A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of the University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Cameron M. Ryba
December, 2018 A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY
Cameron M. Ryba
Dissertation
Approved: Accepted:
Advisor Acting Chair/Interim Dean Xin Liang, Ph.D. Jarrod Tudor, Ph.D.
Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School Susan N. Kushner Benson, Ph.D. Chand K. Midha, Ph.D.
Committee Member Date Susan G. Clark, Ph.D.
Committee Member Alfred Daviso, Ph.D.
Committee Member Kristin L. K. Koskey, Ph.D.
ii ABSTRACT
School principals are continually searching for leadership practices that have the potential to directly enhance adult behavior and indirectly and positively influence student achievement. Previous research has indicated that a positive and statistically significant relationship exists between collective teacher efficacy beliefs and principal transformational leadership practices (Demir, 2008; Ninkovic & Floric, 2018; Prelli, 2016;
Ross & Gray, 2006). In addition, schools characterized by higher levels of collective teacher efficacy have demonstrated higher levels of student achievement.
Previous studies of collective teacher efficacy have focused on group outcomes based on the levels of collective efficacy beliefs held by the teacher’s studied. However, the research examining the relationship between specific leadership practices associated with transformational leaders that may develop and/or strengthen collective teacher efficacy beliefs has been minimal. The purpose of this study was to examine whether principal transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs amongst K-12 teachers, while taking the contextual conditions of building level and teacher experience into consideration.
Participants consisted of voluntary educators from one school district serving five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. A total of 233 participants completed the Educational Leadership Survey, Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form, and demographic questionnaire. Results from the hierarchical linear multiple regression indicated that transformational leadership practices, when taken collectively with the
iii demographic variables of building level and teacher experience, statistically significantly predicted collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. The positive and statistically significant relationship between transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy beliefs indicated that as transformational leadership practices increase, so does collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. The results of this study provide practical applications to the daily work of principals in the implementation of targeted transformational leadership practices that are the strongest predictors of collective efficacy beliefs of teachers.
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Completing this dissertation was a journey; a journey that started twelve years ago. Since starting in the Doctoral program I have had three advisors, five jobs moving my way up in educational administration, taught a few Masters courses, and was blessed with twin boys. Even though my journey took some twists and turns and took a little longer than most, it is the journey that makes reaching this goal all that more rewarding.
You cannot take a journey like this and be successful without the support of others. First, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Sharon Kruse. Although her journey took her to another college, her care, guidance, and support as my first advisor was invaluable and gave me the drive to never let go of my goals as an educator. I would also like to thank Dr. Jarrod Tudor. If it weren’t for him, I would have not had the chance to restart and refocus my work with the University of Akron. He saw through the bureaucracies and gave someone he had never met a chance to move forward and for that I am eternally grateful. In addition, I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge Dr. Xin Liang for stepping up and taking on the role as my dissertation chair. She rebuilt my confidence in completing this study. She truly cared about me, my work, and was a cheerleader in my corner throughout this past year. Finally, I would like to share my sincere appreciation for my dissertation committee members, Dr. Kushner Benson, Dr. Clark, Dr. Daviso, and
Dr. Koskey. Whether it was as a student in one of your classes, or the time, guidance, and feedback you provided as a committee member, I am deeply appreciative for the work that you have done on my behalf.
v Furthermore, I offer my gratitude and appreciation to my Board of Education, administrative colleagues, and teachers of Strongsville City Schools. I cannot express how much your support, understanding, and participation in this study and my journey has meant to me.
Albeit crucial to have the support of from your college and colleagues, there is no support more important than that of your family. A special thank you to my mom.
Whether it was taking the kids so I could work or your constant encouragement, you inspired me to continue to reach this goal. Although my father will not see this achievement, I know he would be proud. Both my mom and dad continually modeled work ethic, discipline, and the importance of striving to get better each day. These are the values that they instilled in me, which helped me to keep working.
However, none of this would have been possible without the love and support of my wife and boys. Thank you to my two outstanding sons, Brady and Evan, for being understanding and supportive when dad’s job kept him away during the week and the dissertation kept him away on the weekends. Your encouragement gave me comfort.
Finally, if it were not for my wife, Kelly, I would have never achieved this goal. She put her goals aside so that I could achieve mine. When I wanted to throw in the towel, she pushed me forward. The achievement of this goal is as much hers as it is mine.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Background to the Study ...... 2
Purpose of the Study ...... 6
Research Questions and Methodology...... 6
Significance of the Study ...... 7
Definitions of Terms ...... 9
II LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 11
Transformational Leadership ...... 11
Educational Leadership ...... 12
Development of a Model of School-Based Transformational Leadership ... 15
Impact of Transformational Leadership on an Organization ...... 19
Setting Directions...... 19
Developing People ...... 22
Redesigning the Organization ...... 24
Improving the Instructional Program ...... 26
Contextual Consideration of Transformational Leadership ...... 27
Teacher Efficacy ...... 29
vii Social Cognitive Theory and Human Agency ...... 29
Self-Efficacy and Teacher Efficacy ...... 31
Sources of Teacher Efficacy Belief Development ...... 32
Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 35
Theoretical Models of Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 37
Enhancing Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 40
Organizational Conditions ...... 41
Contextual Factors ...... 42
Influence of Transformational Leadership on Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 44
Influence of Setting Directions on Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 46
Influence of Developing People on Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 48
Influence of Redesigning the Organization on Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 48
Influence of Improving the Instructional Program on Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 50
Influence of Transformational Leadership Sources on Efficacy Formation ...... 51
Summary of Related Literature ...... 53
III METHODOLOGY ...... 54
Purpose of the Study ...... 54
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 55
Description of Independent and Dependent Variables ...... 58
viii Research Design...... 58
Sample and Sampling Procedures ...... 59
Instruments ...... 60
Educational Leadership Survey ...... 61
Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form ...... 62
Demographic Questionnaire ...... 65
Data Collection ...... 65
Data Analysis ...... 66
Threats to Internal and External Validity...... 69
Internal Validity ...... 70
External Validity ...... 71
IV RESULTS ...... 72
Pre-Analysis Data Screening ...... 73
Description of the Participants ...... 73
Testing of Assumptions ...... 74
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables ...... 78
Internal Reliability of Study Variables ...... 80
Results ...... 81
Test of Hypotheses ...... 86
Summary of Results ...... 87
ix V DISCUSSION ...... 89
Summary of Results ...... 89
Comparison of Results to Previous Research ...... 91
Implications of Results ...... 96
Statistically Significant Relationship between Variables ...... 97
Leadership Practices and Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs ...... 98
Contextual Factors and Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs ...... 99
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ...... 101
Sampling ...... 101
Participant Representation ...... 102
Validity of Instrumentation ...... 103
Interaction Effects ...... 104
Summary of Discussion ...... 105
REFERENCES ...... 109
APPENDICES ...... 119
Appendix A. IRB Notice of Approval ...... 120
Appendix B. School Board President Approval ...... 121
Appendix C. Informational Introduction Provided to Participants ...... 122
Appendix D. Informed Consent as Provided in Qualtrics Survey ...... 123
Appendix E. Educational Leadership Survey ...... 124
Appendix F. Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form ...... 125
Appendix G. Teacher Demographic Questionnaire ...... 126
x LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Transformational School Leadership Categories and Practices ...... 17
2. Educational Leadership Survey Description and Scoring Guide ...... 62
3. Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form Description and Scoring Guide ...... 65
4. Frequency Distributions for Demographic Variables ...... 74
5. Collinearity Statistics Among All Variables...... 75
6. Pearson Correlation Among All Variables ...... 76
7. Results of Normality Tests for Study Variables ...... 77
8. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables ...... 79
9. Educational Leadership Survey Alpha Reliability Results ...... 81
10. Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form Alpha Reliability Results ...... 81
11. Summary of ANOVA Results for Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 83
12. Collective Teacher Efficacy Regression Model ...... 84
13. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Coefficients for Collective Teacher Efficacy ...... 85
14. Comparative Frequency Distribution for Years of Service ...... 102
15. Comparison of Descriptive Statistics to Prior Study ...... 103
xi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1. Schematization of the relations among Behavior (B), Cognitive and Other Personal Factors (P), and Environment (E) (Bandura, 1989) ...... 30
2. A simplified model of collective teacher efficacy (Goddard et al., 2000) ...... 38
3. Hypothesized model of perceived teacher collective efficacy (Adams & Forsyth, 2006) ...... 39
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In education, there has been a continuous quest to discover the means and methods in which principals can maximize student learning; an exploration of school- based factors and conditions that either enhance or inhibit student achievement.
Although the seminal work of Coleman et al. (1966) has posited that social factors, such as socioeconomic status (SES), overwhelmingly influence student achievement, the focus must shift. Rather than principals being focused on social factors that cannot be controlled, a new focus must be placed on the discovery of school-based variables that are statistically significantly related to student achievement (Hoy, 2012) in which school principals can exert influence.
Although teachers are directly involved with student learning on a daily basis, school principals are often required to be instructional leaders in today’s era of accountability. Leadership matters and principals are just as accountable as the classroom teacher in maximizing student achievement. One method in which to explore the influence of principal leadership on student achievement would be to examine the relationship between principal leadership practices and organizational characteristics that have been proven to increase student achievement. This study examined whether teacher perception of principal transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy, an organizational characteristic heavily documented
1 to increase levels of student achievement in schools (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, Hoy, &
Wolfolk Hoy, 2000). If a statistically significant correlation existed, specific leadership practices could be identified that enhance levels of collective teacher efficacy, which can lead to increased student achievement.
Background to the Study
Self-efficacy is defined as, “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a course of action required to produce a given attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). To be effective, a teacher must have strong beliefs about his/her capabilities to successfully educate all students, which is the essence of teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Teacher efficacy is the teacher’s confidence in his/her ability to promote student learning (Hoy,
2000). Teacher efficacy does not develop and evolve randomly, yet is influenced by individual teacher beliefs. Social cognitive theory perceives teacher efficacy belief development as a cognition that mediates between knowledge and action. These beliefs impact effort, persistence through difficulty, and resiliency to deal with failure. Teacher beliefs and those factors that influence teacher beliefs need to be studied (Goddard &
Skrla, 2006).
However, teachers do not work in isolation and therefore efficacy beliefs and their development do not just occur at the teacher or individual level. Efficacy beliefs are also formed at the organizational level based the collective capabilities of the groups in which teachers belong (Bandura, 1997). Collective efficacy is a way to capture the normative environment of a school; an environment that encourages certain behavior and discourages others (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). Collective efficacy beliefs are more powerful an influencer than individual beliefs (Goddard & Skrla, 2006). The
2 power of efficacy at the collective level is the impact it has on positively influencing teacher behavior and performance.
Collective efficacy is not only the perception of a staff that their collective efforts can make an educational difference for their students, but also a belief that a staff can do so over and above the educational influence of their homes and communities, inclusive of students who are disengaged and/or disadvantaged (Donohoo, 2017; Tschannen-Moran &
Barr, 2004). Schools characterized by higher levels of collective teacher efficacy have higher levels of student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000). As Fancera and Bliss (2011) asserted, principals can be successful at improving student learning regardless of the district, the school, or the socioeconomic indicators. This can be accomplished by focusing their efforts on supporting and targeting the collective efficacy of the staff by means of positively influencing a teacher’s individual assessment of the teaching task and competence so that the latter will be cognitively processed in a manner that supports the effort and resiliency necessary to produce the desired outcome.
The power of efficacy at the collective level is the impact it has on positively influencing teacher behavior and teacher performance. Badura’s (1993) research found collective teacher efficacy to be positively correlated to student achievement. These latter findings continued to be supported through the work of Goddard et al. (2000). Due to the aforementioned correlation, there is a new focus in educational research to define the antecedents and influencers of efficacy forming beliefs. With a better understanding of the determinants of collective efficacy, school leaders and school teachers can work together to more accurately shape this important shared perception (Ninkovic & Floric,
3
2018). Based on these findings, there is reason to further explore contributing factors to enhanced collective teacher efficacy.
One possible contributing factor to enhanced collective teacher efficacy is that of principal transformational leadership practices. Transformational leadership can be a direct means to enhancing and/or sustaining levels of collective teacher efficacy (Demir,
2008; Ninkovic & Floric, 2018; Prelli, 2016; Ross & Gray, 2006) that can indirectly influence student achievement. Transformational leaders are able transcend the self- interests of followers due to their focus on the relationship between the leader and the followers (Burns, 1978). It is a leadership model advocating for the elevation of followers’ needs, preferences, and aspirations from self-interests to collective interests, causing followers to become highly committed to the achievement of organizational goals (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Transformational leaders are capable of increasing the commitment and effort of members towards the achievement of organizational goals through the leader engaging the values and motivations of the followers.
With the foundational work of Burns and Bass, Leithwood modified and adapted their transformational leadership work to better fit the leadership demands found in the context of schools. Leithwood and Sun (2012) described transformational leadership as a set of leadership practices that are capable of increasing the commitment and effort of members towards the achievement of organizational goals through the leader engaging the values, aspirations, and motivations of the followers. Leithwood and Sun (2012) developed a model of transformational leadership in schools that consists of four transformational leadership categories: (1) setting directions; (2) developing people; (3) redesigning the organization; and (4) improving the instructional program.
4
Transformational leadership is not solely a leadership model that can increase organizational effectiveness through the inspiration of followers to move beyond their self-interests to the collective interests of the organization, yet a leadership model that has been found to have a significant impact on the collective efficacy of schools (Kurt,
Duyar, & Calik, 2012; Ross & Gray, 2006). Demir’s (2008) study of 66 elementary schools in Turkey focused on the direct relationship between transformational leadership practices with collective efficacy and the indirect relationship of transformational leadership with collective teacher efficacy through teacher self-efficacy and the collaborative nature of the school culture. In this study, collective efficacy was found to be determined by the direct and indirect influences of the transformational leadership behaviors of principals through individual teacher efficacy and collaborative school structures. Dumay and Galand’s (2012) study of 50 primary Belgian schools explored the impact of transformational leadership on teacher commitment as mediated by school culture and collective efficacy. Transformational leadership was found to be significantly and positively related to collective efficacy.
One manner in which transformational leadership has been posited to influence collective teacher efficacy is through the four sources of collective teacher efficacy belief development. Bandura (1997) identified four sources related to the development of efficacy beliefs: (1) mastery experiences, (2) vicarious experiences, (3) social persuasion, and (4) affective states. These four sources of collective teacher efficacy belief development coupled with the leadership practices found within the aforementioned transformational leadership categories share important reciprocal connections. Whereas transformational leadership practices can influence and enhance teacher performance and
5 organizational effectiveness, therefore teacher performance and organizational effectiveness can enhance collective efficacy. Ross and Gray (2006) asserted that transformational leadership practices might contribute to the development of collective efficacy through each of the sources of efficacy formation.
Purpose of the Study
School principals are continually searching for leadership practices that have the potential to directly enhance adult behavior and indirectly and positively influence student achievement, regardless of demographic and social factors outside the control of school staff. Current research by Hattie (2016) asserted that collective efficacy is three times more powerful than any demographic or societal factor. The purpose of this study was to examine whether principal transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs amongst K-12 teachers, while taking building level and/or teacher experience into consideration.
Research Questions and Methodology
This study was focused on one research question that explored not only the global relationship between transformational leadership and collective teacher efficacy levels, but also the relationship between collective teacher efficacy, specific transformational leadership practices, and the categorical demographic variables of building level and teacher experience. The specific research question addressed in this study was as follows:
1) Does building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school), teacher
experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years), and teacher
perception of the principal transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting
6
directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the
instructional program) statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy
beliefs?
Quantitative research utilizing a non-experimental correlational research design
was applied in this study. Two published instruments were used for data collection.
Transformational leadership was measured by the Educational Leadership Survey
(Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999)
and collective efficacy was measured by Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form
(Goddard, 2002). Two additional teacher categorical demographic questions were
added to the instrument to assess the impact of building level and teacher experience
on teacher perception data as collected through the two aforementioned instruments.
Data was collected during May 2018 to June 2018 via an online survey. Three
hundred fifty-eight K-12 teachers employed in one school district received the data
collection request through an email survey link and had two weeks to complete the
survey.
Significance of the Study
Research literature exists with regard to collective teacher efficacy and its positive correlation to increased student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000).
Hattie (2016) has ranked teacher collective efficacy as the number one factor influencing student achievement (effect size of d = 1.57). Previous research has indicated that a positive and statistically significant relationship exists between collective teacher efficacy beliefs and levels of principal transformational leadership practices (Demir, 2008;
Ninkovic & Floric, 2018; Prelli, 2016; Ross & Gray, 2006).
7
Previous studies of collective teacher efficacy have focused on group outcomes based on levels of collective efficacy beliefs held by the teacher’s studied. However, research examining the relationship between specific leadership practices associated with transformational leaders and collective teacher efficacy beliefs is minimal and no study was inclusive of a middle school or an entire school district. Ninkovic and Floric (2018) have identified that transformational leadership practices significantly correlated with collective teacher efficacy, the strongest of which was in the category of developing people (r = 0.73, p < 0.01), but to date no research was found to examine these correlations in one school district or in schools in the United States. Furthermore, no studies were found that examined teacher experience as a factor in teacher perception of collective teacher efficacy. Based on the fact that the majority of studies were focused on one-level (i.e., elementary schools), more research was also needed to determine the relationship between building level and teacher perception data with regard to collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
Based on the reviewed transformational leadership categories and associated practices, implications for future research should be addressed. Ross and Gray (2006) stated that research linking specific dimensions of transformational leadership and specific principal behaviors to the enhanced efficacy beliefs of their staff should occur.
Kurt et al. (2012) purported that future research needed to explore specific properties of collective efficacy that contribute to the relationship with transformational leadership.
However, there is limited research examining the means through which this influence and/or relationship occurs. Due to the variability in effect sizes found amongst leadership practices within most leadership models, Leithwood and Sun (2012) provided a different
8 approach to future research based on their meta-analytic review of unpublished research.
They argued that future research should focus less on leadership models. Rather, future research should test specific leadership practices that show promise. “Leadership policy and practice will be improved by acknowledging the need for leaders to pay close attention to both the classroom conditions that students experience directly and the wider organizational conditions that enable, stimulate, and support those conditions”
(Leithwood & Sun, 2012, p. 413).
