An Exploratory Study of the Academic Optimism of Principals Dissertation

An Exploratory Study of the Academic Optimism of Principals

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Amy Schrepfer-Tarter, M.A.

Graduate Program in Education: Policy and Leadership

The Ohio State University

2013

Dissertation Committee:

Wayne K. Hoy, Advisor

Anika Anthony

Scott Sweetland

Amy Schrepfer-Tarter

2013

Abstract

Academic optimism of the principal is a construct comprised of trust in teachers, self-efficacy of the principal, and principal’s academic emphasis. Academic optimism has been demonstrated at both the organizational and teacher levels, but research concerning principal’s academic optimism is only beginning to be explored.

The current inquiry began with a pilot study to develop a usable measure of academic optimism of principals. The pilot study resulted in a preliminary measure, which was further refined to create the scale used in this analysis.

Both the validity and predictors of the construct and the scale were examined in this study to confirm the components of academic optimism of the principal. Then the focus shifted to examining what positive predictors contribute to forming principal’s academic optimism. The measure of academic optimism of principals was refined and tested on a national sample of 158 principals. Five predictor variables were examined: dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, grit, zest, and explanatory style. These variables had a strong basis of research in the positive psychology literature and had strong theoretical implications for academic optimism of principals. Of the predictor variables, grit, zest, and explanatory style were found to be significant predictors of principal’s academic optimism.

Dedication

Dedicated to my parents and my students. . Vobis nunc et in perpetuum gratias ago.

iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank Wayne K. Hoy for his in-depth mentorship and guidance. Thanks also go to Anita Woolfolk Hoy for her extensive editing and unending kindness. The field of education is profoundly better because of both of you.

I would not be writing this today without the unwavering love and support of my parents, Susan Schrepfer and John Tarter. I am who I am today because of you and I will never be able to express my pride and joy in being your daughter. Thank you for your patience and editing, and for taking my calls every day, no matter what.

There are many in the profession who have helped me get here. I owe incredible gratitude to Roger Goddard, Patrick B. Forsyth, Curt Adams, Jordan Ware, and Ellen Dollarhide for their assistance with the pilot study. Additionally, thanks to

Page Smith, Michael DiPaola, Quint Gage, Angela Nelson, Tim Cybulski, John

McIntyre, and Michael Jette for their assistance in sampling. Thanks also to Scott

Sweetland and Anika Anthony for their help and support.

Lastly, thank you to my amazing friends, editors, and supports, Lauren

Bailes, Kristine Kazarian, Michael Williams, Ashley Horn, Marjorie Dorime-

Williams, Abigail Crawford, Annmarie Sabovick, Kevin Courchine, and Maureen

Greulich. I am forever indebted to all of you and with each of you I share a piece of this joy.

Vita

June 2000 ………………Highland Park High School

2004…………….……….B.A. Classical Studies, University of California, Santa

Cruz

2007……………………..M.A. Classical Philology, University of Arizona

Publications

Bailes, L. and Schrepfer-Tarter, A. (2012). Maximizing the power of decision

making: Ten useful concepts for school leaders. In M. DiPaola and P. Forsyth

(Eds)., Contemporary challenges facing school leaders: Research and theory

in educational administration, (pp. 175-191). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education: Policy and Leadership

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………...………...... ii

Dedication…………………………………………………………....…..iii

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………iv

Vita……………………………………………………………………….v

List of Tables…………………………………………………………….vii

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………….….1

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………………..12

Chapter 3: Research Methodology………………………………………52

Chapter 4: The Current Study……………………………………………81

Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings……………………………………….99

References………………………………………………………………..117

Appendix A: Final Questionnaire………………………………………..130

List of Tables

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample…………………..….54

Table 2. Dispositional Optimism Measure………………………………...56

Table 3. Satisfaction with Life Scale………………………………...... 57

Table 4. Grit Scale………………………………...……………………….58

Table 5. Explanatory Style Pilot Items………………………………...... 64

Table 6. Refined Scale of Explanatory Style of Principals………………..66

Table 7. Pilot Measure of Trust in Teachers………………………………67

Table 8. Refined Measure of Trust in Teachers.…………………………..68

Table 9. Deleted Self-Efficacy Items………………………………...... 70

Table 10. Pilot Measures of Principal Self-Efficacy………………………71

Table 11. Refined Measure of Principal Self-Efficacy………………….…72

Table 12. Pilot Measure of Academic Emphasis of the Principal………....73

Table 13. Refined Measure of Academic Emphasis of the Principal….….74

Table 14. Number of Items and Reliability Summary of Scales………..…78

Table 15. Factor Loadings of the Nine Best Items of Academic Optimism of the

Principal………………………………...………………………………...81

Table 16. Summary Data and Analysis of Variance for the Relationship between

Academic Optimism of Principals and Setting…………………………..84

vii

Table 17. Summary Data and Analysis of Variance for the Relationship between

Academic Optimism of Principals and Level of Education……………………85

Table 18. Summary of the relationships between demographic variables and academic optimism of the principal……………………………………………88

Table 19. Alpha Coefficients for Current and Previous Samples………………90

Table 20. Summary of Variable Descriptives………………………………….91

Table 21. Correlation Matrix…………………………..………………………91

Table 22. Multiple Predictors of Academic Optimism of the Principal……….94

Table 23. Multiple Predictors of Principal Trust in Teachers…………………95

Table 24. Multiple Predictors of Self-Efficacy of the Principal……………….96

Table 25. Multiple Predictors of Academic Emphasis of the Principal……….97

Table 26. Regression Model for Academic Optimism of Principals…………..98

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Overview

This study examined administrator level psychological variables and their relationship to the construct academic optimism. First, an exploratory factor analysis tested the new measure for principal academic optimism and confirmed the existence of the variable at the principal level. The second component examined possible psychological variables that contribute to academic optimism. Chapter One provides background for the study, along with the purpose and proposed implications of a successful result. The chapter also outlines preliminary definitions of the concepts involved in the analysis, though Chapter Two elaborates a great deal more on the meaning, measure, and history of the concepts, and culminates with the proposed research questions and a short description of the scope and limitations of the study.

Background

Educational research tends to focus on the dysfunctional parts of schools, using phrases such as drop out, failing schools, lack of accountability, and resistance to change to describe, quantify, and remedy the ills plaguing schools. However, the singular focus on dysfunction has not led to major improvements in schools, as

many of the problems of today seem very much like those of 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

Studying dysfunction in schools is not the point of this study.

Overview of Positive Psychology

Positive psychology changes the focus of theory and research from dysfunction and moves it towards a concept called well-being. Well-being is what makes people, and perhaps by extension organizations, flourish using their current strengths. Using variables such as hope, zest, vigor, and grit (to name just a few), positive psychology looks to quantify, through rigorous scientific method and experimental research, what characteristics help people thrive and how positive interventions can increase thriving. Much of the early research comes out of the

University of Pennsylvania and the work of Martin E.P. Seligman, although he claims that the real impetus for this line of inquiry dates back to the 5th century B.C., with the works of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, and the ancient concept of eudaemonia (Seligman, 2011).

Seligman helped to spearhead the study of well-being during his tenure as the President of the American Psychological Association. He called for an increase in study on what traits make life worth living and then separates the traits into a number of different types of lives. Seligman and Czsikszentmihalyi (2000) describe these lives as the pleasurable life, which comes from the satisfaction of needs, such as hunger, thirst, and comfort, versus the enjoyable life, which comes from things that people accomplish when they go beyond just satisfying needs, such as intellectual pursuits, career ambition, athletic undertakings, and charity works. They 2

contend that the purpose of positive psychology is to help create a matrix, which would “describe…what talents under what enabling conditions lead to what kind of outcomes” (p. 12). The quote nicely sums up one of the goals of this study; to determine what traits in certain administrators lead to the enabling condition of academic optimism, which might lead to an increase in student achievement.

Though demonstrating that is a long way off, this inquiry hopes to lay the groundwork for future endeavors in developing a matrix of this sort in educational administration.

In discussing positive psychology, it is important to note what positive psychology is not. Positive psychology is not pop psychology. Positive psychology does not contend that if you just smile more, think more happy thoughts, and pretend that life is great you will live longer or be more successful. Some critics, such as Barbara Ehrenreich, who lambasts positive psychology in her 2009 book

Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined

America, question the value of positive psychology. Ehrenreich claims that measuring happiness or well-being is impossible and that much of the correlation between optimism and success has to do with peoples’ and corporations’ biases against pessimistic people. Despite the rigorous scientific method employed by psychologists studying flourishing, Ehrenreich contends that they go against endorsing that same method when they tell people to “just be optimistic.” An example that she routinely cites, both in this book and in other works is that if you

are hit by a truck, you will still die, no matter how optimistic you are. Optimistic people, she argues, aren’t invincible.

But Seligman, Peterson, Duckworth, and others believe that Ehrenreich and other critics of positive psychology are missing the point entirely. Seligman (2011) addresses these criticisms by clarifying that optimism, as well as other traits, nurture success and well-being. The traits do not make one immortal, immune to failure or sadness, or a perfect person. Additionally, Seligman states that people who hold views like Ehrenreich’s fundamentally do not understand what positive psychology is trying to achieve. The point is not to stop one from dying. The point is to make one’s time on earth more enjoyable, more productive, and more fruitful.

Academic Optimism

Academic optimism is a variable that helps schools flourish. The literature review in Chapter Two cites a number of studies demonstrating this assertion. The construct is robust, with cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, and has been shown to be linked with student achievement, even after controlling for the effects of socioeconomic status, which is associated with much of the variance in achievement. There is very little that schools, teachers, and administrators can do to improve their students’ socioeconomic status. But are there things that they can do, or virtues that they can cultivate in their faculty, that can create academic optimism?

The purpose of this study is to look at what characteristics, as identified in the positive psychology literature, are related to high levels of academic optimism for principals. The study treats academic optimism as a type of organizational 4

flourishing, and as such, tests variables from positive psychology that create individual level flourishing.

Purpose and Significance

There are two central purposes for this study. The first is to develop and test a measure of principal academic optimism and to validate that the variable academic optimism is present at the principal level. This will be done as an exploratory analysis, based on previous inquiries that have not been successful, or have been successful in measuring one aspect of principal academic optimism. The second is to examine five possible individual level psychological variables as predictors of academic optimism at the principal level. These five predictors were selected because they have been shown to encourage well-being at the individual level.

However, behind both of those, there is a third purpose for this study.

Educational administration should move away from examining only the bad in schools, in teachers, and in school leaders. The field should move toward what Hoy

& Tarter (2011) call an optimistic research agenda, focused on what is working in schools and the study of traits that cause schools to flourish. They state that the agenda should be part of a shift towards developing a stable knowledge base in educational administration, to resist the passing waves of fads and to deliver rigorously tested empirical research to schools and school leaders. This study aims to be a part of that new agenda, focusing on characteristics of principals that correlate to principal level academic optimism.

If the measure of principal academic optimism developed for this study demonstrates that the variable exists at the principal level and can be assessed reliably, then the measure has far reaching implications. The first, and one of the most important, would be to link principal level academic optimism to an increase in student achievement across all groups. If the theory is supported then more earnest research could turn towards the factors that foster academic optimism in principals, as well as schools.

Research continues to emerge from positive psychology focusing on students, particularly in higher education (Peterson & Barrett, 1987; Seligman,

2011). There are very few studies that look at teachers and other school leaders.

However this new direction could lead to better training for pre-service teachers and administrators, with an increased focus on cultivating the character strengths and virtues that nurture academic optimism and, by extension, student achievement.

Concepts Defined

Positive Psychology: The movement, brought to the forefront by Martin

Seligman during his time as President of the American Psychological Association, focuses on the traits that make people and organizations flourish. The focus of the research is a shift away from the study of illnesses and dysfunctions of the mind and towards positive psychological traits that contribute to well-being (Seligman &

Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

Flourishing: Flourishing is defined by Seligman (2011) as increasing well- being, through “happiness, flow, meaning, love, gratitude, accomplishment, growth,

(and) better relationships” (p. 2).

Trait versus State: Though some have argued that the difference between these two is insignificant (Allen & Potkay, 1981), Fridhandler (1986) contends that they are in fact different, outlining that states are generally thought to be short term and easily altered, while traits are ingrained, longer lasting, and harder to change.

Fridhandler also suggests that states are outwardly present during their entire presence, whereas traits may only show themselves sometimes, in certain situations.

Grit: Duckworth and Peterson (2007) describe grit as “working strenuously towards challenges, maintaining over years despite failure, adversity and plateaus in progress” (p. 1087). Gritty people keep focused on goals over long periods of time, even without positive feedback. There are three components of grit; perseverance, self-discipline, and resilience (Seligman, 2011).

Explanatory Style: This cognitive variable is described by Peterson and

Seligman (1984) as the ways in which people interpret and explain bad things that happen to them. It has three dimensions; globality, externality, and stability.

Globality refers to how many facets of an individual’s life the bad outcome pertains to. Externality shows how personal an outcome is; whether it is the fault of the individual or can be attributed to some outside force. Stability covers whether the outcome is permanent or transitory (Peterson, 1991).

Dispositional Optimism: Dispositional optimism is the general tendency of an individual to believe that he or she will experience more good than bad life outcomes (Scheier & Carver, 1985).

Life Satisfaction: More cognitive than temporary or driven by emotions, life satisfaction refers to an individual’s overall belief that his or her life is purposeful and fulfilling. It is intended to measure global life satisfaction, without regard to transient happiness or sadness. (Peterson, Park, Hall, & Seligman, 2009).

Zest: Zest is also described as energy, vigor, or exuberance for life. It is a sense of being alive and excited about life. Individuals with zest engage fully in life and are energized about what each day brings. (Peterson, Park, Hall, & Seligman,

2009).

Academic Optimism: The latent construct is made up of three concepts; trust, academic emphasis, and efficacy. Together they represent affective, behavior, and cognitive components. Each one is individually important to student or organizational success, but when taken together, they form a more powerful construct.

Trust: Trust refers to the state “in which people or groups find themselves vulnerable to others under conditions of risk and interdependence” (Forsyth, Adams,

& Hoy, 2011, p. 18). The condition of interdependence requires that one believe the trusted party will act with kindness and in the best interest of a shared good.

Trust is made up of five components; openness, benevolence, competence, reliability, and honesty. Openness is defined as an individual’s willingness to be 8

transparent in his or her plans and to share relevant information. Benevolence is a general feeling that an individual has good will towards the group and, as a result, will protect group interests. Competence is an ability to accomplish the tasks that are part of an individual’s job using a specific skill set. Reliability is the amount that others can depend on an individual to complete a given task that he or she has agreed to. Honesty is an expectation that what someone says is truthful and that it is an accurate indication of the state of affairs (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011).

Three types of trust are most important in schools at the principal level.

These are trust in parents, trust in faculty, and trust in students (Hoy, Tarter, &

Kottkamp, 1991). This study will use trust in parents and trust in faculty. Trust is the affective variable.

Academic Emphasis: Academic emphasis is the drive of a school to excel academically, using high, but achievable, goals and authentic celebrations of success

(Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991). Academic emphasis is the behavioral component of academic optimism.

Efficacy: Self-efficacy is an individual’s perception of his or her ability to accomplish a specific task (Bandura, 1997). It is important to note that this is task specific and is not intended to cover overall confidence. This is the cognitive component of academic optimism. Collective efficacy is the belief of a group that together the members of the group can successfully perform a specific task or tasks.

This study will focus on principal self-efficacy.

Research Questions

1. Does the theory of academic optimism that has been applied to teachers

and schools also apply to principals?

2. Do efficacy, trust, and academic emphasis of the principal form a

construct that can be measured with reliability?

3. What psychological traits predict principal academic optimism?

4. To what extent is grit related to principal academic optimism?

5. To what degree is dispositional optimism related to principal academic

optimism?

6. To what degree is explanatory style related to principal academic

optimism?

7. Is principal academic optimism related to life satisfaction?

8. To what extent is zest related to principal academic optimism?

9. Do the previous set of psychological traits together as well as

independently predict principal academic optimism?

Scope and Limitations

This study focuses on 158 secondary school principals from across the country. Principals were gathered informally, through professional networks and university connections. Some were also be obtained through state department of education list-serves.

There are a number of limitations of this study. Because a number of the measures being used are nascent, more validation may be needed, before the 10

measures are perfected. This limits the generalizability of the study. Lastly, because principals were not be chosen truly at random, self-selection was a big problem and may have led to results that yielded higher levels of academic optimism than are the norm across the field. Principals who suspect that they will not score well on psychological or professional measures might be less likely to opt into a study like this, which could have skewed the results.

Summary

This chapter outlined the proposed study on the measure of academic optimism of principals and the psychological characteristics that may contribute to principal academic optimism. The psychological characteristics used in the study come out of the literature on positive psychology, which focuses on nurturing well- being through strengths, rather than on dysfunction and correction of maladies. The increase in well-being, as brought about by a focus on strengths and an increase in known positive traits, is referred to as flourishing (Seligman, 2011). All of the constructs used in this study have been linked to flourishing in the literature already, so this study looks to combine them into a more powerful model of well-being for schools.

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Introduction

The goal of this chapter was to provide a history of the research on grit, life and work satisfaction, zest, dispositional optimism, explanatory style, and academic optimism, which are the variables that are the basis for my study. The chapter also gave a brief history of the Positive Psychology movement, which is the overarching discipline from which these constructs trace their roots. Grit, life satisfaction, zest, dispositional optimism, and explanatory style come directly from the researchers who pioneered the movement, while academic optimism comes from the work of educational administration researchers who claim the movement as an inspiration.

The current study focused on the construct of academic optimism of principals and its predictors. There was little research about the antecedents of academic optimism: thus the objective of this inquiry is not only to demonstrate viability of the construct of academic optimism of principals but also to identify the underlying factors that predict and explain such optimism

Brief Overview of Positive Psychology

Positive Psychology in Theory

The Positive Psychology movement began in 1998 as the brainchild of Dr.

