This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a significant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the Education Leadership Review: Special Portland Conference Issue (October 2011) , ISSN 1532-0723. Formatted and edited in Connexions by Theodore Creighton and Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech and Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University.

Substantial research supports the pivotal role of the principal in the creation of a school learning environment that results in high achievement by students. Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) wrote:

A report entitled New Leaders for New Schools (2009) funded by the Rand Corporation focused on the kinds of skills needed to be an effective principal:

Many other references could be cited to support the premise of the importance of the principal to student success. But, the question then arises as to what the principal does to provide the leadership necessary to promote success in his or her school. One factor that has received some attention is the self-beliefs of the principal as to his or her ability to influence and lead the school effectively. If a principal feels powerless and helpless to provide the leadership that will create a thriving learning environment, can such an environment exist? Does the principal’s sense of self-efficacy make a difference?

The concept of self-efficacy developed from social cognitive theory studied by Albert Bandura (1977). Bandura discussed efficacy in terms of two aspects: (1) outcome expectancy—the belief that a particular behavior will lead to a particular outcome, and (2) efficacy expectancy—the conviction of the individual that he or she can successfully execute the behavior that will lead to the outcome (p. 193). The importance of the second aspect is highlighted in Bandura’s assertion that “beliefs of personal efficacy shape whether people attend to the opportunities, or to the impediments that affect their life circumstances…” (2000, p. 121).

Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) cited multiple studies that had been conducted on teacher efficacy. Much of the extant research on self-efficacy in education has focused on classroom teachers. Tschannen-Moran and McMaster (2009) wrote:

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

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:

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:

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.

Brown, Copeland, Costello, Erkanli, and Worthman (2009) studied family and community influences on educational goals and attainment among 200 rural white youth in Appalachia using data from the Great Smoky Mountain Study (GSMS; Costello, et.al., 1996). After discussing the relative influences of family and community, they concluded: “In the wake of global urbanization, youth from rural areas face increasing risks of social estrangement and marginalization” (p. 805). The data from the study indicate that the environment of the family (especially parent education level and poverty) influenced children’s level of educational attainment several years later. The greatest community influence was on college goal-setting with students living in communities with lower educational attainment exhibiting lower educational goals. Yet, the authors also state that many of the pressures facing youth across the globe also affect rural youth (p. 805).

The Appalachian region has often been viewed as an area where educational aspirations and results lag behind more progressive areas of the country. Johnson and Strange (2009) identified several factors indicating that student needs are not being met in rural education. Most school districts in West Virginia would be classified as rural based on the definition used in the report which ranked all 50 states on five gauges, including educational outcomes. West Virginia received an overall priority rating of 18 (with a rank of 1 being most crucial or urgent). However, in the area of educational outcomes, the state ranked fourth among all 50 states in terms of urgency. Other data have also brought attention to serious problems with reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rate, and other indicators of student performance as compared to the national average for these areas.

Chenoweth and Galliher (2004) cited low-college going rates in rural West Virginia and sought to determine if any relationships existed between student aspirations and both direct and indirect influences of the environment. Three factors they considered were localism, historicism, and familism:

The results of this study suggested that familism had some indirect influence on the students’ college decisions but did not find any support for the hypothesis that either localism or historicism had an impact on students’ goals and decisions (p. 12).

In a 1996 study however, Howley recognized that students in rural areas “experience greater internal conflict regarding their post high school choices than their nonrural counterparts, and they evidence an aspiration for a sense of place” (Budge, 2006, p. 12).

Some writers have characterized Appalachian culture as a way of life that creates serious disadvantages for its people. In a major study done in 1960 by the University of Kentucky, Thomas Ford identified four characteristics often associated with the people of Appalachia: (1) individualism, (2) traditionalism, (3) familism, and (4) fundamental fatalism. While at times in the essay on “The Passing of Provincialism,” Ford appeared to give credence to individualism and traditionalism, he did believe that the people of Appalachia were generally like all other Americans, though he saw the region as not fully sharing in “the larger culture of the nation” (p. 34). Ford added, “To an appreciable measure their distinctiveness as a people is vested in restricted social and economic opportunities” (p. 34).

Despite these findings, some researchers deny that a distinctly Appalachian culture exists. Lewis and Billings (1997) wrote:

Lewis and Billings (1997) did suggest that the model of familism may have some usefulness when “theoretically reconceptualized and situated historically” (p. 6). Reck, Keefe, and Reck (1987) noted: “The extent to which Appalachians differ culturally from other Americans is an important aspect of the debate. Still others maintain Appalachians do not have a unique subculture (Billings 1974; Fisher 1978; Ford 1962; Miller 1978a). Some researchers concentrate on describing what they feel is a distinctive ethnic culture in Appalachia (Jones 1971; Friedl 1978; Pearsall 1966; Williams 1961). Characteristics cited include ties to their homeland (the mountains), familism, a unique history, a Southern Mountain dialect, fundamentalist Protestant religion, and various value orientations” (p.14).