Therefore, additional information on the relationship between transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy is needed to provide a better understanding of the relationship amongst these factors in varied school levels (i.e., elementary, middle school, and high school) and varied teacher experience levels (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years). This study sought to add value to the research by identifying targeted transformational leadership practices that are statistically significantly related to collective teacher efficacy and can be employed by school leaders.
By expanding the literature of transformational leadership practices that are within the scope of school administrators and can influence and enhance levels of collective efficacy in schools, school leaders can expand their framework of research-based practices to positively and directly influence teacher behavior and indirectly influence student achievement.
Definition of Terms
To begin this exploration, a preliminary understanding of various terms that will be used throughout this study and their intended meanings must be developed. Social
Cognitive Theory is a model for explaining the reciprocal causation between behavioral
9 expressions, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental qualities that interactively influence one another and individual action, motivation, and learning
(Bandura, 1997). Human Agency is a person’s intentional execution of action based on his/her capability to exert influence over one’s self thoughts, behavior, and environment
(Bandura, 2000). Self-Efficacy is a judgement of the capability of an individual to execute future action within the parameters of contextual circumstances (Bandura, 1997).
Extended into the context of schools, Teacher Efficacy is the outcome of a cognitive process in which teacher’s construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of competence; it is a teacher’s belief that s/he can influence the degree to which students can learn (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Collective teacher efficacy is not the sum of individual teacher efficacy. Rather, Collective Teacher Efficacy is a groups’ shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment (Bandura, 1997). In a school context, it is the perception and judgement of the teachers that the efforts of a faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of action required to have positive effects on students
(Goddard et al., 2000; Goddard, et al., 2004). Finally, Transformational Leadership is a leadership model advocating for the elevation of followers’ needs, values, preferences, and aspirations from self-interests to collective interests, causing followers to become highly committed to the achievement of organizational goals (Leithwood & Sun, 2012).
10
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
School districts are continually seeking the means to enhance student achievement. Collective efficacy research has consistently found that schools characterized by higher levels of collective teacher efficacy have higher levels of student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000). Yet, the research base exploring the conditions that exist in a school to develop, enhance, and/or sustain collective teacher efficacy has been less robust (Adams & Forsyth, 2006). In this chapter, relevant literature will be reviewed that supports the study of transformational leadership as a construct that influences the development of collective teacher efficacy.
The research literature in this chapter is organized into the following categories:
(1) transformational leadership, (2) teacher efficacy, (3) collective teacher efficacy, and
(4) the influence of transformational leadership on collective teacher efficacy. The literature review provides the empirical foundation and conceptual framework as to how transformational leadership contributes to the development of collective teacher efficacy in schools.
Transformational Leadership
Educators have always had a focus on direct and indirect influencers of student achievement. This has never been truer than in today’s educational system that is
11 entrenched in varied state and federal accountability systems. School administrators continue to seek and understand those strategies, practices, and/or influencers that are within their control. One such factor that has received increased attention in recent research is the influence of leadership on school-based outcomes.
Educational Leadership
As we explore leadership in the context of a school setting, the school principal can be identified as the leader of instructional leaders. Leithwood (1992) provided greater specificity by identifying three goals of school leaders: (1) supporting staff members to develop and maintain a collaborative and professional school culture, (2) leading the development of teachers, and (3) supporting teachers in solving problems in an effective and efficient manner. Northouse (2007) defined leadership as “A process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p.
3). Leadership is a process of interaction between and among the leader and followers. It is the relationships between leaders and followers that can shape organizational culture, influence group norms, and impact individual behaviors that produce desired outcomes
(Minckler, 2014).
So why study school leadership? Hallinger and Heck (1998) stated that schools that are found to make an impact on student learning are led by principals that make a measurable impact to the effectiveness of their staff. Principal leadership is a primary driver of school improvement, yet effective school leadership is a relatively rare commodity (Marks & Printy, 2003). In the research conducted by Leithwood, Lois,
Anderson, and Wahstrom (2004), it was found that amongst school-based factors, school leadership was second only to teaching with regard to the capacity to improve student
12 performance. “School leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly and most powerfully through their influence on staff motivation, commitment, and working conditions” (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008, p. 27). What leaders say, think, and ultimately do matters (Sparks, 2005). The beliefs, ideas, and actions of leaders have an impact. Substantial research has demonstrated a positive link between principal leadership and student achievement (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Waters, Marzano,
& McNulty, 2003).
However, this link between principal leadership and most school-based outcomes is indirect. Principals have indirect effects on the effectiveness of schools through their influence on the school learning climate (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996) and overall learning environment (Leithwood et al., 2008). As a positive learning environment is fostered through effective principal leadership, the indirect influence on student achievement is manifested predominantly through the support principals provide to teachers (Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2008). Leaders set norms, influence teaching practices, and have the ability to influence teacher beliefs at the individual and collective level (Ross & Gray, 2006). Principal leadership is related to the collective work of teachers (Goddard, Goddard, Kim, & Miller, 2015).
Through Hallinger and Heck’s (1998) review of fifteen years of research on the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness, they identified that purposeful principal leadership can enhance the organizational system through setting clear goals, providing the necessary structure and social networks for collaboration, developing people, and fostering a healthy school culture. It is the principal’s involvement in framing, conveying, and sustaining the school’s purpose and goals that represented the most
13 important domain with regard to the indirect influence of principal leadership on school outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Leithwood (1994) specifically delineated teacher dispositions of school characteristics, commitment to change, and capacity for professional development as perceptions of teachers that can be influenced by principals.
Nevertheless, principals need to understand their influence on people and most importantly, their influence on the perceptions of teachers. The ability to influence and alter teacher perception should be an integral focus of leadership.
As Bandura (1993) stated, “Students are motivatable and teachable whatever their background” (p. 143). Strong leadership on the part of the principal is needed to develop, support, sustain, and/or affirm the teacher’s responsibility and accountability for change and growth (Louis, 1994). Principals can be successful at improving student achievement regardless of the district, the school, or the socioeconomic indicators by focusing their efforts on supporting and targeting the collective beliefs of the staff (Fancera & Bliss,
2011).
Although the latter research supported the direct and indirect influences of principal leadership on a school, its teachers, and student achievement, future research is needed that is focused on the characteristics of effective school leaders (Goddard &
Skrla, 2006). Specifically, leadership practices that principals can control or modify to influence student achievement under typical school conditions should be the focus of future research (Fancera & Bliss, 2011). We need to engage in a search for leadership practices that matter the most (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Minckler (2014) posited that future research must question what dispositions, knowledge, and skills demonstrated by principals have been able to extend average to exceptional levels of achievement.
14
Research is needed to analyze the direct influence of effective principal leadership on teacher practice (Goddard et al., 2015).
As varied leadership models were investigated in correlation with the foundational traits and practices of effective leaders, transformational leadership and instructional leadership were two leadership models that dominate the literature base.
Hallinger’s (2003) review of transformational and instructional leadership found many common practices between both models. In both models, leaders created a shared sense of purpose, develop a climate of high expectations, and a culture focused on the improvement of teaching and learning. Leaders shaped reward structures to reflect the goals set for staff and students, provided a range of activities aimed to stimulate and develop staff, and modeled the values being fostered in the school. Based upon the commonalities between these two leadership models, coupled with the fact that the majority of school leaders claim to be transformational leaders (Marks, 2013), and the existing body of literature documenting the significant influence of transformational leadership on collective teacher efficacy, transformational leadership was selected as the leadership model for this study.
Development of a Model of School-Based Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership was initially conceptualized by Burns (1978) and further developed by Bass as a leadership model that was applicable in a vast array of organizational types. Burns (1978) asserted that transforming leadership “…occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (p. 20). Transformational leadership transcends the self-interests of both the leader and the led and is focused on
15 the relationship between the leader and the followers (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership develops followers into leaders (Bass, 1985). It is a multi-dimensional leadership model that involves moving the follower beyond self-interests through idealized influence (charisma), identifying and sustaining vision, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Bass and Avolio (1997) expounded upon Burns’ definition, adding that transformational leadership describes the quality of communication and exchanges between leaders and team members. Transformational leaders, depending on the context, can be directive or participative, authoritarian or democratic.
Leithwood modified and adapted the work of Burns and Bass to better fit the leadership demands found in the context of schools. Leithwood and Sun (2012) describe transformational leadership theory in the following manner:
Transformational leadership theory claims that a relatively small number of leadership behaviors or practices are capable of increasing the commitment and effort of organizational members toward the achievement of organizational goals. The values and aspirations of both leader and follower are enhanced by these practices. Unlike traditional models of leadership that are “transactional” in nature, transformational leadership theory argues that, given adequate support, organizational members become highly engaged and motivated by goals that are inspirational because those goals are associated with values in which they strongly believe - or are persuaded to strongly believe (p. 388).
Transformational leadership practices are considered to build upon transactional leadership methods (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005), a model of leadership (transactional) that focuses solely on the task-at-hand and avoids the individual who performs the task
(Kurt et al., 2012).
To accomplish the work of school reform and restructuring, transformational leadership became a model of school leadership, which focused on problem
16 identification, problem solving, and collaboration with stakeholders for the purposes of improving organizational performance (Hallinger, 1992). Robinson et al. (2008) completed a meta-analysis of school leadership styles and found that transformational leaders create vision, common goals for the school, set direction, protect staff from external demands and pressures, ensure fair and equitable staffing, and give teachers a high degree of autonomy. It is a leadership model focused on increasing the commitment, capacity, and engagement of organizational members in meeting goals
(Moolenaar, Daly, & Sleegers, 2010).
Through the evolution of transformational leadership’s development into a model of educational leadership, Leithwood and Sun (2012) established the most widely accepted and used model of transformational leadership in schools. This model consists of the following four transformational leadership categories: (1) setting directions; (2) developing people; (3) redesigning the organization; and (4) improving the instructional program. The transformational leadership categories are further delineated and defined by the leadership practices contained in Table 1 (Leithwood & Sun, 2012)
Table 1
Transformational School Leadership Categories and Practices
Leadership Category Leadership Practice
Setting Direction Developing a shared vision (charisma, inspirational motivation)
Fostering the acceptance of group goals
Holding high performance expectations
Developing People Providing individualized support/consideration
Challenging the process/intellectual stimulation
Modeling key behaviors, beliefs, and values
17
Redesigning the Organization Strengthening the school culture
Building structures to foster collaboration
Fostering productive relations with parents and the community Improving the Instructional Program Staffing the program
Providing instructional support to teachers
Monitoring school activities
Buffering staff from distractions to their work
When examining the leadership categories and practices contained in Table 1, leaders must comprehend the purpose of these transformational practices to influence the beliefs and behavior of followers. Transformational practices capture both individual and collective action of followers by exercising power through people, not over them
(Leithwood, 1992) to develop followers to their fullest potential (Bass & Avolio, 1993).
Leithwood (1994) has summarized “people effects” as the cornerstone of transformational leadership, where leaders influence changes in behavior, adoption of new programs or techniques, perception of school conditions, commitment to change, and the organizational learning that occurs. Transformational leaders are able to implement leadership practices that move followers beyond their immediate self-interests through the leader’s utilization of influence, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and/or individualized consideration (Demir, 2008). When leaders elevate the interests of their followers, generate awareness and acceptance of the purpose of the group, and excite their followers to look beyond their own self-interests for the good of the group (Bass,
1990), the power of transformational leadership can be enacted.
18
Impact of Transformational Leadership on an Organization
Leadership not only influences individuals, yet it influences the organizational system in which individuals work (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). As Leithwood’s model of transformational leadership asserted, the influences of transformational leadership occurs through setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program. As Marks and Printy (2003) asserted,
“Transformational leadership builds organizational capacity…” (p. 377) and it is through this development of organizational capacity that meaningful and productive change can occur. Leaders and followers are bound together in the transformation process (Marks &
Printy, 2003), a process in which principals can positively and significantly enhance teacher engagement (Leithwood, 1994), and indirectly influence student achievement
(Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Transformational leaders can support staff members through collaborating and sharing leadership with others that can foster meaningful change can occur (Demir, 2008; Leithwood & Sun, 2012). The following sections explore Leithwood’s model of transformational leadership, associated practices, and their influence on follower behavior.
Setting directions. In considering the four categories of transformational leadership, it is the vision and goal setting components of setting direction that sets transformational leadership apart from other leadership models. Through their meta- analysis of unpublished research on transformational school leadership, Leithwood and
Sun (2012) found that setting directions was one of the two most powerful leadership practices influencing school culture and the achievement of school goals. The emphasis that a transformational leader places on vision creates the fundamental sense of purpose
19 in an organization (Marks & Printy, 2003). Fifty percent (50%) of the influence of transformational leadership comes from the visioning dimensions (i.e., setting directions) of the construct (Ross & Gray, 2006). Transformational leaders articulate the vision in a clear and appealing manner, explain how to attain the vision, express confidence in followers, lead by example, and empower others to achieve the vision (Yukl, 1998). It is through this work in developing a widely shared vision that a leader seeks to inspire and motivate others to attain higher goals for personal and professional development.
Leithwood (1994) further posited that the power of transformational leadership is derived through fostering a commitment to group goals, which leads to an increased capacity for innovation. Goals are a compelling and challenging target for personal and collective school improvement efforts (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Goals are what members of the school staff understand to be both the explicit and implicit purpose and direction of the school. Exceptional leaders do not base their influence on the exchange relationships commensurate with transactional leaders. Rather, transformational leaders accomplish the acceptance of group goals through emphasizing values and the emotional ties that foster capacity development and personal commitment to organizational goals.
They identify deficiencies of the status quo by creating a shared sense of direction and purpose, with clear goals, support, and encouragement for people’s work (Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2005).
Transformational leaders lead through all aspects of the school system, the people, the culture, and the structure to achieve organizational goals.
“…transformational leadership is a process of building commitment to organizational objectives and then empowering followers to accomplish those objectives” (Demir, 2008,
20 p. 95). Moolenaar et al. (2010) goes on to state that transformational leaders are focused on increasing the commitment, capacity, and engagement of organizational members for the primary purpose of meeting set goals. Researchers asserted that principals exert their greatest influence over a school and ultimately the instructional program through the establishment of clear goals for the school (Fancera & Bliss, 2011).
It is not atypical for most principals to set a clear vision and meaningful goals for their organization. So what is it that transformational leaders do to call upon the minds and spirits of their members to reach their fullest potential and transcend their own self- interest for that of the greater good (Bass & Avolio, 1993)? Transformational leaders provide motivation. It is an inspirational role where the actions of the leader are framed by values, vision, and consistent leadership across situations to inspire the thinking and behavior of organizational members (Dumay & Galand, 2012). Whereas transactional leaders accomplish goals without attempting to motivate followers (Bass, 1978), transformational leaders provide motivation by helping people see how their efforts contributed to the work being done to accomplish the set goals (Prelli, 2016).
Leithwood et al. (1999) purported that through the motivational aspect of transformational leadership, leaders raise the aspirations of followers and therefore followers will align their goals with that of the organization. Transformational leadership behaviors empower teachers to rise above their personal expectations to create a collective belief in the common goals (Demir, 2008). Yet this alignment can only occur through the enhancement of the capacity beliefs of teachers and their confidence in the organizational support provided by the school culture to attain the set goals. School leaders can enhance or impede the enactive experiences of organizational members,
21 experiences that can support the realization of organizational goals through the leader’s direct effect on teacher motivation (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). “…teachers will be motivated only when they believe that the environment in which they work favors the realization of goals which they consider personally significant” (Ninkovic & Floric,
2018, p. 53).
Developing people. Transformational leaders develop people through leadership demonstrating confidence and trust in their capabilities (Bass & Avolio, 1994). In an investigation of the organizational impact of transformational leadership, Kurt et al.
(2012) found that transformational leader’s influence teacher work attitudes and outcomes through the enhancement and development of followers. Transformational leaders challenge teachers to confront obstacles and proactively approach challenges, to think in different ways, and inspire teachers to go beyond what was thought to be possible. Transformational leaders develop teachers by providing individualized support, intellectual stimulation, and modeling behaviors, beliefs, and values. Transformational leaders provide individualized supports to teachers by enhancing belief in their ability to accomplish a task (Derrington & Angelle, 2013).
To improve performance, development of the people that are required to perform must occur. Transformational leaders accomplish this goal by focusing on the individual understandings and skills of their teachers. Extra effort and greater productivity of followers ensues through the reciprocal process of capacity development (Burns, 1978;
Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders provide intellectual direction to innovate within the organization through empowering and supporting teachers as partners in the process
(Leithwood, 1994). This may be done through supporting teacher professional growth,
22 and challenging teacher’s assumptions to rethink instructional practices and pedagogy
(Leithwood et al., 1999). It is through individualized support provided by principals that a direct effect on individual teacher capacity and commitment can be reached (Leithwood
& Sun, 2012).
Teacher commitment impacts organizational conditions and teacher performance.
Developing people through transformational leadership practices is not solely about capacity development, yet utilizing that increased capacity to positively influence organizational conditions through increased organizational commitment. Commitment is strengthened when teachers are provided with the necessary supports to meet the intellectual challenges and stimulation that goes with the process of educating students.
Marks and Printy (2003) shared that transformational leadership is essential in supporting teacher commitment and has a large effect on organizational commitment (Leithwood &
Sun, 2012; Rosenholtz, 1989; Ross & Gray, 2006). Leadership contributes to teacher beliefs about their capacity and capacity beliefs contribute to teacher commitment (Ross
& Gray, 2006). Duman and Galand (2012) supported this further by defining teacher quality not just in terms of ability, knowledge, and skills, yet inclusive of teacher commitment.
“When people experience low internal motivation and commitment, they feel dissatisfied and subsequently they engage in a variety of work behaviors that only reinforce task failure” (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 422). Teachers are more committed when working for principals regarded as decision makers, instructional leaders, and those that can positively interact with others (Coladarci, 1992). Leaders need to promote cycles of self-correction and redefine success in terms of figuring out what works, rather than the
23 binary categories of success or failure (Ross & Gray, 2006). It is the relationship between beliefs and capacity that are reciprocal in nature and can be used to the benefit or the detriment of the organization based upon the manner in which the leader interprets and communicates these experiences for teachers.
