Abstract
Purpose
This study examined the impact of school leadership on teacher professional collaboration, with collective teacher innovativeness and teacher self-efficacy (TSE) playing the mediating role. Two most commonly used leadership styles, instructional leadership (IL) and distributed leadership (DL), were analyzed using a multilevel design, i.e. teachers are nested within schools.
Design/methodology/approach
The proposed model was validated using data of Taiwan TALIS 2018 collected from both teachers and principals and analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling.
Findings
Results showed that IL and DL influence teacher professional collaboration through different paths. IL had a significant direct impact on teacher professional collaboration alone, while DL had a significant direct impact on both teachers' collective innovativeness and their professional collaboration. While TSE had a direct effect on collective teacher innovativeness, TSE and collective teacher innovativeness had a direct effect on teacher professional collaboration.
Originality/value
This study highlights the significant impact of principal leadership as both principals and teachers work in the same environment and culture co-shaped through the interaction and collaboration. Research evidence regarding the effects of IL and DL on teacher professional collaboration is limited; this is even less evidential when the indirect effects of variables mediating between school leadership and teacher outcomes, including teacher collective innovativeness and TSE, are added to the total effects. The present findings provide useful references for principals and teachers when promoting professional collaboration to achieve desired outcomes in school and student improvement.
Keywords
Citation
Hsieh, C.-C., Chen, Y.-R. and Li, H.-C. (2024), "Impact of school leadership on teacher professional collaboration: evidence from multilevel analysis of Taiwan TALIS 2018", Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-01-2023-0002
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Chuan-Chung Hsieh, Yu-Ran Chen and Hui-Chieh Li
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
In recent decades, professional collaboration has been much emphasized, particularly in the field of education. Not only is professional collaboration a vital feature of educational effectiveness, it is also considered essential to success in educational reform (Datnow, 2018). Moreover, results from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 revealed that high-performing countries on international assessments such as Finland, Canada and Singapore have committed resources for teachers to collaborate and considered professional collaboration crucial in the educational context (OECD, 2014; Schleicher, 2016). While professional collaboration might not be the panacea, it is one of the most empirically supported and practical strategies for school improvement as well as teacher development (Hargreaves and O'Connor, 2017). In Taiwan, following the promulgation of the Curriculum Guidelines of the 12-Year Basic Education (Ministry of Education, 2019), the “Teacher Course Teaching and Assessment Collaboration Center” was set up with the aim to improve both the curriculum and teaching in Taiwan through connection, integration and professional collaboration among teachers (Ministry of Education, 2018). With education shifting to an emphasis on learning skills, student-centered instruction and collective learning, school leadership rests not only on principals but also teachers. On the one hand, teachers are encouraged to participate in school decision-making; on the other hand, they are also urged to collaborate and engage in professional dialog to develop school-based curriculum (Pan et al., 2017).
Professional collaboration involves individuals coming together, committing to the sharing of expertise and thinking, planning, deciding and acting based on a shared understanding of each other and the communities people operate in (John-Steiner et al., 1998; Cilliers, 2000). In terms of teacher professional collaboration, teachers have designed curriculum together, moderated each other's assessments, undertaken action research and become involved in educational networks of teachers or schools (Hargreaves and O'Connor, 2017). Collaborative professionalism emerges from the bringing together of structure and culture, as well as of formality and informality (Hargreaves, 2019).
As pointed out by Hargreaves and O'Connor (2017), teaching is an occupation or form of work that is performed in a particular way by a group or a collectivity of individuals. As social contexts evolve, so do the role people expect education to play; hence, both teachers and schools need transformation to meet changing demands in changing times (Campbell, 2020). Globally and historically, public school teaching has its root in a culture of individualism that has, in more developed and higher performing countries, begun to shift towards cultures of professional collaboration (Hargreaves and O'Connor, 2017). In view of these changes, teacher professional collaboration is taken as an outcome variable to be examined in this study.
Prior studies have identified teachers' self-efficacy and collective innovativeness as essential factors for improving the overall impact and effectiveness of professional collaboration in education (Voelkel and Chrispeels, 2017; Thomas et al., 2019). Blömeke et al. (2021) found significant and positive association between teacher collaboration and school innovativeness; and that more innovative schools delivered better outcomes. The empirical investigation of Goddard et al. (2007) observed enhancement in professional collaboration through teachers' collective innovation that requires teachers to discuss together and to share unique insights with each other, which in turn strengthens their participation in achieving common goals. Marshall and Rendall (2020) also reported a positive association between frequent professional collaboration and teacher self-efficacy (TSE). In view of these findings, this study takes collective innovativeness and TSE as research variables for further exploration.
Whether different principal leadership styles will have different effects on assorted teacher outcomes and whether school culture, structure and climate will affect teacher outcomes remain inconclusive (Liu et al., 2021b). The systematic review of Gumus et al. (2018) found distributed leadership (DL) and instructional leadership (IL) to be the two most frequently studied leadership models in educational research. Different from other leadership styles, IL emphasizes teaching and learning (Marks and Printy, 2003); while the focus of DL is group decision-making by staff at multiple levels instead of by a single individual, usually the principal (Harris, 2009). Previous studies have found positive and significant relationships of DL with teacher collective innovativeness, TSE and professional collaboration (O'Shea, 2021; Sun and Xia, 2018; Lin, 2022). Research evidence regarding the effects of IL and DL on teacher professional collaboration is limited; it is even less evidential when the indirect effects of variables mediating between school leadership and teacher outcomes, including teacher collective innovativeness and TSE, are added to the total effects. Filling this knowledge gap is the main goal of this study.
Understanding how principals lead to achieve school goals would enrich the literature on the role of leadership in educational reform and school improvement. With a model proposed for this study, the impact of school leadership styles on teacher collective innovativeness, TSE and professional collaboration was explored empirically using the survey data from TALIS 2018. The present research further examines the relationships of teacher collective innovativeness with TSE and of TSE with professional collaboration. The contribution of this study lies in providing more comprehensive and detailed evidence for the above relationships, which would be useful references for principals and teachers when promoting professional collaboration to achieve desired outcomes in school and student improvement.
