How transformational leadership influences teachers’ commitment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal

Abstract

This study tested a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership’s effects on teacher innovative practices, with teacher commitment as mediator and trust in principal as moderator. Implementing a cross-sectional survey design and using data from 611 teachers working in 56 schools in Turkey, we employed multilevel structural equation modelling with Bayesian estimation to estimate the structural links between our variables. The results provided evidence of the indirect effects of transformational leadership on teacher innovative practices through the significant mediator role of teacher commitment. We also found evidence that trust in principal acted as a significant moderator of the indirect effect of transformational leadership on teacher innovative practice through teacher commitment. This study adds nuanced evidence to the global literature by concluding that the effect of transformational leadership on teacher commitment and innovative practice is contingent upon the extent to which teachers trust their principals. We conclude with key implications for policy and practice.

Keywords

Transformational leadership teacher commitment teacher innovative practices trust in principal

Introduction

Educational reformers and policymakers across the world have long sought ways to improve teachers’ instructional practice, after reaching a general agreement that high-quality teaching matters for improving student learning outcomes (Marzano et al., 2001; Bryk et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004). Although there is little consensus about what constitutes high-quality teaching, the literature suggests that teacher innovative practice is just one of the pieces of the puzzle (Hattie, 2008; Moolenaar et al., 2010). Teachers face growing pressure to enhance learning conditions for their students and are therefore compelled to generate and implement innovative ideas for teaching (Saavedra and Opfer, 2012; Thurlings et al., 2015). The question of how to improve teachers’ innovative practices has provoked a growing number of educational leadership scholars to illuminate the relationship between school leadership and teacher practices (Heck and Hallinger, 2014; Paletta et al., 2021; Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012).

Although previous research clearly supports the association between leadership and teaching (e.g. Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012; Supovitz et al., 2010), a closer look at the literature demonstrates a three-fold gap. First, we have limited knowledge of how school leaders establish an environment that encourages teachers to revise their teaching practices. While the discourse among researchers, policymakers and practitioners favours transformational leadership (TL) due to its specific focus on developing school capacity for organizational change (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Marks and Printy, 2003), little research has been conducted to empirically validate its effects on teacher innovative practices [TIP] (Moolenaar et al., 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2020). Second, although influential educational leadership scholars have long lamented the paucity of research on the contextual or institutional factors that may shape school leadership practices (e.g. Hallinger, 2018; Harris and Jones, 2018; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008), our knowledge is currently too limited to draw strong conclusions about the importance of such factors. Thus, given its critical role in school improvement research, we included trust in principal in our measurement model as a moderator to test whether and to what extent it shapes the behaviours of school principals in their efforts to levy teachers’ commitment and implementation of innovative practices. Third, research on the interplay between leadership and teaching largely comes from Western countries (e.g. Geijsel et al., 2009). Therefore, this study offers an extension of the international literature by bringing evidence from a non-western educational context with a centralized education system where educational policymakers have recently been grappling with school reforms. Addressing these gaps in the literature, we tested a moderated mediation model of TL's effects on TIP, including teacher commitment (TC) as mediator and trust in principal (TiP) as moderator. This study addresses the following research questions:

What are the direct effects of TL on TC, and direct and indirect effects of TL on TIP?

Does TC mediate the effects of TL on TIP?

Does the level of TiP moderate the effects of TL on TIP through TC?

Context

This study was conducted in Turkey, whose education system functions in a highly centralized and hierarchical fashion. The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) holds the primary responsibility for running system-wide procedures (Şahin et al., 2017), including training and assigning teachers, printing and disseminating textbooks, organizing the curriculum, and issuing regulations that govern the roles and responsibilities of provincial and district officers alongside those of teachers, school principals, and other staff. School principals are also appointed by the MoNE, without any preparatory training for the position. Teachers who teach for a certain period of time can apply for principalship positions if they pass written and oral exams (Kılınç et al., 2021).

Turkey's education system serves 19 million students and employs over one million teachers (MoNE, 2020). In such a large system, it is vital that principals possess wide-ranging leadership skills to ensure the success of educational reforms. Therefore, educational reformers have focused attention on improving the capabilities and capacities of school principals over the last two decades. For instance, in the early years of the new millennium, the MoNE (2005) stated that, as a response to the long-standing criticism of the traditional teaching approach in which teachers mainly act as transmitters of knowledge, all schools in Turkey would adopt a constructivist approach. However, policymakers and practitioners also felt concerned that the school culture that had developed over time within this hierarchical and centralized education setting might limit the impact of such a change. Thus, in this political context, school principals are increasingly viewed as key personnel charged with transforming their schools into dynamic learning environments for teachers to better meet the learning needs of students. In parallel, subsequent years have witnessed a series of reform initiatives that have placed a specific focus on improving the leadership capability and capacity of school principals. In 2014, for instance, the MoNE delegated the evaluation of teacher performance from national inspectors to school principals (Aslanargun and Tarku, 2014). This policy initiative enabled principals to contribute to the realization of school goals by providing professional support for teachers’ efforts to develop new knowledge and skills. Additionally, the ministry's 2023 Education Vision embraced the ‘School Development Model’ (MoNE, 2018), which acknowledges that each school has contextual characteristics that shape the practices of principals and teachers, requiring the implementation of specific school-based strategies to improve teaching capacity. The model addresses, albeit implicitly, the TL practices of principals as a key strategy to lead schools through reform. Consistent with the recent policy landscape, we believe our study offers valuable information for policymakers and practitioners in Turkey, as a developing country, as well as in other nations with similar features by providing insights into a fruitful school environment that fosters TIP to levy student learning outcomes.

