Mediating effects of trust, communication, and collaboration on

Transcription

International Journal of Leadership in Education
Theory and Practice
ISSN: 1360-3124 (Print) 1464-5092 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20
Mediating effects of trust, communication, and
collaboration on teacher professional learning in
Hong Kong primary schools
Lijuan Li, Philip Hallinger, Kerry John Kennedy & Allan Walker
To cite this article: Lijuan Li, Philip Hallinger, Kerry John Kennedy & Allan Walker (2016):
Mediating effects of trust, communication, and collaboration on teacher professional
learning in Hong Kong primary schools, International Journal of Leadership in Education, DOI:
10.1080/13603124.2016.1139188
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1139188
Published online: 16 Mar 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 15
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tedl20
Download by: [Hong Kong Institute of Education]
Date: 18 March 2016, At: 05:31
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1139188
Mediating effects of trust, communication, and collaboration on
teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools
Lijuan Lia, Philip Hallingerb,c, Kerry John Kennedya and Allan Walkerd
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Institute of Education] at 05:31 18 March 2016
a
Centre for Governance and Citizenship, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China; bFaculty of
Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bankok, Thailand; cDepartment of Education Leadership and Management,
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa; dDepartment of Education Policy and Leadership, The Hong
Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China
ABSTRACT
This study tests mediated principal leadership effects on teacher professional
learning through collegial trust, communication and collaboration in Hong
Kong primary schools. It is based on a series of single mediator studies,
and uses the same convenience sample of 970 teachers from 32 local
primary schools. It also adopts regression-based macros, integrated with
bootstrapping, to examine and compare sizes and proportions of potential
mediating effects of the three human relational variables. The findings
affirm the role and nature trust, communication, and collaboration play in
the mediated relationship. In contrast, the mediating power of collaboration
is non-significantly stronger than that of communication, and is more than
double that of trust. The conclusion is that a school environment featuring
mutual trust, effective communication and genuine collaboration is a core
condition for teacher learning and change. Provided that the forces that
bind people together in schools are multiple, principals are recommended
to create school culture and conditions strategically for teacher learning
to thrive.
Introduction
In recent years, a global consensus has emerged among education policy-makers concerning the
central position of the principal in the school improvement agenda. It is noted that effective principal
leadership is a ‘necessary condition for effective reform relative to the school-level, the teacher-level,
and the student-level factors’ (Marzano, 2003, p. 172). This is also the case in East Asia where, over the
past decades, policy-makers have initiated wide ranging of reforms aimed at enhancing, supporting
and monitoring principal efforts to promote teaching effectiveness (e.g. Hallinger & Lee, 2013; Pan
& Chen, 2011; Walker, Hu, & Qian, 2012). Despite this policy trend, empirical research examining
the nature and impact of principal efforts under the turbulence of educational reforms in East Asia
remains at its beginning stages (e.g. Hallinger & Bryant, 2013).
To enhance education effects on different levels, the series of reform measures that Hong Kong authorities have implemented over the last two decades stress quality assurance, school-based management
CONTACT Lijuan Li © 2016 Taylor & Francis
[email protected]
2 L. Li et al.
and school-based curriculum. Principals are the policy implementers at the school site. In Hong Kong,
principals had to shape their practices to respond to the demanding and pressing accountability system
over the past decades (Ko, Hallinger, & Walker, 2012). Among the pool of generic principal practices,
the Walker and Ko (2011) propose that principals’ effort on instructional leadership (teaching, learning
and curriculum) and teacher professional development represent the ends but not the means of school
education, and are therefore high stake. In contrast, principals’ management work regarding staff and
resources management and external communication are peripheral to educational purposes.
Schools are where the educational reforms to be implemented and changes expected. While restructuring or adapting to meet the demands of the reforms, schools are expected to build their capacity—school capacity is found directly associated with teacher professional learning (Leithwood, Day,
Sammons, Hopkins, & Harris, 2006, p. 19). In the process of capacity building, principals can use their
human competencies and charisma to create positive school environment and social capital at school.
On the other hand, they can cultivate and create structural conditions to support school improvement
(Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999, p. 756). Compared to supportive structural features, intangible human
relations and social resources represented by collegial Trust, Communication and Collaboration affect
teachers’ professional learning more Li, Hallinger, and Ko (2016).
For teachers, the requirement of continuing professional development (CDP) is of profound influence. The school review, conducted by the the former Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and
Qualifications (ACTEQ) in 1997, suggested the development of a qualified teaching profession and the
CDP of all teachers. The ACTEQ document established a Teacher Competencies Framework (TCF)
for teacher professional development, and provided ‘reference for teachers and schools in formulating
CDP plans specific to the person and appropriate to the school at a particular time’ (Cheng, 2009,
p. 74). It was suggested that Schools should put CDP on their development agenda and that teachers
should attend professional development programmes for no less than 150 h in the three-year period
(Education Department [ED], 2013). The purpose of teacher professional development experience
was to enhance their professional learning and teaching effectiveness.
In summary, the education reforms in Hong Kong are part of global movement. The reforms aimed
to meet challenges around internationalization and global competition in a demanding accountability
context (Cheng & Walker, 2008; Walker & Riordan, 2010). While positive achievements have been
reported, negative effects have also emerged. Any deterioration in the teachers’ moral and working
commitment may result in failures in the educational sector. Practically, the educational reforms in
Hong Kong have implications for practice and policy formulation to local educational stakeholders as
well as those stakeholders in other Asian, contexts (Cheng, 2009; Walker & Riordan, 2010).
Theoretical perspective
Recent scholarly investigations claim that, principal leadership might be the single most important
factor leading to school improvement (Day et al., 2009). Most other studies, however, report small or
non-significant direct effects of principal leadership on school improvement and student achievement
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Robinson, 2007; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Some have identified larger
indirect effects of principal leadership through key school- or classroom-level factors that directly
influence teaching effectiveness and student learning (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, & Demetriou,
2009), thus confirming ‘mediated paths’ via ‘intermediate targets’.
The ‘mediated paths’ start with leadership forces at school. Prior investigations on educational leadership within effective schools mostly focus on the behaviours and practices of the principals (Duke,
2010). Leithwood and Riehl (2003) assert that, ‘a core set of leadership practices forming the basics of
successful leadership are valuable in almost all educational contexts’ (p. 5). Belchetz and Leithwood
(2007) supported this assertion by noting that the core set of leadership practices must be adapted
to the needs, constraints and opportunities of different sociocultural and organizational contexts.
Unitary concepts of leadership are seldom employed in contemporary times (Dupont, 2009). To
investigate the multifaceted nature of principal leadership, most researchers have used leadership
International Journal of Leadership in Education 3
models from which constituent leadership components are derived (Dupont, 2009; Ogawa & Hart,
1985). For example, the Walker and Ko's (2011) study with a sample from Hong Kong secondary
schools conceptualized principal leadership into a hierarchical structure of seven core areas of principal practices. The core areas are Strategic Direction and Policy Environment, Teaching, Learning
and Curriculum, Leader and Teacher Growth and Development, Staff Management and Resource
Management, Quality Assurance and Accountability, and External Communication and Connection.
