Does Instructional Leadership Make a Difference? Investigating the Relationship between Instructional Leadership and Teacher Autonomy

Öz

The effect of principals’ instructional leadership style on the teaching profession has received much scrutiny. However, there is an apparent need for more studies in Turkey that address the relationships between instructional leadership and teacher autonomy. This quantitative study aimed to explore the association between principals’ instructional leadership and teacher autonomy. More importantly, the current study sought to determine the extent to which instructional leadership behaviors explain the variance in teacher autonomy. Two existing scales were conducted to collect data from 500 teachers. We conducted descriptive statistics analysis to measure the teachers’ perception of instructional leadership and teacher autonomy, the bivariate correlation was used to assess the relationship between the variables and finally we conducted a regression analysis to examine the extent to which instructional leadership explains variance in teacher autonomy. The result indicates a positive relationship between principals’ instructional leadership and teacher autonomy. More importantly, the result of regression analysis reveals that principals’ instructional leadership style is a predictor of teacher autonomy. The implications and limitations of this study, as well as recommendations for future researchers, are presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Instructional Leadership
• Teacher Autonomy
• High Schools
• Principals

Öğretimsel Liderlik Fark Yaratır mı? Öğretimsel Liderlik ile Öğretmen Özerkliği arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Okul müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderlik tarzının öğretmenlik mesleği üzerindeki etkisi çokça incelendi. Ancak, Türkiye'de öğretimsel liderlik ve öğretmen özerkliği arasındaki ilişkileri ele alan daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç olduğu açıktır. Bu nicel çalışma, müdürlerin öğretimsel liderliği ile öğretmen özerkliği arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Daha da önemlisi, mevcut çalışmada, öğretimsel liderlik davranışlarının öğretmen özerkliğindeki varyansı ne ölçüde açıkladığını belirlemeye çalışılmıştır. Mevcut iki ölçek ile 500 öğretmenden veri toplanmıştır. Öğretmenlerin okul müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderlik davranışları ve öğretmen özerkliğine ilişkin algılarını ölçmek için betimsel istatistik analizi yapılmıştır, Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiyi değerlendirmek için iki değişkenli korelasyon kullanıldı. Son olarak öğretimsel liderliğinin öğretmen özerkliğindeki varyansı ne ölçüde açıkladığını incelemek için bir regresyon analizine başvuruldu. Sonuçlar okul müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderlik davranışları ile öğretmen özerkliği arasında pozitif bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir. Daha da önemlisi, regresyon analizinin sonucu, okul müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderlik stilinin öğretmen özerkliğinin bir yordayıcısı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışmanın çıkarımları ve sınırlamaları ile gelecekteki araştırmacılar için öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmsel Liderlik
• Öğretmen Özerkliği
• Liseler
• Okul Müdürleri

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in education: Toward an understanding of parents' decision making. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 311-323. doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.311-323
2. Aksit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(2), 129-137. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.07.011
3. Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2017). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’ perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 49-69. doi.org/ 10.1108/JEA-12-2015-0116
4. Bellibas, M. S., Bulut, O., Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2016). Developing a validated instructional leadership profile of Turkish primary school principals. International Journal of Educational Research, 78, 115-133. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.10.002
5. Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2015). Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of efforts by principals to improve teaching and learning in Turkish middle schools. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(6), 1471-1485.
6. Bellibaş, M. Ş., Polatcan, M., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2020). Linking instructional leadership to teacher practices: The mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50 (5), 1-20. doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945706
7. Berkovich, I. (2016). School leaders and transformational leadership theory: Time to part ways?. Journal of Educational Administration. 54(5), 609-622. doi.org 10.1108/ /JEA-11-2015-0100
8. Bhindi, N., & Duignan, P. (1997). Leadership for a new century: Authenticity, intentionality, spirituality, and sensibility. Educational Management & Administration, 25(2), 117-132. doi.org/10.1177/0263211X97252002

