Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTEt.docx

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTE
teachers: mutual impact of perceived school support,
transformational leadership, and work engagement
Ji Hoon Song • Sang Hoon Bae • Sunyoung Park •
Hye Kyoung Kim
Received: 27 March 2013 / Revised: 29 July 2013 / Accepted:
14 September 2013 / Published online: 2 October 2013
� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University,
Seoul, Korea 2013
Abstract This study examined the structural relationships
among perceived school support, transformational leader-
ship, teachers’ work engagement, and teachers’ knowledge
creation practices. It also investigated the mediating effects
of transformational leadership and work engagement in
explaining the association between perceived school support
and knowledge creation practices. Samples included 284
career and technical education teachers in the United States.
Structural equation modeling was employed. Perceived

school support was positively associated with transforma-
tional leadership and teachers’ work engagement, but had no
direct impact on knowledge creation practices. Transfor-
mational leadership was found to affect knowledge creation
practices, but not work engagement of teachers. Although a
supportive school climate had no direct relationship with
knowledge creation practices, it indirectly affected this
outcome variable through transformational leadership and
teachers’ work engagement. The results suggest that in order
to increase teachers’ knowledge creation activities, a sup-
portive school climate should be provided with efforts to
improve teachers’ work engagement and transformational
behaviors of the principal.
Keywords Knowledge creation � Perceived school
support � Transformational leadership � Work
engagement � Career and technical education
Introduction
As the world has transformed from the industrial age to the
knowledge era, creating new and innovative knowledge is

becoming increasingly important to organizations that want
to build a competitive advantage and maintain high per-
formance (Ichijo and Nonaka 2007). No matter what
business one finds oneself in, a critical issue is how to
establish organizational environments that encourage and
support employees to be engaged in knowledge creation
activities. Public schools are no exception. To achieve
school reform and improve performance, it is essential for
teachers to generate innovative knowledge that improves
work processes and makes teaching and learning in schools
more effective (McCharen et al. 2011; Viviano 2012).
The current study focuses on career and technical edu-
cation (CTE) schools, which have long been stigmatized as
low-performing institutions with second-class students.
They have generally been viewed ‘‘the track for low-
achieving, non-college bound students (Palmer and Gaunt
2007, p. 35)’’ and tend to enroll greater number of minority,
special needs, and low socioeconomic students who are more

likely to be underperformers (Campbell 1986; Gray and Bae
J. H. Song
Assistant Professor in College of Information
University of North Texas, Denton, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
S. H. Bae (&)
Associate professor of Education
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea
S. Park
Assistant professor of Human Resource Education and
Workforce Development
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA
H. K. Kim
Doctoral Candidate in Program of Occupational Educational
Studies
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA
123
Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2013) 14:467–482

DOI 10.1007/s12564-013-9283-8
2009; Levesque and Hudson 2003; Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Education [PDE] 2004). In addition, CTE schools
have continued to suffer qualified teacher shortage nation-
wide in the US (National Association of State Directors of
Career and Technical Education [NASDCTE] 2012). For
instance, one-third of State Directors in the US reported a
shortage of qualified teachers in manufacturing areas in
2012. Taken all together, it may be possible to argue that
CTE is in a crisis. It appears to be a worldwide phenomenon
(Gray and Bae 2009).
Facing the rapidly changing labor market, however,
CTE schools are now striving to develop high-performing
education systems to prepare a globally competitive
workforce (Bae et al. 2012). To pursue these goals, many
CTE institutions have made special efforts to motivate
teachers to become knowledgeable workers who can help

to build the knowledge assets of schools, which would
promote higher quality of education and competitiveness of
graduates in the labor market (McCharen et al. 2011;
Viviano 2012). Therefore, it is crucial to develop under-
standings as to how to encourage CTE teachers to get
involved in as many knowledge creation activities as pos-
sible. In attempts to positively influence teachers in
schools, increasing attention is being paid to both theory
and practice regarding changing the organizational climate,
introducing transformative leadership, and promoting
employees’ work engagement.
Many organizational studies (Nonaka 1994; Song et al.
2012) have suggested that a supportive organizational cli-
mate is critical to promoting innovative ideas and
increasing knowledge creation activities among employees.
A supportive climate has also been found to positively
affect the performance of organizational members in their
tasks (Eisenberger et al. 1986, 2002). In the educational

setting, a systematic and supportive school climate has
been reported as one of the most influential factors for
increasing teachers’ performance levels, which in turn
positively affect students’ achievement (McCharen et al.
2011; Song et al. 2011a, b).
The importance of school leaders in changing behaviors
of teachers in the school organization should not be
underestimated (Bass and Riggio 2006; Viviano 2012).
Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the
most effective leadership styles in social organizations,
including public schools. Overall, many research studies
(e.g., Son and Miskel 2006; Silins 1992) have found that
transformational leaders have greater positive impacts on
their educational organizations than transactional leaders.
For instance, Leithwood (1994) argued that transforma-
tional leadership ensures teacher commitment to change
and affects organizational learning, which in turn influ-
ences school performance.

Further, the concept of work engagement has become
increasingly popular in the fields of business and industry
as well as in education, in recent years (Hallinger 2003; Orr
and Orphanos 2007; Schaufeli and Bakker 2010; Thoonen
et al. 2011). A considerable number of studies (Amabile
and Kramer 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker 2003, 2010) have
found that work engagement is a powerful predictor of
many types of behavioral performance in the workplace.
Similarly, researchers (Lin 2011; Song et al. 2012) have
argued that without promoting the self-oriented engage-
ment of teachers, schools are not likely to enhance orga-
nizational learning and knowledge creation practices
among teachers, which are needed to generate innovative
work processes and creative curricular activities.
Considering the three factors affecting teacher behav-
iors—supportive organizational climate, transformational
leadership, and work engagement, questions arise: How are
these factors interrelated, and in what ways do they affect