The same hierarchical structure is used in the Ko et al., (2012) study with Hong Kong primary
schools. The dimensional leadership structure is based upon the framework of key qualities of principal leadership, as stipulated by the Hong Kong Education Department (ED, 2002). It has been used
for formal principal development programmes in Hong Kong over the past decade. The key qualities,
or core areas, provide a baseline reference against which the present knowledge, skills, abilities and
attributes of school leaders can be gauged, and future needed development charted (p. 3).
Walker and Ko (2011) advocate that, among the seven core areas of principals’ leadership on instructional leadership and teacher professional development responded to the local education policies and
practical needs of parents and students, hence of direct importance. Newmann, King, and Youngs
(2000) reported that teacher professional development could affect all aspects of school capacity and
teacher professional learning. More importantly, principals are believed to be able to create or change
school conditions and enhance teacher professionalism through their efforts on and involvement in
teacher professional development (DuFour, 1991; Youngs & King, 2002). Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom,
and Anderson (2010) also claimed that effective principal instructional leadership strengthens teacher
professional learning, and that in schools, teachers’ professional learning is ‘directly responsible for
the learning of students’ (p. 37).
Previous studies suggest that the leadership forces from principals influence student achievement
through building school capacity to improve teacher professionalism (e.g. Creemers & Kyriakides,
2008; Darling-Hammond, 1999, 2009; Hallinger & Heck, 1998, 2009; Louis et al., 2010; Smylie &
Hart, 1999). In this sense, school capacity and teacher professionalism are the ‘intermediary targets’
in ‘mediated paths’ directing towards student achievement and school improvement.
One of the fundamental aspects of school capacity is the productive engagement of teachers in professional learning (Hattie, 2009; Leithwood, Anderson, Mascall, & Strauss, 2010; Leithwood, Mascall,
& Strauss, 2008; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Louis et al., 2010; Mulford & Silins, 2003; Mulford
& Edmunds, 2009). For example, Newmann and colleagues (2000) reported that student learning is
influenced most directly by teaching effectiveness, which is shaped by teacher professional learning
and other school capacities. As synthesized in Robinson et al’s (2008) meta-analysis of educational
leadership studies, principals’ support and involvement in teacher professional learning demonstrated
the most robust path linking leadership and learning in schools. Hence the need for principals to
promote school capacity.
Among the array of school capacity factors, school environment featuring trust (e.g. Hoy, Tarter, &
Hoy, 2006; Leithwood & Beatty, 2008; Sleegers, Geijsel, & Van den Berg, 2002), communication (e.g.
Danielson, 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2000; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008) and collaboration (e.g. Leonard,
2010; Quicke, 2000; Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007) have been conceptualized as conditions
that mediate the influence of leadership on the professional progress of teachers (e.g. Bryk & Schneider,
2002, 2003; Louis, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, 2000, 2004; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). For example, trust
is found to enhance the development of teachers’ subject knowledge, pedagogic skills, and the teaching
effectiveness necessary for changes and the development of their classroom instruction (Cosner, 2009).
It is through effective communication that principals provide sufficient support to enhance teachers’
professional learning, and ultimately school and student improvement (e.g. Danielson, 2006; TschannenMoran, 2000). Similarly, collegial collaboration and collaboration have been found to be the basis
for teacher professional practice (Quicke, 2000) and for educational development and improvement
(Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Hargreaves, 1994a, 1994b).
As defined by Hoy et al. (2006), trust is ‘one’s vulnerability to another in terms of the belief that
the other will act in one’s best interests’ (p. 429). The ‘interdependence of the relationships’ of school
4 L. Li et al.
members plays a central role in building professional learning community (Caskey, 2010, p. 2; see also
Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Tarter, Bliss, & Hoy,
1989; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). In a climate of mutual trust, the resultant positive organizational
collegiality would lead to collective good for teaching effectiveness and student achievement, and, as
such, the whole school should benefit (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, 2003; Fullan, 2000; Hoy & Miskel,
2008; Tschannen-Moran, 2000).
In school settings communication is ‘the purposeful production and transmission’ of messages
between the principal and staff (Gouran, Wiethoff, & Doelger, 1994, p. 6). Leadership starts from
communication and values open dialogues. Gouran et al. (1994) underscored the important connect
between communication and leadership when they recommended leaders treat communication skills
as the foundation of school activity. Though in a smaller volume prior literature has suggested that
communication plays a key role for principals to provide support to teachers for promoting their
professional learning, and teaching (e.g. Danielson, 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2000).
Although research on teacher collaboration started in the field of educational leadership two decades
ago, it has been much less explored, if not marginalized (Hargreaves, 1994a, 1994b; Lavie, 2006). This
is especially the case when compared to other school capacity indicators such as trust. The ability for
cooperative work, however, is claimed to have become ‘one of the core requisites of contemporary
school reform’ (Slater, 2008, p. 324). For example in Jenni and Mauriel’s (2004, p. 184) study, collaboration is regarded as critical for improving the performance of teachers and school effectiveness (see
also Goddard et al., 2007). With ample empirical evidence, Little (1982) asserted that ‘more effective
schools could be differentiated from less effective schools by the degree of teacher collegiality, or collaboration, they practiced’ (as cited in Friend & Cook, 1992, p. 423). In short, fostering collaboration
is important for building school capacity and promoting teacher performance.
Building on this literature, the current study aims to explore the mediated paths through which
principal leadership impacts teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. Based on
previous theoretical linkages, we shall examine the nature and role that trust, communication and
collaboration play in the mediated relationship. These human relational factors have not previously
been considered simultaneously. Either have they been related to principal leadership and teacher
professional learning synergistically. As key elements in the efficient functioning and operating of
schools, their intermediate effects are worth exploring. To explore dimensions of principal practices
that influence teacher learning, this study will also compare how the mediated effects of the core areas
of principal leadership differ.
Considering above we poses an hypothesis and seeks to answer the following two research questions:
Hypothesis: Principal Leadership has both direct effects and indirect effects on Teacher Professional
Learning through Trust, Communication, and Collaboration.
(1) Do trust, communication and collaboration have mediating effects on the relationship
between principal leadership and teacher professional learning when jointly considered?
(2) When the seven core areas of principal leadership are considered separately, do trust, communication and collaboration jointly have mediating effects on the relationship between the
core areas of principal leadership and teacher professional learning.
The model for exploring mediated effects of principal leadership on teacher
professional learning
Given its assumed limited effects on student achievement, principal leadership is often conceptualized
as a ‘mediated’ or ‘indirect’ process (Hallinger & Heck, 1998, 2010; Louis et al., 2010). Some schooland classroom-level conditions known as school capacity have been found to be critical intermediary
targets that directly influence school effects or student outcomes, e.g. teacher instruction, faculty trust
(e.g. Krüger, Witziers, & Sleegers, 2007; Mulford & Edmunds, 2009; Sleegers et al., 2002; TschannenMoran, 2000). The indirect effects of these school conditions offer alternatives to examining principal
leadership effects on school growth and development (e.g. Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Bryk & Schneider,
2002, 2003; Mulford & Edmunds, 2009; Robinson et al., 2008). The current study hypothesises that
it is important to identify factors that are connected to principal leadership and school capacity, and
that have the potential to affect student outcomes.