9. Blasé. J. J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher's erspective. American Educational Research Journal Winter, 24 (4), 589-610. doi.org/10.3102/00028312024004589
10. Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration. 38(2), 130-141.
11. Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64. doi.org/10.1177/0013161X82018003004
12. Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. J. (2017). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration. 56(2), 161-182. doi:10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0064
13. Bridges, E. (1967). Instructional leadership: A concept re-examined. Journal of Educational Administration, 5(2), 136-147.
14. Brunetti, G. J. (2001). Why do they teach? A study of job satisfaction among long-term high school teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(3), 49-74. doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100705
15. Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23-30.
16. Bush, T. (2013). Instructional leadership and leadership for learning: Global and South African perspectives. Education as Change, 17(1), 5–20. doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2014.865986
17. Cansoy, R., & Polatcan, M. (2018). Examination of instructional leadership research in Turkey. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1). doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.01.020
18. Cansoy, R., Parlar, H., & Polatcan, M. (2020). Collective teacher efficacy as a mediator in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher commitment. International journal of Leadership in Education, 1-19. doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1708470
19. Cerit, Y. (2007). İlköğretim Okulu müdürlerinin hizmet yönelimli liderlik rollerini gerçekleştirme düzeyleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(33), 88-98.
20. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. State University of New York Press
21. Çelikten, M. (2004). Bir okul müdürünün günlüğü. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 123-135.
22. Çolak, İ. (2016). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişki (Muğla ili örneği). [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi.
23. Çolak, İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişki”. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 23(1), 33-71. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2017.002
24. Dale, R. (1982). Education and the capitalist state: Contributions and contradictions. In M. Apple (Ed.), Cultural and economic reproduction in education. Routledge
25. Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2010). Defining “teacher professionalism” from different perspectives. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2047-2051. Doi. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.444
26. Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principles' efforts to empower teachers: Effects on teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House, 73(6), 349-357. doi: 10.1080/00098650009599442
27. Dou, D., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959-977. doi.org/10.1177/1741143216653975
28. Elmore, R. F. (1987). Reform and the culture of authority in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 60-77. doi.org/10.1177/0013161X87023004006
29. Erpelding, C. J. (1999). School vision, teacher autonomy, school climate, and student achievement in elementary schools. The University of Northern Iowa.Unpublished dissertation, University of Northern Iowa
30. Fretwell, D., & Wheeler, A. (2001). Turkey: Secondary education and training. World Bank.
31. Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76. doi.org/10.1177/0013164499591005
32. Gabriel, R., Peiria Day, J., & Allington, R. (2011). Exemplary teacher voices on their own development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 37-41. doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200808
33. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership’s effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration. doi.org/ 10.1108/09578230310474403
34. Goddard R. D., Goddard, Y., Sook Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501-530. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/681925
35. Gümüş, S., & Akçaoğlu, M. (2013). Instructional leadership in Turkish primary schools: An analysis of teachers’ perceptions and current policy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 289-302. doi.org/10.1177/1741143212474801
36. Güvenç, H. (2011). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin özerklik destekleri ve mesleki özyeterlik algıları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 1(1), 99-116.
37. Hallinger, P. (1990). Principal instructional management rating scale. Sarasota, FL: Leading Development Associates. (Original work published 1982)
38. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Instructional Leadership in Effective Schools. Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- Information Anaisses (070)
39. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352. doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
40. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. In International handbook of leadership for learning (pp. 469-485). Springer. doi 10.1007/978-94-007-1350-5_27,
41. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1997). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(4), 1-35. doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203
42. Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Springer. doi 10.1007/978-3-319-15533-3
43. 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. 122, 1629–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03360-5
44. Ham, S. H., & Kim, R. Y. (2015). The influence of principals’ instructional leadership on teachers’ use of autonomy-supportive instruction: An analysis of three Asia-Pacific countries. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(1), 57-65. doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0158-x
45. Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Kılıçoğlu, D., & Kılıçoğlu, G. (2021). Does autonomy exist? Comparing the autonomy of teachers and senior leaders in England and Turkey. Oxford Review of Education, 47(2), 189-206.. doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1824900
46. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
47. Heck, R. H., Marcoulides, G. A., & Lang, P. (1991). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: The application of discriminant techniques. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 115-135. doi.org/10.1080/0924345910020204
48. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659-689. doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042
49. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?. Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.
50. Hornby, G., & Blackwell, I. (2018). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An update. Educational Review, 70(1), 109-119. doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1388612
