International Journal of Education and Pedagogy (IJEAP) eISSN: 2682-8464 | Vol. 5 No. 1 [March 2023]
Journal website: http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijeap
TEACHERS' PERSPECTIVES ON THE LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY AMONG SCHOOL PANEL HEADS IN
PRIMARY TAMIL TRUST SCHOOL IN JOHOR BAHRU DISTRICT, JOHOR, MALAYSIA
Anitha Nadarajan1*, Periasamy Ramasamy2, Kanagarajan Pandiyan3 and Vasu Muniandy4
1 Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil, Ladang Kelan, Kulai, Johor Bahru, MALAYSIA
2 3 4 Institut Aminuddin Baki, Nilai, MALAYSIA
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Article Information:
Article history:
Received date : 14 January 2023 Revised date : 18 February 2023 Accepted date : 26 February 2023 Published date : 6 March 2023 To cite this document:
Nadarajan, A., Ramasamy, P.,
Pandiyan, K., & Muniandy, V. (2023).
TEACHERS' PERSPECTIVES ON THE LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY AMONG SCHOOL PANEL HEADS IN PRIMARY TAMIL TRUST SCHOOL IN JOHOR BAHRU DISTRICT, JOHOR, MALAYSIA.
International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(1), 48-55.
Abstract: This study’s main purpose is to find teachers' perspectives on the level of responsibility among panel heads’, who play an essential role in improving the level of panel management quality. The present study was performed with a quantitative method with a questionnaire was used involving a total of 48 respondents in this study. The quantitative part was a structured questionnaire whose validity was confirmed by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.81). Data were analysed descriptively using mean, percentage, and standard deviation. The results of this study show that the role of the panel heads in terms of responsibility is moderately high. However, there is a lack of awareness of the task aspect and sensitivity to the teacher's emotions. The study results show that the level of responsibility of the head of panels is moderately high (M=3.62, S.D.=0.33). The findings of this study indicate that the highest mean is the element of Giving Rules and Instructions to Teachers (M=4.46, S.D.=0.521) while the lowest mean is the element of Giving Recognition to Teachers' Success (M=2.61, S.D.=0.163). The conclusion from this study shows that the level of Responsibility among the panel heads is moderately high. The implication of the study states that all the elements contained in the responsibility need to be practised by the head panels.
Keywords: head panels, the level of responsibility, trust school, instructions, emotional.
1. Introduction
Head of Panels must understand the role and goals of leadership itself, in recognizing, understanding and carrying out their responsibilities as curriculum managers and leaders in schools more effectively. The head of panels also needs to understand that leadership is a process of influencing a person's behaviour to encourage them to work towards the achievement of the organisation's goals (Curriculum Development Centre, 2001). The head of the panels is also involved in every level of the task as a teacher, a team leader and a team member to implement a task following the direction of the institution (Duignan & MacPherson, 1992).
In the education context, leadership is seen as a process to influence others by using leadership characteristics within the leader himself (Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J., 2016). Leadership among teachers is not only limited to the top management of the school such as the Headmaster, and Senior Assistant Teachers but also involves teachers at the Panel Head level. The leadership of the panel heads in managing a panel is one of the important roles in ensuring that all the teachers' teaching and learning processes run smoothly in the administrative affairs of a school.
Problem Statement
The study by Samion, M., & Boon, Y. (2010); Ballard, et.al (2020) shows that the issue of work pressure among panel heads is a real issue and requires immediate remedial measures.
The duties of the panel heads are not a few and an easy matter. There is no doubt that the task of the panel heads is not only to pay attention as far as providing an efficient file system but also to plan a complex strategic plan, management of academic improvement and the implementation of teaching and learning at the same time (Haliza, 2013). Kwong, & Ashari, (2000) study shows that the effectiveness of panel management is by ensuring that the management and administrative tasks are carried out, and annual plans and projects are also carried out. Still, internal training is only sometimes or rarely done for panel heads. Daiman,
& Ashari, (2000) found that the school's number one leader and senior academic assistant play a dominant role in ensuring that the panel heads implement effective learning programs, but in terms of the implementation of teaching and learning activities, the panel leader plays the main role. Mamat, Daud & Yusof (2011) revealed that the level of practice of the panel heads’
management function is moderate. The conclusion that can be made is that the head of panels acknowledges the party that should play a big role but does not maximize the opportunities and authority available to them to overcome the various problems encountered in teaching and learning in schools.