Wallace and Diekroger (2000) cited the following influences on the perceptions of individuals regarding education: (a) cultural determinants, including income levels, teenage pregnancy, literacy rates, and drop-out rates, (b) family and peer influence, which refers to parent and child relationships and parent expectations for their children, and (c) locus of control, the degree of confidence an individual has in his or her power to determine outcomes based on behavior, skill, or other dispositions (p. 5). The study concluded that students in Appalachia were frequently the recipients of messages that discouraged their educational aspirations.

Khattri, Riley, Kane (1997) wrote:

Bizzell (2009) indicated that principals in rural Appalachia need to be aware of the uniqueness of their students’ culture in order to provide culturally-responsible leadership. Thus, the question arises as to the importance of the cultural factors of the school community as they affect student achievement and school leadership. Taking it one step further, can the culture of the school, which is created in large degree by the greater culture of the community, have an impact on what leaders believe to be attainable for their students? If a school is considered to be in a community or region where educational expectations are low and achievement results have traditionally not been high, will the principal be affected negatively in his or her sense of efficacy?

Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2007) conducted a study that sought to identify important antecedents of the self-efficacy beliefs of 558 principals in Virginia schools. Several different sources of possible influence were included in their study including demographic factors (gender and race of the principal), school level, school setting (urban, suburban, rural), and percentage of students on free and reduced meals (poverty level). The results did not show any significant relationship between self-efficacy and school setting, school level, or the poverty level of the school:

The Virginia study did not specifically address unique cultural features of rural Appalachia, though parts of western Virginia are considered to be in the Appalachian region. If the sense of efficacy does influence principal leadership in creating an effective learning environment, is it possible to determine if principals who serve in that setting are affected by their perceptions of Appalachian culture? Is there any relationship between cultural factors or perceptions of those factors and a principal’s sense of efficacy in influencing student achievement? This paper will consider those issues.

This study did not formally conceptualize hypotheses concerning the potential interactions of cultural influences in Appalachia with principals’ sense of efficacy. The comprehensive question that guided the study was whether principals in southern West Virginia believe their efficacy in performing their job is affected by cultural features that are often considered unique to the Appalachian region. The following specific questions were included:

1. Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception of the influence of localism?

2.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception of the influence of historicism?

3.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception of the influence of familism?

4.    Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception of the influence the rural nature and culture of the region?

5.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception of the belief held by students that they can obtain a good education and succeed in life?

6.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception of the belief of teachers that students can succeed in school and in life?

7.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception that parents believe a good education will provide opportunities for their children to succeed in life?

8.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and perception that the school community is one that promotes education and places a high value on student success?

9.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and being a native of West Virginia?

10.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and being a native of the community in which the principal works?

11.   Is there a relationship between a principal’s sense of efficacy and whether the school achieves adequate yearly progress (AYP)?

The results of the demographic questions indicated that 9.6% of the respondents were in their first year of the principalship, 36.1% had been principals for 2-5 years, 30.1% for 6 to 10 years, and 24.1% for 11 or more years. However, 73.5% had been principals of their current schools for five or fewer years. Over 80% of the principals were natives of West Virginia, but only 55% were natives of the community where the school currently being served was located. When responding to the question of whether the school made adequate yearly progress for the last two testing years, 84.5% indicated the school had done so in 2009-10 and 61% for 2008-09. Several principals only gave a response for one of the two years.

According to the results found in Table 1, the Principals’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSE), principals generally believed they had the ability to be successful and to effectively manage the various tasks in the survey (see Tables 1 and 2). The three areas that received the lowest ratings were belief in their ability to maintain control of their daily schedules (17.2% believed they had little or no control), the ability to shape policies and procedures (13.5% rated this as something over which they had little or no control), and the ability to effectively cope with stress (13.6% rated this as minimum or little). Looking at the three subscales, principals gave the lowest mean rating (3.61) to Efficacy of Management, while Efficacy for Moral Leadership had a mean of 4.05 and Efficacy for Instructional Leadership had a mean of 4.07. Principals believed they could positively affect the outcomes of areas associated with instruction, achievement, learning environment, student behavior, and ethical behavior, but felt that some of the management responsibilities were outside their realm of control.

