International Journal of Instruction January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net p-ISSN: 1694-609X Teachers' and School Administrators' Perceptions and Expectations on Teacher Leadership* Semra Kıranlı Asst. Prof., Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey [email protected] In this study it is aimed to find out primary school teachers’ and principals’ expectations and perceptions related to teachers’ leadership. The population of this survey consists of primary school teachers and principals in Odunpazarı, one of the two central municipalities in Eskişehir, in 2011-2012 educational year. Teachers and principals of eight primary schools were taken as a sample among low, middle, high socio-economic level primary schools in Odunpazarı. 195 teachers and principals participated in this study. In this study a data device which consisted of two sections was used to accomplish the purpose of the study. A personal information form to define teachers’ and principals’ demographical features made the first section, whereas “The Questionnaire of Expectations and perceptions of Teacher Leadership Roles” developed by Beycioğlu (2009) and consisting of 25 items made the second section. Each item in the questionnaire has a five scale Lykert type evaluation and belongs to one of the three dimensions of both perception and expectation. These dimensions are institutional development, professional development and collaboration with colleagues. Key Words: Primary Schools, Teacher Leadership, Perception, Expectation, Quantitative Research, Teachers, School Administrators INTRODUCTION Although leadership researches on education and school management and similarly educational and school leadership studies have a long history, teacher leadership has recently become a frequently used concept, especially since 1990s (Smylie and Denny, 1990; Harris, 2003). The focus of the recent researches related to school and educational leadership have been mainly on the concept of instructional leadership for the past few decades. This implies that school administrators are considered to be mainly responsible for providing effective learning environments (Şişman, 2011a). School administrators are considered to be sources of learning and head teachers. Moreover, they are also required to provide necessary environments and conditions for 180 Teachers' and School Administrators' Perceptions … effective learning and to support teachers in every possible way (Şişman, 2011a; 2011b). The main learning environment at school is classroom where a teacher has to carry out the role of a leader as a person of authority and power. However, learning is not limited to classroom environment. Teachers have to undertake the role of a leader both inside the school and in extra-curricular environments. Variables such as in-school environment, the school structure, school climate and school culture may either hinder or support teachers undertaking leadership roles. According to TIMSS 2007 results, schools in Turkey seem to have problems in terms of school environments and culture. In order to develop a better understanding of learning schools and to get the intended results from educational and school reforms in Turkey, school administrators and teachers must take on teacher leadership roles in the ongoing process (Şişman, Acat, Aypay and Karadağ, 2011c). In Turkey, teachers’ tasks and responsibilities were defined by rules and regulations under the headings of education, teaching and administration. The concept of administration here can be taken closely associated with teacher leadership terms. Although there has been quite a large literature on teacher leadership, it has not got a clear, standard, widely accepted single definition. Teachers may be expected to take on various roles as the roles in school structures and functions may vary from country to country. Teacher leadership is closely related to school effectiveness and school development studies which have gained high popularity since the 1980s. In short, teacher is one of the key elements of school effectiveness, effective learning and school development. It is suggested that conceptualization of teacher leadership entails radical cultural changes in educational systems (Silva, Gimbert and Nolan, 2000). Similarly, when the contents of the concept are analyzed, it will be understood that teachers are required to give up or change some of their habits. It is preferred that teacher leadership be conceptualized based on school rather than be handled classroom based. Teacher leadership should be considered in terms of its positive effects on schools, teachers, students and school environment (Blase and Blase, 2001; Silins and Mulford, 2004; Lieberman and Miller, 2005). Teacher leadership behaviors as intellectual models are prerequisites for schools to challenge status quo and to become learning schools and organizations (Senge, 1990). Literature Review Defining Teacher Leadership and Dimensions of Teacher Leadership There have been various teacher leadership definitions in the international literature of the field. One of them briefly defines that teacher leadership is the ability to encourage International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 Kıranlı 181 colleagues to change (Wasley, 1991). Another definition gives emphasis on teacher leaders' contributions to build learning teacher and leader societies both inside and outside classroom and on ability to influence others for improvement of educational practices. This definition reveals that teacher leadership has three dimensions which are: the act of leading teachers and students which entails facilitating, coaching, mentoring, leadership in study groups and teaching; leadership in school related tasks which entails focusing