Instructional Leadership Efficacy and Competencies of Master Teachers: Basis for a Proposed School-Based Mentoring-Coaching Program

Instructional Leadership Efficacy and Competencies of Master Teachers: Basis for a Proposed School-Based Mentoring-Coaching Program

Mina, Rhodora G., Sanchez, Ryan Romnick B.

Pamantasan NG Lungsod NG Valenzuela, Tongco St., Maysan Road, Malinta, Valenzuela City

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000212

Received: 12 June 2025; Accepted: 19 June 2025; Published: 08 July 2025

ABSTRACT

This research examines the instructional leadership efficacy and competencies of master teachers in the context of the Induction Program for Beginning Teachers (IPBT) at Malinta National High School. A descriptive, comparative-correlational design was employed, utilizing data from 126 respondents, comprising both mentors and mentees. The study evaluated key dimensions of instructional leadership efficacy—such as subject mastery, teaching strategies, evaluation practices, and mentoring interactions—alongside competencies in research, coaching-mentoring, and observation-supervision. Findings reveal statistically significant differences in mentor and mentee perceptions and a strong positive correlation between instructional efficacy and leadership competencies. The study advocates for the implementation of a differentiated, needs-based mentoring-coaching program aimed at enhancing professional support for novice teachers. The results provide empirical insights into the alignment of instructional leadership with national development goals in public education (Barnett, 2021; Gray, 2018).

Keywords: Instructional Leadership, Master Teachers, Mentoring-Coaching Program, Induction Program for Beginning Teachers (IPBT), Leadership Efficacy, Teacher Development

INTRODUCTION

The National Educators’ Academy of the Philippines and the Department of Education collaborate on the Professional Development Framework, which prioritizes NEAP Core Programs for novice educators. The three-year Induction Program for Beginning Teachers (IPBT) commenced in the 2021-2022 academic year. The curriculum consists of four stages: Early, Competent, Advanced, and Exemplary. The DepEd teacher career promotion program comprises these steps. This program assists novice instructors in understanding DepEd procedures and policies while enhancing their professional and competencies. IPBT seeks to enhance and bolster educators’ knowledge, skills, and professionalism to align with the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers. This program enlisted master educators to mentor novice instructors. Primary instructional leaders, such as principals, designate master teachers across all domains to provide support. The distribution and efficacy of the NEAP Core Program through IPBT rely on master teachers serving as instructional leaders. Le Fevre (2019) asserts that instructional leadership enhances teaching and learning. Educational leadership, learner-centered leadership, leadership for learning, student-centered leadership are various terminologies for the same concept. Instructional leadership refers to the deliberate efforts of school administrators to enhance successful teaching and learning within classrooms. Instructional leadership aims to enhance educational instruction. Instructional leadership is acknowledged for its emphasis on learning, establishing educational objectives, maintaining high standards for students, promoting learning goals, monitoring student progress, safeguarding instructional time, organizing the curriculum, offering instructional support, and aiding students.

Expert advice and training appear to be a highly effective means of enhancing the education system. Master instructors, as proficient mentors, can facilitate the development of teacher-mentees. Master instructors, as instructional leaders, impart subject-matter expertise, pedagogical techniques, and assessment tools to their mentees within designated timeframes. The training should encompass subject expertise, pedagogical methods, assessment competencies, mentoring abilities, research, coaching and mentoring sessions, observation and supervision, and more school-related activities for educators and students.

According to Lee et al. (2018) and Salazar (2023), “Instructional coaching has emerged as a solution for improved student outcomes and a sustainable model for teacher support.” This study was motivated by the researcher’s recent teaching experience with the Department of Education. In 2023–2024, the researcher was mentored by three teachers.

The researcher’s experience indicates that the coaching-mentoring session occurred before and after classroom observations. The novice public school teacher was allocated a non-core subject, science in the first semester and language in the second. The researcher believes that senior high school teachers had to be flexible, adaptable, and versatile in their management of various disciplines. The new instructor encounters challenges with this. Mentors assisted with lesson planning and video lectures for class discussions; nonetheless, the complexity of the subject matter posed the greatest challenge.

