The Impact of Teacher Leadership Practices: a Multilevel Path Analysis

The Impact of Teacher Leadership Practices: A Multilevel Path Analysis

Salleh Hairon

Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education

Jonathan Wee Pin Goh

Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education

KhinMaung Aye

Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education

Although the concept of teacher leadership has been around for more than two decades (Leonard, Petta & Porter, 2012), more empirical studies still need to be undertaken (Hairon, Goh & Chua, 2015). This is to strengthen its theorizing in terms of definition, impact and context. Without a clear understanding of the concept, attempts at understanding its impact on school improvement processes and outcomes within given contexts would be stymied. Drawing from the proposed definition by York-Barr and Duke (2006), Hairon et al. (2015) proposed a revised version based on their qualitative research study – that is, “the enactment of influence by teachers, individually orcollectively, on school stakeholders but primarily fellow teachers towards shared goalspertaining to improvements in teaching and learning” (p. 178). They further proposed teacher leadership as having three dimensions: (1) collegial and collaborative relations, (2) teacher learning and development, and (3) change in teachers’ teaching practices. Using this conceptual definition and framework, the study reported in this paper sought to investigate the impact of teacher leadership on student learning outcomes using a multi-level path analysis. Consistent with Spillane’s distributed leadership perspective (Spillane, 2005),variables of distributed leadershipand collective learning were also investigated in relation to the teacher leadership variable.Distributed leadership is conceptualized as having four dimensions (Hairon & Goh, 2015a): bounded empowerment, developing leadership, shared decision, and collective engagement. Teacher leadership as having three dimensions (Hairon et al., 2015): collegial and collaborative relations, teacher learning and development, and changing teachers’ teaching practices. Collective learning as having five dimensions(Hairon & Goh, 2015b): sharing knowledge, reflecting knowledge, interrogating knowledge, applying knowledge, and innovating knowledge. In essence, it is postulated that distributed leadership practices by school principals would support teacher leadership practices, which would then have an impact on how teachers learn collectively (e.g., in professional learning teams) to improve teaching and learning. The close relationship between teacher leadership and teacher learning in communities has been observed (Harris, 2003; Lieberman & Mace, 2009; Mindich & Lieberman, 2012). This study involved 28 primary schools in Singapore. Data on distributed leadership, teacher leadership and collective learning was collectedvia an online survey questionnaire from 93 teachers who were teaching mathematics in Grade 5 classes. Data on students’ learning growth in mathematical problem-solving ability was collected from 3 tests involving 1888 Grade 5 students who were taught by these teachers.The difference between the first and last test 3 was eventually used as a measure of students’ growth. Data from both teachers’ perceptions on the three variables and students’ learning growth were calibrated using Rasch analysis. Using a multi-level path analysis, the findings showed that principals’ distributed leadership dimension on ‘empowerment’ predicts teacher leadership dimension on ‘changing teachers’ teaching practices’. This in turn predicts the collective learning dimension on ‘reflecting knowledge’, which then predicts the collective learning dimension on ‘applying knowledge’. This collective learning dimension finally predicts students’ learning growth.Besides discussion on the findings, the paper will highlight specific recommendations to enhance the distributed-ness of leadership in schools.

References

Hairon, S., & Goh, J.W.P. (2015a).Pursuing the elusive construct of distributed leadership: Is the search over? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43(5), 693-718.

Hairon, S., & Goh, J.W.P. (2015b). Leadership for collective learning: A distributed perspective. International Business Education Journal, 8(1), 79-94.

Hairon, S., Goh, J.W.P., & Chua, C.S.K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in PLC contexts: Towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. School Leadership and Management, 35(2), 163-182.

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy pr Possibility?”School Leadership and Management, 23 (3), 313–324.

Leonard, J., Petta, K., & Porter, C. (2012). A fresh look at graduate programs in teacher leadership in the United States. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 189–204.

Lieberman, A., & Mace, D.H.P. (2009). The role of ‘Accomplished Teachers’ in professional learning communities: Uncovering practice and enabling leadership. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 459–470.

Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945.

Spillane, J.P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum,69(2),143-150.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004. What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.