Teachers in schools characterized by transformational principals exert extra effort, and are more committed to the organization and its improvement efforts (Leithwood et al., 1999). Dumay and Galand (2012) argue that transformational leadership is significantly related to cultural strength within a school through the relationship between leaders and followers and the manner in which opportunities are created to share and clarify perceptions related to organizational events. It is through the transformational leadership practices associated with developing people where leaders have the potential to influence the commitment, collective work, and beliefs of teachers (Goddard et al.,
2015). Transformational leaderships empowerment of a faculty and recognition of their efforts are the means by which a strong sense of school community is developed (Prelli,
2016); a school community that can be structured to redesign the future of an organization.
Redesigning the organization. As it can be intimated through the prior discussion on the tenets and influences of transformational leaders, transformational leaders tap the energy, spirit, and expertise of its members to improve the organization.
Transformational leadership builds organizational capacity (Marks & Printy, 2003). To improve and redesign an organization’s future, a strong culture must first be established to impact member perceptions of organizational effectiveness (Leithwood & Jantzi,
2005) through symbolic cues which depict beliefs about what the school can accomplish
24 and by demonstrating how individual efforts contribute to the greater good (Prelli, 2016).
Transformational leaders create a collective belief about the capability of followers
(Demir, 2008) and shift the motives of followers from self-interest to common interest.
It is the impact of transformational leaders to increase the social identification of followers to the group that enables followers to expound effort towards the good of the group (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). The strengthening of an organizational culture and motivation of followers to see beyond their own self-interests is built on the foundation of valued relationships; relationships that develop a culture to support individual and collective accomplishment in an environment where members feel they belong (Minckler, 2014).
Ross and Gray (2006) found that transformational leadership consistently enhanced organizational learning, organizational effectiveness, and organizational culture. It is through the improved peer cohesiveness, which can be enhanced by transformational leaders that a collaborative school culture can be built to indirectly effect student achievement through the direct effect this leadership will have on the collective capacity of the organization (Leithwood & Sun, 2012).
In addition to strengthening the school culture, transformational leaders redesign the organization through enabling and strengthening collaborative structures. Goddard et al. (2015) found that principal leadership and teacher collaboration are significant and direct predictors of the differences amongst schools in terms of student achievement.
They went on to clarify collaboration in terms of shared leadership, specifying that leaders should involve teachers in key decisions that impact instruction. Through the recognition of leadership as a distribution of power through both formal and informal
25 leaders, leadership and enhanced collaboration can positively influence teacher beliefs
(Goddard et al., 2015).
To capitalize on the positive effects of teacher leadership on the effectiveness of an organization, principals need to be willing to share power and invite teachers to share in leadership functions. Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) further clarified that power and control is not necessarily nested with administrative positions, but attributed to whomever is able to inspire commitment to the collective goals and aspirations. Teacher leaders have the ability to lead through contributing to the organization by performing duties beyond their classroom responsibilities, and taking on more formal leadership roles as defined by the principal (Angelle & Teague, 2014). Schools with the greatest level of teacher leadership did so based on a principal that shared leadership and provided opportunities to share expertise (Angell & Teague, 2014).
Sharing expertise is a critical element of informal teacher leadership and school improvement efforts (Snell & Swanson, 1987). Teachers that are a part of the decision making process demonstrate greater participation and commitment to the goals of the organization (Barth, 2001). Teacher leaders can be empowered to bring about change through their areas of knowledge, passion, and skill (Derrington & Angelle, 2013). The more teachers have the opportunity to influence instructionally relevant school decisions, the more willing they will be to lead beyond their classroom (Angelle & Teague, 2014).
Improving the instructional program. Transformational leadership does not imply instructional leadership (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998), yet instructional leadership can be transformational (Marks & Printy, 2003). Instructional leadership involves the collaboration of the principal and teachers on curriculum, instruction, and
26 assessment (Marks & Printy, 2003). It is a leadership model focused directly on student achievement and the leader’s direct work related to the teaching and learning process. It is a leadership model directly focused on leading teachers (Robinson et al., 2008), which provides an indirect influence on student achievement. “When principals who are transformational leaders accept their instructional roll and exercise it in collaboration with teachers, they practice an integrated form of leadership” (Marks & Printy, 2003, p.
376).
Teachers that believe in a principal’s instructional leadership behaviors will demonstrate increased commitment, professional growth, and a willingness to innovate
(Marks & Printy, 2003). Transformational leaders focused on instructional improvement structure opportunities for teachers to examine instructional practices (Brinson & Steiner,
2007) and connect principals to teachers around the core component of teacher work; monitoring instruction and providing instructional supports (Goddard et al., 2015).
Contextual Considerations of Transformational Leadership
In addition to the aforementioned transformational leadership practices, leaders must be cognizant of the contextual factors that can test the organizational culture of a school, such as student demographics, socioeconomic factors, grade levels, and past school successes or failures. Many educators accept the results of the Equality of
Educational Opportunity report that found SES to be the strongest predictor of student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966). Hallinger and Murphy (1986) found that SES influenced how elementary principals perceived their work, whereas Scott and Teddlie
(1987) identified a correlation between SES and elementary principal expectations.
Hallinger and Heck (1998) found that SES factors also influence principal leadership and
27 the impact of leadership on school effectiveness. Although student factors have been found to negatively influence leadership behaviors, other factors, such as school size and teacher background (Cheng, 1994), as well as teacher age, gender, and years of experience (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005) did not exert any influence over principal behavior.
Nonetheless, transformational leaders must continue to realize that the impact and effect of their leadership is augmented by prior student achievement, the organizational culture, and the collective goals of the school (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). With research demonstrating the influence of select student demographic factors on leadership practices, specifically SES, transformational leaders must continue to influence a positive organizational culture regardless of district, school, or student level demographic indicators (Fancera & Bliss, 2011). The effectiveness of schools is determined by district and school leadership and the ensuing behaviors of teachers (Kurt et al. 2012).
Contextual factors do not just pose an influence on the culture of an organization or on formal leadership, but on the beliefs of members at the individual and collective levels. As Bandura (1993) shared, “Adverse student body characteristics influence schools’ academic attainment more strongly by altering faculty beliefs about their collective efficacy to motivate and educate their students then through their direct effect on school achievement” (p. 143). Goddard and Skrla’s (2006) work supported Bandura’s assertion through their findings that contextual and demographic factors, such as SES, faculty experience, and student’s prior academic achievement accounted for roughly 46% of the difference in collective efficacy levels between schools. In another study conducted by Fancera and Bliss (2011) of 53 New Jersey high schools, they found that
28 the higher the percentage of students enrolled in the free/reduced lunch program, the lower the level of perceived collective efficacy of the school.
However, additional research continues to document that leadership does matter and can mitigate contextual factors that may be perceived as roadblocks to success.
Efficacy beliefs can be enhanced by transformational leaders and provide emotional and ideological explanations that link the individual to the collective identity of the organization (Kark, Shamir, Avolio, & Yammarino, 2002). Furthermore, leaders that develop a strong organizational culture focused on academics, are responsive to teacher needs, and are encouraging in the work to be completed enhance teacher efficacy beliefs.
As it has been shared, transformational leaders have the ability to influence teacher interpretation of events to support increased beliefs in one’s ability to find success. It is through these interactions that transformational leaders can develop and enhance the efficacy beliefs of the organizational members.
Teacher Efficacy
Prior to exploring the constructs of self-efficacy and teacher efficacy, social cognitive theory, the foundational source efficacy belief development must first be explored.
Social Cognitive Theory and Human Agency
Self-efficacy and teacher efficacy are both derived from social cognitive theory, which is based on a model of interactive agency (Bandura, 1986). Bandura’s (1989) theory posited that individuals learn, are motivated, and act through a system of triadic reciprocal causation that is influenced by behavior, personal factors (cognitive, affective), and the external environment (see Figure 1).
29
Figure 1. Schematization of the Relations Among Behavior (B), Cognitive and Other Personal Factors (P), and Environment (E)
Goddard, et al. (2004) delineated efficacy development within the context of social cognitive theory as the choices that are made through the exercise of agency. Adams and
Forsyth (2006) explained social cognitive theory as human action based on the function of social experiences and the cognitive interpretation or reflection of those experiences.
Human agency is defined as the ability to exert influence over one’s functioning and the course of events by one’s actions (Bandura, 2000). Agency is the manner in which people can exercise control over their own lives and their futures (Goddard et. al., 2000).
Agency is the intentional pursuit of a course of action. In the context of schools, this action is typically related to the attainment of educational goals. The higher levels of agency an individual possessed, the more purposeful they pursue goals that appear challenging, yet rewarding, and attainable (Goddard et. al., 2004).
However, it is not just individuals (i.e., human agency) that work in an agentive manner. Organizational agency (in a school setting) is the collective pursuit and action to achieve desired attainments or educational goals (Goddard et. al., 2004), inclusive of the beliefs that organizational members hold about the capability of their work group to attain the desired goals (Goddard & Skrla, 2006). “…the exercise of human and organizational agency depends on how individuals and groups interpret their efficacy- belief-shaping experiences. The effects of a given experience…are thus less a function of
30 the actual events than of what group members make of those events in the context of the dense and influential social networks with which group members act” (Goddard & Skrla,
2006, p. 219). Social cognitive theory and the enactment of human and organizational agency are the foundation of efficacy development.
Self-Efficacy and Teacher Efficacy
Prior to investigating collective teacher efficacy (an examination of efficacy beliefs at the group level); a general understanding of efficacy at the individual level must first be developed. Bandura (1986) defined perceived efficacy as “…a cognition that mediates between knowledge and action” (p. 150). Efficacy beliefs are formed through cognitive processing. Bandura (1997) built upon this concept of efficacy and introduced self-efficacy as, “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a course of action required to produce a given attainment” (p. 3). Self-efficacy is a judgement on the capability of an individual to execute future action within the parameters of contextual circumstances (Bandura, 1997). Efficacy beliefs are task and context specific, as past experiences are cognitively assessed according to the circumstances in which the future task will be performed (Bandura, 1997). Due to the fact that self-efficacy determinations are formed within specified circumstances, self-efficacy beliefs and behaviors typically lack generalizability to other settings and/or contexts (Klassen, Tze, Getts, & Gordon,
2011).
In 1976, researchers at the Rand Corporation were the first to take note of the influence of efficacy on teacher beliefs and behavior. They noted that teachers who believed they could influence student achievement and motivation, also assumed they could control the desired reinforcement (student learning and motivation), and therefore
31 had higher levels of efficacy (as cited in Goddard et al., 2000). Bandura’s (1977) theory expanded upon this efficacy work and identified teacher efficacy as a type of self- efficacy. Teacher efficacy is the outcome of a cognitive process in which teachers construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of competence. Guskey
& Passaro (1994) defined teacher efficacy as a teacher’s belief that s/he can influence the degree to which students can learn, even those that may be difficult or unmotivated.
Teacher efficacy is a teacher’s confidence in his/her ability to promote student learning (Hoy, 2000). These beliefs impact effort, persistence through difficulty, resiliency to deal with failure, and are influenced and motivated by contextual variables related to beliefs held at the individual level. Teacher efficacy does not develop and evolve by happenstance. These beliefs are framed in the context of both the teaching task and the related teaching competence (Bandura, 1997). There is something more to the development of teacher efficacy than just demographics and contextual conditions of the organization. Teacher beliefs and those factors that influence teacher beliefs at the individual and collective levels need to be studied (Goddard & Skrla, 2006).
Sources of Teacher Efficacy Belief Development
Through Bandura’s (1997) extensive work, he has identified four sources related to the development of efficacy beliefs: (1) mastery experiences, (2) vicarious experiences, (3) social persuasion, and (4) affective states. Mastery experiences are past experiences of success. It is the most influential source of efficacy belief development as these experiences provide the most authentic evidence if an individual or the collective can do whatever it takes to be successful (Bandura, 1997; Goddard et. al., 2004).
Goddard et. al. (2004) elaborated that the perception of successful past performance
32 raises efficacy beliefs as long as success is attributed to internal and controllable causes.
Protheroe (2008) asserted that experience and past performance accomplishments are integral components of efficacy development. Schools have institutional memories, memories that are context specific in determining whether or not success is likely. This experiential memory will develop beliefs as to whether or not goals will be attained.
Therefore, resiliency is only built through the experience in overcoming difficulties through persistent effort.
Although mastery experiences are the most influential in predicting high levels of efficacy, vicarious experiences are an additional and impactful source of efficacy belief development. Efficacy may be enhanced through vicarious experiences, which can be developed by observing successful classrooms and organizations, especially those with similar goals in an environment with related opportunities and restrictions (Goddard et. al., 2000, Goddard et. al., 2004). Vicarious examples provide a model of the skill in question, or programs in action from other organizations.
Social persuasion is a critical source of self-efficacy until successful mastery experiences occur (Klassen et al., 2011). “If most teachers in a school are highly efficacious, the normative environment will press teachers to persist in their educational efforts. Moreover, the press to perform will be accompanied by social sanctions for those who do not” (Goddard, et. al., 2000, p. 497). Social persuasion is about strengthening one’s convictions to achieve goals, while supporting a level of innovation and persistence to overcome challenges that can lead to solving problems of practice (Goddard, et. al,
2000). Social persuasion, Goddard et. al. (2004) stated, can lead to “A robust sense of group capability establishing a strong press for collective performance” (p. 6). Although
33 not a powerful factor of efficacy belief development in isolation, social persuasion can influence efficacy beliefs when coupled with mastery and vicarious experiences. By coupling social persuasion with training and experience, efficacy beliefs can be strengthened (Goddard & Skrla, 2006).
Finally, Adams and Forsyth (2006) qualified the affective state of efficacy development as the collective ability to endure the pressure and stress of difficult circumstances. Both individuals and organizations react to stress. The affective state of an individual or organization is the manner in which challenges are interpreted.
Efficacious organizations can tolerate crises, pressure, and stress without severe consequences (Goddard, et. al. 2000). Whether it be through mastery or vicarious experiences, social persuasion, or affective states, the degree of success to which a school functions as a social system is dependent on the belief system of the staff (Kurz &
Knight, 2004).
Although the aforementioned sources of efficacy belief development dominate the literature, other theories have been postulated as well. Adams and Forsyth (2006) examined proximate sources of teacher efficacy and have identified the means-end relationship and locus of control theory as contributing sources to efficacy development.
“A means-ends assessment allows an individual to cognitively weigh perceptions of abilities against contextual factors that could impede or facilitate goal attainment. This type of cognitive assessment leads to expectations of outcomes that are based on an agent’s confidence in his or the group’s ability to overcome contextual conditions” (p.
628). Locus of control theory assumes that teacher efficacy is a function of a teacher’s perceived control over the reinforcement of student learning. Put another way, teachers
34 have more influence on student achievement than does the environment or student characteristics. It is this control over outcome expectations that influence teacher efficacy judgements (Adams and Forsyth, 2006).
With a foundational understanding in place of the theoretical background of social cognitive theory and human agency, self-efficacy and teacher efficacy, as well as sources of efficacy belief development, it has been demonstrated that highly efficacious teachers behave differently. Teachers with high efficacy encourage student autonomy, attend more closely to the needs of students who are not progressing well, and are able to modify students’ perceptions of their academic abilities (Ross & Bruce, 2007). Donohoo
(2017) shared that teachers with high levels of efficacy show greater effort and persistence. They try new things, set challenging goals, and give greater attention to those that need support. The latter section has demonstrated how the sources of efficacy explain the manner in which the beliefs and capability perceptions of individuals are cognitively developed. Yet, it is imperative to explore the construct and impact of efficacy at the collective (group) level.
Collective Teacher Efficacy
Schools are commonly defined as loosely coupled organizations, or organizations that have ambiguous goals and have a loosely connected structural system that has little effect on outcomes (Kurz & Knight, 2004). Teachers do not work in isolation. Bandura
(1997) provided clarification that “people working independently within a group structure do not function as social isolates totally immune to the influence of those around them…the resources, impediments, and opportunities provided by a given system partly
35 determine how efficacious individuals can be, even when their work may be only loosely coupled” (p. 469).
Efficacy beliefs are formed not just at the individual level, but they are formed based on the perceptions of the collective capabilities of the groups in which they belong
(Bandura, 1997). Collective efficacy is an extension of teacher efficacy at the organizational level. It is the performance capability of the organization as a whole
(Bandura, 1997). Yet, Bandura (1997) further clarified perceived collective efficacy as an emergent group-level attribute, not simply the sum measure of individual efficacy beliefs. Collective efficacy is a way to capture the normative environment of a school.
Teacher beliefs about the capability of the faculty to educate students constitutes a norm that encourages certain behaviors and discourages others (Goddard et al., 2004). For this reason, efficacy beliefs at the collective level are more powerful an influencer than individual beliefs (Goddard & Skrla, 2006).
Bandura defined collective teacher efficacy as “the groups’ shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (p. 477). It is the belief in their collective capabilities to influence the lives of their students (Bandura, 1993). In a school context, it is the perception and judgement of the teachers that the efforts of a faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of action required to have positive effects on students (Goddard et al., 2000;
Goddard et al., 2004).
The power of efficacy at the collective level is the impact it has on positively influencing teacher behavior and teacher performance. Collective efficacy is focused on the performance capability of the system as a whole (Bandura, 1997). It is “a construct
36 measuring teachers’ beliefs about the collective capability of a faculty to influence student achievement” (Goddard et al., 2000, p. 486). Collective efficacy is the belief that the efforts of a school faculty can have a positive effect on students and student achievement (Adams & Forsyth, 2006; Bandura, 1997). Tschannen-Moran and Barr
(2004) further delineated that collective efficacy is not only the perception of a staff that their collective efforts can make an educational difference for their students, but a belief that a staff can do so over and above the educational impact of their homes and communities, inclusive of students who are disengaged and/or disadvantaged. Collective efficacy is a powerful normative dimension of the social systems of a school (Goddard and Skrla, 2006). It is a norming quality of collective efficacy that influences teacher beliefs; beliefs about the staff’s capability that influence action with effort, persistence, and resiliency and can result in increased school achievement (Goddard et al., 2000).
Theoretical Models of Collective Teacher Efficacy
Just as was the case with self-efficacy, social cognitive theory (with regard to collective efficacy) extends human agency from the individual to the organizational level
(Goddard et al., 2000). Goddard and Skrla (2006) elaborated that when a group believes they are capable, the group is more likely to approach action and goals with creativity, effort, and a level of persistence needed to find success. To further our understanding of collective efficacy in schools, we must look at how collective efficacy in a school environment influences teacher beliefs, performance, and student learning (Goddard et al., 2004).