Figure 1 shows the general conceptual framework of the study. The paths show both the process
and directions by which principal leadership is hypothesized to affect teacher professional learning.
It is proposed that leadership practices of principals impact the professional learning of teachers
both directly and indirectly. The indirect effects are made possible through creating conditions which
nurture human relations in schools. In summary, principal leadership impacts teacher professional
learning partly by building a climate of trust, communication and collaboration at school.
Teacher professional learning is set as the distal variable. Teacher professional learning is conceptualized as a complex system and process in which teachers keep learning while interacting with
each other for improving student performance. It is also an extension of functions of the school and
authorities that play towards the building of school capacity. The word ‘professional’ emphasizes a
specialized knowledge base and professional standards; the word ‘learning’ emphasizes the collective
objective of school and student improvement (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Thomas, & Wallace, 2006;
Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994).
Principal leadership in the current study is first operationalized as a composite of generic leadership
practices of principals (see Figure 1). Upon verification of the effects of the joint mediators, generic
principal leadership practices are operationalized into seven core areas of principal practices, as used
in the Walker and Ko's (2011) study. The major purpose is to test the assumption that principals’ effort
on teacher professional development and instructional leadership has direct and greater effects on
teacher professional learning, as opposed to other cores areas of principal leadership. Another purpose
is to compare how the cores areas differ in affecting teacher learning.
The core practices, or key qualities, used in the dimensional structure of this study do not attempt to
be comprehensive. Characterizing principal practices in the Hong Kong context, the seven core areas
‘hold generic general currency’, considering that they are similar to those used and tested in England,
the USA, Canada and Australia (Walker & Ko, 2011, p. 370; also see Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Silins
& Mulford, 2002a, 2002b; Walker & Riordan, 2010). Meanwhile, the framework has been widely used
for formal principal development programmes and for research in the area of educational leadership
in Hong Kong context (e.g. Ko et al., 2012; Kwan & Walker, 2008; Lee, Walker, & Chui, 2012; Walker,
& Kwan, 2010). It presents a solid base to promote the quality of principal leadership and educational
research in Hong Kong schools.
The concept of school capacity is operationalized as a set of school-level factors connected to human
relations, i.e. trust, communication and collaboration. The selection of mediators is based on prior
conceptual underpinnings and preliminary findings from the same set of data (see Li & Hallinger, 2015;
Li, Hallinger, & Ko, 2016; Li, Hallinger, & Walker, 2016). In contrast to the more complex interactions
between principal leadership and selected intervening school level variables in Hallinger, Bickman, and
Davis’ (1996) study, the current study focuses on the one-way effects arising from principal leadership
to teacher professional learning through school capacity.
Figure 1. Conceptual model showing direct and mediating effects of trust, communication and collaboration on the relationship
between principal leadership and teacher professional learning.
6 L. Li et al.
On the whole, the conceptual framework proposes that principals promote teacher professional
learning by building a climate of trust, communication and collaboration at school. The key implication
of this conceptual framework on principal and school contribution to teacher professional learning
is that, principal leadership should be designed to meet the needs of school capacity building and
promote teacher professional learning. In other words, to promote school capacity and teacher professional learning and keep them at a high level, principals should adjust their leadership practices,
presumably, by putting more effort into instructional leadership and teacher professional development.
Method
This study adopts a cross-sectional quantitative survey design to examine mediated effects of principal
leadership on teacher professional learning through trust, communication and collaboration at school
site. This section describes the sampling procedures for schools and teachers, the instruments for data
collection, and the data analysis approaches.
Sampling procedure
Among the over 600 Hong Kong primary schools that were invited to join the teacher survey, 32 principals responded positively with signed consent forms. In these schools, all those who had teaching
workload, including vice principal panel chairs and general teachers, were invited to do the online
survey, and were described generally as ‘teachers’ in the study. Before the survey, the schools and
teachers were informed of the aims and objectives of the research, as well as the procedures and outcomes intended. To keep the school and participants’ identities confidential, account numbers rather
than real names were used. The participants were not forced, induced or persuaded to respond to the
survey. Both the participants and the schools could withdraw at any time.
Participants
With 970 teachers from the 32 participating schools, the response rate reached 72.5% taking account of
the total number of teachers in the schools. The 32 schools accounted for around 6% of local primary
schools in Hong Kong when the surveys were conducted. Despite a relatively low school participation
rate with a convenience sample, the participating schools represented a range of local schools in terms
of geographic location, socio-economic status, school types (government, aided, direct subsidy and
private), and school sponsoring bodies.
A questionnaire using a six-point scale was used to measure teachers’ perceptions of principal
leadership practices, the response categories ranging from (1) ‘not at all’, (2) ‘very little’, (3) ‘little’, (4)
‘partially’, (5) ‘a lot’, to (6) ‘very significantly’. The principal leadership scale was adapted from Kwan
and Walker's (2008) scale measuring the work of principals in Hong Kong secondary schools. The
number of items was reduced to 33, excluding items that were not applicable to Hong Kong primary
schools. Seven dimensions of generic leadership practices were covered, namely, Strategic Direction,
Instructional Leadership, Teacher Professional Development, Staff Management, Resource Management,
Quality Assurance and External Communication. For the current study, we employ a composite measure derived by combining the 33 principal leadership items as well as an omnibus measure that drew
upon results based on the seven dimensions1 (see Appendix 1).
The principal leadership scale is validated using the default estimation method of Maximum Likelihood
in Mplus version 7.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011). The scale showed good model fit (Minimum Fit
Function Chi-Square (χ2) = 1454.497, Degrees of Freedom (df) = 472, p < .001; Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA) = .046 with its 90% Confidence Interval as (.044; .049), Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) = .957; Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = .952; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (RMR)
= .032). Reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for the seven factors ranged from .914 to .960. The results suggest
that the principal leadership scale with this sample of teachers has strong internal consistency and validity.
The school capacity scale is informed by Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2000) and the Walker and Ko
(2011) research. In the current study, we used four factors to measure school capacity, namely, Trust,
Communication, Collaboration and Teacher Profession Learning. The first three human relation factors
were conceptualized as mediating constructs, and the final one I was set as the distal variable in the
tested models (see Appendix 2). The six response options are (1) ‘strongly disagree’, (2) ‘disagree’, (3)
‘somewhat disagree’, (4) ‘somewhat agree’, (5) ‘agree’ and (6) ‘strongly agree’.
After removing two ill-fitting items, a CFA model of four latent variables with 19 items was is
established. The fit statistics suggested reasonable model fit (Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square (χ2) =
490.632, Degrees of Freedom (df) = 145, p < .001; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
= .050, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .960; Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = .953; Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual (SRMR) = .036). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the four school capacity factors in
turn were .817, .863, .932 and .922. That for the whole scale α reaches .938. The results suggested that
the scale used for measuring dimensions of school capacity meet acceptable standards of validity and
reliability.
Data analysis
The conceptual model hypothesized direct effects of Principal Leadership on Teacher Professional
Learning, and indirect effects of it through Trust, Communication and Collaboration. Hayes’ (2013)
regression-based SPSS macros, integrated with the bootstrapping method, were used to estimate
the sizes and proportions of potential mediating effects. Prior studies, using the same sample, have
employed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps procedures and affirmed the presence, strength and
significance of Trust, Communication and Collaboration as individual mediators (i.e., Li & Hallinger,
2015; Li, Hallinger, & Ko, 2016; Li, Hallinger, & Walker, 2016).
