Teachers and Administrators’ Views on Teacher Leadership: A Mixed Methods Study

Year 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 191 - 223, 01.03.2012

Kadir Beycioğlu Battal Aslan

Abstract

Background. Although literature on leadership in education confirms that principals are key in successful school development (Beycioğlu & Aslan, 2007; Dimmock, 1999; Fullan, 2000; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Ryan, 1997; Vandenberghe; 1998), recent research on school leadership claim that only principal leadership in schools is not effective to cope with complex changes, and that principals are not able to undertake all the managerial and/or leadership duties of our age. It has been recommended that leadership in schools should be restructured as a team action and distributed to the staffs that have leadership potential with the aim of collaboration (Begley, 2001; Dantley, 2005; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Hallinger, 2005; Hargreaves, 2004; Harris, 2002, 2004; Timperley & Robinson, 2001; Fullan, 2002; Robertson & Weber, 2000; Sternberg, 2005). These issues put the concept of teacher leadership at the center and in the agendas of researchers of school leadership (Beycioğlu & Aslan, 2010; Can, 2006; Harris & Muijs, 2005, 2006; Lieberman & Miller, 2004; Leithwood, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Reeves, 2008; Sawyer, 2005). When it is considered to distribute leadership in schools, teachers and teacher leadership attracts attention (Arrowsmith, 2005; Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Crawford, 2005; Donaldson, 2006; Firestone & Martinez, 2009; Goldstein, 2003; Harris, 2005, 2008, 2009; Harris & Muijs, 2008; Muijs & Harris, 2006, 2007; MacBeath, 2009; Mascall, Leithwood, Straus, & Sacks, 2008; Spillane, Camburn, Pustejovsky, Pareja, & Lewis, 2008). Purpose. This study aimed to reveal “to what degree do teachers and administrators perceive that there teacher have leadership roles in elementary schools” and “to what degree do teachers and administrators perceive that there teacher leadership roles ought to be in elementary schools” Method. In this study both quantitative and qualitative methods were used (Greene, Krayder, & Mayer, 2005; Verma & Mallick, 2005). Surveying was the quantitative data gathering method and focus group was the qualitative one (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2005; Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2005). The population of the study comprised of 2833 teachers and administrators who were working for elementary schools in Hatay province central district, Turkey. Elementary schools that have less than 20 teachers were not included in the study. There were 3 private elementary schools.800 hundred surveys were sent to schools. Total number of surveys which was returned to the researchers was 721. Six hundred and fifty six (91.0%) of the participants were from state elementary schools and 65 (9.0%) of them were working in private schools. Qualitative data was gathered by means of 5 semi-structured focus groups with 6 participants in each. In focus groups, 12 teachers were from state schools, 6 were from private schools, and there were 12 administrators. To gather quantitative data, a five-scale Lykert type inventory, The Teacher Leadership Scale – TLS, was developed by the researchers to reveal teachers and administrators' perceptions and expectations on teacher leadership roles. The scale includes 25 items in both perception and expectation part. Factor analysis revealed that there are 3 subscales both in Perception and Expectation part in the scale. In the “Institutional Improvement” subscale, there are 9 items, the “Professional Improvement” subscale has 11 items, and 5 items are in the “Collaboration among Colleagues” subscale. During semi-structured focus group interviews, participants were asked 3 questions transformed from inventory questions and some other questions to get detailed understanding.Results. To analyze the data, mean, standard deviation, frequency, t-test and one way ANOVA were used. For qualitative analysis, audio-taped sounds, and written texts were transcribed and changed into texts. Then, the transcribed texts were coded. According to arithmetic means, total points of expectation and perception were different. While the mean for expectation was 110.99 (always), it was 96.66 (frequently) for perception. The interviews revealed that the expectations of the participants for teacher leadership were quite above the perceptions. In other words, quantitative results were supported by qualitative results of the study. The results also clarified that there were teacher leadership roles to a certain extent in elementary schools, and there were some significant differences among the participants of state and private schools in both expectation and perception parts. Interviews were similar to qualitative results of the study. It may be said that participants from private schools look more eager and open to teacher leadership roles which requires a collaborative culture in the a school. The differences between female and male participants' expectations were statistically significant, and the qualitative findings were in line with this result. Although there were not any significant differences between female and male in the perception part, females expect more teacher leadership roles than males. This result can be explained in terms of gender inequalities in Turkish school context of mostly male school principals. Kadir Beycioğlu & Battal Aslan During the interviews female participants were more positive to acting leadership roles. Finally we tested if there was a correlation between expectation and perception. We, as assumed, found a positive correlation (r = .41). Also there were positive correlations among the dimensions on a mid level. When the perception increases, expectation increases, too. The interviews revealed that the expectations of the participants for teacher leadership were quite above the perceptions. The quantitative results were supported by the qualitative results.