As we begin to understand the tenets of collective efficacy and its influence on teacher beliefs, it is imperative to conceptualize this construct through two existing
37 models found within the collective efficacy literature. Goddard et al. (2000) proposed a simplified model depicting the formation, influence, and change of perceived efficacy in schools (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. A Simplified Model of Collective Teacher Efficacy
This model asserted that the development of collective efficacy is influenced first by
Badura’s sources of collective efficacy. These experiences are then cognitively processed. Once cognitively processed, Goddard, et al. (2000) posited that an analysis of the teaching task and an assessment of the teaching competence occurs. The analysis of the teaching task is determining what quality teaching looks like in the organization, identifying barriers that need to be addressed, and determining the available resources to find success. The assessment of teaching competence is an assessment of competence at both the individual and group level in direct correlation to the teaching task at-hand. It is the analysis of the teaching task and the assessment of teaching competence that leads to collective efficacy development in a school (Goddard et al., 2000). To summarize, this model depicts that past experiences are cognitively processed prior to the consideration of the analysis of the teaching task and assessment of teaching competence.
38
Adams and Forsyth (2006) offered a second model of perceived collective efficacy in schools (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Hypothesized Model of Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy
Based on the findings of their research comparing remote (past experiences/sources of efficacy) and proximate sources (analysis of the teaching task and assessment of teaching competence) of collective efficacy, they concluded that “remote and proximate sources are cognitively processed together to form efficacy beliefs” and suggest that both
“sources merge within the cognitive process” (p. 639). “Individuals within organizations make judgements, based on past experiences and contextual circumstances, about the collective ability of the organization to perform future tasks that will affect goal obtainment” (Adams & Forsyth, 2006, p. 631). Collective efficacy perceptions to achieve expected outcomes given current environmental constraints are cognitively processed concurrently with past experiences to determine the task-specific perceived collective efficacy of the group.
Bandura (1997) shared that beliefs about the teaching task or teacher competence are likely to remain unchanged without the introduction of compelling evidence that forces a reevaluation. The task of developing collective efficacy is difficult, but not
39 impossible (Goddard et al., 2000). However, through the evolution of the research on collective efficacy and the latter models to conceptualize it, there still remains a nagging question as to how one develops or enhances the level of collective efficacy in a school.
As Goddard et al. (2000) asserted, “Once established, the collective efficacy of a school is a relatively stable property that requires substantial effort to change” (p. 486).
So what is the compelling evidence, the operationalization of organizational conditions, contextual factors, and leadership practices that could be applied in the field to influence collective teacher efficacy? Variables have been explored with unpredictable levels of correlationary predictability and/or applicability from one context to the next. Therefore, collective efficacy research must move from an exciting construct with the potential to predict to organizational outcomes, to a construct that can be developed, nurtured, and sustained to create organizational outcomes. Bandura’s work on efficacy sources denotes the manner in which efficacy perceptions are cognitively formed, but not the conditions or strategies that affect it. Practitioners need not only understand the conditions for collective efficacy to exist, but the strategies to improve it (Moore, 2018).
Enhancing Collective Teacher Efficacy
Collective efficacy provides insight into a shared set of teacher beliefs (Kurz &
Knight, 2004), a set of beliefs, which influence teacher behavior and action. With clear research supporting the influence of teacher beliefs on collective efficacy development and staff performance, it is imperative to review the sources of efficacy belief development in terms of their influence on the collective and the manner in which these beliefs are developed, supported, and sustained in the organizational structure of schools.
The research on strategies to enhance organizational conditions and contextual factors
40 that will in turn escalate the likelihood of increased levels of collective efficacy is divergent in its focus.
Organizational conditions. As demonstrated earlier, Bandura’s (1997) work identified four sources of efficacy formation: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and affective states. Although the latter literature reviewed shared examples in the context of teacher efficacy development, these same sources are also fundamental in the development of collective efficacy. Specifically, mastery experiences have been identified as an influential source of collective efficacy belief development at group level. Mastery experiences at the collective level are those experiences that provide authentic evidence of a staff’s ability do whatever it takes to be successful.
Collective efficacy beliefs are strongly related to teacher perceptions of self-capability.
When teachers think highly of the collective capability of a staff, there is an implicit expectation of teacher success, which leads to increased effort and persistence to ensure student learning (Goddard et al., 2004).
Donohoo (2017) identified six enabling conditions that purported to improve the probability of enhanced collective efficacy. Much of these organizational conditions related to the importance of staff consensus on goals, teacher influence in school decisions, and staff agreement on fundamental educational issues. The work Kurz and
Knight (2004) supported a higher correlation between collective efficacy and goal consensus. They found goal consensus as a predictor of collective efficacy when goals were collaboratively developed and communication elicited a strong belief in the capacity of the staff to improve. Newmann, Rotter, and Smith (1989) also identified teacher
41 involvement in the decision-making process/goal consensus as an organizational factor that could influence collective efficacy.
In addition to goal consensus, the process of teaching teams working together through a process of collaborative inquiry has been linked to increased levels of collective efficacy. Langer and Colton (2005) asserted that “schools that engage in collaborative inquiry develop a sense of collective efficacy that helps educators reconnect with their original point of passion: ensuring student success” (p. 26). Committing to transparency, creating a climate of nonjudgementalism, fidelity in implementation, and clear evidence of student growth are all components of an effective collaborative inquiry team process, all of which have been identified as conditions to create collective efficacy
(Hirsh, 2016). Donohoo (2017) noted the importance of teacher knowledge of one another’s work as an influencing factor of collective efficacy.
As an organization, staff members experience success and failure, which influence group beliefs about capability. They collectively learn by observing other organizations (Goddard et al., 2000), as well as through professional development opportunities. Just like individuals, organizations can react to stress and pressures based on their established organizational beliefs and levels of collective efficacy. Like teacher efficacy, collective efficacy is associated with tasks, level of effort, persistence, shared thoughts, stress, and group achievements (Goddard et al., 2000). Organizations can collaborate, cooperate, and establish a strong and persuasive push for collective performance (Goddard et al., 2004).
Contextual factors. Although the abovementioned examples detail actions that can be taken to influence and enhance collective efficacy, there is also a body of research
42 focused on the impact of contextual factors that influence the development of collective efficacy. Contextual factors may influence teacher perceptions of the staff’s collective abilities to attain the expected outcomes given the environmental constraints.
Environmental sources can be defined as contextual conditions have a daily influence on teaching tasks (Adams & Forsyth, 2006). Goddard and Skrla (2006) found that prior academic success as a significant predictor of the variance of collective efficacy between schools.
Additionally, Adams and Farsyth (2006) found that contextual factors influence efficacy beyond prior academic performance. School structure accounted for the most variability of levels of collective efficacy in their study. Further findings support socioeconomic status (SES), enabling school structures (the formalization and centralization of a schools bureaucratic structure), and school level (elementary versus secondary) influence the levels of collective efficacy in a school (Adams & Forsyth,
2006). “Schools can configure their formal organizational structure so it produces the type of social networks and interactions necessary for efficacy formation” (Adams &
Forsyth, 2006, p. 640). As a counterpoint, Goddard and Skrla (2006) agreed that school composition is an important factor in the development of collective efficacy, yet stated it does not entirely determine the efficacious beliefs of a faculty. There is limited research examining the extent to which the differences in the level of collective efficacy can be explained by the academic, racial, and SES composition of the student body and the racial, gender, and teaching experience variance of the staff. Current research demonstrated a minimal understanding of how collective efficacy is influenced by context.
43
As the latter statement affirms, little is known about strengthening perceived collective efficacy in schools (Goddard et al., 2004). Few studies have focused on the factors that influence collective efficacy (Goddard & Skrla, 2006). In a review of self- and collective efficacy research from 1998 – 2009, Klassen et al. (2011) concluded that even with compelling findings in the research, collective efficacy research has been limited. “…what we know about teachers’ collective efficacy is not very substantial, with almost nothing known about how collective efficacy beliefs are formed in school settings” (Klassen et al., 2011, p. 35).
Influence of Transformational Leadership on Collective Teacher Efficacy
Leadership is believed to be a critical variable that contributes to the development of perceived collective efficacy. Through the developed understanding of transformational leadership, social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, teacher efficacy, and collective efficacy based upon the review relevant research, it is critical for the purposes of this study to bridge these constructs together. The link between collective efficacy and principal transformational leadership is of growing interest in the literature as a means to chart the indirect effects of leadership on student achievement through a leader’s direct effects on efficacy beliefs (Kurt et al., 2012). Research has found that the transformational leadership practices of principals have a significant impact on the levels of collective efficacy in schools (Kurt et al., 2012; Ross & Gray, 2006). Specifically, principals that adopt transformational practices have higher levels of collective teacher efficacy in their school than did the schools of transactional leaders.
Demir’s (2008) study of 66 elementary schools in Turkey focused on the direct relationship between transformational leadership practices with collective efficacy and
44 the indirect relationship of transformational leadership with collective teacher efficacy through teacher self-efficacy and the collaborative nature of the school culture. A total of
218 teachers participated with the mean experience of the participants at 10.55 years. In this study, thirteen transformational leadership behaviors were measured that focused on individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. Based on the findings, collective efficacy was found to be determined by the transformational leadership behaviors of principals
Dumay and Galand’s (2012) study of 50 primary Belgian schools explored the impact of transformational leadership on teacher commitment as mediated by school culture strength and collective efficacy. The authors hypothesized that school principals play an important role in the interpretation of performance information for teachers, which would influence teacher collective efficacy beliefs. Transformational leadership was found to be significantly and positively related to collective efficacy.
Collective efficacy in a school setting is the perception of teachers that the faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of action required to have a positive effect on students (Derrington & Angelle, 2013). The role of the cognitive process in efficacy belief development is critical, as the same experiences may lead to different efficacy beliefs in different individuals and/or groups (Goddard et al., 2000). As Ross and Gray (2006) stated, efficacy beliefs are most powerful when they are grounded in an accurate self-appraisal. When a transformational principal can directly shape and frame these efficacy developing experiences based on individual and group needs, s/he can indirectly influence student achievement. The relationship between student achievement and collective efficacy is well documented. Brinson and Steiner (2007) found that
45 collective efficacy improved student achievement, while mitigating the effects of low
SES. Schools with higher levels of collective efficacy have higher levels of student achievement than those with lower levels of collective efficacy, independent of SES
(Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000).
In the earlier review of transformational leadership, the four categories of transformational leadership (setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program) were explored in terms of the associated transformational leadership practices and the influence of those practices on various organizational factors. In the following section of the literature review, these same leadership categories and practices will be explored, yet through the framework of their influences on collective efficacy beliefs in schools.
Influence of Setting Directions on Collective Teacher Efficacy
Transformational leadership behaviors under the leadership category of setting directions is focused on developing a shared vision, building goal consensus, and establishing high expectations for performance. It is through this emphasis of vision in conjunction with inspirational messaging that transformational leaders are able to enhance the efficacy beliefs of followers at the group level (Bass, 1999).
Transformational leadership fosters growth of organizational members, raises awareness for the collective interests, and is able to enhance the efficacy beliefs of the collective
(Ross & Gray, 2006). Collective efficacy is enhanced when leaders focus on organizational goals. High levels of collective efficacy lead to the acceptance of challenging goals, strong organizational effort, and purposeful action that lead to better performance (Goddard et al., 2000). Collective efficacy reciprocally affects the diligence
46 and resolve with each an organization works towards the attainment of set goals
(Goddard et al., 2004). Goddard and Skrla (2006) found that organizations with stronger collective efficacy beliefs are not only more likely to be characterized by sustained effort and persistence to reach set goals, yet they see setbacks as temporary obstacles that can be overcome.
These obstacles are not viewed as measures of ineffectiveness or inefficiency and therefore do not influence the perception of self-capability and the level of collective efficacy. However, one must also take note that the perception of staff capability with regard to goal attainment increases when teachers have the opportunity to have part in determining the goals and influencing important school decisions (Goddard et al., 2004).
When teacher agency is stifled at the individual or collective level, they may see this work as outside of their control and therefore effort, persistence, and resiliency may wane. With a high level of collective efficacy in a school, teachers were committed to the common goals, had high professional expectations, and accepted responsibility for outcomes (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Therefore, transformational leadership can influence the level of staff commitment to the established goals of a school.
In their 2018 study of secondary school teachers, Ninkovic & Floric found significant influencers between transformational leadership practices and collective efficacy related to setting direction. Specifically, they found that collective efficacy was enhanced in schools with a transformational leader that had a common vision and group goals. The correlations between transformational leadership and collective efficacy was high, with transformational leadership accounting for 58% of the collective efficacy variance between schools.
47
Influence of Developing People on Collective Teacher Efficacy
Transformational leadership practices for developing people have significant effects on collective efficacy (Ninkovic & Floric, 2018). When transformational leaders focus on developing people, they are providing individualized support, intellectual stimulation, and modeling behaviors, beliefs, and values. A major benefit of high levels of collective efficacy is that of resiliency in the face of adversity. Collective efficacy beliefs and resiliency in schools is only possible through the help and support of effective leadership (Goddard et al., 2015). Leaders that provide support and stimulation to their people see increased effort, a greater openness to new ideas, and greater levels of perseverance due to strong efficacy perceptions.
Transformational leaders must however, understand the manner in which changes can threaten perceived collective efficacy. Leaders must be cognizant that the addition of, for example, a student with disabilities to a classroom may alter efficacy beliefs as that teacher or team may no longer feel that they have the skills to be successful.
Effective transformational leaders seize these opportunities to empower teachers, share successes, and strategies. Prelli (2016) argued that the collective efficacy of the faculty does not always represent the collective efficacy of the teams that make up the faculty.
An effective and perceptive leader is aware of these situational factors that can threaten efficacy levels and utilizes the leadership practices associated with developing people to mitigate their effects.
Influence of Redesigning the Organization on Collective Teacher Efficacy
Leaders that work to strengthen the school culture and build structures to enable collaboration are those that are employing transformational leadership practices focused
48 on redesigning the organization. Unlike setting directions and developing people, not all categories of transformational leadership may be equally relevant in predicting collective efficacy, which was the case with redesigning the organization (Ninkovic & Floric,
2018).
However, studies such as Demir’s (2008) have found stronger correlations between the transformational leadership practice of fostering collaborative structures and a collaborative environment. Demir found that collective efficacy is significantly affected by the levels of collaboration as a means to develop beliefs and social systems in the schools. Additionally, it was found that the more a teacher believes in his/her capability for collective work, the more likely s/he will develop a belief in the capability of his/her colleagues (Demir, 2008). In other words, transformational leadership can enhance collective efficacy by raising follower’s awareness of other group members.
Goddard et al. (2015) further supported Demir’s work in defining collaboration as a key pathway from leadership to collective efficacy. Although an indirect influencer of collective efficacy, teacher collaboration enhanced shared interactions amongst group members and sets norms that are a form of social persuasion. Specifically, teacher collaboration for instructional improvement was a strong predictor of collective efficacy.
In addition to teacher collaboration, the impact and influence of transformational leaders on the enhancement of the school culture through the development of teacher leadership has been found to increase collective efficacy beliefs (Derrington & Angelle,
2013). Through Angelle & Teague’s (2014) study of teacher leadership and collective efficacy, it was found that teachers who perceive a greater level of teacher leadership in a school also perceive a greater extent of collective efficacy. This study further delineated
49 the findings to indicate that teachers perceive the informal aspects of teacher leadership as a greater indicator of collective efficacy than that of teacher leadership in formal roles assigned by the principal. By developing meaningful opportunities for teacher leaders to lead activities where they have succeeded in the past, teachers will be able to provide mastery experiences, which will impact the efficacy beliefs of the staff in a positive manner.
Influence of Improving Instruction on Collective Teacher Efficacy
In a study of 328 primary school teachers, it was found that leadership behaviors associated with improving instruction had a significant direct and positive impact on collective efficacy (Calik, Sezgin, Kavgaci, & Kilinc, 2012). However, the research findings also supported the necessity of correlating other leadership behaviors that fall within other categories of transformational leadership when examining the correlation of improving instruction with collective efficacy beliefs. For example, Jhanke (2010) found instructional leadership to be effective in developing collective efficacy through fostering a positive and supportive environment with a clear vision, high expectations, opportunities for professional development, and shared leadership. Additionally,
Goddard et al. (2015) found that principal emphasis on instruction supported collective efficacy beliefs and is fostered through the collaborative work of teachers. As was the case with redesigning the organization, the transformational leadership category or improving instruction as a construct has not been found to be relevant in predicting collective efficacy as a construct (Ninkovic & Floric, 2018).
50
Influence of Transformational Leadership Sources on Efficacy Formation
A variety of leadership practices identified by researchers are analogous with
Bandura’s (1977) efficacy development sources (Fancera & Bliss, 2011). Social cognitive theory posited that the main contribution of efficacy forming beliefs is through the principal’s influence on a staff’s interpretation of their effectiveness. Mastery experiences are developed through past success and the recognition received for the past success. Vicarious experiences are derived from modeling where you watch and learn from others performing the task. Social persuasion is the use of stories of past successes to remind staff of their abilities and talents. Affective states are the feeling of excitement and joy for the work and what is being accomplished (Prelli, 2016). Ross and Gray
(2006) asserted that transformational leadership practices might contribute to the development of collective efficacy through each of the latter sources of efficacy formation.
Principals can influence teacher self-assessments of behavior that contributes to efficacy beliefs by linking the actions of teachers to student achievement (Ross & Gray,
2006). Although the aforementioned asserted leadership practices associated with all four sources of efficacy development, the most prominent source of efficacy development in the context of transformational leadership practices is through mastery experiences. It is through the support of teacher’s core work that mastery experiences are developed, which stimulate collective efficacy beliefs and enhance student achievement. Principals can improve collective efficacy by interpreting results and providing actionable feedback on teacher performance (Brinson & Steiner, 2007). It is this interpretation of performance information, more so than the collective performance itself that is the most
51 important determinant of collective efficacy beliefs (Dumay & Galand, 2012). Positive mastery experiences at the collective level are likely to strengthen efficacy beliefs
(Goddard et al., 2015). It is this contextualization of events in which transformational leaders have the opportunity to frame teacher perceptions of the school and student achievement.
