8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

1/22

International Journal of Educational ManagementMultilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The influence of principal leadership and

teacher collaborationIbrahim Duyar Sedat Gumus Mehmet Sukru Bellibas

Article information:

To cite this document:Ibrahim Duyar Sedat Gumus Mehmet Sukru Bellibas, (2013),"Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes",International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Iss 7 pp. 700 - 719Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107

Downloaded on: 23 November 2014, At: 06:36 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 947 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this artic le also downloaded:

Ori Eyal, Guy Roth, (2011),"Principals' leadership and teachers' motivation: Self#determination theoryanalysis", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 Iss 3 pp. 256-275

Dr Helene rlestig, Encarnacion Garza, Jr, Lawrie Drysdale, David Gurr, Stephen Jacobson, BettyMerchant, (2014),"Leadership for school success: lessons from effective principals", International Journal oEducational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 7 pp. 798-811

Jasmin#Olga Sarafidou, Georgios Chatziioannidis, (2013),"Teacher participation in decision making andits impact on school and teachers", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp.170-183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297586

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelineare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emerald insight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

2/22

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

3/22

Multilevel analysis of teacherwork attitudes

The influence of principal leadership andteacher collaboration

Ibrahim DuyarDepartment of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

Little Rock, AR, USA, and

Sedat Gumus and Mehmet Sukru BellibasDepartment of Educational Administration, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI, USA

AbstractPurpose The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the instructional andadministrative leadership practices of principals and professional collaboration of teachers predictteachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction in Turkish middle schools.Design/methodology/approach By applying a causal comparative design and a multilevelmethodology, the current study used OECDs Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)data set to examine the relationships among study variables. The multilevel data included178 schools/principals and 2,967 teachers. Two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) methodwas used to investigate whether principals leadership and teachers collaboration predict teacherself-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction, net of several important teacher-level and school-levelcontrol variables.Findings The findings showed that some select aspects of principal leadership and teachercollaborative practices significantly predict teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction at within and

across schools. Among all independent and control variables, teachers collaboration appeared to bethe strongest predictor of both teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction.Originality/value The areas of significance identified by this study may guide policy makers andpractitioners for informed decisions and interventions targeting to enhance teacher self-efficacy and

job satisfaction. The multilevel methodology utilized by this study may also stimulate future researchendeavors for capturing the nested relationships of educational data, otherwise would be unaccountedfor at different levels of schooling.

Keywords Transformational leadership, Instructional leadership, Job satisfaction,Multilevel analysis, Self-efficacy, Teacher collaboration

Paper type Research paper

A persuasive body of research has linked teachers to student achievement and othereducational outcomes. The infamous Coleman report (Coleman et al., 1996) and thesubsequent studies have consistently documented significant effects from teacherquality and effectiveness on educational outcomes. The Coleman report stated thatteacher quality is the strongest predictor of student achievement among all of theteacher- and school-level exogenous variables. Recent research concurs with thisfinding that teachers matter (Borman and Kimball, 2005; Ingersoll, 2001; Rockoff,2004). For instance, Rivkinet al.(2005) estimated that teacher quality alone can accountfor 7 percent of the variance in student achievement. Using the Tennessee Value-AddedAssessment, Sanders and Rivers (1996) found that the quality and effectiveness ofteachers have enduring effects for student attainment. These and many other studies

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Received 16 September 2012Revised 6 December 201211 January 2013Accepted 1 February 2013

International Journal of Educational

Management

Vol. 27 No. 7, 2013

pp. 700-719

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0951-354X

DOI 10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107

700

IJEM27,7

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

4/22

(e.g. Aaronsonet al., 2007; Koedel, 2009; Sanders and Horn, 1998) concluded that high-quality teaching is beneficial for all students; more importantly, the lower achievingstudents are the first to benefit as teacher effectiveness increases.

Equipped with the guidance of relevant research, one of the main goals of

educational policies across the globe has quickly become to leverage educationaloutcomes through improvements in the teacher workforce. For instance, teacherquality remains the focus of most policy initiatives at all three levels of government inthe USA. The Title II of 1998 legislation (Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants forStates and Partnerships) encouraged states to institute mandated teacher testing aspart of the initial state teacher certification. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001required a highly qualified teacher in all classrooms and the public reporting ofteacher qualifications. In Turkey, although the relevant interventions either have notbeen up to par or have experienced implementation problems, all parties agree on thesignificance of teacher quality (Cakiroglu and Cakiroglu, 2003). Although the researchcommunity and policy makers agree on the vital role of teachers, the current landscapedoes not appear to be very conducive for teachers. On the contrary, it is common for

teachers to express low job satisfaction (Capraraet al., 2006), which traditionally leadto low job commitment (Currall et al., 2005), ineffective teaching ( Judgeet al., 2001),and high turnover among teachers (Cha and Cohen-Vogel, 2011). Because teachers playa key role in creating an environment that is conducive to childrens educationalattainments, it is critical to understand the key elements that contribute to their workattitudes, mainly to their self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The identification of factorsaffecting teacher work attitudes retains an important informative role for researchers,policy makers, and practitioners. The studies that identify the factors influencingteacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction may inform all parties and give them an edgein their efforts to enhance teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction, consequentlyimproving the effectiveness of school systems.

The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the instructional and

administrative leadership practices of principals and the professional collaborationamong teachers influence teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction in schools, net ofseveral school characteristics (e.g. school size, average class size, etc.), and demographiccharacteristics for the teachers (e.g. level of education, years of experience, etc.).Exploring the factors that influence teacher work attitudes can inform policy andpractice about the role and significance of principals practices and teachercollaborative efforts in promoting teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction.

Theoretical foundationsKozlowski and Klein (2000) recommend that researchers developing theoreticalfoundations and conceptual frameworks should start with a discussion of dependentconstructs because these variables drive the identification of the necessary levels,

constructs, and processes within the theory. By following the lead of Kozlowski andKlein, the current study first identified the dependent variables and then moved toa discussion of the relationships between the dependent and the independent variables.

Teacher work attitudes: self-efficacy and job satisfactionThe link between employee attitude, behavior, and performance is perhaps one ofthe best established relationships in the behavioral and organizational sciences(Walumbwa et al., 2004). Starting with Chris Argyriss (1964) pioneering works,organizational psychologists have discovered that work attitudes drive employee

70

Teacher worattitude

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

5/22

behaviors and performance. Among the work attitudes, self-efficacy and jobsatisfaction stand out as two of the most studied. In an educational context, apersuasive body of research has linked teachers self-efficacy (Chacon, 2005; Goddard,2002; Ross and Gray, 2006) and job satisfaction (Currallet al., 2005; Judgeet al., 2001) to

educational outcomes, including student achievement.The pioneering work of Bandura (1986) noted that self-efficacy plays a significant

role in task and extra-role performance. From a social psychology perspective,perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and executecourses of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995, p. 2).In an organizational setting, self-efficacy refers to how capably the employee canperform actions to respond to the apparent circumstances (Kurt et al., 2012). In theeducational context, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) defined the teachersself-efficacy as their [y] capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of studentengagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult orunmotivated (p. 783). Teachers self-efficacy beliefs determine their capacity to influencedifferent student variables such as student motivation, identification, and performance

(Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Research has shown that the efficacy beliefs of teacherspowerfully predict task choice, effort, persistence, and, ultimately, the level ofperformance (Bandura, 2001). Teachers with a strong sense of self-efficacy are morewilling to take risks, employ new strategies, be less critical of student behavioralissues, and work harder with academically struggling students (Gibson and Dembo,1984). In addition, the students of teachers with high self-efficacy exhibit highermotivation, participation, self-efficacy, and achievement (Ross and Gray, 2006).

