International Journal of Educational Management

Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The influence of principal leadership and
teacher collaboration
Ibrahim Duyar Sedat Gumus Mehmet Sukru Bellibas

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Ibrahim Duyar Sedat Gumus Mehmet Sukru Bellibas, (2013),"Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes",
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Iss 7 pp. 700 - 719
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107
Downloaded on: 23 November 2014, At: 06:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 947 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Ori Eyal, Guy Roth, (2011),"Principals' leadership and teachers' motivation: Self#determination theory
analysis", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 Iss 3 pp. 256-275
Dr Helene rlestig, Encarnacion Garza, Jr, Lawrie Drysdale, David Gurr, Stephen Jacobson, Betty
Merchant, (2014),"Leadership for school success: lessons from effective principals", International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 7 pp. 798-811
Jasmin#Olga Sarafidou, Georgios Chatziioannidis, (2013),"Teacher participation in decision making and
its impact on school and teachers", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp.
170-183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297586

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

700
Received 16 September 2012
Revised 6 December 2012
11 January 2013
Accepted 1 February 2013

Multilevel analysis of teacher

work attitudes
The influence of principal leadership and
teacher collaboration
Ibrahim Duyar
Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock,
Little Rock, AR, USA, and

Sedat Gumus and Mehmet Sukru Bellibas

Department of Educational Administration, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the instructional and
administrative leadership practices of principals and professional collaboration of teachers predict
teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction in Turkish middle schools.
Design/methodology/approach By applying a causal comparative design and a multilevel
methodology, the current study used OECDs Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
data set to examine the relationships among study variables. The multilevel data included
178 schools/principals and 2,967 teachers. Two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) method
was used to investigate whether principals leadership and teachers collaboration predict teacher
self-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction, net of several important teacher-level and school-level
control variables.
Findings The findings showed that some select aspects of principal leadership and teacher
collaborative practices significantly predict teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction at within and
across schools. Among all independent and control variables, teachers collaboration appeared to be
the strongest predictor of both teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
Originality/value The areas of significance identified by this study may guide policy makers and
practitioners for informed decisions and interventions targeting to enhance teacher self-efficacy and
job satisfaction. The multilevel methodology utilized by this study may also stimulate future research
endeavors for capturing the nested relationships of educational data, otherwise would be unaccounted
for at different levels of schooling.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Instructional leadership, Job satisfaction,
Multilevel analysis, Self-efficacy, Teacher collaboration
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Educational

Management
Vol. 27 No. 7, 2013
pp. 700-719
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
DOI 10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107

A persuasive body of research has linked teachers to student achievement and other
educational outcomes. The infamous Coleman report (Coleman et al., 1996) and the
subsequent studies have consistently documented significant effects from teacher
quality and effectiveness on educational outcomes. The Coleman report stated that
teacher quality is the strongest predictor of student achievement among all of the
teacher- and school-level exogenous variables. Recent research concurs with this
finding that teachers matter (Borman and Kimball, 2005; Ingersoll, 2001; Rockoff,
2004). For instance, Rivkin et al. (2005) estimated that teacher quality alone can account
for 7 percent of the variance in student achievement. Using the Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment, Sanders and Rivers (1996) found that the quality and effectiveness of
teachers have enduring effects for student attainment. These and many other studies

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

(e.g. Aaronson et al., 2007; Koedel, 2009; Sanders and Horn, 1998) concluded that highquality teaching is beneficial for all students; more importantly, the lower achieving
students are the first to benefit as teacher effectiveness increases.
Equipped with the guidance of relevant research, one of the main goals of
educational policies across the globe has quickly become to leverage educational
outcomes through improvements in the teacher workforce. For instance, teacher
quality remains the focus of most policy initiatives at all three levels of government in
the USA. The Title II of 1998 legislation (Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants for
States and Partnerships) encouraged states to institute mandated teacher testing as
part of the initial state teacher certification. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
required a highly qualified teacher in all classrooms and the public reporting of
teacher qualifications. In Turkey, although the relevant interventions either have not
been up to par or have experienced implementation problems, all parties agree on the
significance of teacher quality (Cakiroglu and Cakiroglu, 2003). Although the research
community and policy makers agree on the vital role of teachers, the current landscape
does not appear to be very conducive for teachers. On the contrary, it is common for
teachers to express low job satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2006), which traditionally lead
to low job commitment (Currall et al., 2005), ineffective teaching ( Judge et al., 2001),
and high turnover among teachers (Cha and Cohen-Vogel, 2011). Because teachers play
a key role in creating an environment that is conducive to childrens educational
attainments, it is critical to understand the key elements that contribute to their work
attitudes, mainly to their self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The identification of factors
affecting teacher work attitudes retains an important informative role for researchers,
policy makers, and practitioners. The studies that identify the factors influencing
teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction may inform all parties and give them an edge
in their efforts to enhance teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction, consequently
improving the effectiveness of school systems.
The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the instructional and
administrative leadership practices of principals and the professional collaboration
among teachers influence teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction in schools, net of
several school characteristics (e.g. school size, average class size, etc.), and demographic
characteristics for the teachers (e.g. level of education, years of experience, etc.).
Exploring the factors that influence teacher work attitudes can inform policy and
practice about the role and significance of principals practices and teacher
collaborative efforts in promoting teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
Theoretical foundations
Kozlowski and Klein (2000) recommend that researchers developing theoretical
foundations and conceptual frameworks should start with a discussion of dependent
constructs because these variables drive the identification of the necessary levels,
constructs, and processes within the theory. By following the lead of Kozlowski and
Klein, the current study first identified the dependent variables and then moved to
a discussion of the relationships between the dependent and the independent variables.
Teacher work attitudes: self-efficacy and job satisfaction
The link between employee attitude, behavior, and performance is perhaps one of
the best established relationships in the behavioral and organizational sciences
(Walumbwa et al., 2004). Starting with Chris Argyriss (1964) pioneering works,
organizational psychologists have discovered that work attitudes drive employee

