Distributed Leadership and Student Engagement in Ethiopia: The mediating role of Teacher Self Efficacy

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 672 - 721, 28.09.2025

Eshetu Kibret Emiru , Kelemu Zelalem Berhanu

https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1618955

Abstract

Engagement significantly contributes to student learning and academic success; it has preventive benefits against dropout and disruptive behavior. This study examines how principals' distributed leadership strategies affect student engagement with teacher self-efficacy as a mediator in the secondary schools of the state of Amhara, Ethiopia. Accordingly, a cross-sectional survey design was employed to achieve this objective. The quantitative data analysis involved 714 valid and completed data of teachers selected from a multistage random sample from five zones. Questionnaire was used as a tool for data collection. Before the actual study, the measurement tools were validated through a pilot study, and statistical assumptions were conducted. To achieve specific objectives of the study, one sample t-test, Pearson correlation and structural equation modeling were employed. Low levels of distributed leadership practice, moderate student engagement, and high levels of teacher self-efficacy were all identified in the research. Additionally, the study found a strong positive correlation between student engagement,teacher self-efficacy and distributed leadership practice. The connection between distributed leadership and student engagement was also significantly partially mediated by teacher self-efficacy. Hence, the study concluded that principals’ distributed leadership significantly contributed to student engagement through teacher self-efficacy. The results suggest that when school leadership responsibilities are distributed more broadly, teachers’ sense of efficacy are enhanced, improving student engagement in the learning process. Thus, the study's findings have practical, theoretical, and policy implications.

Keywords

Distributed leadership practice , teacher self-efficacy , student engagement , Secondary schools