Literature review and hypotheses
Conceptual framework
School leadership makes a significant difference to student outcomes (Robinson and Gray, 2019). The more leaders focus their professional relationship, work and learning on both teaching and learning, the greater their influence on student outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008). Datnow and Park (2019) evidenced qualitatively the importance of school leaders in fostering cultures of collaboration. They positioned school leaders as key sensemakers with the meaning of collaboration being socially constructed. Following the framework of Datnow and Park (2019), Weddle (2022) explored how school leaders frame collaboration in schools under pressure to improve student performance and found that fostering effective collaborative cultures remained challenging even in schools with increasingly teacher-led collaboration.
As mentioned by Donohoo (2017), schools' staff working together for the greater good of the students can help boost student achievement. Teacher collective efficacy represents a shared belief among individual teachers that their collaborative efforts can enhance student academic success (Goddard et al., 2000, 2004). Teachers with high efficacy show greater effort and persistence, willingness to try new teaching approaches and attend more closely to struggling student needs (Donohoo, 2017).
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework for the present study, in which IL and DL are independent variables with direct effects on collective teacher innovativeness, TSE and teacher professional collaboration as suggested in existing literature. In addition, collective teacher innovativeness and TSE are also taken as predictors of teacher professional collaboration (Blömeke et al., 2021; Marshall and Rendall, 2020). TSE has been found to have a direct impact on collective teacher innovativeness (Zainal and Matore, 2019). Prior studies have evidenced relationships between these individual variables which were rarely examined together in the same study. To fill this research gap, this investigation explores the relationships among principal leadership, teacher collective innovativeness, TSE and teacher professional collaboration at multiple levels.
Teacher professional collaboration
For any educational reform to succeed, collaboration among teachers is indispensable (Brownell et al., 1997). In a broad sense, professional collaboration is defined as the collaborative interaction of a professional team in the activities required to achieve a common goal (Brouwer et al., 2012). Hence, professional collaboration among teachers refers to their collective engagement in lesson planning and problem-solving, and their sharing of knowledge, perspectives and teaching strategies with one another to generate innovative instructional practices (Lomos et al., 2011). Not only is professional collaboration a prominent feature in contemporary approaches to educational change (Eddy-Spicer, 2011), it is also an important medium for teacher learning (Brownell et al., 2006) and a significant support for teachers to work in challenging environments (OECD, 2020). Working in a professionally collaborative environment can empower teachers with a collective capacity to initiate and sustain continuous improvement in their professional practice so that each student they teach receives the highest quality of education possible (Pugach and Johnson, 2002). Professional collaboration, besides offering teachers chances to learn, also supports them in addressing the challenges and complexities of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
As mentioned in Goddard et al. (2007), professional collaboration denotes a diverse assortment of activities carried out inside educational institutions. These collaborative activities can be on a one-time basis or intensive and frequent (Vangrieken et al., 2015), aiming to enhance education quality provided to a single pupil, the whole classroom and the entire school (Meirink et al., 2010). The positive impact of professional collaboration on school improvement, reducing inequalities and enhancing student experiences and attainment has been well documented (Muijs et al., 2011). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (OECD, 2019) grouped the professional collaboration activities of teachers into four categories, namely collaborative teaching, learning by observation, cross-class teaching and community participation.
Relationship of IL and DL with teacher professional collaboration
IL
With growing popularity of IL, many countries have encouraged their principals to adopt it (Hallinger, 2018), and it was also recognized by the OECD and incorporated into their assessment survey on principal effectiveness (Bellibaş, 2015). In short, IL refers to principals observing teachers' instructional practices in classrooms, supporting collaboration among teachers in the development of new teaching approaches, ensuring teachers to take responsibility for students' learning outcomes (Bellibaş et al., 2020) and providing parents with relevant information about school and student achievement (OECD, 2014).
Specific IL behaviors of principals include monitoring and evaluating teacher instructional performances according to the school vision and goals, supporting and promoting collaboration among teachers and providing resources for professional development (Brieve, 1972). Empirical research has evidenced a relationship between IL and teacher professional collaboration in that effective IL fosters teamwork and cultivates a culture of collaboration by establishing trust and creating structures that promote teacher learning (Youngs and King, 2002), which is also related to collaboration in innovative teams (Meirink et al., 2010). Thus, it can be inferred that IL of principals affects teacher professional collaboration. Moreover, Webs and Holtappels (2018) found that to carry out more demanding teacher professional collaboration would require IL of principals in addition to self-efficacy of teachers. However, direct empirical evidence on the relationship between IL and teacher professional collaboration is scarce. In view of the above, the following hypothesis is proposed.
IL is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration.
DL
Within education, the enormous accountability pressure has made the tasks, roles and responsibilities of principals become increasingly complex and beyond the capability of any single individual (Hartley, 2007). Such has undermined the traditional heroic leadership of the principal alone, calling for distributing power and responsibility among individual school members and empowering people at different levels of the school to take the lead (Gumus et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the concept of DL has been rather vague (Tian et al., 2016). DL is considered a product of the synergetic interactions of school leaders, followers, and their situation to achieve common goals (Spillane, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2008) and involves decision-making practices performed by multiple school staff members and stakeholders (OECD, 2014). When leadership is distributed, staff within the school have a chance to work together to develop knowledge collectively and collaboratively (Camburn et al., 2003).
Empirical research has also evidenced the relationship between DL and teacher professional collaboration. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), Liu et al. (2021a) found statistically significant positive effects of DL on autonomy, collaboration and job satisfaction of teachers. The positive association of DL with self-efficacy and professional learning communities of teachers has also been confirmed (Bellibaş et al., 2021). The recent study of Lin (2022) reported positive direct effects of DL on teacher innovativeness and professional collaboration. In view of the above, the following hypothesis is proposed.