Martin Seligman as an initiative during his time as the President of the American

Psychological Association. Peterson and Park (2003) stated that the reason for this initiative was “the premise that psychology since World War II has joined forces with psychiatry and focused much of its efforts on human problems and how to remedy them” (p. 143). Positive Psychology looks instead at questions of what makes life worth living. Gillham and Seligman (1999) stated that this was not an entirely new idea, as both Maslow and Rogers had argued that “psychology ignored what was most important about being human, creativity, love, joy and our capacity for growth” (p. S163). Positive psychology pays homage to a number of different areas of research and philosophy, from Aristotle to modern humanism.

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) argued that for too long psychology focused just on disorders of the mind, which affect only a small number of people, without looking at all mental characteristics that apply to a broader segment of the population. The movement was a departure from, as Seligman (2004) writes, “the traditional subject matter of psychology: mental disorders, developmental stunting, troubled lives, violence, criminality, prejudice, trauma, anger, depression, and therapy” (p. 80). Seligman and others in the movement instead focused on the concept of well-being, which they hoped would lead people towards happier, more productive, more full-filling lives. 13

Peterson and Park (2003) cautioned that the term “positive psychology” did not mean that everything that was done before was negative psychology. This is not the case. The name comes from the fact that “human goodness and excellence are as authentic as disease, disorder, and distress” (p. 144). Positive characteristics, or characteristics that make life better and increase flourishing, are the core of positive psychology. However, Gillham and Seligman (1999) do find some fault in what they term negative psychology because they assert that it has skewed the theoretical research and left very little research about how to make life better beyond curing and treating pathology.

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) charged that their goal in pursuing positive psychology is to “allow psychologists to understand and build those factors that allow individuals, communities, and societies to flourish” (p. 13). Out of this quest for well-being come a number of different concepts, including flow, life satisfaction, gratitude, signature strengths, positive emotion, positive relationships, meaning, grit, explanatory style, and others (for a review of these concepts, see

Seligman, 2011).

Positive Psychology in Education

Seligman, Reivich, Ernst, Gillham, and Linkins (2009) saw a particular need for positive education, using such concepts as grit, zest, and explanatory style. The reason for this is two-fold. One is that, according to a Cohen’s 2006 article, there exists an expectation among parents that schools should provide some sort of character and well-being education. The second is that Seligman et al. believed that 14

“well-being programmes can: 1) promote skills and strengths that are valued by most, and perhaps all, parents; 2) produce measurable improvements in students’ well-being and behavior; and 3) facilitate students’ engagement in learning and achievement” (p. 295). They argued that school is a good time for this “because most young people attend school, schools provide the opportunity to reach them and enhance their well-being on a wide scale” (p. 295). The ties connecting achievement, well-being, and positive psychology are essential for the field of teacher education. If higher well-being promotes higher achievement, then students need to be taught the skills of well-being. It stands to reason then that teachers and administrators must have these skills in order to impart them to the students.

Seligman (2011) stated that positive education is important in the schools for three good reasons. One is the prevalence of depression among teenagers, which he contended could not just be due to an increase in higher levels of awareness of mental illness, since the data comes from sources that do not use words like depression or other explicit mentions of mental illness. The second is the lack of an increase in happiness in the general population over the last 40 years. This is of concern because while happiness has stayed static, most factors in society, such as wealth, health, housing, and entertainment, have increased. The third reason is that well-being, as taught by positive psychology, increases learning. Well-being leads to

“broader attention, more creative thinking, and more holistic thinking” (p. 79). As these are skills that more schools are adding to their mission statements, it seems

that Seligman is correct in his assessment of the need for positive psychology and well-being instruction in schools.

One way that positive psychology seeks to bring increased levels of well- being into schools is with programs such as the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP), as outlined in Seligman (2011). The PRP is designed to combat depression in adolescents by developing their resilience and ability to deal with symptoms of depression. PRP focuses on building problem solving skills for adolescents dealing with social, behavioral, and cognitive dilemmas and decisions. It is based on the model set forth by Ellis of Adversity-Consequences-Beliefs, which states that beliefs about reasons for events change their impact on feelings and behavior. The curriculum is presented through group-leader led lessons, in which students learn about and then practice skills relating to resilience, decision-making, negotiation strategies, assertiveness, relation, and relationships with family, peers, and teachers.

Though often graduate students, psychologists, or counselors are used, teachers are also involved, either as group leaders or facilitators because of their close relationships with their students and their ability to bolster the curriculum with daily reminders and follow-up.

A meta-analytic review by Brunwasser, Gillham, and Kim (2009) examined

22 studies of the effectiveness of the PRP to determine whether the program was worth devoting funding to at the K-12 school level, in juvenile detention centers, and in live in therapy. Though the results were mixed, PRP did not do worse than other programs. Unfortunately the research suffered from many problems common 16

to research using children, such as small sample sizes, limited control group information, difficulty measuring effect size, and little to no follow up longitudinally. Because of this, they concluded that more research was needed, but that small improvements may be worth the cost given the subject matter of adolescent depression and the lack of other programs that address this problem.

Perhaps, the researchers contend, PRP is best when used in conjunction with other interventions, something that most in education would argue is a logical conclusion.

In addition, the review of the study had notable limitations in their review, including a “lack of statistical power to evaluate moderators and diagnostic outcomes reliably…[and]…insufficient data to examine the theoretical model of change” (p.

1052).

Keeping in mind the limitations of the current data, Seligman (2011) still argued very strongly about the efficacy of the program. He tested the PRP program through a $2.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education, using 347 ninth graders. Half of the classes used a modified PRP curriculum and half did not.

The students, parents, and teachers participated in surveys before and after the program and then again two years afterwards. The teachers surveyed did not know which students were getting the PRP curriculum and which were not. The findings suggested that students enjoyed school more, had improved levels of curiosity, love of learning, and creativity. There were also lower levels of misconduct and higher levels of student engagement in the PRP. Seligman contended that the results were evidence of higher levels of well-being. 17

Well-being relates to the current study because it serves as a justification for why positive psychology has a place in the schools and in the study of academic optimism in general. School administrators must themselves have positive well- being in order to impart this to their school, so it is worth studying the levels of the characteristics of this discipline and determining their relationship to school outcomes.

Hoy and Tarter (2011) contended that the study of positive psychology in educational administration will “bring coherence, focus, discovery, integration, and innovation” (p. 434) to the field of educational administration. They called for a research agenda that focuses on promoting well-being in educational administration.

Additionally, Hoy and Tarter stated that finding antecedents to academic optimism is important because of the link between academic optimism and achievement.

Because increasing student achievement is the paramount concern of schools right now, it seems that this is a fitting time for this study to be taking place.

Criticism of Positive Psychology

One of the loudest critics of positive psychology has been Barbara

Ehrenreich. Ehrenreich has contended, in books such as Smile or Die: How Positive

Thinking Has Fooled America and the World (2010) and Bright-Sided: How the

Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America (2009), that positive thinking has become a tyrant, attempting to convince people that they will live longer, be healthier, and more productive if they simply think more positive thoughts. For her 2009 book, Ehrenreich interviewed Martin Seligman, to discuss 18

her criticisms of positive psychology, after Seligman’s book Authentic Happiness was released in 2002. She described the interview as a disjointed experience, traipsing from museum to office to outside, in which Seligman repeatedly tried to distract her from asking analytical questions.

However, there are a number of flaws in Ehrenreich’s arguments. The largest of these is that she repeatedly conflates the theories of pop psychology with the research of positive psychology. Throughout her description of the interview, she repeatedly refers to theories about mind over matter and at one point states categorically that the purpose of positive psychology is to prove to people that optimists do better with respect to health and life success. This misunderstanding of the movement’s purpose takes away credibility from Ehrenreich’s arguments against positive psychology. Furthermore, the rest of her criticism rests mainly on ad hominem attacks on Seligman, rather than on a strong research agenda.

Nevertheless, her criticism is important to note, in that concerns are periodically raised about the research coming out of positive psychology.

Martin (2007) also raised questions about the premise of positive psychology. Martin’s criticisms stemmed from his rejection of the basic tenant of positive psychology. He stated that he “contests the soundness of the premise that disciplinary psychology has been preoccupied with negative functioning and pathology” (p. 307). Rather, he contends that disciplinary psychology focused on removing dysfunction and helping people focus on positive sectors of their lives, in which to engage. Martin also suggested that perhaps positive psychology neglected 19

to factor in cultural and social factors, which might influence an individual’s perceptions of optimism and positive emotion. By treating humans like individual islands, Martin posited, positive psychology nurtured egocentrism more than an interwoven view of community.

Miller (2008) offered another view. Miller stated that Seligman’s interventions might work in certain situations, but that overall, the creation and maintenance of happiness is too much dependent on outside factors, circumstances, and culture. He wondered whether it was possible that “positive psychology offers a substitute recipe for success, achievement, and happiness that ultimately has no substance at all” (p. 606). At best, it may be just descriptive. At worst, it may be detrimental, telling those who are unhappy with their circumstances that they are doomed to failure in all areas of their lives, given the premise of the interconnectedness of positive emotion, success, and good health.

Lastly, Kristjansson (2012) questioned whether positive psychology was just a rebottling of old ideas, with a new label. Using the lens of education psychology,

Kristjansson contended that positive psychology uses many theories and ideas that educational psychologists have been using for years. He stated the researchers in positive psychology have failed to show empirically tested programs that work in schools and that the data they do have is shaky at best. Also, Kristjansson noted that many constructs in positive psychology, such as resiliency, are not new to the movement, but rather that the movement just claims to have found a way to implement them in schools. However, he didn’t see compelling evidence of that in 20

his studies. He also agreed with Martin’s claims, that many sectors of psychology, including educational psychology, have long focused on the positive in students and education, and that to say otherwise is “not fair to existing psychologies of education” (p. 102). Examples that he cited include mindful meditation and cognitive behavioral therapy.

There were two reasons not to be persuaded by the criticisms outlined above.

One was that too often critics conflate pop psychology with positive psychology, making it into one “don’t worry, be happy” idea. But in readings actual positive psychology literature, it was obvious that the main message is not “don’t worry, be happy.” Rather it was much more complex, sounding more like “find your strengths and embrace them.” Secondly, cries of lack of substance rang hollow upon examination of the empirical literature. Positive psychology was not claiming to have all of the answers figured out, but they are basing their preliminary conclusions on strong research design and methods, and for that reason, their few conclusions seem trustworthy. For these reasons, I came down on the side of Seligman, Peterson, and other positive psychologists in my belief that this a useful, and ultimately beneficial, area of study.

Grit

Grit has been defined by Duckworth, Seligman, and Quinn (2009) as

“perseverance and passion for long-term goals” (p. 541). Grit consists of 3 factors: resilience, self-discipline, and perseverance. Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and

Kelly (2007) conceptualized grit as “working strenuously toward challenges, 21

maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress” (p. 1087-88). Seligman (2011) conceptualized grit as unwavering dedication to a long-term activity, such as a life-long research interest, not simply as the self-discipline that short-term tasks require, such as completing as class or running a marathon. As such, he described self-discipline as a separate mechanism of grit. Seligman also contended that “the more grit you have, the more time you spend on the task, and those hours don’t just add to whatever innate skill you have, they multiply your progress to the goal” (p. 121).

Seligman (2011) described a number of studies in which grit was shown to be an important variable. Two of those were actually performed by Duckworth and are explored later in this section. The third involved 1, 218 plebs, starting at West

Point U.S. Military Academy in 2004. Seligman found that when the grit survey was included at the beginning of the year, he was able to predict grade point average and military performance scores for the plebs first year. However, he also noted that it did not correlate with the “‘whole candidate score’: the sum of of SAT’s, leadership potential ratings, and physical aptitude” (p. 123).

The foundations of the concept of grit lie in McClelland’s work on

Achievement Theory, which contended that individuals feel the desire to

“accomplish hard tasks, to overcome difficulties and obstructions, and to excel for the sake of achievement” (Hoy & Miskel, 2008, p.143). In this definition, one can see the strong relationship to grit. Achievement not for the sake of making others happy, but rather for internal drive and the mastery of the task itself, is a hallmark of 22

both grit and Achievement Theory. Grit, by its very nature, requires continuing to work hard, even when rewards are scarce and stimuli to perform are absent. The theories diverge, though, in that Duckworth Seligman, and Quinn conceived of grit as “related to but distinct from need for achievement” and claimed that “individuals high in grit do not swerve from their goals, even in the absence of positive feedback” (2009, p. 166). In other words, grit will continue to drive individuals to reach their goals, even in the absence of positive feedback. Grit comes from within and is not deterred by positive or negative influences from the outside.

Grit is operationalized using the short (8-item) and long (22-item) form

GRIT scales (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). Individuals self- report about their follow through, dedication to goals, and ability to overcome failures. This self-report can be a limiting factor, because individuals may have a rosier perception of their grit than is realistic. Sample items include “I finish what I begin,” “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one,” and “New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones” (Duckworth,

Seligman, & Quinn, 2009, p. 167). Individuals are rated from 1-5 on the three components of grit and can be given a norm referenced interpretation of their score by sub-groups including age, profession, and gender. A score of 5 means that one is extremely gritty, while a score of 1 means that one is not gritty at all.

Grit has been shown as a predictor of achievement, particularly in teenagers.

Duckworth and Seligman have found that self-discipline, a key component of grit, seems to appear in greater amounts in teenage girls than boys, resulting in their 23

tendency to bring home higher report card grades. They offer this as an explanation for why teenage girls do better in school but worse on achievement tests than boys

(2006).

In 2007, Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly were able to link grit to more general achievement in adults. They ran six individual studies, comparing grit with a number of other characteristics, including IQ, age, and education level. They also examined how the relationships of age and education would fare, when the Big

Five personality characteristics of conscientiousness, neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience were controlled for. The researchers found that grit is a better predictor of how many times an individual will switch careers than any of the Big Five. In general, grittier individuals are less likely to change careers because they tend to pick goals and then stick with them, even when faced with adversity. In addition, they found that grit tends to increase with age and with educational attainment. However, this is not to say that children do not have grit.

Indeed the 6th study reported by Duckworth et al. looked at grit as a predictor for spelling bee success. Duckworth believes that examining self-discipline in children is important because one could track longitudinally whether “self –controlled children may thrive in adulthood because of better academic performance, physical health, or interpersonal relations” (2011, p. 2639).

Because grit has been shown to increase an individual’s ability to work on difficult problems when success does not come quickly or easily, it seems that grit would connect to academic optimism because grit increases effort and perseverance, 24

which in turn lead to mastery experience—the major source of self-efficacy. This potential stems from the increase in chance of mastery experience that comes from trying repeatedly until mastery is achieved. For this reason, grit may be a predictor of academic optimism, as measured in the current study.

Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction is the belief that people have about the value of their lives based on overall emotions. Life satisfaction is intended to be a global trait, meaning that it refers to one’s sense of happiness, beyond transient feelings (i.e. “I stubbed my toe and am unhappy), relying on more permanent feelings (i.e. “I would live my life the same way, if I could do it over again”). However, life satisfaction can be influenced by transient emotions, since it is subjective. In other words, a person who is feeling happy may rate his or her life satisfaction higher on that day than on a day that he or she is sad, even without anything in life having changed. Seligman (2011) called life satisfaction the “gold standard” and wrote that the goal of positive psychology at the end of the day “was to increase the amount of life satisfaction on the planet” (p. 13).

Pavot and Diener (2008) described life satisfaction as evaluative and as

“related to, but partially independent of, the affective aspects” of well-being (p.

138). Life satisfaction is related to the availability of information that one has at the moment. However, this information might not be representative of all of one’s life experiences and, as such, one’s view of life satisfaction might be skewed by the information that is readily available. According to Pavot and Diener, this self-report 25

can sometimes influence the results of life satisfaction measures and may make them less reliable. Examples of these include romantic and family relationships, work satisfaction, and academic performance, which seem to play a larger role than smaller factors such as the weather, sport team performance or other external factors. This problem of ready information is sometimes referred to by Kahneman

(2011) as the availability heuristic. To combat this, Kahneman (1999) noted that happiness or satisfaction with life must be determined by looking at pleasure over time, rather than situation assessments, which might fall victim to the availability heuristic.

Pavot and Diener (2008) also contended that subject temperament might play a role in their life satisfaction. They were not prepared to say whether this was a causal correlation (i.e. I am less satisfied with my life and therefore I have a bad temperament) or a result (i.e. I have a bad temperament and therefore will never be satisfied with my life). They also discussed the issue of domain specific life satisfaction versus general life satisfaction. Generally, they are highly correlated.

Based on a number of studies, including Heller, Watson, and Ilies (2004) and

Stubbe, Posthuma, Boomsma, and DeGeus (2005), early results using path modeling indicate that situational satisfaction and temperament influence life satisfaction but there is not enough conclusive data to determine whether this is top-down or bottom-up.

Life satisfaction is measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). The scale measures an 26

individual’s assessment of his or her life in general, using items such as “I am satisfied with my life” and “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.” Answers range from strongly disagree to strongly agree, using a 7-point scale. Scores from 5-9 indicate extreme dissatisfaction with life, whereas scores from 31-35 indicate extreme satisfaction with life.

Antecedents of Life Satisfaction

Peterson, Park, and Seligman (2005) conducted a study to examine how pleasure and engagement influenced life satisfaction. They used a sample of 845 respondents, gathered through online survey, to analyze what created life satisfaction as measured by the SWLS. Their analysis revealed that marriage is the only demographic variable assessed that influenced life satisfaction. Variables that were not significant included education level, politics, gender, age, hometown size, and race. They also looked at whether meaning, engagement, and pleasure fostered higher levels of life satisfaction. They found that pleasure may be one antecedent of life satisfaction, because it “represents value added to a rich life of engagement of meaning” (p. 37). This means that, while pleasure is important to creating life satisfaction, it is so because of what it adds to components that are already creating life satisfaction, such as engagement and meaning. They do state though that they were limited by self-selection of respondents, who needed to be willing to take the online survey and to think broadly about how satisfied they were with their lives.