on school's achievement, participating in task forces and being an active researcher; and leadership in collaboration or decision-making process which entails taking part in school development teams while serving in committees, willingness to collaborate with business and higher education institutions, and participation in parent-teacher organizations (Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2001). Day and Harris (2003) claimed that teacher leadership has four dimensions which are application of school improvement principles in classroom, taking on the role of a participative leader in the process of changing and development, being a negotiator in school development, and providing interpersonal learning which results from close individual and mutual relations with colleagues and in which mutual learning takes place. When the literature of the field is reviewed, it can easily be noticed that some certain dimensions of teacher leadership have been given stronger emphasis. Among these dimensions are decision-making process, school improvement process and school development planning, teaching and evaluation, inter-colleagues relations, guidance for novice teachers, relations with society and parents, professional development, participation in school's task-forces, contribution to school policies (Greenlee, 2007). Thus, debates on teacher leadership in literature generally conceptualized around the theory of distributed leadership and teacher leadership equals distributed leadership (Groon, 2000; Harris, 2003). Headings of teacher leadership gather around school efficacy, school improvement, teachers' morale and keeping it at high level and democratic values (Frost and Durrant, 2003). Measuring Teacher Leadership There have been numerous attempts to develop some models and devices to measure teacher leadership. In their qualitative research, Beachum and Dentith (2004) interviewed 25 teachers from five well-known different schools in one school district to find out the value of teachers as leaders. Teachers were found as valuable leaders in three subtitles. Certain school frames and organizational types, particular identities and duration shared among teachers, and particular use of outside resources with powerful community relationship were the subtitles they evaluated teachers. Triska (2007) handled teacher leadership based on classroom at three public elementary schools in Northern California with 56 teachers. He studied teacher leadership using both questionnaires and interviews in his study within five dimensions. Namely, these International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 182 Teachers' and School Administrators' Perceptions … dimensions are students’ success and contact, initiating and risk taking, reliability, focus on collaboration and traditional leadership. A measuring device was used to measure and to analyze teachers’ leadership behaviors based on the quantitative data gathered. In a quantitative research Ngang, Abdulla and Mey (2010) studied teacher leadership within seven dimensions; developmental focus, collaboration with colleagues, being recognized, positive environment, autonomy, open communication and participation. The study revealed that positive environment, open communication and autonomy were dominant dimensions of teacher leadership. A different study which used an inventory of Likert type with 17 statements to measure teacher leadership looked through relationships between teacher leadership and reliability and efficacy among the school staff. The result of their research was the existence of strong positive connection among the three factors (Angelle, Nixon, Norton, Niles, 2011). Limited number of teachers and administrators were interviewed and archival data were utilized in a qualitative study of teacher leadership (Rutledge, 2009). Teachers’ roles, teacher leaders’ influence on and their support for administrators, teacher leaders’ influence on and contributions to school developmental process, and administrators’ support for teacher leadership were the key elements to decide on their research problem. Although there have been a lot of studies on school administrators’ leadership roles and behaviors, the number of studies on teacher leadership have been limited to few in Turkey. In his study, Çeküç (2008) interviewed 32 teachers. The study handled teacher leadership in terms of sufficiency of teacher leaders’ accomplishment of mission and vision, communication, collaboration, methods and techniques, professional perspectives, loyalty to teaching profession and personal traits. Can (2006a) interviewed 35 teachers and 12 school administrators in primary and middle schools in three cities so as to conduct a research on teacher leadership and barriers to teacher leadership. The study revealed that teachers perceived student-centered education, in- class teaching techniques, principals motivating and supporting teachers, and reliable stimulating school climate as supportive of teacher leadership. Additionally, school administrators perceived quality of education, discipline, school oriented activities and behaviors as supportive of teacher leadership. In his teacher leadership research, Can (2006b) aimed to find out the roles and strategies of principals to improve teacher leadership and put the roles of principals into four categories which are roles inside and outside the classroom, sharing developmental constructive experiences with colleagues, awareness and recognition of the strengths of colleagues, and participation in preparation programs for administration. Can (2007) interviewed 15 teachers and 8 administrators from three cities to find out the existing teacher leadership skills and the practice level of teacher leadership skills. International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 