Effect of Instructional Leadership, Organizational Innovativeness, and School Hindering on Teachers’ Satisfaction at Bilsems

Abstract

In this research, it is aimed to reveal the direct and indirect relationships among instructional leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction, school hindering, and organizational innovativeness within the framework of the SEM model constructed in a cross-sectional survey design. The teacher’s opinions scale for BILSEMs was used as the data collection tool. In this study, ‘organizational innovativeness and school hindering’ were proposed as a mediators of the relationship between instructional leadership and teachers’ job satisfaction. The results based on the analysis of responses from 357 teachers of 81 BILSEMs selected with the simple random sampling method revealed significant direct and indirect effects of instructional leadership on the teacher satisfaction via both organizational innovativeness and school hindering. In conclusion, instructional leadership is positively related to enhancing teachers’ job satisfaction, supporting and improving organizational innovativeness, decreasing school hindering through focusing on the school resources. The results of the research are expected to shed light on current and future innovative policies and reform initiatives about gifted education.

Keywords

• Gifted education policies
• instructional leadership
• organizational innovativeness
• school hindering
• teacher satisfaction

References

1. Akhan, O., & Altaş, S. (2021). BILSEM history teachers' opinions on BILSEM working conditions. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(1), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.52826/mcbuefd.924337.
2. Alig-Mielcarek, J. M. (2003). A model of school success: Instructional leadership, academic press, and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation), The Ohio State University.
3. Altintaş, E., & İLGÜN, Ş. (2016). Öğretmenlerin üstün zekâlı öğrencilerin eğitimine yönelik düşünce ve önerileri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(14).
4. Altun, T., & Vural, S. (2012). Evaluation of the views of teachers and administrators of a science and art center (sac) about professional development and school improvement. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (42), 152-177.
5. Atasoy, R. (2020). Sputnik Sendromu. N. Cemaloğlu (Ed.). Sendromların Eğitim ve Yönetime Yansımaları: Mitolojiden Kurama (ss. 45-58). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
6. Atasoy, R., & Özden, C. (2021). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerine yönelik öğretmen görüşleri ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Global Sport and Education Research, 4 (1), 1-16.
7. Banks, J. A., Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. John Wiley.
8. Baş, G. (2021). Teacher Beliefs about Educational Reforms: A Metaphor Analysis. International Journal of Educational Reform, 30(1), 21-38.