Teacher work
attitudes

701

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

702

behaviors and performance. Among the work attitudes, self-efficacy and job
satisfaction stand out as two of the most studied. In an educational context, a
persuasive body of research has linked teachers self-efficacy (Chacon, 2005; Goddard,
2002; Ross and Gray, 2006) and job satisfaction (Currall et al., 2005; Judge et al., 2001) to
educational outcomes, including student achievement.
The pioneering work of Bandura (1986) noted that self-efficacy plays a significant
role in task and extra-role performance. From a social psychology perspective,
perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995, p. 2).
In an organizational setting, self-efficacy refers to how capably the employee can
perform actions to respond to the apparent circumstances (Kurt et al., 2012). In the
educational context, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) defined the teachers
self-efficacy as their [y] capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student
engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or
unmotivated (p. 783). Teachers self-efficacy beliefs determine their capacity to influence
different student variables such as student motivation, identification, and performance
(Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Research has shown that the efficacy beliefs of teachers
powerfully predict task choice, effort, persistence, and, ultimately, the level of
performance (Bandura, 2001). Teachers with a strong sense of self-efficacy are more
willing to take risks, employ new strategies, be less critical of student behavioral
issues, and work harder with academically struggling students (Gibson and Dembo,
1984). In addition, the students of teachers with high self-efficacy exhibit higher
motivation, participation, self-efficacy, and achievement (Ross and Gray, 2006).
Similarly, a large body of research attests to the relationship between teacher job
satisfaction and several educational outcomes. The teachers level of job satisfaction
plays an important role in how they fulfill their professional mission in the field
of education (Bogler, 2001). High job satisfaction stimulates teachers eagerness,
enthusiasm, commitment, and motivation to devote extra time and energy to enhance
student learning (Nguni et al., 2006; Anderman et al., 1991). The research on the
mechanisms of interaction yielded the presence of an indirect relationship between
teacher job satisfaction and student learning (Caprara et al., 2006).
Several studies emphasized the multifaceted relationship between teachers selfefficacy beliefs, their job satisfaction, and educational outcomes. For instance, Caprara
et al. (2006) noted that teachers satisfaction most likely derives from their sense of
competence, which is one of the determinants of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs
influence teachers job satisfaction directly to the extent that it meets their intrinsic
need for competence. The relationship becomes indirect when self-efficacy induces
performance from which teachers may derive pride and rewards. Ryan and Deci (2000)
reported similar relationships between these two teacher work attitudes. Teachers with
high levels of self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to be able to engage in interpersonal
networks that nourish and sustain their job satisfaction.
Despite their proven influence on educational outcomes, a number of observers
warn that poor job satisfaction and low self-efficacy among teachers has a widespread
presence. The overwhelming task and extra-role expectations from teachers, poor
organizational support, and the declining prestige of the profession have created
a downfall in the teaching workforce (Caprara et al., 2006; Evans, 1998). In a national
sample of teachers surveyed who indicated that they left their position because they
were dissatisfied; 21 percent of private school teachers and 33 percent of public school
teachers left as a result of school workplace conditions (Ingersoll and Smith, 2003).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

The off-target and failing policies that have been implemented to change this downfall
require an in-depth analysis of the issue. As Cerit (2009) warned, the current policies in
Turkey appear to focus mostly on monetary incentives and neglect intrinsic elements
such as developing the self-efficacy and job satisfaction of teachers. Because little
attention is paid to self-efficacy beliefs and job satisfaction, few resources are provided
for interventions aimed at building teachers self-efficacy and increasing their
job satisfaction. A relevant issue is the lack of studies on the determinants of teachers
self-efficacy beliefs and job satisfaction (Littrell et al., 1994; Ghaith and Yaghi, 1997;
Guo et al., 2010; Klassen and Chiu, 2010). The current study addressed the latter by
examining the role of principal leadership and teacher collaboration on teacher
work attitudes.
Principal leadership and teacher work attitudes
A growing body of research supports the notion that the principals leadership is
second to the teachers in contributing to student learning (Louis et al., 2010). The
relationship between the principals leadership and educational outcomes occurs
through the principals influence on teachers. The strategic positions of principals in
schools help them to influence teachers extrinsic and intrinsic sources of motivation
and job satisfaction (Hipp, 1997; Hirschfeld, 2000). Early research on the principals
influence on teacher job satisfaction primarily focussed on extrinsic factors and the
managerial practices of principals. This line of research examined the principals
managerial practices for creating appealing work conditions for teachers (Hipp, 1997;
NCES, 1997; Shann, 1998; Whaley, 1994). A review of the early research reveals some
common principal managerial practices that influence teachers job satisfaction. Some
of these practices include creating safe environments by controlling student behavioral
issues, protecting teachers from external forces, providing personal and professional
support, and recognizing teachers efforts and accomplishments. These studies
provided some evidence that managerial actions by school administrators create
environments that are conducive to the job satisfaction of the teaching staff.
Parallel with the highlighted demands for increased accountability for educational
outcomes, a number of studies examined the relationships between teacher job
satisfaction and principal instructional leadership practices. For instance Anderman
et al. (1991) examined whether the principals practices (i.e. curriculum and instructional
issues including the clarification of school vision, curriculum management, the
supervision of teaching, the creation of an effective instructional climate, and the
monitoring of student success) influence teachers job satisfaction. Their study identified
the presence of significant indirect relationships between all dimensions of principal
instructional leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Cerit (2009) examined the
relationships between teacher job satisfaction and principal servant leadership. This
study revealed similar results to those of Bogler and Griffith. The principals who make
teachers a priority, consider their emotions, listen to them, and provide them with needed
support are more likely to foster the teachers job satisfaction.
Although there is no shortage of research supporting the relationship between the
principals leadership and teacher job satisfaction, the relevant literature suffers from
incoherent or disjointed efforts. As part of the theory development process, there is
a need for a parsimonious understanding about the role of principal managerial
and instructional elements in influencing teacher work attitudes such as teacher selfefficacy and job satisfaction. The current study examined these relationships in the
Turkish context where such studies are scarce.