Instructional leadership plays a pivotal role in improving teaching quality and student outcomes (Hallinger, 2011). This study examines the efficacy and competencies of master teachers at Malinta National High School, particularly their role within the Department of Education’s Induction Program for Beginning Teachers (IPBT). The IPBT designates master teachers as mentors, critical to guiding novice educators (Kim & Lee, 2020). The study aims to evaluate how well master teachers fulfill this role, focusing on subject mastery, teaching strategies, evaluation and mentoring skills, and actual mentoring-coaching sessions (Quisquino, 2022). The goal is to propose a tailored school-based mentoring-coaching program grounded in empirical data.

METHODOLOGY

Figure 1. Flowchart of the Series of Orientations in IPBT Program

Figure 2. Flowchart of Course Outline and Completion Process of IPBT Program

Research Design

The study utilized a quantitative approach, specifically a descriptive comparative correlational methodology. The researcher believes that this design was best suited to this study because the researcher would like to investigate and compare the correlation between the instructional leadership efficacy and competencies of master teachers and the assessment of two groups of respondents (mentors and mentees). Descriptive comparative-correlational research design involves the collection of data from two variables and measuring and comparing the extent of their relationship with each other using statistical treatment. Using this method, the researcher can make an informed prediction based on the relationships that will unfold in this study (Akinlua, 2019; Clamucha & Napil, 2024). The use of this design means that the researcher will not test the cause-and-effect relationship of the variables, and the unwanted extraneous variables can be controlled.

Participants of the Study and Sampling Technique

This study’s respondents included Master Teachers (mentors) and Teachers (mentees) from Malinta National High School. MNHS employs 132 Junior High School Teachers and 53 Senior High School Teachers, providing a sufficient sample for the study. This study will not cover the entire high school in Congressional 1 because of the premise that the result will be presented to the aforementioned school.

A non-probability sampling method was utilized, namely, purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is a method that entails carefully choosing individuals based on specific characteristics and or criteria relevant to the study (Nyimbili, F. and Nyimbili, L., 2024). Instead of being selected at random, respondents are specifically picked to meet the goals of the study. The researcher selects the respondents intended for this study with the same locality and can cover the intended sample because the study was focused only on MNHS. The researcher used the Raosoft Sample Size Calculator to statistically determine the target sample size from 185 total population with a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level.

With the use of the Raosoft sample size calculator, the researcher identified 126 respondents for this study. They are comprised of qualified master teachers who serve as mentors and teachers, Teachers I to III, and others, who are considered mentees. These participants were selected purposely to represent the mentors and mentees from the respondents.

Figure 3

Shown in Figure 3, the participating Master Teachers and Teachers I-III, both in JHS and SHS of MNHS, which correspond to the total number of respondents.

Research Locale

Malinta National High School was founded in 1969, formerly known as Malinta Barrio High School. It was first located inside the Malinta Elementary School. It became independent on July 23, 1998, under RA8722. It became Malinta National High School in 2016.  MNHS has two campuses. The Junior High School is located in A. Pablo Street, Malinta, Valenzuela City, parallel to the elementary school, with a total lot area of 2,000 square meters. The Senior High School is located in St. Jude Subd, Malinta, Valenzuela City. The JHS department has 132 total teachers, and the SHS department has 53 total teachers, respectively. MNHS is categorized as a very large school with Mr. Cesar C. Villareal, Ed.D. as the current principal. His office is located at the JHS campus. The assistant principal is Mr. Fidencio Jr. C. Carreon, who is assigned to the SHS campus.

Research Instrument

This study utilized an existing survey questionnaire formulated by Laude et.al (2018) and Quisquino (2022). The questionnaire is modified by the researcher to align with the purpose of this study. The researcher contacted the authors formally through electronic mail to signify the intention to use their instrument. One of the authors replied and authorized the usage of the aforementioned device. The revised survey questionnaire was printed and sent to the respondents through the principal’s office.

Using a printed survey was more effective, and the researcher believes that it assures her that the respondents will take the time to for it to answer.

The initial section of the survey questionnaire encompassed the demographic profile of the respondent, including a) sex: male or female. b) age categories: 25-30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51 and above; c) highest educational qualification: baccalaureate degree with master’s degree units, baccalaureate degree without master’s degree units, baccalaureate degree with educational units and master’s degree units, baccalaureate degree with educational units and without master’s degree units, master’s degree, and doctorate degree. d) instructional roles: Teacher I-III, Master Teacher I-IV, and others g) Duration of service: less than 1 year, 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, and 16 years or above.