Excellence in education cannot be achieved if school managers act alone. The role of the panel head team is essential to jointly plan, implement, manage and control all activities so that the school program is successful. Through teamwork in the organization, an action or decision can be made quickly (West, 2004). Past studies prove that a few panel heads still lack a teamwork culture even though the goals are shared. According to Mortimore (1996), schools must pay attention to the welfare of team members because each member is also a factor in the success of teamwork in an organization. Therefore, schools need to pay attention to the culture of teamwork. Schools need to pay attention to job satisfaction, performance and team members because these three elements are the result of teamwork (Robbins, 1994). To ensure that this
teamwork is at a high level, the school must identify the factors of teamwork that can give job satisfaction to panel heads.
Through this study, the problems identified can help explore the work pressure faced and the extent to which it can affect their level of work motivation. Based on the discussion above, this study wants to identify the responsibilities of the Panel Heads and the Trust School's management level in Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Purpose of The Study
The purpose of this study is to find out the level of responsibility among head panels in panel management at Primary Tamil Trust School in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Therefore, the research question is as follows:
What is the level of responsibility among panel heads in panel management of the Primary Tamil Trust School in Johor Bahru, Malaysia?
2. Methodology
This study uses a quantitative method to collect data and analyse it systematically and scientifically. The population of this study consists of 48 teachers. Determination of the sample size for this study using a table for the population size of 48 people (Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W., 1970). This study did not choose teachers randomly but used all respondents from the school as the study subjects. A set of questionnaires was administered to be distributed to the teachers. The instrument used for this study is divided into three parts which consist of 67 items. A pilot study was conducted to determine the appropriateness of the questionnaire used to obtain an analysis of the instrument's reliability. Cronbach's alpha value for the questionnaire in this pilot study shows 0.81 and is acceptable.
3. Findings
Table 1: Distribution of Frequency and Percentage According to the Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
Demography Category Frequency
(f)
Percentage (%)
Cumulative Value Gender
Age
Position
Length of service
Teaching experience
Highest academic qualification
Professional Qualifications
The working period under the leadership of the current panel heads
Male Female Below 30 years 31 – 35 years 36 – 40 years above 40 years Senior Assistant (Curriculum)
Senior Assistant (Student Affairs) Senior Assistant (Co-Curriculum) Panel of Head
Academic Teacher
< 2 years 2– 5 years 6 – 10 years
>10 years
< 5 years 6 – 10 years 11-20 years
>20 years SPM/MCE STPM/HSC Degree Masters
Certificate in Teaching Diploma in Teaching Diploma in Education Education Degree
< 1 year 1 year 2-4 years 5-9 years 10-15 years
>15 year
2 46
8 18 12 10 1 1 1 3 42 15 25 6 2 8 18 12 10 5 1 38
4 1 5 4 38
4 4 4 25
6 5
4.17 95.83 16.67 37.50 25.00 20.83 2.08 2.08 2.08 6.25 87.51 31.25 52.08 12.5 4.17 16.66 37.50 25.00 20.83 10.42 2.08 79.17
8.33 2.08 10.42
8.33 79.17
8.33 8.33 8.33 52.08 12.50 10.42
4.17 100.0 16.67 54.17 79.17 100.0 2.08 4.16 6.24
12.49 100.0 31.25 83.33 95.83 100 16.66 54.16 79.16 100 10.42 12.50 91.67 100 2.08 12.5 20.83
100 8.33 16.67 25.00 77.08 89.58 100
The findings of the study related to the distribution of respondents according to gender are shown in table 1. The findings show that the total number of study respondents is 48 people. A total of 2 (4.17 %) respondents were male and a total of 46 (95.83 %) respondents were female.