References

• Ali, M. M., & Hassan, N. (2018). Defining concepts of student engagement and factors contributing to their engagement in schools. Creative Education, 9(14), 2161-2170. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.914157
• Amhara National Regional Education Bureau [ANSREB]. (2021). Annual education statistics abstract 2013 E.C. (2020/2021). ANRSEB Education Bureau.
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
• Arbabi, A., & Mehdinezhad, V. (2016). School principals’ collaborative leadership style and relation it to teachers’ self-efficacy. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(3), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2015.1218
• Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J.-S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of adolescence, 32(3), 651-670.
• Asrat, D. (2017). The Practice and Challenges of Distributed Leadership at Some Selected Primary Schcools of Debark District: Ethiopia. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 20(3), 1-10.
• Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. ournal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.007
• Audas, R., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Engagement and dropping out of school: A life-course perspective. Citeseer.
• Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.
• Baker, C., & Campbell, M. (2013). Context matters: An Ethiopian case study. Adapting leadership development methods to serve different cultures. Center for Creative Leadership.
• Berhanu, K. (2025). Strategies principals used to develop teachers’ psychological empowerment in primary schools, Ethiopia: qualitative study. Curr Psychol 44, 864–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07566-9
• Berhanu, K. Z. & Gobie,D. (2023). Adequacy of capacity building and stakeholder involvement in decentralized education management: Evidence from Ethiopia, Cogent Social Sciences, 9 (2), 2247151. DOI:10.1080/23311886.2023.2247151.
• Berhanu, K. Z. (2023a). Practices, challenges, and prospects of implementing School-Based Management (SBM) system in Ethiopian schools: Implications for policy makers. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 8(2), 465-504. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1275282.
• Berhanu, K. Z. (2023b). Relationship between Pedagogical Leadership and Teachers' Job Performance as Mediated by Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(11), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.11.13
• Berhanu, K. Z. (2024). The mediating role of teachers’ attitudes toward instructional supervision in the association between instructional supervisory practice and teachers’ job performance. Participatory Educational Research, 11(2), 212-229. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.27.11.2 2
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control New York. In: WH Freeman and Company.
• Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science, 1(2), 164-180.
• Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002
• Berjaoui, R. R., & Karami-Akkary, R. (2020). Distributed leadership as a path to organizational commitment: The case of a Lebanese school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(4), 610-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1637900
• Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International journal of management reviews, 13(3), 251-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Hood, S., Burns, D., & Kurum, G. (2019). Evaluating the impact of distributed culturally responsive leadership in a disadvantaged rural primary school in Ireland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(3), 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739360
• Bush, T. (2023). The importance of middle leadership for school improvement. In (Vol. 51, pp. 267-269): SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.
• Clifton, J. (2017). Taking the (heroic) leader out of leadership. The in situ practice of distributed leadership in decision-making talk. Challenging leadership stereotypes through discourse: Power, management and gender, 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4319-2_3
• Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in higher education, 11(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320500074915
• Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. john wiley & sons. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
• Collier, J. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques. Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications. De Vaus, D., & de Vaus, D. (2013). Surveys in social research. Routledge.
• Dejene, L. (2014). The Practices and challenges of distributed leadership in Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa University. http://etd.aau.edu.et/bitstream/handle/123456789/11197/Dejene%20Leta.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
• Ejigu, O., & Belay, T. (2022). Family, teachers and peer support as predictors of school engagement among secondary school Ethiopian adolescent students. Cogent Psychology, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2123586
• Eshetu, M. (2020). Identifying improvements in supervision practices in Ethiopian primary schools: A pragmatic perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 866-882.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
• Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. In (Vol. 43, pp. 1-4): Elsevier.
• Galdames-Calderón, D.(2023). Distributed leadership: school principals’ practices to promote teachers’ professional development for school improvement. Education Sciences, 13(7), 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070715
• Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Esen, M., & Gumus, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 25-48.
• Gay, L. R., Mills, G., E, & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (10th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
• Halim, R. A., & Ahmad, H. (2016). Distributed leadership, contextual factor and teachers’ self-efficacy in Malaysia. Educational Leader (Pemimpin Pendidikan), 4, 31-38.
• Harris, A. & Muijs, D. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204039297
• Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of leadership in Education, 10(3), 315-325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701257313
• Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership: What We Know? Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 172- 188.
• Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Corwin Press.
• Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2023). The importance of school leadership? What we know. In (Vol. 43, pp. 449-453): Taylor & Francis.
• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). Mcgraw-hill New York.
• Hulpia, H. (2009). Distributed leadership and organizational outcomes insecondary schools Ghent University]. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-4333589
• Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). Development and validation of scores on the distributed leadership inventory. Educational and psychological measurement, 69(6), 1013-1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344490
• Hulpia, H., Devos, G., Rosseel, Y., & Vlerick, P. (2012). Dimensions of distributed leadership and the impact on teachers' organizational commitment: A study in secondary education. Journal of applied social psychology, 42(7), 1745-1784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00917.x
• Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2019). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976(2020).
• Karacabey, M. F., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Adams, D. (2022). Principal leadership and teacher professional learning in Turkish schools: Examining the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy and teacher trust. Educational studies, 48(2), 253-272.
• Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