51. Johnson, J. (2005). With a Little Help from my Principal Student Discipline Problems, Workplace Support, and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, The University of Georgia, Athens, Unpublished Master thesis).
52. Khmelkov, V. T. (2000). Developing professionalism: effects of school workplace organization on novice teachers' sense of responsibility and efficacy. The University of Notre Dame. Unpublished Dissertation)
53. Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Harvard University Press.
54. Kursunoglu, A., & Tanrıogen, A. (2009). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 252-258. Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.046
55. Lamb, T. (2000). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions. B. Sinclair, & I. McGrath (Eds.). ELT review, Longman.
56. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-29. doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064
57. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436268
58. 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. doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438
59. Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., Sacks, R. (2009). The Relationship Between Distributed Leadership and Teachers’ Academic Optimism. In: Harris, A. (eds) Distributed Leadership. Studies in Educational Leadership, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_5
60. MacBeath, J. (2012). Future of Teaching Profession, Brussels: Education International Research Institute, University of Cambridge book. Moller, G., & Pankake, A. (2013). Lead with me: A principal's guide to teacher leadership. Routledge.
61. Murphy, J. (Ed.). (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Corwin Press.
62. Özturk, I. H. (2012). Teacher's role and autonomy in instructional planning: The case of secondary school history teachers with regard to the preparation and implementation of annual instructional plans. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 295-299.
63. Parker, G. (2015). Teachers' autonomy. Research in Education, 93(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.0008 Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
64. Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. C., (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155
65. Perie, M., & Baker, D. P. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation. NCES 97- XXX. U.S. Department of Education. Googlebooks.
66. Pitt, A. (2010). On having one’s chance: Autonomy as education’s limit. Educational Theory, 60(1), 1-18. . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00342.x
67. Prichard, C., & Moore, J. E. (2016). Variables influencing teacher autonomy, administrative coordination, and collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration. 54(1) 58-74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0113
68. Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers’ commitment. Sociology of Education, 63(4), 241-257. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112873
69. Salokangas, M., Wermke, W., & Harvey, G. (2020). Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 329-350. doi.org/10.1177/1474904119868378
70. Saylik, A., & Sahin, Ç. Ç. (2021). Do paternalist approaches of school principals kill teachers' autonomy?. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 139-152. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.9
71. Shengnan, L., & Hallinger, P. (2021). Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 214-233. doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896042
72. Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the Transformational Nature of Instructional Leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325-44.
73. Slemp, G. R., Field, J. G., & Cho, A. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of autonomous and controlled forms of teacher motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 103459. doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb..103459
74. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2020). Teacher burnout: relations between dimensions of burnout, perceived school context, job satisfaction and motivation for teaching. A longitudinal study. Teachers and Teaching, 26(7-8), 602-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1913404
75. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68-77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
76. Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. Publications, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Edwards Brothers, Inc.
77. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430220143042
78. Sucu, A. (2016). Öğretmenlerin motivasyonu ile okul yöneticilerinin öğretimsel liderlik davranışları arasındaki ilişkinin analizi (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi) İnönü Üniversitesi.
79. Street, M. S., & Licata, J. W. (1989). Supervisor expertise: Resolving the dilemma between bureaucratic control and teacher autonomy. Planning and Changing, 20(2). 97-107.
80. ten Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the influence of school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699-732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436272
81. Tort-Moloney, D. (1997). Teacher autonomy: A Vygotskian theoretical framework. Trinity Coll., Dublin (Ireland). Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Report.
82. Turkoglu, M. E., & Cansoy, R. (2018). Instructional leadership behaviors according to perceptions of school principals in Turkey. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5). https://doi: 10.15345/iojes.2018.05.003
83. Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers' autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 302-315. . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021
84. Warren, J. M., Locklear, L. A., & Watson, N. A. (2018). The role of parenting in predicting student achievement: Considerations for school counseling practice and research. Professional Counsellor, 8(4), 328-340. https://doi:10.15241/jmw.8.4.328
85. Wohlstetter, P., & Chau, D. (2004). Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-based practices in charter and other public schools. Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next, 53-71. K. E. Bulkly, & P. Wohlstetter, (Eds)
86. Yildirim, A. (2003). Instructional planning in a centralized school system: Lessons of a study among primary school teachers in Turkey. International Review of Education, 49(5), 525-543. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026361208399
87. Yorulmaz, Y. İ., Çolak, I., & Sağlam, A. Ç. (2018). The relationship between teachers’ structural and psychological empowerment and their autonomy. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 81-96. https://doi.org/10.22521/jesr.2018.82.3
88. Yurtseven, C. and Hoşgörür, T. (20XX). The relationship between teachers’ autonomy behaviors and emotional labor, E-International Journal of Educational Research, 12(5), 89-117. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.897847
89. Yu, C., Li, X., Wang, S., & Zhang, W. (2016). Teacher autonomy support reduces adolescent anxiety and depression: An 18-month longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 49, 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.03.001