Given the theoretical adequacy of the constructs and the statistical evidence regarding reliability
and validity of the individual mediators, the current study identified we take the three human relation
factors as a set of mediators. Using the composite score of principal leadership as the independent
variable and the score of teacher professional learning as dependent variable, we first assess the indirect effects through the joint mediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). We then move a step further to
assess mediated effects of the seven core areas of principal leadership on teacher professional learning
through the joint mediators. This time the independent variables were the seven core areas, estimated
simultaneously. There was no change in the dependent variable. This analysis was undertaken by using
an ‘omnibus test’ of the mediation relationships of the seven dimensional structure of the Principal
Leadership scale. The omnibus test reported overall direct, indirect and total effects, but does not reveal
the specific dimensions responsible for the effects (Hayes & Preacher, 2010).
The bootstrapping method was also used to assess statistical significance of the parallel mediators.
It also generated ratios and sizes of the direct, indirect and total effects for the paths in the tested
model. With random resampling via the bootstrapping method, the results are indicative of, if not
generalizable, to the full population of Hong Kong primary schools.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the key variables were estimated and are reported in Table 1. The composite
measure of Principal Leadership had a mean of 3.72 (SD = .94). The mean score for Trust was 4.91
(SD = .71), for Communication 4.02 (SD = 1.00), for Collaboration 4.46 (SD = .76). That for Teacher
Professional Learning was 4.47 (SD = .73). Despite the differences of response categories thus incomparability of the means, the means are all above the midpoint of the six-point Likert scales, suggesting
positive responses from the participants regarding principal leadership and capacity of their schools.
Table 2 reports the sizes of the indirect effects, proportions of the indirect effects in contrast with
the direct and total effects, and the statistical significance of the estimates. As a set, the three school
capacity factors were all significant mediators between Principal Leadership and Teacher Professional
8 L. Li et al.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the seven dimensions of principal leadership.
Dimension
Principal Leadership
Strategic Direction
Teacher Professional Development
Staff Management
External Communication
Resource Management
Quality Assurance
Instructional Leadership
Trust
Communication
Collaboration
Teacher Professional Learning
Mean
3.72
3.79
3.78
3.62
3.69
3.74
3.66
3.76
4.91
4.02
4.46
4.47
Std. deviation
.94
.97
1.03
1.01
1.07
1.05
1.00
1.04
.71
1.00
.76
.73
Table 2. Bootstrap results of the direct, indirect and total effects of principal leadership on teacher professional learning through
trust, communication and collaboration.
Bootstrap results for
indirect effects
Indirect effects of IV on DV through
mediators
Data
Bias corrected and
accelerated confidence intervals
Bias corrected confidence intervals
Boot
Bias
SE
Lower
Upper
Lower
Total
.180
.181
Trust
.030
.030
Communication
.067
.067
Collaboration
.084
.083
Contrasts
Trust vs. Communi−.036
−.037
cation
Trust vs. C Collabo−.053
−.053
ration
Communication vs.
−.017
−.017
Collaboration
Effect size indices for indirect effects
.000
−.000
.000
−.000
.028
.010
.012
.014
.127
.013
.046
.059
.235
.052
.091
.116
.127
.012
.046
.059
.235
.052
.091
.116
.127
.012
.046
.057
.235
.051
.091
.114
−.001
.013
−.062
−.013
−.061
−.012
−.062
−.013
.000
.013
−.081
−.031
−.080
−.030
−.079
−.030
.001
.015
−.049
.012
−.048
.012
−.047
.013
Effect
Upper
Percentile confidence intervals
Boot SE
Lower
BootLLCI
Upper
BootULCI
Indirect Effect of X on Y
Total
Trust
Communication
Collaboration
.180
.030
.067
.084
.028
.010
.012
.014
.127
.012
.046
.058
.237
.052
.091
.116
.848
.143
.312
.392
.069
.037
.048
.048
.722
.073
.231
.308
.996
.220
.418
.498
5.556
.936
2.048
2.573
375.509
62.656
163.834
150.738
2.406
.257
.850
1.079
43.112
7.683
16.055
2.098
Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y
Total
Trust
Communication
Collaboration
Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y
Total
Trust
Communication
Collaboration
Note: R-squared mediation effect size and Kappa-squared cannot be estimated for a model with multiple mediators.
Learning.2 Calculated through the bootstrapping method that includes 10000 times random sampling,
the size of the indirect effect of Principal Leadership on Teacher Professional Learning through Trust
was .030, that through Communication was .067, and that through Collaboration was .084. The total
indirect effects amount to .180, medium in size and significant.
Figure 2 shows the paths of the mediation relationships and the effects on each path in the casual
direction. Including the direct effects (.033), the total effect reached .213, the same as the amount of
Figure 2. The multiple mediation model estimating effects of principal leadership on teacher professional learning through trust,
communication and collaboration.
total effects when only one estimator was used. (see Li & Hallinger, 2015; Li, Hallinger, & Ko, 2016;
Li, Hallinger, & Walker, 2016). This suggests that the total effect of Principal Leadership on Teacher
Professional Learning remains the same no matter which mediator(s) function is used.
The pairwise contrasts of the indirect effects revealed that the specific indirect effect through Trust
is smaller than that through Communication, and the indirect effect through Communication is smaller
than that through Collaboration. Considering the sizes of the mediation effects, the difference between
Trust and Communication, and that between Trust and Collaboration, are significant. Conversely, the
difference between Communication and Collaboration is non-significant.
Medium in size, the indirect effects of Principal Leadership on Teacher Professional Learning through
the three mediators was about 84.75% of the total effects of in size. Separately, around 14.28% of the total
effect is mediated by Trust. Communication contributes 31.23% to the total effects, and Collaboration
contributes 39.24%. The portion of indirect effect through Trust is much smaller than that through
Communication and Collaboration, respectively, while the latter two are closer to each other. The contrasts of the mediated proportions highlighted the sizes of the indirect effects of the mediators.
Further, the indirect effect of Principal Leadership on Teacher Professional Learning through Trust
is slightly smaller than the direct effect (.936). While the indirect effect of Principal Leadership on
Teacher Professional Learning through Communication and Collaboration, respectively, more than
doubled their direct effects. In total, the indirect effects through the three mediators are more than
five times the direct effects. The above provides a positive answer Research Question 1. The following
extended analysis seeks to answer Research Question 2.
When the seven dimensions of Principal Leadership were used as multiple predictors, their direct
and indirect effects on Teacher Professional Learning through the three mediators in the multiple
mediator models varied. Although included in the models simultaneously, effects for each dimension
should be interpreted as independent of other dimensions.
As shown in Table 3, principals’ Strategic Direction and Staff Management in schools showed significant but opposite indirect effects via each of the three mediators on Teacher Professional Learning. The
mediating effects of each mediator on Teacher Professional Development, independent of other leadership dimensions, are not significant, as was the case with the other rest four dimensions. The total effects
of principals’ leadership, however, as reflected by Teacher Professional Development and Instructional
Leadership on Teacher Professional Learning were significant. Principals’ Strategic Direction responding to local education context and Staff Management in schools also shows significant total effects.