Teacher work
attitudes

703

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

704

Collaboration and teacher work attitudes

A large part of teacher activity occurs in the classroom through instructing classes of
students more or less in isolation from other classes and other teachers. A modern
view of teaching acknowledges professional activities at the school level, such
as cooperating in teams of teachers, building professional learning communities,
participating in school development, and evaluating and changing working conditions
(McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006; OECD, 2009). From an organizational perspective,
collaboration is a form of lateral coordination that can improve organizational
performance by fostering creativity and integration around specific problems (Bolman
and Deal, 1997). In the educational context, collaboration refers to teachers working
together in groups or teams to improve educational processes and outcomes. By
working together, individual teachers can pool scarce resources and learn from each
other to achieve a vision that would not be possible for separate individuals working
independently. Furthermore, cooperation among staff creates opportunities for social
and emotional support and the exchange of ideas and practical advice. Cooperation
can thus enhance professionalism, feelings of self-efficacy, and job satisfaction
(Clement and Vandenberghe, 2000; Rosenholtz, 1989; Shachar and Shmuelevitz, 1997).
When teachers collaborate, they share experiences and knowledge that can promote
learning and instructional improvement (Goddard et al., 2007).
Moolenaar et al. (2011) studied the relationships between teacher networks,
collective efficacy, and student achievement in Dutch elementary schools. These
authors found that well-connected teacher networks were associated with strong
teacher collective efficacy, which in turn supported student achievement. In another
study, Goddard et al. (2007) found significant relationships between teacher
collaboration and increased levels of student achievement. Similarly, in a study on
collaboration and student safety, Gajda (2004) commented that [y] collaboration has
become both the vehicle for obtaining student and school level outcomes and a long
term outcome (p. 66).
Guided by the growing evidence in the literature, policy makers call for educational
organizations to mobilize effective collaborative efforts. The current understanding of
teaching and the parallel policy initiatives to enhance collaborative teaching require
a further examination of the relationships between teachers professional collaboration
and their work attitudes. There is a particular need for such studies in Turkey, where
studies investigating the relationship between teacher collaboration and teacher work
attitudes are non-existent.
Conceptual framework
The theory of educational productivity developed by Walberg (Walberg, 1981;
Subotnik and Walberg, 2006) guided the conceptual framework (see Figure 1) of the
current study. This framework views the educational processes as the vital domain
that transforms the inputs into the desired outputs. Walbergs perspective criticized
the early focus on inputs and the recent focus on outcomes. Walberg noted that
educational processes exert a defining role on educational outcomes. In his educational
productivity framework, reaching the desired educational outcomes is contingent upon
educational processes (Subotnik and Walberg, 2006). The failure to establish a direct
link between educational inputs and outcomes is mainly due to the disregard of
educational processes. By utilizing Walbergs perspective, the current study focussed
on two main process variables, teacher collaboration and principal leadership;
and examined their influence on two outcome variables, teacher self-efficacy and job

Teacher work
attitudes

Principal Leadership
Administrative
Instructional

Teacher Self-efficacy

705

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

Teacher Attributes

School Attributes

Teacher Job
Satisfaction

Teacher
Collaboration

Note: The arrows do not show causal relationship; rather, they indicate the direction
of association

satisfaction. Teacher- and school-level input variables were also included in the
study as covariates.
In addition to Walbergs theory of educational productivity, the newly emerging
perspective (Reynolds et al., 2002) that incorporates school effectiveness research and
school improvement research also ascertained the foundations of the conceptual
framework. School effectiveness research has emerged as a response to the recent calls
for accountability for educational outcomes (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2007; Teddlie
and Reynolds, 2000). Although there has been some controversy about this perspectives
sole focus on educational outcomes, the pressure upon schools to increase educational
outcomes is unlikely to recede in the near future (Harris and Bennett, 2002). Educational
policy remains firmly focussed on securing increased student learning, suggesting that
policies for school effectiveness will persist in being influential with researchers, policy
makers, and practitioners alike.
The current study employed a multilevel model would not be possible for separate
individuals working independently to examine relationships between two process
variables (i.e. school leadership and teacher collaboration) and two outcome variables
(i.e. teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction). Specifically, the study attempted to
answer the following research questions:
(1)

Does teacher collaboration significantly explain the variation in teacher selfefficacy and teacher job satisfaction within and across schools?

(2)

Do the managerial and instructional leadership practices of school principals

significantly explain the variation in teacher self-efficacy and teacher job
satisfaction within and across schools?

Method
The current study employed a naturalistic causal comparative methodology and
utilized secondary data analysis. A naturalistic methodology was appropriate because

Figure 1.
Principal leadership
and teacher collaboration
as the predictors of
teacher self-efficacy and
job satisfaction

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

706

no specific policy or program was targeted by the study (Creswell, 2003).

For instance, the study did not focus on the effects of a particular program that
aimed to increase collaboration for instructional improvement among teachers.
Instead, the naturally occurring relationships between principals leadership practices,
teachers professional collaboration, teachers self-efficacy, and job satisfaction were
examined. Several school (e.g. school size, average class size, etc.) and teacher
demographic (e.g. gender, educational levels, years of experience, etc.) attributes were
also included in the analyses as control variables. The data source, study variables, and
empirical strategy employed in the current study are described and discussed in
the following sections.
Data
The data source was the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), which
was conducted by the OECD in 2008. The TALIS was developed as a part of the
Indicators of Education Systems (INES) project, which aims to provide reliable
indicators for OECD and partner countries about their educational systems (OECD,
2010). The TALIS data set differs from other well-known international data sets (e.g.
PISA, TIMMS) because it focusses on the work conditions of teachers and the learning
environment in schools. The main research areas targeted by TALIS include
school leadership, professional development, teacher appraisal, feedback, teaching
practices, and the beliefs and attitudes of teachers. The data set also contains rich
information about the infrastructure and climate of schools as well as the demographic
characteristics of the teachers and principals of the participating countries. A total of
24 countries around the world, including Turkey, have participated in TALIS. To allow
multilevel analyses, TALIS includes two data sets, one for school-level variables and
one for teacher-level variables. After checking for the possible effects of omissions,
15 principal and 257 teacher cases were excluded from the analyses. The final data set
included 178 principals/schools and 2,967 teachers.
Teacher-level variables
Teachers self-efficacy beliefs and teachers job satisfaction, the two dependent
variables, were the teacher-level variables. Individual teachers within schools were
targeted for teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Teachers self-efficacy (SELFEF)
was measured using five questions that targeted teachers feelings about themselves as
a teacher in their current school (see the Appendix for the pertinent survey items to
measure each study variable). The data were gathered through the use of a four-point
Likert scale. A sample item reads I feel that I am making a significant educational
difference in the lives of my students. TALIS created a continuous index variable of
self-efficacy for each teacher. This index variable was included in the analyses. The job
satisfaction of teachers was measured by a single item (SATISFAC), which was also
designed as a four-point Likert scale. The teachers were asked to what extent they
agree or disagree with the following statement: All in all, I am satisfied with my job.
The TALIS data set created the exchange (EXCHANGE) and professional
collaboration (TCCOLLAB) indices to measure teacher cooperation. Both indices
were identified as individual level variables because each measured the extent of the
individual teachers involvement in collaborative efforts within schools. Consistent
with the relevant literature (e.g. Meirink et al., 2010), exchange consists of a lower level
of interaction among teachers. These practices include the exchange and discussion of
teaching material, discussion of the development of individual students, attendance at