Ross and Gray (2006) further defined the importance of the role of the principal in the interpretation of performance data and its impact on collective efficacy beliefs by defining what constitutes success for teachers. They went on to describe the importance of mastery experiences in the following manner:
The most powerful source of efficacy information is mastery experience. Teachers who perceive themselves to have been successful on a particular task, either individually or as a part of a collective, believe they have the ability to perform that task and anticipate that they will be successful in future encounters with it. Previous researchers have treated scores on mandated assessments as a proxy for mastery experience, finding consistent links between teacher efficacy and prior or subsequent school achievement. However, even if teachers accept external assessments as valid, their interpretations of the meaning of the scores is influenced by principal explanations (p. 183).
Ross and Gray (2006) go on to state:
The principal's role offers a variety of opportunities to improve the agency beliefs of staff…principals should overtly influence teacher interpretations of school and classroom achievement data. The critical leadership task is to help teachers identify cause-effect relationships that link their actions to desired outcomes. Teachers need to recognize which of their skills contribute to student achievement, that they control the acquisition and exercise these skills, and that they need to take responsibility for the successes and failures of their students (p. 193).
Leadership behaviors, such as emphasizing accomplishments, giving frequent feedback, promoting academic emphasis, and explicitly correlating outcomes with teacher actions can contribute to efficacy belief development at the collective level (Ross & Gray, 2006).
52
Summary of Related Literature
In this chapter, the constructs of social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, and teacher efficacy have been introduced and explored to provide the necessary foundational understanding of efficacy belief formation. Additionally, collective efficacy was explored as an organizational property in the context of schools that can have significant and positive influence on organizational conditions and student achievement. Unlike
SES, collective efficacy can be influenced and changed at the school level. Although collective efficacy can be enhanced, Chen and Bliese (2002) asserted that more research is needed about the strategies to improve it in schools.
Transformational leadership and its inherent leadership practices has been found to be a possible strategy in influencing collective efficacy in schools as the reviewed literature has denoted. Yet, further research is needed. Ross and Gray (2006) stated that research is needed to link specific dimensions of transformational leadership and specific principal behaviors to the enhanced efficacy beliefs of their staff. Research is needed to examine predictors of collective efficacy in schools that is grounded in variables in which teachers and leaders can control in their daily work (Goddard et al., 2015).
53
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the major components of the research design according to the research purpose, questions, and hypotheses are outlined. The study variables, research design, data analysis methodology, sampling procedures, and instrumentation are described. Limitations of the study are also shared.
Purpose of the Study
Principals are continually searching for leadership practices that have the potential to directly enhance adult behavior and indirectly and positively influence student achievement, regardless of demographic and social factors outside the control of school staff. Current research by Hattie (2016) asserted that collective efficacy is three times more powerful than any demographic or societal factor. The purpose of this study was to examine whether teacher perception of principal transformational leadership practices as reported by the Educational Leadership Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2006; Leithwood et al., 1999) statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy as measured by the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form (Goddard, 2002) amongst K-12 teachers in a Midwestern suburban school district.
54
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research question was addressed by this study:
1) Does building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school), teacher
experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years), and teacher
perception of the principal transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting
directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the
instructional program) statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy
beliefs?
The preceding research question gave rise to the following research hypotheses to guide the research study:
1) Ho: Building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school), teacher
experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years), and average
subscale scores of principal transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting
directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the
instructional program), when taken together, will not statistically significantly
predict average scores of collective teacher efficacy in K-12 teachers.
Ha: Building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school), teacher
experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years), and average
subscale scores of principal transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting
directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the
instructional program), when taken together, will statistically significantly predict
average scores of collective teacher efficacy in K-12 teachers.
55
2) Ho: Building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school) will not
statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12
teachers, above and beyond the other variables in the model.
Ha: Building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school) will
statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12
teachers, above and beyond the other variables in the model.
3) Ho: Teaching experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years)
will not statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-
12 teachers, above and beyond the other variables in the model.
Ha: Teaching experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more
years) will statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs in
K-12 teachers, above and beyond the other variables in the model.
4) Ho: Teacher perception of principal transformational leadership practices (i.e.,
setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the
instructional program) will not statistically significantly predict higher levels of
collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12 teachers, above and beyond the other
variables in the model.
Ha: Teacher perception of principal transformational leadership practices
(i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization,
improving the instructional program) will statistically significantly predict higher
levels of collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12 teachers, above and beyond
the other variables in the model.
56
The current study hypothesized that building level, years of teaching experience, and subscale scores of transformational leadership practices would statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs of K-12 teachers in a Midwestern suburban school district. Previous research has indicated that a positive and statistically significant relationship exists between levels of principal transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy beliefs (Demir, 2008; Ninkovic & Floric, 2018; Prelli, 2016;
Ross & Gray, 2006).
Previous studies of collective teacher efficacy have focused on group outcomes based on levels of collective efficacy beliefs held by the teacher’s studied. However, research examining the relationship between specific leadership practices associated with transformational leaders and collective teacher efficacy beliefs is minimal and no study was inclusive of a middle school or an entire school district. Ninkovic and Floric (2018) have identified that transformational leadership practices significantly correlate with collective teacher efficacy, the strongest of which was in the category of developing people (r = 0.73, p < 0.01), but to date no research was found to examine these correlations in one school district or in schools in the United States.
Additional information on the relationship between transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy is needed to provide a better understanding of the relationship among these factors in varied school levels (i.e., elementary, middle school, and high school) and varied levels of teacher experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years). Contextual variables inform and influence teacher perceptions of collective efficacy (Adams & Forsyth, 2006), and there is only a modest understanding of the influence of context on collective teacher efficacy (Klassen et al., 2011),
57 specifically within the culture and high-stakes accountability structures within the
American educational systems. This study sought to add value to the research on the relationship between transformational leadership and collective teacher efficacy, while taking the contextual conditions of building level and teacher experience into consideration.
Description of Independent and Dependent Variables
The continuous independent variables in this study are the subscales of transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program) as measured by the Educational Leadership Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006;
Leithwood et al., 1999) and the categorical demographic variables of building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school) and teacher experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 –
10 years, 11 or more years). Ratings were averaged per subscale for the continuous independent variables related to transformational leadership practices. These results computed a rating of perceived transformational leadership practices by subscale. The continuous dependent variable of collective teacher efficacy was measured by the
Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form (Goddard, 2002). This scale is comprised of group competence and task analysis questions, which when averaged collectively provided an overall average collective teacher efficacy score.
Research Design
This study is a quantitative study and utilized a non-experimental correlational research design (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). This research examined the extent of the predictive relationship between teacher perceived transformational leadership practices of
58 their principals and collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12 teachers. Correlational research designs are commonly used to describe relationships among two or more variables at a given point in time to describe a predictive relationship between independent and dependent variables while using a statistical analysis to describe the extent of the relationship. As is consistent with correlational research designs, the independent and dependent variables were not manipulated in this study, as the purpose of this study is to recognize trends and patterns in existing data.
Sample and Sampling Procedures
Participants in this study consisted voluntary educators from one school district serving five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. A total of 358 teachers were invited to participate in the study. Of those invited, 233 (65.1%) of the eligible participants completed the survey and were included in data analysis. The school district is considered a Midwestern suburban, public school district in the United States, serving approximately 5,500 students in grades PreK-12. The student population is comprised of 83% ‘White, Non-Hispanic’ students and the 17% minority students are equitability divided between other racial groups. Student subgroups include 20.4% of the students deemed ‘economically disadvantaged’, 10.6% are students identified as having a disability, and 4.4% speak English as their second language. Teachers in this sample include any certified educator currently working in an elementary (K-5), middle school
(6-8) or high school (9-12) building. ‘Teachers’ are not only defined as general education classroom teachers, yet also included school counselors, school psychologists, media specialists, special education intervention specialists, gifted intervention specialists, English Language Learner intervention specialists, elective/encore area
59 teachers, and speech language pathologists. The range of experience for teachers’ spanned 0 to 38 years with an average level of experience of 16 years. Of the certified teachers in the district, 82.6% of the teachers have earned a Master’s degree.
For this study, a convenience sample was utilized. A convenience sample is used when demonstrating that a particular trait exists in the population and randomization is not possible at the time of the study (Salkind, 2012). This study sought out K-12 teachers in one school district who were accessible through online communication to gain information on the relationship of the variables in this sample. The advantage of this sampling methodology is that the participants were easily accessible, could complete the survey in a reasonable amount of time, and the results measured the influence of transformational leadership practices on collective teacher efficacy beliefs for the typical teacher in the specific group being studied. The disadvantage of convenience sampling is that this type of sampling has weak external validity, as it is not representative of the total population (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). However, the sample size was projected to include over 200 participants with greater than 50% response rate to ensure statistical analysis power and internal validity.
Instruments
Two published instruments were utilized to collect data for this study, as well as a set of demographic questions. The published instruments selected were the Educational
Leadership Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 1999) and
Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form (Goddard, 2002). The researcher converted these two survey instruments and demographic questions into one online survey (see
Appendices E, F, and G) so that participants could complete the survey in one sitting.
60
The first set of questions contained the Educational Leadership Survey to assess the perceived levels of transformational leadership practices exhibited by the building principal. Next, the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form questions were asked to measure the perceived levels of collective teacher efficacy in the building. Finally, two categorical demographic questions were asked with regard to the participant’s primary building assignment and years of experience. The broad categorical demographic questions were selected in an attempt to further protect anonymity. The following section further details the instruments utilized in the administered survey.
Educational Leadership Survey
Leithwood presented the most fully developed conceptualization of transformational leadership in relation to schools (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood, Sun,
& Schumaker, in press). Due to the fact that Leithwood’s survey has been designed specifically for school research, Leithwood’s survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood,
Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006) of transformational leadership was chosen for this study. Transformational school leadership is defined as a multidimensional construct that includes four basic leadership components presented and measured by a survey. The four dimensions were identified as: (1) setting directions (e.g.,
‘Leaders in this school give staff a sense of overall purpose; (2) developing people (e.g.,
‘Leaders in this school encourage you to consider new ideas for your teaching’); (3) redesigning the organization (e.g., ‘Leaders in this school encourage collaborative work among staff’); and (4) improving the instructional program (e.g., ‘Leaders in this school buffer teaches from distractions to their instruction’). The survey included 20-items in total. A 5-point Likert scale was used for the participants’ answers; ‘strongly disagree’
61
(1); ‘disagree’ (2); ‘neutral’ (3); ‘agree’ (4); and ‘strongly agree’ (5). Table 2 provides a scoring guide for the survey.
Table 2
Educational Leadership Survey Description and Scoring Guide1
Scale Description Total Possible Internal Average Score Consistency
Setting Direction (Items 1 – 4) 5.0 0.72
Developing People (Items 5 – 9) 5.0 0.66
Redesigning the Organization (Items 10 – 13) 5.0 0.75
Improving the Instructional Program (Items 14 – 20) 5.0 0.94
Note. 1Rutledge, R. D. (2010).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for total survey and subscales are satisfactory and amounted respectively to 0.98, 0.72, 0.66, 0.75 and 0.94. The reliability and validity of the survey by Leithwood and his colleagues is verified both through the recognition of the authors’ authority in the field of transformational leadership and its field testing in a variety of studies (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Ninkovic &
Floric, 2018).
Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form
Collective teacher efficacy was measured using the 12-item Collective Efficacy
Scale: Short Form. The instrument was published in 2002 by Goddard to measure the level of collective efficacy beliefs in schools and was derived from an original 21-item
Collective Efficacy Scale. Specifically, these instruments measure the extent to which a faculty believes in its conjoint capabilities to influence student learning (Goddard, 2002).
62
Results from a pilot study utilizing the 21-item scale suggested that it offered a valid and reliable measure of collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2000). However, the researchers had concerns with regard to the number/weighting of questions focused on group competence (GC) and task analysis (TA). In the 21-item scale, thirteen questions related to GC, whereas only eight questions related to TA. Based on the conceptual model guiding this work, it was desirable to seek balance between the surveyed categories and to do so in a more streamlined manner.
Based on the latter goal, the researchers tested the predictive validity, criterion- related validity, and reliability of the 21-item scale to the 12-item scale in one large urban
Midwestern school district. A total of 452 teachers in 47 different schools completed the survey and student-level data was utilized to test the predictive validity. Teacher responses on the original 21-item survey were aggregated at the school level and subjected to a principal axis factor analysis. All items loaded strongly on a single factor and explained 57.89% of the variance. The alpha coefficient of reliability (0.96) for the
21-item scale was strong (Goddard, 2002).
To identify survey items that would remain on the 12-item form, the factor structure coefficients from the 21-items scale were utilized to guide decision-making. In determining if the shortened scale had predictive validity, the researchers employed hierarchical linear modeling to show that scores on the collective efficacy scale were a significant predictor of the mathematics achievement, as measured by the seventh edition of the Metropolitan Achievement Test taken by 2,536 fourth grade students. The multilevel tests of predictive validity indicated that the 12-item short form was a positive predictor of between-school variability in student mathematics achievement. With regard
63 to criterion-related validity, the relationship of the scores on the 21-item and 12-item collective efficacy scales were tested with a Pearson product-moment correlation. The reported reliability score for the 12-item scale is alpha = 0.94 with an explained variance of 64%.
Previous research has demonstrated strong internal consistency for scores on the
Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form, and also provided evidence of content, construct, and predictive validity (Goddard et al., 2000). Additional research has demonstrated the construct validity and reliability of the scale (Goddard et al., 2000; Goddard et al., 2004).
Furthermore, scores on the 12-item scale were found to be highly correlated (r = .983) with the original 21-item collective efficacy belief scale, suggesting that little change resulted in the elimination of nine items. The culmination of these results provided evidence to support the predictive and criterion-related validity evidence, as well as strong reliability evidence for scores on the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form.
The survey questions on the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form assess GC and
TA as previously described in Figure 2 and Figure 3 as the cognitive processing of efficacy forming beliefs. The short form survey has an equal number of GC and TA questions, as well as equality between the number of positively (e.g. GC+; TA+) and negatively (GC-; TA-) phrased questions. A GC+ sample question form this survey is
“Teachers in this school are able to get through to difficult students.”, whereas a sample
GC- question is “If a child doesn’t want to learn teachers here give up.” A TA+ sample question form this survey is “These students come to school ready to learn.”, whereas a sample TA- question is “Students here are just not ready to learn.” Responses are given
64 on a six-point scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (=1) to ‘strongly agree’ (=6). Table
3 provides a scoring guide and internal consistency summary for the survey.
Table 3
Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form Description and Scoring Guide
Subscale Description Total Possible Internal Consistency Average Score
(+) Group Competence (Items 1 – 3) 6.0 0.94
(-) Group Competence (Items 4 – 5, 12)
(+) Task Analysis (Items 6 – 7, 9)
(-) Task Analysis (Items 8, 10 – 11)
Demographic Questionnaire
A demographic questionnaire (see Appendix G) was developed for the purpose of the current study in order to obtain information to describe the sample. The participants were asked to report their primary building assignment by elementary (K-5), middle school
(6-8), or high school (9-12). Additionally, participants were asked to report the number of years they have been an educator with response options of 4 or fewer years, 5 to 10 years, or 11 or more years. No identifiable information was collected to preserve participants’ anonymity and confidentiality.
Data Collection
The research was approved by the University of Akron IRB (see Appendix A).
Permission was obtained from the school district Board of Education President to distribute the survey to all K-12 teachers (see Appendix B). The Educational Leadership
Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 1999), Collective
65
Efficacy Scale: Short Form (Goddard, 2002), and demographic questionnaire was sent to the total population of 358 K-12 teachers in one school district using an online survey provider, Qualtrics, for two weeks in May 2018 to June 2018. The use of an online survey allowed for participants to complete the survey from various locations, which will allow for larger data sets to be obtained. The email directions (see Appendix C) informed participants that all three components of the survey should take no more than 10-15 minutes to complete. Furthermore, informed consent was collected by asking each participant to click “Agree” to document acceptance and consent to participate in the study
(see Appendix D).
The participants were given two weeks to complete the online survey. In order to achieve an acceptable sample size, specific reminder procedures were conducted to encourage participants to complete the online survey. After the research request was distributed, two sets of reminder requests for participants to complete the surveys were sent. Due to the fact that the researcher is an administrator the district in which the research was being conducted, a proxy was utilized to distribute the survey and send completion reminders on the researcher’s behalf. Furthermore, the Dissertation Chair was the only person able to access the data during the survey administration window.
Data was not shared with the researcher until the survey closed and all IP addresses had been removed. All data collected in the study were anonymous.
Data Analysis
Once the data was obtained, the researcher used the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) software for data entry and statistical analysis. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for the ten independent variables and one dependent variable.
66
Descriptive statistics included means, medians, standard deviations, ranges, skewness, and kurtosis for all variables included in the study. After descriptive statistics were reported, data assumptions were tested. Screening procedures were conducted to address missing data and examine the assumption of the data being approximately normally distributed to detect issues with the data set prior to completing the statistical analyses. Scatterplots examined each of the independent variables against the dependent variable to assess linearity and normality. Additional assumptions tested included an identification of outliers using Mahalanobis Distance, testing multicollinearity among the predictor variables, and heteroscedasticity (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010).
Bivariate correlations were conducted among the independent and dependent variables. The data was screened for multicollinearity of scores on the Educational
Leadership Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 1999).
Multicollinearity occurs when moderate to high intercorrelations exist among independent variables used in a regression analysis (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010). Multicollinearity is problematic when two variables are highly correlated as this creates redundancy as variables are measuring the same thing (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010). Resulting issues from multicollinearity can include confounding effects due to overlapping information and increased variance, which can lead to an unstable prediction equation (Mertler & Vannatta,
2010). To address this possibility, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was examined for each independent variable to determine if a strong linear relationship existed. The most conservative VIF of 2.5 or higher indicates multicollinearity exists among the predictor variables (Allison, 1999; Everitt, 1996; Miles & Shelvin, 2000). A VIF of 5.0 or less was used as the criterion for this study.
67
Based on the research question and related hypothesis, a hierarchical linear multiple regression was conducted. Mertler and Vannatta (2010) asserted that linear multiple regression analyses are the most appropriate method for investigating the existence of predictable relationships among a set of independent variables with a dependent variable. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the statistical existence of relationships among groups of independent variables to determine if there was a prediction of scores on the dependent variable. A hierarchical linear multiple regression was conducted to determine whether average scores on the subscales of the
Educational Leadership Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 1999) statistically significantly predict total scores on the Collective Efficacy Scale:
Short Form (Goddard, 2002). Transformational leadership categories of setting direction, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program were regressed on collective teacher efficacy total scores.