DL is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration.
Relationship of TSE and collective teacher innovativeness with teacher professional collaboration
TSE
First defined by Bandura (1977) as an individual's belief in their capability to produce desired outcomes, self-efficacy in the field of education refers to teachers' belief in their abilities to achieve desired results in their teaching and students' learning (Bandura, 1995). TALIS divided TSE into three dimensions, namely self-efficacy in classroom management so that order in the classroom is maintained, self-efficacy in instruction using a variety of strategies and self-efficacy in student engagement, motivating and engaging students in active learning (OECD, 2019). FollowingTschannen-Moron and Hoy (2001), the present study conceptualized TSE as teachers' judgment of their own ability to execute the behavior in the three dimensions mentioned above for the desired outcome of student engagement and learning.
When exploring factors related to TSE, Guo et al. (2011) found significant correlation between TSE and their sense of collaboration; while Marshall and Rendall (2020) observed positive association of TSE with more frequent professional collaboration. Voelkel and Chrispeels (2017) suggested TSE to be predictive of teachers working together; and Geijsel et al. (2009) found significant effects of TSE on their participation in professional learning activities. Taken together, these results indicate a strong link between TSE and teacher professional collaboration; and hence the following hypothesis is proposed.
TSE is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration.
Collective teacher innovativeness
In the field of education, innovation is one of the keys to successful school reforms (Kundu and Roy, 2016). In challenging and constantly changing educational contexts, teachers are expected to maintain and improve their personal innovativeness so as to improve the quality of education (Serdyukov, 2017). Collective innovativeness is of paramount importance in sustaining and spreading innovations in schools (Buske, 2018). Blömeke et al. (2021) considered collective teacher innovativeness a characteristic of an innovative school climate, which in turn fosters exchange and collaboration among teachers (OECD, 2014). In the study of Nguyen et al. (2021), teacher innovativeness was operationalized as teachers' perceptions of the extent to which teachers in their schools search for, develop and apply new ideas in their practices (OECD, 2019).
Empirical evidence has confirmed the relationship between collective innovativeness and professional collaboration among teachers (Ainley and Carstens, 2018). Blömeke et al. (2021) reported positive association of school innovativeness with enhanced teacher collaboration and that more innovative schools delivered better outcomes in terms of teacher collaboration and exchange. The case study conducted by Thomas et al. (2019) in Australia found that enabling a local curriculum innovation in literacy promoted teacher collaboration; and Goddard et al. (2007) observed enhancement in professional collaboration through teachers' collective innovation that requires teachers to discuss together and to share unique insights with each other. In view of the above, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Collective teacher innovativeness is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration.
Relationship of IL and DL with TSE
Besides a source and a contributor, IL has been found to be a predisposing factor (Fackler and Malmberg, 2016) and a positive predictor of TSE (Zheng et al., 2018). Principals' IL behaviors such as developing a positive learning climate for teachers, observing teachers' instruction and giving feedback have been found to have direct and positive impact on TSE (Ma and Marion, 2021; Calik et al., 2012). The study of Bellibaş and Liu (2017) evidenced a significant and positive relationship of principals' IL with TSE in classroom management, instruction and student engagement.
Through strengthening teachers' sense of responsibility in their instructional role and providing opportunities for teachers to participate in decision-making, DL contributes to TSE enhancement. Empirical investigations showed a direct relationship between DL and TSE, and the higher teachers think of DL, the higher the TSE self-efficacy reported (Sun and Xia, 2018). While prior research supports the positive effect of DL on TSE (Liu et al., 2021b), their relationship is indirect with the significant effects mediated through trust in principal and job satisfaction (Zheng et al., 2019). In view of the above, the following hypotheses are proposed.
IL is significantly and positively related to TSE.
DL is significantly and positively related to TSE.
Relationship of IL and DL with collective teacher innovativeness
Playing an important role in facilitating innovation of teachers and the school (Fullan, 2016b; Chesler et al., 1963), principal IL is a determining factor behind successful implementation of change or innovation in schools (de Jong et al., 2020). Although IL has positive influence on collective teacher innovativeness, the influence is indirect and mediated through shared practices among teachers and their sense of agency in learning effectiveness (Bellibaş et al., 2020).
School innovation requires a creative organizational structure as well as decentralized leadership; hence, not only can DL foster innovation, it is a significant and positive predictor of teachers' use of innovative teaching practices (Spillane et al., 2004; O'Shea, 2021). Brown et al. (2020) found that DL plays a key role in facilitating the mobilization of professional learning network-led innovations. While Lin (2022) reported a positive and direct impact of DL on teacher innovativeness and professional collaboration, Buyukgoze et al. (2022) found both direct and indirect effects on collective teacher innovativeness, as mediated by job satisfaction and professional collaboration. In view of the above, the following hypotheses are proposed.
IL is significantly and positively related to collective teacher innovativeness.
DL is significantly and positively related to collective teacher innovativeness.
Relationship of TSE with collective teacher innovativeness
Self-efficacy is a crucial component of innovative behavior in any field (Cropley and Cropley, 2009), the most influential factor on teachers' innovative behavior (Zainal and Matore, 2019) and a key motivational source that can facilitate innovation (Cai and Tang, 2021). A recent study of Liu et al. (2022) confirmed TSE as an important booster of teacher creative self-efficacy and teacher innovation. Teachers with higher self-efficacy are more willing to try new methods to better serve students' needs (Allinder, 1994) and TSE can predict teachers' attitudes toward implementation of teaching for creativity (Huang et al., 2019). In view of the above, the following hypothesis is proposed.
TSE is significantly and positively related to collective teacher innovativeness.