teachers’ knowledge creation behaviors? One belief in the
field of education is that leadership plays a critical role in
changing school climate, influencing teacher behaviors,
and ultimately affecting school performance (e.g., Han
2004; Kim and Na 2005; Kwon 2007). In contrast, from the
management-oriented perspective, some researchers
(McCharen et al. 2011) argue that such conventional ideas
of trusting leadership roles may fail to place due emphasis
on the school as a social organization having cultural
characteristics similar to organizations in other sectors.
Supporting the concept of the school as a social organi-
zation in which a variety of social interactions occur not
only among individuals, but also between individuals and
school environments (Hoy and Miskel 2008), this study
views the cultural aspect of the school as an input factor
that influences the behaviors of leaders and teachers and
ultimately affects the outcome factor: teachers’ engage-
ment in knowledge creation practices. In addition, the

current study assumes that the leadership of principals and
the work engagement of teachers play mediating roles in
the association between supportive school climate and
knowledge creation practices of teachers.
Research purpose and theoretical foundation
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, the current
study intends to examine the structural relationships among
four variables in US CTE schools: perceived school sup-
port (PSS), principal’s transformational leadership (TL),
teachers’ work engagement (WE), and teachers’ knowledge
creation practices (KCP). Second, this study aims to
investigate the mediating effects of transformational lead-
ership of the principal and work engagement of teachers to
468 J. H. Song et al.
123
better explain the direct relationship between perceived
school support and teachers’ knowledge creation practices.

The conceptual framework of this study is primarily
guided by two theories: social exchange theory and
knowledge conversion theory. According to social
exchange theory, social exchange occurs between two
parties when each exchanges something valuable with the
other on the basis of mutual trust and reciprocity (Blau
1964). In addition, in the context of social exchange,
relationships are formed not only between individuals and
their leader, dyadic relationships, but also between indi-
viduals and the larger group or organization, global rela-
tionships (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Settoon et al. 1996). A
dyadic relationship is typically found in the social
exchange between employees and their supervisor.
Namely, a leader–member exchange indicates how
employees are willing to fulfill their obligations to their
leaders (Settoon et al. 1996; Wayne et al. 1997). In the
global relationship perspective, employees are more likely
to show organizational obligations and commitment when

they feel their organization values their contributions and
well-being (Eisenberger et al. 1986).
Perceived organizational support (POS) has been widely
used in many organizational studies to describe the quality
and level of employee–organization relationships (Aryee
et al. 2002; Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). This study
employed the concept of perceived organizational support
to measure levels of perceived school support (PSS) by
CTE teachers, which in turn influences them to feel an
obligation to reach school’s mission and expectations. On
the other hand, transformational leadership of the principal,
work engagement of teachers, and knowledge creation
practices of teachers are regarded as part of the individual
obligations and responsibilities toward the organization—
schools, in this context. Social exchange theory can help to
explain the global relationships among perceived school
support, transformational leadership, teachers’ work
engagement, and teachers’ knowledge creation practices as

well as the dyadic relationship among transformational
leadership, teachers’ engagement, and knowledge creation
practices in the school setting. In particular, for dyadic
relationships based on leader–member exchanges, trans-
formational leadership is seen as a critical factor in
encouraging teachers to enhance their work engagement
and knowledge creation practices.
Knowledge conversion theory is also employed in this
study. This theory focuses on the processes of knowledge
conversion through interactions between tacit and explicit
knowledge (Nonaka 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995;
Nonaka et al. 2001). In other words, the theory explains the
dynamic processes of organizational knowledge creation.
According to researchers (Nonaka and Takeuch 1995), the
knowledge conversion process consists of four connected
phases: (a) socialization, sharing tacit knowledge,
(b) externalization, externalizing shared knowledge,
(c) combination, combining explicit knowledge, and

(d) internalization, internalizing explicit knowledge into
tacit knowledge.
Additionally, five enablers are known to support
knowledge conversion and creation in the organization:
(a) instilling the organizational mission, (b) managing
conversation, (c) mobilizing knowledge activists, (d) cre-
ating a supportive context, and (e) leveraging local
knowledge (von Krogh et al. 2000). In knowledge con-
version theory, the importance of leadership and partici-
pation of employees in organizational knowledge creation
activities are particularly emphasized (Song et al. 2012).
During the knowledge creation process, leaders can share
organizational values and visions, lead open dialogues to
solve problems, and encourage employees to engage in the
process of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi
1995). In addition, leaders may develop employees as
knowledge activists who make continuous efforts to facil-
itate knowledge creation across the whole organization

(von Krogh et al. 1997). That is, leaders can contribute to
improving employees’ engagement in knowledge creation.
Engaged employees, in turn, are more likely to work in
collaboration with colleagues and innovate work processes
for knowledge creation (Prusak and Matson 2006; von
Krogh et al. 2000). In the current study, knowledge con-
version theory is employed to explain how transforma-
tional leadership and worker engagement influence
knowledge creation practices in a school organization. This
study also applies this theory to illustrate how transfor-
mational leadership and teachers’ engagement mediate the
association between perceived school support and knowl-
edge creation practices. In a nutshell, the knowledge con-
version theory helps to explain all collaborative practices
among individuals, particularly leaders and teachers, in
order to create new knowledge in CTE schools. This study
also posits that collaborations for knowledge creation
activities may be further encouraged by organizational

supports and trust-based collaborative relationships among
the people in schools.
Based on the two theories described above, the research
framework was established. As shown in Fig. 1, the
framework consists of four components: perceived school
support (PSS), transformational leadership (TL), teachers’
work engagement (WE), and knowledge creation practices
of teachers (KCP). PSS is an input variable, and KCP is an
outcome variable in our model. TL and WE are mediating
factors. To examine the structural relationships among the
four variables and the mediating effects of TL and WE, we
developed the following three hypotheses. The hypotheses
are consistent with the findings of previous studies, as is
presented later.
Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 469
123
• H1: Perceived school support affects the levels of