Conceptual framework

Our framework draws upon four decades of research that has investigated the theoretical and empirical associations between school leadership and student learning and reached a variety of conclusions on this link (Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2009). For instance, a group of researchers focused on the effects of school leadership on student learning outcomes, adopting the ‘Mediated Effects Model’ (e.g. Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Thoonen et al., 2011). This body of research concluded that the effects of school leadership on student learning are mostly achieved indirectly, through shaping organizational (e.g. culture, climate) and teacher-related factors (e.g. attitudes, feelings and dispositions) (Heck and Hallinger, 2014; Supovitz et al., 2010). Another vein of research scrutinized the effects of various individual, cultural, contextual, and institutional factors on school leadership practices (Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021; Truong et al., 2017; Walker and Dimmock, 2012). Scholars in this area mainly use contingency theory to frame their research (Hallinger, 2003), suggesting that principals’ influence on teaching and learning is realized in a contextualized way, which requires the adoption of the ‘moderated effect model’ (Pitner, 1988). This research provides convincing evidence that leadership is contingent on elements of school context such as safety, power distance, and teacher participation in decision making (Sebastian and Allensworth, 2019; Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021). Addressing this latter line of inquiry, we aimed to extend prior research by examining the moderation effect of TiP on the relationship between TL and TIP, with the mediating effect of TC. Figure 1 presents our conceptual framework.

Figure 1.

Hypothetical model.

The following section provides theoretical explanations of these constructs and offers rationales for our hypotheses derived from the conceptual and empirical associations among them.

Teacher innovative practice

Although debate continues over the definition of innovative practice in the workplace, early scholarship in the field of organizational behaviour mostly associates the construct with the creation, promotion, and realization of ideas that aim to improve the performance of any given employee, thereby benefiting the employee, group or entire organization (Amabile, 1988; Thurlings et al., 2015; West and Farr, 1989). Educational scholars have adapted the construct into school settings, linking it with teachers’ adoption of new methodologies, pedagogies, and assessments (Serdyukov, 2017), as well as efforts to modify curriculum and instructional practices to attune to the specific learning needs of students (Wang et al., 2010). However, little research has specifically focused on identifying the school- and teacher-level factors that influence teachers’ engagement in innovative practices (e.g. Vermeulen et al., 2020). The available literature also highlights the scale of teachers’ innovative practices, as they may target the processes and products of the whole organization or smaller-scale ideas associated with teachers’ daily instructional practices (Axtell et al., 2000; Thurlings et al., 2015). The present study mostly adopts the latter perspective by defining the construct as teacher efforts to generate, promote, and implement ideas to leverage the quality of instruction (Gkorezis, 2016).

Teacher commitment

Organizational commitment refers to ‘the individual's psychological attachment to an organization – the psychological bond linking the individual and the organization’ (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986: 492). A committed employee is expected to demonstrate strong engagement in and identification with the objectives and values of an organization, which likely results in greater contributions to the realization of organizational goals (Cook and Wall, 1980). Our study conceptualized TC under three dimensions: identification, involvement, and loyalty (Buchanan, 1974; Cook and Wall, 1980). Identification refers to the process of internalization of the organization's goals and values, while involvement means satisfaction with the employee's work or role in the organization. Loyalty addresses an employee's intention to stay in the organization, indicating a high sense of belonging.

The construct of teacher commitment has garnered attention from educational scholars, who have conceptualized it based on its roots in organizational behaviour research and linked it with teacher endeavours to improve instructional practices (e.g. Ross and Gray, 2006). Recently, a considerable amount of literature has emerged around the theme of TC, suggesting that when teachers demonstrate a higher sense of commitment to their school and profession, they are more likely to improve their content knowledge and teaching capabilities to leverage the quality of instruction (Geijsel, 2009; Park, 2005). For instance, a recent study found that committed teachers are more willing to engage in professional learning, which results in greater efforts to modify instructional practices (Bellibaş et. al. 2021). Although the existing literature has not generated a deep understanding of the direct link between TC and teacher endeavours to innovate instructional practices, based on the results of previous studies, we hypothesized that TC will be positively related to TIP (Hypothesis 1).

Transformational leadership

Rooted in organizational behaviour theory, TL refers to leaders’ ability to inspire followers to move beyond what is expected from them and invest in the development of their personal and professional capacity, with the ultimate purpose of achieving heightened organizational performance (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1994). Educational research has embraced the theory of TL since the early 1990s thanks to its emphasis on transforming school culture to support reform and restructuring initiatives (Leithwood, 1994; Marks and Printy, 2003). Thirty years of research on TL in educational settings has identified three core dimensions, which ground the current study: vision building, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Geijsel et al., 2003, 2009; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Moolenaar et al., 2010). Vision building includes principals’ endeavours to build a shared vision that promotes excitement and attachment and helps teachers identify with school goals (Thoonen et al., 2011). Individualized consideration involves principals’ efforts to link organizational goals, values and objectives with teachers’ individual needs (Geijsel et al., 2009; Thoonen et al., 2011), while intellectual stimulation encompasses principals’ encouragement and support of teachers’ professional development to better address the diverse learning needs of students (Geijsel et al., 2003; Hallinger, 2003; Moolenaar et al., 2010).

Transformational leaders possess key qualities that might contribute to TC. For instance, through their ability to build a vision, they may elevate teachers’ sense of belonging to the school and its objectives (Marks and Printy, 2003; Ross and Gray, 2006). By promoting intellectual stimulation, they could establish a school culture where mistakes are positively reframed as opportunities to develop professionally. Schools with such cultures create support for new ideas to improve instruction, which could increase teachers’ sense of commitment to the school vision and goals (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006). Finally, through individual consideration, leaders demonstrate sensitivity to teachers’ individual needs and values, which could encourage teachers to move beyond their formal job descriptions and potentially increase TC (Ross and Gray, 2006). This theoretical background has found empirical support from both organizational psychology (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1996) and educational research (e.g. Khasawneh et al., 2012; Sayadi, 2016). Based on this theoretical background and supporting evidence, we predict that TL will be positively related to TC (Hypothesis 2).