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

team conferences, and ensuring common standards. Professional collaboration entails

a higher level of interaction and commitment among participants. The TALIS created
two continuous indexes to measure individual teacher participation in cooperation
with fellow teachers. These two indices were highly correlated with each other
(r 0.94) (see Table II). To prevent multicollinarity problems, only the TCOLLAB
variable was included in the analyses.
The teacher-level variables also included several teacher demographic and
professional attributes such as gender (GEN), level of education (EDUC), job status
(STATUS), and teaching experience (EXP). Gender and job status were dummy
variables (e.g. female 1; male 0 and permanent 1; contracted 0). The teachers
level of education (e.g. five categories ranging from below high school to above
masters degree) and teaching experience (e.g. seven categories ranging from first
year to more than 20 years) were both ordinal variables.
School-level variables
The TALIS data set categorized the principals leadership practices into
administrative leadership and instructional leadership. These two leadership
styles were the main school-level independent variables. Instructional leadership was
composed of three dimensions, and each dimension was represented by a continuous
index variable: framing and communicating the schools goals and curricular
development (MANGGOAL); promoting instructional improvements and professional
development (INSTRMAN); and direct supervision of instruction in the school
(SUPINSTR). Administrative Leadership included two dimensions: accountability role
of the principal (ACCROLE) and bureaucratic rule following (BURRULEF). The
principals responded to four to six survey items for each dimension. The Appendix
presents the survey items included in each leadership dimension.
Guided by the relevant literature, we also included several important control
variables for the school-level analyses. These variables included the school type
(TYPE), school size (SCSIZE), and average class size (CLSIZE). The school-level control
variables were measured as ordinal data.
Descriptive statistics for all teacher and school-level variables were presented
in Table I. The transformation of some of the study variables from a four-point Likert
scale to continuous index variables (which can take negative mean scores) resulted in
difficult to interpret mean scores. To make sense of the mean score of the index
variables, the minimum and maximum ranges that each variable could take were also
included in the descriptive statistics. The majority of the teachers (82 percent) held
permanent teaching positions, and 56 percent of them were females. The majority of
the participating schools were public schools (74 percent), the average school size was
1,152 students, and the average class size was approximately 32 students.
Empirical strategy
The Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) method was used to investigate whether the
principals leadership and the teachers collaboration explain the variation in teacher
self-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction, net of several important teacher-level and
school-level control variables. The HLM is used in cases where individuals are nested
within groups and the data has a hierarchical structure (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002).
Because the TALIS data retained a multilevel data structure (school level and teacher
level), HLM was an appropriate method for the study. The HLM 6.08 software developed
by Raudenbush et al. (2004) was used for the analyses of the multilevel TALIS data.

Teacher work
attitudes

707

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

708

Table I.
Descriptive statistics
for teacher and school
level variables

Variables

Dependent variables
SELFEFa
SATISFAC
Level-1
COLLABa
EXCHANa
GEN
EDUC
EXP
STATUS
Level-2
MANGGOALa
INSTRMANa
SUPINSTRa
ACCROLEa
BURRULEFa
TYPE
CLSIZE
SCSIZE

Mean

SD

Minimum

Maximum

2,889
2,882

0.14
3.08

1.13
0.74

2.93
1.00

2.18
4.00

2,883
2,883
2,967
2,956
2,939
2,887

0.27
0.97
0.56
2.98
4.30
0.82

0.80
1.03
0.50
0.40
1.67
0.38

1.71
3.07
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00

2.49
2.36
1.00
5.00
7.00
1.00

178
178
178
178
178
178
178
178

0.45
0.43
0.36
0.71
1.08
0.74
30.49
1,151.84

0.89
0.91
0.72
0.84
0.87
0.44
8
801.67

2.54
2.39
1.15
1.80
1.17
0.00
13.17
104

1.36
1.77
1.84
1.72
2.05
1.00
56.38
3,922

Note: aFactor scores are standardised, so that the international mean is 0 and the international
standard deviation equals 1
Source: OECD, 2010

The first step in the data analysis was to develop an unconditional model (one-way
random effects model) for each dependent variable (i.e. teacher self-efficacy and job
satisfaction). The unconditional model helps to identify any accounted variance
between teachers and schools. The unconditional model is shown below:
Level-1 (Teachers) : Yij b0j rij
Level-2 (Schools) : b0j g00 u0j
Yij is the dependent variable for teacher i in school j; b0j the mean of the dependent
variable in school j; g00 the average of school means; rij the level-1 random error; and u0j
the random effect associated with school j.
Based on the results of the unconditional model, the intra-class correlations (ICCs),
which indicated the between-schools variability in teacher self-efficacy and job
satisfaction, were calculated. Then, the final HLM models, which included all teacherlevel and school-level variables, for each dependent variable were developed. The final
model (i.e. level-2) helped to examine the extent of variation in teacher self-efficacy and
job satisfaction accounted for by each independent variable.
The equation for the final model is shown below:
pij b0j b1j TCCOLLAB b2j GEN b3j EDUC b4j EXP b5j STATUS r ij
b0j g00 g01 MANGGOAL g02 INSTRMAN g03 SUPINSTR g04 ACCROLE
g05 BURRULEF g06 TYPE g07 SCSIZE g08 CLSIZE u0j

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

While b1j, b2j, y., b5j are the slope estimates for the effects of each level-1 variables,
g01, g02, yy, g08 are the coefficients associated with each level-2 variables.
Findings
Prior to conducting the HLM analyses, the correlational relationships between
teacher-level variables and school-level variables were examined and presented
in Tables II and III.
The bivariate correlation coefficients for both the between teacher-level variables
and the between school variables ranged from small to medium, yet were mostly
significant. As presented in Table II, the teacher-level dependent variables, (i.e. teacher
self-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction) were moderately (Cohen, 1988) but
significantly correlated (r 0.42, po0.01). This finding is consistent with the
expectations, indicating that a positive increase in one teachers work attitude may lead
to an increase in the other. Teacher self-efficacy had low, but significant, relationships
with all but one (education) independent variable. Similarly, teacher job satisfaction
was significantly correlated with four of the six independent variables. There was a
small but significant correlation between teacher collaboration and teacher efficacy
(r 0.28, po0.01). Similarly, teacher collaboration was significantly correlated with job
satisfaction (r 0.20, po0.01). These relationships were supportive of the hypothesized
role of teacher professional collaboration in enhancing teacher work attitudes. Some of
the relationships between other independent variables were also noteworthy. For
instance, teaching experience was negatively correlated with the teachers educational