transformational leadership, teachers’ work engage-
ment, and teachers’ knowledge creation practices.
• H2: Transformational leadership influences the levels
of teachers’ work engagement and teachers’ knowledge
creation practices.
• H3: Transformational leadership and teachers’
engagement play mediating roles in the link between
perceived school support and teachers’ knowledge
creation practices.
Review of the related literature
Perceived organizational support (POS)
The concept of perceived organizational support was
developed to explain that employees generally do their best
to achieve the goals of their organization when they perceive
that their organization takes care of them (Eisenberger et al.
2004). Namely, it is the ‘‘employees’ perception of being
valued and cared about by the organization’’ (Eisenberger
et al. 1990, p. 51). According to Eisenberger et al. (1986),
‘‘Employees in an organization form global beliefs con-

cerning the extent to which the organization values their
contributions and cares about their well-being (p. 500).’’
Many studies (Dutrénit 2000; Eisenberger et al. 1997;
Schaufeli et al. 2009; Shivers-Blackwell 2004; Wayne et al.
1997) found that perceived organizational support plays a
key role in affecting individual behaviors and performance
[e.g., organizational commitment, engagement, job satis-
faction, and knowledge creation]. In this study, the concept
of perceived organizational support was employed to mea-
sure levels of perceived school support (PSS) in the school
context. As shown in the business setting, the level of per-
ceived school support is known to contribute to teachers’
positive organizational behaviors and performances [i.e.,
intention to stay, engagement, and satisfaction] (Ladd 2009;
Perie and Baker 1997; Weiss 1999).
Perceived organizational support is also known to
enhance transformational leadership (Shivers-Blackwell
2004). For instance, supportive organizational culture—

i.e., feelings of family and a sense of shared fate and
support—has a positive impact on the development of
transformational leadership (Shivers-Blackwell 2004). In
the school setting, a supportive school, such as one that
provides formal leadership training, is more likely to
develop leaders’ transformational leadership behaviors
(Ross 2004). Likewise, organizational support was found to
positively affect employees’ work engagement (Rhoades
and Eisenberger 2002; Schaufeli et al. 2009). According to
Kahn (1990), employees experience psychological security
when they recognize supportive management and inter-
personal trust within their organizations. From the orga-
nizational standpoint, Rich and Lepine (2010) similarly
found that managerial supports promote employees’
intentions to fully engage in their work and therefore
ultimately lead to organizational and individual perfor-
mance improvements. Similarly, Robinson, Perryman, and
Hayday (2004) suggested that employees’ work engage-

ment could be increased by organizations’ offering extra
supports, including mental emotion-based support and
physical resource-based support. Ferrer (2005) argued that
organizational support provides employees with a sense of
feeling valued that leads to their increased involvement in
their work for both in-role and extra-role performance. The
same holds true for schools. Perceived school support is
known to facilitate teachers’ work engagement. In other
Fig. 1 Research framework.
Dotted lines indicate indirect
paths between PSS and KCP
through WE and TL
123
words, when teachers recognize that they are valued and
supported by staff and administrators, they are more likely
to spend their time and energy to develop innovative cur-
ricula or teaching strategies that then improve student

performance (Rutter and Jacobson 1986).
Finally, at the organizational level, perceived organiza-
tional support encourages employees to be involved in
more collaborative and dynamic knowledge creation
practices (Dutrénit 2000; George and Brief 1992; Yoon
et al. 2009). Namely, diverse organizational support, such
as learning support and managerial support, stimulates
organizational knowledge creation practices (Yoon et al.
2009). In the school setting, Lee (2007) emphasized that a
supportive culture of the school is imperative in enhancing
teachers’ collaboration and knowledge practices.
Transformational Leadership and work engagement
While transactional leadership focuses on mutual exchan-
ges between leaders and followers, transformational lead-
ership moves beyond this simple exchange-based
relationship and attempts to help followers to achieve
higher performances by setting challenging expectations
(Lievens et al. 1997). Thus, transformational leadership

concerns whether leaders of the organization create
empowered working environments and develop followers
by being role models, sharing their visions, inspiring cre-
ative and innovative perspectives, and providing supports
and encouragement. For instance, Obiwuru et al. (2011)
suggest that transformational leaders encourage followers
to think critically and seek new ways in dealing with their
jobs, and motivate them to be more aware of the impor-
tance of their duty and performances by providing supports
and sharing their visions. Many studies have confirmed the
positive effects of transformational leadership on follow-
ers’ attitudes and performances (e.g., Jung et al. 2003; Kark
and Shamir 2002; Shin and Zhou 2003). In addition, at the
organization level, Fenn and Mixon (2011) found that
transformational leaders enhance the efficiency and pro-
ductivity of an organization by supporting followers to
think creatively and creating a flexible work environment.
In the education field, many researchers (Leithwood

1994; Leithwood and Jantzi 2000; Leithwood and Steinbach
1995) have found that transformational leadership leads to
effective and collaborative decisions by encouraging
teachers to get involved in decision-making processes. Thus,
transformational leaders in the school support a collective
school vision and goals development, encourage teachers’
professional expertise and values, demonstrate high-perfor-
mance expectations for teachers and students, and develop
participatory school climates and structures.
Various studies (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell and
Frost 1989; Walumbwa and Hartnell 2011; Whittington
et al. 2004) have shown that transformational leadership
positively influences teachers’ performance. Behaviors of
transformational leaders are positively related to teachers’
attitude and behaviors, i.e., job satisfaction, improvement
of in-role performance, work engagement, and intrinsic
motivation, which influence innovation, knowledge crea-
tion, and a collaborative team environment in the school

(Avolio and Gibbons 1988; Bass 1985; Bass and Riggio
2010; House 2004; Howell and Frost 1989; Sarah 2009;
Song et al. 2012; Wefald 2008).
Moreover, studies (Ghafoor et al. 2011; Schaufeli 2012;
Song et al. 2012) have found that transformational leadership
influences employees’ work engagement: ‘‘a persistent,
pervasive and positive affective-motivational state of ful-
fillment in employees’’ (Llorens et al. 2007, p. 827). In the
context of public schools, Thoonen et al. (2011) found that
transformational leadership plays an important role in
stimulating teachers’ engagement in professional learning
activities and teaching practices. As suggested by Orr and
Orphanos (2007), teachers’ work engagement is critical in
improving organizational commitment and teacher retention
and thus enhancing student outcomes and school perfor-
mance. Finally, transformational leadership was also found
to promote the efforts of teachers to create a collaborative
school climate for community relations (Hallinger 2003).