The literature emphasizes that school leadership plays a crucial role in influencing teacher efforts to engage in innovative endeavours to improve teaching practices (Gkorezis, 2016; Thurlings et al., 2015). Among various leadership emphases, the existing research has highlighted the relevance of TL in sparking innovation (Bass, 1985; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2020). Transformational leaders closely consider followers’ needs, thereby bridging the gap between individual practices and the vision and goals of the organization (Bass and Avolio, 1994). They also demonstrate respect for and confidence in followers’ capacity to initiate and sustain innovative endeavours (Bass, 1985). Regarding intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders centre their efforts on encouraging followers to build their knowledge and skills to implement changes in their practices (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Limited empirical research in the field of educational administration has supported such theoretical links by suggesting that TL is positively associated with teacher practice, although these studies typically report small effect sizes (Geijsel et al., 2009; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2020). Based on this theoretical background and accumulated evidence, we posit that TL is positively related to TIP (Hypothesis 3). Considering Hypotheses 1–3 that TC is positively associated with TIP and that TL is positively and directly related to TC and TIP, our conceptual model poses a fourth hypothesis: the effects of TL on TIP are accrued indirectly, with the possible mediating function of TC (Hypothesis 4).

The moderating role of TiP

Previous research has recognized, as discussed above, the critical role played by TL in supporting teachers’ implementation of innovative practices (Geijsel et al., 2009; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006). However, it is important to note that making innovations in teaching can be a daunting task, which includes a range of uncertainties and challenges to overcome and often requires substantial changes in the way teachers produce, implement, and assess instructional practices (Elmore, 2004; Thurlings et al., 2015). This heightens the need for a school climate marked by trusting relations among teachers and their principal, resulting in open communication and meaningful collaboration towards implementing innovations in instructional practices (Tschannen-Moran, 2009). In this regard, we emphasize that principals’ TL practices might not produce the desired impact on TC and ultimately TIP in schools with a low level of TiP. In other words, we believe that TiP – which we define as ‘the extent to which [the] school principal discusses educational issues with teachers, develop[s] an atmosphere of caring and trust and gives teachers individual support to help them improve their teaching practices’ (Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008: 470) – might play a vital role in shaping the effects of TL on teacher beliefs and practices.

Several studies in organizational behaviour literature have discussed the potential role of ‘trust in the leader’ as a moderator that could determine the conditions through which the effects of TL are successfully achieved on the feelings or behaviours of followers (e.g. Goodwin et al., 2011). Subsequent research in this field has also validated the key moderator role of trust in the leader in the interplay of leadership and employee feelings and behaviours (e.g. Hwang et al., 2014; Neeraj, 2009). However, few researchers in the field of educational leadership have investigated whether and to what extent trusting relations between teachers and their principals could moderate the impact of school leadership on teaching endeavours (e.g. Zhang et al., 2021). More is known about how trust constitutes a significant precondition for principals to actively engage in instructional practices (e.g. Çoban et al., 2020), as well as how it mediates the effects of principal leadership on teacher beliefs and practices (Sun and Leithwood, 2015). Thus, largely based on the organizational behaviour literature, we pose that the relationship between TL and TC will be moderated by TiP, such that the relationship will be stronger when teachers’ perception of TiP is stronger (Hypothesis 5). Considering Hypotheses 1–5 stating that TC is related to TIP and that the association between TL and TC is moderated by TiP, we propose our final hypothesis as TL will be related to TIP via conditional indirect effects, such that its association with TIP will be moderated by TiP and mediated by TC (Hypothesis 6).

Method

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design. The following section identifies the sample, data collection procedure, psychometric features of the measures, control variables and analytical strategy.

Sample

This study gathered data from teachers working in lower secondary schools by employing a two-stage sampling procedure. First, based on the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) that Turkey uses as a geocode standard, we selected one province from each of the country's 12 regions that reflected the common features of the given region. Second, using a convenience sampling method, we contacted school principals in the regions with whom we were already familiar and sent them a link to an online survey, which they then forwarded to teacher WhatsApp groups within their schools. Maas and Hox (2005) suggest that data should be collected from at least 30 schools at Level 2 for an accurate estimation of standard errors in multilevel modelling. In our study, we aimed to collect data from at least 56 schools, and at least 15 teachers working in each school. Consequently, a total of 611 teachers working in 56 schools participated in this study, for a response rate of approximately 74%. A total of 63% (n = 383) of the participants were women, while 37% (n = 228) were men. Most of the respondents (n = 540, or 88%) held a bachelor's degree. The average participant age was 36.36 years (SD = 8.12), while the average professional experience of participants was 12.57 years (SD = 7.97). The demographic features of the participants correspond with the national distributions across Turkey (OECD, 2019).

Data collection procedure

We used a web-based online survey method to collect data. Online surveys provide some advantages over traditional paper-and-pencil, telephone or email methods, namely reducing time and cost as well as minimizing data coding errors (Conway and Lance, 2010). However, collecting data through online surveys can also raise concerns over data reliability and sample quality. We took several measures to minimize these problems. First, to represent the national population, we gathered data from twelve provinces across various regions of Turkey. Second, we prepared easily readable and markable survey tools by using Google Forms (Frippiat and Marquis, 2010). Finally, we included a cover page, which informed participants about the purpose of the study and included a consent form requesting voluntary participation in the study (Frippiat and Marquis, 2010). Some scholars have argued that the collection of data from the same respondents could lead to a common bias problem, and have proposed several procedural remedies to minimize the effects of this issue (e.g. Conway and Lance, 2010; MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012). Accordingly, we changed the order of our variables as dependent, mediating, moderating and independent, respectively. Moreover, not all the questions in the instrument asked for teachers’ self-reports on their own practices. Therefore, we were able to reduce the problem of ‘upward bias’ caused by social desirability (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012).