Method
Data source
This research performed a secondary data analysis on the TALIS data obtained by the OECD in 2018 (OECD, 2018). TALIS data were collected using self-report questionnaires administered to school principals and teachers. A two-stage stratified sampling approach was adopted. The sample comprised the principals of 200 schools randomly selected in the first stage and 20 teachers arbitrarily chosen from each selected school in the second stage. TALIS was conducted in Taiwan from April to May 2018. All the selected 200 elementary school principals completed the survey, giving a response rate of 100%. The TALIS data therefore have a nested structure, with teachers nested within schools. Considering previous findings and the need for examining both principal and teacher perceptions (Urick and Bowers, 2017), this study considered teacher perceptions representing the teacher level and principal perceptions denoting the school level.
There were more male (65%) than female principal respondents (35%). The majority (84.7%) had bachelor's degrees, with some (8.7%) having doctoral degrees. Their average job tenure as a principal was 8 years. A total of 3494 elementary school teachers completed the survey. After eliminating responses with missing data, 3179 valid responses remained, making up a validity rate of 91.0%. There were more female (72.5%) than male teacher respondents (27.5%). Among them, 57.6% had bachelor's degrees and 41.9% had doctoral degrees. Their average job tenure as a teacher was 16.7 years.
Variables
IL
There are 11 items (TC3G22A-TC3G22 K) in the TALIS principal questionnaire asking how frequently principals engaged in different school leadership activities. Principals were asked to reply using a 4-point Likert scale. Of the 11 items, five have been utilized to measure IL in previous studies (Bellibaş et al., 2020); they are “TC3G22 B: I observed instruction in the classroom,” “TC3G22D: I took actions to support cooperation among teachers to develop new teaching practices,” “TC3G22 E: I took actions to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills,” “TC3G22 F: I took actions to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students' learning outcomes,” and “TC3G22 G: I provided parents or guardians with information on the school and student performance.” The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results showed good model fit (Goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.982; Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.988; Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.947; Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.064) with an average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.48 and a composite reliability (CR) of 0.81.
DL
Three questions in the TALIS teacher questionnaire have been utilized to measure DL in previous studies (Bellibaş et al., 2021). Teachers were asked to reply using a 4-point Likert scale. The three items are “TT3G48 A: This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions,” “TT3G48 B: This school provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions” and “TT3G48 C: This school provides students with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions.” The CFA results showed good model fit (GFI = 0.999; CFI = 0.999; AGFI = 0.999; RMSEA = 0.001) with an AVE of 0.53 and a CR of 0.77.
TSE
Drawn upon past studies (Sun and Xia, 2018), three subscales in the TALIS 2018 teacher questionnaire were adopted to measure TSE, including efficacies for instructional practices, classroom management and student engagement. Each subscale contained four items. Teachers were asked to reply using a 4-point Likert scale. The four items for efficacy in instructional practices are “TT3G34 C: Craft good questions for students,” “TT3G34 J: Use a variety of assessment strategies,” “TT3G34 K: Provide an alternative explanation, for example when students are confused,” and “TT3G34 L: Vary instructional strategies in my classroom.” The items for efficacy in classroom management are “TT3G34D: Control disruptive behavior in the classroom,” “TT3G34 F: Make my expectations about student behavior clear,” “TT3G34H: Get students to follow classroom rules” and “TT3G34I: Calm a student who is disruptive or noisy.” Those for efficacy in student engagement are “TT3G34 A: Get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork,” “TT3G34 B: Help students value learning,” “TT3G34 E: Motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork” and “TT3G34 G: Help students think critically.” The CFA results showed good model fit (GFI = 0.968; CFI = 0.906; AGFI = 0.936; RMSEA = 0.042) with an AVE of 0.49 and a CR of 0.92.
Collective teacher innovativeness
Teacher innovativeness was measured using the scale of school team innovativeness in the TALIS 2018 teacher questionnaire (Nguyen et al., 2021). Teachers were asked to reply using a 4-point Likert scale. The four items are “TT3G32 A: Most teachers in this school strive to develop new ideas for teaching and learning,” “TT3G32 B: Most teachers in this school are open to change,” “TT3G32 C: Most teachers in this school search for new ways to solve problems” and “TT3G32D: Most teacher in this school provide practical support to each other for the application of new ideas.” The CFA results showed good model fit (GFI = 0.989; CFI = 0.975; AGFI = 0.895; RMSEA = 0.081) with an AVE of 0.73 and a CR of 0.91.
Teacher professional collaboration
A set of questions in the TALIS teacher questionnaire has been utilized to measure teacher professional collaboration in previous studies (Torres, 2019). Teachers were asked to reply using a 6-point Likert scale. The four items are “TT3G33 A: Teach jointly as a team in the same class,” “TT3G33 B: Observe other teachers' classes and provide feedback,” “TT3G33 C: Engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g., projects)” and “TT3G33H: Take part in collaborative professional learning.” The CFA results showed good model fit (GFI = 0.992; CFI = 0.952; AGFI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.069) with an AVE of 0.44 and a CR of 0.75.
As mentioned in Fornell and Larcker (1981), if the AVE is less than 0.5, but the CR is higher than 0.6, the convergent validity of the construct can be adequate. In view of this, the items constituting the scales provided a valid representation of the latent constructs of the study.
Control variables
Variables that may affect teachers' professional collaboration, including the characteristics of principals and teachers, were included in the model. The control variables for principals included gender, educational qualification, years of experience, school location, private and public schools, and socioeconomic status (SES), while the control variables for teachers included gender, educational qualification and years of experience.
Analytical strategy
The mean scores of variables are estimated for the analysis. For an individual response, the score of a specific latent variable is the mean score of items developed to measure the variable. The mean score of that latent variable can then be obtained by dividing the sum of scores for that variable by the total number of valid samples. The computation rule was applied to the mean scores of TSE, collective teacher innovativeness and teacher professional collaboration at the teacher level and IL at the school level. With regard to DL at the school level, DL scores of teachers belonging to the same school were first averaged and taken as school level DL, then the mean score of school level DL was estimated by dividing the sum of scores from all schools by the total number of schools.