The findings also show that respondents in the age category of 31 to 35 years are 18 (37.50%) people the highest group who answered the questionnaire, while the lowest group below 30 years involved 8 (16.67%) people. As for the positions held, the majority of respondents who participated in this study consisted of 42 (87.51%) academic teachers, while the rest held the position of Curriculum Senior Assistant 1 (2.08%), Student Affairs Senior Assistant 1 (2.08%) and Co-Curriculum Senior Assistant 1 (2.08%). A total of 25 (52.08%) respondents from groups with 2 to 5 years are the highest working experience, while 2 (4.17%) have less working experience.
The researcher used descriptive statistical analysis by using mean scores and standard deviations is appropriate to obtain more extensive and comprehensive, detailed and accurate information to answer the research questions. The researcher used the mean score and the interpretation as suggested by Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) is below:
Table 2: Mean Score Interpretation Table Mean Score Mean Score Interpretation 1.00 - 2.00 Low
2.01 - 3.00 3.01 - 4.00 4.01 - 5.00
Moderately Low Moderately High High
Source: Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed, 1994 (Nunally & Berstein, 1994)
Table 3: The Mean of the Elements in the Panel Heads Responsibilities Variable No Dimension/Responsibilities variable Mean Standard
Deviation
Level A1
A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
Give instructions to the teacher
Provide a detailed explanation of the teacher's duties Ensure teachers are responsible for tasks
Giving recognition to the success of teachers Give hierarchical priority to the assignment of tasks Explain the goal in
detail Manage Teaching and Learning without problems
Assign tasks by field
Take into account the teacher's welfare Take into account the teacher's feelings
4.46 4.16 4.18 2.61 3.34 3.41 3.21 4.21 3.01 3.65
0.521 0.615 0.629 0.601 0.751 0.534 0.677 0.818 0.614 0.812
High High High
Moderately Low Moderately High Moderately High Moderately High High
Moderately High Moderately High
Mean Overall 3.62 0.657 Moderately High
Max mean = 4.46 (A1), Lowest mean = 2.61 (A4), Overall mean 3.62
Based on table 3, the research findings show that the mean value for Dimension A:
Responsibility. Findings show that the Head Panels give rules and regulations to teachers with work conditions set with (M= 4.46, S.D = 0.521) high. The feedback received shows that the Head Panels has given a detailed explanation of the teacher's duties in the field of the panel with (M =4.16, S.D = 0.615) high. The next finding found that the head panels ensure that teachers are responsible for their tasks (M=4.18, S.D =0.629) was also recorded high. Findings for the head panels giving recognition to the teacher's success, however, received an unenthusiastic response (M= 2.61, S.D = 0.601) which is at a moderately low level. Findings for the Head Panels giving hierarchical priority to task assignment recorded (M=3.34, S.D =
0.751) were moderately high. The study also found that the dimension level of explaining goals in detail noted (M= 3.41, S.D = 0.534) was at a moderately high level. While managing teaching and learning without problems recording (M=3.21, S.D = 0.677) is also at a moderately high level. Findings for the head panels to set tasks by field (M=4.21, S.D = 0.818) are also high. Taking into account the teacher's welfare (M= 3.01, S.D = 0.614) is moderately high and taking into account the teacher's feelings (M=3.65, S.D = 0.812) is also moderately high.
Overall, the mean value for the Responsibility variable is 3.62. So, it can be concluded that the teachers agree that the responsibility of head panels is at a moderate to a high level. Therefore, it can be concluded that although the head panels have a high sense of responsibility for his/her work and the work of the teachers under them. But he/she is less successful in giving recognition to teachers who show excellent performance and follow their instructions well.
4. Discussion
This section will discuss the results of the research that has been obtained and then answer the research question which is;
"What is the level of responsibility of the head panels in the management of the Primary Tamil Trust School in the Johor Bahru District?"