In addition, the dimension Instructional Leadership is the only one that has significant direct effects
on Teacher Professional Learning.
In combination, indirect effects of the seven dimensions of Principal Leadership on Teacher
Professional Learning through the three parallel mediators were significant, as revealed by the range
Effect
−.049
.048
−.001
.028
−.052
−.036
.089*
Note: *stands for significant at the .01 level (2 tailed).
Effects & dimensions
Strategic Direction
Teacher Professional Development
Staff Management
Resource Management
Quality assurance
Instructional leadership
OMNIBUS
Direct
effects
Effect
−.036*
.007
.045*
−.003
.008
.006
.001
.009
LLCI
−.075
−.033
.020
−.030
−.024
−.030
−.034
.002
ULCI
−.008
.044
.078
.026
.043
.044
.037
.017
Indirect effects (through trust)
Effect
−.070*
.032
.079*
.003
.020
−.014
.010
.031
LLCI
−.105
.000
.049
−.023
−.010
−.047
−.020
.019
ULCI
−.042
.069
.113
.030
.050
.018
.040
.045
Effect
−.079*
.013
.102*
−.002
.011
.001
.031
.045
Indirect effects (through
Communication)
LLCI
−.127
−.037
.061
−.036
−.032
−.049
−.015
.025
ULCI
−.040
.064
.150
.035
.055
.055
.079
.065
Indirect effects
(through Collaboration)
Effect
−.235*
.100 *
.224*
.027
−.013
−.043
.130*
Total
effects
Table 3. Bootstrap results of the direct, indirect and total effects of the seven core areas of principal leadership practices on teacher professional learning through trust, communication and collaboration.
10 L. Li et al.
of confidence intervals of the Omnibus test. Results of the omnibus tests for the direct effect (R² = .006,
F(7, 959) = 2.586, p < .001) and total effect (R² = .126, F(7, 962) = 19.867, p < .001) provide further
evidence.
On the whole, multiple evidences from the series of mediation analyses supported the study’s
hypothesis. The evidence also affirmed that the three school capacity factors when considered together
are all significant mediators between Principal Leadership and Teacher Professional Learning in Hong
Kong primary schools. Collaboration contributes the most to the mediated relationship, followed
by Communication, and Trust the least. On the whole, the indirect effects via the human relational
mediators exceeded the direct effect of principal leadership on teacher professional learning by times.
In addition, when Trust, Communication and Collaboration were considered together, the direct effect
of Principal Leadership reduced substantially. . The nontrivial reduction suggests that there might still
be other mediators between Principal Leadership and Teacher Professional Learning beyond the school
capacity factors included in this study.
Discussion
This study conceptualizes and empirically examines the mediating effects of relational school capacity
factors (i.e. trust, communication and collaboration) on the relationship between principal leadership
and teacher professional learning. Its findings validate Li, Hallinger and Ko's (2016) suggestion that
school leadership effects on teacher professional learning are partially mediated by conditions associated with a school’s working environment and human capital. They also mirror the internationally
agreed idea that school leadership effects are ‘indirect in nature and small to moderate in size’ (Hallinger
& Bryant, 2013, p. 268; see also Nir & Hameiri, 2014). The human relation variables are also found
to be indicators in distinguishing performing and under-performing schools in Rosenholtz’s (1985,
1989) studies.
When principal leadership considered as generic practice
The findings show that Communication is more effective than Trust at mediating principal leadership
effects on Teacher Professional Learning, and Collaboration the most effective. Communication is an
essential aspect of being a good leader (Barge, 1994; Gouran et al., 1994). In schools effective communication leads to greater commitment of staff, higher levels of engagement and greater productivity
(Clampitt & Downs, 1993). It is also fundamental in shaping human relationships at school. Apart from
delivering and collecting information through communication, teachers build up intimate collegial
relationships and find people whom they can trust and with whom they can cooperate. In Hong Kong
schools, informal communication might be limited due to tight teacher and principal schedules or
professional isolation of the teaching career. Nevertheless, regular weekly staff meetings could provide opportunities in which the principal and staff meet to exchange information and ideas. Formal
channels for exchange should not be ignored.
Collaboration and collegiality are central to teacher professional practice (Quicke, 2000) and to
educational development and improvement (Hargreaves, 1994a, 1994b). Collaboration is an exchange
of resources that occurs when the important decision-makers believe that joint work can protect and
enhance key organizational resources (Cook & Friend, 1991, 1995; Ebers, 1997; Tschannen-Moran,
2000). Meaningful collaboration can only occur when people effectively communicate with one
another. In Hong Kong schools, teachers from different subject panels are required to work together
to design integrated curriculum and do the assessment and evaluation. Within a subject panel, there
can also be collective lesson preparation and instructions. The purpose is to let teachers interact with
and learn from each other.
While all trust, communication and collaboration facilitated teacher professional learning they are
also associated with each other. This partly confirms Baier (1986) and Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard,
and Werner’s (1998) view that interpersonal trust is related to organizational variables such as
12 L. Li et al.
communication, citizenship behaviour, collaboration, problem solving, performance and individual
risk taking. The multifaceted nature of trust reveals the complexity of trust as a school-level social
resource, hence difficult to establish and maintain. For example, while building trust with teaching
staff and providing support, principals also need to allow space that can facilitate collegial trust, which
is the foundation of collective teacher professional learning.
When principal leadership considered as separate core areas of practice
When operationalized in seven dimensions, principal’s leadership in terms of Strategic Direction
and Staff Management in schools has the strongest but negative direct and indirect effects on teacher
professional learning via trust, communication and collaboration. Consistent with findings from
previous studies conducted in Hong Kong (e.g. Ko et al., 2012), the negative effect of strategic direction on teacher professional learning implies that the more principals emphasize or work towards
strategic direction, the less effective teacher professional learning will be. Despite being specifically
articulated, strategic direction may blind principals in some ways. For example, principals may be
misled by their own vision when they shape or change the school culture and expect teachers to
match the vision. In this sense, strategic or visionary principals may damage instead of improve their
schools (Fullan, 1992). Similarly, Bush and Glover (2003) have warned that poor strategic implementation by principals may inhibit the attainment of school vision and goals. Provided the intention for
positive changes is good, approaches to strategic development have to be democratic and gradual.
Meanwhile, school ethos and teacher’s working styles also have to be taken into consideration.
In contrast, effective staff management by principals appears to be facilitative of teachers’ work
at school. As the agent between policy-makers and teachers, Hong Kong principals must introduce
and lead education reforms and report to the authorities periodically. Meanwhile they have to handle
resistance from teachers and persuade teachers into collaboration and making real changes. On the
one hand, teachers might have concerns over extra work to do. On the other hand, they might want
to keep the professional autonomy that they have been privileged to have to date. One example is
that, despite the calling of open classroom for genuine collaboration, teaching professionals are still
conservative and resistant to real changes.
The marked direct and total effects of principals’ instructional leadership suggest that principals’
instructional leadership strongly affects teachers’ professional learning, both directly and indirectly.