The analysis involved the following stages. First, the construct validity of the measurement was examined using CFA. Then, the appropriateness of multilevel analysis was tested. For TSE, collective teacher innovativeness and teacher professional collaboration, the intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated to detect whether there were significant variations at the school level. An ICC exceeding 0.05 was used as the criterion to determine whether multilevel analysis was warranted (Geldhof et al., 2014).
For testing the hypotheses, multilevel regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between IL and collective teacher innovativeness, between IL and TSE, between DL and collective teacher innovativeness, between DL and TSE, between TSE and collective teacher innovativeness, between TSE and teacher professional collaboration, between collective teacher innovativeness and teacher professional collaboration, between IL and teacher professional collaboration, as well as between DL and teacher professional collaboration.
The multilevel analysis was accomplished using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) 7 (Raudenbush et al., 2017). HLM is considered appropriate for analyzing data from teachers nested in schools (Ma and Marion, 2021) and has the advantage of identifying the relationships between predictor and outcome variables by taking both school level and teacher level regression relationships into account (Hoffmann, 1997).
Results
Relationships between variables
Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations (SD) and correlations among the variables. As can be seen, TSE was significantly and positively related to collective teacher innovativeness (r = 0.17, p < 0.001); TSE was significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration (r = 0.17, p < 0.001); collective teacher innovativeness was significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration (r = 0.27, p < 0.001); and the correlation between IL and DL did not reach significant levels (r = −0.06, p = 0.413).
Null model
The null models served to confirm whether the outcome variables of interest differ between schools. Table 2 shows the null models with TSE, collective teacher innovativeness and teacher professional collaboration as the outcome variables. As can be seen, the total variance in collective teacher innovativeness was 3.3% between schools and 28.2% within schools (ICC = 10.4%), while that in teacher professional collaboration was 15.3% between schools and 83.6% within schools (ICC = 15.5%). These between-school variances were significant, indicating that teacher perceptions of collective teacher innovativeness and teacher professional collaboration vary significantly across schools, thus justifying the subsequent multilevel analyses (Geldhof et al., 2014).
Hypothesis testing
This study performed Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparisons with an adjusted significance level. That is, the Bonferroni-corrected p value is calculated as the original critical p value divided by the number of hypotheses performed. The Bonferroni-corrected p value is estimated as 0.006 (= 0.05/9) with pre-determined significant p value being 0.05 and number of hypotheses being 9. Table 3 shows the HLM results of hypothesis testing and Figure 2 shows the study model with parameter estimates.
As shown in Table 3, the relationship marked in gray was insignificant with Bonferroni corrections, yet it is significant before the adjustment. All in all, the impact of IL on TSE was insignificant and so was the impact of DL on TSE, rendering both H5 and H6 unsupported. Results in Model 2 show that the impact of IL on collective teacher innovativeness was insignificant, rendering H7 unsupported; while DL is positively and significantly related to collective teacher innovativeness (β = 0.41, p < 0.006), thus supporting H8. There is a significant positive relationship between TSE and teacher collective innovativeness (β = 0.20, p < 0.006), providing evidence in support of H9. Results in Model 3 shows that IL is positively and significantly related to teacher professional collaboration (β = 0.19, p < 0.006), thus supporting H1. DL is also positively and significantly related to teacher professional collaboration (β = 0.41, p < 0.006), thus supporting H2. TSE is positively and significantly related to teacher professional collaboration (β = 0.26, p < 0.006), thus supporting H3. Collective teacher innovativeness is positively and significantly related to teacher professional collaboration (β = 0.35, p < 0.006), thus supporting H4. Table 4 summarizes the results of hypothesis testing.
Discussion and conclusions
The current research has moved one step forward and provided more holistic and nuanced evidence for the associations among IL, DL, TSE, teacher collective innovativeness and teacher professional collaboration. Of note, this study highlights the significant impact of principal leadership as both principals and teachers work in the same environment and culture co-shaped through their interaction and collaboration.
The present findings revealed that IL and DL influence teacher professional collaboration through different paths. On the one hand, DL promotes teacher professional collaboration through direct influence on teacher collective innovativeness. On the other hand, IL directly promotes teacher professional collaboration without the mediation of TSE and collective teacher innovativeness. These results supported the direct effect of both IL and DL on teacher professional collaboration with DL having a larger impact than IL.
To begin with, IL, DL, TSE and teacher collective innovativeness all have direct impacts on teacher professional collaboration (H1, H2, H3 and H4, respectively). Consistent with the results of Webs and Holtappels (2018) and Nguyen et al. (2021), the direct effect of IL and DL on teacher professional collaboration illustrates the vital role of principal leadership in promoting collaboration among teachers. Meanwhile, the positive relationship of TSE with teacher professional collaboration observed in this study echoes the findings of Marshall and Rendall (2020). Finally, the significant and positive relationship of teacher collective innovativeness with teacher professional collaboration observed in this study is in line with the results of Blömeke et al. (2021).
Principals, as instructional leaders, can promote TSE by observing class instruction and providing feedback and by developing a positive learning climate for teachers (Ma and Marion, 2021; Calik et al., 2012). Obtained through conservative Bonferroni correction, the present findings evidenced the insignificant relationship of IL with TSE, rendering IL as a predictor of TSE (H5) unsupported. This result was inconsistent with findings of Calik et al. (2012) and Zheng et al. (2018). Moreover, contrary to the findings of Liu et al. (2021b), the present results obtained in Taiwan's educational context do not show positive effect of DL on TSE (H6) but echo the absence of direct effect of DL on TSE reported by Zheng et al. (2019). The discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that enhancement in self-efficacy requires other contributors such as job satisfaction and trust in the principal (Zheng et al., 2019), not just opportunities for active participation in school decision-making.