Similarly, a large body of research attests to the relationship between teacher jobsatisfaction and several educational outcomes. The teachers level of job satisfactionplays an important role in how they fulfill their professional mission in the fieldof education (Bogler, 2001). High job satisfaction stimulates teachers eagerness,enthusiasm, commitment, and motivation to devote extra time and energy to enhance

student learning (Nguni et al., 2006; Anderman et al., 1991). The research on themechanisms of interaction yielded the presence of an indirect relationship betweenteacher job satisfaction and student learning (Caprara et al., 2006).

Several studies emphasized the multifaceted relationship between teachers self-efficacy beliefs, their job satisfaction, and educational outcomes. For instance, Capraraet al. (2006) noted that teachers satisfaction most likely derives from their sense ofcompetence, which is one of the determinants of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefsinfluence teachers job satisfaction directly to the extent that it meets their intrinsicneed for competence. The relationship becomes indirect when self-efficacy inducesperformance from which teachers may derive pride and rewards. Ryan and Deci (2000)reported similar relationships between these two teacher work attitudes. Teachers withhigh levels of self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to be able to engage in interpersonal

networks that nourish and sustain their job satisfaction.Despite their proven influence on educational outcomes, a number of observers

warn that poor job satisfaction and low self-efficacy among teachers has a widespreadpresence. The overwhelming task and extra-role expectations from teachers, poororganizational support, and the declining prestige of the profession have createda downfall in the teaching workforce (Capraraet al., 2006; Evans, 1998). In a nationalsample of teachers surveyed who indicated that they left their position because theywere dissatisfied; 21 percent of private school teachers and 33 percent of public schoolteachers left as a result of school workplace conditions (Ingersoll and Smith, 2003).

702

IJEM27,7

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

6/22

The off-target and failing policies that have been implemented to change this downfallrequire an in-depth analysis of the issue. As Cerit (2009) warned, the current policies inTurkey appear to focus mostly on monetary incentives and neglect intrinsic elementssuch as developing the self-efficacy and job satisfaction of teachers. Because little

attention is paid to self-efficacy beliefs and job satisfaction, few resources are providedfor interventions aimed at building teachers self-efficacy and increasing their

job satisfaction. A relevant issue is the lack of studies on the determinants of teachersself-efficacy beliefs and job satisfaction (Littrell et al., 1994; Ghaith and Yaghi, 1997;Guo et al., 2010; Klassen and Chiu, 2010). The current study addressed the latter byexamining the role of principal leadership and teacher collaboration on teacherwork attitudes.

Principal leadership and teacher work attitudesA growing body of research supports the notion that the principals leadership issecond to the teachers in contributing to student learning (Louis et al., 2010). Therelationship between the principals leadership and educational outcomes occurs

through the principals influence on teachers. The strategic positions of principals inschools help them to influence teachers extrinsic and intrinsic sources of motivationand job satisfaction (Hipp, 1997; Hirschfeld, 2000). Early research on the principalsinfluence on teacher job satisfaction primarily focussed on extrinsic factors and themanagerial practices of principals. This line of research examined the principalsmanagerial practices for creating appealing work conditions for teachers (Hipp, 1997;NCES, 1997; Shann, 1998; Whaley, 1994). A review of the early research reveals somecommon principal managerial practices that influence teachers job satisfaction. Someof these practices include creating safe environments by controlling student behavioralissues, protecting teachers from external forces, providing personal and professionalsupport, and recognizing teachers efforts and accomplishments. These studiesprovided some evidence that managerial actions by school administrators create

environments that are conducive to the job satisfaction of the teaching staff.Parallel with the highlighted demands for increased accountability for educational

outcomes, a number of studies examined the relationships between teacher jobsatisfaction and principal instructional leadership practices. For instance Andermanet al.(1991) examined whether the principals practices (i.e. curriculum and instructionalissues including the clarification of school vision, curriculum management, thesupervision of teaching, the creation of an effective instructional climate, and themonitoring of student success) influence teachers job satisfaction. Their study identifiedthe presence of significant indirect relationships between all dimensions of principalinstructional leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Cerit (2009) examined therelationships between teacher job satisfaction and principal servant leadership. Thisstudy revealed similar results to those of Bogler and Griffith. The principals who make

teachers a priority, consider their emotions, listen to them, and provide them with neededsupport are more likely to foster the teachers job satisfaction.

Although there is no shortage of research supporting the relationship between theprincipals leadership and teacher job satisfaction, the relevant literature suffers fromincoherent or disjointed efforts. As part of the theory development process, there isa need for a parsimonious understanding about the role of principal managerialand instructional elements in influencing teacher work attitudes such as teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The current study examined these relationships in theTurkish context where such studies are scarce.

70

Teacher worattitude

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

7/22

Collaboration and teacher work attitudesA large part of teacher activity occurs in the classroom through instructing classes ofstudents more or less in isolation from other classes and other teachers. A modernview of teaching acknowledges professional activities at the school level, such

as cooperating in teams of teachers, building professional learning communities,participating in school development, and evaluating and changing working conditions(McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006; OECD, 2009). From an organizational perspective,collaboration is a form of lateral coordination that can improve organizationalperformance by fostering creativity and integration around specific problems (Bolmanand Deal, 1997). In the educational context, collaboration refers to teachers workingtogether in groups or teams to improve educational processes and outcomes. Byworking together, individual teachers can pool scarce resources and learn from eachother to achieve a vision that would not be possible for separate individuals workingindependently. Furthermore, cooperation among staff creates opportunities for socialand emotional support and the exchange of ideas and practical advice. Cooperationcan thus enhance professionalism, feelings of self-efficacy, and job satisfaction

(Clement and Vandenberghe, 2000; Rosenholtz, 1989; Shachar and Shmuelevitz, 1997).When teachers collaborate, they share experiences and knowledge that can promotelearning and instructional improvement (Goddardet al., 2007).

Moolenaar et al. (2011) studied the relationships between teacher networks,collective efficacy, and student achievement in Dutch elementary schools. Theseauthors found that well-connected teacher networks were associated with strongteacher collective efficacy, which in turn supported student achievement. In anotherstudy, Goddard et al. (2007) found significant relationships between teachercollaboration and increased levels of student achievement. Similarly, in a study oncollaboration and student safety, Gajda (2004) commented that [y] collaboration hasbecome both the vehicle for obtaining student and school level outcomes and a longterm outcome (p. 66).