Additionally, hierarchical linear multiple regression was conducted to determine whether the demographic variables of building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school), and teacher experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years) statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Due to the fact that each of the two overarching demographic variables were inclusive of three variables respectively, dummy coding was utilized. Dummy coding is a means to incorporate categorical variables into a hierarchical linear multiple regression analysis. For building level, responses were separated into three distinct variables of elementary, middle school, and high school. Whereas for teacher experience, the variables of 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years were created. Each case was coded a 0 if the teacher was not a
68 member of the variable category, or a 1 if the teacher was a member of the variable category. By dummy coding these variables, groups coded as “1” were interpreted as sharing a positive relationship with the outcome when the data was analyzed.
Variables were entered into the hierarchical linear multiple regression in three blocks. The first block entered was that of building level. The independent variables of elementary, middle school, and high school were entered as a collective group. Second, teacher experience was entered. Therefore, block two consisted of 4 or fewer years, 5 –
10 years, and 11 or more years. As the aforementioned detailed, the categorical variables of building level and teacher experience were both dummy coded and entered into each respective block. Finally, the transformational leadership practices of setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program were entered into block three.
Threats to Internal and External Validity
Although researchers work through a variety of methodologies to properly collect and analyze data, threats to the internal and external validity of the data are present in any study. For this study, threats may be present based on sample size, methodology constraints, and/or response rate. Further threats to internal and external validity include social desirability with participants’ self-reporting of their perceptions, instrumentation, nonprobability sampling, and non-response error. To establish internal and external validity, the researcher: (1) used published instruments; (2) ensured high response rate;
(3) laid out an online survey with clear directions; and (4) did not include surveys in the study with more than one missing data point.
69
Internal Validity
Internal validity examines the, “…approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect or causal relationships” (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008, p. 158). Quality research design and analysis minimize threats to internal validity. According to Trochim and Donnelly (2008), “…the most straightforward way to rule out a potential threat to validity is simply to argue that the threat in question is not a reasonable one” (p. 233).
Descriptive and correlation analyses provide tools to determine if a statistically significant relationship exists between the variables.
In a correlational research design, one threat to internal validity in survey research is non-response error. Survey research can result in a low response rate, which is typically 30% (Heppner, Wampgold, & Kivlighan, 2008). With a low response rate, population validity may be minimized as the research will not be representative of the population. To increase validity and statistical strength, Fowler’s (1988) sample size recommendations were followed. According to Fowler’s (1988) Sample Size Table, the confidence range of less than 5% error required at least a sample size of 200 with a 20/80 chance of differentiating responses among the levels on the Likert-type scale. For an increased response rate, the researcher’s proxy used reminders to request participation in the study, sending two sets of reminder requests for participants to complete the surveys.
To strengthen internal validity, published data collection tools were utilized to measure the target constructs. Directions for participants to respond to the data tools were clearly provided and the online response for collecting data minimized the data input error. This study does not introduce a treatment, program, or intervention; the study simply observed existing patterns found within the data. This is a key point for
70 consideration since it is possible that alternative explanations exist and this study cannot say with certainty that the only factor involved in developing collective teacher efficacy was building level, teacher experience, and/or transformational leadership practices.
Additional threats to the internal validity for this study included self-reporting with regard to teacher perception of the degree to which transformational leadership practices and collective efficacy beliefs exist in the school environment. Teachers may not be accurate in their assessment of the leadership practices of their building principals and/or the skills of their colleagues. Additionally, teachers may inflate their ratings and answers to a level that they believe would be most accepted in their school context.
External Validity
External validity examines the generalizability of the results to other places or persons (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). According to Trochim and Donnelly (2008), threats to external validity include, “…people, places, and time” (p. 36). Nonprobability convenience sampling has weak external validity and generalizability as it is not representative of the total population. This study took place in one state, with one school district, on a specific, not randomly selected population. This limits the generalizability of the study’s findings to schools that are different from the sampling district. Although the data collected generates group perceptions of the influence of transformational leadership practices on collective teacher efficacy beliefs, the threat of possible subgroup formation exists (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). Meaning, the responses from a subgroup of the overall sampling pool may weigh more heavily in the data results and influence that data in a direction not truly representative of the sample. However, with a response rate of 233 out of the 358 surveyed teachers, external validity was strengthened.
71
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine whether principal transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs amongst K-12 teachers when taking building level and teacher experience into consideration. Transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program) were measured by the Educational Leadership Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2006; Leithwood et al., 1999) and the ratings were averaged per subscale. Collective teacher efficacy was measured by the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form (Goddard,
2002). This scale is comprised of group competence and task analysis questions that were averaged collectively to provide an overall average collective teacher efficacy score.
Categorical demographic variables of building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school) and teacher experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years) were also attained. The results of the study are presented in this chapter. In the first part of this chapter, the pre-analysis data screening is presented, which tested for missing data and assumptions of linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity. The second part of this chapter presents the descriptive statistics for the participants. Additionally, the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis conducted to the test the null hypotheses are presented, as well as a summary of the results.
72
Pre-Analysis Data Screening
Prior to analyzing the data, criteria for eliminating and retaining cases were established to test the data to be included in the final analyses. The two inclusion criteria were that participants had no more than one missing data point on the administered educational leadership and collective efficacy surveys and both demographic questions were answered. After screening data from the 239 participants, one case was eliminated as the participant failed to answer five questions on the administered educational leadership and collective teacher efficacy surveys. An additional five cases were eliminated due to respondents failing to answer the demographic questions. Therefore, a total of 233 participants were included in the final sample.
In this dataset, 4.3% (n = 10) of the values specific to the continuous independent variables of transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program) were missing. Additionally, 3.9% (n = 9) of the values specific to the continuous dependent variable of collective teacher efficacy were missing. Mertler and Vannatta (2010) recommend that this issue could be addressed by replacing the missing data with overall item means using the available data. Therefore, the overall item means were utilized to replace the missing data to complete the data set.
Description of the Participants
The participants in this study consisted of voluntary educators from one school district serving five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The inclusion criteria was any certified teacher currently working in an elementary (K-5),
73 middle school (6-8), or high school (9-12) building. The demographics of the participants are reported in Table 4.
Table 4
Frequency Distributions for Demographic Variables (N = 233)
Variables Frequency Percent
Assignment Level
Elementary (K-5) 91 39.1
Middle School (6-8) 59 25.3
High School (9-12) 83 35.6
Years of Service
4 or fewer years 18 7.7
5 to 10 years 43 18.5
11 or more years 172 73.8
Testing of Assumptions
Prior to analyzing the data, assumptions for the hierarchical multiple linear regression were tested. Scatterplots examined each of the independent variables against the dependent variable to assess linearity and normality. Additional assumptions tested included an identification of outliers using Mahalanobis Distance, testing multicollinearity among the predictor variables, and heteroscedasticity (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010). To address the possibility of multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was examined for all variables to determine if a strong linear relationship existed (see Table 5).
74
Table 5
Collinearity Statistics Among All Variables
Variables Tolerance VIF
Setting Directions .23 4.30
Developing People .18 5.51
Redesigning the Organization .24 4.12
Improving the Instructional Program .25 3.94
The most conservative VIF of 2.5 or higher indicates multicollinearity exists
among the predictor variables (Allison, 1999; Everitt, 1996; Miles & Shelvin, 2000). A
VIF of 5.0 or less was used as the criterion for this study (Allison, 1999; Everitt, 1996;
Miles & Shelvin, 2000). Tests to determine if the data met the assumption of collinearity
indicated that multicollinearity was a concern for the variable, developing people. This
means that two of the independent variables in this study were highly correlated and
could be measuring the same thing (Sprinthall, 2007). Although the correlation between
developing people and setting directions (r = .86, p < .001) was high, it is below the level
of concern of r ≥ .90. The correlation between the independent variable of developing
people and the dependent variable of collective teacher efficacy was r = .27, p < .001.
Furthermore, the tolerance measure of .18 for developing people was greater than 0.10,
which indicates that multicollinearity is not a distinct problem (Norusis, 1998). Based on
the examination of collinearity statistics for developing people, it was determined that
deleting the variable or combining the variable to create a single measure was not
necessary for this analysis.
Bivariate correlations were also conducted among the independent and dependent
variables as detailed in Table 6.
75
Table 6
Pearson Correlations Among All Variables
Variables CTE SD DP RO IIP EL MS HS 4L 5-10 11M
Setting Directions .289***
Developing People .266*** .862***
Redesigning the .299*** .785*** .832*** Organization
Improving the .254*** .789*** .818*** .821*** Instructional Program
Elementary (K-5) .062 -.049 -.102 -.006 .048
Middle School (6-8) -.168** -.153** -.103 -.134* -.176** -.466***
High School (9-12) .089 .189** .198** .128* .111* -.595*** -.433***
4 or Fewer Years .081 .039 -.005 .036 .011 .131* -.058 -.081
5 to 10 Years -.097 -.103 -.015 -.016 -.109* -.063 .105 -.030 -.138*
11 or More Years .037 .067 .016 -.008 .089 -.024 -.057 .076 -.486*** -.799***
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
76
Bivariate correlations indicated that the independent variables related to the
transformational leadership practices of setting directions, developing people, redesigning
the organization, and improving the instructional programs shared a weak, positive
statistically significant relationship with collective teacher efficacy beliefs. The building
level variable of middle school (6-8) shared a weak, negative statistically significant
relationship with collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
The data were also tested for multivariate outliers to determine if any outliers
existed using Mahalanobis distance (Stevens, 2001). Examination of the diagnostics
suggested there were no cases exerting undue influence on the model. Examining partial
scatterplots of the independent variables and the dependent variable indicated linearity
was a reasonable assumption for all variables. As reported in Table 7, normality was
evaluated using Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, as well as the assessment of the values
for skewness and kurtosis.
Table 7
Results of Normality Tests for Study Variables
Variables Skewness (SE) Kurtosis (SE) Kolmogorov- p-value Smirnov
Setting Directions -.88 (.16) 1.02 (.32) .12 .000
Developing People -.82 (.16) .19 (.32) .12 .000
Redesigning the -.44 (.16) .10 (.32) .10 .000 Organization
Improving the -.54 (.16) .39 (.32) .08 .001 Instructional Program
Collective Teacher -.38 (.16) .33 (.32) .07 .006 Efficacy
77
Results for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality indicated that the distribution for setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program, and collective teacher efficacy did not deviate significantly from a normal distribution. Further examination of skewness and kurtosis indicated that setting directions and developing people was statistically significantly skewed at the .000 level, but fell between the normal range of ±1.00 (-.88 and -.82 respectively) and the sample size was large enough (n = 233) to move forward with the analysis. Tate (1992) suggested that a moderate violation of normality does not create adverse effects on the analysis when the sample size is large (n > 200).
Scatter plots were examined to address linearity and homoscedasticity among the multivariate relationships between the average scores of transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program) and collective teacher efficacy. A relatively random display of points in the scatterplots of residuals against predicted values provided evidence of independence. Linearity, multivariate normality, and homoscedasticity of the variance of the residuals were acceptable, meeting the assumptions of the multiple regression analyses for all variables included in this study.
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables
The instruments used in this study included (1) the average scores of transformational leadership practices per subscale (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program) as measured by the Educational Leadership Survey (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006;
Leithwood et al., 1999) (2) the average scores of collective teacher efficacy as measured
78
by the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form (Goddard, 2002), and (3) a participant
demographic questionnaire attaining the building level (i.e., elementary, middle school,
high school) and teacher experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more
years) of the participants. The descriptive statistics of means, standard deviations, and
range of the tested study variables are reported in Table 8.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables
Variables M SD Range Minimum Maximum
Setting Directions 4.02 .76 4.00 1.00 5.00
Developing People 3.94 .90 4.00 1.00 5.00
Redesigning the 3.87 .78 4.00 1.00 5.00 Organization
Improving the 3.86 .73 4.00 1.00 5.00 Instructional Program
Collective Teacher 4.44 .58 3.17 2.67 5.83 Efficacy
The Educational Leadership Survey contained 20-items and measured teacher
perceptions of principal transformational leadership practices. It was scored on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). A higher
score is associated with a higher level of teacher perception that his/her principal is
exhibiting the applicable transformational leadership practices. The scores for each
subscale were computed by averaging the responses given for each applicable question
related to the subscale. Thus, the scores range from one to five. The descriptive statistics
79 from this study indicated that the participants generally ‘agreed’ that principals enact transformational leadership practices with the highest rating going to Setting Directions.
The Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form measured the perceived levels of collective efficacy beliefs of teachers. In other words, it measured the extent to which a participant believed in its conjoint capabilities to influence student learning. The instrument assessed group competence (GC) and task analysis (TA) beliefs on a six-point scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (6). This 12-item survey contained an equal number of GC and TA questions, as well as equality between the number of positively (e.g., GC+; TA+) and negatively (GC-; TA-) phrased questions.
Prior to analysis of this data, negatively worded items were reverse coded. Scores were computed by averaging the responses given for all 12-items. A higher score indicated a higher perception of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Descriptive statistics from this study indicated that the participants ‘somewhat agree’ to ‘agree’ that collective teacher efficacy beliefs are present in their school building.
Internal Reliability of Study Variables
The internal reliability of the Educational Leadership Survey, which measured teacher perception of principal transformational leadership practices, was tested using
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability. This measure of internal reliability was computed for each of the transformational leadership practices. Table 9 specifies the reliability coefficients for the transformational leadership categories.
80
Table 9
Educational Leadership Survey Internal Reliability Results
Variable Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha (α)
Setting Directions 4 .87
Developing People 5 .90
Redesigning the Organization 4 .85
Improving the Instructional Program 7 .88
The latter alpha coefficients for the leadership categories are deemed to have relatively
high internal consistency (.85 to .90).
The internal reliability of the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form, which
measured the perceived levels of collective efficacy beliefs of teachers, was also tested
using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of Reliability. Reliability was measured holistically
and is detailed in Table 10.
Table 10
Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form Alpha Reliability Results
Variable Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha (α)
Collective Teacher Efficacy 12 .79
The latter alpha coefficient (.79) for collective teacher efficacy is considered acceptable.
Results
A hierarchical linear multiple regression analysis was conducted to test whether the
independent variables of setting directions, developing people, redesigning the
organization, improving the instructional program, building level, and teacher experience
81 statistically significantly predicted the dependent variable of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Variables were entered into the hierarchical linear multiple regression in three blocks. The first block entered was that of building level. The independent variables of elementary, middle school, and high school were entered as a collective group into this block. Second, teacher experience was entered into block two, which consisted of the variables of 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, and 11 or more years. Finally, the transformational leadership practices of setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program were entered into block three.
This method of variable entry was appropriate with regard to the research question and hypotheses of the study and is utilized when dealing with a small set of independent variables when the researcher does not know which independent variables will create the best prediction equation (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010). An alpha level of .05 was used as the criterion to determine the significance of statistical results.
To test the first null hypotheses in this study, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. Pairwise deletion was utilized in the multiple regression analysis to account for the missing data in the variables. Table 11 provides a summary of
ANOVA results for collective teacher efficacy.
82
Table 11
Summary of ANOVA Results for Collective Teacher Efficacy
Block Model Sum of df Mean Square F Squares
31 Regression 9.47 8 1.18 3.87***
Residual 68.60 224 .306
Total 78.07 232
Note. *** p < .001.1Building Level (elementary, middle school, high school), Teacher Experience (4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years), Transformational Leadership (setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program).
As seen in Table 11, the ANOVA results indicated that when the independent variables of building level (elementary, middle school, high school), teacher experience
(4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years), and transformational leadership
(setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program) were taken together, they statistically significantly positively
2 2 predicted collective efficacy beliefs of teachers, R = .12, R adj = .09, F (8, 224) = 3.87, p
< .001. This positive relationship indicated that the higher the scores on the independent variables collectively, the higher the degree of collective efficacy beliefs of teachers. The hierarchical multiple regression model summary results are reported in Table 12.
83
Table 12
Collective Teacher Efficacy Regression Model Summary Results (N = 233)
2 2 2 Block Variables R R R adj R Fchg df1 df2
1 Building Level1 .17 .03 .02 .03 3.36* 2 230
2 Building Level1/ .20 .04 .02 .01 1.25 2 228 Teacher Experience2
1 3 Building Level / .35 .12 .09 .08 5.25*** 4 224 Teacher Experience2/ Transformational Leadership3
Note. *p < .05. ***p < .001. 1Building Level (elementary, middle school, high school). 2Teacher Experience (4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years). 3Transformational Leadership (setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program).
The regression model summary in Table 12 indicated that the demographic variable of building level was statistically significant (p < .05). However, building level was not practically significant since only explained 3% of variance in levels of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Teacher experience did not explain a statistically significant amount of variance in levels of collective teacher efficacy beliefs and it only accounted for 1% of the variance in the model. However, the average score for each of the leadership practices associated with transformational leadership was significant (p <
.001), explaining an additional 8% of variance in the average scores of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Finally, when the variance in results were examined based on the composite of all independent variables, 12% of variance in the average scores of collective teacher efficacy beliefs can be explained. Table 13 provides the hierarchical multiple regression coefficients for collective teacher efficacy.
84
Table 13
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Coefficients for Collective Teacher Efficacy
Variable B β t
Elementary (K-5)1
Middle School (6-8) -.16 -.12 -1.72
High School (9-12) -.01 -.01 -.15
4 or Fewer Years .21 .10 1.33
5 to 10 Years1
11 or More Years .10 .08 1.05
Setting Directions .10 .14 1.03
Developing People .01 .01 .06
Redesigning the Organization .17 .23 1.81
Improving the Instructional -.06 -.08 -.62 Program
Note. 1Variable eliminated from the regression analysis and B, β, and t not reported due to tolerance being 0.