The absence of direct effect of IL on teacher collective innovativeness observed in this study (H7) is inconsistent with the findings of de Jong et al. (2020). A possible reason for such difference is the lack of opportunity for collective innovation with IL principals setting vision and goals against which teachers' performance will be evaluated (Bridges, 1967). Nevertheless, our findings agree with those of Bellibaş et al. (2020) in that IL cannot directly influence instructional practice but indirectly through promoting interaction among teachers and their participation in professional learning. In line with O'Shea (2021), this study confirmed the direct and positive impact of DL on teacher collective innovativeness (H8). Same as Huang et al. (2019), the present results support TSE as an effective predictor of teacher collective innovativeness (H9); hence, increasing TSE will boost innovations among teachers.
This study has explained theoretically the unsupported hypotheses, namely H5, H6 and H7. In addition to theoretical explanations, the unconfirmed hypotheses might be considered methodological in nature; that is, limitations of the data as opposed to the non-existence of the relationships that this study tries to measure.
Implications
Opportunities should be provided for teachers to share feedback on collective innovative practices and participate in professional development activities with the ultimate goal of improving student learning. Under IL, principals giving feedback and suggestions on classroom teaching and facilitating knowledge and experience sharing can motivate teachers for professional collaboration. Hence, for more effective IL, it is recommended that principals should participate more in the school community, solve school problems through exchange and collaboration with teachers and promote professional learning and sharing among teachers. All these will facilitate changes and innovations in classroom teaching. For teachers, they should acquire the necessary skills, especially in the development of new pedagogical practices and the integration of diverse forms of pedagogical content and technology, which in turn may improve teacher innovativeness.
Regarding DL, the principal through power delegation and empowerment creates a positive and democratic school atmosphere and offers teachers the opportunity to participate in school decision-making. When leadership is distributed, it enables teachers to utilize their knowledge, passion and imagination, which is vital to the success of educational improvements (Fullan, 2016a; Buske, 2018). As a result, teachers are engaged in decisions on which innovations to embrace and how to implement them, paving the way to teacher professional collaboration. In addition, principals should also promote work autonomy and assist teachers in their creative work. To encourage collaborative innovation, principals should reduce interpersonal distance between them and the staff (de Jong et al., 2020). Under constant evolution, collective innovativeness is more powerful than individual innovativeness. Moreover, for the sustainable development of society, an innovative school atmosphere is needed and innovative teacher education can promote the realization of this goal through principal leadership and the organization of resources. Hargraves and O'Connor (2018) have detailed the suggestions on daily practice for principals in terms of professional collaboration with teachers.
A limitation of this study is that the concepts of the studied variables have their bases on those conceptualized in OECD (2014) and OECD (2019) and we were obliged to operationalize them as they were conceptualized in the TALIS dataset. Although the OECD draws on available literature when developing a construct, the constructs used in the TALIS dataset may not capture every component of a given phenomenon. The limitations have been discussed in depth by Bellibaş et al. (2021) and Kılınç et al. (2022). For example, the construct of DL involves only the participation of teachers, students and parents in the school decision-making process. The concept that DL reflects the interactions of school leaders, followers and their situation to achieve common goals (Spillane, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2008) is dismissed. TALIS is designed as a sequence of cross-sectional surveys. Possible analytical limitation exists for the use of correlation data for examining causal relationships. In future, longitudinal, experimental or quasi-experimental studies need to be conducted (Hallinger, 2011).
Figures
Figure 1
The conceptual model
Figure 2
Study model diagram with parameter estimates
Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and correlations among variables
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher level | |||||||
| 1. TSE | 3.19 | 0.46 | (0.92) | ||||
| 2. Collective teacher innovativeness | 2.92 | 0.56 | 0.17** | (0.91) | |||
| 3. Teacher professional collaboration | 2.77 | 0.99 | 0.17** | 0.27** | (0.73) | ||
| School level | |||||||
| 4. IL | 2.82 | 0.52 | 0.05** | 0.05** | 0.12** | (0.79) | |
| 5. DL | 2.69 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.13** | 0.10** | −0.03 | (0.77) |
Note(s): Cronbach's α are given in parentheses
**p < 0.01
Source(s): Table created by authors
Results of null model
| TSE | Collective teacher innovativeness | Teacher professional collaboration | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed effect | |||
| Intercept(γ00) | 3.19*** | 2.93*** | 2.80*** |
| Random effect | |||
| Teacher level(σ2) | 20.9%*** | 28.2%*** | 83.6%*** |
| School level(τ00) | 0.3% | 3.3%*** | 15.3%*** |
| ICC | 1.3% | 10.4% | 15.5% |
Note(s): ICC = τ00/(τ00+σ2)
***p < 0.001
Source(s): Table created by authors
Results of HLM
| Dependent variable | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TSE | Collective teacher innovativeness | Teacher professional collaboration | |
| Independent variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
| Intercept | 3.06 (0.000)* | 0.96 (0.007) | −1.33 (0.034) |
| School level (N = 200) | |||
| IL | 0.05 (0.021) | 0.04 (0.226) | 0.19 (0.000)* |
| DL | 0.03 (0.625) | 0.41 (0.000)* | 0.41 (0.000)* |
| Teacher level (N = 3179) | |||
| TSE | 0.20 (0.000)* | 0.26 (0.000)* | |
| Collective teacher innovativeness | 0.35 (0.000)* | ||
| Random effect | |||
| School level | 0.003 (0.080) | 0.026 (0.000)* | 0.086 (0.000)* |
| Teacher level | 0.205 (0.000)* | 0.269 (0.000)* | 0.785 (0.000)* |
Note(s): p value is given in parentheses
*p < 0.006
Source(s): Table created by authors
Results of hypothesis testing
| Hypothesis | Results | |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | IL is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration | Supported |
| H2 | DL is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration | Supported |
| H3 | TSE is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration | Supported |
| H4 | Collective teacher innovativeness is significantly and positively related to teacher professional collaboration | Supported |
| H5 | IL is significantly and positively related to TSE | Unsupported |
| H6 | DL is significantly and positively related to TSE | Unsupported |
| H7 | IL is significantly and positively related to collective teacher innovativeness | Unsupported |
| H8 | DL is significantly and positively related to collective teacher innovativeness | Supported |
| H9 | TSE is significantly and positively related to collective teacher innovativeness | Supported |
Source(s): Table created by authors
References
Ainley, J. and Carstens, R. (2018), Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Allinder, R.M. (1994), “The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants”, Teacher Education and Special Education, Vol. 17, pp. 86-95.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1995), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bellibaş, M.Ş. and Liu, Y. (2017), “Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals' perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers' self-efficacy perceptions”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 55, pp. 49-69.