Measures

We used five-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to measure TL and TIP. However, we measured TiP on a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) and TC on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). In this study, we followed the steps suggested by Hambleton and Patsula (1998) to adapt the scales of TC, TIP, and TiP into the Turkish educational context. After obtaining the necessary permissions, we asked three bilingual scholars who had experience in developing scales in the field of educational leadership to translate each of the scales from English to Turkish. We checked the translations and converted them into a single form. Then, we asked the three scholars to translate the scales back into English. We then made revisions to minimize any errors that could lead to confusion in meaning between the two languages. Finally, we conducted a pilot study to test the validity of the scales and performed multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) for the structural validity of the items.

Transformational Leadership (TL). The scale used to assess TL was developed by Day et al. (2016) and adapted into the Turkish language and culture by Balyer and Özcan (2012). The 18-item scale measures three dimensions: vision building, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. One sample item is: ‘The principal of my school takes opinions of individual teachers seriously’. To test the structural validity of the TL model, we performed MCFA. The results showed a good fit of the three-factor structure (χ²/df = 2.68, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR_W = 0.01, SRMR_B = 0.01). Moreover, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) calculated for the validity of the model confirmed the construct both within (AVE = 0.84) and between levels (AVE = 0.96). The Composite Reliability (CR) values calculated for the convergent reliability of the model were also good for both between (ω = .98) and within (ω = .99) levels.

Trust in Principal (TiP). The 5-item scale measuring TiP was developed by Wahlstrom and Seashore (2008) and adapted into the Turkish language and culture by the research team for this study. One sample item is: ‘I discuss instructional issues with my principal(s)’. According to ﬁt indices based on MCFA (χ²/df = 1.98, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR_W = 0.04, SRMR_B = 0.02), the adapted scale has a good ﬁt in the Turkish educational setting. Moreover, the AVE values calculated for the structure validity of the model were acceptable at both within (AVE = 0.76) and between (AVE = 0.87) levels. Finally, the CR values calculated for the convergent reliability of the model were acceptable for between (ω = .97) and within (ω = .88) levels.

Teacher Commitment (TC). This 9-item scale was developed by Cook and Wall (1980) and revised by Mathews and Shepherd (2002). The researchers adapted the scale into the Turkish language and culture for this study. The scale measures three dimensions: identification, involvement, and loyalty. One sample item is: ‘I am a part of the school’. The results of the MCFA showed a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 2.13, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR_W = 0.03, SRMR_B = 0.07). In addition, the AVE values of the scale were acceptable at both within (AVE = 0.83) and between (AVE = 0.94) levels. Finally, the CR values were good for both between (ω = .88) and within (ω = .98) levels.

Teacher Innovative Practices (TIP). This scale was developed by Welbourne et al. (1998) and adapted to educational settings by Gkorezis (2016). We adapted the 4-item scale into the Turkish language and culture for the purpose of the present study. One sample item is: ‘I am working to implement new ideas’. The CFA results indicated a good fit (χ²/df = 2.48, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR_W = 0.02, SRMR_B = 0.04). The AVE values of the scale were acceptable at both within (AVE = 0.86) and between (AVE = 0.95) levels. Additionally, the CR values were good for both between (ω = .99) and within (ω = .96) levels.

Control Variables. We controlled for variables that might influence the associations between our study variables, such as gender and professional experience. Although the majority of teachers working in the Turkish school system are women, most of the principals are men (MoNE, 2020), which might affect principal–teacher relations. For instance, previous research found that principal-teacher relations were at a higher level in schools where the principal and teacher gender were the same (e.g. Berkovich, 2018). We also included teachers’ professional experience as a control variable in our analyses, in line with previous research suggesting that experienced teachers are more likely to adopt innovative practices in teaching than those who have less teaching experience (e.g. Ghaith and Yaghi, 1997).

Analytical strategy

We tested our hypotheses at both the teacher and school level by performing Multilevel Structural Equation Modelling (MSEM) using Bayesian estimation in Mplus 8.7 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2017). Before running the analysis, we applied Mahalanobis Distance to test for multivariate normality and excluded outliers from the analysis. Then, we calculated mean, standard deviation, and zero-order correlations. We also examined aggregation for our school-level variables (TL and TiP) by using within-group agreement (R_wg) and intra-class correlations coefficient ICC(1) and ICC(2) (Raykov et al., 2017). Accordingly, the R_wg values of all our variables were over .70 (Lüdtke and Robitzsch, 2009) and the within-group agreement of the variables was strong. Next, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (1) for each measure was above .05, demonstrating the suitability of combining teachers’ scores into the school level. For assessing the reliability of the school level means, the ICC (2) for each measure ranged from .57 to .85, demonstrating good indices (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979) (see Table 1). Our sample was relatively small, consisting of 56 lower secondary schools. In such cases, scholars recommend the use of Bayesian statistics in data analysis (i.e. N < 100) (e.g. Asparouhov and Muthén, 2020). Following this recommendation, we estimated the significance and strength of the effects of the variables in our model with confidence interval (CI) coverage. We concluded that 95% of the CI for each latent variable's effects are significant when the CI does not include zero (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The Potential Scale Reduction (PSR) values performed for the fit indices in the Bayesian method should be approximately 1 (iteration = 10,000). We also examined Chi-square/degree of freedom (χ²/df), Log-Likelihood (LL), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Standardized Bayesian Information Criterion (SABIC) by performing the Wald Chi-square test for the quality of parameters (Nylund et al., 2007). Finally, we estimated the conditional indirect effect of TL on TIP through TC at low (− 2, − 1 SD), medium (mean), and high ( + 1, + 2 SD) moderator levels to test the moderating effect of TiP.

Table 1.

Interrater agreement and interrater reliability of variables.