The second part included the respondent’s evaluation of master teachers’ effectiveness in instructional leadership across four items: mastery of the subject matter, teaching strategies, evaluation skills, mentoring skills, and actual coaching-mentoring sessions. The respondents assigned a frequency level to these items using a 4-point Likert scale: 4 for Always, 3 for Often, 2 for Sometimes, and 1 for Never.

The final section encompassed respondents’ evaluations of master teachers’ instructional leadership qualities across three items: research, coaching and mentoring, and observation and supervision. The respondents assigned a competency rating to these issues using a 4-point Likert scale: 4 for Highly Competent, 3 for Moderately Competent, 2 for Partially Competent, and 1 for No Competency.

Validation and Reliability of Instrument

The modified survey questionnaire used in this research was validated by a panel of experts. The first validator is a Graduate School Research Professor from a state university in San Ildefonso, Bulacan. The second validator is a College Full-Professor 1 and a research advocate from a private university in Dasmariñas, Cavite. And the last validator is a College Professor and a research as evaluated by their mentees teacher from a private university in Caloocan City.

Comments and suggestions indicated in the validation forms were incorporated into the questionnaire. Since the survey questionnaire used in this research will be adapted from an existing instrument formulated by the authors and modified by the researcher, a pilot test was conducted.

After validation and revision, the survey instrument was pilot-tested with twenty respondents who completed the survey. The results of the pilot testing were treated for reliability testing using Cronbach’s Alpha, resulting in a 0.99 to 0.95 reliability index, which signifies excellent internal consistency and means that the instrument was ready for distribution and data collection. The degree to which items in an instrument measure different facets of the same trait or construct is known as “internal consistency” (Revicki, D., 2023).

Data Gathering Procedure

The data gathering procedure commenced with the pursuit of an approval letter from the Graduate School Dean following the establishment of the validity and reliability of the research instrument. Afterward, a formal communication was established to seek approval letters from the Schools Division Office through the SDS and to the Principal of MNHS, respectively.

The survey was carried out with the designated groups of respondents in both JHS and SHS with the consent of the various education officials, specifically the School Head of MNHS and the Superintendent of Schools Division Office (SDO) of Valenzuela. The researcher solicited the support of the MNHS school head, concurrently with the school’s research coordinator, for the researcher’s administration of the questionnaire to the respondents. Administration and extraction of the survey instrument covered from the third week of February to the second week of March 2025.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The subsequent statistical instruments were employed to answer the questions stated in the Statement of the Problem.

Percentage. This was used to determine the respondents’ weight in percent of the demographic profile. A percentage frequency exists between two numerical variables (Turney, 2022).

Percentage was used to determine the respondents’ weight in percent of the demographic profile. A percentage frequency distribution was employed in the research to illustrate the data, indicating the percentage of observations about data points or grouped data points (Shapiro, 2022).

Weighted Mean. This was employed to ascertain the verbal interpretation of each item in the questionnaire, particularly regarding the issues related to the master teacher’s instructional leadership efficacy and competencies as evaluated by the respondents. Weighted means are computed by multiplying the weight (or probability) of a certain event or outcome by its corresponding quantitative result, followed by summing all the products (Taylor, 2025).

T-test. This was utilized to evaluate the disparity between the means of two respondent groups. This study employed the independent samples T-test, a statistical hypothesis testing method utilized to compare samples from two distinct groups to assess whether a notable disparity exists between the average means of their respective populations. The t-test evaluates the means of two groups, such as a control group and a treatment group, to ascertain if the disparity between the groups’ means is statistically significant or attributable to random variation (Kumar, 2023).

This statistical tool compares two sample means derived from the same population. This study utilized this approach to assess the differences in evaluations of instructional leadership efficacy and competencies of master teachers between two groups of respondents: mentors and mentees.

Chi-Square test. This was employed to analyze the relationship between the evaluations provided by two groups of respondents (mentors and mentees) regarding the instructional leadership efficacy and competencies of master teachers, alongside their demographic profiles. The chi-square statistic assesses the degree of association between anticipated and observed outcomes, taking into account the sample size and the Pearson’s R Correlation. This was utilized to evaluate the relationship between the instructional leadership of Master Teachers and their efficacy and competencies two variables. The Pearson R offers an overview of the characteristics of a dataset. This specifically elucidates the direction and magnitude of the linear relationship that exists between two numerical variables (Turney, 2022).