However, they note that even with this limitation, the sample had diverse demographics in all categories except race, because only 14% were non-White. 27

Peterson, Ruch, Beerman, Park, and Seligman (2007) examined the strengths of character that are related to life satisfaction to determine which were the strongest predictors and found that the three characteristics most closely associated with life satisfaction were pleasure, engagement, and meaning. As part of this study, the authors looked at whether there was a difference between predictors of life satisfaction between Swiss and American participants. 12,439 Americans and 445

Swiss participated through an online survey instrument. Participants did self-select, but still there was a diverse sample with respect to age, sex, and level of education.

Based on the results, the researchers posited that strengths of character were related life satisfaction, explaining that “perhaps life satisfaction is an intrinsic property of living in accordance with certain strengths of character” (p. 154). The reason for this may be that people feel more satisfied with their lives when they are virtuous, or that people who are virtuous have more societal benefits and, therefore, feel more satisfied with their lives.

Zest

Zest refers to an individual’s excitement for life and engagement with living.

The roots of zest lie in Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory, in which they contended that people can fully express their energy for life when all of their other needs are being met. Zest is moderated by physical factors such as health, and such emotional factors, as happiness or hope.

Zest is described in the literature using a number of different terms, each with slightly different meanings. Thayer (1996) categorized it as energy, while Ryan 28

and Fredrick (1997) called it vitality and state that it is a “conscious experience of possessing energy and aliveness” (p. 530). Zest also can be categorized as exuberance, liveliness, and vigor. Peterson and Seligman’s Character Strengths and

Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (2004) puts zest into the category of vitality, which also includes enthusiasm, vigor, and energy. They stated that vitality, as the larger umbrella strength, seems to be unrelated to gender or age. Zest correlates with good health and well-being, though the researchers caution that it is not clear yet whether zest is a general cause or an effect of health.

Peterson and Seligman (2004) also put zest under the character virtue of courage, however, which they defined as emotional fortitude that allows one to accomplish his or her goals even when faced by opposition or adversity. Under that heading, they described zest as an orientation to life marked by excitement and overall energy. From the numerous descriptions above, it seems obvious that research on zest as a construct on its own is still nascent and that further study is needed to determine exactly what distinguishes zest from better studied traits, such as vitality, vigor, enthusiasm, energy, exuberance, liveliness, and persistence.

Effects of Zest

Ryan and Fredrick (1997) explained the link between vitality and good health by pointing out that some traditional vices, such as lack of exercise, poor diet, high levels of stress, smoking, and excess drinking may contribute to lower levels of vitality. Exercise, good nutrition, proper caloric intake, and contact with nature all

appear to be linked to higher levels of vitality and vigor (Peterson & Seligman,

2004).

The research by Peterson, Park, Hall, and Seligman (2009) is the cornerstone for the studies of zest as it related to work and life satisfaction. They surveyed 9,803 adults, using their website, www.authentichappiness.com, to determine how zest influenced types of satisfaction. Using the Satisfaction with Life

Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), the Work Life

Questionnaire (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997), and the VIA

Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005), Peterson et al. found that zest was positively correlated with work satisfaction (r=.46) and life satisfaction (r=.53). There were, however, some limitations to their study. Because people choose to go to their website, generally after reading about it in a book or journal, self-selection was an issue. Also, the United States was disproportionately represented, with 75% of respondents identifying themselves as American.

Measuring Zest

Currently, the strongest zest measure exists as part of the VIA Inventory of

Strengths, which is only available to the public in full form, rather than grouped by the trait being measured. Because of that, it is too long and unwieldy to use to measure solely zest. Additionally, the VIA-IS only describes how zest ranks in relation to other strengths that are measured on the index; no individual score for zest is reported.

The Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS; Ryan & Fredrick, 1997) is a 7-item self- report scale that asks respondents to evaluate how alive they feel and how much energy they generally have. This scale is sometimes used to measure zest, though it was designed to measure subjective vitality, which is a trait or state-level construct, rather than overall zest, which is a subset of vitality. Subjective vitality is described as a strong, good feeling of being alive and of having the energy to complete all desired tasks, in both work and personal life (Ryan & Fredrick, 1997).

However, as more research emerges about positive psychology and positive psychological predictors, a more refined measure for examining zest should be developed. Measuring vitality is important, but as vitality, vigor, and enthusiasm all have slightly different meanings, it stands to reason that they should also each be measured with different instruments.

Zest is an individual level trait that seems to determine how much energy and enthusiasm an individual has for approaching both personal and professional life. It is a trait, rather than a state, which means that it is more permanent. However, as is discussed in the implications section, there are some interventions that may be able to increase levels of zest.

Dispositional Optimism

According to Scheier and Carver (1985) dispositional optimism refers to a

“global tendency to believe that one will mostly have good instead of bad life outcomes” (p. 92). People who have high levels of dispositional optimism tend to be better-adjusted individuals (Chang, 1998). Optimistic individuals trust that there are 31

opportunities to be successful available to them and that chances they take will be rewarded with good results and achievement. Scheier and Carver (1992) contended that people who are optimistic are more fully engaged with life and this leads to them experiencing more positive outcomes, which in turn fuels their optimism. It is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, but it must be created and nurtured by a general predisposition towards optimism. In addition, Scheier and Carver (1985) demonstrated a relationship between self-esteem, locus of control, and dispositional optimism. However, in their 1992 article, they posited that this correlation may demonstrate some underlying construct, possibly related to the optimism-pessimism continuum that they originally proposed (1985), but with added components from neuroticism and negative affect. Peterson and Seligman (2004) suggest that optimism is a sub-concept of hope. They state that optimism is different than hope in that it deals less with emotions and more with expectations.

Consequences of Dispositional Optimism

A number of studies have linked optimism and positive life outcomes, mainly in the fields of health sciences and psychology(for a review of the most promising studies, see Seligman, 1991, 2011). However, more importantly, researchers have investigated the link between optimism, expectations and behaviors, and well-being theory. These investigations are the most relevant to understanding teacher and administrator beliefs about themselves and their students and, therefore, are the focus of this literature review.

If people expect to experience more good outcomes than bad ones, then theoretically this belief should influence their behavior and decision making as related to risk taking or attempting new things. Scheier and Carver (1992) argued that this expectancy of good events links with theories of motivation (Bandura,

1977; Seligman, 1975). They stated that “people who see desired outcomes as attainable continue to strive towards those outcomes, even when progress is difficult or slow” (p. 202). This speaks particularly to the field of teaching, where teacher impacts on student progress often take time to manifest themselves and teachers often continue working with students, even when the work is difficult or students are resistant. Therefore, it seems logical that teachers who were more optimistic, based on Scheier and Carver’s thoughts, would persevere even when students or classroom situations were challenging, because they would expect that they could succeed.

Dispositional Optimism and Self-Efficacy

It is important to distinguish between dispositional optimism and self- efficacy theory because the two are closely related, but not identical. The main difference between the two is that self-efficacy is task specific, whereas dispositional optimism is a general feeling about life outcomes. For example, individuals could have high levels of self-efficacy for teaching verbs to fourth graders because they believe that they have effective methods and that the students often learn. Those same individuals might generally be a pessimistic people and be unwilling to try out new methods because they believe generally that new endeavors

do not work out well for them. These individuals have good task self-efficacy for verbs but low levels of dispositional optimism.

Assessing Dispositional Optimism

Dispositional optimism is now measured using the Life Orientation Test-

Revised (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). The revised version improved upon the original (Scheier & Carver, 1985) by correcting measurement problems in the 1985 version. The major change in the revised version was to cut items that measured peoples’ ways of coping with bad outcomes and to focus on their expectations about good ones. Since 1994, the 1985 original has been all but abandoned in favor of the revised, which is also shorter than the original. The correlation between the two scales is .95. The LOT-R was validated using a sample of 4,309 undergraduate students. A high score on the LOT-R means that an individual has a more general tendency to expect a good, rather than a bad, outcome.

The LOT-R has 10 items, though four are filler items and are not used in calculating the scores. The response to each item on a 5-point scale, from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Examples of items are “In uncertain times, I usually expect the best” and “I rarely count on good things happening to me.”

The Optimism/Pessimism Scale (OPS; Dember, Martin, Hummer, Howe, &

Melton, 1989) is another measure used to evaluate dispositional optimism. The measure assumes that optimism and pessimism must be measured separately, rather than along a continuum, leaving room open that one can be both an optimist and a pessimist. This does not fit in well with the theoretical framework of dispositional 34

optimism as being a trait-level variable that runs from optimistic to pessimistic. The

OPS is also a longer measure and has 18 optimism items, 18 pessimism items, and

20 filler items.

Burke, Joyner, Czech, and Wilson (2000) examined the concurrent validity and reliability between the LOT-R and the Optimism/Pessimism Scale to judge whether the two had concurrent validity. They found that the two scales were not meaningfully correlated, because the OPS questions how individuals feel in the moment and thus is a state-specific measure. In contrast, the LOT-R is more trait- specific. For that reason, the LOT-R seems to be a better scale in measuring dispositional optimism, whereas the OPS may be better for measuring positive affect or temporary, situational optimism.

Effects of Dispositional Optimism

Dispositional traits, like optimism, neuroticism, and others are related to overall life satisfaction. Judge, Heller, and Klinger (2008) studied the relationship of dispositional traits to life and job satisfaction and found that evaluations of self and possible outcomes are strongly correlated with both types of satisfaction. Though the implications of this preliminary study are that individuals’ assessments of themselves are related to their fulfillment, more would need to be done to link dispositional optimism with satisfaction. But, despite its limited scope, the work by

Judge et al. is a strong start.

Chang (1998), in an exploratory study, researched the relationship between stress and well-being, influenced by dispositional optimism. Using the LOT-R, the 35

Beck Depressive Inventory (BDI; Beck, Steer, & Carbin, 1988), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) and the

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Chang surveyed 388 students and found that dispositional optimism was a moderating variable between stress and well-being.

Using hierarchical regression analysis, Chang found that dispositional optimism moderated the relationship between stress and psychological well-being. However,

Chang listed in the limitations that the influence is fairly small, perhaps because he instructed students to only think about stresses that they had faced in the last month, while the scale that he used was intended to cover a period of time from 3-48 months. He believed that this may have underestimated the impact and called for replication of the study on a larger scale. Chang’s study could have implications for work on teacher beliefs though, in examining whether dispositional optimism is a moderating variable for teacher stress and its consequences such as teacher burnout and low job satisfaction.

Potential Problems with Optimism

Tennen and Affleck (1987) urged scholars to take the pitfalls of optimism into account as well as the benefits. They contended that, though optimists always

(or often) expect the best outcome in their endeavors, which they take from Scheier and Carver (1987), an optimist may not be able to weather life’s bumps as well as a pessimistic individual, who may be expecting the bumps. Instead, Tennen and

Affleck claimed, “the best doesn’t always occur. When things go wrong in a big way, the optimist may be particularly vulnerable” (p. 382). To back this up, they cite 36

documented problems such as unrealistic optimism and the illusion of invulnerability, which may handicap optimists in dealing with problems or cause them to take on challenges, even when they have little chance of succeeding. In a study of new mothers bringing home their babies and anticipating the likelihood of problems based on the smoothness of their pregnancy, the researchers found that optimistic mothers experienced more distress than pessimistic ones.

The contentions of Tennen and Affleck are important to consider, but there were two weaknesses of their study that temper the results. One, they did not measure dispositional optimism, but rather mood disturbances. Second, they used retrospective results, so mothers may have been influenced by their mood in looking backwards, rather than by their actual optimism. However, criticisms about dispositional optimism theory are informative because they remind researchers that they must also look at downsides of optimism, rather than just at benefits.

In sum, optimism is an individual’s general belief that good things will happen more often than bad and that risks are generally worth taking because they will pay off. Individual trait-level dispositional optimism has been linked to many positive outcomes, both in physical and mental health, including better recovery from illness or operation, higher levels of life and work satisfaction, and lower levels of stress and career burnout. There are two measures most commonly used to assess dispositional optimism, the LOT-R and the OPS, but the LOT-R is the more commonly used, in part because it more closely reflects the theoretical framework of

an optimism to pessimism continuum and is less cumbersome to administer given its shorter length.

Explanatory Style

Explanatory style refers to the ways that people explain the reasons why bad things happen to them. Peterson (1991), in an article outlining the research in explanatory style over the years, identified the three dimensions as follows

1. internality vs. externality: how much a situation was one’s own fault versus the fault of an outside force

2. stability vs. instability: how permanent a situation is

3. globality vs. specificity: how many facets of one’s life a situation will influence

People who explain events as stable, internal, and global are said to have a pessimistic explanatory style, whereas those who explain them as unstable, external, and specific have an optimistic explanatory style. It should be noted that these styles do not correspond to dispositional optimism and pessimism. Additionally, Peterson

(1991) was quick to note that though the terms optimist and pessimist sound like a dichotomy:

We try to use the terms optimistic and pessimistic as adjectives that modify

the individual difference of explanatory style, and sometimes we adopt a

shorthand way of speaking and refer to optimistic versus pessimistic

individuals…and sometimes we become careless and turn this dimension

into a typology, speaking of optimists and pessimists as if we are studying 38

two discrete groups of individuals. This final usage of our terms is

objectionable, because we are not working with a typology. (p. 5)

Thus, in the examination of individual explanatory style, one must be careful to note that having a pessimistic explanatory style does not necessarily make an individual a pessimist and vice versa.

Buchanan, and Seligman defined explanatory style as “the way that people explain the causes of good and bad events involving themselves along three dimensions” (1995, p.1). The three dimensions they posited permanence, pervasiveness, and personal nature. Permanence is broken down into stable (“This will always be”) versus unstable (“This too shall pass”); pervasiveness into global

(“This will happen in everything I do”) versus specific (“This is a one situation problem”); and personal nature into internal (“This is a problem with me”) versus external (“This is a problem with someone else”) (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995).

Individuals with a more unstable, specific, and external style have an optimistic explanatory style, as they recognize that bad will pass in time, are situational, and can sometimes be out of their control. Those with a more stable, global, and internal style have a pessimistic explanatory style, meaning that they believe that bad events will continue forever, will color everything that happens from then on, and they are to blame for any misfortune.

The impetus for research on explanatory style has its roots in both

Seligman’s learned helplessness theory and Weiner’s attributional theory.

Explanatory style is theorized to explain why some people resist helplessness, while 39

others do not. Seligman explained “We wanted to find out who never became helpless, so we looked systematically at the way that people whom we could not make helpless interpreted bad events” (2011, p.189). Peterson (1991) claimed that one of the reasons the previous question came up was that “learned helplessness research can be criticized for not directly assessing people’s perceptions of the uncontrollability of events” (p. 2). From that study came the finding that individuals with optimistic explanatory frameworks were found to resist learned helplessness more often than others. Following this line of theory, pessimistic explanatory style is also linked to depression, poor health, frequent job changes, and failure to achieve

(see Seligman 2011 for a full review).

Weiner (1972) explained that attribution theory investigates the ways that people explain why things occur and who or what is responsible for them. The influence of Weiner is found in Peterson’s (1991) development of the dimensions of explanatory style, when he noted that “the studies that he (Weiner) reviewed lead me to conclude that there is not a basic set of dimensions invariant across domains and cultures. Thus, the researcher must specify dimensions of explanatory style in relationship to some purpose” (p. 2). Grimes (1981) defines attributions as “internal explanation individuals devise to explain their success or failure at a task” (p. 91).

Explanatory style is a departure from straight attribution theory in that it only looks at bad events. It seems that the purpose in Peterson’s mind is explanation of bad events, rather than just general events, both positive and negative.

Explanatory Style and Failure

Peterson and Barrett (1987) theorized that college freshman that attributed the cause of bad events to reasons that were stable, internal, and global did worse in their first year than those who explained them as unstable, external, and specific.

They used a sample of 87 freshmen who were undeclared majors. Each was enrolled in the introductory psychology course. Students were assessed using the Academic

Attributional Styles Questionnaire (ASQ), which is based on the regular ASQ and designed specifically for academic situations. Undeclared majors were chosen specifically because they were required to meet with their advisors, so the study did not need to rely solely on the self-report of the Academic ASQ. Frequency and duration of students’ visits with advisors were documented externally so that students did not need to report themselves how many times they had visited with an advisor. Students were also given the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), a survey dealing with coping with academic failures, and an Academic Goals Questionnaire.

They found that explanatory style was “correlated negatively with goal specificity and visits to advisors” (p. 605). They also found a correlation of -.36 between explanatory style and GPA. In other words, the more pessimistic the explanatory style, the lower the GPA and the fewer visits with an advisor. However, they contended that “students with a pessimistic explanatory style gave up, whereas students with an optimistic style renewed their effort. In light of what we know about explanatory style, this assumption seems plausible” (p. 606).

In the current study, I believe that this renewal of effort in the face of failure will lead to increased occurrences of mastery experience and, therefore, higher self- efficacy, which is a component of academic optimism.

Explanatory Style and Career Success

Seligman and Shulman (1986) linked explanatory style to career success and longevity in life insurance agents in two studies. Using the ASQ and data about employee productivity, they studied 94 life insurance salesmen to determine the correlation between their success and explanatory style. They found that agents within the optimistic half of the explanatory style continuum sold 37% more insurance than those in the pessimistic part of the continuum. In their second study, they gathered a sample of 104 sales agents and looked at how many of these were still employed with the company at the end of a year. The researchers found that explanatory style was a strong predictor of who would remain at the company through the first year. They stated the main weakness of their study was that they lost the true controlled experiment model available in the laboratory and that they could not “control or easily measure day-to-day failures and rejections” (p. 838). It should be noted that 1,100 surveys were sent out and the rate of return was a concern to the researchers and should be considered a weakness of the study. They addressed this concern with the finding that “the mean quarterly production figures were slightly higher for respondents but not significantly so from the mean for the entire region” (p. 833). They controlled for gender and length of service.