Guided by the growing evidence in the literature, policy makers call for educationalorganizations to mobilize effective collaborative efforts. The current understanding ofteaching and the parallel policy initiatives to enhance collaborative teaching requirea further examination of the relationships between teachers professional collaborationand their work attitudes. There is a particular need for such studies in Turkey, wherestudies investigating the relationship between teacher collaboration and teacher workattitudes are non-existent.

Conceptual frameworkThe theory of educational productivity developed by Walberg (Walberg, 1981;Subotnik and Walberg, 2006) guided the conceptual framework (see Figure 1) of thecurrent study. This framework views the educational processes as the vital domain

that transforms the inputs into the desired outputs. Walbergs perspective criticizedthe early focus on inputs and the recent focus on outcomes. Walberg noted thateducational processes exert a defining role on educational outcomes. In his educationalproductivity framework, reaching the desired educational outcomes is contingent uponeducational processes (Subotnik and Walberg, 2006). The failure to establish a directlink between educational inputs and outcomes is mainly due to the disregard ofeducational processes. By utilizing Walbergs perspective, the current study focussedon two main process variables, teacher collaboration and principal leadership;and examined their influence on two outcome variables, teacher self-efficacy and job

704

IJEM27,7

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

8/22

satisfaction. Teacher- and school-level input variables were also included in thestudy as covariates.

In addition to Walbergs theory of educational productivity, the newly emergingperspective (Reynoldset al., 2002) that incorporates school effectiveness research andschool improvement research also ascertained the foundations of the conceptualframework. School effectiveness research has emerged as a response to the recent callsfor accountability for educational outcomes (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2007; Teddlie

and Reynolds, 2000). Although there has been some controversy about this perspectivessole focus on educational outcomes, the pressure upon schools to increase educationaloutcomes is unlikely to recede in the near future (Harris and Bennett, 2002). Educationalpolicy remains firmly focussed on securing increased student learning, suggesting thatpolicies for school effectiveness will persist in being influential with researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike.

The current study employed a multilevel model would not be possible for separateindividuals working independently to examine relationships between two processvariables (i.e. school leadership and teacher collaboration) and two outcome variables(i.e. teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction). Specifically, the study attempted toanswer the following research questions:

(1) Does teacher collaboration significantly explain the variation in teacher self-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction within and across schools?

(2) Do the managerial and instructional leadership practices of school principalssignificantly explain the variation in teacher self-efficacy and teacher jobsatisfaction within and across schools?

MethodThe current study employed a naturalistic causal comparative methodology andutilized secondary data analysis. A naturalistic methodology was appropriate because

Teacher Self-efficacy

Principal Leadership Administrative

Instructional

Teacher JobSatisfaction

Teacher Attributes

TeacherCollaboration

School Attributes

Note:The arrows do not show causal relationship; rather, they indicate the direction

of association

Figure Principal leadersh

and teacher collaborati

as the predictorsteacher self-efficacy a

job satisfacti

70

Teacher worattitude

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

9/22

no specific policy or program was targeted by the study (Creswell, 2003).For instance, the study did not focus on the effects of a particular program thataimed to increase collaboration for instructional improvement among teachers.Instead, the naturally occurring relationships between principals leadership practices,

teachers professional collaboration, teachers self-efficacy, and job satisfaction wereexamined. Several school (e.g. school size, average class size, etc.) and teacherdemographic (e.g. gender, educational levels, years of experience, etc.) attributes werealso included in the analyses as control variables. The data source, study variables, andempirical strategy employed in the current study are described and discussed inthe following sections.

DataThe data source was the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), whichwas conducted by the OECD in 2008. The TALIS was developed as a part of theIndicators of Education Systems (INES) project, which aims to provide reliableindicators for OECD and partner countries about their educational systems (OECD,

2010). The TALIS data set differs from other well-known international data sets (e.g.PISA, TIMMS) because it focusses on the work conditions of teachers and the learningenvironment in schools. The main research areas targeted by TALIS includeschool leadership, professional development, teacher appraisal, feedback, teachingpractices, and the beliefs and attitudes of teachers. The data set also contains richinformation about the infrastructure and climate of schools as well as the demographiccharacteristics of the teachers and principals of the participating countries. A total of24 countries around the world, including Turkey, have participated in TALIS. To allowmultilevel analyses, TALIS includes two data sets, one for school-level variables andone for teacher-level variables. After checking for the possible effects of omissions,15 principal and 257 teacher cases were excluded from the analyses. The final data setincluded 178 principals/schools and 2,967 teachers.

Teacher-level variablesTeachers self-efficacy beliefs and teachers job satisfaction, the two dependentvariables, were the teacher-level variables. Individual teachers within schools weretargeted for teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Teachers self-efficacy (SELFEF)was measured using five questions that targeted teachers feelings about themselves asa teacher in their current school (see the Appendix for the pertinent survey items tomeasure each study variable). The data were gathered through the use of a four-pointLikert scale. A sample item reads I feel that I am making a significant educationaldifference in the lives of my students. TALIS created a continuous index variable ofself-efficacy for each teacher. This index variable was included in the analyses. The jobsatisfaction of teachers was measured by a single item (SATISFAC), which was also

designed as a four-point Likert scale. The teachers were asked to what extent theyagree or disagree with the following statement: All in all, I am satisfied with my job.

The TALIS data set created the exchange (EXCHANGE) and professionalcollaboration (TCCOLLAB) indices to measure teacher cooperation. Both indiceswere identified as individual level variables because each measured the extent of theindividual teachers involvement in collaborative efforts within schools. Consistentwith the relevant literature (e.g. Meirinket al., 2010), exchange consists of a lower levelof interaction among teachers. These practices include the exchange and discussion ofteaching material, discussion of the development of individual students, attendance at

706

IJEM27,7

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

10/22

team conferences, and ensuring common standards. Professional collaboration entailsa higher level of interaction and commitment among participants. The TALIS createdtwo continuous indexes to measure individual teacher participation in cooperationwith fellow teachers. These two indices were highly correlated with each other

(r 0.94) (see Table II). To prevent multicollinarity problems, only the TCOLLABvariable was included in the analyses.

The teacher-level variables also included several teacher demographic andprofessional attributes such as gender (GEN), level of education (EDUC), job status(STATUS), and teaching experience (EXP). Gender and job status were dummyvariables (e.g. female 1; male 0 and permanent 1; contracted 0). The teacherslevel of education (e.g. five categories ranging from below high school to abovemasters degree) and teaching experience (e.g. seven categories ranging from firstyear to more than 20 years) were both ordinal variables.

School-level variablesThe TALIS data set categorized the principals leadership practices into

administrative leadership and instructional leadership. These two leadershipstyles were the main school-level independent variables. Instructional leadership wascomposed of three dimensions, and each dimension was represented by a continuousindex variable: framing and communicating the schools goals and curriculardevelopment (MANGGOAL); promoting instructional improvements and professionaldevelopment (INSTRMAN); and direct supervision of instruction in the school(SUPINSTR). Administrative Leadership included two dimensions: accountability roleof the principal (ACCROLE) and bureaucratic rule following (BURRULEF). Theprincipals responded to four to six survey items for each dimension. The Appendixpresents the survey items included in each leadership dimension.