Kıranlı 183 Beycioğlu (2009) devised an inventory and used it in his study in which he dealt with teacher leadership in terms of institutional development, professional development and development with colleagues. His study showed that both teachers and administrators submitted their opinions for the existence of teacher leadership in all of its dimensions to some extent. However, the perceptions on teacher leadership have been found less than the expectations on teacher leadership. Reyhan (2010) studied primary school teacher leadership in Turhal town of Tokat, with 610 primary school teachers. She studied her survey within four zones; reliability and influencing others, appreciation and meeting the expectations, ability and openness to change, and educational roles. The study found out that most teachers adopted their educational roles while they were less likely to be open to change. In a research study by Apaydın, Vilkinas and Carton (2011) a measuring instrument devised by Vilkinas and Carton was applied to 300 middle school teachers. It was aimed to determine at what level the teachers were saviors, developers, innovators, entrepreneurs, observers, and integrators. The teachers were found to be at higher levels as saviors, developers and entrepreneurs than as other dimensions. Both school administrators who were supposed to lead the change process and teachers who were supposed to adopt the process and internalize the change might be blamed for Turkey’s failure in getting the desired results from striving reforms to improve education and schools. Teachers undoubtedly play the most important part in educational reforms of all kinds. It is not possible to change and improve education without taking teachers into consideration. Statement of the research problem 1. What are the levels of primary schools teachers’ and administrators’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles? 2. Are there any significant differences among primary schools teachers’ and administrators’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles in terms of the individual variables of (a) type of position, (b) gender, (c) branch, (d) school graduated, and (d) experience? METHOD The study designed in descriptive survey model. A questionnaire is the technique which is used in descriptive survey model. This study aimed to find out the levels of primary schools teachers’ and administrators’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles. Population of the research is state primary school administrators and teachers in Odunpazarı city centre, one of the two central municipalities of Eskişehir, in 2011-2012 educational year. There are 54 state primary schools in Odunpazarı. Administrators and International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 184 Teachers' and School Administrators' Perceptions … teachers in eight primary schools were taken as sample. This is the %14.5 percent of population. The number of participants in the research survey was 76 classroom teachers, 97 subject teachers and 22 administrators as school directors and vice- directors, which made 195 in total. A data collection instrument consisting of two sections was used. In the first section, the participants’ gender, the last higher education school they graduated, their experience, and positions were asked in order to get information about their demographic features. The second section was the “The Questionnaire of Expectations and Perceptions on Teacher Leadership Roles” developed by Beycioğlu (2009). Beycioğlu did the validity and reliability tests of his questionnaire while he was developing it. The initial form with 29 items was developed after literature review. Then, six experts were consulted to evaluate the quality of each item in the context of clarity, ambiguity, generality, and to validate the content of the questionnaire. The items were also assessed by two inspectors, four teachers, and two school administrators to ensure the clarity and appropriateness of the items. The initial format of the scale was 5- point Likert response set was used. The 29 item initial form was administered to 317 participants who were working for state elementary schools in Hatay city centre. To test the construct validity of the data gathered from the participants Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett tests were performed. For validity studies, exploratory factor analyses were carried out, and also item-total correlations estimated. For reliability studies, Cronbach Alpha and test-retest correlation coefficients were applied. 4 items were found nonsense, so they were left out. The results of the construct validity tests showed the scale was valid in both perception (Kaiser Meyer Olkin = .95, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity= 5463.25 p =.000) and expectation (Kaiser Meyer Olkin =.94, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity= 4297.67, p =.000) parts. Factor analysis revealed that there are 3 subscales both in Perception and Expectation part in the scale. The coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha for expectation part of the scale is 0.93 and it is 0.95 for perception part. for one factor The analysis on the test-retest scores gathered from 40 participants revealed a correlation coefficient of “r=.80” in expectation part and of “r=.87” in perception part which shows that the instrument is reliable over time (Beycioğlu, 2009; Beycioğlu and Aslan, 2010). After gathering data, reliability tests for this study were done. The results of the coefficient of Cronbach Alpha for expectation part of the scale is 0,94 and for perception part it is 0,92. Moreover, for the validity of his questionnaire, with the total scores of perception and expectation part