Explanatory style determines how one proceeds in the face of failures. I believe that administrators with more optimistic explanatory styles explain failures as situational and temporary and are therefore less likely to give up or lose hope in the face of adversity. They also will be more likely to look at negative interactions as one time events, rather than indicative of a pattern. This means that they will be less likely to lose trust in parents because of negative interactions and more likely to stay the path of academic emphasis, even though it can be daunting. Therefore, they will have higher levels of academic optimism.

Academic Optimism

The construct of Academic Optimism also gathered its research impetus from positive psychology, though not as directly as the other variables outlined so far. Hoy, Tarter, and Woolfolk Hoy (2006) conceptualized academic optimism as a triad of academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust in parents and students. The construct includes behavioral, cognitive, and affective components; academic emphasis is behavioral, collective efficacy is cognitive, and faculty trust is affective. Hoy et al. theorized that academic optimism is positively related to student academic achievement, even when controlling for socio-economic status (SES), school demographic characteristics, and previous achievement of students.

Components of Academic Optimism

Hoy and Tarter (1997) defined academic emphasis as " the school's press for achievement. High but achievable goals are set for students, the learning environment is orderly and serious, teachers believe students can achieve, and 43

students work hard and respect those who do well" (p. 60). Schools with high academic emphasis set high but attainable goals and encourage student success through academics. Teachers believe that students can achieve.

Smith and Hoy (2007) examined the concept of academic optimism in urban elementary schools. The researchers tested whether academic optimism was a second order factor, comprised of academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust and whether academic optimism was related to student achievement, even when controlling for SES and other factors. Their sample consisted of 99 elementary schools in Texas. This study was particularly important because it showed that academic optimism can be a force for student achievement even in urban schools, where there are factors, such as SES, that cannot be easily remedied and that can lower student achievement significantly.

The teachers also believe that they themselves can achieve. The concept of collective efficacy comes out of Bandura’s work on self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in his or her ability to accomplish a task. He stated that self-efficacy expectations are influenced by performance accomplishments (sometimes called mastery experience), vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. In their exploration of academic optimism, Hoy, Tarter, and Woolfolk Hoy (2006) focused on collective efficacy instead of self-efficacy because it is an organizational variable. However, in looking at individual academic optimism later in this review, self-efficacy is used instead of collective efficacy. Hoy et al. defined collective efficacy as a group’s belief in their 44

ability to accomplish a chosen task. This is supported by Bandura (1997) who defined that collective efficacy as the shared opinion of the group that they can accomplish some whole group performance goal.

Hoy (2002), in testing his hypothesis on the relationship of trust to student achievement, found that the trust of faculty in clients (students and parents) was positively correlated with student achievement, even when controlling for SES.

Trust in parents and students is an essential part of academic optimism. I posit that this trust would be supported by an administrator’s optimistic explanatory style because administrators or teachers would be less likely to lose faith in all parents or students after a negative experience. They would instead view it as a temporary, non-personal, and situational problem and not a generalized problem with the students or parents at the school.

Individual Academic Optimism

Academic optimism is a variable that started at the collective, or organizational, level and moved down to the individual level. Thus far, this review has focused solely on organizational academic optimism. Individual academic optimism is a construct much like organizational, with some minor alterations.

Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, and Kurz (2008) conducted an exploratory study on whether academic optimism could be a characteristic of teachers, rather than just organizations. They set out to define each section of the academic optimism construct as it relates to teachers. For example, instead of using collective efficacy, which is a group variable, they looked at teacher self-efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy 45

is defined by Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy (1998) as a teacher’s

“judgment of his or her capability to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated” (p. 202). Woolfolk Hoy et al. hypothesized that teacher self-efficacy, trust in clients, and academic emphasis would form a construct called academic optimism. They used the Organizational Climate Index (OCI) to measure academic emphasis, the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) to measure teachers’ self- efficacy beliefs, and a subtest of the Omnibus T-Scale (OTS) to measure trust.

When they performed a “second-order principal components analysis using teachers mean standardized scores for trust, academic emphasis, and total teacher efficacy”

(p. 828), they found that their hypothesis was correct.

Woolfolk Hoy et al. (2008) also grounded the study of academic optimism firmly in the theory of positive psychology, linking back to Seligman’s (1999) call to turn away from only examining disorders and look at positive characteristics instead. They stated that “In recent demands for accountability in schools, researchers tend to focus on deficits and deficiencies. This study examines the positive qualities of optimism and teacher citizenship” (p. 821). To use Seligman’s language, Woolfolk et al. look at what makes schools flourish, even in light of factors such as SES, which can undermine student achievement in schools. They also state that the discussion is useful based on Seligman’s claims (2006) that individual optimism can be taught. Drawing from that tradition, they “anticipate that

many of the conclusions about individual learned optimism can be applied to academic optimism of teachers” (p. 831).

Continuing the work of Woolfolk Hoy and her colleagues, Beard, Hoy, and

Woolfolk Hoy (2010) investigated whether academic optimism could be an individual variable as well. They theorized that academic optimism would work the same way as a teacher construct as it did as an organizational one and they set out to develop a measure to test this prediction. Their formal hypothesis was “teacher’s sense of efficacy, trust in parents and students, and academic emphasis form a general, latent concept called individual sense of academic optimism” (p. 1138).

First, Beard and her colleagues (2010) constructed an individual academic optimism measure, using an exploratory factor analysis. To validate the measure they used a sample of 72 elementary school teachers in Texas, Ohio, and Alabama. Once the factor loadings were above .80, they formed a scale. Their hypothesis that individual academic optimism of teachers is a latent construct was tested using the scale on 260 elementary teachers from 14 schools in Ohio. Of those, 58 districts were rural, 112 were suburban, and 90 were urban. The sample was not random, but an effort was made to develop a sample that was representative of the area. With some adjustments to a number of items, Beard et al. found that their measure was valid and that “the major hypothesis of this study was strongly supported” (p. 1141).

Their research suggested that academic optimism has an impact on student achievement “directly through at least two mechanisms: motivation with high, challenging goals and cooperation among parents and teachers to improve student 47

learning” (p. 1142). They closed with a call for more research into the role of individual academic optimism.

Each of the variables that make up academic optimism by themselves can predict student achievement. So why was it better to study all of them? The answer was that they serve as a check and balance for each other and they widen the paths to improving student achievement. One must guard against increasing one at the expense of the others. For example, a program that focuses on building trust between teachers and students might do so by lowering expectation, thus hurting academic emphasis. Such a program would not serve to increase student achievement, even if it increased trust between students and teachers. (Hoy, Tarter,

& Woolfolk Hoy, 2006).

Current Study

The goal of the current study was to develop measure of principal academic optimism and then identify the psychological characteristics that predict academic optimism at the individual principal level. Looking at predictors is important to the field because, though much is known about the outcomes of academic optimism, there is decidedly less research on the characteristics that might foster.

Proposed Outcomes of Psychological Traits

Individuals with an optimistic explanatory style and dispositional optimism are less likely to be permanently affected by temporary setbacks and are more likely to believe that risks will turn out well for them. Because of this, they are more likely to attempt projects, even if there is a chance for failure and to try them again if they 48

are not successful. Gritty individuals try for long periods of time, even without encouragement or positive feedback, focusing more on achieving the goal than on the steps to get there. The consequence is persistence in strategies and effort that enhances mastery experiences, which are a strong component in the development of self-efficacy, one of the core components of academic optimism.

Gritty individuals are more likely to continue with projects, undeterred by obstacles and lack of external stimulus. Also, individuals with grit are more likely to set high standards and embrace them, even when they are difficult to meet, and they refuse to quit, even when the road gets rough. Gritty administrators who encourage high academic emphasis in schools are not likely to be distracted from the goal of student achievement, even if that goal required long term commitment to accomplish and even if that goal is difficult and long term. Gritty administrators are likely to be undeterred by teacher or parent issues and to overcome them. Gritty administrators keep their eyes on the prize, student achievement, which leads them to focus on academics as much or more than other school functions, such as athletics or extracurriculars. Finally, gritty administrators are prone to authentic celebrations and reinforcement of student achievement.

Administrators with a zest for life and a general feeling that they are satisfied with their career and life purposes are more likely to embrace new opportunities and foster authentic celebrations of successes of students. In addition, because zest

(along with dispositional optimism) may protect burnout, administrators seem more

able to foster a culture of academic optimism because they resist feeling frayed, worn down, or otherwise exhausted by the demands of the job.

Dispositional optimism also allows administrators to begin projects with a general feeling that the outcome will be good, which might translate into increased trust in the process as well as in participants in new endeavors. Positive feelings also project in both staff and to students and reinforce trust in both. They expect that the outcome of both the endeavor and the trust will be positive.

Hypotheses

There were three general hypotheses that guided this study:

1. Academic optimism of the principal is a construct that is manifested through

the self-efficacy of the principal, academic emphasis of principal, and

principal trust in teachers.

2. The positive psychology variables of dispositional optimism, grit, zest,

explanatory style, and life satisfaction are predictors of the academic

optimism of the principal.

3. Although it is expected that each of the predictor variables has a simple

bivariate relationship with academic optimism, it is also hypothesized that

this set of positive variables together will be significantly related to

academic optimism of the principal.

Summary

After reviewing the literature on positive psychological variables, a set of variables was identified that were hypothesized to set the stage for the development 50

of principal academic optimism. Moreover, this study examined and developed the construct of academic optimism in principals, which was postulated to consist of self-efficacy, academic emphasis, and trust. Finally, a set of positive psychological variables, including grit, zest, dispositional optimism, explanatory style, and life satisfaction, were predicted to have a strong and significant relation with the academic optimism of the principal.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This chapter outlined the methods used to analyze the data, beginning with the description of the sample and the data collection processes. Next, each of the measures was explained in detail, including a number of pilot studies, which were used to develop and refine the scales. The reliability for each scale was computed and the evidence for validity was reported.

Sample

There were three samples used in this study. The first was a sample of teachers and administrators drawn from five states to further test the concept of zest.

Five professors of educational administration solicited responses to the zest questionnaire from teachers and administrators in their graduate classes. Responses were voluntary and anonymous. Three hundred thirty one educators responded to the measure.

The next sample was a pilot study of academic optimism of principals and their explanatory styles. A random sample of 300 principals was drawn from principals in Oklahoma, who belonged to the Cooperative Council of Oklahoma

School Administrators. Of the 300 principals selected, 143 returned usable responses. 52

The final sample for the study to test the hypotheses was drawn from a national set of principals from Ohio, Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New

Hampshire, Montana, and Texas. Although the sample was one of convenience, it covered a broad spectrum of principals. Principals from urban, suburban, and rural schools, as well as both elementary and secondary levels were gathered. The intention, so as to ensure a broad and diverse sample, was that these principals would vary with respect to years employed, race, gender, and other demographic factors. Approximately 400 invitations to participate were sent out and 158 usable responses (40%) were returned.

The demographic characteristics of the schools and principals are summarized in Table 1. The sample of schools was diverse. About half of the schools (49.4%) was elementary and the other half (47.5%) was secondary school level. Slightly more than half of the principals (58.2%) were male, while 39.2% were female. All but one of the principals had obtained a Masters degree or higher.

Approximately half of the sample (46.8%) was relatively inexperienced, with 5 or fewer years of experience, while the other half (52.5%) was experienced, with 6 or more years of experience. The sample of principals was relatively young, with most

(63.8%) younger than 51. The kind of districts in which most of these principals served was either suburban or rural (85.5%), with the remaining 13.9% administering urban schools. The sample, in all likelihood, was underrepresented with principals from urban districts. In terms of SES, most principals (67.1%) reported free and reduced lunch for their students was 40% or less. 53

School Level N % Elementary 78 49.4 Secondary 75 47.5 Sex of Principal Male 92 58.2 Female 62 39.2 Education of Principal Bachelors 1 00.6 Masters 63 39.9 Administrative 66 41.8 Certification Doctorate 26 16.5 Years of Experience 1-5 74 46.8 6-10 43 27.2 11-15 24 15.2 16-20 7 4.4 21+ 9 5.7 Age of Principal 21-30 3 1.9 31-40 18 11.4 41-50 64 50.5 51-60 57 36.1 61+ 14 8.9 Setting of District Urban 22 13.9 Suburban 69 43.7 Rural 66 41.8 Free and Reduced Lunch 0-20% 58 36.7 21-40% 48 30.4 41-60% 27 17.1 61-80% 16 10.1 81-100% 8 5.1 Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample

The tallies do not always add up to 100% because a few people declined to respond.

Data Collection Process

Principals received an online invitation to participate in the study through

Survey Monkey. The instrument asked general demographic questions about level and type of school, length of time at current position, race, gender, and school SES data. The research questionnaire was 57 items and used a Likert scale. The measure took approximately 15 minutes to complete. There were no open-ended or short- answer questions. All the responses were anonymous and no personal or school identifying information was gathered.

Research Instrument

The first three scales assessed dispositional optimism, grit, and life satisfaction. All were well-established scales drawn from positive psychology research. Then a set of scales was developed for use in this investigation, which had conceptual underpinnings in the literature, but which were tailored to gauge attitudes and behaviors of school principals.

Dispositional Optimism

Dispositional optimism was measured using the Life Orientation Test

Revised (LOT-R), initially developed by Scheier and Carver (1985) and revised by

Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994). The internal reliability of .78 in the sample of undergraduates was reported. The LOT-R has 10 items, 4 of which are fillers.

Responses ranged from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). In a pilot study of 55

zest and dispositional optimism of 331 teachers and principals, the alpha coefficient of reliability was .83.

The test was scored such that higher numbers indicate higher levels of optimism and lower numbers mean lower levels of optimism, rather than high levels of pessimism. 3 of the items, numbers 3, 7, and 9 were reverse scored. Table 2 below shows the full measure. Filler items are starred.

1. In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. 2. It’s easy for me to relax.* 3. If something can go wrong for me, it will. 4. I’m always optimistic about my future. 5. I enjoy my friends a lot. * 6. It’s important for me to keep busy.* 7. I hardly ever expect things to go my way. 8. I don’t get upset too easily.* 9. I rarely count on good things happening to me. 10. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad. Table 2. Dispositional Optimism Measure

Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction With Life Scale

(SWLS), developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). The test-retest reliability was .82 with a 2-month interval. The SWLS had five items with responses ranging along a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The higher the score, the more life satisfaction the respondent reported. The mean score was 23.5 (Diener et al., 1985). The scale was initially validated with 176 56

undergraduate students in Study 1 and 163 undergraduate students in Study 2, both done by Diener et al. Diener and his colleagues also tested the SWLS on 53 elderly people to gather content validity for the test on populations besides undergraduates.

In all cases, the results supported the validity of the scale. Table 3 below shows the

SWLS items.

1. In most ways, my life is close to my ideal. 2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 3. I am satisfied with my life. 4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. 5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. Table 3. Satisfaction with Life Scale

Grit

There are currently two forms of the Grit Scale, both of which measure individual level grit. This study used the 8-item short form Grit Scale, written and validated by Duckworth and Quinn (2009). Duckworth and Quinn performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the short form (GRIT-S) and found that it bore out a two factor structure, with Consistency of Interest and Perseverance of Effort as the two factors. The correlation between the two factors was r=.59, p<.001. The

Cronbach’s alpha was .79, as reported by Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and

Kelly (2007). Six confirmatory studies supported the “predictive validity,

consensual validity, and test-retest stability of the Grit-S questionnaire” (p. 172). In the end, the researchers concluded that the Grit-S scale was actually a better predictor of grit than the long form. Duckworth and Quinn recommend the short form both because of its parsimony and its better psychometric properties; hence, the short measure was used in the current research. The scale used a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1(not like me at all) to 5 (very much like me). The items for the

Grit-S are shown in the table below (Table 4). Items 1, 3, 5, and 6 are reverse scored.

1. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. 2. Setbacks don’t discourage me. 3. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. 4. I am a hard worker. 5. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. 6. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. 7. I finish whatever I begin. 8. I am diligent. Table 4. Grit Scale

Zest

Because there was not a short reliable measure of zest, a pilot study was initiated to scale a set of items that would provide a valid and reliable measure of zest. As was noted earlier, the roots of the notion of zest rest with the self- determination theory of Deci and Ryan (2000) and in the work of Peterson and

Seligman’s (2004) in positive psychology. Deci and Ryan argued convincingly that 58

people can fully express their energy for life, especially when their basic needs are met. Peterson and Seligman defined zest as a category of vitality, which also includes enthusiasm, vigor, and energy, and they have found that zest correlates with good health and well being; however, the researchers cautioned that it is not clear yet whether zest is a general cause or an effect of health. In sum, zest is an orientation to life marked by enthusiasm, energy, and excitement as one confronts the every day problems of life.

Zest items. Earlier scholars (Hoy & Riegel, 2011) theorized that zest could be measured by the extent to which individuals were enthusiastic, energetic and excited by the way they approach both personal and professional problems. For example, Hoy and Riegel suggested that zest could be gauged by the degree to which individuals engaged in new challenges with enthusiasm, how excited they were about life in general, and how they savored new tasks. To capture zest, a set of

Likert items was crafted to tap into an individual’s enthusiasm, energy, and excitement about everyday life as well as professional challenges. This set of items was developed, explored, reviewed, refined, and tested.

Positive zest items included, “Each day is a new opportunity,” “I live my life with gusto,” and “I am excited by personal and professional challenges.” Negative items included “I am resigned to the difficulties of life,” and “I don’t get too excited about anything,” and “I postpone difficult decisions.” Subjects were asked to respond to these items along a 5-point continuum from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All the items were subjected to review by a three-person panel composed of 59

two graduate students and a professor. Items were eliminated if there was not consensus that they were consistent with the theoretical definition of zest. Ten items survived the screening and review process.