Knowledge creation
As discussed earlier, the creation of new knowledge is
becoming a critical factor for long-term success and
innovation of organizations in the current era, the knowl-
edge economy (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Song and Kolb
2009). This holds true for public schools. According to
researchers (Bae et al. 2012; Conner 2007; Keung 2009;
McCharen et al. 2011), knowledge creation in school
organizations is intimately associated with innovation of
the school and professional development of teachers.
Consequently, greater attention than ever before has been
given to investigating ways in which the organization
creates knowledge and what should be done to promote
knowledge creation activities.
In this context, the concept of a knowledge conversion
process can be employed to explain that individuals’ tacit
knowledge can be transformed into organizational explicit
knowledge applicable to the workplace (Song and Kolb

2009). In relation to the knowledge conversion process, a
supportive organizational context was found to enhance
continuous dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collective
thinking of teachers and eventually to foster knowledge
creation activities in the organization (Nonaka and
Takeuchi 1995; von Krogh et al. 2000). In other words,
when employees recognize the presence of organizational
support, they are more likely to become involved in diverse
123
enhancing activities, such as offering constructive sug-
gestions and gaining knowledge and skills that are bene-
ficial to the organization (George and Brief 1992). In short,
a supportive school culture enhances knowledge creation
among teachers, and it may be essential for organizations
to create climates in which employees can freely share,
synthesize, and expand their knowledge.

Additionally, many studies (Crawford 2005; Garcı́a-
Morales et al. 2008; Song et al. 2012) have emphasized the
role of transformative leadership in knowledge creation in
organizations. The research suggests that transformational
leadership motivates employees to create and share
knowledge to achieve high innovation and effectiveness.
Furthermore, transformational leadership is known to be
effective in creating and sharing knowledge not only at the
individual level, but also at the group level.
In the school setting, studies on the role of leadership in
creating knowledge have focused on the expanded roles of
leaders for improving the quality of teaching and learning and
promoting the school’s innovation (Frost and Durrant 2003;
Jackson 2000). For instance, Jackson (2000) described how
school leaders have supported knowledge creation for the
Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA) school
improvement project in the United Kingdom. He found that
leaders continuously provided participants with opportunities

to gain practical knowledge and generate knowledge through
inquiry, partnerships, and workshops during the project. He
suggested that the roles of leaders were critical in improving
the school structure and culture by combining practical and
contextual knowledge from school staff and teachers.
Work engagement was found to be another important
factor that influences knowledge creation in an organization
(Gertner et al. 2011; Lin 2011). Song et al. (2012) suggested
that employees’ work engagement is a significant mediator
of the relationship between transformational leadership and
organizational knowledge creation practices. Work
engagement is also known to enhance interactions and
partnerships for knowledge transfer processes in the context
of university–industry collaboration (Gertner et al. 2011).
Finally, employee engagement influences knowledge man-
agement processes and knowledge-sharing activities when
the organizational climate is supportive (Lin 2011).
Research methods

Data collection and sample
CTE teachers in one central State in the US were targeted
as the research sample. Permission from the State
Department of Career and Technical Education was gran-
ted to acquire the contact information (only e-mail
addresses) of potential survey participants. We invited
approximately 2,300 CTE teachers, who are listed on the
CTE teacher directory, to participate in the survey.
After the first invitation letter was distributed via email
along with the consent form, around 300 emails bounded back
to us due to the inaccurate or non-updated contact information
on the teachers’ directory. A second invitation letter was
distributed to 2,000 teachers along with the survey Web
directory of the Survey Monkey data collection system. On the
survey form, we explained general research objectives and
the overall procedure on the front page of the survey.
Regarding the participants’ response option, they were able to
skip any items if they did not want to provide any opinion.

In response, 304 teachers voluntarily participated in the
survey, for a return rate of 15.2 %. However, 20 survey
questionnaires were excluded as incomplete cases. Finally,
a total of 284 cases were used for data analysis. With
regard to sample demographics distribution, about 34 %
were male. About 34 % had less than 5 years of experi-
ence; approximately 31 % had 6–10 years of experience;
and about 35 had more than 10 years of experience in CTE
institutions. In terms of educational level, almost 6 % had
an associate degree, 38 % had a 4-year college degree, and
about 53 % had a graduate-level degree.
As described earlier, the target population is not a general
but a specific and relatively homogenous group as known to
CTE teachers in one State in the US. No reward was provided
for participation in the survey. The return rate of this study
could be considered low, but Web surveys tend to yield a low
response rate compared to other ways of survey (Cook et al.
2000). In addition, ‘‘a low response rate does not necessarily

entail non-response error (Dillman 1991, p. 229).’’ As
researchers (Cook et al. 2000; Vehovar et al. 2002) suggest,
response representativeness is more important than response
rate in survey research. Reviewing the demographic distri-
bution of the sample and consulting several CTE profes-
sionals in the area where the sample was selected, we
concluded that no overrepresented subgroup exists in the
sample in terms of gender, experience, and education level,
and thus, the data do not reflect the elements causing the non-
response bias. The sample size was large enough to run the
SEM analysis, and, as will be described, the data were found
to be reliable without extreme outliers.
Instruments
The purpose of this study is to examine (a) the structural
relationships among perceived school support, transforma-
tional leadership of the principal, teachers’ work engage-
ment, and teachers’ knowledge creation practices in CTE
schools and (b) the mediating effects of transformational