This study centers on the instructional leadership efficacy and competencies of master teachers, as outlined in the problem statement. A statistical tool will be utilized to assess the significant relationship between the instructional leadership of Master Teachers and their efficacy and competencies, as evaluated by their mentees.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1.1. Demographics Profile of the Respondents in terms of Sex

Table 1.1 presents the gender distribution of mentors and mentees in the context of Instructional Leadership Efficacy and Competencies of Master Teachers. Out of 126 total respondents, 39 (30.95%) were male, while 87 (69.05%) were female, indicating a higher female representation in the mentoring-coaching program.

Among the mentors, 5 (17.86%) were male, while 23 (82.14%) were female, suggesting that female master teachers are more likely to be engaged in mentorship roles. Similarly, among the mentees, 34 (34.69%) were male, and 64 (65.31%) were female, reflecting a similar pattern of female dominance in the program.

Table 1.2. Demographics Profile of the Respondents in terms of Age

Table 1.2 presents the age distribution of mentors and mentees in the study, highlighting trends in participation across different age groups within the mentoring-coaching program.

A significant number of respondents belong to the 31 to 40 years old category, comprising 41.27% (52 out of 126 respondents). This age group also represents the highest number of mentees (44 individuals), indicating that younger educators are more engaged in mentorship programs for professional growth. Notably, 8 mentors (28.57%) belong to this age bracket, suggesting that some educators in their early leadership stages are already assuming mentoring roles.

The 25 to 30-year-old group accounts for 24.60% (31 respondents), all of whom are mentees. The absence of mentors in this category suggests that educators at this stage are still developing their instructional leadership competencies before taking on mentoring responsibilities.

Respondents aged 41 to 50 years old make up 22.22% (28 individuals), with a more balanced distribution of 13 mentors and 15 mentees. This balance suggests that experienced educators in this age range actively participate in both mentorship and professional development.

The 51 and above age group represents 11.90% (15 respondents), with 7 mentors and 8 mentees. While fewer in number, older mentors bring significant experience to the program, highlighting the role of veteran educators in shaping instructional leadership.

This implied that most mentees (75.87%) are below 40 years old, indicating that younger teachers actively seek guidance in enhancing their competencies. Mentors are predominantly aged 41 and above (71.43%), emphasizing the role of experienced educators in leading mentorship initiatives. The absence of mentors under 30 suggests that instructional leadership efficacy is typically developed with years of teaching experience. These results underscore the significance of organized mentoring programs that address the requirements of various age demographics while facilitating a seamless transition from mentee to mentor positions.

Table 1.3. Demographics Profile of the Respondents in terms of Educational Attainment

Table 1.3 illustrates the allocation of mentors and mentees according to their highest educational attainment, providing insight into the academic qualifications of respondents in the mentoring-coaching program.

The majority of respondents (37.30% or 47 out of 126) hold a Baccalaureate Degree with Master’s (MA) units, indicating that many educators are pursuing graduate studies to enhance their instructional leadership competencies. However, only 2 mentors fall into this category, while the remaining 45 respondents are mentees, suggesting that further academic progression may be required before educators assume mentorship roles.

Similarly, 19.05% (24 respondents) hold a Baccalaureate Degree with education units and MA units, reinforcing the trend that a considerable segment of mentees are pursuing academic progression. Only 2 mentors belong to this category, further emphasizing that mentors typically possess higher academic qualifications.

A smaller portion (12.70% or 16 respondents) holds only a Baccalaureate Degree without MA units, while an even smaller group (4.76% or 6 respondents) holds a Baccalaureate Degree with education units but without MA units. These figures indicate that a subset of mentees may require additional academic credentials to advance their leadership capabilities and transition into mentoring roles.

The data highlights that most mentors hold a Master’s or Doctorate Degree, with 18 mentors (64.29%) having a Master’s Degree leadership development through mentoring programs.

This implied that the higher academic attainment among mentors who possess graduate degrees (Master’s or Doctorate) highlights the importance of advanced education in building instructional leadership efficacy. Mentorship for Educators in Graduate Studies is necessary since a significant number of mentees are pursuing MA units, the mentoring-coaching program should incorporate support systems for professional development, encouraging mentees to complete their graduate education. It is also evident that encouraging higher education for mentees is relevant with 17.46% (22 respondents) still holding only a Baccalaureate Degree (with or without education units), it is crucial to promote graduate education as part of leadership development. In this regard, bridging the educational gap, the absence of mentors with only a Baccalaureate Degree suggests that academic qualifications play a key role in determining who becomes a mentor. This reinforces the need for continuous professional learning opportunities and structured leadership training for educators seeking to advance in their careers.