SELFEF
SATISFAC
COLLAB
EXCHAN
GEN
EDUC
EXP
STATUS

1
0.42**
0.28**
0.29**
0.04*
0.02
0.11**
0.05**

1
0.20**
0.22**
0.01
0.04*
0.06**
0.03

1
0.94**
0.04*
0.03
0.04
0.21**

1
0.07**
0.03
0.03
0.22**

1
0.08**
0.09**
0.04*

1
0.32**
0.06**

1
0.26**

Notes: *pp0.05; **pp0.01

MANGGOAL
INSTRMAN
SUPINSTR
ACCROLE
BURRULEF
TYPE
CLSIZE
SCSIZE

1
0.48**
0.66**
0.43**
0.46**
0.39**
0.20**
0.26**

1
0.47**
0.50**
0.55**
0.11
0.05
0.08

1
0.33**
0.42**
0.35**
0.21**
0.23**

1
0.67**
0.25**
0.13
0.10

1
0.12
0.06
0.07

1
0.58**
0.55**

1
0.71**

Notes: *pp0.05, **pp0.01

Teacher work
attitudes

709

Table II.
Correlations among
teacher-level variables

Table III.
Correlations among
school-level variables

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

710

level (r 0.32, po0.01). This negative relationship makes sense in the Turkish context
because many veteran teachers are assigned to teaching positions without holding
a college degree. It is common for veteran teachers to hold associate degrees. The current
policy requires teachers to have a four-year college degree, and because of this policy
change, the young teachers in the profession are more educated than their veteran
colleagues. The negative correlation between teacher collaboration and job status
(r 0.21, po0.01) can be explained by the fact that full-time teachers tend to work in
isolation from the others and are less likely to engage in collaborative activities. Although
they work under temporary contracts, young teachers appear to be more open to
engaging in collaborative activities with their colleagues.
An examination of school-level variable correlations (Table III) revealed moderate
yet significant relationships between leadership dimensions. As expected, managing
school goals and the direct supervision of instruction, the two dimensions of
instructional leadership, maintained a relatively large correlation (r 0.66, po0.01).
Similarly, the accountability role of the principal and bureaucratic rule following
(r 0.67, po0.01), two dimensions of administrative leadership, had a relatively higher
correlation compared to the other leadership dimensions. These results supported the
accurate identification and classification of the principal leadership dimensions.
Negative correlations between school type and several leadership dimensions suggest
that principals in public and private schools engage in different leadership practices.
The negative correlations between school type and all five leadership dimensions
(ranging from r 0.11 to r 0.39, po0.01) indicate that the principals in private
schools opt to engage in different leadership practices than their counterparts in public
schools. As expected, managing school goals and the direct supervision of instruction,
the two dimensions of instructional leadership, were negatively correlated with school
size and average class size. High positive correlations between the school size and the
average class size (r 0.71, po0.01) is indicative of the unfavorable large class sizes in
urban areas where the school sizes are also large. Another striking indicator is that the
public schools, compared to the private schools, house unfavorably larger class sizes
(r 0.58, po0.01).
Results of the unconditional models
Results of the unconditional models indicated that the variance components at level-2
were significant (pp0.001) for both dependent variables. This result means that there
were significant variations in the teachers work attitudes (for both self-efficacy and job
satisfaction) between the Turkish middle schools. The ICCs were calculated to
determine the extent of variance between the schools. As a measure of the clustering
effect due to the contextual level (i.e. the level of schools), the ICC helps to assess the
variance accrued to each dependent variable due to the differences between the schools
(Caprara et al., 2006). The ICC for teacher self-efficacy was 0.08 (0.098/1.175 0.098),
while the ICC for teacher job satisfaction was 0.06 (0.03/0.511 0.03). These results
indicated that 8 percent of the total variance in teacher self-efficacy and 6 percent
of the total variance in teacher job satisfaction was due to differences between the
schools (Table IV).
As suggested by Hox (2002), the general case coefficients from 0.05 to 0.09 indicate
a low grouping effect. The ICCs for both self-efficacy and job satisfaction were slightly
above the threshold of 0.05. These results supported the appropriateness of the HLM
method for the analysis of data. In practical terms, the ICCs supported the presence of
significant differences in teachers work attitudes between Turkish schools. Thus, the

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

significant unconditional models justified the development of a final model to identify

the factors that contribute to the differences in teacher work attitudes.
Results of the two-level HLM analyses
The analyses of the final HLM model (see Table V) indicated that several teacher and
school-level variables significantly explained the variation in both teacher work
attitudes. In regards to the teacher-level variables, teacher professional collaboration
was the strongest predictor among both the independent and the control variables.
Professional collaboration explained variation for both teacher self-efficacy (b 0.37)
and job satisfaction (b 0.16). The effects were medium to large (Cohen, 1988): Z 0.61
and Z 0.40 for teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction, respectively. The large effect
sizes are indicative of teacher collaboration as a powerful policy tool for improving
teacher work attitudes, with a potential role in improving cognitive educational
outcomes. Although the coefficients were small, teacher experience, a control variable,
also significantly influenced both teacher self-efficacy (b 0.07) and job satisfaction
(b 0.02). The educational background of the teachers significantly predicted teacher
job satisfaction, with a negative sign (b 0.07). This finding implies that the
more educated teachers are less satisfied. None of the other teacher control variables
were significant.