Assumptions. Exploratory factor analysis was used in this dissertation for data reduction purposes and to refine the measures. Exploratory factor analysis is grounded on a number of assumptions. First, factor analysis is designed for interval data; however, in survey research, ordinal data measured by Likert scales are commonly used, as was the case in this study. Second, the variables used in factor analysis should be linearly related to each other. Third, the variables in factor analysis should be moderately related to each other; for example, a few variables should have correlations of .5 or higher. Finally, in exploratory factor analysis, the bare minimum for the sample size should be at least 3 cases for each variable but a better rule for the sample size is 5 cases for each variable (Shumacker & Lomax,

2010; Manly, 2005).

Pilot Sample. Next, this short instrument was administered to a comprehensive sample of teachers and administrators from Ohio, Virginia, Texas,

Georgia, and Alabama. Included in the questionnaire was also a measure of dispositional optimism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). The optimism scale was used to check the predictive validity of the zest scale. The assumption was that optimism should be moderately related to zest. The sample of educators was a fortuitous one composed primarily of experienced teachers and educational leaders.

The anonymous questionnaire was sent to respondents by using Survey Monkey.

After several weeks, 331 educators had responded to the measures.

Factor analysis. The data from the 331 educators were subjected to a series of statistical analyses. First, a principal component analysis was run to reduce the number of items and select only strong measures of zest. The analysis called for a single component, which was called zest. To track that component, there was a tracking item that stated, “I have a zest for life.” The expectation was that items measuring zest would be included with this direct expression of zest. The principal component analysis identified six of the ten items as strong measures of zest with loadings ranging from .67 to .79.

Next, the six items were analyzed using principal axis factoring. As anticipated, all six items loaded strongly on the first factor (zest) with loadings ranging from .69 to .77, which explained 59.3 percent of the variance (eigenvalue =

3.559). The six items and their loadings are summarized as follows:

1. I am ready to confront new challenges as they come along. .770

2. I have a zest for life. .714

3. I am excited by personal and professional challenges. .713

4. I look with anticipation to challenges. .702

5. I am excited what about my workday has in store. .698

6. I live my life with gusto. .693

These six items formed a scale with an alpha coefficient of reliability of .86.

Next, as a validity check, the measure of zest was correlated with a well- known measure of dispositional optimism, the LOT-R (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges,

1994). The optimism measure had an alpha of .83 and, as predicted, had a significant, but moderate correlation with zest (r = .48). In brief, the pilot study produced a reliable measure of trust with predictive validity, and was ready for further testing and review.

Pilot Sample: The Refinement of Four Measures

In order to develop and refine the measures of explanatory style, principal trust in teachers, principal academic emphasis, and self-efficacy of principals, researchers at the University of Oklahoma gathered a sample of principals from

Oklahoma. A random sample of 300 principals was drawn from the state organization called the Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators

(CCOSA). One hundred forty-three administrators returned usable responses, which was deemed sufficient to pilot these measures.

Explanatory Style

The construct of explanatory style and its measurement, which come from research in positive psychology, are described in more detail in the following explication.

Conceptual definition. Explanatory style was composed of three dimensions. Pervasiveness, sometimes referred to as globality, is how many facets of one’s life are influenced by a given event along a continuum from pervasive to situationally-specific. Individuals who believe that a bad circumstance spills over 62

into other situations view obstacles as pervasive. Permanence, sometimes called stability, is how long a given situation will endure. Some individuals believe that bad circumstances are permanent. Personal nature, sometimes called internality, refers to the locus of control of a situation. Is the situation externally or internally controlled? When individuals view bad situations as pervasive, permanent, and externally controlled, they have a pessimistic explanatory style. In contrast, when individuals view bad situations as specific, temporary, and internally, they have an optimistic explanatory style.

In summary, explanatory style has the following three dimensions:

1. Pervasiveness (PV): how many facets of one’s life a situation influences

(globality versus specificity),

2. Permanence (PM): the duration of a bad situation (stability versus instability),

3. Personal Nature (PN):, the extent to which a situation is controlled from within or without (externality versus internality).

An optimistic explanatory style could be characterized by specificity, instability, and internality.

Measurement. Explanatory Style was operationalized by the Attributional

Style Questionnaire (ASQ) and the Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations, or

CAVE, method (Schulman, Castellon, & Seligman, 1989). The ASQ was created by

Seligman as a self-reporting system, in which people chose which of the options would be a viable explanation for the presented hypothetical bad situation. In the 63

long form ASQ, participants responded to open ended questions about specific bad events and their causes.

CAVEing was different than the ASQ, in that it was not self-reporting. In the

CAVE method, individual’s written or spoken quotes were coded on a 1-7 scale for the 3 dimensions of explanatory style. From the composite score, a researcher was able to rate how optimistic or pessimistic a person’s explanatory style is. Schulman,

Castellon, and Seligman (1989) claimed that CAVEing is a helpful research tool in identifying explanatory style because it “creates enormous opportunities for researchers to access the explanatory style of populations that will not or cannot take questionnaires” (p. 508). Information gained by CAVEing has been used, according to Shulman et al., “to predict such varied phenomena as sports achievement, life span, presidential election outcomes, depression, recovery from depression, immune functioning and the course of cancer” (p. 505). Explanatory style has been linked to success or failure in life situations, as people with a more optimistic explanatory style are more likely to be successful than those with a pessimistic explanatory style.

Explanatory style of principals. Because the ASQ could not be given online, a new measure was constructed based on the ASQ. The measure asked principals to imagine a specific scenario and then answer three questions about that scenario. For each question, respondents provided an answer on a 6-point scale, with

1 as “very little” and 6 as “greatly.” Table 5 shows the measure in pilot test form.

Q1. You gave a presentation at the faculty meeting about a new system of dealing with disciplinary referrals and it was not well received. To what extent is this: 1. because you did a poor job presenting? 2. something that will influence your relationship with faculty? 3. going to happen next time you present to the faculty?

Q2. You have been looking for another job for nearly a year and have not been able to secure one, despite going on a number of interviews. To what extent is this: 1. a reflection of how tough the job market is locally? 2. a reflection of your skills interacting with people? 3. related to other failures that you have experienced?

Q3. Your budget proposal to the superintendent is rejected. To what extent is this: 1. because the superintendent is out of touch with the needs of your school? 2. going to impact your willingness to bring proposals to the superintendent in the future? 3. going to negatively impact how your staff and the community view you?

Q4. Your school is having a continuing problem with graffiti, despite the meeting that you had with the student body two weeks ago to address the problem. To what extent is this: 1. because students do not respect any authority? 2. because teachers are not adequately monitoring the hall? 3. a reflection of the overall culture in your school?

Q5. During lunch, an unknown student throws an apple at you. To what extent is this: 1. a reflection of how the students feel about you? 2. going to stop you from going to lunch regularly? 3. a reaction to a rule that you announced last week about hall passes?

Table 5. Explanatory Style Pilot Items

Exploratory factor analysis. The 15 items described above were factor analyzed using principal factor analysis. The first iteration of factor analysis was used to reduce the number of items measuring explanatory style. Most of the items loaded strongly on the primary factor. Thus items with weak factor loadings or dual loadings on the primary and secondary factors were eliminated, which left us with six items, which were subsets of two vignettes. The items, as explained by the theory, reflected each of the three dimensions of the construct: pervasiveness (PV), permanence (PM), and personal nature (PN).

All six items loaded strongly on one factor, with loadings ranging from .498 to .748, which explained 46.2% of the variance. The six items and their loadings are summarized as follows:

1. because the superintendent is out of touch with the needs .554

of your school?

2. going to impact your willingness to bring proposals to the .748

superintendent in the future?

3. going to negatively impact how your staff and the community . 685

view you?

4. because students do not respect any authority? .498

5. because teachers are not adequately monitoring the hall? .605

6. a reflection of the overall culture in your school? .606

The alpha coefficient of reliability for the revised 6-item scale was .76.

Refined scale. The new scale was based on the responses to two hypothetical situations. The principal’s version of the explanatory style measure is summarized in Table 6. The dimensions are labeled.

Q1. Your budget proposal to the superintendent is rejected. To what extent is this: 1. because the superintendent is out of touch with the needs of your school? PN 2. going to impact your willingness to bring proposals to the superintendent in the future? PM 3. going to negatively impact how your staff and the community view you? PV

Q2. Your school is having a continuing problem with graffiti, despite the meeting that you had with the student body two weeks ago to address the problem. To what extent is this: 4. because students do not respect any authority? PM 5. because teachers are not adequately monitoring the hall? PV 6. a reflection of the overall culture in your school? PM

TABLE 6. Refined Scale of Explanatory Style of Principals

Principal Trust

In Chapter Two, the construct of academic optimism was hypothesized to be composed of principal’s trust in teachers, principal’s academic emphasis, and principal’s self-efficacy.

Conceptual definition. Early work done by Lisa Riegel (Riegel, 2012), showed that principal trust in clients (parents and students) was not part of the construct of principal academic optimism. In this inquiry, it is theorized that, for the principal, the key element of trust is in the faculty, not in the parents or students. Although the 67

interdisciplinary research on trust is voluminous (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000), the focus of this study was on principal’s trust in teachers and was based on the theoretical work of Bryk & Schneider, 2002, Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011,

Tschannen-Moran, 2004, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000. Because the principal is much closer to the faculty (teachers) than parents, trust in teachers seems likely to have a stronger connection to principal academic optimism. For that reason, this study used principal trust in faculty, a hypothesized key component of the principal trust found in academic optimism.

Measurement and new scale. The items to measure principal trust in teachers came from variations on trust items from a number of different sources.

Most were taken from items on the Omnibus Trust Scale (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran,

2003), which were adapted for this inquiry. Additional items were suggested by Curt

Adams and Patrick B. Forsyth, who were developing their own measure of trust.

The tentative measure that was pilot tested in this study uses a 1-6 scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The items are shown in Table 7.

Indicate the extent that you agree or disagree with each of the statements about your school. T1. I have faith in the integrity of my teachers. T2. I believe in my teachers. T3. I am often suspicious of teachers’ motives in this school. T4. When teachers in this school tell you something, you can believe it. T5. Even in difficult situations, I can depend on my teachers. T6. My teachers typically look out for me. T7. I trust the teachers in this school. Table 7. Pilot Measure of Trust in Teachers

Exploratory factor analysis. The seven items described above were factor analyzed using principal factor analysis. The first iteration of factor analysis was used to reduce the number of items measuring trust in teachers. One item, being suspicious of teachers (T3), did not load strongly on the trust factor; thus it was eliminated. The factor analysis of the six remaining items demonstrated that all had strong factor loadings on a single dimension of principal trust in teachers, ranging from .717 to .905. These explained 71.4% of the variance with an eigenvalue of

4.28. The factor loadings are shown below.

T1. I have faith in the integrity of my teachers. .784

T2. I believe in my teachers. .752

T4. When teachers in this school tell you something, you .717

can believe it.

T5. Even in difficult situations, I can depend on my teachers. .873

T6. My teachers typically look out for me. .826

T7. I trust the teachers in this school. .905

The alpha coefficient of reliability for these items was .92. The factor analysis supported the construct of the trust measure and the tracking item “I trust the teachers in this school” (T7) demonstrated strong support for the construct.

Refined measure. The final scale to be used to measure principal trust in teachers was summarized in Table 8.

Indicate the extent that you agree or disagree with each of the statements about your school. T1. I have faith in the integrity of my teachers. T2. I believe in my teachers. T4. When teachers in this school tell you something, you can believe it. T5. Even in difficult situations, I can depend on my teachers. T6. My teachers typically look out for me. T7. I trust the teachers in this school. Table 8. Refined Measure of Trust in Teachers

Principal Efficacy

The efficacy component is an important theoretical element of the construct of principals’ academic optimism.

Conceptual definition. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in his or her ability to accomplish a task. Self-efficacy expectations are influenced by performance accomplishments (sometimes called mastery experience), vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal.

Principal self-efficacy for instructional leadership was defined in terms of the capability of the principal to motivate teachers to improve instruction and to create a positive learning environment.

Measurement. The initial plan for principal efficacy comes from the work of Tschannen-Moran and Gareis’s (2004) work on principals’ sense of efficacy.

They developed the PSES (Principal Self-Efficacy Scale), which was adapted from the TSES (Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,

2001). The items each begin with the phrase “In your current role as principal, to what extent can you…?” followed by a complementary infinitive phrase (e.g.

evaluate teachers, etc.). The measure used a nine-point scale, along a continuum, from 1 (none at all) to 9 (a great deal).

To test the Tschannen-Moran and Gareis’ PSES, Curt Adams and Patrick B.

Forsyth from University of Oklahoma provided the data. They had run the PSES using a sample of Oklahoma principals and provided the factor loadings for each question. After examining both the work of Tschannen-Moran and Gareis’ and the factor loadings from the Oklahoma State data, four items were deleted because of either low factor loadings or poor conceptual fit, as shown by dual loadings. The four items removed were those that either implied a direct relation between principal behavior and student achievement or were management rather than instructional functions. Table 9 shows the four deleted items and their factor loadings by factor.

In your current role as principal, to what extent can you… F1 F2 facilitate student learning in your school? .531 .464 manage change in your school? .403 .688 raise student achievement on standardized tests? .357 .622 shape the operational policies and procedures that are .636 .163 necessary to manage your school? Table 9. Deleted Self-Efficacy Items

Other principal self-efficacy items came from Riegel’s attempt (2012) to measure principal efficacy using a different strategy. Riegel’s 6-point scale seemed more appropriate and less unwieldy and matched other sections of the research instrument. The responses ranged from 1 (limited) to 6 (a great deal). Four items were adapted from Riegel’s scale as substitutes for the deleted items for use in the 71

current measure. All the items were those that measured the efficacy of instructional leadership. There were no managerial items included in the new measure of principal self-efficacy. Table 10 shows the new measure used for principal self- efficacy.

In your current role as principal, to what extent can you… PE1. generate enthusiasm for shared vision for the school? PE2. handle the time demands of the job? PE3. create a positive learning environment in your school? PE4. motivate teachers? PE5. maintain control of our own daily schedule? PE6. handle the paperwork required of the job? PE7. cope with the stress of the job? PE8. prioritize among competing demands of the job? PE9. help struggling teachers improve? PE10. provide constructive criticism for teachers? PE11. resolve conflicts in my school? PE12. evaluate my teachers? Table 10. Pilot Measure of Principal Self-Efficacy

Exploratory factor analysis. The 12 items described above were factor analyzed using principal factor analysis with the goal of reducing the number of items and focusing on the self-efficacy of the principal’s instructional leadership. A series of factor analyses was performed and the number of items was eventually reduced to four. Items were eliminated based on conceptual fit and low factor loadings. In the process of data reduction, the factor analysis contained four items, all with strong factor loadings on a single dimension of principal self-efficacy in instructional leadership. The factor loadings ranged from .739 to .834 and 72.9% of 72

the variance was explained with an eigenvalue of 2.91. The factor loadings are shown below.

In your current role as principal, to what extent can you…

1. Create a positive learning environment in your school? .834

2. Motivate teachers? .783

3. Help struggling teachers improve? .841

4. Provide constructive criticism for teachers? .739

The alpha coefficient of reliability for this short measure of principal self-efficacy was .87. The results of the factor analysis gave support to the construct validity of self-efficacy of principals.

Refined measure. The final scale to be used to measure principal self- efficacy was summarized in Table 11.

In your current role as principal, to what extent can you… PE1. create a positive learning environment in your school? PE2. motivate teachers? PE3. help struggling teachers improve? PE4. provide constructive criticism for teachers? Table 11. Refined Measure of Principal Self-Efficacy

Principal Academic Emphasis

Academic emphasis was theorized to be the third element of the construct of academic optimism of the principal, as explicated in Chapter Two.

Conceptual definition. Academic emphasis was defined as "the school's press for achievement. High but achievable goals are set for students, the learning environment is orderly and serious, teachers believe students can achieve, and students work hard and respect those who do well" (Hoy & Tarter, 1997, p. 60).

Schools with high academic emphasis set high but attainable goals and encourage student success through academics. The principal believes that teachers set high academic expectations for students and that all students can achieve those expectations.

Measurement. The academic emphasis measure in this study is based on the work of Riegel (2012) and on Hoy, Tarter, and Woolfolk (2006). Nine items were chosen to measure the academic emphasis of the principal. Responses were made on a 6 point scale, ranging from 1 (limited) to 6 (very much). The measure of principal academic emphasis is provided below in Table 12.

To what extent does the following statement describe you? AE1. I work with teachers to ensure they set high academic standards for all students. AE2. I encourage teachers in my building to give challenging work to all students. AE3. I set high academic goals for students and teachers. AE4. I focus on intellectual rigor. AE5. I hold teachers accountable for high student achievement. AE6. I emphasize intellectual rigor above all. AE7. The primary goal of this school is intellectual accomplishment. Table 12. Pilot Measure of Academic Emphasis of Principals

Exploratory factor analysis. The seven items described above were factor analyzed using principal factor analysis with the goal of reducing the number of items and simplifying the measure of academic emphasis of the principal. In the first factor analyses all seven items loaded strongly on one factor. Nevertheless, for the sake of parsimony the two items with the lowest factor loadings were removed and the remaining five items were subjected to a second factor analysis. The factor loadings ranged from .801 to .930 and 79.4% of the variance was explained with an eigenvalue of 3.97. The factor loadings are shown below.

AE2. I encourage teachers in my building to give challenging .836

work to all students.

AE3. I set high academic goals for students and teachers. .909

AE4. I focus on intellectual rigor. .930

AE5. I hold teachers accountable for high student achievement. .831

AE6. I emphasize intellectual rigor above all. .801

The alpha coefficient of reliability for this measure was .93. The results of the factor analysis supported the construct validity of academic emphasis.

