پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 30 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 289 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,818 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,297,553 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,371,204 |
An investigation of the relationship among principal instructional leadership, collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction: A structural equation modeling approach | ||
| School Administration | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 9، شماره 2، شهریور 2021، صفحه 1-25 اصل مقاله (606.52 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Quantitative Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): https://doi.org/10.34785/J010.2021.014 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Jalil Fathi1؛ Mohammad Ahmadnejad* 1؛ Mehdi Salehi2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Literature and Linguistics, University Of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran. | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, University Of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Although a significant body of research on instructional leadership has been carried out in Western societies, few empirical studies have only recently been carried out in the developing and non-western societies. The present study was carried out to shed more light on leadership research in Iran, in which previous empirical studies on principal instructional leadership are very few. In so doing, the present study was set to explore the relationship between principal instructional leadership, teacher collective efficacy, and job satisfaction in Iranian primary schools. In fact, the current study sought to understand how principal instructional leadership and teacher collective efficacy influence job satisfaction in Iran. Survey data collected from 292 teachers were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM). This study employed a cross-sectional, survey research design. Data were collected from teachers in 12 public primary schools in Kurdistan province. The schools included grades 1- 5. Data were collected in fall semester of the academic year 1396/1397. A letter of invitation, consent form, and the survey package were given by hand or sent electronically to teachers in the schools. Participants were given one week to respond to the questionnaire. The sample of respondents consisted of 193 males and 99 females. Three instruments were used to collect the required data for the present study. Principal Instructional Leadership (PIL) was measured by the 50 item version of the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale-Teacher Form (PIMRS; Hallinger, 1982, 1990, 2015). It should be noted that the PIMRS does not measure ‘leadership effectiveness’, but rather the degree of role engagement. Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) was measured by a twelve-item scale developed by Goddard and colleagues (Goddard et al., 2000) and adapted by Leithwood (2010). The scale employed a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Job satisfaction was measured with two items from Carpara et al. (2003) on a 9-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The researchers followed Brislin’s (1970) backwards translation method for translating the surveys from English to Persian. The original English versions were first translated into Persian by a professional translator. Then, the Persian version was translated back into English by a second native speaker who was unfamiliar with the original version. The two versions were then compared, discrepancies identified and discussed, and refinements made to the Persian version. The researchers also rephrased some items to ensure their suitability for Iranian educators without altering the original meaning. Although each of these instruments had been subject to extensive testing for psychometric properties in previous research, we tested the measurement properties of the Persian translated version of the three instruments in order to validate their use in the Iranian context. Reliability was measured with Cronbach's alpha test of internal consistency. Construct validity of the scales was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results substantiated the hypothesized conceptual model suggesting positive relationships among principal instructional leadership, collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. It was also revealed that principal instructional leadership had a positive effect on collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. In other words, teachers will have more commitment, professional engagement, and job satisfaction when they find their school managers' educational management behaviors appropriate. The findings of the present study will offer theoretical and pedagogical implications for school leadership in Iran. It also adds to the existing body of research on the effects of principal instructional leadership in non-Western, developing societies It is thought that teachers' perceptions of collective efficacy are related to school principals' leadership behaviors. School leadership comprises influencing and directing the school staff to accomplish common objectives (Leithwood & Reihl, 2005). The sense of collective efficacy can develop in teachers, depending on school leadership behaviors (Ross & Gray, 2006). Collective efficacy beliefs are expected to increase as school leaders increase the sense of efficacy in teachers and their beliefs that they can improve the quality of education as a group. In this respect, because it is thought that teacher self-efficacy and school leadership behaviors are related to collective teacher efficacy, the relationship between these constructs seems to be logical. In other words, as school principals' effective leadership behaviors increased, teachers' collective efficacy beliefs also increased in their schools. At the same time, school principals' effective school leadership behaviors positively and significantly predicted collective teacher efficacy. These findings of the study are partially in line with those that report a relationship between school administrators' different leadership behaviors and collective teacher leadership (Brinson & Steiner, 2007; Calık et al., 2012). Strong leadership facilitates teacher collaboration and enables teachers to overcome difficulties (Bandura, 1993). School leadership pertains to influencing and directing others for the accomplishment of common objectives to improve the quality of education at school (Leithwood & Reihl, 2005). Enhancing teachers' collective efficacy is related to improving certain organizational and personal characteristics. Bandura (1997) stated that collective efficacy and self-efficacy are fed from similar sources. These sources include experiencing success, others' experiences, verbal persuasion, and affective states; the most important of these sources is experiencing success. Therefore, practices that support these sources can be said to increase teachers' collective efficacy. In this regard, there are studies that explain the influence of leadership behaviors on collective teacher efficacy. Accordingly, school leaders rewarding teacher success and featuring the achievements at school (Marzano et al., 2005), activities related to organizational learning, and conversations with teachers about ensuring student achievement (Bandura, 1997) strengthen perceptions of collective efficacy. Collective teacher efficacy is a promising construct for promoting understanding of ways schools can foster student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004, p. 189). Functioning as a group-related perception and a school-level variable, collective teacher efficacy is concerned with teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of the effectiveness of their school as a whole and their collective perceptions of the ability to exert positive educational differences to the learners (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Playing the same role as self-efficacy beliefs do in individual’s performance, collective efficacy affects collective performance in a variety of fields such as business, sports, politics, and education. Teachers’ collective efficacy is conceptualized as the beliefs teachers hold towards their collective competencies to positively change the functioning of their learners (Bandura, 1993). Furthermore, school administrators' practices in enhancing teachers' skills improve teamwork (Supovitz & Christman, 2003), and their support of teachers to overcome problems at school and including them in the decision-making process are of great importance in the development of collective efficacy (Brinson & Steiner, 2007). Leithwood (1993) stated that leaders' contributions to the school sets the tone of a school culture that can develop teacher collaboration and a collective identity. School leaders raising a powerful vision reveal collective leadership. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Principal instructional leadership؛ collective teacher efficacy؛ teacher job satisfaction؛ primary schools | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahi, B., & Karimi, M. (2013). The study of indigenous dimensions of the principals’ instructional leadership role in Iranian elementary schools based on grounded theory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89, 817–820. Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Teachers’ views of their school climate and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learning Environments Research, 19(2), 291-307. Al-Mahdy, Y. F. H., Emam, M. M., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Assessing the contribution of principal instructional leadership and collective teacher efficacy to teacher commitment in Oman. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 69(1), 191-201. Al-Mahdy, Y. F. H., & Sywelem, M. M. G. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on professional learning communities in some Arab countries. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(4), 45-57. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barth, R.S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bellibas, M. S., Bulut, O., Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2016). Developing a validated instructional leadership profile of Turkish primary school principals. International Journal of Educational Research, 75, 115-133. Bridges, E. M. (1967). Instructional leadership: A concept re‐examined. Journal of Educational Administration, 5(2), 136–147. Brieve, F. J. (1972). Secondary principals as instructional leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 56(368), 11-15. Brinson, D., & Steiner, L. (2007). Building collective efficacy: How leaders inspire teachers to achieve. Issue Brief, October: 1–6. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499254.pdf. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. Bush, T. (2013). Instructional leadership and leadership for learning: Global and South African perspectives. Education As Change, 17(sup1), S5-S20. Calik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H., & Cagatay Kilinc, A. (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(4), 2498-2504. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation. Cansoy, R., & Parlar, H. (2018). Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821-832. Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549. Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98-101. Common, R. K. (2008). Administrative change in the Gulf: Modernization in Bahrain and Oman. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(2), 177-193. Common, R. K. (2011). Barriers to developing ‘leadership’ in the Sultanate of Oman. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2), 215-228. Daniëls, E., A. Hondeghem., & F. Dochy. (2019). A Review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125. Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers' self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (33). Dou, D., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959-977. Evans, L. (1997). Understanding teacher morale and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(8), 831-845. Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 93(3), 467. Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807-818. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, A. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-507. Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of educational administration. Hair, J. F., Black,W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariatedata analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hallinger, P. (1982, 1990, 2015). Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale, Bangkok, Thailand: Leading Development Associates. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191. Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. F. (2014). Modeling the effects of principal leadership teacher commitment on teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. School Leadership & Management, 35(5), 481-501. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247. Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Kalleberg, A. L., & Loscocco, K. A. (1983). Aging, values, and rewards: explaining age differences in job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 78-90. Kinman, G., Wray, S., & Strange, C. (2011). Emotional labor, burnout and job satisfaction in UK teachers: The role of workplace social support. Educational Psychology, 31(7), 843-856. Klassen, R. M. (2010). Teacher stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(5), 342-350. Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(4), 464-486. Lee, M., Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. (2012). A distributed perspective on instructional leadership in International Baccalaureate (IB) schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 664-698. Leithwood, K. (1992). Transformational leadership: Where does it stand? Educational Digest, 58(3), 17-20. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational leadership. A new agenda for research in educational leadership, 12. Locke, E.A., 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: RandMc Narlly, 2(5), pp.360-580. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2006). The relationship between interpersonal trust, employee satisfaction, and employee loyalty. Total Quality Management, 17(10), 1261-1271. Qadach, M., Schechter, C., & Da’as, R. A. (2020). Instructional leadership and teachers' intent to leave: The mediating role of collective teacher efficacy and shared vision. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 617-634. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. Romanowski, M. H., & Romanowski, M. H. (2017). Neoliberalism and Western accreditation in the Middle East: A critical discourse analysis of educational leadership Constituent Council standards. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 70-84. Ross, J., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-199. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029-1038. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73-91. Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons for Cincinnati and Philadelphia. CPRE Policy Briefs, pp. 1-9. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania. Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as predictors of job satisfaction and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(3), 217-230. Thorne, C. (2011). An investigation of the impact of educational reforms on the work of a school principal at a time of radical transformation in the United Arab Emirates. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(2), 172-185. 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. UNESCO, (2016). Leading better learning: School leadership and quality in the Education 2030 agenda. UNESCO planning paper. Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D., Jolivette, K., & Benson, G. (2010). Efficacy beliefs of special educators: The relationship among collective efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Journal of teacher education and special education, XX(X), 1-9. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 763 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 473 |
||