levels the least and the most the percent of 27, independent groups t-test was applied. As a result of analysis it is seen a significant differences between groups (p<0,05). International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 Kıranlı 185 Therefore, it can be said the questionnaire form used in this study is reliable and valid. The questionnaire consists of 25 items, each of which belongs to one of three dimensions of both perception and expectation and is to be evaluated in five scale (from1 – Always to 5 – Never) Likert type inventory. The three dimensions are institutional development, professional development and collaboration with colleagues. Nine of these items, items 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were about the dimension of institutional development. Eleven of them, items 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 were about the dimension of professional development, and items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were the five items in the questionnaire about the dimension of collaboration with colleagues. The personal information form and “The Questionnaire of Expectations and Perceptions on Teacher Leadership Roles” which researcher was permitted to use by Beycioğlu (2009), the developer of the questionnaire, were combined and delivered to participants. Collected responses were transferred into, coded and analyzed through the software SPPS 17. The significance level was taken as 0.05 in the evaluation process. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION Findings from the analysis of the gathered data and findings related interpretations were presented in this section. Quantitative findings were tabulated according to the individual variables and then they were interpreted. 1. Findings and Interpretations According to the First Research Problem The first research problem was stated as “What are the levels of primary school administrators’ and teachers’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles (a. institutional, b. professional, c. collaboration) Table 1 and Table 2 show a general evaluation of the participants’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles.There are three dimensions of teacher leadership. They are: institutional development, professional development and collaboration with colleagues. So their mean (x) is calculated. Table 1: Levels of the participants’ expectations on teacher leadership roles Dimension n Minimum Maximum x ss Institutional development 195 18,00 45,00 36,72 5,43 Professional development 195 27,00 55,00 49,76 4,7 Collaboration with colleagues 195 13,00 25,00 22,01 2,63 Total 195 66,00 125,00 108,49 10,90 Table 2: Levels of the participants’ perceptions on teacher leadership roles Dimension n Minimum Maksimum x ss Institutional development 195 15,00 44,00 31,11 6,25 Professional development 195 15,00 55,00 43,67 7,18 Collaboration with colleagues 195 10,00 25,00 18,75 3,52 Total 195 48,00 124,00 93,53 14,73 Considering the mean values in the tables above, it is seen that administrators’ and teachers’ expectations are higher than their perceptions. This reveals that actual teacher leadership practices in their schools are lower than they expected and they have more International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 186 Teachers' and School Administrators' Perceptions … expectations on teacher leadership roles. This can easily be concluded from the total mean values, x=108,49 (Always) for expectations and, x=93,53 (Often) for perceptions. a. For the dimension of institutional development, mean value for teacher leadership roles expectations of the participants’ responses is 36,72 (Often), while the mean value for their perceptions is 31,11 (Often). Considering the values for the participants’ expectations, the mean value for the item 9 which is intended to measure “the willingness level of the participants in activities for school development” is represented by the highest score, x=4,37 (Always) whereas the lowest mean value x=3,64 (Often) belongs to the item 6, which is intended to measure expectations level of the participants to take part in study groups around the town, city or the country.” Similarly in Table 2 showing the perceptions of the participants, item 6 has the lowest mean value, x=2.96 (Sometimes) and again item 9 has the highest mean value, x=3,79 (Often). These findings suggest that participants want to see more practices of teacher leadership roles in activities for school development at both expectation and perception levels. The participants tend to give less importance in participating school development activities outside their schools connected with teacher leadership roles. b. As for Professional development dimension, mean value for the participants’ expectations on teacher leadership roles is 49,76 (Always), while the mean value for their perceptions is 43,67 (Often). Item 24 which states “giving confidence to students” has a mean value of x=4,77 (Always) and item 19 which states “appreciation of colleagues as a valuable members of school” has a mean value of x=4,66 (Always) as the two highest mean values. The lowest mean value x=4,36 (Always) belongs to the item 20 which states “Making effort to make the colleagues participate in school related decision-making.” Related to Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions, item 24 which states “giving confidence to students” has the highest mean value x=4,27 (Always) while the lowest mean value x=3,34 (often) belongs to item 25, which measures the level of “showing positive attitudes towards solutions to school related problems.” c. When it comes to dimension of “collaboration with colleagues,” the arithmetic mean value for the participants’ expectations is 22,1 (Always) and the arithmetic