Guided by the relevant literature, we also included several important controlvariables for the school-level analyses. These variables included the school type

(TYPE), school size (SCSIZE), and average class size (CLSIZE). The school-level controlvariables were measured as ordinal data.

Descriptive statistics for all teacher and school-level variables were presentedin Table I. The transformation of some of the study variables from a four-point Likertscale to continuous index variables (which can take negative mean scores) resulted indifficult to interpret mean scores. To make sense of the mean score of the indexvariables, the minimum and maximum ranges that each variable could take were alsoincluded in the descriptive statistics. The majority of the teachers (82 percent) heldpermanent teaching positions, and 56 percent of them were females. The majority ofthe participating schools were public schools (74 percent), the average school size was1,152 students, and the average class size was approximately 32 students.

Empirical strategyThe Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) method was used to investigate whether theprincipals leadership and the teachers collaboration explain the variation in teacherself-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction, net of several important teacher-level andschool-level control variables. The HLM is used in cases where individuals are nestedwithin groups and the data has a hierarchical structure (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002).Because the TALIS data retained a multilevel data structure (school level and teacherlevel), HLM was an appropriate method for the study. The HLM 6.08 software developedby Raudenbushet al. (2004) was used for the analyses of the multilevel TALIS data.

70

Teacher worattitude

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

11/22

The first step in the data analysis was to develop an unconditional model (one-wayrandom effects model) for each dependent variable (i.e. teacher self-efficacy and jobsatisfaction). The unconditional model helps to identify any accounted variancebetween teachers and schools. The unconditional model is shown below:

Level-1 (Teachers) :Yij b0j rij

Level-2 (Schools) :b0j g00 u0j

Yij is the dependent variable for teacher i in school j; b0j the mean of the dependentvariable in schoolj;g00the average of school means;rijthe level-1 random error; andu0jthe random effect associated with school j .

Based on the results of the unconditional model, the intra-class correlations (ICCs),which indicated the between-schools variability in teacher self-efficacy and jobsatisfaction, were calculated. Then, the final HLM models, which included all teacher-level and school-level variables, for each dependent variable were developed. The final

model (i.e. level-2) helped to examine the extent of variation in teacher self-efficacy andjob satisfaction accounted for by each independent variable.The equation for the final model is shown below:

pij b0j b1j TCCOLLAB b2j GEN b3j EDUC b4j EXP b5j STATUS r ij

b0j g00 g01 MANGGOAL g02 INSTRMAN g03 SUPINSTR g04 ACCROLE

g05 BURRULEF g06 TYPE g07 SCSIZE g08 CLSIZE u0j

Variables n Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Dependent variablesSELFEFa 2,889 0.14 1.13 2.93 2.18SATISFAC 2,882 3.08 0.74 1.00 4.00

Level-1COLLAB

a2,883 0.27 0.80 1.71 2.49

EXCHANa

2,883 0.97 1.03 3.07 2.36GEN 2,967 0.56 0.50 0.00 1.00EDUC 2,956 2.98 0.40 1.00 5.00EXP 2,939 4.30 1.67 1.00 7.00STATUS 2,887 0.82 0.38 0.00 1.00

Level-2MANGGOALa 178 0.45 0.89 2.54 1.36INSTRMANa 178 0.43 0.91 2.39 1.77SUPINSTRa 178 0.36 0.72 1.15 1.84ACCROLEa 178 0.71 0.84 1.80 1.72

BURRULEF

a

178 1.08 0.87

1.17 2.05TYPE 178 0.74 0.44 0.00 1.00CLSIZE 178 30.49 8 13.17 56.38SCSIZE 178 1,151.84 801.67 104 3,922

Note: aFactor scores are standardised, so that the international mean is 0 and the internationalstandard deviation equals 1Source:OECD, 2010

Table I.Descriptive statisticsfor teacher and schoollevel variables

708

IJEM27,7

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

12/22

While b1j, b2j,y., b5j are the slope estimates for the effects of each level-1 variables,g01, g02,yy, g08are the coefficients associated with each level-2 variables.

Findings

Prior to conducting the HLM analyses, the correlational relationships betweenteacher-level variables and school-level variables were examined and presentedin Tables II and III.

The bivariate correlation coefficients for both the between teacher-level variablesand the between school variables ranged from small to medium, yet were mostlysignificant. As presented in Table II, the teacher-level dependent variables, (i.e. teacherself-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction) were moderately (Cohen, 1988) butsignificantly correlated (r 0.42, po0.01). This finding is consistent with theexpectations, indicating that a positive increase in one teachers work attitude may leadto an increase in the other. Teacher self-efficacy had low, but significant, relationshipswith all but one (education) independent variable. Similarly, teacher job satisfactionwas significantly correlated with four of the six independent variables. There was a

small but significant correlation between teacher collaboration and teacher efficacy(r 0.28,po0.01). Similarly, teacher collaboration was significantly correlated with jobsatisfaction (r 0.20,po0.01). These relationships were supportive of the hypothesizedrole of teacher professional collaboration in enhancing teacher work attitudes. Some ofthe relationships between other independent variables were also noteworthy. Forinstance, teaching experience was negatively correlated with the teachers educational

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SELFEF 1SATISFAC 0.42** 1COLLAB 0.28** 0.20** 1EXCHAN 0.29** 0.22** 0.94** 1GEN 0.04* 0.01 0.04* 0.07** 1EDUC 0.02 0.04* 0.03 0.03 0.08** 1EXP 0.11** 0.06** 0.04 0.03 0.09** 0.32** 1STATUS 0.05** 0.03 0.21** 0.22** 0.04* 0.06** 0.26** 1

Notes:*pp0.05; **pp0.01

Table Correlations amo

teacher-level variab

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

MANGGOAL 1INSTRMAN 0.48** 1SUPINSTR 0.66** 0.47** 1ACCROLE 0.43** 0.50** 0.33** 1BURRULEF 0.46** 0.55** 0.42** 0.67** 1TYPE 0.39** 0.11 0.35** 0.25** 0.12 1CLSIZE 0.20** 0.05 0.21** 0.13 0.06 0.58** 1SCSIZE 0.26** 0.08 0.23** 0.10 0.07 0.55** 0.71** 1

Notes:*pp0.05, **pp0.01

Table ICorrelations amo

school-level variab

70

Teacher worattitude

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

13/22

level (r0.32,po0.01). This negative relationship makes sense in the Turkish contextbecause many veteran teachers are assigned to teaching positions without holdinga college degree. It is common for veteran teachers to hold associate degrees. The currentpolicy requires teachers to have a four-year college degree, and because of this policy

change, the young teachers in the profession are more educated than their veterancolleagues. The negative correlation between teacher collaboration and job status(r0.21,po0.01) can be explained by the fact that full-time teachers tend to work inisolation from the others and are less likely to engage in collaborative activities. Althoughthey work under temporary contracts, young teachers appear to be more open toengaging in collaborative activities with their colleagues.