Based on the opinion of Mintzberg (1983) quoted in Wexley and Lathan (1988), a manager has several main tasks which include aspects of planning, organizing, coordinating and also controlling a resource. Apart from that, managers also need to play their responsibilities from the aspect of responsibility and professional commitment as explained in Drucker's study (1968) who has given the opinion that the task for a manager also involves aspects of motivation, communication and also aspects of human development. Therefore, every essential task for this management needs to be known in advance to produce effective management.
The results of the analysis conducted have shown that the overall mean value recorded for the dimension of responsibility is 3.62 which is a moderately high level. Based on this mean value, it can be concluded that the level of responsibility of the head panel is at a good level. This finding also proves that respondents including Co-Curriculum Senior Assistant, Curriculum Senior Assistant, Student Affairs Senior Assistant and academic teachers acknowledge the level of responsibility of the panel heads to the school and teachers under his supervision even though there is a lack of responsibility in the aspect of assigning tasks.
The results of the study for this dimension also coincide with the specialized circular letter issued by the Malaysian Ministry of Education in 1986 which states that the Head of Panels can still ensure the smooth division of duties among the teachers of the panel under his supervision and this includes maintaining and managing his duties and supervised teachers as well as prepare a new syllabus for the new teaching term. This is agreed by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees which states that there is continuity between the Head of Panels who are responsible for the smooth management and division of duties in the school.
5. Summary
The responsibility of head panels is basically to determine how smoothly the teachers teach in their respective subjects by taking into account the success of the students. Overall, the findings of this study also found that respondents gave ratings at a medium-high level for the dimension of responsibility and this can be used as a benchmark for the smoothness of the tasks and responsibilities of panel teachers under the supervision of a good Head Panel to achieve school excellence.
References
Ahmad Shukri Mohd Nain. (2002). Tingkah Laku organisasi: Pengenalan Tingkah Laku Individu. Skudai: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 252 – 262
Ballard, D., Allen, B., Ashcraft, K., Ganesh, S., McLeod, P., & Zoller, H. (2020). When words do not matter: Identifying actions to effect diversity, equity, and inclusion in the academy.
Management Communication Quarterly, 34(4), 590-616.
Daiman, M., & Ashari, A. (2000). Pengurusan Panitia Bi Dan Kaitannya Dengan Prestasi Akademik Sek (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
Duignan, P. A., & MacPherson, R. J. (1992). Educative Leadership: A Practical Theory for New Administrators and Managers. Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis, Inc., 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007.
Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice:
Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in education, 30(4), 141-146.
Halik, A., Hanafie Das, S. W., Dangnga, M. S., Rady, M., Aswad, M., & Nasir, M.
(2019). Empowerment of School Committee in Improving Education Service Quality at Public Primary School in Parepare City. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(9), 1956-1963.
Keung, C., Cheung, A., Mak, B., & Tam, W. (2021). Examining the role of professional development initiatives from the perspectives of Key Learning Area Coordinators and Subject Heads: A mediation analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101829.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Kwong, S. W., & Ashari, A. (2000). Tinjauan Terhadap Keberkesanan Pengurusan Panitia Bi Dan Kaitannya Dengan Pencapaian Prestasi Bi Di Sek-sek. Men. Di Sabah (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
Mamat, Daud and Boon, Yusof (2011). Amalan Pengurusan Ketua Panitia Pendidikan Islam di Sekolah Rendah Zon Nusajaya. Masters thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.Mohd. Najib Abdul Ghafar. (2003). Reka bentuk tinjaun soal selidik pendidikan.
Skudai: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. R. (1994) Psychometric theory. (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford Univer. Press.
Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (1996). Neurobehavioural mechanisms of reward and motivation. Current opinion in neurobiology, 6(2), 228-236.
Samion, M., & Boon, Y. (2010). Kepuasan Kerja Dalam Kalangan Ketua Panitia pendidikan Islam Sekolah Kebangsaan Negeri Johor (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
Tuckman, B. W. (1988). The scaling of mood. Educational and psychological measurement, 48(2), 419-427.
West, D. M. (2004). E‐government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public administration review, 64(1), 15-27.