The reason might be that the direct effect of professional development on teacher professional learning is strong enough to overlap tits indirect effects through the proposed mediators. In other words,
strong instructional leadership from the principals is able to influence teacher learning, no matter
what the human relations at school are like. As in practice, principals can walk in to observe teacher
instruction and advise.
Unexpectedly, principals’ leadership for teacher professional development shows no significant
direct and indirect effect. Despite that its total effect on teacher professional learning is significant,
this is hard to explain. In Hong Kong, principals are often requested to join and lead teacher professional development programmes organized by the education authorities. At the school site, they
are also required to arrange and lead regular professional development days or sessions for teachers.
Therefore, principals would ‘have both formal authority and expert knowledge to exert influence on
teachers’ (Bush & Glover, 2003, p. 11).
Taken together, in a stressful accountability environment, leadership for teacher learning highlights
the relational, emotional side of principal practice (Beatty, 2000; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003;
Donaldson, 2001; Leithwood & Beatty, 2008). In practice, principal leadership for teacher learning
is often ‘fraught with discomfort, ambiguity and uncertainty’ (Slater, 2008, p. 331). This brings the
discussion back to the findings that principal leadership plays a key role in creating and sustaining a
school environment featuring mutual trust, effective communication and genuine collaboration as a
core condition for teacher learning and change.
Limitations
For this study, two limitations should be noted:
This study focuses on identifying mediating effects of only the few human relational factors at
school site. Therefore, ‘the results of the data analyses are restricted to the variables and factors specified within the framework’ (Pang, 2010, p. 263). In fact, many different features of school capacity
are broadly associated with or contribute to teacher professional learning (see Louis, Marks, & Kruse,
1994). Trust, communication and collaboration are only a selection of them. To advance investigation
on effects of leadership forces in school improvement, future research efforts will need to take a closer
look at school capacity variables beyond human relations at school site.
In addition, the subjective teacher-reporting data may ‘include individual bias from the respondents,
thus affecting the answers’ accuracy to some degree’ (Kline, 2011, p. 9). To limit individual bias, extreme
values were identified and found within an acceptable range. By and large, using respondents-perceived
data, this study assumed that the respondents were honest and understood the instrument accurately.
It would be beneficial to survey principals for the illustration of a more complete picture of principal
leadership in these schools.
Implications and recommendations
The section highlights key implications from the perspective of practice and policy. Recommendations
are made where appropriate.
Overall, the mediated effects of principal leadership for teacher professional learning show that
the main impact of school leadership is not through direct impact on teachers but rather by creating
positive school environments and human relationships in which teacher learning can thrive (Hallinger
& Heck, 1998, 2010; Mulford & Silins, 2003; Printy, Marks, & Bowers, 2009; Robinson et al., 2008).
Trust, communication and collaboration are critical to ensure effective school functioning. During
teacher professional learning nothing meaningful can happen without mutual trust, effective communication and genuine collaboration. Considering the relatively weak human leadership ability of
principals in Hong Kong, the development of relational and emotional competence of the principals is
necessary (Cheng, 2000; Wong, 2004). Meanwhile, principals should put more effort on instructional
leadership while supporting teachers’ professional learning. While integrating the demands from
internal and external environments and institutionalizing their strategic directions, principals should
carefully translate system-level goals into feasible school-level practices (Leithwood, 2001). They are
also expected to structure and implement staff and resource management with proper communication.
The non-significant direct and indirect effect of principals’ leadership on teacher professional development is worth noting. Professional development programmes for teachers should be differentiated
according to teacher learners’ competence, ability and experience while training and development
programmes are designed (Desimone, Smith, & Ueno, 2006). In addition to subject knowledge, pedagogies or instruction approaches should also be included. One-for-all and one-off programmes can
hardly make remarkable differences. Further, there are callings for distribution of principal leadership
power and the change of teachers’ role from that of ‘curriculum user’ to that of ‘curriculum developer’
(Law, 2011, p. 393). To make it possible, principals should share their leadership on curriculum,
teaching and learning with teachers and involving them in decision-making about what and how to
teach and assess.
The adverse effect of principals’ strategic direction warrants practical concerns. Inappropriate strategic implementation may hinder the attainment of principals’ vision and goals; even worse, visionary
leaders may unintentionally damage instead of improving their schools (Bush & Glover, 2003). For
principals, the premise of successful strategic direction should ‘communicate or articulate their vision
to colleagues and to ensure that its influence permeated every aspect of organizational life’ (Bolam,
McMahon, Pocklington, & Weindling, 1993, p. 36). Without effective communication, the emphasis on
vision and goals in school leadership will be meaningless or even misleading. Effective communication
14 L. Li et al.
requires extra effort as well as the capacity of the principals involved to make the dynamic process of
strategic direction or visionary leadership sustainable (Fullan, 1992).
Apart from being extremely cautious during the process of strategic direction and vision building,
the principals themselves have to be confident and comfortable at inspiring staff to achieve their desired
goals and visions (Kouzes & Posner, 1996). Working within a shared vision offers both principals
and teachers the possibility of finding sustained meaning and enhance commitment in their work
(Donaldson, 2001). The shared vision should be strategically directed and implemented. It should
also embrace a set of measurable goals and behaviours, while emphasizing the underlying purposes
of education for student growth (see Barth, 1990; Kantabutra, 2005).
The dynamics of human relations in workplaces become even more complex during times of change.
Methodologically, the dynamics can be operationalized as interactions between human relation variables for further study. In Hong Kong, ‘over competition from marketization’ and ‘close control from
accountability measures’ have put both principals and front-line teachers under huge pressure (Cheng,
2009, p. 75; Cheng & Walker, 2008). Due to teachers’ inclination to be suspicious of new education
initiatives and reforms, principals have to balance expectations from above and below (see also Cuban,
1988). Their attempts to translate system initiatives at the school-level can engender mistrust if not
handled with care. This dilemma is not unique to Hong Kong (see Cuban, 1988; Leithwood, 2001;
Wildy & Louden, 2000). Nonetheless, the intensification of reforms in Hong Kong has no doubt left
principals on a tightrope.
Notes
1. According to Hayes, an omnibus test is “used to answer the question as whether there is evidence that variable
or variable(s) X exerts an effect on Y without specifying which variable in the set of X variables is responsible
for the effect or, in the case of a multi-categorical X, the nature of the difference between group means that is
responsible for that effect” (2013, p. 7).
2. In the bootstrapping output, if 0 is not included in the pairs of confidence intervals, the estimate is statistically
significant, vice versa.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Rebecca Li and Bowie Liu for their assistance in data collection.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong through the General Research Fund Project
[#840509].
Notes on contributors
Li Lijuan works as a post-doctoral fellow at Centre for Governance and Citizenship, The Hong Kong Institute of
Education, Hong Kong, China. Her research interests include principal leadership, teacher professional, learning, civic
education, research methods, and statistics.
Philip Hallinger is a Professor of Education Management in Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand. Concurrently he is a distinguished Visiting Professor of University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South
Africa. His research interests are in school leadership effects and school improvement.
Kerry John Kennedy is a research chair professor of Department of Curriculum and Leadership, The Hong Kong Institute
of Education. He is also the director of Centre for Governance and Citizenship, The Hong Kong Institute of Education,
Hong Kong, China. His research interests include civic and citizenship education, and curriculum policy and theory.