		Trust in principal	Teacher commitment	Teacher innovative practices
ICC1	.354	.272	.320	.133
ICC2	.855	.801	.835	.574
R _wg	.961	.984	.989	.841

ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; R_wg: within-group agreement.

Several common bias problems can arise in cross-sectional research. The literature usually suggests Harman's single-factor test to provide statistical remedies for these problems (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012). However, some scholars favour common latent factor (CLF) analysis as a more powerful statistical operation (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). Therefore, we employed CLF analysis by incorporating a marker variable independent of the variables in our conceptual model into the analysis (e.g. teacher enthusiasm). We found that the calculated variance square (38.7%) was below the threshold of 50%, suggesting no common method bias problem in our model.

Results

Preliminary analysis

We analysed the means and standard deviations of all variables along with skewness and kurtosis values and the correlations among study variables. As shown in Table 2, the mean values for our variables were above the average: TL (M = 4.19, SD = .75), TiP (M = 4.81, SD = .76), TC (M = 5.54, SD = .74) and TIP (M = 4.17, SD = .58). We found the skewness and kurtosis values of all variables ranging between −2 and + 2 (George and Mallery, 2010), thus the normality assumption was met. At the school level, TL was positively correlated with TC (r = 0.647, p < 0.001) and TIP (r = 0.535, p < 0.001), and TC was positively associated with TIP (r = 0.568, p < 0.001). In addition, TiP was positively correlated with TC (r = 0.554, p < 0.001) and TIP (r = 0.602, p < 0.001). Then we tested the intercorrelation between our variables using MSEM Bayesian estimation. In multivariate statistical analysis, tolerance index (TI > .20) and variance inflation factor (VIF < 5) were examined for the diagnosis of a multicollinearity problem. Accordingly, TI values ranged from .27 to .91, and VIF values ranged between 1.09 and 3.71, indicating no sign of multicollinearity problem. Therefore, we reported the direct and indirect effects among variables (Hypotheses 1–4), along with the moderation effect of TiP in the relationship between TL and TC (Hypothesis 5) and the moderating effect of TiP on the relationship between TL and TIP through TC (Hypothesis 6).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Teacher level (n = 611)
1. TC	–	–	–
2. TIP	–	–	.476**	–
3. Gender	–	–	.045	.049	–
4. Exp.	12.57	7.97	.080*	−.008	−.133**	–
School level (n = 56)
5.TC	5.54	.74					–
6. TIP	4.17	.58					568**
7. TiP	4.81	.76					.554**	602**	–
8. TL	4.19	.75					.647 ^**	.535**	496**	–
Skewness	–	–	−.541	−.663	−.530	.541	−.541	−.663	.924	.726
Kurtosis	–	–	.311	1.307	−1.730	−.262	.311	1.307	1.391	.910

Means (M), SD: standard deviation; ICC: intraclass correlation; TC: teacher commitment; TIP: teacher innovative practice; TiP: Trust in Principal; TL: transformational leadership; Exp: experiences.

*p < .01, ** p < .001.

Model testing

We initiated our analyses by testing our first hypothesis, before incorporating other variables into the analyses in Model 1. Then we examined the Bayesian fit indices of our final model. We observed that the PSR value reached approximately 1 (PSR = 1.384). Additionally, we conducted the Wald Chi-square test for the quality of the parameters, which revealed that our data yielded a good fit (χ²/df = 4.176, p > 0.01). The information criteria of the first model were found to be (−9485.260) for LL, (19655.985) for BIC, (19346.929) for AIC and (19433.750) for SABIC. The LL (−8840.986), BIC (19252.878), AIC (18696.465) and SABIC (18852.744) values decreased when we added variables into the final model. This suggests that our final model bears a better fit (Nylund et al., 2007). Figure 2 summarizes the direct, indirect, and moderation effects between our variables.

Figure 2.

Multilevel SEM analysis results.

Testing the mediation model

At this stage, we tested Hypotheses 1–4. The effect of TC on TIP was positive and significant at both the teacher (b1, γ = 0.313, 95% CI [0.206, 0.416]) and school level (b2, γ = 0.563, 95% CI [0.356, 0.864]), supporting Hypotheses 1a and 1b. TL had positive and direct effects on TC (a1, γ = 0.559, 95% CI [0.322, 0.731]), confirming Hypothesis 2. While the direct effect of TL on TIP was insignificant (c′, γ = 0.084, 95% CI [−0.693, 0.208]), refuting Hypothesis 3, the indirect effect of TL on TIP was evident with the significant mediating function of TC (a1b2, γ = 0.161, 95% CI [0.082, 0.255]), supporting Hypothesis 4.

Testing the moderation model

We also aimed to assess how trust in principal moderated the effect of transformational leadership on teacher commitment. We found that the interaction effect of TL and TiP on TC was significant (a3, γ = −0.333, 95% CI [−0.778, −0.119]), confirming Hypothesis 5. A simple slope test illustrated in Figure 3 shows that high TiP scores (+ 1 SD) exhibited a stronger relationship between TL and TC than low TiP scores (− 1 SD), providing support for Hypothesis 5.

Figure 3.

Plot of the moderate effect of trust in principal.

Testing the moderated mediation model

In this final step, we aimed to examine whether and how TiP moderated our mediation model (± 1 SD). The result demonstrated that the moderating effect of TiP was significant (a3b2, γ = 0.283, 95% CI [0.182, 0.449]) (see Table 3). When TiP was at one standard deviation above the mean (+ 1 SD), the indirect effect of TL on TIP was significant (γ = 0.177, 95% CI [0.099, 0.290]); otherwise, the indirect effect of TL on TIP was not significant when TiP was one standard deviation below the mean (−1 SD) (γ = 0.068, 95% CI [−0.028, 0.166]). Thus, our findings show that the indirect effect of TL on TIP is stronger when the level of TiP is higher, confirming Hypothesis 6.