leadership and work engagement on the relationship between
perceived school support and teachers’ knowledge creation
practices. The four research constructs were measured using
123
self-reported perceptual measures with psychometric prop-
erties that have been well validated and established by pre-
vious related studies. Survey questionnaires using a five-
point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree) were sent via an online survey system.
To measure levels of perceived school support (PSS),
eight items were employed from the perceived organiza-
tional support (POS) measure, which was developed and
validated by previous studies (e.g., Eisenberger et al. 1986;
Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Shore and Tetrick 1991).
For instance, Shore and Tetrick (1991) found the POS
measure to be a valid measure in terms of construct validity

and psychometric properties of the items (Cronbach’s
a = .95; GFI: .874; NFI: .906) and nomological validity
with behavioral constructs, such as organizational com-
mitment and job satisfaction. In this study, some terms in
questionnaires were changed in consideration of the school
context—for instance, ‘‘our organization,’’ ‘‘our school,’’
‘‘our leader,’’ and ‘‘our principal.’’ A sample item is ‘‘Our
school cares about my general satisfaction at work.’’
To measure transformational leadership, the short ver-
sion of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
(Form 6S) was employed (Bass and Avolio 1992). This
MLQ measure includes 12 items with four factors of
transformational leaders’ characteristics: idealized influ-
ence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. The psychometric properties
of this measure have been established through several
studies in terms of convergent and discriminant validity
(e.g., Elenkov et al. 2005; Krishnan 2003; Song et al.

2012). Additionally, Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000)
demonstrated that the MLQ Short Form 6S has well-
defined convergent validity with other types of leadership
scales, such as the Global Transformational Leadership
Scale and the Leadership Practices Inventory (r ranges
from .76 to .88). More recently, Song et al. (2012) found
that the MLQ Short Form 6S has acceptable nomological
validity with related research constructs, including work
engagement and learning organization culture (GFI = .95;
CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06). One sample item is ‘‘Our
leaders help us find meaning in our work.’’
To examine the perceived level of work engagement of
CTE teachers, the compressed version of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli et al. 2006) was
used. The UWES scale has 17 items and was originally
developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003), based on the idea
that employees’ engagement and task-related burnout rep-
resent the opposite ends of a continuum of workplace well-

being, i.e., burnout reflects the negative pole, and engage-
ment, the positive pole. According to several follow-up
studies (e.g., Seppala et al. 2009; Song et al. 2012; Yi-Wen
and Yi-Qun 2005), the short version of the UWES, which
includes three factors (vigor, dedication, and absorption) was
demonstrated to be a valid measure in terms of the items’
internal consistency (Cronbach’s a ranges from .80 to .90)
and measurement construct validity. One sample item is ‘‘I
get carried away when I am working (absorption).’’
Finally, to measure teachers’ knowledge creation prac-
tices in CTE schools, the current study used the Knowledge
Creation Practice Inventory (KCPI), which was developed
and validated by Song et al. (2011b) using the theoretical
concept of the knowledge conversation framework (Nonaka
1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). This measure has 10
items to measure five factors: knowledge sharing, creation
concepts, justifying concepts, building prototypes, and
leveraging knowledge, based on the concept of transforming
individuals’ tacit knowledge to organizationally applicable

explicit knowledge. Several studies have been conducted to
determine the psychometric properties of the KCPI measure,
and this measure has been inter-disciplinarily and cross-
culturally shown to be reliable and valid (e.g., McCharen
et al. 2011; Song et al. 2011a, b; Yoon et al. 2010). For
example, Song et al. (2011b) showed the validity of this
measure in terms of the items’ internal consistency (Cron-
bach’s a ranges from .91 to .904) and construct validity
(RMSEA = .06; GFI = .98). A sample item is ‘‘In our
school, our team develops new ideas through constructive
dialogue by using figures and diagrams.’’
Data analysis strategies
Two stages of data analysis were conducted. First, pre-
liminary data analyses including examination of raw data,
analysis of item reliability and construct validity, and tests
for statistical assumptions were performed, prior to sub-
sequent analyses. Raw data examination was conducted to
obtain unbiased, optimized data sets by checking the dis-

tance of the variances, missing data, and the normal dis-
tribution assumption. Then, tests were performed to check
the items’ internal consistency and basic construct validity.
To ensure methodological applicability of the measures,
two steps of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were
conducted using all the individual instrument items and
summative domains (Thompson 2004).
Second, two-step SEM (structural equation modeling)
analysis was employed to test the research hypotheses
comprising the model suggested in Fig. 1. Prior to examin-
ing structural relationships among the variables, the mea-
surement model was assessed based on the examination of
multiple model data fit indices, including the goodness of fit
index (GFI), the root mean square residual (RMR) (Jöreskog
and Sörbom 2001), the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler
1990), the root mean square of error of approximation
(RMSEA) (Steiger 1990), and general chi-square (a2) esti-
mates. Then, the structural relationships among the con-
structs were examined. To determine the mediating effects of

123
transformational leadership and work engagement, the path
decomposition of standardized path coefficient (SPC) esti-
mates was analyzed along with t-value criteria to determine
whether the effect size was statistically significant (Byrne
1998; Hair et al. 2006; Kline 2005).
Results
Basic assumption, reliability, and construct validity
tests
Prior to conducting data analyses, the current study asses-
sed all statistical assumptions. Normal distribution of the
data, the structure of measured variables, and reliability of
the items were examined. In addition, inter-construct cor-
relation coefficient estimates were performed to examine
the inter-constructs’ convergent reliability.
First, because the sample size was large enough