Table 1.4. Demographics Profile of the Respondents in terms of Teaching Position

Table 1.4 illustrates the distribution of responses according to their teaching position, highlighting the distinction between classroom teachers and master teachers within the mentoring-coaching program.

A predominant 77.78% of respondents (98 out of 126) occupy the roles of Teacher I to III, signifying that a substantial segment of the study participants is in the early to mid-phases of their teaching careers. These teachers are typically mentees who seek professional growth and instructional leadership development through mentoring programs.

In contrast, 22.22% (28 respondents) hold the rank of Master Teacher I to IV, representing educators who have achieved higher-level teaching positions based on experience, expertise, and leadership capabilities. Given that master teachers are commonly responsible for mentoring, coaching, and guiding less experienced teachers, this distribution aligns with the expected role differentiation in instructional leadership.

Notably, there are no participants classified under “Others” (0.00%), indicating that all individuals in the study belong to formal teaching positions within the education system.

This implies that the majority of respondents are mentees, with nearly 78% of respondents being Teacher I-III. The study emphasizes the importance of mentoring programs in supporting teachers at the initial and middle phases of their careers. Master Teachers as Instructional Leaders posted a 22.22% composition of respondents holding Master Teacher I-IV positions, underscoring their critical role as mentors, aligning with the study’s focus on Instructional Leadership Efficacy and Competencies of Master Teachers. The clear distinction between teacher and master teacher ranks highlights the structured career pathway in education, where mentorship serves as a bridge toward professional advancement and leadership roles, which is a significant part of the Structured Career Progression of the Department of Education.

Table 1.5. Demographics Profile of the Respondents in terms of Years in Service

Table 1.5 highlights the allocation of mentors and mentees according to their years in service, providing insights into the experience levels of respondents in the mentoring-coaching program.

The largest proportion of respondents (26.98% or 34 out of 126) have 1 to 5 years of teaching experience. This group is primarily composed of mentees (33 individuals), suggesting that early-career teachers actively seek mentorship to enhance their instructional competencies. Similarly, educators with 6 to 10 years of experience make up 26.19% (33 participants), with 30 being mentees. These findings indicate that a significant portion of mentees are still in their first decade of teaching, emphasizing the need for structured mentoring programs to support their professional development.

Educators with 11 to 15 years of experience represent 20.63% (26 respondents), showing a transition phase where some begin assuming mentorship roles (10 mentors, 16 mentees). This suggests that around this level, teachers gain enough experience to take on leadership responsibilities while others continue to seek guidance.

The most experienced group (16 years and above) accounts for 22.22% (28 respondents) and exhibits an even distribution between mentors (14) and mentees (14). This suggests that while many seasoned teachers take on mentoring roles, some continue engaging as mentees, possibly to adapt to new educational strategies or pursue leadership advancement.

Notably, there are no mentors with less than 1 year of experience, and only 5 mentees (3.97%) belong to this category, which aligns with expectations that teachers in their first year of service are still developing foundational teaching skills.

This implied that the majority of mentees (64.29% have 10 years or less of experience) rely on mentorship for professional growth, classroom management strategies, and instructional development, which is the early career of teachers who seek mentorship. The transition into mentorship is noticeable in the 11 to 15 years of experience range, where teachers start assuming leadership roles, which will commence in the mid-career stage of teachers. Some educators with 16+ years of experience remain as mentees, suggesting that professional growth is an ongoing process even for seasoned teachers, which shows that continuous learning among veteran teachers is still important.

Summary of Findings on the Instructional Leadership Efficacy of Master Teachers

The overall weighted mean for mentors is 3.60, while for mentees, it is 3.67, resulting in an overall combined mean of 3.66, which falls within the highest category of “Always” based on the given Likert scale interpretation. Among the indicators, the highest mean score was recorded under Mastery of the Subject Matter (3.72), followed by Teaching Strategies (3.71) and Evaluation Skills (3.70), suggesting that mentors and mentees consistently perceive master teachers as proficient in these areas. Meanwhile, Mentoring Skills (3.57) received the lowest mean rating, indicating a relative area for improvement in providing guidance and support to mentees.