An examination of school-level variable correlations (Table III) revealed moderateyet significant relationships between leadership dimensions. As expected, managingschool goals and the direct supervision of instruction, the two dimensions ofinstructional leadership, maintained a relatively large correlation (r 0.66, po0.01).Similarly, the accountability role of the principal and bureaucratic rule following(r 0.67,po0.01), two dimensions of administrative leadership, had a relatively higher

correlation compared to the other leadership dimensions. These results supported theaccurate identification and classification of the principal leadership dimensions.Negative correlations between school type and several leadership dimensions suggestthat principals in public and private schools engage in different leadership practices.The negative correlations between school type and all five leadership dimensions(ranging fromr0.11 to r0.39, po0.01) indicate that the principals in privateschools opt to engage in different leadership practices than their counterparts in publicschools. As expected, managing school goals and the direct supervision of instruction,the two dimensions of instructional leadership, were negatively correlated with schoolsize and average class size. High positive correlations between the school size and theaverage class size (r 0.71,po0.01) is indicative of the unfavorable large class sizes inurban areas where the school sizes are also large. Another striking indicator is that the

public schools, compared to the private schools, house unfavorably larger class sizes(r 0.58, po0.01).

Results of the unconditional modelsResults of the unconditional models indicated that the variance components at level-2were significant (pp0.001) for both dependent variables. This result means that therewere significant variations in the teachers work attitudes (for both self-efficacy and jobsatisfaction) between the Turkish middle schools. The ICCs were calculated todetermine the extent of variance between the schools. As a measure of the clusteringeffect due to the contextual level (i.e. the level of schools), the ICC helps to assess thevariance accrued to each dependent variable due to the differences between the schools(Caprara et al., 2006). The ICC for teacher self-efficacy was 0.08 (0.098/1.175 0.098),while the ICC for teacher job satisfaction was 0.06 (0.03/0.511 0.03). These resultsindicated that 8 percent of the total variance in teacher self-efficacy and 6 percentof the total variance in teacher job satisfaction was due to differences between theschools (Table IV).

As suggested by Hox (2002), the general case coefficients from 0.05 to 0.09 indicatea low grouping effect. The ICCs for both self-efficacy and job satisfaction were slightlyabove the threshold of 0.05. These results supported the appropriateness of the HLMmethod for the analysis of data. In practical terms, the ICCs supported the presence ofsignificant differences in teachers work attitudes between Turkish schools. Thus, the

710

IJEM27,7

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

14/22

significant unconditional models justified the development of a final model to identifythe factors that contribute to the differences in teacher work attitudes.

Results of the two-level HLM analysesThe analyses of the final HLM model (see Table V) indicated that several teacher andschool-level variables significantly explained the variation in both teacher workattitudes. In regards to the teacher-level variables, teacher professional collaborationwas the strongest predictor among both the independent and the control variables.Professional collaboration explained variation for both teacher self-efficacy (b 0.37)and job satisfaction (b 0.16). The effects were medium to large (Cohen, 1988): Z 0.61andZ 0.40 for teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction, respectively. The large effectsizes are indicative of teacher collaboration as a powerful policy tool for improvingteacher work attitudes, with a potential role in improving cognitive educationaloutcomes. Although the coefficients were small, teacher experience, a control variable,also significantly influenced both teacher self-efficacy (b 0.07) and job satisfaction(b 0.02). The educational background of the teachers significantly predicted teacher

job satisfaction, with a negative sign (b0.07). This finding implies that themore educated teachers are less satisfied. None of the other teacher control variableswere significant.

Self-efficacy Job satisfaction

ICC 0.080 0.060HLM reliability 0.558 0.477Between-school parameter variance 0.098a 0.030b

Within-school parameter variance 1.175 0.511

Notes: a

w2

416.128, df 177, pp0.001; b

w2

347.235, df 177, pp0.001

Table ISummary

unconditional mod

Self-efficacy coefficient SE Satisfaction coefficient SE

Level-1TCCOLLAB 0.366** 0.027 0.163** 0.018GEN 0.057 0.041 0.021 0.031EDUC 0.003 0.047 0.071* 0.034EXP 0.071** 0.014 0.021* 0.009STATUS 0.058 0.079 0.017 0.046

Level-2

MANGGOAL 0.015 0.039 0.110 0.026INSTRMAN 0.014 0.034 0.019 0.021SUPINSTR 0.094* 0.045 0.048 0.031ACCROLE 0.087* 0.038 0.008 0.027BURRULEF 0.010 0.039 0.055* 0.024TYPE 0.063 0.087 0.069 0.060CLSIZE 0.004 0.004 0.009* 0.004SCSIZE 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.004

Notes:*pp0.05; **pp0.01

Table Results for fin

HLM analys

71

Teacher worattitude

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

15/22

In respect to the school-level variables, one of the three instructional leadershipdimensions and both of the two administrative leadership dimensions significantlypredicted the teachers work attitudes. The supervision of instruction (SUPINSTR) wasthe only dimension of instructional leadership that explained the variance in teachers

self-efficacy beliefs (b 0.09). The results also indicated that two dimensions ofadministrative leadership significantly influenced two different teacher work attitudes.While the principals accountability role (ACCROLE) significantly explained thevariance in teacher self-efficacy (b 0.09), the level of bureaucratic rule following(BURRULEF) (b0.06) significantly influenced teacher job satisfaction. Among allof the school-level control variables, the average class size was the only significantvariable predicting teachers job satisfaction. As expected, the sign was negative(b0.001).

Conclusions and implicationsThe school improvement research (Reynolds et al., 2002) assume that educationalprocess variables are the most critical factors for accomplishing cognitive and non-

cognitive educational outcomes. To test this assumption, the current study targetedtwo process variables (i.e. teacher collaboration and principal leadership practices) andexamined their influence on two teacher work attitudes (i.e. teacher self-efficacy and

job satisfaction) as measures of non-cognitive educational outcomes. More specifically,the study tested whether the professional collaboration efforts of individual teachers(i.e. the individual level) and the leadership practices of school principals (i.e. the schoollevel) explain the variation in the levels of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and jobsatisfaction in Turkish middle schools.

The findings of this multilevel study suggested that the professional collaborativeactivities that teachers engage in exert significant influence on their work attitudes.Teachers professional collaboration appeared to be the strongest predictor of bothteacher self-efficacy (b 0.37) and job satisfaction (b 0.16). These findings on teacher

collaboration are consistent with the growing research that emphasizes the value ofthis process variable (Capraraet al., 2006; Goddard et al., 2007; Gajda, 2004; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The more that teachers collaborate, the more they areable to converse knowledgably about theories, methods, and processes of teaching andlearning. Teacher collaboration in schools improves not only self-efficacy but also jobsatisfaction among teachers.