Self-efficacy

Job satisfaction

0.080
0.558
0.098a
1.175

0.060
0.477
0.030b
0.511

ICC
HLM reliability
Between-school parameter variance
Within-school parameter variance
a 2

Notes: w 416.128, df 177, pp0.001; w 347.235, df 177, pp0.001

Self-efficacy coefficient

SE

Satisfaction coefficient

SE

0.366**
0.057
0.003
0.071**
0.058

0.027
0.041
0.047
0.014
0.079

0.163**
0.021
0.071*
0.021*
0.017

0.018
0.031
0.034
0.009
0.046

0.015
0.014
0.094*
0.087*
0.010
0.063
0.004
0.002

0.039
0.034
0.045
0.038
0.039
0.087
0.004
0.004

0.110
0.019
0.048
0.008
0.055*
0.069
0.009*
0.002

0.026
0.021
0.031
0.027
0.024
0.060
0.004
0.004

Notes: *pp0.05; **pp0.01

711

Table IV.
Summary of
unconditional model

b 2

Level-1
TCCOLLAB
GEN
EDUC
EXP
STATUS
Level-2
MANGGOAL
INSTRMAN
SUPINSTR
ACCROLE
BURRULEF
TYPE
CLSIZE
SCSIZE

Teacher work
attitudes

Table V.
Results for final
HLM analyses

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

712

In respect to the school-level variables, one of the three instructional leadership

dimensions and both of the two administrative leadership dimensions significantly
predicted the teachers work attitudes. The supervision of instruction (SUPINSTR) was
the only dimension of instructional leadership that explained the variance in teachers
self-efficacy beliefs (b 0.09). The results also indicated that two dimensions of
administrative leadership significantly influenced two different teacher work attitudes.
While the principals accountability role (ACCROLE) significantly explained the
variance in teacher self-efficacy (b 0.09), the level of bureaucratic rule following
(BURRULEF) (b 0.06) significantly influenced teacher job satisfaction. Among all
of the school-level control variables, the average class size was the only significant
variable predicting teachers job satisfaction. As expected, the sign was negative
(b 0.001).
Conclusions and implications
The school improvement research (Reynolds et al., 2002) assume that educational
process variables are the most critical factors for accomplishing cognitive and noncognitive educational outcomes. To test this assumption, the current study targeted
two process variables (i.e. teacher collaboration and principal leadership practices) and
examined their influence on two teacher work attitudes (i.e. teacher self-efficacy and
job satisfaction) as measures of non-cognitive educational outcomes. More specifically,
the study tested whether the professional collaboration efforts of individual teachers
(i.e. the individual level) and the leadership practices of school principals (i.e. the school
level) explain the variation in the levels of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and job
satisfaction in Turkish middle schools.
The findings of this multilevel study suggested that the professional collaborative
activities that teachers engage in exert significant influence on their work attitudes.
Teachers professional collaboration appeared to be the strongest predictor of both
teacher self-efficacy (b 0.37) and job satisfaction (b 0.16). These findings on teacher
collaboration are consistent with the growing research that emphasizes the value of
this process variable (Caprara et al., 2006; Goddard et al., 2007; Gajda, 2004; TschannenMoran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The more that teachers collaborate, the more they are
able to converse knowledgably about theories, methods, and processes of teaching and
learning. Teacher collaboration in schools improves not only self-efficacy but also job
satisfaction among teachers.
The studys finding on teacher collaboration supports the recent reform efforts,
which have placed considerable emphasis on teacher collaboration (Morse, 2000;
Datnow, 2011). Many school districts across the USA, for instance, have adopted
policies and interventions to enhance teacher collaboration. This increased emphasis
on teacher collaboration is a result of a new understanding in teaching that rejects the
isolated delivery of instruction. This new perspective considers teaching to be a
process of establishing collaborative cultures among teachers and creating sustained
improvement in schools. In other words, teacher collaboration is viewed as a powerful
strategy to create learning communities and improve schools (Goddard et al., 2007;
Kaufman et al., 2012). Although similar policies are scant in Turkey, the studys
findings unveiled the presence of an internal understanding and functioning within the
system. The results of this study may guide policy makers in creating collaborative
work conditions for teachers. The study findings may also inform future research
about the current state and future directions of teacher collaboration in Turkey as well
as in other settings worldwide.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

The study highlighted the presence of differing processes and cultures between
schools in Turkish system. This finding also highlights the presence of a caveat in
the implementation of change and reform initiatives in countries with centralized
school systems. All reform initiatives are mainly planned and developed at the
Ministry of National Education and presented to schools with a top-down approach.
A blunt example of this would be the in-service education to teachers to improve teacher
collaboration. Teachers and principals have no or very limited input and involvement
in the planning and development of these in-service programs. As a result, one-fits all
type of programs may have very little buy-in by the teachers and principals of local
schools. The findings of study call for the reconsideration of the nature of the reform
initiatives in centralized systems. For these to be effective, they must address the
unique school culture which influence the processes individual school systems.
The identification of effective conditions for creating collaborative cultures appears
to be an area of importance for the success of current and future teacher development
initiatives. As Peterson (1994) noted, the sustainability of collaborative efforts depends
on the presence of a collaborative culture in schools. This line of research may also help
theory building by identifying the determinants of effective teacher collaboration.
Examining the possible effects of high accountability schemes on teacher collaboration
appears to be a timely topic for future research. Some researchers (Datnow, 2011) warn
about the negative effects of high stakes environments for teacher collaboration. The
future research may investigate whether the recent high accountability environments
support collaborative cultures or create contrived collegiality in schools.
The findings of the current study showed that some select principal leadership
practices played moderate yet significant roles on the level of the teachers self-efficacy
beliefs and job satisfaction. For instance, as part of the instructional leadership practices,
the direct supervision of instruction (b 0.09) significantly predicted teachers selfefficacy beliefs. This finding is consistent with the relevant literature (Bogler, 2001; Cerit,
2009; Griffith, 2004). Some of the principals practices within this role included observing
classrooms, monitoring students work, and providing instructional suggestions to
teachers. When principals engage more in these instructional leadership activities, the
teachers self-efficacy increases significantly. Interestingly, out of the three dimensions,
the supervision of instruction was the only significant principal instructional leadership
dimension. The managing goals and instructional management dimensions did not
exert any significant influence on either of the two teacher work attitudes in Turkish
middle schools. This finding, of course, does not mean that the other two instructional
leadership dimensions were neglected by the Turkish principals. In effect, among the 24
participating countries, Turkey was one of seven countries that scored high on both the
instructional leadership and the administrative leadership dimensions (OECD, 2009).
Another interesting finding about the principals leadership styles was that both
dimensions of administrative leadership significantly influenced teacher work attitudes.
While the principals accountability role (ACCROLE) significantly predicted teacher
self-efficacy (b 0.09), bureaucratic rule following (BURRULEF) (b 0.06)
significantly, but negatively, predicted teacher job satisfaction. These findings have
practical implications, at least in the Turkish context. For instance, the more that
principals engage in accountability roles (such as ensuring the teachers understanding of
educational goals, improving the teachers teaching skills, holding the teachers
accountable for educational results, and involving parents), the higher the teachers selfefficacy will be. The significant influence of the principals administrative accountability
roles on teacher self-efficacy makes sense in the Turkish system where academic results