9. Birgit, E. (2011). Supportive and hindering factors to a sustainable implementation of ICT in schools. Journal for Educational Research Online, (3)1, 75-103.
10. Blasé, J., & Blase, J. (2003). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning. California: Corwin Press.
11. Blömeke, S., Houang, R., Hsieh, F. J., & Wang, T. Y. (2017). Effects of job motives, teacher knowledge and school context on beginning teachers’ commitment to stay in the profession: A longitudinal study in Germany, Taiwan and the United States. In G. K. LeTendre & M. Akiba (Eds.), International handbook of teacher quality and policy (pp. 374–387). London: Routledge
12. Bozan, İ. & Savi-Çakar, F. (2020). Bilim ve sanat merkezi öğretmenlerinin yaşadıkları sorunlar ve bu sorunlara ilişkin çözüm önerilerinin belirlenmesi. Turkish Studies Education, 15(3), 160
13. Bush, T. (2018). Eğitim Liderliği ve Yönetimi Kuramları (Çev. Ed.: R. Sarpkaya). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
14. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
15. Cardozo, R. N. (1965). An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Study, 2(3), 244-249.
16. Çetin, A., & Doğan, A. (2018). The problems of mathematics teachers working in science and art centers. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 19(4), 615641.
17. Chen, C. H., Chen, S. H., Hwang, G. J., & Yang, T. C. (2010). Factors influencing teachers' adoption of a ubiquitous technology application in supporting teacher performance. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 4(1), 39-54.
18. Chen, G., & Weikart, L. A. (2008). Student background, school climate, school disorder, and student achievement: An empirical study of New York City's middle schools. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 3-20.
19. Clotfelter, C., Ladd H., & Vigdor, J. (2007). Are teacher absences worth worrying about in the U.S.?, NBER Working Paper Series, No. 136648, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w13648.
20. Çoban, Ö (2020). Relationships between students’ socioeconomic status, parental support, students’ hindering, teachers’ hindering and students’ literacy scores: pısa 2018, World Journal of Education, (10)4, 45-59.
21. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. New York, London: Routledge.
22. Çoruk, A. (2019). Planlı kalkınma dönemindeki milli eğitim şûra kararlarının kalkınma planlarındaki eğitime ilişkin hedefler çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 15(4), 297-318.
23. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
24. Dahar, M. A., & Faize, F. A. (2011). Effect of the Availability and the use of Science Laboratories on Academic Achievement of Students in Punjab (Pakistan). European Journal of Scientific Research, 51(2), 193-202.
25. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?. Review of educational research, 72(3), 433-479.
26. Dilekçi, Ü., & Limon, İ. (2020). Okul müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderlik davranışları ile öğretmenlerin mesleki adanmışlıkları arasındaki ilişkide öznel iyi oluşun aracı rolü. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 26(4), 743-798 doi: 10.14527/kuey.2020.017.
27. Faizi, W.N., Karim, R. A., & Shakil, A. F. (2019). Availability of Essential Laboratory Equipment for Biology: A Case Study of North Nazimabad Town, Karachi. Journal of Science Education, 1(1), 15-24.
28. Gedifew, M. T. (2020). Exploring the instructional leadership development practices in Ethiopia. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 14(3), 402-410.
29. Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109, 877-896.
30. Graham, K. E. (2013). Mathematics and science acceleration in grade eight: School leaders’ perceptions and satisfaction (Publication No. 3559255) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
31. Güneş, A. (2018). Türkiye’de bilim sanat merkezleri. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(6), 185-193.
32. 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.
33. Hallinger, P., & Wang, W.C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
34. Hallinger, P., Gümüş, S., & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2020). 'Are principals instructional leaders yet?'A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1629-1650. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03360-5
35. Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, S. M., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., Broderson, A. V., Mun, R. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053
36. Hanushek, E. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality, Economics of Education Review, (30)3, 466-479.
37. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Hoferichter, F., Hirvonen, R., & Kiuru, N. (2021). The development of school well-being in secondary school: High academic buoyancy and supportive class-and school climate as buffers. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101377.
39. Hofman, R. H., de Boom, J., Meeuwisse, M., & Hofman, W. A. (2013). Educational innovation, quality, and effects: An exploration of innovations and their effects in secondary education. Educational Policy, 27(6), 843-866.
40. Howard, S., & Mozejko, A. (2015), Teachers: technology, change and resistance, in Henderson, M. and G. Romeo (eds.), Teaching and Digital Technologies: Big Issues and Critical Questions, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Australia.
41. Huong, V. T. M. (2020). Factors Affecting Instructional Leadership in Secondary Schools to Meet Vietnam's General Education Innovation. International Education Studies, 13(2), 48-60.
42. İnandı,Y. (2009). The barriers hindering female teachers from becoming school principals. Egitim Arastirmalari - Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 161-178
43. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis, American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
44. Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement, Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39.
45. Kim, T., & Lee, Y. (2020). Principal instructional leadership for teacher participation in professional development: evidence from Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, (21), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09616-x
46. Kır, S., & Akbaşli, S. (2021). Being a teacher in BILSEM: A Sample from Ankara. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 18(2), 193-220.
47. Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Vasalampi, K., Silinskas, G., Aunola, K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Metsäpelto, R.-L., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2014). Task-Focused Behavior Mediates the Associations Between Supportive Interpersonal Environments and Students’ Academic Performance. Psychological Science, 25(4), 1018–1024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613519111
48. Kline, R.B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.
49. Kotler, P.; Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing Management (12th ed). Prentice Hall: New Jersey, USA.
50. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development, Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805.
51. Leaper, C., & Starr, C. R. (2019). Helping and Hindering Undergraduate Women’s STEM Motivation: Experiences With STEM Encouragement, STEM-Related Gender Bias, and Sexual Harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318806302
52. Leoste, J., Heidmets, M., Ley, T., & Stepanova, J. (2020). Classroom innovation becoming sustainable: A study of technological innovation adoption by Estonian primary school teachers. Interaction Design and Architecture (s) Journal (IxD&A), 47, 144-166.
53. Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2022). The effects of instructional leadership, teacher responsibility and procedural justice climate on professional learning communities: A cross-level moderated mediation examination. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 17411432221089185
54. Liu, Y., Bellibas M.S., & Printy, S. (2018). How school context and educator characteristics predict distributed leadership: A hierarchical structural equation model with 2013 TALIS data, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(3): 401–423.
55. Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2020). The Effect of Instructional Leadership and Distributed Leadership on Teacher Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Mediating Roles of Supportive School Culture and Teacher Collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, doi:10.1177/1741143220910438 7-1628
56. 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.
57. Martín-García, A. V., Martínez-Abad, F., & Reyes-González, D. (2019). TAM and stages of adoption of blended learning in higher education by application of data mining techniques. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2484-2500.
58. Mji, A., & Makgato, M. (2006). Factors associated with high school learners' poor performance: a spotlight on mathematics and physical science, South African Journal of Education, 26(2)253–266.
59. Moeketsane, M., Jita, L., & Jita, T. (2021). Correlates of South African subject leaders’ perspectives and their perceived competence on instructional leadership, South African Journal of Education, 41(1).
60. Morettini, B. (2021). Forms of resistance: Insights into beginning teacher development. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100041.
61. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2017). Mplus user's guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user's guide. Muthén & Muthén.
62. Neihart, M., & Teo, C. T. (2013). Addressing the needs of the gifted in Singapore. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 290-306.
63. Ni, G., Xu, H., Cui, Q., Qiao, Y., Zhang, Z., Li, H., & Hickey, P. J. (2021). Influence mechanism of organizational flexibility on enterprise competitiveness: The mediating role of organizational innovation. Sustainability, 13(1), 176.
64. OECD, (2013). How the quality of the learning environment is shaped, (Volume IV): What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices
65. OECD, (2016). The school learning environment. PISA 2015 results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools.
66. OECD, (2019). Teacher behaviour and student learning. PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Rretailing, 57(3), 25-48. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1984-10995-001
67. Özdemir, G., Sahin, S., & Öztürk, N. (2020). Teachers' self-efficacy perceptions in terms of school principal's instructional leadership behaviours. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 25-40.
68. Özdemir, M. (2018). Eğitim Yönetimi: Alanın Temelleri ve Çağdaş Yönelimler. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
69. Özden, C. ve Atasoy, R. (2021). Sınıfta öğretim. N. Özdemir, S. Turan ve Ö. Çoban (Ed.). 21. yüzyıl okullarını yeniden düşünmek (ss. 229-258). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
70. Porter, A. C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102(4), 421-449.
71. Rahim, M. N., & Chandran, S. S. C. (2021). Investigating EFL Students’ Perceptions on E-learning Paradigm-Shift During Covid-19 Pandemic. Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies, 3(1), 56-66.
72. Rogers, H., & E. Vegas (2009). No more cutting class? Reducing teacher absence and providing incentives for performance, Policy Research Working Papers, No. 4847, The World Bank, http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4847.
73. Rupietta, C., Meuer, J., & Backes-Gellner, U. (2021). How do apprentices moderate the influence of organizational innovation on the technological innovation process?. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 13(1), 1-25.
74. Sarıtaş, E., Şahin, Ü., & Çatalbaş, G. (2019). Science and Art Centers (SAC) according to the parents. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(1), 114-133.
75. Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C., Luyten, H., & Ebbeler, J. (2017). Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, (28)2, 242-258, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2016.1256901
76. Schleicher, A. (2015). Schools for 21st-Century Learners: Strong Leaders, Confident Teachers, Innovative Approaches. International Summit on the Teaching Profession. OECD Publishing. 2, rue Andre Pascal, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
77. Schleicher, A. (2019). Dünya okulu. 21. yüzyılın okul sistemi nasıl kurgulanmalı. Çev. Ş. Karadeniz). Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları. İstanbul.
78. Segabutla, M. H., & Evans, R. (2019). Lack of lecturer clarity during instruction: Possible reason for poor throughput?. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 115-131.
79. Sharif, U. M. (2020). The role of the principal is developing an instructional leadership team in school. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(11), 662-667.
80. Sims, S. (2017). TALIS 2013: Working conditions, teachers’ job satisfaction and retention (Department for Education Statistical Working Paper). London: Department of Education.
81. Sung, W., & Kim, C. (2021). A study on the effect of change management on organizational Innovation: Focusing on the mediating effect of members’ innovative behavior. Sustainability, 13(4), 2079.
82. Tang, S. Y. F., & Choi, P. L. (2009) Teachers’ professional lives and continuing professional development in changing times. Educational Review, 61(1), 1-18.
83. Thomas, C. R., & Gadbois, S. A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-clarity and students' learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X79644
84. Thomassen, J. P. R. (2007). De klantgerichte overheid: werken aan en voor tevreden burgers en organisaties. Kluwer.
85. Thurlings, M., Evers, A.T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314557949
86. Toropova, A., Myrberg E., & Johansson, S. (2021). Teachers’ job satisfaction: the importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics, Educational Review, 73(1), 71-97, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247
87. Üzbe, N., & Bacanlı, H. (2015). The role of achievement goal orientation, self-esteem and academic achievement in prediction of self-handicapping. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 13(1), 33-50.
88. Watson, P.W.St., Rubie-Davies, J.C.M, Meissel, K., Peterson, E.R., Flint, A., Garrett, L, & McDonald, L. (2019). Teacher gender, and expectation of reading achievement in New Zealand elementary school students: essentially a barrier?, Gender and Education, 31 (8), 1000 1019, doi: 10.1080/09540253.2017.1410108
89. Westfall, P. H., & Henning, K. S. S. (2013). Texts in statistical science: Understanding advanced statistical methods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
90. Widodo, H. (2019). The role of school culture in holistic education development in muhammadiyah elementary school sleman yogyakarta, Dinamika Ilmu, 19(2), 265-285
91. Yakut Özek, B. (2021). Eğitim reformunun başarısını etkileyen etmenler: Bilsem modelinin politika nitelikleri kuramı bağlamında analizi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 11(3), 1192-1222.
92. Yu, J., & McLellan, R. (2019). Beyond academic achievement goals: The importance of social achievement goals in explaining gender differences in self-handicapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 33-44.