mean value for their expectations is 18,75 (Often). In this dimension, the highest mean value for the participants expectations is x=4,69 (Always) is that of the item 1, which is about “helping the novice or just appointed teachers.” The lowest mean value x=4,19 (Always) belongs to item 5 which is about “ inclusion in the process of teacher related studies or projects in their preparation, execution, or participation phases.” Similarly, as the participants’ perceptions, the highest mean level x=4,10 belongs to item 1, whereas the lowest mean level x=47 (Often) belongs to item five. These findings suggest that participants highly adopt helping other teachers in expectation and International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 Kıranlı 187 perception level. On the other hand they are not considering participating teacher related studies or project as little relevant to teacher leadership. 2. Findings and Interpretation According to the Second Research Problem The second problem of the research was previously stated as “Are there any differences in the primary school administrators’ and teachers’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles according to a. their positions (administrator-teacher), b. gender, c. branch, d. the schools they graduated, and e. the years of experience. 2.a There are comparison between different two group as an administrator and teacher. There are three dimensions of participants. They are: institutional development, professional development and collaboration with colleagues. Therefore the independent group t-test was applied to find out if the participants’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles differ significantly according to the variable of the participants’ positions and its scores were shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3: Analysis of the participants’ expectations on teacher leadership roles according to the variable of their positions at school. Dimension Position n X S t p Administrator 22 41,00 3,46 -4,081 ,001* Institutional development Teacher 173 36,18 5,39 Administrator 22 51,68 3,34 -2,029 ,044* Professional development Teacher 173 49,51 4,86 Collaboration with Administrator 22 22,95 3,03 -1,811 ,072 colleagues Teacher 173 21,88 2,55 Administrator 22 115,64 6,87 -3,350 ,001* Total Teacher 173 107,58 11,00 Table 4: Analysis of the participants’ perceptions on teacher leadership roles according to the variable of position at school. Dimension Position n X S t p Administrator 22 36,59 6,04 -4,587 ,000* Institutional development Teacher 173 30,42 5,94 Administrator 22 47,86 4,91 -2,969 ,003* Professional development Teacher 173 43,13 7,26 Collaboration with Administrator 22 20,36 3,89 -2,299 ,023* colleagues Teacher 173 18,55 3,43 Administrator 22 104,82 11,48 -3,956 ,000* Total Teacher 173 92,10 14,50 The findings from Table 3 reveal that the participants’ views on teacher leadership roles do not vary in the dimension of collaboration. However, they significantly vary in the dimension of professional development (p<, 05). When the findings for professional and institutional development are examined, school administrators are found to have higher arithmetic averages than teachers. When the findings in Table 4 are examined, it is seen that participants’ perceptions of teacher leadership roles show significant difference in terms of the dimensions of professional development, institutional development and collaboration (p< ,05). The International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1 188 Teachers' and School Administrators' Perceptions … findings in the table also revealed that school administrators have higher arithmetic averages than teachers in all dimensions, which means school administrators have significantly higher perceptions of teacher leadership roles than teachers. 2b. Table 5 and Table 6 show the scores of t-test which was applied to find out if the participated school leaders’ and teachers’ expectations and perceptions on teacher leadership roles differ significantly according to variable of gender. Table 5: Analysis of the participants’ expectations on teacher leadership roles according to the variable of gender. Dimension Gender n X S t p Male 81 36,47 5,98 -,550 ,583 Institutional development Female 114 36,90 5,01 Male 81 49,60 5,42 -,380 ,704 Professional development Female 114 49,87 4,24 Male 81 21,91 2,93 -,410 ,683 Collaboration with colleagues Female 114 22,07 2,40 Male 81 107,99 12,36 -,538 ,591 Total Female 114 108,84 9,78 Table 6: Analysis of the participants’ perceptions on teacher leadership roles according to the variable of gender. Dimension Gender n X S t p Male 81 31,84 6,52 1,372 ,172 Institutional development Female 114 30,60 6,02 Male 81 44,89 6,00 2,020 ,045* Professional development Female 114 42,80 7,82 Male 81 19,19 3,68 1,444 ,150 Collaboration with colleagues Female 114 18,45 3,39 Male 81 95,91 13,95 1,915 ,057 Total Female 114 91,84 15,09 The findings in Table 5 do not give away any significant differences in participants’ expectations on teacher leadership roles in institutional development, professional development and collaboration dimensions according to the participants ‘genders. That is to say, both male and female participants have similar expectations on teacher leadership roles. Although the values for the participants’ perceptions on teacher leadership roles according to the variable of gender do not show significant differences in institutional development and collaboration dimensions, findings in the table signify a noticeable difference in professional development dimension in favor of males. In other words, both male and female participants have similar views on institutional development and International Journal of Instruction, January 2013 ● Vol.6, No.1