Allan Walker is the Joseph Lau Chair Professor of International Educational Leadership, and Dean of the Faculty of
Education at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China. His research interests are in school leadership,
leadership development, and international education.
References
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96, 231–260.
Barge, J. K. (1994). Putting leadership back to work. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 95–109.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beatty, B. R. (2000). The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence. International Journal in Education,
3, 331–357.
Belchetz, D., & Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful leadership: Does context matter and if so, how? In C. Day &
K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective (pp. 117–137).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K., & Weindling, D. (1993). Effective management in schools. London: HMSO.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors
and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 751–781.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60, 40–44.
Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence, Summary report. Nottingham: National College
for School Leadership. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org.uk/literaturereviews
Caskey, M. M. (2010). An organizational perspective of distributed leadership: A portrait of a middle school. Research
in Middle Level Education, 33(5), 1–16.
Cheng, Y. C. (2000). The characteristics of Hong Kong school principals’ leadership: The influence of societal culture.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20, 68–86.
Cheng, Y. C. (2009). Hong Kong educational reforms in the last decade: Reform syndrome and new developments.
International Journal of Educational Management, 23, 65–86.
Cheng, Y. C. & Walker, A. (2008). When reform hits reality: The bottleneck effect in Hong Kong primary schools. School
Leadership and Management, 28(5), 505–521.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between communication and
productivity. Journal of Business Communication, 30, 5–28.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1991). Principles for the practice of collaboration in schools. Preventing School Failure, 35, 6–9.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children,
28(3), 1–16.
Cosner, S. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 248–291.
Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and
theory in contemporary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision
and curriculum development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA:
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Recognizing and enhancing teacher effectiveness. International Journal of Educational
and Psychological Assessment, 3, 1–24.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., … Kington, A. (2009). The impact of school
leadership on pupil outcomes, final report. Research Report N. DCSF-RR108 of Department for Children, Schools
and Families. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Desimone, L., Smith, T., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who need sustained, content-focused professional development
getting it? An administrator’s dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 179–215.
DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns
of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87, 43–65.
Donaldson, G. A. (2001). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
DuFour, R. (1991). The principal as staff developer. Amherst, MA: National Educational Service.
Duke, D. L. (2010). Differentiating school leadership: Facing the challenges of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
16 L. Li et al.
Dupont, J. P. (2009). Teacher perceptions of the influence of principal instructional leadership on school culture: A case
study of the American embassy school in New Delhi, India (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved December
27, 2013, from http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/50822/1/DuPont_umn_0130E_10285.pdf
Ebers, M. (Ed.). (1997). The formation of inter-organisational networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Education Department (ED). (2002). Guidelines for principals’ continuing professional development. Retrieved December
27, 2013, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_2129/Guideline1809.pdf
Education Department (ED). (2013). Education bureau circular memorandum No. 81/2013. Retrieved April 14, 2014,
from http://applications.edb.gov.hk/circular/upload/EDBCM/EDBCM13081E.pdf
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Fullan, M. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership, 49, 19–20.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Retrieved January 18, 2012, from http://www.pdkintl.org/
kappan/kful0004.htm
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R. D., & 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,
109, 877–896. Retrieved from http://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/casei/collaboration_studentachievement.
pdf
Gouran, D. S., Wiethoff, W. E., & Doelger, J. A. (1994). Mastering communication (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
Hallinger, P., & Bryant, D. A. (2013). Accelerating knowledge production on educational leadership and management
in East Asia: A strategic analysis. School Leadership and Management, 33, 202–223.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research
1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5–44.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School
effectiveness and school improvement, 9, 157–191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2009). Distributed leadership in schools: Does system policy make a difference? In A.
Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership. Different Perspectives (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on
school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30, 95–110.
Hallinger, P., & Lee, M. S. (2013). Exploring principal capacity to lead reform of teaching and learning quality in Thailand.
International Journal of Educational Development, 33, 305–315.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership and student achievement. Elementary
School Journal, 96, 498–518.
Hargreaves, A. (1994a). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994b). Restructuring restructuring: Postmodernity and the prospects for educational change. In
P. P. Grimmett & J. Neufeld (Eds.), Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity: Professional growth and
restructuring in the context of change (pp. 52–78). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). SPSS mediate macro syntax. Retrieved from www.afhayes.com/public/mediate.pdf
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation
models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 627–660. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.498290
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 43, 425–446.
Jenni, R. W., & Mauriel, J. (2004). Cooperation and collaboration: Reality or rhetoric? International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 7, 181–195. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360312042000211446
Kantabutra, S. (2005). Improving public school performance through vision-based leadership. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 6, 124–136.
Kline, A. M. (2011). Assessing the influence of social and emotional intelligence in effective educational leadership (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=msw_papers
Ko, J. Y. C., Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. D. (2012). Exploring school improvement in Hong Kong secondary schools.
Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 216–234.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1996). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Krüger, M., Witziers, B., & Sleegers, P. (2007). The impact of school leadership on school level factors: Validation of a
causal model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(1), 1–20.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2009). A synthesis of studies searching for school factors:
Implications for theory and research. British Research Journal, 36(1), 1–24.
Kwan, P. & Walker, A. (2008). Vice-principalship in Hong Kong: Aspirations, competencies, and satisfaction. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 73–97.
Law, E. H. F. (2011). Exploring the role of leadership in facilitating teacher learning in Hong Kong. School Leadership
& Management: Formerly School Organisation, 31, 393–410.
Lavie, J. M. (2006). Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the arguments. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42, 773–805.
Lee, M., Walker, A., & Chui, Y. L. (2012). Instructional leadership for student learning in a high accountability context:
Lessons from Hong Kong secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 586–611.
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 4, 217–235.
Leithwood, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2010). School leaders’ influences on student learning: The
four paths. In T. Bush, L. Bell, & D. Middlewood (Eds.), The principles of educational leadership and management
(pp. 13–30). London: Sage.
Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2008). Leading with teacher emotions in mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Successful school leadership: What it is and
how it influences pupil learning (Tech Rep. RR800). Nottingham: Department of Education and Skills, University of
Nottingham.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student
engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 112–129.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (Eds.). (2008). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 671–706.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory
for Student Success, Temple University.
Leonard, H. B. (2010). Creating a better architecture for global risk management: A proposal to the World Economic
Forum Global Redesign Initiative. Global Agenda Council on Catastrophic Risks, World Economic Forum. Retrieved
December, 13, 2013, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/
programs/crisis-leadership/GAC%20Catastrophic%20Risks%202009%20White%20Paper.pdf
Li, L., & Hallinger, P. (2015). Collaboration as a mediator in the relationship between principal leadership and teacher
professional learning: The Hong Kong experience. Gateways to Leading Learning, No. 6. Monologue of the Joseph Lau
Luen Hung Charitable Trust Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change, the Hong Kong Institute of Education,
and Hong Kong Principals’ Institute.
Li, L., Hallinger, P., & Ko, J. (2016). Principal leadership and school capacity effects on teacher learning in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Educational Management, 30, 76–100.