Refined measure. The final scale to be used to measure principal academic emphasis was summarized in Table 13.

To what extend in does the following statement describe you? AE1. I encourage teachers in my building to give challenging work to all students. AE2. I set high academic goals for students and teachers. AE3. I focus on intellectual rigor. AE4. I hold teachers accountable for high student achievement. AE5. I emphasize intellectual rigor above all. Table 13. Refined Measure of Academic Emphasis of Principals

Academic Optimism

Academic optimism of principals was a general construct hypothesized to be composed of three factors: principal trust in teachers, principal self-efficacy in instructional leadership, and principal’s focus on academic emphasis.

Conceptual definition. The theoretical underpinnings of academic optimism evolved from the work of Hoy, Tarter, and Woolfolk Hoy (2006), who conceptualized organizational academic optimism as a triad of academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust in parents and students. The construct included behavioral, cognitive, and affective components; academic emphasis was behavioral, collective efficacy was cognitive, and faculty trust was affective. Thus, the original work on academic optimism was performed at the collective, or organizational, level. Fahy, Wu, and Hoy (2010) shifted the focus of academic optimism from the collective to the individual level, as they demonstrated the validity of the academic optimism of teachers. The current study moved from the

teacher level to the principal level, by hypothesizing that academic optimism would have the same structure as it had at the organizational and teacher levels.

Measurement and exploratory factor analysis. After constructing measures of principal trust in teachers, principal self-efficacy, and principal academic emphasis, the exploration turned to combining these three dimensions of principal affect, cognition, and behavior into a more general construct. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to reduce the three principal characteristics to the hypothesized general construct, which was labeled principal academic optimism.

The results supported the theory of a single second-order factor composed of three dimensions:

1. Trust in teachers .526

2. Self-efficacy .749

3. Academic emphasis .708

The variance explained was 62.3% (eigenvalue=1.869).

Academic optimism, as predicted, had three basic elements: trust in teachers, self-efficacy, and academic emphasis. Both trust and self-efficacy were concepts indicative of a form of personal optimism. Academic emphasis reflected the context of this personal optimism, hence the name academic optimism. Explanatory style of the principal described the extent to which principals viewed negative circumstances as situational, temporary, and controllable. These principals were said to have an optimistic explanatory style, which led them away from catastrophizing negative events and toward continued optimism even in the face of bad outcomes. Clearly 77

these are different forms of optimism, but ones that were predicted to be related to each other. Therefore, as a validity check, the two variables were correlated with each other and, as expected, the correlation was significant (r = .35, p < .01).

Statistical Analysis

The pilot studies were successful in developing and refining as set of operational variables for the next phase of the study. Further, the preliminary testing of the hypothesis that principal self-efficacy, principal trust in teachers, and principal focus on academic emphasis would come together to form a more general construct called academic optimism received initial support.

With a more comprehensive sample, the academic optimism hypothesis was again tested in Chapter Four. Then a set of independent variables drawn from the research on positive psychology, namely, grit, explanatory style, dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, and zest, was used to explain the variance in academic optimism of principals.

Finally, in Chapter Four an exploratory path model based on the assumption that life satisfaction was a function of academic optimism as well as grit, dispositional optimism, explanatory style and zest of the principal was constructed and tested. The theory behind the model was that administrators with higher levels of academic optimism felt better about their jobs and their lives, resisted burnout, managed stress, and, as a result had high levels of life satisfaction.

Summary

In sum, this chapter described the sample, data collection procedures, and research instruments and variables of the study. Pilot studies were performed to develop, refine, and check the reliability and validity of each of the nascent measures. The measures and the reliabilities are summarized in Table 14.

Variable Name Number of Items Reliability

Dispositional Optimism (LOT-R) 6 α = .83

Life Satisfaction (SWLS) 5 Split-half = .82

Grit (Grit Scale) 8 α =.79

Zest 6 α =.86

Explanatory Style 6 α =.76

Principal Trust 7 α =.92

Principal Self-Efficacy 4 α =.87

Principal Academic Emphasis 5 α =.93

Table 14. Number of Items and Reliability Summary of Scales

Finally, the statistical procedures used to test the hypotheses: descriptive statistics, correlations, multiple regression, and factor analysis were the primary statistics used in the analysis.

Chapter 4: The Current Study

Introduction

Chapter Four outlines the results of the current study. The first section addresses the reliability of each measure as found in the current study. Second is the outline of how the measure of principal academic optimism was developed. A discussion of the relationships of the demographic and independent variables to the dependent variable follows. The last section of the chapter deals with the results of the three proposed hypotheses and a summary of the chapter.

Assessing the Measure of Academic Optimism in the Current Study

Initially the variable measures were developed and explicated in Chapter three in a series of pilot studies. Those measures were then used in a new and comprehensive sample to explore and test the proposed relationships. This chapter begins with an evaluation and comparison of the scales. The major variables of the study were academic optimism, which was the dependent variable, and a set of predictor variables, which included dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, grit, zest, and explanatory style. Before testing of the predicted relationships between the 81

independent and dependent variables could begin, the measure of academic optimism needed to be evaluated.

One goal of this study was to develop a usable measure of academic optimism of principals. The first step in the development of this measure was to test the three theorized reciprocal elements of academic optimism: principal trust in faculty, self-efficacy of the principal, and academic emphasis of the principal.

Initially the relationships between the three reciprocal elements were considered. A correlation of these three elements was run and revealed significant but low correlations between pairs of the elements. The results proved disappointing. The relationship between self-efficacy and academic emphasis was a substantial .599 (p

< .01) but the other pairs of relationships between trust and self-efficacy (r = .160, ns) and trust and academic emphasis (r = .134, ns) were weak and not significant.

The relationships did not bear out as the theory suggested. The analysis was not a complete surprise because trust has been a problematic variable in previous attempts to develop a measure of principal academic optimism (Riegel, 2012). The results led to a preliminary rejection of the hypothesis that principal trust in faculty, self-efficacy, and academic emphasis readily loaded into one factor called academic optimism of principals. Because the correlation did not initially bear out one general factor, another approach was needed to develop a measure of academic optimism, which was both consistent with the theory of the construct and a reliable measure.

Rather than deal with the three collective elements of academic optimism, a decision was made to do the analysis at the individual item level for all of the 82

subtests. Thus all seven of the trust items, six self-efficacy items, and 5 academic emphasis items were analyzed using exploratory component analysis in an attempt to find a single factor, composed of the individual items theorized to make up academic optimism.

A one-factor solution was used based on the assumption that the first strong component would be academic optimism and have a mix of trust, self-efficacy, and academic emphasis items. The nine highest component loadings were selected; three for trust in faculty, three for self-efficacy, and three for academic emphasis. The nine items that were identified were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis to test whether all nine items loaded highly on a single factor, theorized to be academic optimism. Such was indeed the case. All nine items loaded on the first factor and had strong factor loadings. Table 15 below summarizes the loadings.

Factor Matrix Factor 1 TRUST 1: I have faith in the .508 integrity of my teachers. TRUST 2: I trust my .545 teachers. TRUST 3: I have faith my teachers do what's best for .472 kids. ACAD EMPH 1: I set high academic goals for students .723 and teachers. ACAD EMPH 2: I focus on .709 educational rigor. ACAD EMPH 3: I hold teachers accountable for high .584 student achievement. EFFICACY 1:I have what it takes to lead to high levels of .615 student learning in my school. EFFICACY 2: I can create a positive learning environment .660 in my school. EFFICACY 3: I can motivate .655 teachers. Table 15. Factor Loadings of Nine Best Items of Academic Optimism

The items put together made up the new measure of principal academic optimism and had an alpha of .84. Additionally, they were consistent both with the

theoretical and proposed models of academic optimism of principals, which stated that academic optimism is made up of the three components of trust in faculty, self- efficacy, and academic emphasis.

It is also important to note that each of the three sub-tests of the measure had high reliability coefficients; trust in teachers was .79; self-efficacy of the principal was .84; and academic emphasis of the principal was .84.

Although the initial attempt to test and develop the measure of principal academic optimism was not ideal, further analysis enabled the formulation of a rough gauge of academic optimism of principals, which was consistent with the theory of academic optimism and had reasonable psychometric properties. All further analyses in this inquiry used this measure of academic optimism.

Demographic Variables

A number of demographic variables were examined in this study to determine whether they related to academic optimism of principals. Seven important demographic variables were examined: level of school, setting of school, students on free and reduced lunch, years in current role, highest level of education completed, age of the principal, and sex of the principal. None of these demographic variables, including 3 of the school and 4 of the principal, were found to have any bearing on academic optimism of the principal.

The first of these variables was level of school. Level of the school was measured as a dichotomous variable, using the categories elementary or secondary.

There was no significant difference in the academic optimism of the 153 elementary 85

and secondary teachers; the means scores were nearly the same (elementary, 5.04 and secondary, 4.95, t = 1.29, ns).

The second school level variable was setting of the school. The three categories were rural, suburban, and urban. There was no significant difference among the means for academic optimism for rural, suburban, and urban schools.

This was demonstrated through an ANOVA test. The analysis showed that the location of a district does not have an influence on the academic optimism of the principal. The results of the ANOVA are shown in Table 16.

suburban rural urban n 69 66 22 M 5.09 4.90 5.07 SD .51 .44 .49 Source do s.s. m.s. F Between Groups 2 1.44 .72 3.18 (ns) Within Groups 154 34.90 .23 Total 156 36.34 Table 16. Summary of data and analysis of variance data for the relationship between academic optimism of the principal and setting of school

The third and final school level variable was percentage of students on free and reduced lunch. The analysis for the significance of the relationship between the number of students on free and reduced lunch and the academic optimism of the principal was done using a correlation analysis. The relationship was not significant

(r = -.10, ns). Principal’s academic optimism was not influenced by the number of

poor students in their schools.

The first principal level variable examined was years of experience in current role. A correlation analysis was run between experience and principal academic optimism. There was no relationship between the two variables (r = .12, ns). Principal’s experience in the role was not related to amount of academic optimism.

The next variable that was examined was highest level of education completed by the principal. The options were bachelors, masters, administrative certification, and doctorate. An ANOVA was run to determine whether there was a relationship between the principal’s level of education and academic optimism of the principal. There was no significant difference among the academic optimism means and level of education. Academic optimism does not increase or decrease with higher levels or education or training. The finding shown in Table 17.

Masters Admin PhD/EdD Certification n 63 66 26 M 5.04 4.95 5.11 SD .49 .46 .55 Source df s.s. m.s. F Between Groups 3 .68 .23 .970 (ns) Within Groups 152 35.65 .24 Total 155 36.34 Table 17. Summary of data and analysis of variance data for the relationship between academic optimism of the principal and level of education of the principal

Age of the principal was also not significantly related to academic optimism.

(r = .04, ns). This finding shows that academic optimism is not something that principals develop or lose as they grow older.

The last demographic variable that was examined was sex. The sex of the principal was not found to be a significant predictor of the academic optimism of the principal. There was no significant difference between the average scores of men

(4.97) and women (5.05) (t = -.935, ns). Women principals are no more or less likely to have academic optimism than their male counterparts.

In summation, the analysis of the demographic variables of level of school, setting of district, percentage of students on free and reduced lunch, years in current role, highest level of education, sex, and age were all examined. None of the variables had any significant relationship with the academic optimism of the principal. The results are summarized in Table 18.

Demographic Variable Statistic Significance School Level t = 1.29 p > .05 School Setting F = 3.18 p > .05 SES r = -.10 p > .05 Experience r = .12 p > .05 Education Level F = .97 p > .05 Age r = .04 p > .05 Sex t = -.94 p > .05 TABLE 18. Summary of the relationships between demographic variables and academic optimism of the principal.

Principals did not appear to gain academic optimism with experience or lose it as they encounter more demands of the job. They did not seem to acquire 88

academic optimism as part of increasing levels of education, nor do the challenges of urban or poor schools drive them away from academic optimism. In other words, there is nothing about the demographic characteristics of a principal or a school that make him or her more or less predisposed to academic optimism. But maybe there is something about the psychological make up of a principal that predisposes them to be academically optimistic. The next step, then, was examining the relationship of the independent variables with academic optimism of the principal.

Assessing Predictor Variable Measures in the Current Study

There were five predictor variables used in this study. Before analysis began using these variables, the reliabilities of the measures in the new sample were assessed and compared. All of the measures were reliable in previous studies as outlined in Chapter Three. In the current sample, alpha coefficients of reliabilities were computed for all of the predictor variables. An analysis of Table 18 demonstrates that all of the variables in this study, including both independent and dependent variables, had reasonably high alpha coefficients of reliability.

Variable Alpha Alpha Coefficient Coefficient Current Previous Sample Samples Dispositional Optimism (LOT-R) .86 .83 Life Satisfaction (SWLS) .89 .82 Grit (Grit Scale) .70 .79 Zest .86 .86 Explanatory Style .78 .86 Trust .92 .92 Self-Efficacy .88 .87 Academic Emphasis .87 .93 Table 19. Alpha Coefficients for Current and Previous Samples

Descriptives and Correlations of the Major Variables

Dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, grit, zest, explanatory style, trust in faculty, self-efficacy, and academic emphasis were each measured using Likert-type items. The mean scores for each variable were calculated and reverse scored when applicable. Except for explanatory style, the higher the respondent’s score, the higher the degree of positive attribute. Explanatory style, however, was measured such that a higher score represented a more pessimistic style in the respondent and a lower score represented a more optimistic explanatory style in the respondent. Each of the variables had acceptable ranges and standard deviations. Table 20 provides a summary of the descriptives for the independent variables and the elements of academic optimism of principals.

Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation DOPT 158 2.17 5.00 4.0819 .54746 LSAT 158 1.60 7.00 5.3354 1.09225 GRIT 158 2.50 4.88 3.9251 .42476 ESTYLE 157 1.00 5.17 2.4603 .80536 ZEST 157 3.00 5.00 4.2102 .47447 AcEm 158 3.00 6.00 4.9578 .74463 PE 158 4.00 6.00 4.9641 .52884 TRT 158 3.00 6.00 5.1065 .61309 Table 20. Summary of Variable Descriptives

The next table lays out the correlation matrix for the variables analyzed in the study. Recall that these variables are dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, grit, zest, and explanatory style. Below, in Table 21 is the correlation of the independent variables as they relate to each other and to the dependent variable, academic optimism of the principal.

Correlations AOP LSAT GRIT ZEST ES DO Academic Optimism (AOP) 1 Life Satisfaction (LSAT) .154 1 Grit .324** .138 1 Zest .325** .251** .288** 1 Explanatory Style (ES) -.298** -.121 -.263** -.205* 1 Dispositional Optimism .150 .447** .202* .481** -.230** 1 (DO) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 21. Correlation Matrix for All Variables

The matrix above demonstrates a number of findings. The most important of these is that not all of the hypothesized variables correlated with academic optimism. Life satisfaction and dispositional optimism were not significant predictors of academic optimism of the principal. However, grit, zest, and explanatory style were significant predictors of academic optimism of the principal. All of the correlations in the table were moderate. The strongest correlation was a moderate one between zest and dispositional optimism. Individuals that live their lives with high zest tend to have higher levels of dispositional optimism (r = .48, p < .01). Similarly, individuals who have an inclination towards dispositional optimism tend to have higher levels of life satisfaction (r = .45, p < .01).

Hypotheses

The study was guided by three general hypotheses. First, it was theorized that academic optimism was a construct composed of three elements: trust in faculty, principal self-efficacy, and academic emphasis of the principal. The second general hypothesis was that the five variables of dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, grit, zest, and explanatory style were positive predictors of academic optimism of the principal. The last hypothesis was that the positive predictors would jointly and collectively predict principal academic optimism and its components.

Hypothesis One: Nature of Academic Optimism of Principals

The initial test of the measure of principal academic optimism described above did not provide strong support that trust, efficacy, and academic emphasis formed an integrated general construct of academic optimism of the principal. 92

Because the underlying theory of academic optimism has been supported at the school and teacher levels, further exploration yielded a preliminary measure of academic optimism of the principal, composed of its theoretical elements, with reasonable psychometric properties as shown in Table 15. The factor analysis of nine indicators, three for each element, all load strongly on the same single factor called academic optimism of principals.

Hypothesis Two: Individual Predictors of Academic Optimism of Principals

An initial test of the predictor variables hypothesized to be related to academic optimism of the principal was conducted using simple correlational analysis techniques. Recall that none of the demographic variables were related to principal academic optimism; hence they were not included in this analysis as control variables. Only three of the hypothesized relationships were supported; academic optimism was significantly related to grit (r = .32, p < .01), zest (r = .33, p

< .01), and explanatory style (r = -.30, p < .01). Contrary to the hypothesis, life satisfaction and dispositional optimism were not significantly related to academic optimism of the principal (r =.15, ns and r = .15, ns, respectively). In sum, grit, zest, and explanatory style were the three significant predictors of academic optimism of the principal.

After the analysis of the predictors as individuals, the next inquiry concerned how dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, grit, zest, and explanatory style together predicted academic optimism and each of its three components.

Hypothesis Three: Multiple Predictors of Academic Optimism of the Principal

The final analysis of the study was a multiple regression analysis of the positive psychology predictors of academic optimism, trust in teachers, self- efficacy, and academic emphasis of the principal. First, multiple predictors were used to examine the relationship with academic optimism. The overall relationship was significant (F = 7.80, p<.01). The set of variables explained 18% of the variance in academic optimism with an R= .45, p<.01. Of the set of predictor variables, three variables were significantly related to academic optimism when all the other variables were controlled: grit (β = .204. t = 2.63, p<.01), zest (β = .251. t = 2.95, p<.01), and explanatory style (β = -.205. t = -2.68, p<.01). Although life satisfaction and dispositional optimism were also entered into the regression equation as predictors, neither made a significant independent contribution to the explanation of academic optimism of the principal. The data are summarized in Table 22.