Table 3.

Conditional indirect effects of transformational leadership on teacher innovative practices at various levels of trust in principal.

	γ	SD	95% LLCI	95% ULCI
Moderated mediation index	.283	.073	.182	.449
+ 2 SD	.232	.065	.134	.385
+ 1 SD	.177	.049	.099	.290
Mean	.121	.042	.052	.218
−1 SD	.068	.049	−.028	.166
−2 SD	.015	.064	−.125	.130

LLCI: lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit confidence interval.

Discussion

This section provides the study limitations, interprets the study findings, and outlines implications for policy, practice, and research.

Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations that warrant caution when interpreting the results. First, our results only reflect principal and teacher practices across twelve provinces in Turkey, which raises concerns about the generalisability of findings. Second, we relied on teacher self-reports to measure our variables. This may have caused the teachers to be influenced by their personal choices or social desirability. However, it should be noted that this study measured principals’ TL practices based on teachers’ reports, as recommended by some scholars (e.g. Thoonen et al., 2011) for generating nuanced information about the current status of school leadership practices. Finally, our mediation and moderation hypotheses were not based on a particular intervention that possibly resulted in variation in teachers’ practices. Thus, the cross-sectional nature of our data precludes us from providing causal explanations among the constructs we investigated in this study.

Interpretation of findings

Our study sought to investigate the associations between TiP, TL, TC and TIP. More specifically, we focused on the moderating effect of TiP on the relationship between TL and TIP through TC. Our findings illustrate that TC is positively and significantly related to TIP. Thus, our research provides supporting evidence that teacher commitment is a key factor that influences teacher efforts to implement innovations in teaching practices. This finding corresponds with previous research highlighting the role of TC in enhancing teacher endeavours to modify instructional practices (Bellibaş et. al. 2021) and improve student learning outcomes (Geijsel, 2009). Our research also illustrated that the influence of TL on TIP is mediated by TC. This finding supports the premise that TL fosters teacher efforts to innovate instruction by promoting teacher commitment, and thus should be a crucial element in school improvement research. Our finding also confirms prior empirical research that validated the second-order effect orientation of TL (e.g. Hallinger, 2003; Marks and Printy, 2003). Thus, by providing evidence that TC acts as a high-value target for transformational leaders who aim to promote teacher efforts to modify and innovate teaching, the current study adds evidence to a growing body of research that examines how principals can levy school capacity for teaching.

This study also found evidence for a signiﬁcant moderation role of TiP in the effect of TL on TC. This means that the effects of TL on TC are stronger when school principals establish a safe and healthy school atmosphere where teachers can collaborate around instructional issues and feel that their contributions to the school improvement process are valued and respected. This finding provides empirical support for previous assertions that the effective operation of school leadership practices is closely linked to the contextual features of the school (Hallinger, 2018; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006). Thus, our results add evidence to this knowledge base by suggesting that transformational principals who develop school capacity for change and innovation, alongside building a school climate that fosters trusting relations among personnel, are more likely to improve teacher identification with school goals and support their meaningful involvement in school improvement endeavours.

The main finding of our study is that TiP played a significant moderator in the effect of TL on TC and TIP. This means that the indirect effect of TL on TIP through TC depends on the extent to which principals create a climate that emphasises caring and trusting relations among school members. This finding reinforces the notion that school contextual factors play a significant role in shaping leadership effects which, in turn, influence teacher beliefs and practices. The present study provides nuanced evidence to a burgeoning line of research exploring the cultural and institutional factors that might shape leadership practices (e.g. Sebastian and Allensworth, 2019; Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021), by suggesting that transformational leaders may be more effective in promoting teachers’ sense of commitment, and thus buoying teacher efforts to innovate instructional practices when the school environment is marked by greater trust between principal and teachers. Therefore, the main contribution of this study lies in providing new insights into how school contextual factors promote or inhibit the effects of leaders’ practices on teacher commitment and innovation.

Implications for practice and future research

We began this study with a mediation model of TL. Our results confirmed a full mediation model, in which TL's effect on TIP was accrued only indirectly, through TC. We also concluded that TiP played a significant moderator role in the direct effects of TL on TC. However, the main contribution of this study is that it generates empirical evidence regarding how TiP moderates the effects of TL on TIP through TC. Accordingly, we found that when TiP was rated higher by teachers in a school, the positive indirect effects of TL on TIP through TC were strengthened. In contrast, when the level of TiP perceived by teachers was lower, transformational leaders tended to have no positive influence on TIP through TC.

This study yields several key implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. Many developing countries across the world have initiated substantial school reforms in recent years. The development of principals’ transformational leadership skills has been a persistent component of such reforms due to its high emphasis on organizational change and restructuring (Marks and Printy, 2003). Our findings support such reform initiatives by providing convincing evidence that TL has considerable potential to enhance teachers’ innovative practices through promoting TC. In addition, our results take on particular importance for principals by concluding that teacher commitment is a useful path through which they might influence the implementation of innovative teaching practices. We thus encourage school principals to invest time and resources in establishing a school environment where teachers feel more committed to the realization of school goals.

Most importantly, our study indicates that TL's effects on TC and TIP are somewhat contingent upon the extent to which trusting relationships are fostered among principals and teachers. Therefore, another potential implication for policymakers and practitioners is that although TL practices provide important leverage for promoting teachers’ commitment and innovative practices, it may not produce the desired effects unless school principals build caring and trusting bonds with teachers to work around instructional issues. In a broader sense, our findings imply that, rather than focusing solely on specific leadership practices, policymakers and practitioners should be aware of the potential effects of contextual or institutional factors that may shape school leadership practices, thus tailoring their interventions to the specific conditions of any given school (Wu and Shen, 2022).