Bellibaş, M.Ş., Polatcan, M. and Kılınç, A.Ç. (2020), “Linking instructional leadership to teacher practice: the mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 50, pp. 812-831.
Bellibaş, M.Ş. (2015), “Principals' and teachers' perceptions of efforts by principals to improve teaching and learning in Turkish middle schools”, Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 1471-1485.
Bellibaş, M.Ş., Gümüş, S. and Liu, Y. (2021), “Does school leadership matter for teachers' classroom practice? The influence of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on instructional quality”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 32, pp. 387-412.
Blömeke, S., Nilsen, T. and Scherer, R. (2021), “School innovativeness is associated with enhanced teacher collaboration, innovative classroom practices, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 113 No. 8, pp. 1645-1667.
Bridges, E. (1967), “Instructional leadership: a concept re-examined”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 136-147.
Brieve, F.J. (1972), “Secondary principals as instructional leaders”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 56, pp. 11-15.
Brouwer, P., Brekelmas, M. and Nieuwenhuis, L. (2012), “Community development in the school workplace”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 403-418.
Brown, C., Flood, J., Armstrong, P., MacGregor, S. and Chinas, C. (2020), “Is distributed leadership an effective approach for mobilizing professional capital across professional learning networks? Exploring a case from England”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 6, pp. 64-78.
Brownell, M.T., Yeager, E., Rennells, M.S. and Riley, T. (1997), “Teachers working together: what teacher educators and researchers should know”, Teacher Education and Special Education, Vol. 20, pp. 340-359.
Brownell, M.T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N. and Vanhover, S. (2006), “Learning from collaboration: the role of teacher qualities”, Council for Exceptional Children, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 169-185.
Buske, R. (2018), “The principal as a key actor in promoting teachers' innovativeness—analyzing the innovativeness of teaching staff with variance-based partial least square modeling”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 262-284.
Buyukgoze, H., Caliskan, O. and Gümüş, S. (2022), “Linking distributed leadership with collective teacher innovativeness: the mediating roles of job satisfaction and professional collaboration”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership. doi: 10.1177/17411432221130879.
Cai, Y. and Tang, R. (2021), “School support for teacher innovation: mediating effects of teacher self-efficacy and moderating effects of trust”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 41, 100854.
Calik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H. and Cagatay Kilinc, A. (2012), “Examination of relationships between instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective teacher efficacy”, Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 2498-2504.
Camburn, E.M., Rowan, B. and Taylor, J.E. (2003), “Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 347-373.
Campbell, P. (2020), “Rethinking professional collaboration and agency in a post-pandemic era”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 5 Nos 3-4, pp. 337-341.
Chesler, M., Schmuck, R. and Lippitt, R. (1963), “The principal's role in facilitating innovation”, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 2, pp. 269-277.
Cilliers, P. (2000), “What can we learn from a theory of complexity?”, Emergence, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Cropley, A.J. and Cropley, D.H. (2009), Fostering Creativity: A Diagnostic Approach for Higher Education and Organizations, Hampton Press, Cresskill.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010), The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future, Teachers College Press, New York.
Datnow, A. (2018), “Time for change? The emotions of teacher collaboration and reform”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 157-172.
Datnow, A. and Park, V. (2019), Professional Collaboration with Purpose, Routledge, London.
de Jong, W.A., Lockhorst, D., de Kleijn, R.A.M., Noordegraaf, M. and van Tartwijk, J.W.F. (2020), “Leadership practices in collaborative innovation: a study among Dutch school principals”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 50, pp. 928-944.
Donohoo, J. (2017), Collective Efficacy: How Educators' Beliefs Impact Student Learning, Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Eddy-Spicer, D.H. (2011), “Power and knowledge-building in teacher inquiry: negotiating interpersonal and ideational difference”, Language and Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Fackler, S. and Malmberg, L.E. (2016), “Teachers' self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: teacher, student group, school and leadership effects”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 56, pp. 185-195.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fullan, M. (2016a), “The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 17, pp. 539-544.
Fullan, M. (2016b), The New Meaning of Educational Change, Teachers College Press, New York.
Geijsel, F.P., Sleegers, P.J.C., Stoel, R.D. and Kruger, M.L. (2009), “The effect of teacher psychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teachers' professional learning in Dutch schools”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 406-427.
Geldhof, G.J., Preacher, K.J. and Zyphur, M.J. (2014), “Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 19, pp. 72-91.
Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K. and Hoy, A.W. (2000), “Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 479-507.
Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K. and Hoy, A.W. (2004), “Collective teacher efficacy: theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, pp. 3-13.
Goddard, Y.L., Goddard, R.D. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007), “A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 109 No. 4, p. 877.
Gumus, S., Bellibaş, M.S., Esen, M. and Gümüş, E. (2018), “A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 25-48.
Guo, Y., Justice, L.M., Sawyer, B. and Tompkins, V. (2011), “Exploring factors related to preschool teachers' self-efficacy”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 961-968.
Hallinger, P. (2011), “Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 125-142.
Hallinger, P. (2018), “Principal instructional leadership: from prescription to theory to practice”, in Hall, G.E., Quinn, L.F. and Gollnick, D.M. (Eds), The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning, John Wiley & Sons.
Hargraves, A. and O’Connor, M.T. (2018), Leading Collaborative Professionalism, Centre for Strategic Education, East Melbourne.
Hargreaves, A. (2019), “Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 25, pp. 603-621.
Hargreaves, A. and O'Connor, M.T. (2017), “Cultures of professional collaboration: their origins and opponents”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 74-85.