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error Significa of the nce Estimate .453 .205 .179 .437 .000 Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Coefficient Beta Std. Error Beta t Cont 3.488 .484 7.205 .000 DO -.081 .080 -.093 -1.019 .310 LSAT .033 .037 .073 .888 .376 GRIT .232 .088 .204 2.629 .009 ZEST .255 .087 .251 2.948 .004 ESTYLE -.123 .046 -.205 -2.675 .008 Table 22. Multiple Predictors of Academic Optimism

Second, the multiple predictors of life satisfaction, dispositional optimism, grit, zest, and explanatory style were used to examine the multiple relationships with trust in teachers. The overall relationship was significant (F = 4.49, p < .01). The set of variables explained 10% of the variance in trust with an R = .36, p < .01. Of the set of predictor variables, two were significantly related to trust in teachers while controlling for the other variables in the regression: life satisfaction (β = .215, t

=2.52, p <.05) and explanatory style (β = -.217, t = -2.71, p < .05). Table 23 below shows the results.

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Significance Error of the Estimate .360 .130 .101 .583 .000 Unstandardized Std. Coefficients Coefficient Beta Std. Error Beta t Cont 4.548 .645 7.045 .000 DO .074 .107 .066 .696 .487 LSAT .124 .049 .215 2.521 .013 GRIT .083 .118 .058 .709 .479 ZEST -.078 .115 -.060 -.674 .501 ESTYLE -.166 .061 -.217 -2.707 .008 Table 23. Multiple Predictors of Principal Trust in Teachers

Third, the multiple predictors of life satisfaction, dispositional optimism, grit, zest, and explanatory style were used to examine the multiple relationships with 95

self-efficacy of the principal. The overall relationship was significant (F = 8.85, p <

.01). The set of variables explained 20% of the variance in self-efficacy with an R =

.48, p < .01. Of the set of five predictor variables, three were significantly related to principal self-efficacy while controlling for the other variables in the regression: grit

(β = .214, t =2.79, p <.05), zest (β = .327, t = 3.90, p <.05), and explanatory style (β

= -.151, t = -1.99, p <.05). The results are shown in Table 24 below

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error Significance of the Estimate .476 .227 .201 .472 .000 Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Coefficient Beta Std. Error Beta t Cont 2.907 .523 5.564 .000 DO -.105 .086 -.110 -1.221 .224 LSAT .029 .040 .059 .731 .466 GRIT .266 .095 .214 2.791 .006 ZEST .365 .093 .327 3.902 .000 ESTYLE -.099 .050 -.151 -1.992 .048 Table 24. Multiple Predictors of Self-Efficacy of the Principal

Fourth, the multiple predictors of life satisfaction, dispositional optimism, grit, zest, and explanatory style were used to examine the multiple relationships with principal academic emphasis. The overall relationship was significant (F = 5.79, p <

.01). The set of variables explained 13% of the variance in academic emphasis with an R = .40, p < .01. Of the set of five predictor variables, two were significantly 96

related to academic emphasis of the principal while controlling for the other variables in the regression: grit (β= .189, t = 2.37, p <.05) and zest (β= .300, t =

3.43, p <.01). Table 25 shows the results.

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error Significa of the nce Estimate .401 .161 .133 .695 .000 Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Coefficient Beta Std. Error Beta t Cont 3.052 .769 3.967 .000 DO -.197 .127 -.145 -1.552 .123 LSAT -.053 .059 -.076 -.905 .367 GRIT .332 .140 .189 2.367 .019 ZEST .471 .138 .300 3.427 .001 ESTYLE -.118 .073 -.128 -1.620 .107 Table 25. Multiple Predictors of Academic Emphasis of the Principal

The final regression was to explore the combined and individual effects of trust in teachers, principal self-efficacy, and academic emphasis of the principal on academic optimism of the principal. Of course, all the variance of academic optimism of the principal should be explained because these are the three variables that combine to define academic optimism. That was exactly the case. The overall relationship of the three independent variables was significant and explained 100% of the variance. Each of the three components had an independent effect on academic optimism of the principal. In fact, the three variables influence was relatively equivalent: trust in teachers (β = .417, p< .001), self-efficacy of the

principal (β = .372, p < .001), and academic emphasis of the principal (β = .508, p <

.001). The results are shown in Table 26.

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error Significance of the Estimate .999 .999 .999 .01697 .000 Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Coefficient Beta Std. Beta t Error Cont .022 .015 1.516 .132 TRT .328 .002 .417 137.827 .000 PE .339 .003 .372 103.727 .000 AcEm .329 .002 .508 148.387 .000

Table 26. Regression Model Summary for Academic Optimism of the Principal

Summary

In summary, the results of the study were enumerated. First the measure of academic optimism for principals was assessed and refined. Then the demographic variables of the study were examined with respect to academic optimism. Next the descriptives and correlations of the variables were reported. Finally the results of the testing of the hypotheses were summarized: one, the theorized nature of academic optimism of principals, two, bivariate predictions of academic optimism of principals, and three, multiple regression of academic optimism of principals. The chapter concludes with demonstration of how the elements of academic optimism form a unified construct.

Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings

Introduction

In this chapter, the findings of the current survey are summarized and discussed. The discussion includes an assessment of the measure of academic optimism of principals and the lack of influence of the demographic variables. Next the theoretical and practical implications of the findings are presented, along with the limitations of the current study. Lastly, the suggestions for future research are explored.

Summary of Finding

1. All of the scales used in this research have high reliabilities, even those adapted

for use in this study.

2. Academic optimism of principals is a construct composed of trust in teachers,

principal self-efficacy, and academic emphasis of the principal.

3. There are no principal level demographic variables that affect the academic

optimism of principals, including age and sex of the principal, years of

experience in the role, and highest level of education completed.

4. There are no school level demographic variables that are related to the academic

optimism of principals, including percentage of students on free and 99

reduced lunch, type of school district (rural, suburban, urban) and school

level (elementary, secondary).

5. Three predicted variables, however, were significantly related to academic

optimism of the principal: grit, zest, and explanatory style.

6. Life satisfaction and dispositional optimism were not significantly related to

academic optimism of principals.

7. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the five predictor variables

together were related to the academic optimism of principals and explained

18% of the variance. Grit, zest, and explanatory style made significant

contributions to the regression, while controlling for all of the other

independent variables in the equation.

8. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the five predictor variables

together were related to trust in faculty and explained 10% of the variance,

but only explanatory style and life satisfaction made significant independent

contributions to principal trust in faculty.

9. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the five predictor variables

together were related to principal self-efficacy and explained 20% of the

variance. Grit, zest, and explanatory style made significant contributions to

the regression, controlling for all of the other independent variables.

10. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the five predictor variables

together were related to academic emphasis of the principal and accounted

for 13% of the variance. Grit and zest made significant independent effects 100

in the regression on the dependent variable, controlling for all other

variables.

11. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the three component elements of

the academic optimism of principals (trust, self-efficacy, and academic

emphasis) made relatively equal and independent contributions to the

construct, as they explained all the variance of the academic optimism of

principals.

Discussion of Findings

This section addresses both the measure of academic optimism as developed in the current study and the effect of the demographic variables on academic optimism.

Assessing Academic Optimism of Principals

A major focus of the current study was to develop and refine a measure of principal academic optimism, theorized to be made up of trust, self-efficacy, and academic emphasis. Though academic optimism has been well documented at the school and teacher level (Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2010, Hoy, Tarter,

Woolfolk Hoy, 2006, Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008), the research on principal academic optimism is much more nascent. Riegel (2012) attempted to create a measure of principal academic optimism, but struggled with the trust component of the triad. Part of this struggle hinged on what type of trust was most important for principals: trust in teachers, trust in students, or trust in parents. She chose to use trust in parents and teachers and this element of trust did not work well. In fact, she 101

was not successful at measuring the concept and suggested that other researchers attempt to refine the construct more.

In the pilot study, done as part of the current analysis and outlined in Chapter

Three, trust in students and trust in parents were found not to be meaningful components of academic optimism of principals and so they were left out of the current measure formulation. The pilot study was useful in identifying three reliable variables that were theorized to work together to define academic optimism of principals. Consistent with the measures of academic optimism of schools and of teachers, the three components of principal academic optimism were principal trust in teachers, self-efficacy, and academic emphasis of the principal.

Initially, in the current study, a correlation analysis was run between the three theorized elements. Only the correlation between self-efficacy and academic emphasis was significant; the other two correlations were weak and not significant.

Exploratory factor analysis revealed that three measures for each element had high factor loadings on the academic optimism factor; hence, nine items operationally defined academic optimism, three from each component of academic optimism.

Further analysis demonstrated that the three facets of academic optimism, all of which had a relatively equal and independent influence on the construct came together to form one factor (called academic optimism). Clearly the analyses were a step forward in defining and measuring the academic optimism of principals. The results were consistent with the underlying theory. Researchers now have a reliable

102

measure of academic optimism, albeit one that likely needs further refinement and elaboration.

Effect of Demographic Variables

Seven demographic variables were examined during this study: 3 at the school level and 4 at the principal level. The three general school characteristics were percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (a rough measure of SES), setting of school (rural, suburban, and urban), and level of school (elementary and secondary). Similarly, the characteristics of the principal studied were age, sex, years of experience in the role, and highest level of education obtained. The results of the analyses showed that none of the demographic variables were related to academic optimism of principals.

These findings about the demographic variables are useful in several ways.

They suggest that generally principals do not gain or lose academic optimism with experience, that women are not more academically optimistic than men, and that age is not a factor in generating academic optimism. Higher levels of education do not appear to increase levels of academic optimism, nor do they lower them. Academic optimism is a personal variable, unaffected by where the school is or what type of students the school serves.

What then does influence the academic optimism of a principal? The analysis suggests that personality variables, such as grit, zest, and explanatory style, are significant in determining such optimism. Further, elements that generate trust,

103

self-efficacy, and academic emphasis are likely to promote academic optimism.

Such ideas will be explored further in subsequent discussions in this chapter.

Theoretical Implications

The discussion in this section focuses on explanatory style, zest, and academic optimism of principals, as the findings in the current study have more theoretical implications for these variables than for the others (grit, life satisfaction, and dispositional optimism).

Explanatory Style

Originally, Peterson, Buchanan, and Seligman explained that originally explanatory style as “the way that people explain the causes of good and bad events involving themselves along three dimensions” (1995, p.1). Further empirical study led to a slight narrowing of this definition of explanatory style. Peterson (1991) categorized explanatory style more narrowly as only pertinent to explanations of bad events. The three dimensions of explanatory style posited were permanence, pervasiveness, and personal nature. Permanence is broken down into stable (“This will always be”) versus unstable (“This too shall pass”); pervasiveness into global

(“This will happen in everything I do”) versus specific (“This is a situational problem”); and personal nature into internal (“This is a problem with me”) versus external (“This is a problem with someone else”) (Peterson et al, 1995).

Individuals with a more unstable, specific, and external style have an optimistic explanatory style, as they recognize that bad outcomes will pass in time,

104

are situational, and can sometimes be out of their control. Those with a more stable, global, and internal style have a pessimistic explanatory style, meaning that they believe that bad events will continue forever, will influence everything that happens from then on, and they are to blame for any misfortune.

Principals with optimistic explanatory styles view setbacks as momentary occurrences, rather than permanent conditions. They can separate themselves from problems, without blaming themselves for every negative outcome. Lastly, they believe that bad outcomes apply only to the specific situation and not to every situation they might encounter. In contrast, principals with pessimistic explanatory styles view setbacks as permanent conditions, that will pervade every part of their professional lives, and that are entirely their own faults.

An optimistic explanatory style does not guarantee that the individual is an optimist. Explanatory style does not correspond to a disposition to be optimistic or pessimistic. Thus it is a misnomer to use optimistic explanatory style and optimism interchangeably (Peterson, 1991). Although optimistic and pessimistic work as adjectives to modify explanatory style, one should not use the words to describe an individual’s disposition. Further, having a pessimistic explanatory style does not make an individual a pessimist, or vice versa. In fact, the data demonstrated that there is only a weak correlation between explanatory style and dispositional optimism (r = .23).

The measurement of explanatory style is related to theory. Peterson,

Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982 have developed an 105

operational measure of explanatory style, closely linked to their theory of the construct. The measure, the Attributional Styles Questionnaire (ASQ), is an open- ended questionnaire in which individuals respond to good and bad situations in terms of the root causes and consequences. The measure requires the answers to be coded by the researcher along a continuum of optimistic to pessimistic; hence, trained experts must do scoring. For this reason, Seligman, who owns the rights to the measure is adamant that the ASQ may not be given online. As a consequence, for this inquiry, a new measure was designed and tested to measure explanatory style of principals online. The developed measure has good reliability, is parsimonious, and has reasonable predictive validity, as demonstrated in this study.

Nonetheless, further refinement and testing of the instrument seems in order.

It bears noting that one study did find a strong correlation between explanatory style and trust, which may explain the predictive nature of explanatory style in academic optimism of principals. Eisner (1997) found that mistrust may foster pessimistic explanatory style, and vice versa. This avenue of research has not been explored in principals but provides a promising start to another line of inquiry.

Zest

Zest is a relatively new concept in the positive psychological literature. The roots of the construct of zest rest with the self-determination literature of Deci and

Ryan (2000) and the positive psychology work of Peterson and Seligman (2004).

Zest is a category of vitality and energy for life, which includes enthusiasm and vigor. 106

The scale of zest used in this study was developed by Hoy and Riegel (2011) and refined in the current analysis. The measure is designed to gauge an individual’s enthusiasm, energy, and excitement about everyday life. The essence of the construct of zest is enthusiasm and excitement for daily life and professional and personal challenges.

The current analysis supports the construct validity of zest. Both in the pilot study and final study, zest had good predictive validity. As theorized, zest has moderate correlations with academic optimism, life satisfaction, grit, explanatory style, and dispositional optimism. Not surprisingly, in this analysis zest had the strongest correlation with dispositional optimism. Clearly, zest is related to the cluster of psychological variables used in this study and prominent in the positive psychology literature (Hoy & Tarter, 2011; Seligman, 2011; Seligman, 2012). In sum, zest appears to be a significant theoretical concept for the study of well-being

(Seligman, 2011) and should be used in educational studies, especially those that focus on positive psychological analyses.

Academic Optimism of the Principal

The roots of the construct of academic optimism come from the work of Hoy and his colleagues (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006). Academic optimism is a complex concept with three elements: trust, efficacy, and academic emphasis. Hoy et al. postulate that there is reciprocal causality between each pair of elements of academic optimism, that is, between trust and academic emphasis, between academic emphasis and efficacy, and between trust and efficacy. They explain that 107

efficacy is a cognitive element and refers to a belief that individuals have the ability to make a difference in a given situation; trust is an affective aspect of academic optimism and refers to a belief in the capability and integrity of individuals to make positive choices; academic emphasis is the enactment of the beliefs of efficacy and trust into behavior with an academic focus. Hoy, Tarter, and Woolfolk Hoy (2006) conclude that, “Optimism is an appropriate overarching construct to unite efficacy, trust, and academic emphasis because each concept contains a sense of the possible.” (p. 145) They further state that the three facets together create a richer picture of factors that influence student achievement. Despite the fact that each of the concepts is robust by itself, together they are stronger. It is important to look at the concepts independently and together, to prevent interventions that raise one component at the expense of the others.

What is significant about the theory of academic optimism of the principal for this inquiry is that the construct is built upon the same theoretical triad. Whether academic optimism refers to the school, the teacher, or, in this case, the principal, the theoretical framework is the same, even if the measurement is different. For example, for school academic optimism the construct is measured in terms of collective trust in parents and teachers, collective efficacy of the faculty, and academic emphasis of the school. In this analysis, academic optimism of the principal was gauged by the principal’s trust in teachers, the self-efficacy of the principal, and the principal’s press for academics. Unlike Riegel’s (2012) attempt to measure the academic optimism of principals, this study highlighted the principal’s 108

trust in teachers, whereas Riegel focused on the principal’s trust in parents and students. Although the framework is the same for both studies, the measurement of trust was crucial to success.

In sum, the research of this study supports the emerging theory of academic optimism, be it of the school, of the teacher, or of the principal. The research suggests that the theory should work equally well for students and perhaps superintendents, but such a conclusion needs to be strained through the colander of empirical research.

Practical Implications

Next, attention turns to the practical implications of this research. Although it is somewhat premature to press for action quickly, the results do suggest some tentative strategies for application. Three areas stand out in this regard; first a warning, then the improvement of the principal’s academic optimism, and finally some administrative suggestions.

Caveat Lector

Although it is tempting to suggest practical implications from this research, it is done with caution and based upon the following assumptions:

1. Academic optimism is a positive state of being for principals.

2. As a corollary, trust in teachers, a sense of efficacy, and academic emphasis

are likewise positive states that should drive behavior.

3. The research on academic optimism of principals is only in its beginning

stage. 109

With these assumptions in mind, the analysis examines some general applications and implications.

Improving the Academic Optimism of Principals

How can one increase the academic optimism of principals? Empirical research on this question is lacking, but the theory provides guidance. To improve the academic optimism of principals, one needs to improve the principal’s trust in teachers, self-efficacy, and academic emphasis.

Improving principal’s trust in teachers. Trust is anchored by openness, benevolence, reliability, competence, and honesty (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011).

Principals need to be secure enough in their positions that they are willing to make themselves somewhat vulnerable to teachers. That means principals must develop an atmosphere of integrity and openness as they interact with their teachers. Their confidence should grow from their competence as educational leaders and a general empathy and willingness to be kind and compassionate. Thus the question becomes, how can the principal cultivate such a perspective?