Based on the coefficients table, none of the independent variables were statistically significant in predicting collective teacher efficacy beliefs after controlling for the effect of the other variables in the model. However, the transformational leadership practice of redesigning the organization was the strongest predictor of collective teacher efficacy beliefs producing a β = .23, whereas setting directions was the second strongest predictor (β = .14) relative to the other independent variables in the model. These positive relationships indicated that the greater the average score on the redesigning the organization and setting directions subscales, the greater the average scores of collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. Developing people, as well as the
85 demographic variables of teacher experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 11 or more years) had a similar positive relationship with collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Inversely, the independent variables of building level (i.e., middle school, high school), as well as the transformational leadership practice of improving the instructional program resulted in a negative relationship with the dependent variable. Meaning, the greater the average score on the improving the instructional program subscale, the lesser the average scores of collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. Furthermore, due to the manner in which the building level demographic variable was dummy coded, the results in Table 13 detailed that middle school (β = -.12) and high school (β = -.01) teachers were associated with lower average scores of collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
Based on the ANOVA results reported in Table 11, when taken collectively, building level, teacher experience, and transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Yet, as Table 13 detailed, the same does not hold true when the independent variables were tested on an individual level. The results as detailed in Tables 11 and 13 are indicative of an interaction effect between the variables. An interaction effect in this study may be that the effect of building level on collective teacher efficacy beliefs is dependent on transformational leadership practices and the effect of transformational leadership practices on collective teacher efficacy beliefs is dependent on building level.
Test of Hypotheses
The current study hypothesized that building level, years of teaching experience, and higher average subscale scores of transformational leadership practices would statistically significantly predict higher average scores of collective teacher efficacy
86 beliefs of K-12 teachers in a Midwestern suburban school district in the United States.
To test the four null hypotheses in this study, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted (see Tables 11, 12, and 13).
The first null hypothesis stated that stated that collectively, building level, teacher experience, and average subscale scores of principal transformational leadership practices would not statistically significantly predict average scores of collective teacher efficacy in K-12 teachers. The regression analysis revealed that the null hypothesis was rejected.
The next null hypothesis asserted that building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school) would not statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12 teachers. The regression analysis revealed that the null hypothesis was rejected.
An additional null hypothesis specified that the number of years of teaching experience
(i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 - 10 years, 11 or more years) would not statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12 teachers. The regression analysis revealed that the null hypothesis was accepted. The final null hypothesis investigated in this study stated that a higher teacher perception of principal transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program) would not statistically significantly predict higher levels of collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12 teachers. The regression analysis revealed that the null hypothesis was rejected.
Summary of Results
Results from the hierarchical linear multiple regression indicated that the composite of the independent variables (i.e., building level, teacher experience, and transformational leadership practices) statistically significantly predicted collective
87 efficacy beliefs in teachers. In examining the independent variables in isolation of one another, building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school), and transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program) statistically significantly predicted collective efficacy beliefs in teachers, whereas teacher experience
(i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years) did not statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs. None of the independent variables were statistically significant in predicting collective teacher efficacy beliefs on an individual level (see Table 13). The variable of transformational leadership practices were the strongest predictor of the average scores of collective efficacy beliefs of teachers. The positive relationship between transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy beliefs indicated that the greater the average scores of transformational leadership practices, the greater the average scores of collective efficacy beliefs in teachers.
88
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter presents a summary of the study and conclusions drawn from the data presented in Chapter 4. It is organized into a (1) summary of results, (2) comparison of these results to previous research, (3) implications of the results, and (4) limitations and recommendations for future research.
Summary of Results
The purpose of this study was to examine whether principal transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs amongst K-12 teachers, while taking the contextual conditions of building level and teacher experience into consideration. The specific research question addressed whether building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school), teacher experience (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years), and teacher perception of the principal transformational leadership practices (i.e., setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, improving the instructional program) statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
Quantitative research utilizing a non-experimental correlational research design was applied in this study. Two published instruments were used for data collection.
Transformational leadership was measured by the Educational Leadership Survey
(Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 1999) and collective
89 efficacy was measured by Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form (Goddard, 2002). Two additional teacher categorical demographic questions were added to the instrument to assess the impact of building level and teacher experience.
For this study, a purposeful convenience sample was utilized. Participants consisted of voluntary educators from one school district serving five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. A total of 358 teachers were invited to participate in the study, of which, 233 (65.1%) completed the survey and were included in the data analysis. The majority of the participants was elementary teachers (39.1%) and had 11 or more years of teaching experience (73.8%).
Descriptive statistics for the study demonstrated relatively high mean scores on the
Educational Leadership Survey. Based on the maximum average permissible score being
5.0 per subscale, setting directions elicited the highest mean (M = 4.02). However, the lowest mean score for improving the instructional program was 3.86. In addition to the relatively high mean scores, correlations between the subscale variables were also strong from r = .79, p < .001 to r = .86, p < .001 (see Table 6). For the Collective Efficacy Scale:
Short Form, the mean score for the 12-item survey was 4.44 based on a maximum possible score of 6.0.
Results from the hierarchical linear multiple regression indicated that transformational leadership practices, when taken together with the demographic variables of building level and teacher experience, statistically significantly predicted collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. In examining the independent variables in isolation of one another, building level and transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective efficacy beliefs in teachers, whereas teacher
90 experience did not. The positive and statistically significant relationship between transformational leadership practices as measured by the Educational Leadership Survey and collective teacher efficacy beliefs as measured by the Collective Efficacy Scale: Short
Form indicated that as transformational leadership practices increase so does collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. However, none of the independent variables were statistically significant in predicting collective teacher efficacy beliefs after controlling for the effect of the other variables in the model.
Comparison of Results to Previous Research
Previous research has suggested that there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between principal transformational leadership practices and the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers (Demir, 2008; Ninkovic & Floric, 2018; Prelli, 2016; Ross &
Gray, 2006). However, the research examining the relationship between specific leadership practices associated with transformational leaders and collective teacher efficacy beliefs is minimal. No study was inclusive of a middle school or an entire school district. Furthermore, no studies were found that examined teacher experience as a factor in teacher perception of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Therefore, additional information on the relationship between transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy was needed to provide a better understanding of the relationship amongst these factors in varied school levels (i.e., elementary, middle school, and high school) and varied teacher experience levels (i.e., 4 or fewer years, 5 – 10 years, 11 or more years). Results from this present study, which examined the relationship amongst transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy beliefs while taking the contextual conditions of building level and teacher experience into consideration will
91 be discussed in the context of current research.
The current study hypothesized that building level, years of teaching experience, and higher average subscale scores of transformational leadership practices would statistically significantly predict higher average scores of collective teacher efficacy beliefs of K-12 teachers in a Midwestern suburban school district. The null hypothesis that years of teaching experience would not statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs in K-12 teachers was accepted. Yet, the null hypotheses stating that building level, transformational leadership practices, and all independent variables collectively (i.e., building level, teacher experience, transformational leadership practices) would not statistically significantly predict average scores of collective teacher efficacy in K-12 teachers was rejected.
Based on the results of this study, several important findings were derived.
Foremost, the current study sought to examine the relationship between transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy beliefs. The results indicated that transformational leadership practices, when taken collectively, shared a positive and statistically significant relationship with the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers. This finding accentuates the importance of leadership behaviors that are within the control of a building principal to positively influence the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers.
Previous research supports the latter assertion in that transformational leadership has been found to have a positive and statistically significant impact on the collective efficacy beliefs of a school (Ross & Gray, 2006). Ninkovic and Floric (2018) went on to qualify transformational leadership as an independent predictor of collective teacher efficacy. Specifically, it is the transformational leadership behaviors of principals that
92 have been found to influence and increase collective teacher efficacy beliefs (Demir,
2008; Kurt et al., 2012).
An integral component of the current study was not solely on examining the collective effects of transformational leadership on collective teacher efficacy, yet the significance of each transformational leadership practice on an individual basis.
Although setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program did not statistically significantly contribute to the model individually, setting directions and redesigning the organization were identified as the strongest predictors of collective teacher efficacy beliefs in this study. The individual influence of transformational leadership practices has been explored in prior studies that support these findings. Not all aspects of transformational leadership are equally relevant to predicting collective teacher efficacy. Transformational leadership behaviors associated with setting directions has consistently been linked to higher levels of collective teacher efficacy (Ninkovic & Floric, 2018), whether it be through working towards a common vision based on group goal consensus (Prelli, 2016), or shared decision making (Demir, 2008). Similarly, leadership behaviors associated with redesigning the organization have had direct effects on teacher collaboration (Demir,
2008) and commitment (Ross & Gray, 2006). Collaboration and commitment increases individual beliefs in teacher capability, which enhances beliefs in the capabilities of the collective.
While previous studies have examined transformational leadership and collective teacher efficacy, no study had been found that specifically focused on the relationship between these constructs while taking into consideration contextual conditions.
93
Contextual factors are sources of collective teacher efficacy beliefs (Demir, 2008). Based on the prior research conducted by Adams & Forsyth (2006), it has been asserted that school structures account for the greatest variability in collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
It is through contextual variables that teacher perceptions of collective efficacy beliefs occur and these perceptions shape beliefs of the collective to achieve future outcomes. It is for the latter reasons that the contextual conditions of building level and teacher experience were taken into consideration.
No previous research could be found that explored the effect of teacher experience on collective teacher efficacy beliefs. With regard to building level, Adams &
Forsyth (2006) found that building level did influence the formation of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Specifically, it was found that schools with high grade configurations were predisposed to conditions that impeded the development of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. The findings from this study confirmed that building level, when taken holistically, was a statistically significant predictor of collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
However, when looking at building level as the independent variables of elementary, middle school, and high school, none were significant on an individual basis. In fact, middle school and high school teachers were associated with lower average scores of collective teacher efficacy beliefs, supporting Adams and Forsyth’s (2006) claims that secondary schools have contextual conditions that impeded collective efficacy belief development. Although prior research does not exist in the context of teacher experience, based on the results of this study, it appears that teacher experience does not provide a statistically significantly impact the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers.
94
The results of this study provide new findings for school districts that are searching for the means to positively and directly influence collective teacher efficacy beliefs. The results of this current study demonstrated the importance of contextual factors when evaluating the relationship between transformational leadership and collective teacher efficacy belief development. As the study results from the hierarchical linear multiple regression indicated, when taken collectively, building level, teacher experience, and transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Yet, none of the independent variables were statistically significant in predicting collective teacher efficacy beliefs on an individual level.
These results are suggestive of an interaction effect between the variables.
Meaning, the effect of building level on collective teacher efficacy beliefs is dependent on transformational leadership practices and the effect of transformational leadership practices on collective teacher efficacy beliefs is dependent on building level. In a hierarchical linear multiple regression analysis with multiple variables, interaction effects may occur. Interaction effects arise when the effect of one variable depends on the value of another. Based on the fact that in this current study, none of the independent variables were statistically significant in predicting collective teacher efficacy, yet collectively the variables (building level, teacher experience, and transformational leadership practices) statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs, it can be assumed that statistically significant interaction effects have occurred. When interaction effects are assumed, the results should be interpreted in consideration of the interactions. In other words, the relationship between transformational leadership and collective teacher
95 efficacy depended on the interaction of transformational leadership practices with the contextual factors of building level and teacher experience collectively.
Furthermore, this interaction effect is supported in the research on social cognitive theory, the source of teacher efficacy belief development. Social cognitive theory assumes the presence of a reciprocal relationship amongst leadership, organization, and personal domains/factors. It is through this reciprocal relationship that individual and organizational behaviors of teachers are shaped. In the context of this study, transformational leadership practices (i.e., leadership) shared a reciprocal (interacting) relationship with the contextual factors of building level (i.e., organization) and collective efficacy beliefs (i.e., personal domains). In summary, results from the study indicate the need for the referenced interaction effects to be further explored due to the fact that the independent variables overall predicted the dependent variable, yet not individually.
Implications of Results
This study sought to add value to the research by identifying targeted transformational leadership practices that were statistically significantly related to collective teacher efficacy and could be employed by school principals. By expanding the literature of transformational leadership practices that are within the scope of influence of school principals to enhance levels of collective efficacy in schools, school principals can expand their framework of research-based practices to positively and directly influence teacher behavior and indirectly influence student achievement. The following section describes the practical implications of the findings of the current study for building principals.
96
Statistically Significant Relationships between Variables
Collective teacher efficacy has emerged as a powerful factor that magnifies the effects of leadership on educational outcomes (Kurt et al., 2012). The major findings of this study suggested that when taken collectively, building level, teacher experience, and transformational leadership practices are a statistically significant predictor of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Additionally, transformational leadership practices, independent of the contextual conditions of building level and teacher experience, positively and statistically significantly predicted collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. The results of this study provide important findings for school administrators, specifically building principals.
In today’s era of public school accountability and the never ending charge of increased levels of achievement for all students, principals are searching research-based strategies that are under the purview of a school’s influence. As it has been shared,
Hattie (2016) has ranked teacher collective efficacy as the number one factor influencing student achievement (effect size of d = 1.57). Based on the results of this study, transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted higher levels of collective teacher efficacy beliefs. These findings take a more abstract concept of enhancing the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers to providing a roadmap for implementation.
Leithwood’s model of transformational leadership is specific to the context of schools, offering principals specific practices that can be implemented to enhance collective efficacy beliefs. These specific practices move a principal from perceiving that only visionary and charismatic leaders are transformational, to eliciting a prescriptive set
97 of leadership practices that can be learned and implemented, regardless of ones innate tendencies as a leader. The practices in this leadership model can be taught, learned, and transferred independent of building level, teacher experience, or other demographic considerations.
Leadership Practices and Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs
Specifically, although not found to be statistically significant, this study has identified the transformational leadership practices of setting directions and redesigning the organization as the strongest predictors of collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. In examining the tenets of setting directions, principals exhibiting these leadership practices develop a shared vision, foster an acceptance of group goals, and hold high expectations for performance. Whether or not a principal is charismatic, extroverted, or introverted, the latter leadership practices can be implemented. In addition to setting directions, the second strongest predictor of collective teacher efficacy beliefs was the leadership practice of redesigning the organization. Transformational leadership practices inherent to this component of leadership are strengthening a school culture, building structures that support collaboration, and fostering productive relations with parents and the community.
Although the leadership practices in this study did not result in identifying statistically significant predictors of collective teacher efficacy on an individual basis, consideration of the strongest predictors and application of the practices by a building principal should still occur as they are likely to elevate teacher collective efficacy beliefs.
Prior research has documented the positive and significant effects of transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy beliefs on building social capital
98
(Minckler, 2014), goal consensus (Kurz & Knight, 2003), teacher commitment (Dumay
& Galand, 2012), a commitment to organizational values (Ross & Gray, 2006), and a collaborative culture (Demir, 2008). Similarities can be drawn from these findings to the leadership practices associated with setting directions and redesigning the organization.
Furthermore, these same leadership practices directly relate to the principal standards and evaluation system in the state where the study was conducted. Therefore, not only do these leadership practices have the potential to directly influence teacher beliefs and indirectly influence student achievement, but will also meet the standards of practice set by most states for effective principal leadership.
Contextual Factors and Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs
Perhaps one of the most interesting and unique findings of this study was the contextual factors of building level and teacher experience that were taken into consideration. Although none of the results were statistically significant on an individual basis and the results suggest that teacher experience has a nominal effect on collective teacher efficacy beliefs, teacher assignment in a middle school and high school had a negative impact on collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Demir (2008) asserted that collective teacher efficacy is significantly affected by the collaboration of the teachers as they develop their beliefs in schools. Another study found that higher levels of collective teacher efficacy were associated with lower levels of transformational leadership when comparing levels of collective teacher efficacy of a team versus the faculty as a whole
(Prelli, 2016). In other words, principals need to know the collective efficacy levels of their teams to know which transformational leadership practices will be most effective.
If you reflect on these results in a practical sense, secondary schools are structured
99 in a manner that promotes greater segmentation between faculty members. Teacher leaders are identified as grade-level or department chairs and are de facto leaders of a subset of the faculty population. These structures can lead to a collaborative structure within this smaller group, yet may alleviate connections and/or collaboration with colleagues outside of their group. In turn, perceptions and beliefs are developed that may not be representative of the faculty as a whole. An individuals or small group’s judgement of a faculty’s ability to purposefully act, combined with an analysis of contextual factors will influence collective teacher efficacy beliefs (Adams & Forsyth,
2006).
As the research implies, these smaller subsets of the staff may develop high levels of in-group collective efficacy that would be negatively impacted by specific transformational leadership practices. As an example, a principal implementing leadership practices associated with improving the instructional program (i.e., providing instructional support, monitoring school activities) to a highly successful and efficacious team may result in a decrease in the team’s collective efficacy beliefs. Results of this study indicate a negative relationship between the leadership practices associated with improving the instructional program and levels of collective teacher efficacy beliefs for all levels. Principals should be cognizant of the collective efficacy beliefs at both the small group and collective levels prior to determining transformational leadership practices that will best support efficacy belief development.
The results of this study and specifically the examination of building level, teacher experience, and transformational leadership practices have theoretical implications, in addition to the practical implications as detailed earlier. This study
100 provides further support for the influence of social cognitive theory in efficacy belief development. Whether it is the structural challenges based on building level, or determining the best leadership practice for personal development, leadership and/or organizational factors alone will not influence the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers.
Principals should focus on the reciprocal relationship amongst leadership practices, organizational elements, and personal (i.e., cognitive, affective) factors, which together can influence levels of collective teacher efficacy in schools.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
When interpreting and implementing the results of this study, several limitations should be taken into consideration.
Sampling
First, a convenience sample was utilized for one school district. The population of all K-12 teachers in one school district was utilized as participants were easily accessible and could complete the survey in a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, the researcher is an administrator in the district in which the research was being conducted. Therefore, results may have external validity limitations due to the social desirability of participants’ self-reporting of their perceptions. Although large-scale generalizability was not the goal of this study, it is to be noted that the results are specific to a Midwestern K-12 suburban school district in the United States. Future researchers could employ a sampling method, inclusive of varied districts/buildings outside of the researcher’s area of employment to enhance the external validity and generalizability of the results. However, the protocols followed by the researcher related to completing a study in the district of employment is a model for future researchers to follow.
101
Participant Representation
With regard to the participant representation in this study, the percentage of participants representing each building level (i.e., elementary, middle school, and high school) was commensurate with percentage distribution of the school district studied.
However, the same did not hold true of the participants based on teacher experience as is detailed in Table 14.
Table 14
Comparative Frequency Distributions for Years of Service
Variables Frequency Percent Frequency1 Percent1
Years of Service
4 or fewer years 18 7.7 82 22.5
5 to 10 years 43 18.5 85 23.3
11 or more years 172 73.8 198 54.2
Note. 1School district demographic distribution
The major discrepancies in the participants versus the school district distribution were the overrepresentation of participants with 11 or more years of experience.