(n = 284), the central limit theorem was applied to test the
normal distribution assumption for the collected data (see
Schneeberger 2009, for more information on sample size and
using the central limit theorem). The Mahalanobis D
2
test
was performed to measure the distance of a case from the
centroid (multidimensional mean) of the variance distribu-
tion (Z value ranges within |3.0|). Given the covariance of the
distribution, no extreme outliers were detected (Kline 2005).
Although all measures in this study were previously vali-
dated in the related literature, the current study examined
psychometric properties of all the individual instrument
items and summative latent variables using exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) to ensure the applicability of the
research variables in the current research context. In Table 1,
we provide detailed information regarding the factor struc-
ture of the variables. In the first column, the factor loadings of

all observed variables were provided, while in the second
column, the factor-loading estimates of all summative vari-
ables were provided. As shown in this table, all observed
items were reasonably loaded on their designated latent
variables and summative latent items were also well loaded
on assigned latent domains, which support a well-defined
factor structure in terms of the initial structural fit between
data and measurements.
Second, scale reliability of the observed variables and
structural validity of the latent variables were examined
(Thompson 2004). As shown in Table 2, all observed items
were found to be reliable, considering the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient estimates: a ranges from .85 to .94. In addition,
the zero-order correlation coefficient estimates among the
four constructs demonstrated acceptable convergent valid-
ity of the measurements: r ranges from .337 to .800. These
results support the general construct validity of the
instruments. However, the correlation coefficient estimate
between perceived school support (PSS) and transforma-

tional leadership (TL) (r = .800) showed the possibility of
a multicollinearity problem. Thus, as suggested by Kutner,
Nachtsheim, and Neter (2004), we checked multicolline-
arity using tolerance values and variance inflation factor
(VIF) values. The results found no violation of the multi-
collinearity issue (tolerance value = .360/VIF = 2.774).
Furthermore, no auto (serial)-correlation violation was
found (Durbin-Watson value = 1.973).
Confirmatory analysis of the measurement
To confirm the construct validity of the measurement
model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed.
Several types of model data fit indices were calculated to
evaluate the construct validity between the latent variables
and their summative sub-scale variables (Kline 2005). The
CFA results are shown in Table 3.
The results suggest that all measures of model fit to data
except the chi-square estimate are statistically acceptable at
a significant level (p .05). However, it should be noted

that the chi-square estimate might be influenced by the
large number of collected data (Byrne 1998; Kline 2005).
As shown in Table 3, two types of residual indices support
a well-defined measurement model in terms of lower
chance of error variances of the data (RMSEA = .064,
RMR = .038), and all other model data fit indices,
including GFI, CFI, and NNFI, confirm a good structural fit
between the proposed measurement model and responses.
More specifically, goodness of fit [GFI = .88] shows that
approximately 88 % of the variance and covariance of the
proposed research measurement model is explained by the
research data. Two additional model fit indices also support
a well-developed measurement model: comparative fit
index (CFI = .99) and the non-normed fit index
(NNFI = .98). Finally, confirming the results of the EFA
factor-loading patterns, all factor-loading values of the
summative items of each latent variable were acceptable,
ranging from .72 to .95 (Thompson 2004).

Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis
The purpose of this study is to examine the structural
relationships among the four variables in our model, per-
ceived school support, transformational leadership,
teachers’ work engagement, and knowledge creation
practices and to investigate the mediating effects of
transformational leadership and work engagement in
explaining the direct relationship between perceived school
support and teachers’ knowledge creation practices. To
answer the research questions, a two-step SEM analysis
was conducted (Byrne 1998; Kline 2005).
123
Table 1 Results of exploratory factor analysis (PCA, varimax
rotation)
Items TL KCP EN PSS Summative latent var. TL KCP EN PSS
TL 1 0.817 0.124 0.031 0.291 Idealized influence (1–3) 0.702
0.157 0.138 0.424

TL 2 0.835 0.159 0.108 0.247 Inspirational motivation (4–6)
0.814 0.282 0.112 0.338
TL 3 0.814 0.163 0.138 0.249 Intellectual stimulation (7–9)
0.776 0.319 0.123 0.310
TL 4 0.802 0.208 0.103 0.180 Individualized consideration (10–
12) 0.747 0.218 0.151 0.403
TL 5 0.843 0.208 0.113 0.188
TL 6 0.842 0.212 0.096 0.231
TL 7 0.828 0.255 0.103 0.180
TL 8 0.823 0.283 0.112 0.178
TL 9 0.837 0.274 0.102 0.186
TL 10 0.809 0.166 0.123 0.234
TL 11 0.669 0.164 0.201 0.278
TL 12 0.770 0.187 0.147 0.240
KCP 1 0.197 0.665 0.288 0.221 Sharing concepts (1–2) 0.158
0.692 0.255 0.289
KCP 2 0.157 0.747 0.167 0.147 Creating concepts (3–4) 0.192
0.846 0.151 0.169
KCP 3 0.204 0.768 0.177 0.047 Justifying concepts (5–6) 0.128
0.878 0.128 0.196
KCP 4 0.200 0.818 0.193 0.096 Building prototypes (7–8) 0.241
0.824 0.191 0.267

KCP 5 0.115 0.809 0.115 0.177 Leveraging knowledge (9–10)
0.248 0.835 0.213 0.182
KCP 6 0.215 0.813 0.123 0.058
KCP 7 0.181 0.858 0.174 0.114
KCP 8 0.300 0.709 0.128 0.201
KCP 9 0.216 0.860 0.180 0.090
KCP 10 0.228 0.836 0.179 0.116
WE 1 0.127 0.238 0.742 0.229 Vigor (1–3) 0.120 0.292 0.791
0.270
WE 2 0.109 0.239 0.771 0.232 Dedication (4–6) 0.125 0.237
0.833 0.297
WE 3 0.159 0.120 0.801 0.188 Absorption (7–9) 0.118 0.163
0.824 0.037
WE 4 0.157 0.161 0.832 0.150
WE 5 0.096 0.213 0.801 0.137
WE 6 0.014 0.092 0.693 0.092
WE 7 0.103 0.091 0.763 0.041
WE 8 0.136 0.184 0.772 -0.085
WE 9 0.059 0.109 0.605 -0.155
PSS 1 0.486 0.266 0.112 0.632 PSS 1 0.181 0.270 0.196 0.674