It seems the cardinal rule for principals is that they should be open, honest, and direct with teachers. Such transparency goes a long way towards creating reciprocal trust, which is positive for both teachers and administrators. Successful principals cultivate a climate and culture of trust (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1997,

Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999, Hoy, Gage, & Tarter, 2006, Forsyth, Adams, &

Hoy, 2011). Trust is the linchpin of improvement and change (Tschannen-Moran &

Hoy, 1998). Further, trust encourages educators to take risks, knowing that they will 110

be supported whether they succeed or fail (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011). Hoy,

Tarter, and Witkoskie (1992), showed that teacher trust in colleagues helps schools be more effective. They also found that supportive principal leadership led to higher levels of trust in the principal. Reciprocal trust between teachers and principals leads to more authentic dialogue and more meaningful feedback, as people are willing to openly discuss concerns and use failure as a learning experience to improve.

Meaningful dialogue between principals and teachers can also lead to both becoming more mindful about their practice, with the aim of constant improvement

Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).

Improving principal’s self-efficacy. Bandura’s work (1997, 2007) on self- efficacy provides a framework for improving self-efficacy. The four sources of self- efficacy are mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal (Bandura, 1997). Thus, principals need expert role models to develop their confidence and expertise. It is clear that professional networks of colleagues are critical in the development of high levels of self-efficacy. In the same vein, professional colleagues should provide mentorship for novice principals.

Knowledgeable coaching, good advice, and occasionally verbal persuasion enhance the self-efficacy of principals who have expert confidants. Mentors and coaches can also calm emotional challenges that confront principals. In sum, building an expert coalition of seasoned and knowledgeable colleagues is likely to improve both the competence and self-efficacy of principals.

111

Improving principal’s academic emphasis. One of the few school variables that makes a difference in student achievement regardless of the socioeconomic level of the community and school is the academic emphasis of the school. (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1997, Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011). Principals should be encouraged to develop a strong intellectual climate in the school; in fact, principals should be instructional leaders. This makes sense given the previously cited findings of Hoy, Tarter, and Witkoskie (1992) that principals who are supportive of practice have teachers who trust them more, creating a climate of trust.

Such a climate can also be built by commending students and teachers on their outstanding academic achievements and celebrating academic, as much as athletic, success. The traditional honor society, academic recognition programs, honor rolls, and student of the month are good vehicles for fostering a culture of academic achievement.

In summary, a direct pathway to improving the academic optimism of principals rests with making principals more trusting of teachers, developing more self-efficacious principals, and promoting a climate of academic achievement for students and teachers.

Administrative Guidelines

The results of this research suggest a number of administrative guidelines:

1. Cultivate trust in teachers: Open and transparent administration is the

hallmark of authenticity.

112

2. Encourage principal’s self-efficacy: Efficacy is the engine of change and

reform.

3. Foster school academic emphasis: Stress and celebrate academic successes.

4. Nurture an optimistic explanatory style: View failure as a temporary setback

and an opportunity for learning; failure is natural so don’t berate yourself;

and to fail in one situation is not to fail in all.

5. Learn grit: practice resilience, self-discipline, and perseverance.

6. Seek zest in school life: Be enthusiastic about what your day has in store.

7. Embrace academic optimism: A positive climate leads to both increased

achievement and well-being for all.

In brief, administrators should cultivate a climate characterized by trust, efficacy, academic achievement, grit, zest, optimistic explanatory style, and well- being.

Limitations

A few limitations of this study should be noted. First, this was an exploratory study and the results should be viewed with some caution. Second, the sample of the study was one of convenience and, although it was diverse, it was under- representative of urban principals. Further, the sample size was relatively small and the research should be extended to much larger samples. Third, because this is the first successful study of the academic optimism of principals, much more research needs to focus on the topic. Fourth, the measure of explanatory style for principals needs further refinement and elaboration. The measure used here is a short form of 113

the explanatory style for principals; Seligman has developed a longer, open-ended version for the general public. The measure worked well in the current sample, but it should be tested in larger ones. Finally, caution should be used in attempting to generalize to other samples and populations.

Suggestions for Future Research

The construct of academic optimism of principals is heuristic and, as such, opens a number of avenues for further investigation. The academic optimism of a school is a powerful variable that predicts student achievement, regardless of socioeconomic conditions. Given the saliency of academic optimism and achievement, a number of research questions become obvious:

1. Is the academic optimism of the principal related to the academic optimism

of the school?

2. Is the academic optimism of the principal related to the academic optimism

of teachers?

3. Does academic optimism exist at the student and superintendent levels?

4. Does the academic optimism of the superintendent nurture such optimism in

principals?

5. Is the academic optimism of the principal and teachers related to the

academic optimism of students?

6. What is the network of relationships between academic optimism of the

school, of the principal, of teachers, of students, and student achievement?

114

The positive psychology literature is rich with concepts yet to be explored in educations. What other variables drawn from that literature might have an influence on academic optimism of principals?

7. Is hope related to the academic optimism of principals?

8. To what extent are social, intellectual, and emotional intelligence related to

the academic optimism of principals?

9. To what extent are prudence and authenticity precursors to the academic

optimism of principals?

10. To what extent do sense of purpose and meaningfulness relate to the

academic optimism of principals?

Two surprises in the current research were that neither dispositional optimism nor life satisfaction were predictors of the academic optimism of principals. Life satisfaction may be too far removed from the everyday life of working principals.

Might work satisfaction be a better correlate with academic optimism than life satisfaction of the principal? Peterson, Park, Hall, and Seligman (2009) began to explore the results of work satisfaction and linked it to zest. As zest was found to be a predictive variable in the current study, other lines of inquiry may be warranted here, particularly as pertain to principals.

11. To what extent is work satisfaction related to the academic optimism of

principals?

The only other prediction that was not supported in this investigation was the anticipated relationship between dispositional optimism and academic optimism of 115

the principal. The lack of relationship proved to be a puzzle. Dispositional optimism refers to the way that one views things that will happen to them. Most of the questions on the measure deal with one’s expectations for oneself as to what the world will provide, rather than interactions with others or one’s own ability to accomplish tasks. This distinction may be the crux of the problem. The academic optimism of the principal is focused on job related beliefs, interactions, and challenges. Such optimism is not focused on general expectations of what the world will provide. Perhaps there is an important distinction between personal life and work life or between the present and the future or between work and leisure. Further inquiry is needed to address this issue but it remains a fascinating conundrum.

The elements of well-being (PERMA) include positive emotion, engagement, positive relations, meaning, and accomplishment (Seligman, 2011).

According to Seligman’s theoretical perspective, well-being is an important end-in- itself and is not one thing but a “dashboard” of these five elements. For people to flourish in their work and leisure they must succeed on these five levels. Thus, a final research query is appropriate:

12. To what extent is the academic optimism of principals associated with their well-being, that is, with positive emotion, engagement, meaning, accomplishment, and positive relations?

A final concluding comment is in order: This investigation should be viewed as a modest beginning to a fruitful area of research in need of elaboration, refinement, and further study. 116

References

Allen, B. P., & Potkay, C. R. (1981). On the arbitrary distinction between states and

traits. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 41(5).

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American

Psychologist American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy : The exercise of control. New York: W.H.

Freeman.

Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2010). Academic optimism of

individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 26, 1136-1144.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Carbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the

beck depression inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical

Psychology Review Clinical Psychology Review, 8(1), 77-100.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: a core resource for

improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brunwasser, S. M., Kim, E. S., & Gillham, J. E. (2009). A meta-analytic review of

117

the Penn resiliency program's effect on depressive symptoms. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(6), 1042-1054.

Buchanan, G. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Explanatory style. Hillsdale, N.J.:

L. Erlbaum.

Burke, K., Joyner, A., Czech, D., & Wilson, M. (2000). An investigation of

concurrent validity between two optimism/pessimism questionnaires: The

life orientation test-revised and the optimism/pessimism scale. Current

Psychology, 19(2), 129-136.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In

E. Chang (Ed.), Optimism & pessimism; implications for theory and

practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chang, E. C. (1998). Does dispositional optimism moderate the relation between

perceived stress and psychological well-being?: A preliminary investigation.

Personality and individual differences., 25(2), 233.

Chang, E. (Ed.). (2001). Optimism & pessimism; implications for theory and

practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cutuli, J.J., Chaplin, T.M., Gillham, J.E., Reivich, K.J., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2006).

Preventing co-occurring depression symptoms in adolescents with conduct

problems: The Penn Resiliency Program. New York Academy of Sciences,

1094 , 282-286.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human

needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 118

227-268.

Deci, E. L., &Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaemonia, and well-being: An

introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1-11.

Dember, W. M., Martin, S. H., Hummer, M. K., Howe, S. R., & Melton, R. S.

(1989). The measurement of optimism and pessimism. Current Psychology:

Research & Reviews, 8, 102-119.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with

life scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

Duckworth, A. L. (2009). Back talk: Self-discipline is empowering. Phi Delta

Kappan, 90(7), 536.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit:

Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of personality and

social psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short

grit scale (grit-s). Journal of personality assessment, 91(2), 166-174.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge:

Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 98(1), 198-208.

Duckworth, A. L., Seligman, M. E. P., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Positive predictors of

teacher effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 540-547.

Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided : How the relentless promotion of positive

thinking has undermined America. New York: Metropolitan Books. 119

Eisner, J.E. (1997). "The origins of explanatory style: Trust as a determinant of

pessimism and optimism". In Buchanan, G.M., Seligman, M.E.P..

Explanatory Style. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 49–55.

Fahy, P. F., Wu, H. C., & Hoy, W. K. (2010). Individual academic optimism of

teachers: A new concept and its measure. In Wayne K. Hoy & Michael

DiPaola (eds.). Analyzing school contexts: Influences of principals and

teachers in the service of students. Greenwich, CN: Information Age.

Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust : Why schools

can’t improve without it. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fridhandler, B. M. (1986). Conceptual note on state, trait, and the state-trait

distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 169-174.

Gilham, J. E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). Footsteps on the road to positive

psychology. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, 163-173.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its

meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American

Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The

role of perceived collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18(3), 403-425.

Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of

urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and

mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 120

36(5), 683-702.

Grimes, L. (1981). Learned helplessness and attribution theory: Redefining

children's learning problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(1), 91-100.

Gurol, M., & Kerimgil, S. (2010). Academic optimism. Procedia Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 9, 929-932.

Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life

satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 574-600.

Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School

Public Relations, 23, (2), 88-103.

Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty

trust: Necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration

Quarterly, 42(2), 236-255.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration : Theory, research,

and practice. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hoy, W. K. & Riegel, L. (2011). Zest: Its meaning and measure, Unpublished paper,

The Ohio State University, School of Educational Policy and Leadership,

Columbus, OH.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A

handbook for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2011). Positive psychology and educational

administration: An optimistic research agenda. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 47(3), 427-445. 121

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools, healthy schools

: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage

Publications

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Witkoskje, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues:

Linking the principal with school effectiveness. Journal of Research and

Development in Education, 26(1), 38-45.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C.J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of

schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research

Journal, 43(3), 425-446.

Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical

confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership,

9(3), 184-208.

Hoy, W. K. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and

measurement of faculty trust in schools. In Wayne K. Hoy & Cecil Miskel

(Eds.). Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 181-207). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Klinger, R. (2008). The dispositional sources of job

satisfaction: A comparative test. Applied Psychology, 57(3), 361-372.

Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N.

Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3-25).

New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

122

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux.

Kristjansson, K. (2012). Positive psychology and positive education: Old wine in

new bottles? Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 86-105.

Manly, B. F. (2005). Multivariate statistical methods: a primer (3rd ed.). Boca

Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall US.

Martin, M. W. (2007). Happiness and virtue in positive psychology. Journal for the

Theory of Behavioral Science, 37(1), 89-103.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. The American

psychologist, 20, 321-333.

McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of

academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership &

Policy in Schools, 5(3), 203-229.

Miller, A. (2008). A critique of positive psychology or the new science of

happiness. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3/4).

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging

construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137-

152.

Peterson, C. (1991). The meaning and measurement of explanatory style.

Psychological Inquiry, 2(1), 1-10.

123

Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L., Metalsky, G, & Seligman,

M. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 6(3), 287-300.

Peterson, C., & & Seligman, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor

for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91(3), 347-374.

Peterson, C., & Barrett, L. C. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance

among university freshmen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

53(3), 603-607.

Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2003). Positive psychology as the evenhanded positive

psychologist views it. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 143-147.

Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Zest and work.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 161-172.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life

satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 6(1), 25-41.

Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beerman, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007).

Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction.

Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149-156.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues : A

handbook and classification. Washington, DC; New York: American

Psychological Association ; Oxford University Press.

Riegel, L. A. (2012). Efficacy and academic emphasis : A leadership factor in 124

elementary school principals, and its relationship to hope, resilience,

optimism, and view of intelligence. from

http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view.cgi?acc%5Fnum=osu1336617611

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and

social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 32(5), 880-892.

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective

vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3),

529-565.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment

and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology,

4(3), 219-247.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and

physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 16(2), 201-228.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism

from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A

reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social

psychology, 67(6), 1063-1078.

Schueller, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Pursuit of pleasure, engagement, and

meaning: Relationships to subjective and objective measures of well-being.

Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 253-263. 125

Schulman, P., Castellon, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1989). Assessing explanatory

style: The content analysis of verbatim explanations and the attributional

style questionnaire. Behavioral Research and Theory, 27(5), 505-512.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural

equation monitoring (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness : On depression, development, and death.

San Francisco; New York: W.H. Freeman; Trade distributor, Scribner.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: A. A. Knopf.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president's address. American Psychologist, 54, 559-

562.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness : Using the new positive psychology

to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Can happiness be taught? Daedalus, 133(2), 80-87.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish : A visionary new understanding of happiness

and well-being. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American

Psychologist, 55(1).

Seligman, M. E. P., Reivich, K., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., & Linkins, M. (2009).

Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford

Review of Education, 35(3), 293-311.

126

Seligman, M. E. P., & Schulman, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of

productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 832-838.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology

progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist,

60(5), 410-421.

Singh, K., & Jha, S. D. (2008). Positive and negative affect, and grit as predictors of

happiness and life satisfaction. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied

Psychology, 34, 40-45.

Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in

urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5),

556-568.

Smith, P. A., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Organizational health of high

schools and dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of School Leadership, 11(2),

135-151.

Stubbe, J. H., Posthuma, D., Boomsma, D. I., & De Geus, E. J. (2005). Heritability

of life satisfaction in adults: A twin-family study. Psychological medicine,

35(11), 1581-1588.

Tarter, C. J., Bliss, J. R., & Hoy, W. K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty

trust in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(3),

294-308.

127

Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1987). The costs and benefits of optimistic explanations

and dispositional optimism. Journal of Personality, 55, 377-393.

Thayer, R. E. (1996). The origin of everyday moods: Managing energy, tension, and

stress. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals' sense of efficacy:

Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration,

42(5), 573-585.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-

efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher

Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23(6), 944-

956.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its

meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and

empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334-352.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the

nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research,

70(4), 547-593.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. 128

Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational

process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203-215.

Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A

history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36.

Wong, P. T. P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask "why" questions and the

heuristics of attributional style. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 40(4), 650-663.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher's academic

optimism: The development of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 24, 821-835.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers,

and callings: People's relations to their work. Journal of Research in

Personality Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1), 21-33.

129

Appendix A: Final Questionnaire

Zest:

1. I am ready to confront new challenges as they come along. 2. I have a zest for life. 3. I am excited by personal and professional challenges. 4. I look with anticipation to challenges. 5. I am excited about what my work day has in store. 6. I live life with gusto.

Grit: 1. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones. 2. Setbacks don’t discourage me. 3. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest. 4. I am a hard worker. 5. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. 6. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete. 7. I finish whatever I begin. 8. I am diligent.

Dispositional Optimism 1. In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. 2. If something can go wrong for me, it will. 3. I’m always optimistic about my future. 4. I hardly ever expect things to go my way. 5. I rarely count on good things happening to me. 6. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.

130

Life Satisfaction 1. In most ways, my life is close to my ideal. 2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 3. I am completely satisfied with my life. 4. So far I have gotten the most important things I want in life. 5. If I could live my life over, I would change nothing.

Explanatory Style Q3. Your budget proposal to the superintendent is rejected. To what extent is this: 1. because the superintendent is out of touch with the needs of your school? 2. going to impact your willingness to bring proposals to the superintendent in the future? 3. going to negatively impact how your staff and the community view you?

Q4. Your school is having a continuing problem with graffiti, despite the meeting that you had with the student body two weeks ago to address the problem. To what extent is this: 4. because students do not respect any authority? 5. because teachers are not adequately monitoring the hall? 6. a reflection of the overall culture in your school?

Principal Self-Efficacy 1. I have what it takes to lead to high levels of student learning in my school. 2. I have what is necessary to bring about the change needed now for the students in my school to achieve high levels of learning. 3.I have the capabilities required now to help my teachers improve their skills in ways that will lead to improved student learning. 4. My leadership skills are currently sufficient to improve instruction in this school in ways that will foster high levels of student learning. 5. I am capable of working with teachers in ways that improve their instruction.

To what extent in your role as principal can you… 1. create a positive learning environment in your school 2. motivate teachers 3. help struggling teachers improve 4. provide constructive criticism for teachers

131

Principal Trust in Teachers 1. I have faith in the integrity of my teachers 2. I believe in my teachers 3. When teachers in this school tell you something, you can believe it. 4. Even in difficult situations, I can depend on my teachers. 5. My teachers typically look out for me. 6. I trust my teachers. 7. My teachers are trustworthy. 8. I have faith my teachers do what’s best for kids. 9. My teachers are competent.

Academic Emphasis 1. I encourage teachers in my building to give challenging work to all students. 2. I set high academic goals for students and teachers. 3. I focus on intellectual rigor. 4. I hold teachers accountable for high student achievement. 5. I emphasize intellectual rigor above all.

132