Overall, the findings suggest that master teachers demonstrate high instructional leadership efficacy, with both mentors and mentees acknowledging their strong expertise in subject mastery, teaching methods, assessment skills, and mentoring capabilities.

Summary of Findings on the Instructional Leadership Competencies of Master Teachers

The average weighted mean for mentors is 3.14, while for mentees, it is 3.55, resulting in an overall mean of 3.46, which falls under the category of “Highly Competent” based on the given Likert scale interpretation.

Among the indicators, Mentoring and Coaching received the highest overall rating at 3.57, closely followed by Observation and Supervision at 3.52. The findings indicate that master teachers are proficient in offering guidance, support, and instructional supervision to their mentees. Research (3.30) received the lowest overall rating, suggesting that although master teachers demonstrate competence in conducting and implementing research, there remains potential for enhancement in this domain.

Since master teachers were rated favorably by the mentees in the research locale, this implies that the experience of the researcher was an isolated case for a novice teacher. The researcher should not have hesitated to approach the mentor assigned to her during the time that she experienced difficulty with her new role. Open communication can lead to a collaborative working environment where mentors and mentees can exchange ideas and other skills that can improve their practices.

The findings suggest that master teachers are regarded as highly competent in their instructional leadership roles, particularly in mentoring and supervision. However, enhancing their engagement in research activities could further strengthen their leadership effectiveness.

Chi-Square Test Statistics on the Relationship between Instructional Leadership Efficacy Assessment and Their Demographic Profile

Table 4.1 displays the chi-square test results examining the relationship between respondents’ instructional leadership efficacy and their demographic characteristics, including sex, age, educational attainment, position and years of service.

The calculated chi-square values for all variables are substantially below their corresponding critical values at the 0.05 significance level: sex (χ² = 0.078 < 9.488), age (χ² = 0.315 < 21.026), education (χ² = 0.533 < 31.410), position (χ² = 0.314 < 9.488), and experience (χ² = 0.447 < 26.296).

In each instance, the null hypothesis (𝐻₀), posits that there is no substantial correlation between instructional leadership efficacy and the given demographic factor, fails to be rejected. This statistical outcome suggests that none of the demographic variables under investigation—sex, age, educational attainment, position, or professional experience—have a significant association with the respondents’ self-assessed instructional leadership efficacy.

These results suggest that perceptions of instructional leadership efficacy are not influenced by demographic characteristics. Instead, leadership efficacy may be influenced by factors such as training, mentorship, institutional support, or individual leadership style, which transcend personal demographics. This finding underscores the inclusive nature of leadership development and highlights the potential for leadership efficacy to be cultivated across diverse populations.

Chi-Square Test Statistics on the Relationship between Instructional Leadership Competencies Assessment and Their Demographic Profile

Table 5.1 presents the chi-square test results that evaluate the relationship between respondents’ instructional leadership competencies and their demographic profile, encompassing sex, age, educational attainment, position, and years of experience.

The calculated chi-square values for all demographic variables are significantly lower than their corresponding critical values at the 0.05 significance level: sex (χ² = 0.035 < 5.991), age (χ² = 1.215 < 12.592), education (χ² = 1.767 < 18.307), position (χ² = 0.729 < 5.991), and experience (χ² = 0.323 < 15.507).

Since all calculated values are below the crucial thresholds, the conclusion in each instance is not to reject the null hypothesis (𝐻₀). This indicates that there is no statistically substantial connection between the respondents’ instructional leadership competencies and any of the demographic variables examined.

These findings suggest that instructional leadership competencies are not significantly influenced by the respondents’ sex, age, level of educational attainment, current position, or professional experience. Such results may imply that the development and application of instructional leadership competencies are not inherently dependent on demographic factors but may instead be shaped by other variables such as professional development opportunities, institutional support, or individual leadership engagement.

This interpretation aligns with the notion that leadership competencies can be cultivated across different personal and professional backgrounds, reinforcing the importance of equal access to leadership training and capacity-building initiatives.

Independent Samples t-Test (Two-Sample t-Test): Difference between the Assessments of the Two Groups of Respondents on Instructional Leadership Efficacy

Independent Samples t-Test (Two-Sample t-Test): Comparison of the Evaluations of Two Groups of Respondents Regarding Instructional Leadership Efficacy.

An independent samples t-test was performed to assess if a significant difference exists between the evaluations of mentors and mentees regarding instructional leadership efficacy. Table 6.1 shows the computed t-statistics of -3.31, with a p-value of 0.0015 indicating that this difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 significance threshold.