Li, L., Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. (2016). Mediating effects of trust on the relationship between principal leadership
and teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, 44, 20–42.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American
Educational Research Journal, 19, 325–340.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning:
Final report of research findings. University of Minnesota. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from http://www.cehd.umn.
edu/carei/Leadership/Learning-from-Leadership_Final-Research-Report_July-2010.pdf
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (April, 1994). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes – What do we
know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 175–195.
Mulford, B., & Edmunds, B. (2009). Successful school principalship in Tasmania. Launceston: Faculty of Education,
University of Tasmania.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Newmann, F., King, B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from
urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108, 259–299.
Nir, A. E., & Hameiri, L. (2014). School principals’ leadership style and school outcomes. Journal of Educational
Administration, 52, 210–227. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0007
Ogawa, R. T., & Hart, A. W. (1985). The effects of principals on the instructional performance of schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 23, 59–72.
Pan, H. L., & Chen, P. Y. (2011). Challenges and research agenda of school leadership in Taiwan. School Leadership &
Management, 31, 339–353.
Pang, N. S. K. (2010). Leadership forces in Hong Kong secondary schools. School Leadership & Management, 30, 351–365.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation
models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
18 L. Li et al.
Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share
transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 504–532.
Quicke, J. (2000). A new professionalism for a collaborative culture of organizational learning in contemporary society.
Educational Management and Administration, 28, 299–315.
Robinson, V. (2007). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Leaders, Monograph No. 41. Retrieved from http://www.curee.co.uk/files/
publication/1260453707/Robinson%20Summary%20Extended%20Version.pdf
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the
differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635–674.
Rosenholtz, S. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 352–388.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York, NY: Longman.
Scribner, J., Sawyer, R., Watson, S., & Myers, V. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group
discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 67–100.
Louis, K. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 1–24.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002a). Schools as learning organisations. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 425–446.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002b). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, G. Furman, P. Gronn, J.
MacBeath, B. Mulford, & K. Riley (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration
(pp. 561–612). Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 2002.
Slater, L. (2008). Pathways to building leadership capacity educational management. Administration & Leadership, 36,
55–69. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143207084060
Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F., & Van den Berg, R. (2002). Conditions fostering educational change. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger,
G. Furman, P. Gronn, J. MacBeath, B. Mulford & K. Riley. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational
leadership and administration (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Smylie, M., & Hart, A. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development
perspective. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 421–441).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of
the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.
Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education,
102, 123–153.
Tarter, C. J., Bliss, J. R., & Hoy, W. K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in secondary schools. Educational
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2000). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308–331.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wahlstrom, K. I., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 458–495.
Walker, A. D., Hu, R. K., & Qian, H. (2012). Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 23, 369–399.
Walker, A., & Ko, J. (2011). Principal leadership in an era of accountability: A perspective from the Hong Kong context.
School Leadership and Management, 31, 369–392.
Walker, A. & Kwan, P. (2010). Leadership in diverse cultures. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International
encyclopaedia of education (pp. 824–831). Oxford: Elsevier.
Walker, A. & Riordan, G. (2010). Leading collective capacity in culturally diverse schools. School Leadership &
Management, 30, 51–64.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange
relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23,
513–530.
Wildy, H., & Louden, W. (2000). School restructuring and dilemmas of principals’ work. Educational Management and
Administration, 28, 173–184.
Wong, P.-M. (2004). The professional development of school principals: Insights from evaluating a programme in Hong
Kong. School Leadership & Management, 24, 139–162.
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational
Appendices
Appendix 1. Survey items measuring principal leadership
To what extent do you believe that your principal’s leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to the following:
(over the past three years in your school or the time he/she has spent in the school if less than three years).
Strategic Management
(1) Help clarify the reasons for our school’s improvement initiatives.
(2) Give staff a sense of the overall purpose of the school.
(3) Provide assistance to staff in setting goals for teaching and learning.
(4) Integrate school priorities with the government policy agenda.
Teacher Development Leadership
(5) Help train the school management team.
(6) Develop leaders amongst the teachers.
(7) Promote a range of continuous professional development experiences for all staff.
(8) Use coaching and mentoring to improve quality of teaching.
(9) Encourage staff to think of learning beyond the academic curriculum.
(10) Align staff professional development activities with school development.
Staff Management
(11) Assign work to staff in accordance with their capabilities.
(12) Show appreciation for teachers’ outstanding performance.
(13) Provide timely performance feedback to teachers.
(14) Handle grievances amongst teachers.
(15) Improve the performance appraisal system.
Resource Management
(16) Maintain cooperative relationship with parents.
(17) Engage parents in the school’s improvement effort.
(18) Develop strategies to promote the school to the community.
(19) Establish a professional network with educational communities.
(20) Allocate resources strategically based on student needs.
(21) Demonstrate an ability to secure additional resources for the school.
(22) Utilize support (auxiliary) staff for the benefit of student learning.
(23) Provide or locate resources to help staff improve their teaching.
Quality Management
(24) Establish a structured quality assurance mechanism in school.
(25) Create a culture of accountability among teachers.
(26) After observing classroom activities, work with teachers to improve their teaching.
(27) Use student assessment data to inform school strategic planning.
(28) Regularly observe classroom activities.
(29) Regularly inspect student homework.
20 L. Li et al.
Instructional Leadership
(30) Initiate school-based instructional projects.
(31) Encourage staff to consider new ideas for their teaching.
(32) Design measures to improve student learning.
(33) Articulate high expectations for student academic achievement.
Appendix 2. Survey items measuring teacher perceptions of school capacity
Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterizes your school:
Trust
(1) We handle our work with competence and confidence.
(2) We approach our work professionally.
(3) We do not try to gain an advantage by deceiving others.
(4) We can freely discuss our feelings, worries and frustrations.
Communication
(5) Meetings in our school are effective and efficient.
(6) There is a reasonable number of meetings in our school.
(7) We have timely information to complete our jobs.
(8) The principal always keeps colleagues informed about new school programmes.
Collaboration
(9) Our team members ‘swim or sink’ together.
(10) Our team members want each other to succeed.
(11) Our team members seek compatible goals.
(12) The goals of team members go together.
(13) When our team members work together, we usually have common goals.
Teacher Professional Learning
(14) We provide and receive support from our colleagues to accomplish tasks.
(15) Teachers in our school regularly discuss about possible ways to improve student performance.
(16) Teachers are encouraged to develop and implement new practices.
(17) We share our best practices with other colleagues.
(18) There is ongoing collaboration among teachers in the same subject panel.
(19) We can accomplish more through working in small teams.
(20) There is ongoing collaboration among teachers in different subject panels.
(21) The school timetable provides adequate time for collaborative teacher planning.

Mediating effects of trust, communication, and collaboration on

Transcription

Similar documents

China 2006 July 7 - 18 Beijing, Xi`an, Shanghai and Hong Kong

Please contact our Global Event Associate, Thu Thao Nguyen: E

APPS GAMES WEBSITES

PRESTIGE HONG KONG June 2011 THE WELL

A5 PAGE 1-front cover

xoxo Sassy Girls - Home

here - Global Institute For Tomorrow

Vancouver Airport Authority - Invest Hong Kong

Brief - Juwita Suwito