Our results also hold particular importance for Turkey and other nations with highly centralized and hierarchical education systems. On the one hand, the leadership capabilities of school principals towards change and transformation are considered critical by policymakers in achieving the positive impact of school reforms on classroom teaching practices (e.g. Marks and Printy, 2003; Moolenaar et al., 2010). On the other hand, due to its centralized structure, the education system in Turkey has largely charged school principals with day-to-day managerial operations such as logistics, budgets or infrastructure which must be operated in strict alignment with the MoNE's rules and principles, rather than focusing on improving the quality of teaching and learning. Therefore, we invite policymakers to resolve this paradoxical situation by providing principals with wider autonomy and discretion to maximize their influence on teacher beliefs and practices that might lead to improved student outcomes. Considering also that the lack of professional standards or certificate programs for principals may impede effective school leadership (Bush, 2018), we urgently advise policymakers in Turkey and nations with similar educational systems to develop effective principal training programmes where principals learn to execute TL practices and build a trusting school environment. Policymakers should also consider individuals’ formal training around these skills when selecting and appointing them for principal positions.

This study has also several implications for research. To begin with, the literature would benefit from further research that validates our findings in both local and international contexts, which could provide opportunities for comparative analysis. Researchers might also conduct longitudinal studies to explore the nature of teachers’ innovative practices that have developed over time, as well as to investigate the causal links between school leadership and teacher practices. In addition, the present study could provide a stepping stone for further research that focuses on illuminating the under-researched paths that link school leadership with teacher innovative practices, and ultimately student achievement. Finally, employing a cultural perspective in school leadership research could provide further insights into the roles of different constructs across various parts of the world. For instance, treating cultural dimensions like power distance and uncertainty avoidance as potential moderators that might influence school leadership practices could provide a distinct contribution to the development of the global knowledge base on the interplay between school leadership and teaching (e.g. Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ali Çağatay Kılınç

Mahmut Polatcan

Author biographies

Ali Cağatay Kılınç¸ is an professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Karabuk University, Turkey. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division of Educational Administration, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey in 2013. His research focus is on educational leadership, school improvement, teacher learning, and practices.

Mahmut Polatcan is currently working as an associate professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Karabuk University, Turkey. He received his PhD in Educational Administration from Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara in 2017. His research interests include principals leadership, teacher effectiveness and teacher professional learning, and instructional practices.

Gökhan Savaş is a school principal at a Secondary School in Kastamonu, Turkey. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division of Educational Administration, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey in 2021. His research focus is on organizational behaviour, educational leadership, teacher leadership and teacher professional learning.

Emre Er received his Bachelor Degree from Gazi University Gazi Faculty of Education Department of Chemistry Teaching in 2010. He earned MA in 2013 and received PhD degree in Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences. He is currently employed as an Associate Professor in Yıldız Technical University Faculty of Education Department of Educational Sciences. His research interests are organizational change, social network theory, school development and school change capacity.

References

Amabile

(1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: Staw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI, Vol. 10, pp.187–209.

Aslanargun

Tarku

(2014) Teachers’ expectations about supervision and guidance roles of supervisors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 20(3): 281–306.

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2020) Bayesian estimation of single and multilevel models with latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 28(2): 314–328.

Axtell

Holman

Unsworth

, et al. (2000) Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73(3): 265–285.

Balyer

Özcan

(2012) Cultural adaptation of headmasters’ transformational leadership scale and a study on teachers’ perceptions. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 49(1): 103–128.

Bass

(1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass

Avolio

(1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bellibaş

MŞ

Kılınç

AÇ

Polatcan

(2021) The moderation role of transformational leadership in the effect of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning and instructional practice: An integrated leadership perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly 57(5): 776–814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X211035079.

Berkovich

(2018) Effects of principal-teacher gender similarity on teacher’s trust and organizational commitment. Sex Roles 78(7): 561–572.

10.

Bossert

Dwyer

Rowan

, et al. (1982) The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly 18(3): 34–64.

11.

Bryk

Sebring

Allensworth

, et al. (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

12.

Buchanan

(1974) Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 19(4): 533–546.

13.

Bush

(2018) Preparation and induction for school principals: global perspectives. Management in Education 32(2): 66–71.

14.

Çoban

Özdemir

Bellibaş

(2020) Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, and teacher self-efficacy: testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220968170.

15.

Conway

Lance

(2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3): 325–334.

16.

Cook

Wall

(1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology 53: 39–52.

17.

Day

Sammons

(2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly 52(2): 1–38.

18.

Elmore

(2004) School Reform from the Inside out: Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education Press.

19.

Frippiat

Marquis

(2010) Web surveys in the social sciences an overview. Population 65(2): 285–312.

20.

Geijsel

Sleegers

Leithwood

, et al. (2003) Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration 41(3): 228–256.

21.

Geijsel

Sleegers

PJC

Stoel

, et al. (2009) The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal 109(4): 406–427.

22.

George

Mallery

(2010) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Boston: Pearson.

23.

Ghaith

Yaghi

(1997) Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 13(4): 451–458.

24.

Gkorezis

(2016) Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behavior: a moderated mediation model. International Journal of Educational Management 30(6): 1030–1044.

25.

Goodwin

Whittington

Murray

, et al. (2011) Moderator or mediator? Examining the role of trust in the transformational leadership paradigm. Journal of Managerial Issues 23(4): 409–425.

26.

Hallinger

(2003) Leading educational change: reﬂections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 329–352.

27.

Hallinger

(2018) Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1): 5–24.

28.

Hallinger

Heck

(1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5–44.

29.

Hambleton

Patsula

(1998) Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research 45(1): 153–171.

30.

Harris

Jones

(2018) Leading schools as learning organizations. School Leadership & Management 38(4): 351–354.

31.

Hattie

(2008) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.

32.

Heck

Hallinger

(2014) Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration 52(5): 653–681.