The p-value, being significantly lower than the threshold, leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis, so affirming a substantial difference in the perception of instructional leadership efficacy between the two groups. This signifies a statistically significant disparity between the evaluations of the two groups. The mentees assigned marginally higher scores than the mentors, indicating a disparity in perceptions of instructional leadership effectiveness.

Independent Samples t-Test (Two-Sample t-Test): Difference between the Assessments of the Two Groups of Respondents on Instructional Leadership Competencies

Independent Samples t-Test (Two-Sample t-Test): Comparison of the Evaluations of Two Groups of Respondents Regarding Instructional Leadership Competencies.

Table 6.2 presents the results of the independent samples t-test, which indicates a statistically significant difference between the assessments of instructional leadership competencies by mentors and mentees. The calculated t-statistic (-5.1045) and p-value (0.0000524) indicate that this difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 significance threshold. The p-value, being significantly lower than the threshold, leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis, affirming a substantial difference in the perception of instructional leadership competencies between the two groups.

This finding suggests that mentees may have a more favorable perception of the instructional leadership competencies demonstrated by mentors, while mentors may evaluate their own competencies more critically. These differences in assessment could be attributed to varying expectations, experiences, or perspectives within the mentoring and coaching process.

Decision on Pearson r Statistics on the Relationship between Instructional Leadership Efficacy and the Competencies of Master Teachers

Since the computed Pearson correlation coefficient (0.72) is greater than the tabular value (0.497) at α = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis (𝐻₀). This indicates a strong and significant correlation between Instructional Leadership Efficacy (X) and Instructional Leadership Competencies (Y).

The statistical analysis provided strong evidence of a substantial positive connection between Instructional Leadership Efficacy and Instructional Leadership Competencies.

This implied that mentors with higher efficacy tend to demonstrate stronger instructional leadership competencies. The results support the notion that leadership efficacy plays a crucial role in developing instructional leadership skills.

The findings validated the need for differentiated and structured mentoring support aligned with the stages of the IPBT. The gap between mentor and mentee perceptions highlights a potential misalignment in expectations and delivery of mentoring roles (Barnett, 2021). Factors such as insufficient mentoring time, added workload, and lack of incentives for mentors may hinder effective implementation (Shaked et al., 2018). The study supports integrating research-informed mentoring strategies and promoting reflective supervision to elevate the quality of coaching sessions (Gray, 2018). It emphasizes the importance of regular feedback, collaborative planning, and role clarity in improving teacher support systems (Tickell & Klassen, 2024).

The proposed school-based program should emphasize targeted mentoring aligned with mentee developmental needs, backed by administrative support and capacity-building initiatives for mentors (Hassan, Ahmad, & Boon, 2019).