Harris, A. (2009), Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives, Springer.
Hartley, D. (2007), “The emergence of distributed leadership in education: why now?”, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 202-214.
Hoffmann, D.A. (1997), “An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 723-744.
Huang, X., Lee, J. and Yang, X. (2019), “What really counts? Investigating the effects of creative role identity and self-efficacy on teachers' attitudes towards the implementation of teaching for creativity”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 84, pp. 57-65.
John-Steiner, V., Weber, R.J. and Minnis, M. (1998), “The challenge of studying collaboration”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 773-783.
Kılınç, A.Ç., Polatcan, M., Savaş, G. and Er, E. (2022), “How transformational leadership influences teachers' commitment and innovative practices: understanding the moderating role of trust in principal”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership. doi: 10.1177/17411432221082803.
Kundu, A. and Roy, D.D. (2016), “School climate perception and innovative work behaviour of school teachers”, International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, Vol. 5, pp. 129-133.
Leithwood, K.A., Mascall, B. and Strauss, T. (2008), “What we have learned and where we go from here”, in Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence, Routledge.
Lin, Q. (2022), “The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration”, Frontier in Psychology, Vol. 13, 948152.
Liu, S., Keeley, J.W., Sui, Y. and Sang, L. (2021a), “Impact of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction in China: the mediating roles of teacher autonomy and teacher collaboration”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 71, 101099.
Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M.Ş. and Gümüş, S. (2021b), “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 and Leadership, Vol. 49, pp. 430-453.
Liu, S.N., Lu, J.F. and Yin, H.B. (2022), “Can professional learning communities promote teacher innovation? A multilevel moderated mediation analysis”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 109, 103571.
Lomos, C., Hofman, R.H. and Bosker, R.J. (2011), “The relationship between departments as professional communities and student achievement in secondary school”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 722-731.
Ma, X.R. and Marion, R. (2021), “Exploring how instructional leadership affects teacher efficacy: a multilevel analysis”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 49, pp. 188-207.
Marks, H.M. and Printy, S.M. (2003), “Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 370-397.
Marshall, N. and Rendall, S. (2020), Talis 2018: Professional Collaboration among New Zealand Year 7-10 Teachers, Ministry of Education.
Meirink, J.A., Imants, J., Meijer, P.C. and Verloop, N. (2010), “Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 161-181.
Ministry of Education (2018), Course Collaboration and Practice Series 2, Ministry of Education, Taiwan.
Ministry of Education (2019), “Curriculum Guidelines of 12-year basic education: general Guidelines”, available at: https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=9900
Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Chapman, C. and West, M. (2011), Collaboration and Networking in Education, Springer.
Nguyen, D., Pietsch, M. and Gümüş, S. (2021), “Collective teacher innovativeness in 48 countries: effect of teacher autonomy, collaborative culture, and professional learning”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 106, 103463.
OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Technical Report, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2018), TALIS 2018 Technical Report, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results: Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results: Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, OECD Publishing, Paris.
O'Shea, C. (2021), “Distributed leadership and innovative teaching practices”, International Journal of Educational Research Open, Vol. 2, 100088.
Pan, H.L., Nyeu, F.Y. and Cheng, S.H. (2017), “Leading school for learning: principal practices in Taiwan”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 55, pp. 168-185.
Pugach, M.C. and Johnson, L.J. (2002), Collaborative Practitioners, Collaborative Schools, Love Publishing, Denver.
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S. and Congdon, R. (2017), HLM 7.03 for Windows, Scientific Software International, Skokie.
Robinson, V.M.J. and Gray, E. (2019), “What difference does school leadership make to student outcomes?”, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 171-187.
Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A. and Rowe, K.J. (2008), “The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 635-674.
Schleicher, A. (2016), “Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform: lessons from around the world”, International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing.
Serdyukov, P. (2017), “Innovation in education: what works, what doesn't, and what to do about it?”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-33.
Spillane, J.P. (2005), “Distributed leadership”, The Educational Forum, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 143-150.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J.B. (2004), “Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-34.
Sun, A. and 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, Vol. 92, pp. 86-97.
Thomas, D.P., Emery, S., Prain, V., Papageorgiou, J. and McKendrick, A.M. (2019), “Influences on local curriculum innovation in times of change: a literacy case study”, Australian Education Researcher, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 469-487.
Tian, M., Risku, M. and Collin, K. (2016), “A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 146-164.
Torres, D.G. (2019), “Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers' job satisfaction in US schools”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 79, pp. 111-123.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, A.W. (2001), “Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 783-805.
Urick, A. and Bowers, A.J. (2017), “Assessing international teacher and principal perceptions of instructional leadership: a multilevel factor analysis of TALIS 2008”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 18, pp. 249-269.
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E. and Kyndt, E. (2015), “Teacher collaboration: a systematic review”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 15, pp. 17-40.
Voelkel, R.H. and Chrispeels, J.H. (2017), “Understanding the link between professional learning communities and teacher collective efficacy”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 505-526.
Webs, T. and Holtappels, H.G. (2018), “School conditions of different forms of teacher collaboration and their effects on instructional development in schools facing challenging circumstances”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 39-58.
Weddle, H. (2022), “Challenges and opportunities for sustaining purposeful professional collaboration: leadership frames in urban schools under pressure to improve”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 21, pp. 733-755.
Youngs, P. and King, M.B. (2002), “Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 643-670.
Zainal, M.A. and Matore, M. (2019), “Factors influencing teachers' innovative behaviour: a systematic review”, Creative Education, Vol. 10, pp. 2869-2886.
Zheng, X., Yin, H.B. and Li, Z.L. (2018), “Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Zheng, X., Yin, H.B. and Liu, Y. (2019), “The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: the mediation of satisfaction and trust”, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Vol. 28, pp. 509-518.
Acknowledgements
Since acceptance of this article, the following author(s) have updated their affiliation(s): Hui-Chieh Li is at the National Taipei University of Business, Taipei, Taiwan.