Teacher work
attitudes

713

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

714

are a pressing issue system-wide. The findings of the study showed that teachers job
satisfaction may be decreased through the principals bureaucratic rule following
practices such as ensuring compliance with rules and regulations, running audits
reporting results, creating orderly environments, and stimulating a task-oriented
atmosphere in their schools. This finding is consistent with similar research in the
relevant literature (Goddard et al., 2007).
The findings must be considered along with the limitations inherent in the study.
For instance, the findings may contain country specific attributes, which may hinder
the applicability of the results in other contexts and countries. The relationships among
the variables in the Turkish context should be verified through the use of other
countries data. The TALIS offer a rich data set for such comparisons. Another
limitation of study was its cross-sectional nature. The study used the first round of the
TALIS data gathered in 2008. The relationship among the study variables can be tested
longitudinally when the second phase TALIS data becomes available in 2014. The
hypothesized relationships among the study variables may also present a limitation.
For instance, principal leadership and teacher collaboration might have interacted with
each other. Yet, the relationships between these process variables were not studied in
the current study. A recent study (Herman et al., 2008) showed that the principals who
were able to turn around schools fostered teacher collaboration by providing
pedagogical and structural supports. Future research may further investigate the
relationships between and among various process variables, including interaction
between teacher collaboration and principal leadership practices.
References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L. and Sander, W. (2007), Teachers and student achievement in the
Chicago public high schools, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 95-135.
Anderman, E., Belzer, S. and Smith, J. (1991), Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: the role
of school culture and principal leadership, paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Argyris, C. (1964), Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Newark, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1995), Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies, in Bandura, A.
(Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-45.
Bandura, A. (2001), Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 1-26.
Bogler, R. (2001), The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 662-683.
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1997), Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership,
3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Borman, G. and Kimball, S. (2005), Teacher quality and educational equity: do teachers with
higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps?, The
Elementary School Journal, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Cakiroglu, E. and Cakiroglu, J. (2003), Reflections on teacher education in Turkey, European
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 253-264.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, B.P. and Malone, P.S. (2006), Teachers self-efficacy beliefs
as determinants of job satisfaction and students academic achievement: a study at the
school level, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 473-490.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

Cerit, Y. (2009), The effects of servant leadership behaviors of school principals on teachers job
satisfaction, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 600-623.
Cha, S. and Cohen-Vogel, L. (2011), Why they quit: a focused look at teachers who leave for other
occupations, School Effectiveness and Improvement, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 371-392.
Chacon, C.T. (2005), Teachers perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers
in middle schools in Venezuela, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 257-272.
Clement, M. and Vandenberghe, R. (2000), Teachers professional development: a solitary or
collegial (ad)venture?, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 81-101.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power and Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D. and
York, R.L. (1996), Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Creemers, B.P.M. and Kyriakides, L. (2007), The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness:
A Contribution to Policy, Practice, and Theory in Contemporary Schools, Taylor & Francis,
New York, NY.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Currall, S.C., Towler, A.J., Judge, T. and Kohn, L. (2005), Pay satisfaction and organizational
outcomes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 613-640.
Datnow, A. (2011), Collaboration and contrived collegiality: revisiting Hargreaves in the age of
accountability, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 147-158.
Evans, L. (1998), Teacher Morale, Job Satisfaction, and Motivation, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gajda, R. (2004), Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances, American
Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 65-77.
Ghaith, G. and Yaghi, H. (1997), Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes
toward the implementation of instructional innovation, Teaching and Teacher Education,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 451-458.
Gibson, S. and Dembo, M.H. (1984), Teacher efficacy: a construct validation, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 569-582.
Goddard, R.D. (2002), Collective efficacy and school organization: a multilevel analysis of
teacher influence in schools, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (Eds), Theory and Research in
Educational Administration, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 169-184.
Goddard, Y.L., Goddard, R.D. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007), A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools, Teachers College Record, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 877-896.
Griffith, J. (2004), Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job
satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 333-356.
Guo, Y., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M. and Kaderavek, J.N. (2010), Relations among preschool
teachers self-efficacy, classroom quality, and childrens language and literacy gains,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 1094-1103.
Harris, A. and Bennett, N. (2002), Introduction, in Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (Eds), The
International Handbook of School Effectiveness, Falmer Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-4.
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S. and Darwin, M. (2008),
Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools: A Practice Guide (NCEE #20084020), US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Washington, DC, available at: http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides (accessed June 17, 2013).