Similarly, participants with 4 or fewer years of experience were underrepresented.
Teacher experience did not statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs as a construct or individual variable in this study, which may be a factor of the skewed representation. Although these results may be a positive indication of the value of this study from veteran participants, results may only be generalizable to districts with predominantly veteran staff members. Future researchers should take note in ensuring a more representative sample of participants to determine the influence of this contextual factor on collective teacher efficacy belief development.
102
Validity of Instrumentation
Additionally, there were limitations in the validity evidence associated with the
instrument utilized to gain insight into the transformational leadership practices of
building principals. As the transformational leadership research was explored, varied
instruments were used by researchers based on the ranging theoretical frameworks in the
transformational leadership literature. The latter has led to diverse iterations of
transformational leadership instruments, which leads to challenges in the comparability
of results between studies. The Educational Leadership Survey was selected as it best
aligned with the theoretical framework of this study. Although the latest version of this
instrument was attained through direct correspondence with Leithwood, there was limited
empirical evidence in the literature to support or refute the validity of the instrument.
One other study was found to utilize the same survey instrument and had even higher
average means with a maximum of 5.0 per subscale (see Table 15).
Table 15
Comparison of Descriptive Statistics to Prior Study
Variables M M1
Setting Directions 4.02 4.51
Developing People 3.94 4.33
Redesigning the Organization 3.87 4.33
Improving the Instructional Program 3.86 4.33
Note. 1Rutledge, R. D. (2010).
Although the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for transformational leadership
subscales were satisfactory in a previous study (see Table 2) and the current study, future
researchers should take into consideration the multicollinearity concerns within the
103 subscales of the Educational Leadership survey, whereas several of the subscales demonstrated high levels of correlation. Specifically, setting directions was highly correlated to developing people (r = .86, p < .001), developing people was highly correlated to redesigning the organization (r = .83, p < .001) and improving the instructional program (r = .82, p < .001) and redesigning the organization was highly correlated to improving the instructional program (r = .82, p < .001). These correlation levels bring into question the ability of instrument to distinctively measure its intended subscales, which would decrease the ability to distinctively contribute to the overall prediction model. Future researchers should consider utilizing an instrument that has been vetted to a greater extent in the literature and utilized with greater frequency.
Interaction Effects
The results from the study indicated interaction effects between and amongst the variables in the study. As an example, the effect of building level on collective teacher efficacy beliefs is dependent on transformational leadership practices and the effect of transformational leadership practices on collective teacher efficacy beliefs is dependent on building level. Based on these interactions, results from this study could not discern the effects of those interactions other than that the collective effects of all variables statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy, whereas the same did not hold true for any independent variable on an individual basis. Future researchers may wish to strategically enter interaction terms into the regression model so that the specific interactions tested can be quantified. Finally, based on the latter results delineating interaction effects from the variables, future research may wish to explore other contextual variables that have been found to influence collective teacher efficacy and/or
104 mediate or moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and collective teacher efficacy. Possible contextual conditions beyond building level and teacher experience may include the socioeconomic status of the student body, enabling school structures, and/or past academic success/student performance.
Summary of Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine whether principal transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy beliefs amongst K-12 teachers, while taking the contextual conditions of building level and teacher experience into consideration. Results from the study indicated that transformational leadership practices, when taken together with the demographic variables of building level and teacher experience, statistically significantly predicted collective efficacy beliefs in teachers. In examining the independent variables in isolation of one another, building level and transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predicted collective efficacy beliefs in teachers, whereas teacher experience did not. Yet, none of the independent variables were statistically significant in predicting collective teacher efficacy beliefs after controlling for the effect of the other variables in the model.
Previous studies of collective teacher efficacy have focused on group outcomes based on levels of collective efficacy beliefs held by the teacher’s studied, yet the factors that influence collective teacher efficacy belief formation have been studied less frequently. Research was needed to link specific dimensions of transformational leadership and test specific leadership practices that have shown promise and can be controlled and modified by principals to enhance efficacy beliefs in teachers (Fancera &
105
Bliss, 2011; Goddard et al., 2015; Goddard & Skrla, 2006; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Ross
& Gray, 2006). The current study addressed this call from the research community and advanced the understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy.
Specifically, this study explored this relationship in the context of an entire school district, as well as a sample of participants that is representative of a typical teaching workforce. It was found that building level, teacher experience, and transformational leadership practices statistically significantly predict collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
Moreover, the current study identified the leadership practices of setting directions and redesigning the organization as strong predictors of collective efficacy belief development.
The strength in the results of this study lay in their practical application to the daily work of principals and the district administrators that guide and shape their development. In the context of today’s high stakes driven public schools, the principalship can feel like a never ending to do list mired in managerial tasks. At times, principal success is defined through the effectiveness of task completion versus true leadership. Leadership is influence. The principal’s influence on staff’s interpretation of their effectiveness is not only a core tenet of educational leadership, but a significant contributor to efficacy forming beliefs.
As social cognitive theory has detailed, it is a model for explaining how individuals learn, are motivated, and act that is influenced by behavior, cognitive and other personal factors, and the external environment. Through the effective use of research-based leadership practices, principals have the power to influence the behavior,
106 thinking, and working environment of teachers that has the potential to inspire them to learn and act in a persistent and motivated matter to drive future success. By reframing our view of the principalship from an initiative implementer or a task completer to that of an influencer of teacher beliefs and behavior, principals have the potential to directly influence the efficacy beliefs of a staff and in turn, indirectly influence student achievement.
In the quest to support principal leadership development through locally controllable means, this study has added to the literature base by supporting previous literature in identifying specific leadership practices that may have the potential to increase collective efficacy beliefs. These results can be used to coach principals in the implementation of the strongest elements of transformational leadership. The results arm principals with the tools to develop a shared vision, collaborate with teachers on building goals, and establish an organization of academic emphasis so that the goals of the collective become the goals of the individual. The results alter the perception of contextual factors from impassable blockades to student achievement to roadblocks that can be circumvented. The results emphasize the importance of culture and developing collaborative structures that mitigate the social autonomy and isolation that may be present in elementary, middle, or high schools. The results of this study can equip a principal with the resources and tools necessary to influence teacher perceptions and judgements, perceptions and judgements that the efforts of the faculty as a whole can result in positive effects for students. The results of this study remove the principal as a passive participant to that of an author; an author that is creating a future that is resting on
107 the foundation of the most significant controllable predictor of student achievement in the current educational environment, the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers.
108
REFERENCES
Abu-Bader, S. H. (2010). Advanced & Multivariate Statistical Methods for Social Science Research. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books, Inc.
Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2006). Proximate sources of collective teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 625-642. doi: 11.1108/09578230610704828
Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Angelle, P., & Teague, G. M. (2014). Teacher leadership and collective efficacy: Teacher perceptions in three US school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 52, 738-753. doi:10.1108/JEA-02-2013-0020
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappa, 82, 443-449. doi: 10.1177/003172170108200607
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(4), 19-31. doi:10.1016/0090- 2616(90)90061-S
109
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32. doi:10.1080/135943299398410
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, 49-80. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Retrieved from https://researchgate.net
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for MLQ. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Calik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H., & Kilinc, A. C. (2012). Examination of relationships between instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12, 2498-2504. Retrieved from http://edam.com.tr/estp
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in prediction self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549-556. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.549
Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school performance: Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 299-317. doi:10.1080/0924345940050306
Coladarchi, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Experimental Education, 60, 323-337. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/20152340
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, F., Mood, A. M., Weingfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 93-112. Retrieved from https://researchgate.net
Derrington, M. L., & Angelle, P. S. (2013). Teacher leadership and collective efficacy: Connections and links. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 4(1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.csupomona.edu~education/ijtl/index.shtml
110
Donohoo, J. (2016, April 7). Collective efficacy: Together we can make a difference [weblog]. Retrieved from http://corwin-connect.com/2016/04/collective-efficacy- together-we-can-make-a-difference/
Donohoo, J. (2016, July 13). Fostering collective teacher efficacy: Three enabling conditions [weblog]. Retrieved from http://corwin-connect.com/2016/07/ fostering-collective-teacher-efficacy-three-enabling-conditions/
Donohoo, J. (2017, January 9). Collective teacher efficacy: The effect size research and six enabling conditions [weblog]. Retrieved from https://thelearningexchange.ca/ collective-teacher-efficacy/
Dumay, X., & Galand, B. (2012). The multilevel impact of transformational leadership on teacher commitment: Cognitive and motivational pathways. British Educational Research Journal, 38, 703-729. doi:10.1080/01411926.2011.577889
Everitt, B. S. (1996). Making sense of statistic in psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fancera, S. F., & Bliss, J. R. (2011). Instructional leadership influence on collective teacher efficacy to improve school achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3) 349-370. doi:10.1080/15700763.2011.585537
Fowler, F. J. (1988). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Goddard, R. D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(1), 97-110. doi:10.1177/0013164402062001007
Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E. U., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121, 501 – 530. doi:10.1086/681925
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, 479-507. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1163531
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. American Educational Research Association, 33(3), 3-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700071
111
Goddard, R. D., & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school social composition on teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 216-235. doi:10.1177/0013161X05285984
Goldhaber, D. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most/; Today’s research reinforces Coleman’s findings. Education Next, 56-62. Retrieved from https://www.educationnext.org
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643. doi: 10.3102/00028312031003627
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35-48. doi:10.1108/09578239210014306
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-351. doi:10.1080/0305764032000122005
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to go away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-239. doi: 10.1080/15700760500244793
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549. doi: 10.1086/461843
Hallinger, P, & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9, 157- 191. doi:10.1080/0924345980090203
Hallinger, P, & Leithwood, K. (1994). Exploring the impact of principal leadership. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 206-218. doi:10.1080/ 0924345940050301
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 126-151. doi:10.1207/ s15327930pje7302_6
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94, 328-355. doi:10.1086/443853
112
Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2014). High impact leadership. Educational Leadership, 72(5), 36-40. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
Hattie, J. (2016, April 25). Hattie ranking: Backup of 138 effects related to student Achievement [weblog]. Retrieved from https://visible-learning.org/2016/ 04/hattie-ranking-backup-of-138-effects/.html
Heppner, P., Wampgold, B., & Kivlighan, D. (2008). Research design in counseling. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole
Hirsch, S. (2016, April 7). Michael Fullan affirms the power of collective efficacy [weblog]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_forwards_ pd_watch/2016/04/michael_fullan_affirms_the_power_of_collective_efficacy. html
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531-569. doi:10.3102/0034654315614911
Hoy, A. W. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40‐year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 76-97, doi:1108/09578231211196078
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary Journal, 93, 356-372. doi: 10.1086/461729
Jhanke, M. S. (2010). How teacher collective efficacy is developed and sustained in high achieving middle schools. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database (UMI: 3410320).
113
Kark, R., Shamir, B, Avolio, B, & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership, 5, 67-91. doi:10.1108/S1479-357120130000005010
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promises? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 21-43. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8
Kurt, T., Duyar, I, & Calik, T. (2012). Are we legitimate yet? A closer look at the causal relationship mechanisms among principal leadership, teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 71 – 86. doi:10.1108/02621711211191014
Kurz, T. B., & Knight, S. L. (2004). An exploration of the relationship among teacher efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, and goal consensus. Learning Environments Research, 7, 111-128. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/ 10.1023/B:LERI.0000037198.37750.0e
Langer, G., & Colton, A. (2005). Looking at student work Educational Leadership, 62(5), 22-26. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/ el200502_langer.pdf
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(35), 8-12. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/ journals/ed_lead/el_199202_leithwood.pdf
Leithwood, K. (1993, October). Contributions of transformational leadership to school restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 498-518. doi:10.1177/0013161X94030004006
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42. doi: 10.1080/13632430701800060
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School Effectiveness and School Leadership, 10, 451-479. doi: 10.1076/sesi.10.4.451.3495
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. Retrieved from http://www.emerald- library.com
114
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199. doi:10.1080/15700760500244769
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Leadership, 17, 201-227. doi:10.1080/ 09243450600565829
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., Lois, K. S., Anderson, S., Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 387-423. doi:10.1177/0013131X11436268
Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Schumaker, R. (in press). How school leadership influences student learning: A test of “The Four Paths Model”.
Lois, K. S. (1994). Beyond “managed change:” Rethinking how schools improve. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5 (1), 2-24. doi:10.1080/0924345940050102
Marks, W. (2013). The late-career and transition to retirement phases for school leaders in the 21st century: The aspirations, expectations and reflections of late-career and recently retired principals in New South Wales (2008-2012). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wolfong, New South Wales.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397. doi:10.1177/001316X03253412
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R.A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods, (4th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing
Miles, J. N. V., & Shelvin, M. E. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage Publications.
Minckler, C. H. (2014) School leadership that builds social capital. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42, 657-679. doi:10.1177/ 1741143213510502
115
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. G. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 623-670. doi:10.1177/0013161X10378689
Moore, B. (2018, January 10). Collective efficacy: The holy grail for school improvement [weblog]. Retrieved from https://www.epicimpactedgroup.com/blog/2017/9/8/ collective-efficacy-the-holy-grail-to-school-improvement
Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school sense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221-238. doi:10.2307/2112828
Ninkovic, S. R., & Knezevic Floric O. C. (2018). Transformational school leadership and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 49-64. doi: 10.1177/1741143216665842
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS 8.0: Guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ogawa, R., & Bossert, S. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 224-243. doi:10.1177/0013161X95031002004
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Prelli, G. E. (2016). How school leaders might promote higher levels of collective teacher efficacy at the level of school and team. English Language Teaching, 9, 174-180. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n3p174
Protheroe, N. (2008). Teacher efficacy: What is it and does it matter? Principal, May/June, 42-44. Retrieved from https://www.naesp.org/
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674. doi:10.1177/ 0013161X08321509
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 421-439. doi:10.1086/461584
116
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-60. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.1.50-60
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 179-199. doi:10.1080/ 09243450600565795
Rutledge, R. D. (2010). The effects of transformational leadership on academic optimism within elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://libcontent1.lib.ua.edu/ content/u0015/0000001/0000470/u0015_0000001 _0000470.pdf
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring Research. New York: Pearson.
Scott, C., & Teddlie, C. (1987, April). Student, teacher, and principal academic expectations and attributed responsibility as predictors of student achievement: A causal modeling approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 556-558. doi:10.1108/09578230710778196
Snell, J., & Swanson, J. (1987, April). The essential knowledge and skills of teacher leaders: A search for a conceptual framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for transformation in teaching, learning, and relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sprinthall, R. C. (2007). Basic statistical analysis (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stevens, J. (2001). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tate, R. (1992). General linear model applications. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University.
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (2007). Building collective efficacy: How leaders inspire teachers to achieve. Washington. DC: Brinson, D., & Steiner, L.
Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Mason, OH: Atomic Dog/Cengage Learning
117
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189-209. doi:10.1080/157007604190503706
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells up about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
118
APPENDICES
119
APPENDIX A
IRB NOTICE OF APPROVAL
120
APPENDIX B
SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT APPROVAL
121
APPENDIX C
INFORMATIONAL INSTRODUCTION PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS
A Study of the Relationship between Teacher's Perception of Principal Transformational Leadership Practices and Collective Teacher Efficacy
Dear Teachers:
As you may know, Cameron is a doctoral student in the Educational Foundations and Leadership Department at The University of Akron. He is completing his dissertation on the relationship between teacher’s perception of principal transformational leadership practices and collective teacher efficacy. He is conducting his study in our district and is asking for your help in his research by completing a short survey.
The survey should only take you 10-15 minutes and will ask you questions regarding your perceptions of the transformational leadership practices of your principal, your perceptions of collective teacher efficacy in your building, and two demographic questions.
To make sure that the identity of participants is confidential, identifiable information will not be asked. The results of the survey will not even be going to Cameron initially. The survey results will be going to a professor at the University of Akron who will remove all IP addresses prior to sharing the data with Cameron.
If you are willing to participate, please click on the survey link below.
Thank you.
122
APPENDIX D
INFORMED CONSENT AS PROVIDED IN QUALTRICS SURVEY
123
APPENDIX E
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP SURVEY
Directions: The following statements are descriptions of leadership practices that may or may not reflect principal leadership practices in your school. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Your answers are confidential.
The Principal in my school: Strongly DisagreeStrongly Disagree Neutral Agree AgreeStrongly
1. Gives staff a sense of overall purpose. 2. Helps clarify the reasons for your school’s improvement initiatives. 3. Provides useful assistance to you in setting short-term goals for teaching and learning. 4. Demonstrates high expectations for your work with students. 5. Gives you individual support to help you improve your teaching practices. 6. Encourages you to consider new ideas for your teaching. 7. Models a high level of professional practice. 8. Develops an atmosphere of caring and trust. 9. Promotes leadership development among teachers. 10. Encourages collaborative work among staff. 11. Ensures wide participation in decisions about school improvement. 12. Engages parents in the school’s improvement efforts. 13. Is effective in building community support for the school’s improvement efforts. 14. Provides or locates resources to help staff improve their teaching. 15. Regularly observes classroom activities. 16. After observing classroom activities, works with teachers to improve their teaching. 17. Frequently discusses educational issues with you. 18. Buffers teachers from distractions to their instruction. 19. Encourages you to use data in your work. 20. Encourages data use in planning for individual student needs.
124
APPENDIX F
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY SCALE: SHORT FORM
Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your school from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Your answers are confidential.
Strongly DisagreeStrongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree AgreeStrongly
21. Teachers in this school are able to get through to difficult students. 22. Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students. 23. Teachers in this school really believe every child can learn. 24. If a child doesn’t want to learn, teachers here give up. 25. Teachers here don’t have the skills needed to produce meaningful student learning. 26. These students come to school ready to learn. 27. Home life provides so many advantages; the students here are bound to learn. 28. Students here just aren’t motivated to learn. 29. The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will learn. 30. Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried about their
safety. 31. Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for students
here. 32. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary
problems.
125
APPENDIX G
TEACHER DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
Directions: Please answer the following demographic questions. Your answers are confidential.
33. What level is your primary assignment? □ Elementary (K-5) □ Middle (6-8) □ High (9-12)
34. How many years have you been an educator? □ 4 or fewer years □ 5 to 10 years □ 11 or more years
126