33.

Hwang

Kang

Youn

(2014) The influence of a leader's servant leadership on employees’ perception of customers’ satisfaction with the service and employees’ perception of customers’ trust in the service firm: the moderating role of employees’ trust in the leader. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 24(1): 65–76.

34.

Khasawneh

Omari

Abu-Tineh

(2012) The relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment: the case for vocational teachers in Jordan. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 40(4): 494–508.

35.

Kılınç

AÇ

Beycioğlu

(2021) Mapping the Terrain of Training and Appointment of Educational Leaders in the Turkish Context: An Historical Perspective. In: Samier

Elkaleh

Hammad

(eds) Internationalisation of Educational Administration and Leadership Curriculum. Emerald Publishing Limited, 139–157.

36.

Leithwood

(1994) Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly 30(4): 498–518.

37.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006) Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 201–227.

38.

Leithwood

Patten

Jantzi

(2010) Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5): 671–706.

39.

Leithwood

Seashore-Louis

Anderson

, et al. (2004) How Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Review of Research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York: Wallace Foundation.

40.

Lindell

Whitney

(2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 114–121.

41.

Lüdtke

Robitzsch

(2009) Assessing within-group agreement: a critical examination of a random-group resampling approach. Organizational Research Methods 12(3): 461–487.

42.

Maas

Hox

(2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology 1(3): 86–92.

43.

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

(2012) Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing 88(4): 542–555.

44.

Marks

Printy

(2003) Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.

45.

Marzano

Pickering

Pollock

(2001) Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

46.

Mathews

Shepherd

(2002) Dimensionality of Cook and Wall’s (1980) British organizational commitment scale revisited. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75(3): 369–375.

47.

Ministry of Education [MoNE] (2018) Turkey’s 2023 Education Vision. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf

48.

Ministry of Education [MoNE] (2020) National education statistics formal education 2018/'19. Retrieved from https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_09/30102730_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2018_2019.pdf

49.

Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2005) Basic education in Turkey-background report. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/39642601.pdf (accessed date 15.10.2021)

50.

Moolenaar

Daly

Sleegers

(2010) Occupying the principal position: examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5): 623–670.

51.

Muthén

(1998–2017) Mplus User’s Guide, 8.ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

52.

Neeraj

(2009) The impact of perceived leadership styles on job satisfaction and ethical intentions of employees: With trust as a moderator. Master’s Thesis, Ming Chuan University.

53.

Nylund

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2007) Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14(4): 535–569.

54.

OECD (2019) TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

55.

O’Reilly

Chatman

(1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 492–499.

56.

Paletta

Alimehmeti

Mazzetti

, et al. (2021) Educational leadership and innovative teaching practices: a polynomial regression and response surface analysis. International Journal of Educational Management 35(4): 897–908.

57.

Park

(2005) Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation 11(5): 461–485.

58.

Pitner

(1988) Leadership substitutes: their factorial validity in educational organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement 48(2): 307–315.

59.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Bommer

(1996) Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management 22(2): 259–298.

60.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

61.

Raykov

Marcoulides

Akaeze

(2017) Comparing between- and within-group variances in a two-level study: a latent variable modeling approach to evaluating their relationship. Educational and Psychological Measurement 77(2): 351–361.

62.

Robinson

Hohepa

Lloyd

(2009) School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Auckland: The Ministry of New Zealand, 104–287.

63.

Ross

Gray

(2006) Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 179–199.

64.

Saavedra

Opfer

(2012) Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 94(2): 8–13.

65.

Şahin

Kesik

Beycioğlu

(2017) Chaotic process in the assignment of school administrators and its effects. Elementary Education Online 16(3): 1007–1021.

66.

Sayadi

(2016) The effect of dimensions of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership on the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of teachers in Iran. Management in Education 30(2): 57–65.

67.

Sebastian

Allensworth

(2012) The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: a study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(4): 626–663.

68.

Sebastian

Allensworth

(2019) Linking principal leadership to organizational growth and student achievement: a moderation mediation analysis. Teachers College Record 9: 1–32.

69.

Serdyukov

(2017) Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning 10(1): 4–33.

70.

Shengnan

Hallinger

(2021) Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(2): 214–233.

71.

Shrout

Fleiss

(1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86(2): 420–428.

72.

Sun

Leithwood

(2015) Leadership effects on student learning mediated by teacher emotions. Societies 5(3): 566–582.

73.

Supovitz

Sirinides

May

(2010) How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(1): 31–56.

74.

Thoonen

Sleegers

Oort

, et al. (2011) How to improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(3): 496–536.

75.

Thurlings

Evers

Vermeulen

(2015) Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: a literature review. Review of Educational Research 85(3): 430–471.

76.

Truong

Hallinger

Sanga

(2017) Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(1): 77–100.

77.

Tschannen-Moran

(2009) Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: the role of leadership orientation and trust Educational Administration Quarterly 45(2): 217–247.

78.

Vermeulen

Kreijns

Evers

(2020) Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and school learning climate: impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour in the Netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership: 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220932582.

79.

Wahlstrom

Louis

(2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458–495.

80.

Walker

Dimmock

(2012) School Leadership and Administration: The Cultural Context. London: Routledge.

81.

Wang

You

, et al. (2010) Effects of teacher efficacy, work motivation, and mood on teaching innovation. Psychological Science 5: 1254–1257.

82.

Welbourne

Johnson

Erez

(1998) The role-based performance scale: validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal 41: 540–555.

83.

West

Farr

(1989) Innovation at work: psychological perspectives. Social Behavior 4: 15–30.

84.

Shen

(2022) The association between principal leadership and student achievement: a multivariate meta-meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 35: 1–17.

85.

Zhang

Bowers

Mao

(2021) Authentic leadership and teachers’ voice behaviour: the mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of interpersonal trust. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(5): 768–785. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220915925.