PSS 2 0.421 0.196 0.179 0.697 PSS 2 0.235 0.162 0.157 0.777
PSS 3 0.481 0.130 0.089 0.656 PSS 3 0.211 0.158 0.093 0.751
PSS 4 0.548 0.189 0.136 0.677 PSS 4 0.231 0.186 0.125 0.804
PSS 5 0.532 0.223 0.104 0.704 PSS 5 0.226 0.231 0.047 0.846
PSS 6 0.562 0.193 0.169 0.679 PSS 6 0.279 0.182 0.175 0.798
PSS 7 0.547 0.160 0.141 0.702 PSS 7 0.237 0.155 0.115 0.861
PSS 8 0.487 0.256 0.119 0.671 PSS 8 0.285 0.215 0.225 0.758
Eigenvalue 10.474 7.362 5.782 4.704 Eigenvalue 3.015 4.086
2.442 5.919
Percentage of explained
variance
34.910 24.540 19.270 15.680 Percentage of explained variance
15.100 20.400 12.200 29.600
Numbers in italics indicate items used for each scale
123
Table 2 Descriptive analysis, inter-item correlation, and internal
consistency estimates

Variable M SD a 1 2 3 4
1. Perceived school support (PSS) 3.49 0.93 0.94 1
2. Transformational leadership (TL) 3.50 0.98 0.91 .800** 1
3. Teachers’ work engagement (WE) 3.97 0.65 0.85 .366**
.337** 1
4. Knowledge creation practices (KCP) 3.55 0.78 0.93 .501**
.508** .466** 1
a = Cronbach’s alpha coefficient estimates
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level
Table 3 Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
Model fit indices Df v2 v2/df RMSEA RMR GFI CFI NNFI
Measurement model 164 375.91 2.29 0.06 0.04 0.88 0.99 0.98
Fig. 2 SEM results with SPC estimates
123
First, the measurement model of the structural research
framework was examined. According to the results, the
model fit between the data and the proposed structural

research model was well supported at a significant level
(p .05, GFI = .88; CFI = .99; and RMSEA: .06).
Second, to examine the complicated relationships
among the four research constructs, the proposed paths
among the constructs were analyzed. To determine the
effect size of the paths, standardized path coefficient (SPC)
estimates were primarily considered. SPC estimates were
considered statistically significant paths when their t-values
were greater than |1.96|.
The results show that the perceived level of school
support is significantly and positively related to transfor-
mational leadership (SPC = .83, t = 14.91) and work
engagement (SPC = .33, t = 2.87), but not to knowledge
creation practices of the teachers (SPC = .13, t = 1.34).
According to these results, hypothesis 1 was partially
confirmed. The direct paths from transformational leader-
ship (SPC = .32, t = 3.24) and work engagement of the
teachers (SPC = .29, t = 4.93) to teachers’ knowledge
creation practices were also significant. However, the

direct influence of transformational leadership on work
engagement of teachers was not found to be significant
(SPC = .08, t = .68). Therefore, the results partially con-
firmed hypothesis 2. Finally, in relation to hypothesis 3,
inconsistent with previous studies, there was no significant
direct path between perceived school support and knowl-
edge creation practices of teachers. Perceived school sup-
port was found to affect knowledge creation practices of
teachers only indirectly, through transformational leader-
ship of school leaders and work engagement of teachers.
Thus, work engagement of the teachers and transforma-
tional leadership played the role of mediators in explaining
the relationship between perceived school support and
knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers. Meanwhile,
there was no significant relationship between
transformational leadership and teachers’ work engage-
ment (SPC = .08, t = .68). Thus, hypothesis 3 was
confirmed.

The results of the current study require both practical
and academic attention. To date, considerable studies have
been conducted to determine positive impacts of transfor-
mational leadership on work engagement and knowledge
creation activities of workers in organizations (e.g., Bass
and Riggio 2010; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Song et al.
2012). However, in this study, transformational leadership
showed a direct significant effect only on knowledge cre-
ation practices of the teachers, whereas no direct relation-
ship was found between transformational leadership and
work engagement of the teachers. All SPCs among the
research constructs are illustrated in Fig. 2, along with
factor-loading values and error estimates of each item.
In Table 4, path decomposition is described to explain
the magnitude of the direct and indirect influences among
the research constructs. Analyses of path decomposition
also suggest that perceived school support has no direct
impact on knowledge creation practices of teachers but

does have direct effects on both transformational leader-
ship and teachers’ work engagement. Furthermore, the
mediating effects of transformational leadership and work
engagement of teachers were found to contribute in
explaining the relationship between perceived school sup-
port and knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers.
Conclusions and implications
The current study examined (a) the structural relationships
among four variables, perceived school support, principal’s
transformational leadership, teachers’ work engagement,
and teachers’ knowledge creation practices, and (b) the
mediating effects of transformational leadership and work
engagement in explaining the association between
Table 4 Decomposition of effects
Path Standardized path coefficient
Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Perceived school support ? Transformational leadership (TL)
.83** – .83**

? Engagement (WE) .33** .07 .40**
Transformational leadership ? Knowledge creation (KCP) .13
.39** .52**
(Through TL) .27**
(Through WE) .10
(Through TL and WE) .02
? Knowledge creation (KCP) .32** .02 .34**
Engagement (WE) .08 – .08
Teachers’ engagement ? Knowledge creation (KCP) .29** –
.29**
** p .01
123
perceived school support and knowledge creation practices
of teachers. The sample consisted of 284 CTE teachers in
the one central State of the United States. Structural
equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the three
hypotheses.

The study results are summarized as follows. First,
consistent with previous studies (Ross 2004; Rutter and
Jacobson 1986), perceived school support was positively
associated with transformational leadership of the principal
and work engagement of teachers. Of note, a supportive
school climate was found to have only indirect impact on
the knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers through
the behavioral variables in this research. Second, consistent
with the findings of previous research (e.g., Hallinger
2003), transformational leadership was found to have
positive effects on knowledge creation practices. However,
inconsistent with the findings of other studies showing that
transformational leadership has a significant influence on
the teachers’ behavioral performance levels (e.g., Thoonen
et al. 2011), it was not found to have a statistically sig-
nificant impact on teachers’ work engagement. This finding
may be interpreted employing Weick’s argument of
‘‘educational systems as loosely coupled systems.’’