Teacher work
attitudes

715

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

716

Hipp, K.A. (1997), Documenting the effects of transformational leadership behavior on teacher
efficacy, paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL, March, 24-28.
Hirschfeld, R.R. (2000), Validity studies: does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the
Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire short form make a difference?, Educational
Psychological Measurement, No. 60, pp. 255-270.
Hox, J. (2002), Multilevel Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001), Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages, and the Organization of Schools
(Document R-01-1), University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy, Seattle, WA.
Ingersoll, R.M. and Smith, T.M. (2003), The wrong solution to the teacher shortage, Educational
Leadership, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 30-33.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Kaufman, T.E., Grimm, E.D. and Miller, A.E. (2012), Collaborative School Improvement: Eight
Practices for District-School Partnerships to Transform Teaching and Learning, Harvard
Education Press, Cambridge, MA.
Klassen, R.M. and Chiu, M.M. (2010), Effects on teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress, Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 102 No. 3, p. 741-756.
Koedel, C. (2009), An empirical analysis of teacher spillover effects in secondary school,
Economics of Education Review, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 682-692.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel theory, research,
and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions, in Klein, K.J.
and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations:
Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 3-90.
Kurt, T., Duyar, I. and Calik, T. (2012), Are we legitimate yet? A closer look at the casual
relationship mechanisms among principal leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and collective
efficacy, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Littrell, P.C., Billingsley, B.S. and Cross, L.H. (1994), The effects of principal support on special
and general educators stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to
stay in teaching, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 297-310.
Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.L. and Anderson, S.E. (2010), Investigating the links to
improved student learning: final report of research findings, University of Minnesota,
University of Toronto, and Wallace Foundation, available at: www.wallacefoundation.org
(accessed May 13, 2012).
McLaughlin, M.W. and Talbert, J.E. (2006), Building School-Based Teacher Learning
Communities, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Meirink, J.A., Imants, J., Meijer, P.C. and Verloop, N. (2010), Teacher learning and collaboration in
innovative teams, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 161-181.
Moolenaar, N.M., Sleegers, P.J.C. and Daly, A.J. (2011), Teaming up: linking collaboration
networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement, Teaching and Teacher Education,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 251-262.
Morse, W.C. (2000), Foreword, in Friend, M. and Cook, L. (Eds), Interactions: Collaboration Skills
for School Professionals, 3rd ed., Addison Wesley Longman, New York, NY, pp. xi-xii.
NCES (1997), Job Satisfaction Among Americas Teachers: Effects of Workplace Conditions,
Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, NCES, Washington, DC.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006), Transformational and transactional leadership
effects on teachers job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behavior in primary schools: the Tanzanian case, School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-177.
OECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS,
OECD, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda (accessed March 5, 2012).
OECD (2010), TALIS 2008 Technical Report, OECD, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/
16/14/44978960.pdf (accessed February 7, 2012).
Peterson, K. (1994), Building collaborative cultures: seeking ways to reshape urban schools,
NCREL monograph, Urban Education Monograph Series, available at: www.ncrel.org/
sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le0pet.htm (accessed February 21, 2012).
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data
Analysis Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S. and Congdon, R. (2004), HLM for Windows (Version 6.08)
[Computer Software], Scientific Software International Inc, Lincolnwood, IL.
Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., Potter, D. and Chapman, C. (2002), School improvement for schools
facing challenging circumstances: a review of research and practice, School Leadership &
Management: Formerly School Organisation, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 243-256.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E. and Kain, J. (2005), Teachers, schools, and academic achievement,
Econometrica, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 417-458.
Rockoff, J. (2004), The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: evidence from
panel data, The American Economic Review, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 247-252.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989), Teachers Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools, Longman, White
Plains, NY.
Ross, J.A. and Gray, P. (2006), Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to
organizational values: the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy, School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-199.
Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2000), Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Sanders, W.L. and Horn, S.P. (1998), Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment System (TVAAS) database: implications for educational evaluation and
research, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 247-256.
Sanders, W.L. and Rivers, J. (1996), Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future
Student Academic Achievement, University of Tennessee Value Added Research and
Assessment Center, Knoxville, TN.
Shachar, H. and Shmuelevitz, H. (1997), Implementing cooperative learning, teacher
collaboration and teachers sense of efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Shann, M. (1998), Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle
schools, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 67-75.
Subotnik, R.F. and Walberg, H.J. (2006), The Scientific Bases of Educational Productivity,
Information Age, Greenwich, CT.
Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness, Falmer
Press, New York, NY.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001), Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive
concept, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 783-805.
Walberg, H.J. (1981), A psychological theory of educational productivity, in Farley, F.H. and
Gordon, N. (Eds), Psychology and Education: The State of the Union, McCutchan, Berkeley,
CA, pp. 81-108.

Teacher work
attitudes

717

Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Lawler, J.J. and Shi, K. (2004), The role of collective efficacy in the
relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes, Journal of
Organizational and Occupational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 515-530.
Whaley, K.W. (1994), Leadership and teacher job satisfaction, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 78 No. 564,
pp. 46-51.

718

Appendix

Table AI.
Variables and
questionnaire items

Teachers Professional Collaboration (TCCOLLAB)

BTG30H
Teach jointly as a team in the same class
BTG30I
Take part in professional learning activities (e.g. team supervision)
BTG30J
Observe other teachers classes and provide feedback
BTG30K
Engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g. projects)
BTG30L
Discuss and coordinate homework practice across subjects
Teacher self-efficacy (TEACHSEF)
BTG31B
I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my students
BTG31C
If I try really hard, I can make progress with even the most difficult and unmotivated
students
BTG31D
I am successful with the students in my class
BTG31E
I usually know how to get through to students
Managing school goals (MANGGOAL)
BCG15A
I make sure that the professional development activities of teachers are in accordance
with the teaching goals of the school
BCG15B
I ensure that teachers work according to the schools educational goals
BCG15D
I use student performance results to develop the schools educational goals
BCG15J
I take exam results into account in decisions regarding curriculum development
BCG15K
I ensure that there is clarity concerning the responsibility for coordinating the
curriculum
BCG16M
In this school, we work on goals and/or a school development plan
Instructional management (INSTRMAN)
BCG15G
When a teacher has problems in his/her classroom, I take the initiative to discuss
matters
BCG15H
I inform teachers about possibilities for updating their knowledge and skills
BCG15L
When a teacher brings up a classroom problem, we solve the problem together
BCG15M
I pay attention to disruptive behavior in classrooms
Direct supervision of instruction (SUPINSTR)
BCG15C
I observe instruction in classrooms
BCG15E
I give teachers suggestions as to how they can improve their teaching
BCG15F
I monitor students work
BCG15I
I check to see whether classroom activities are in keeping with our educational goals
Accountability management (ACCROLE)
BCG16A
An important part of my job is to ensure that ministry-approved instructional
approaches are explained to new teachers, and that more experienced teachers are using
these approaches
BCG16D
A main part of my job is to ensure that the teaching skills of the staff are always
improving
BCG16E
An important part of my job is to ensure that teachers are held accountable for the
attainment of the schools goals
BCG16F
An important part of my job is to present new ideas to the parents in a convincing way
Bureaucratic management (BURRULEF)
BCG16H
It is important for the school that I see to it that everyone sticks to the rules
BCG16I
It is important for the school that I check for mistakes and errors in administrative
procedures and reports

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

IJEM
27,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 06:36 23 November 2014 (PT)

About the authors

Dr Ibrahim Duyar is an associate professor and the coordinator of doctoral program of
Educational Administration and Supervision at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
He teaches advanced leadership theories in education; principalship; and management of
organizational behavior. Dr Duyars research include teacher work attitudes, behaviors, and
performance; influence of principal leadership on educational outcomes; and management of
organizational behavior in educational organizations. Dr Duyars recent book entitled as
Discretionary Behavior and Performance in Educational Organizations: The Missing Link in
Educational Leadership and Management was published by Emerald in 2012. Ibrahim Duyar is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ixduyar@ualr.edu
Mehmet Sukru Bellibas is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Administration
K-12 at Michigan State University. He earned BA degree in Guidance and Psychological
Counselling from Istanbul University and MA degree in Educational Administration K-12 from
Michigan State University. His research interests are school improvement, principal leadership,
and school-community relations in disadvantaged contexts.
Dr Sedat Gumus is based at Mustafa Kemal University in Turkey. At the time of writing this
article he was a Graduate Student at Michigan State University, USA.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Teacher work
attitudes

719