The results of the Cultural Influences Survey (CIS) indicated that the principals believed certain characteristics associated with Appalachian culture had an influence on the aspirations and achievement of students in their schools (see Tables 3 and 4). While ratings of these factors were generally positive, a few elicited higher percentages of negative perception. Concerning the influence of localism (defined as the tendency of Appalachian families to be committed to their land, resulting in families being reared, educated, and working in the same geographical region for several generations), 30.3% of the respondents saw this as a negative or strongly negative factor. Two other characteristics also were rated negatively by several of the principals: (1) historicism, defined as a tendency of individuals in Appalachia to see themselves as part of the family and region in which they were born and reared, was viewed as a negative or strongly negative factor by 20.3%, and (2) familism, a strong family commitment resulting in the maintenance of close family ties in geographical proximity and interpersonal relationships, was rated as negative or strongly negative by 20.8%. No other items received a negative or strongly negative rating by more than 20% of the principals. One question asked the principals if they believed the youth in their schools were like or unlike the average youth of America in their outlook and general approach to education, careers, and aspirations. Fifty-seven percent either found them somewhat or very much alike, but 35.5% saw Appalachian youth as different or very different from the average American youth. The item did not ask principals if being alike or different from other American youth was a positive or negative attribute. There was no relationship between their view of the youth of Appalachia and their responses on the PSE or CIS.

Principals believed that the faculty in their schools had a favorable view of their students’ capabilities of succeeding in school and life (96.2% agreed or strongly agreed). Another factor rated highly was the influence of the school community in promoting education and placing a high value on student success—82.3% agreed or strongly agreed with this premise. It is again important to note that these percentages represent principal perceptions and do not represent objective measures of the actual influence of any of the characteristics in the surveys.

The questions that were the focus of this study related to the relationship, if any, between the responses of principals to the CIS and to the PSE. Were any relationships found? In fact, there were some relationships, though all were in the weak to moderate range. The principals’ view of the influence of teachers’ attitudes, familism, and localism accounted for 45.7% of the variance in their perception of their ability to create a positive learning environment. Familism had a negative β value of -.238, indicating it diminished the principals’ perception of efficacy in this area (at the p< .05 level). Other relationships were found between teacher attitude and sense of efficacy to facilitate learning (p of .011 where p< .05), the ability to generate enthusiasm (p of .003, p <.01), the ability to handle time demands (p of .024, p < .05), the ability to promote a positive image (p of .000, p < . 001), the ability to promote values (p of .000, p<.001), the ability to shape policies and procedures (p. of .018, p <.05), and the ability to prioritize demands (p of .043, p < .05).

Localism was believed by principals to significantly correlate with promoting spirit (p of .008, p < .01) and the ability to raise achievement (p of .014, p < .05). Community attitude was related to the ability to motivate teachers (p of .001, p < .01), the ability to handle paperwork (p of .023, p < .05), and the ability to cope with stress (p of .003, p < .01). Both community attitude and historicism correlated with the ability to promote values, but were not the primary factors. The most significant regression model in percentage of influence found teacher attitude, community attitude, and historicism to predict 60.5% of the variance in the perceived ability to promote values (p of .024 , p < .05).

The multiple regression analyses suggest that the principals’ perceptions of localism, historicism, and familism had some influence on their sense of self-efficacy; however, the correlations were weak and offered no significant support, in the opinion of the researchers, of a substantial relationship between the principals’ perceptions of the influence of Appalachian cultural features and their sense of self-efficacy (Table 5).

No relationships were found between any of the demographic questions and responses to the PSE or CIS.

Based on the limited nature of this study and the data derived from it, the researchers cannot provide definitive answers to the research questions posed in the study. Despite some studies that suggest the role of the educator in Appalachia is greatly different from that in urban and more populous regions of the nation and research suggesting that rural educators face a myriad of challenges that educators in urban areas do not face, this study cannot confirm or deny such findings. The study provides some weak to moderate support to the belief that families and individuals in Appalachia have a deep sense of connection to the land, to the historical context of the region, and to families. However, the same may be true for many other regions of the country outside of Appalachia.

The current study may provide a basis or foundation for some additional and more comprehensive studies. Some possible approaches could include: (a) gathering data from other stakeholders in education (including teachers, students, parents, and others), (b) measuring the principals’ perceptions of self-efficacy and the influence of cultural factors against student test data and other measures of student achievement, (c) a qualitative approach that would include visits to schools, interviews, and the gathering of narrative data, (d) using other measures of self-efficacy and of perception of cultural influences, and (e) doing comparative studies between the various regions within Appalachia or with other sections of the country.

Finally, the researchers of this study are themselves natives of West Virginia who have close and affectionate ties to the state and to the larger Appalachian region. While there were no conscious biases in the study or the conclusions drawn from the data, there is no doubt in the minds of the researchers that the cultural features of the area are largely positive and, in conjunction with qualified and motivated educational leaders and teachers, provide a solid basis for preparing the youth of Appalachia with opportunities to succeed in school and in life.