Keywords

leadership , distributed leadership , teacher leadership , elementary schools

Öğretmen ve Yöneticilerin Öğretmen Liderliğine İlişkin Görüşleri: Bir Karma Yöntem Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışma, ilköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin sergiledikleri liderlik rollerine ilişkin yöneticilerin ve öğretmenlerin algı ve beklentilerinin ne düzeyde olduğunu ortaya çıkarabilmeyi amaçlamıştır.Araştırmada, analiz tekniği olarak hem nicel hem nitel boyutları içeren karma yöntemler kullanılmıştır. Nicel boyutta anket tekniği, nitel boyutta ise odak grup görüşmesi tekniği kullanılmıştır.Verilerin analizi 721 veri toplama aracı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel boyutta 5 odak grup oturumunu içeren yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Okulun gelişmesi, mesleki gelişim ve meslektaşlarla işbirliği boyutlarında katılımcıların çoğunluğu okullarında belirli bir düzeyde öğretmen liderliğinin var olduğunu gösteren davranışlar sergilendiği sonucunu destekler doğrultuda görüşler ifade etmişlerdir. Katılımcılarla gerçekleştirilen görüşmelere dayalı olarak, öğretmen liderliğine ilişkin beklentilerinin, algı düzeyine göre yüksek olduğu söylenebilir. Buna göre, nicel olarak elde edilen veriler, nitel olarak elde edilen veriler tarafından da desteklenmektedir.

Keywords

liderlik , paylaşılan liderlik , öğretmen liderliği ilköğretim okulları

References

• Arrowsmith, T. (2005). Distributed leadership: three questions, two answers: A review of the Hay Group Education research, July 2004. Management in Education, 19, 30-33.
• Balcı, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem A.
• Beycioğlu, K., & Aslan, M. (2007). The need for organizational innovations in public elementary schools. International Journal of Educational Reform, 16, 27-37.
• Beycioğlu, K., & Aslan, B. (2010). Öğretmen liderliği ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 9, 764-775.
• Begley, P. T. (2001). In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 353-365.
• Briggs, A. R. J., & Coleman, M. (2007). Research methods in educational leadership and management (Eds.). London: Sage.
• Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347-373.
• Can, N. (2006). Öğretmen liderliğinin geliştirilmesinde müdürün rol ve stratejileri. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21, 349-363.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. (5th Ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
• Crawford, M. (2005). Editorial: Distributed leadership and headship: A Paradoxical relationship. School Leadership and Management, 25, 213-215.
• Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria: ASCD.
• Danielson, C. (2007). The many faces of leadership. Educational Leadership, September, 14-19.
• Dantley, M. E. (2005). Faith-based leadership: Ancient rhythms or new management. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 3–19.
• Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.
• Dimmock, C. (1999). The management of dilemmas in school restructuring: A case analysis. School Leadership and Management, 19, 97-113.
• Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2000). Developing comparative and international educational leadership and management: A cross-cultural model. School Leadership & Management, 20, 143–160.
• Donaldson, G. A. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Firestone, W. A., & Martinez, M. C. (2009). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall and T. Strauss (Eds.). Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 61-86). New York, London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
• Fogelman, K., & Comber, C. (2007). Surveys and sampling. In A. R. J. Briggs & M. Coleman (Eds.). Research methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 125-141). London: Sage.
• Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 5-28.
• Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 8, 16-22.
• Goldstein, J. (2003). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 397- 421.
• Goodson, I., & Walker, R. (2005). Putting life into educational research. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (Eds.). Qualitative research in education: Focus and Methods (pp. 108-121). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Green, J. C., Krayder, H., & Mayer, E. (2005). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in social inquiry. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.). Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 275-282). London: Sage.
• Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-351.
• Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-239.
• Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration: A case of finding what you don’t know you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration, 34, 98-116.
• Hargreaves, A. (2004). Teaching in the knowledge society. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging context. School Leadership and Management, 22, 15-26.
• Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23, 313-324.
• Harris, A. (2004). Editorial: School leadership and school improvement: A simple and a complex relationship. School Leadership and Management, 24, 3-5.
• Harris, A. (2005). Reflections on distributed leadership. Management in Education, 19, 10-12.
• Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 961-972.
• Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2008). Teacher leadership: A review of research. http://forms.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/randd-teacher-leadership- full.pdf 05.05.2008’de alındı.
• Hyland, A. (2003). Teacher leadership and school reform: A case study in an elementary school in rural India (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, USA. ProQuest Information and Learning (UMI No. 3219160).
• Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel.
• Leithwood, K. (2006). Teacher leadership and instructional improvement. In W. Hoy and C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 159-192). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
• Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Ryan, S. (1997). Leadership and team learning in secondary schools. School Leadership and Management, 17, 303-325.
• Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A replication. School Leadership & Management, 205, 415-434.
• Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Inc.
• MacBeath, J. (2009). Distributed leadership: Paradigm, policy, and paradox. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall and T. Strauss (Eds.). Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 253-266). New York, London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
• Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 214-228.
• Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 961–972.
• Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (In)action. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 35, 111–134.
• Reeves, D. B. (2008). Teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria: ASCD.
• Robertson, J. M., & Weber, C. F. (2000). Cross-cultural leadership development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3, 315-330.
• Sawyer, J. M. (2005). A case study of teacher leadership as a strategy for implementing change (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lynch Graduate School of Education. ProQuest Information and Learning (UMI No. 3173679).
• Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd Ed.). London: Sage.
• Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., Pustejovsky, J., Pareja, A., S., & Lewis, G. (2008). Taking a distributed perspective: Epistemological and methodological tradeoffs in operationalizing the leader-plus aspect. Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 189-213.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A model of educational leadership: Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 347-364.
• Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Achieving school improvement through challenging and changing teachers’ schema. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 227-215.
• Verma, G. K., & Mallick, K. (2005). Researching education: Perspectives and techniques. London: Falmer Press.
• Ward, L., & Parr, J. (2006). Authority, volunteerism, and sustainability: Creating and sustaining an online community through teacher leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 109-129.
• Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: A guide for researchers. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Woods, P. (1986). Inside schools: Ethnography in educational research. London: Routledge.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.