• Kezar, A. (2005). Promoting student success: The importance of shared leadership and collaboration. Occasional Paper No. 4. National Survey of Student Engagement.
• Khan, F., Khan, M., & Wahid, A. (2023). Unlocking Academic Success: Exploring the Impact of Distributed Leadership on Schools’ Climate and Students’ Achievement at Secondary Level in District Kohat. Global Social Sciences Review, VIII. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2023(VIII-I).35
• Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational psychology review, 23, 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8
• Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of school health, 74, 262-273.
• Kurt, T. (2016). A model to explain teacher leadership: The effects of distributed leadership model, organizational learning and teachers' sense of self-efficacy on teacher leadership. Egitim Ve Bilim-Education and Science, 41(183). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.5081
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
• Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. . Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543134808
• Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(3), 517-528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
• Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 679-706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99355002
• Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501
• Leithwood, K. A., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. Routledge.
• Leonard, E. E., & Maulding Green, W. (2018). Are leader behavior and emotional intelligence related to teacher efficacy? The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 11(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.22543/0733.62.1225
• Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2021). 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, 49(3), 430-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438
• Martin, J., & Torres, A. (2016). User’s guide and toolkit for the surveys of student engagement: the high school survey of student engagement and the middle grade school survey of student engagement. National Association of Independent Schools.
• Melaku , M. G., & Demeke, W. A. (2022). The leadership and supervisory practices of principals in public secondary schools of the State of Amhara, Ethiopia, as perceived by teachers. Bahir Dar Journal of Education, 22(2), 1-21.
• Mifsud, D. (2023). A systematic review of school distributed leadership: Exploring research purposes, concepts and approaches in the field between 2010 and 2022. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1-26.
• Misgana, T. A. (2017). Distributive leadership practices and challenges in secondary schools of hadiyazone, in southern nations nationalities and peoples Regional State. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 7(9), 289-324.
• Mitchell, R. (2017). Democracy or control? The participation of management, teachers, students and parents in school leadership in Tigray, Ethiopia. International Journal of Educational Development, 55, 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.05.005
• Ministry of Education. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap (2018-30). In An integrated Executive Summary. Ministry of Education Strategy Center (ESC) Draft for Discussion: Addis ababa: Ministry of Education.
• Ministry of Education (2023). Ethiopian Education and Training Policy, Amharic version [Yeethiopia Temeheretena Selitena Polisi, Amarigna Teregume]. Addis ababa: Ministry of Education.
• Muthiah, V. V., Adams, D., & Abdullah, Z. (2019). Distributed leadership and teachers’ affective commitment in international schools. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 3(2), 22-40.
• Nelson, E. (2018). The principal's influence on teacher efficacy to foster student engagement: A case study of two elementary schools.
• Paletta, A., Basyte Ferrari, E., & Alimehmeti, G. (2020). How principals use a new accountability system to promote change in teacher practices: Evidence from Italy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 123-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19840398
• Printy, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). Distributed leadership globally: The interactive nature of principal and teacher leadership in 32 countries. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(2), 290-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20926548
• Rodríguez-Ardura, I. & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2020). Editorial: How to prevent, detect and control common method variance in electronic commerce research. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762020000200101
• Romel, H., Tadesse, T., & Jibat, N. (2021). Teacher quality, self-efficacy, and quality teaching in Ethiopian primary schools: An integrated sociological and psychological perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101029.
• Ruan, J., Nie, Y., Hong, J., Monobe, G., Zheng, G., Kambara, H., & You, S. (2015). Cross-cultural validation of teachers’ sense of efficacy scale in three Asian countries: Test of measurement invariance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(8), 769-779.
• Sahil, S. A. S. (2010). A structural model of the relationships between teacher, peer, and parental support, behavioural engagement, academic efficacy and cognitive engagement of secondary school adolescents Universiti Utara Malaysia].
• Shuukat, S., & Iqbal, H. M. (2012). Teacher self-efficacy as a function of student engagement, instructional strategies and classroom management. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(3), 82-85. Shimelis, M. (2018). Practices and challenges of distributed leadership in secondary schools of Aksum town, Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(7), 1-7.
• Spillane, J. P. (2006). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. In Rethinking schooling (pp. 208-242). Routledge.
• Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers. Ascd.
• Subedi, D. (2016). Explanatory sequential mixed method design as the third research community of knowledge claim. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 570-577.
• Sun, A., & Xia, J. (2018). Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
• Tesfaye, S. (2014). Teacher preparation in Ethiopia: A critical analysis of reforms. Cambridge Journal of education, 44(1), 113-145.
• Thien, L. M., & Adams, D. (2021). Distributed leadership and teachers’ affective commitment to change in Malaysian primary schools: the contextual influence of gender and teaching experience. Educational Studies, 47(2), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1680349
• Thien, L. M., & Chan, S. Y. (2022). One-size-fits-all? A cross-validation study of distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/1177/1741143220926506
• Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558576
• Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
• Trowler, V. (2013). Leadership practices for student engagement in challenging conditions. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17(3), 91-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2013.789455
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
• Tucaliuc, M., Curșeu, P. L., & Muntean, A. F. (2023). Does distributed leadership deliver on its promises in schools? Implications for teachers’ work satisfaction and self-efficacy. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101058
• Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2014). Enhancing students’ engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle school teachers. American educational research journal, 51(6), 1195-1226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532515
• Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981-1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
• Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: The mediation of satisfaction and trust. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28, 509-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00451-7