The studys finding on teacher collaboration supports the recent reform efforts,which have placed considerable emphasis on teacher collaboration (Morse, 2000;Datnow, 2011). Many school districts across the USA, for instance, have adoptedpolicies and interventions to enhance teacher collaboration. This increased emphasison teacher collaboration is a result of a new understanding in teaching that rejects theisolated delivery of instruction. This new perspective considers teaching to be a

process of establishing collaborative cultures among teachers and creating sustainedimprovement in schools. In other words, teacher collaboration is viewed as a powerfulstrategy to create learning communities and improve schools (Goddard et al., 2007;Kaufman et al., 2012). Although similar policies are scant in Turkey, the studysfindings unveiled the presence of an internal understanding and functioning within thesystem. The results of this study may guide policy makers in creating collaborativework conditions for teachers. The study findings may also inform future researchabout the current state and future directions of teacher collaboration in Turkey as wellas in other settings worldwide.

712

IJEM27,7

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

16/22

The study highlighted the presence of differing processes and cultures betweenschools in Turkish system. This finding also highlights the presence of a caveat inthe implementation of change and reform initiatives in countries with centralizedschool systems. All reform initiatives are mainly planned and developed at the

Ministry of National Education and presented to schools with a top-down approach.A blunt example of this would be the in-service education to teachers to improve teachercollaboration. Teachers and principals have no or very limited input and involvementin the planning and development of these in-service programs. As a result, one-fits alltype of programs may have very little buy-in by the teachers and principals of localschools. The findings of study call for the reconsideration of the nature of the reforminitiatives in centralized systems. For these to be effective, they must address theunique school culture which influence the processes individual school systems.

The identification of effective conditions for creating collaborative cultures appearsto be an area of importance for the success of current and future teacher developmentinitiatives. As Peterson (1994) noted, the sustainability of collaborative efforts dependson the presence of a collaborative culture in schools. This line of research may also help

theory building by identifying the determinants of effective teacher collaboration.Examining the possible effects of high accountability schemes on teacher collaborationappears to be a timely topic for future research. Some researchers (Datnow, 2011) warnabout the negative effects of high stakes environments for teacher collaboration. Thefuture research may investigate whether the recent high accountability environmentssupport collaborative cultures or create contrived collegiality in schools.

The findings of the current study showed that some select principal leadershippractices played moderate yet significant roles on the level of the teachers self-efficacybeliefs and job satisfaction. For instance, as part of the instructional leadership practices,the direct supervision of instruction (b 0.09) significantly predicted teachers self-efficacy beliefs. This finding is consistent with the relevant literature (Bogler, 2001; Cerit,2009; Griffith, 2004). Some of the principals practices within this role included observing

classrooms, monitoring students work, and providing instructional suggestions toteachers. When principals engage more in these instructional leadership activities, theteachers self-efficacy increases significantly. Interestingly, out of the three dimensions,the supervision of instruction was the only significant principal instructional leadershipdimension. The managing goals and instructional management dimensions did notexert any significant influence on either of the two teacher work attitudes in Turkishmiddle schools. This finding, of course, does not mean that the other two instructionalleadership dimensions were neglected by the Turkish principals. In effect, among the 24participating countries, Turkey was one of seven countries that scored high on both theinstructional leadership and the administrative leadership dimensions (OECD, 2009).

Another interesting finding about the principals leadership styles was that bothdimensions of administrative leadership significantly influenced teacher work attitudes.

While the principals accountability role (ACCROLE) significantly predicted teacherself-efficacy (b 0.09), bureaucratic rule following (BURRULEF) (b0.06)significantly, but negatively, predicted teacher job satisfaction. These findings havepractical implications, at least in the Turkish context. For instance, the more thatprincipals engage in accountability roles (such as ensuring the teachers understanding ofeducational goals, improving the teachers teaching skills, holding the teachersaccountable for educational results, and involving parents), the higher the teachers self-efficacy will be. The significant influence of the principals administrative accountabilityroles on teacher self-efficacy makes sense in the Turkish system where academic results

71

Teacher worattitude

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

17/22

are a pressing issue system-wide. The findings of the study showed that teachers jobsatisfaction may be decreased through the principals bureaucratic rule followingpractices such as ensuring compliance with rules and regulations, running auditsreporting results, creating orderly environments, and stimulating a task-oriented

atmosphere in their schools. This finding is consistent with similar research in therelevant literature (Goddard et al., 2007).

The findings must be considered along with the limitations inherent in the study.For instance, the findings may contain country specific attributes, which may hinderthe applicability of the results in other contexts and countries. The relationships amongthe variables in the Turkish context should be verified through the use of othercountries data. The TALIS offer a rich data set for such comparisons. Anotherlimitation of study was its cross-sectional nature. The study used the first round of theTALIS data gathered in 2008. The relationship among the study variables can be testedlongitudinally when the second phase TALIS data becomes available in 2014. Thehypothesized relationships among the study variables may also present a limitation.For instance, principal leadership and teacher collaboration might have interacted with

each other. Yet, the relationships between these process variables were not studied inthe current study. A recent study (Hermanet al., 2008) showed that the principals whowere able to turn around schools fostered teacher collaboration by providingpedagogical and structural supports. Future research may further investigate therelationships between and among various process variables, including interactionbetween teacher collaboration and principal leadership practices.

References

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L. and Sander, W. (2007), Teachers and student achievement in theChicago public high schools, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 95-135.

Anderman, E., Belzer, S. and Smith, J. (1991), Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: the roleof school culture and principal leadership, paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Argyris, C. (1964), Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley, New York, NY.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Newark, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1995), Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies, in Bandura, A.(Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-45.

Bandura, A. (2001), Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, Annual Review ofPsychology,Vol. 52, pp. 1-26.

Bogler, R. (2001), The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction, EducationalAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 662-683.

Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1997), Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership,

3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Borman, G. and Kimball, S. (2005), Teacher quality and educational equity: do teachers withhigher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps?, The

Elementary School Journal, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 3-20.

Cakiroglu, E. and Cakiroglu, J. (2003), Reflections on teacher education in Turkey, EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 253-264.

Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, B.P. and Malone, P.S. (2006), Teachers self-efficacy beliefsas determinants of job satisfaction and students academic achievement: a study at theschool level, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 473-490.

714

IJEM27,7

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F508733&isi=000243131800004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511527692.003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511527692.003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.52.1.1&isi=000167463100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.52.1.1&isi=000167463100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.52.1.1&isi=000167463100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F496904&isi=000231675400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F496904&isi=000231675400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F496904&isi=000231675400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0261976032000088774http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0261976032000088774http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jsp.2006.09.001&isi=000243274900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jsp.2006.09.001&isi=000243274900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131610121969460&isi=000173062400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0261976032000088774http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0261976032000088774http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.52.1.1&isi=000167463100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.52.1.1&isi=000167463100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F496904&isi=000231675400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F496904&isi=000231675400001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511527692.003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F508733&isi=000243131800004

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

18/22

Cerit, Y. (2009), The effects of servant leadership behaviors of school principals on teachers jobsatisfaction,Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 600-623.