CONCLUSION

1. The demographic features of respondents do not correlate with instructional leadership efficacy. It appears that instructional leadership is viewed similarly across numerous groups, including gender, age, education, position, and tenure. The same demographic characteristics do not correlate with instructional leadership qualities. This suggests that true leadership is equitably dispersed across demographics. These data suggest that mentorship, professional development, and organizational support can boost leadership potential regardless of demography.
2. Significant differences in perception based on age, educational attainment, experience, and mentor/mentee roles or teaching position suggest a need for more customized support, especially for novice teachers.
3. The differing views between mentors and mentees emphasize the need for reflective practices and better alignment. Strengthening communication, creating structured leadership paths, and fostering a shared understanding of roles can boost teaching outcomes.
4. Master Teachers are viewed as strong instructional leaders, especially in mentoring and classroom supervision. However, their involvement in academic research remains limited, highlighting an area for further development.
5. Consistent support for Master Teachers, especially in research and professional development, is essential for sustaining improvement in teaching quality.
6. The positive relationship between efficacy and competency supports the idea that these two areas of leadership are closely linked. The effectiveness of master teachers in their role as mentors lies in their competencies, which are honed by their learnings from their previous mentors and their experiences.
7. Among the key areas as the basis for a mentoring-coaching program provided by the researcher, the gaps in research participation, the frequency of mentoring, and differing perceptions between mentors and mentees are prioritized to ensure that mentors exercise their competencies to help their mentees become effective as they are. Mentees need to be trained, not only outside the school where they seek learning on their own, but also within the school, as part of their professional development. Schools should nurture the talents and capabilities of their teachers to advance their careers in the long run. They need to support their development from being proficient teachers to becoming highly proficient and to becoming mentors someday.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Educational institutions must create and promote inclusive instructional leadership programs for all faculty, regardless of demographics. Leadership courses, coaching, and mentorship programs should be funded to boost educators’ confidence and skills. Since demographics do not predict efficacy or competency, training and assistance should emphasize motivation, leadership identity, and environmental support.
2. School-based support programs are designed to address the diverse needs of educators, especially novice teachers, by taking into account factors such as age, educational qualifications, experience, and mentor/mentee or teaching responsibilities.
3. Educational institutions ought to enhance communication, advocate for reflective behaviors, and create distinct leadership trajectories to better synchronize mentor and mentee viewpoints, thereby improving teaching efficacy and collaboration.
4. Policymakers are urged to expand the responsibilities of Master Teachers by incorporating academic research duties into their professional standards, bolstered by explicit rules and institutional incentives. Professional development programs for Master Teachers should incorporate training in academic research skills to improve their instructional leadership and support evidence-based practices. To enhance the research culture within the education system, schools ought to invest in developing the research capabilities of Master Teachers to allow them to engage more significantly in innovation and ongoing enhancement of teaching practices.
5. School leadership must establish systematic support frameworks for Master Teachers, emphasizing research engagement and specialized professional development. Continuous investment in the research and professional growth of Master Teachers is essential for upholding high teaching standards and fostering long-term educational advancement.
6. Enhancing the skills of Master Teachers via focused mentorship and experiential learning, acknowledging the significant relationship between effectiveness and leadership competency in their mentoring responsibilities. Professional development initiatives must focus on developing leadership competencies in Master Teachers, utilizing their prior mentoring experiences to improve their effectiveness in guiding others
7. Mentoring-coaching programs should focus on addressing critical gaps in research participation, the frequency of mentoring, and the alignment of perceptions between mentors and mentees. Schools ought to promote internal professional development through in-school training opportunities for mentees and by facilitating a career progression pathway that advances teachers from proficiency to mentorship roles.
8. Future researchers may conduct a similar study by using diverse locales and other variables beyond those addressed above

REFERENCES

1. Akinlua, J. (2019). Quantitative research methods for education. Research Gate Publishing. Barnett, K. (2021). Mentoring new teachers: Challenges and success factors. Journal of Teacher Induction, 15(2), 120–136. 2
2. Bush, T. (2021). Gender and educational leadership: Women achieving against the odds. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 310–326.
3. Clamucha, R., & Napil, A. (2024). Advanced statistical treatment in social research. Manila: EduTech Publications.
4. Githaiga, S., & Kipsoi, E. (2020). Age and leadership effectiveness: A Kenyan perspective. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(1), 45–60.
5. Gray, L. (2018). Effective mentoring in educational leadership. New York: Academic Press. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.
6. Fevre, D. L. (2019). Instructional Leadership and Why it Matters. The Education Hub.
7. Hassan, A., Ahmad, J., & Boon, Y. (2019). Instructional leadership practices and its impact on school improvement. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(3), 271–285.
8. Kim, H., & Lee, J. (2020). Collaborative instructional leadership in East Asia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(4), 345–362.
9. Laude, M., et al. (2018). Instructional leadership competencies in the Biliran Division. Philippine Journal of Educational Management, 6(1), 90–105.
10. Larsson, M., & Bjorklund, F. (2020). Age-stereotyping in leadership roles. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 36(4), 101–112.
11. Madanchian, M., et al. (2017). Leadership effectiveness and its influence on organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(4), 137–146.
12. Podador, J. (2023). Differentiated teaching strategies of master teachers in Manila. Philippine Journal of Teacher Education, 9(1), 88–101.
13. Quisquino, A. (2022). Competency-based mentoring of master teachers in Rizal. Southeast Asian Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 112–126.
14. Shaked, H., et al. (2018). Gender differences in instructional leadership practices. Educational Review, 70(4), 435–455.
15. Shava, G., et al. (2021). Instructional leadership and student achievement. African Journal of Educational Studies, 13(3), 65–79.
16. Tickell, R. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2024). Developing mentoring skills among teacher leaders. International Review of Education, 70(1), 1–18.
17. Turney, J. (2022). Pearson correlation and research inference. Statistics in Education Review, 11(2), 77–85.