Subnitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

CORRETATES OF INNOVATIVE ^BEHAVIOR

IN SCHOOI ADI'IINISTNAIION

coNSoRcIA GALANG Arrn{rR

'ffiVrOS

Subnitted

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements

for

a ^Doctor

of

Educatj-on degree

in

the Departnenb of Edugalronal Administratj-on

College oi- gaucetion*--- ** ^-

University of

the Phitippines System

l{arch, L979

lHoff nniiri ur,r vlnsrrr _{ir emRTl}

ABSIRACT

[his is

an i.n-depth

analytica]

and e>cplanatory

study

of the

correlates

of

innovati-ve behavior

in

school

adninistration.

The objectives

of this study,

embodied

in

the researeh hypotheses, sought

to identify the intrinsic or

personal varj-ables inherent

in the

school adminis-

trator

as an

individual,

and

the

extri-nsic school

variables in

which environment the

principal

operates and over which he has

praetically little or

no control.

In addition, this

study analyzed how

the

inno-

vating

and non-innovating groups

of

school admiriistra-

tors

^compared and

differed in

terms

of

ehange prcihe-

ness,

self-actualization

and leadership

in

the ^manage-

ment

of instructional

innovationso

Furthermore,

it

^ventured

to

explore

idegti- fiable cognitive, affective

and psychomotor chafac-

teristics or

conditj-ons which enhance

or

inpede the i-nplementation

of instructional

innovatiorrsr

lhe

venue

of this

study was

the Division

of

City

Schools, Manila

in

which 92 school adninistlators, 92 assistant

principals,

92 supervisors,

)2

^deBartment

headsr and 251 teachers selected by random sanpling

in

both elementary and secondary

levels

participated.

vt-LL

A paper-and-pencil guestionnaire ^was adninis-

tered..

^Form

I

was answered. by

principals,

Part A of whj-ch

elicited

personal information and datai

Part

^B

d.eternained the principalr

s

^change pronenessr

self- actualization

and leadership

in

the management of

instructional innovatlollso

Forn

II

whlcb contained onLy

Part

B

of

^Torm

I

was answered by the assistant

principals,

supervi-sorsr departuent ^{heads, and} selected teachers.

The chi-square

test

corrected

for

continuitYt

eoefficient of

contingencyr

sinple

analysis

of vari-

ance, F

ratior

^{Triedsan two-way} analysis

of

variance Kendall

coefficient of

concordance, product-uoment

correlation

and

t tests

were used whenever appro-

priate to

deternine

relationships

^and.

the

slgnificance

of

resul.ts.

Of

the

twenty independent variabJ.os tested, 11 were fou!.d

to

be

signifieantl-y related

tht the .O1

level to

fnnovative

behavior.

Of these ^eLeven

)

seven are $ersonal

variablesi 1)

inoome

2)

fathert ^s

education ,)

^residence

4)

chiLd.hood experience

>)

eclucatignal

attainment 5) fietrd of

Epecialization

?)

^{honors aF.d awards. The f,our school} vari.ables are

1)

enrolment

2)

resources

,) quality of stafft

^and

4)

superviggry assistancer

ur

Innovating and non-innovating

principals differ signifj"cantly in

^change pronenessf

in

self-actualj-za-

ticn,

and leadership

in

the managemeat

of

in*novatiorrso fhese were supported by the perceptions

of

principals themselves, by assistant

principals,

supervisorsr

d.epartment head,srand teacb.ers. ^However,

a

consistency

in

rankings

of

perceptions

is

apparent

with the

assis-

tant principals rating

the

principals

highest and the

supervisors

rating

then lowest.

fhe indicators of

innovative behavior ^whi-ch were rated

five points

maximum by more than 5V/o of the most and

least

innovating school adninistrators

and supervisors yielded

specific identj-fiable

cogni-

tive, affective

and psychomotor

characteristics

that

enhance

the

implementation

of instructional

innova-

tions"

These included l-4

traits of

change proneness, 11

attributes of self-actualization

and

ten

school

conditions

of

le,adershJ-p.

Actua1 observations and intervi-ews

of

the most and

least

innovating princj-pals showed that

there are 2J major

instructional

innovations actual]y

implemented

in

18

out of

²¹ schools administered ^by the most innovating

principals

whereag there are onLy

two major innovations found

in

two schools out

of

²⁷

administered by

the

leaet. innovatiug pri-ncipaIs.

This find.ing

further

confirmed.

the

^general obser- vatiorr

that

most innovating and

least

innovating

principals tnrly differ.

,

fhe findinge ln tbis

^{study have} educationaL

inplicatlons for policy,

^{research and practiee,}

particularly jn the

selection

of

administrators

for

sensitj-ve l-eadership posltions,

xa