Cha, S. and Cohen-Vogel, L. (2011), Why they quit: a focused look at teachers who leave for otheroccupations, School Effectiveness and Improvement, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 371-392.

Chacon, C.T. (2005), Teachers perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachersin middle schools in Venezuela,Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 257-272.

Clement, M. and Vandenberghe, R. (2000), Teachers professional development: a solitary orcollegial (ad)venture?, Teaching and Teacher Education,Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 81-101.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power and Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 2nd ed., LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D. andYork, R.L. (1996),Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Creemers, B.P.M. and Kyriakides, L. (2007), The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness:A Contribution to Policy, Practice, and Theory in Contemporary Schools, Taylor & Francis,New York, NY.

Creswell, J.W. (2003),Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Currall, S.C., Towler, A.J., Judge, T. and Kohn, L. (2005), Pay satisfaction and organizationaloutcomes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 613-640.

Datnow, A. (2011), Collaboration and contrived collegiality: revisiting Hargreaves in the age ofaccountability, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 147-158.

Evans, L. (1998),Teacher Morale, Job Satisfaction, and Motivation, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gajda, R. (2004), Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances, AmericanJournal of Evaluation, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 65-77.

Ghaith, G. and Yaghi, H. (1997), Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudestoward the implementation of instructional innovation,Teaching and Teacher Education,Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 451-458.

Gibson, S. and Dembo, M.H. (1984), Teacher efficacy: a construct validation, Journal ofEducational Psychology,Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 569-582.

Goddard, R.D. (2002), Collective efficacy and school organization: a multilevel analysis ofteacher influence in schools, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (Eds), Theory and Research in

Educational Administration, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 169-184.

Goddard, Y.L., Goddard, R.D. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007), A theoretical and empiricalinvestigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement inpublic elementary schools, Teachers College Record, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 877-896.

Griffith, J. (2004), Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff jobsatisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance, Journal of Educational

Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 333-356.

Guo, Y., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M. and Kaderavek, J.N. (2010), Relations among preschoolteachers self-efficacy, classroom quality, and childrens language and literacy gains,Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 1094-1103.

Harris, A. and Bennett, N. (2002), Introduction, in Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (Eds), TheInternational Handbook of School Effectiveness, Falmer Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-4.

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S. and Darwin, M. (2008),Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4020), US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center forEducation Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Washington, DC, available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides (accessed June 17, 2013).

71

Teacher worattitude

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1741143209339650http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243453.2011.587437&isi=000299557300002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.tate.2005.01.001&isi=000228511700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2899%2900051-7&isi=000084569400007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2899%2900051-7&isi=000084569400007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2005.00245.x&isi=000231574000002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10833-011-9154-1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10833-011-9154-1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F109821400402500105&isi=000220006200005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F109821400402500105&isi=000220006200005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2896%2900045-5&isi=A1997WY03100007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-0663.76.4.569&isi=A1984TE47100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-0663.76.4.569&isi=A1984TE47100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-0663.76.4.569&isi=A1984TE47100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000245893200003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.tate.2009.11.005&isi=000276590900045http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.tate.2009.11.005&isi=000276590900045http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.tate.2005.01.001&isi=000228511700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-0663.76.4.569&isi=A1984TE47100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-0663.76.4.569&isi=A1984TE47100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10833-011-9154-1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09578230410534667http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243453.2011.587437&isi=000299557300002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2896%2900045-5&isi=A1997WY03100007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2005.00245.x&isi=000231574000002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000245893200003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1741143209339650http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F109821400402500105&isi=000220006200005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F109821400402500105&isi=000220006200005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2899%2900051-7&isi=000084569400007

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

19/22

Hipp, K.A. (1997), Documenting the effects of transformational leadership behavior on teacherefficacy, paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, IL, March, 24-28.

Hirschfeld, R.R. (2000), Validity studies: does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the

Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire short form make a difference?, EducationalPsychological Measurement, No. 60, pp. 255-270.

Hox, J. (2002), Multilevel Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001), Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages, and the Organization of Schools(Document R-01-1), University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching andPolicy, Seattle, WA.

Ingersoll, R.M. and Smith, T.M. (2003), The wrong solution to the teacher shortage,EducationalLeadership, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 30-33.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), The job satisfaction-jobperformance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.

Kaufman, T.E., Grimm, E.D. and Miller, A.E. (2012), Collaborative School Improvement: Eight

Practices for District-School Partnerships to Transform Teaching and Learning, HarvardEducation Press, Cambridge, MA.

Klassen, R.M. and Chiu, M.M. (2010), Effects on teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction:teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress, Journal of Educational Psychology,Vol. 102 No. 3, p. 741-756.

Koedel, C. (2009), An empirical analysis of teacher spillover effects in secondary school,Economics of Education Review,Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 682-692.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), A multilevel approach to theory and research inorganizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel theory, research,and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions, in Klein, K.J.and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations:

Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,pp. 3-90.

Kurt, T., Duyar, I. and Calik, T. (2012), Are we legitimate yet? A closer look at the casualrelationship mechanisms among principal leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and collectiveefficacy, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 71-86.

Littrell, P.C., Billingsley, B.S. and Cross, L.H. (1994), The effects of principal support on specialand general educators stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent tostay in teaching,Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 297-310.

Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.L. and Anderson, S.E. (2010), Investigating the links toimproved student learning: final report of research findings, University of Minnesota,University of Toronto, and Wallace Foundation, available at: www.wallacefoundation.org(accessed May 13, 2012).

McLaughlin, M.W. and Talbert, J.E. (2006), Building School-Based Teacher LearningCommunities, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

Meirink, J.A., Imants, J., Meijer, P.C. and Verloop, N. (2010), Teacher learning and collaboration ininnovative teams, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 161-181.

Moolenaar, N.M., Sleegers, P.J.C. and Daly, A.J. (2011), Teaming up: linking collaborationnetworks, collective efficacy, and student achievement, Teaching and Teacher Education,Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 251-262.

Morse, W.C. (2000), Foreword, in Friend, M. and Cook, L. (Eds), Interactions: Collaboration Skillsfor School Professionals, 3rd ed., Addison Wesley Longman, New York, NY, pp. xi-xii.

NCES (1997), Job Satisfaction Among Americas Teachers: Effects of Workplace Conditions,Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, NCES, Washington, DC.

716

IJEM27,7

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131640021970493&isi=000085962000007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131640021970493&isi=000085962000007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000182731900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000182731900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.127.3.376&isi=000170928300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fa0019237&isi=000281046400016http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fa0019237&isi=000281046400016http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.econedurev.2009.02.003&isi=000272114800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.econedurev.2009.02.003&isi=000272114800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02621711211191014http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02621711211191014http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F074193259401500505&isi=A1994PE97200005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0305764X.2010.481256http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.tate.2011.10.001&isi=000300528100011http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.127.3.376&isi=000170928300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131640021970493&isi=000085962000007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F00131640021970493&isi=000085962000007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.econedurev.2009.02.003&isi=000272114800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000182731900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000182731900006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.tate.2011.10.001&isi=000300528100011http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F074193259401500505&isi=A1994PE97200005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fa0019237&isi=000281046400016http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0305764X.2010.481256http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02621711211191014

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

20/22

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006), Transformational and transactional leadershipeffects on teachers job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizationalcitizenship behavior in primary schools: the Tanzanian case, School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-177.

