will differ. Students in the Bronx of New York City experience certain cultural influences in their lives not experienced by students living on Big Ugly Creek in rural Lincoln County, West Virginia—and vice versa. While the pervasive presence of television, the mobility that characterizes our society, the homogenization of life style created by the retail industry, and the ever-growing power of social technology (e.g., Facebook) have diminished the differences among Americans in all regions of the nation (especially younger segments of the population), many believe that the youth of rural Appalachia face serious disadvantages due to cultural features of the region.