OECD (2009),Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS,OECD, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda (accessed March 5, 2012).

OECD (2010),TALIS 2008 Technical Report, OECD, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/14/44978960.pdf (accessed February 7, 2012).

Peterson, K. (1994), Building collaborative cultures: seeking ways to reshape urban schools,NCREL monograph, Urban Education Monograph Series, available at: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le0pet.htm (accessed February 21, 2012).

Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and DataAnalysis Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S. and Congdon, R. (2004), HLM for Windows (Version 6.08)[Computer Software], Scientific Software International Inc, Lincolnwood, IL.

Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., Potter, D. and Chapman, C. (2002), School improvement for schools

facing challenging circumstances: a review of research and practice, School Leadership &Management: Formerly School Organisation, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 243-256.

Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E. and Kain, J. (2005), Teachers, schools, and academic achievement,Econometrica, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 417-458.

Rockoff, J. (2004), The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: evidence frompanel data, The American Economic Review, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 247-252.

Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989),Teachers Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools, Longman, WhitePlains, NY.

Ross, J.A. and Gray, P. (2006), Transformational leadership and teacher commitment toorganizational values: the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy, School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-199.

Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2000), Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being,American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.

Sanders, W.L. and Horn, S.P. (1998), Research findings from the Tennessee Value-AddedAssessment System (TVAAS) database: implications for educational evaluation andresearch, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 247-256.

Sanders, W.L. and Rivers, J. (1996), Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on FutureStudent Academic Achievement, University of Tennessee Value Added Research andAssessment Center, Knoxville, TN.

Shachar, H. and Shmuelevitz, H. (1997), Implementing cooperative learning, teachercollaboration and teachers sense of efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools,Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 53-72.

Shann, M. (1998), Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middleschools, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 67-75.

Subotnik, R.F. and Walberg, H.J. (2006), The Scientific Bases of Educational Productivity,Information Age, Greenwich, CT.

Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness, FalmerPress, New York, NY.

Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001), Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusiveconcept, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 783-805.

Walberg, H.J. (1981), A psychological theory of educational productivity, in Farley, F.H. andGordon, N. (Eds),Psychology and Education: The State of the Union, McCutchan, Berkeley,CA, pp. 81-108.

71

Teacher worattitude

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F1363243022000020381http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F1363243022000020381http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-0262.2005.00584.x&isi=000227125400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1257%2F0002828041302244&isi=000222423100046http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565795&isi=000238193500003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565795&isi=000238193500003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.55.1.68http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1008067210518http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fceps.1997.0924&isi=A1997WH76600004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00220679809597578&isi=000077365300001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2801%2900036-1&isi=000171837400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1008067210518http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1257%2F0002828041302244&isi=000222423100046http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00220679809597578&isi=000077365300001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565746&isi=000238193500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.55.1.68http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-0262.2005.00584.x&isi=000227125400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2801%2900036-1&isi=000171837400003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fceps.1997.0924&isi=A1997WH76600004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565795&isi=000238193500003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09243450600565795&isi=000238193500003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F1363243022000020381http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F1363243022000020381

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

21/22

Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Lawler, J.J. and Shi, K. (2004), The role of collective efficacy in therelations between transformational leadership and work outcomes, Journal ofOrganizational and Occupational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 515-530.

Whaley, K.W. (1994), Leadership and teacher job satisfaction,NASSP Bulletin,Vol. 78 No. 564,

pp. 46-51.

Appendix

Teachers Professional Collaboration (TCCOLLAB)BTG30H Teach jointly as a team in the same classBTG30I Take part in professional learning activities (e.g. team supervision)BTG30J Observe other teachers classes and provide feedbackBTG30K Engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g. projects)BTG30L Discuss and coordinate homework practice across subjectsTeacher self-efficacy (TEACHSEF)BTG31B I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my students

BTG31C If I try really hard, I can make progress with even the most difficult and unmotivatedstudents

BTG31D I am successful with the students in my classBTG31E I usually know how to get through to students

Managing school goals (MANGGOAL)BCG15A I make sure that the professional development activities of teachers are in accordance

with the teaching goals of the schoolBCG15B I ensure that teachers work according to the schools educational goalsBCG15D I use student performance results to develop the schools educational goalsBCG15J I take exam results into account in decisions regarding curriculum developmentBCG15K I ensure that there is clarity concerning the responsibility for coordinating the

curriculumBCG16M In this school, we work on goals and/or a school development plan

Instructional management (INSTRMAN)BCG15G When a teacher has problems in his/her classroom, I take the initiative to discuss

mattersBCG15H I inform teachers about possibilities for updating their knowledge and skillsBCG15L When a teacher brings up a classroom problem, we solve the problem togetherBCG15M I pay attention to disruptive behavior in classrooms

Direct supervision of instruction (SUPINSTR)BCG15C I observe instruction in classroomsBCG15E I give teachers suggestions as to how they can improve their teachingBCG15F I monitor students workBCG15I I check to see whether classroom activities are in keeping with our educational goals

Accountability management (ACCROLE)BCG16A An important part of my job is to ensure that ministry-approved instructional

approaches are explained to new teachers, and that more experienced teachers are using

these approachesBCG16D A main part of my job is to ensure that the teaching skills of the staff are alwaysimproving

BCG16E An important part of my job is to ensure that teachers are held accountable for theattainment of the schools goals

BCG16F An important part of my job is to present new ideas to the parents in a convincing wayBureaucratic management (BURRULEF)BCG16H It is important for the school that I see to it that everyone sticks to the rulesBCG16I It is important for the school that I check for mistakes and errors in administrative

procedures and reports

Table AI.Variables andquestionnaire items

718

IJEM27,7

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F019263659407856410http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F019263659407856410http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F019263659407856410

8/10/2019 JRL SKP 4

22/22

About the authors

Dr Ibrahim Duyar is an associate professor and the coordinator of doctoral program of

Educational Administration and Supervision at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

He teaches advanced leadership theories in education; principalship; and management of

organizational behavior. Dr Duyars research include teacher work attitudes, behaviors, andperformance; influence of principal leadership on educational outcomes; and management of

organizational behavior in educational organizations. Dr Duyars recent book entitled as

Discretionary Behavior and Performance in Educational Organizations: The Missing Link in

Educational Leadership and Management was published by Emerald in 2012. Ibrahim Duyar is

the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ixduyar@ualr.edu

Mehmet Sukru Bellibas is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Administration

K-12 at Michigan State University. He earned BA degree in Guidance and Psychological

Counselling from Istanbul University and MA degree in Educational Administration K-12 from

Michigan State University. His research interests are school improvement, principal leadership,

and school-community relations in disadvantaged contexts.

Dr Sedat Gumus is based at Mustafa Kemal University in Turkey. At the time of writing this

article he was a Graduate Student at Michigan State University, USA.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

71

Teacher worattitude