According to Weick (1976, p. 5), institutional character-
istics of the school as loosely coupled educational systems
include a lack of coordination, an absence of regulations,
planned unresponsiveness, decentralization, and delegation
of discretion. Considering these characteristics, one may
argue that, unlike business leaders, educational leaders
regardless of leadership style have relatively limited
influence on the organizational behaviors of their staff.
This could be particularly true for CTE schools where a
variety of vocational programs operate with relatively
strong autonomy and administrators are expected to
encourage diversity in teaching environment (Gray and
Herr 1997; Viviano 2012).
Finally, although perceived school support had no direct
relationship with teachers’ knowledge creation practices, it
indirectly affected the outcome variable through transfor-
mational leadership and work engagement of teachers. In
other words, transformational leadership and work

engagement were found to have mediating effects in the
link between these variables. This result is in line with the
findings of previous studies (e.g., Gertner et al. 2011;
Jackson 2000). This study’s results support the idea of the
school as a social organization where a variety of complex
interactions occur among individuals as well as between
individuals and school environments.
In our knowledge-based society, the importance of
knowledge creation cannot be overemphasized not only for
improving competitiveness of individuals, but also for
enhancing performance of the organization (Nonaka 1994;
Pfeffer 1994). Particularly at the organization level,
knowledge functions as a key driver of organizational
innovation and thus enhanced efforts are being made to
encourage the creation and sharing of knowledge among
organizational members. In the educational setting, a case
in point is CTE schools, most of which are struggling to
meet future workforce needs and seek high-performance

outcomes (Boutin et al. 2009; Viviano 2012). The results of
this study offer profound implications to those who attempt
to promote innovation through a wide range of knowledge
creation activities in CTE schools.
First, this study supports the importance of leadership
development and teacher training in promoting knowledge
creation in CTE schools. According to the study results,
transformational leaders can successfully facilitate knowl-
edge creation activities among CTE teachers. In organi-
zational studies, one of the most frequently suggested
solutions to change organizational behaviors among
employees have been to change leaders’ behaviors or
appoint new leaders equipped with more effective leader-
ship. Among the many leadership styles, transformational
leadership has recently been receiving a great deal of
attention from scholars and practitioners. This study sup-
ports this concept, finding a positive association between
transformational leadership and knowledge creation prac-

tices of teachers. However, this study provides little
information about how they are connected in CTE schools.
As previously suggested, CTE institutions operate a variety
of vocational programs for which teachers generally have
their own teaching places and seek greater autonomy (Gray
and Herr 1997). Nonetheless, one may find clues in the four
I’s that are most commonly suggested as key features of
transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspira-
tional motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual
consideration (Bass and Riggio 2006). In practice, it may
be beneficial incorporating these four factors into the
courses to develop future school leaders and retrain
incumbent leaders of CTE schools. In addition, given the
considerable time and efforts to develop leadership skills, it
may be important to create and offer leadership programs
for teachers to be effective and transformational leaders in
future.
Second, while transformational behaviors apply to

principals as a means to increase teachers’ involvement in
knowledge creation practices, work engagement applies to
teachers. According to knowledge conversion theory,
leaders are playing important roles in promoting collabo-
rative practices to create new knowledge. According to this
theory, employees with high levels of work engagement,
characterized by higher vigor, dedication, and absorption in
one’s work (Schaufeli et al. 2006), tend to have greater
organizational commitment and to actively participate in
the creation and sharing of knowledge in their workplaces
(Prusak and Matson 2006; von Krogh et al. 2000). In this
123
sense, the finding of this research is in line with what
knowledge conversion theory implies. Then, a question is
how to improve work engagement of CTE teachers.
According to previous studies (Bakker and Bal 2010; Ha-

kanen et al. 2006; Schaufeli et al. 2009), factors affecting
work engagement of teachers include job resources,
opportunities for development, and autonomy.
Finally, perceived school support was found to impact
work engagement of teachers and transformational behav-
iors of the principal. It was also found to positively and
indirectly affect teachers’ knowledge creation practices
through transformational leadership and teachers’ work
engagement. These findings are consistent with social
exchange theory discussed earlier. While many education
experts have emphasized the role of leadership in influ-
encing teachers’ behaviors and attitudes, organizational
researchers have argued that a school climate is becoming
increasingly important in changing organizational behav-
iors of teachers and ultimately in promoting school per-
formance (Owens and Valesky 2011; Hoy and Miskel
2008). Therefore, the results of the present study may be
interpreted from the organization theory perspective. On

the practical level, many studies have been conducted to
find solutions to build supportive organizational climate.
Among many approaches, what may be considered to the
field of CTE includes (a) creation of a Work Life Balance
(WLB) supportive culture (Allen 2001), (b) holding a
regular meeting with teachers to communicate the impor-
tance of their work to the school as well as the society as a
whole (Khasawneh et al. 2012), (c) development of fair
treatment and procedural justice (Shore and Shore 1995),
and (d) provision of the paid learning leave (International
Labour Organization 2001).
Historically, CTE has long been stigmatized as a sec-
ond-class education for second-class students (Bae et al.
2007). As previously suggested, a greater number of
minority, special needs, and low SES students tend to be
registered in CTE schools (Campbell 1986; Gray and Bae
2009; Levesque and Hudson 2003; Palmer and Gaunt 2007;
PDE 2004). In addition, a continued shortage of qualified

CTE teachers has deteriorated the quality of CTE (NAS-
DCTE 2012). CTE schools, compared to general high
schools, are run with a wide range of different departments
and teachers with diverse backgrounds. Considering all
these aspects of CTE schools, it may be reasonable to
speculate that CTE teachers feel a greater sense of pow-
erlessness and isolation and have difficulties with energetic
engagement in their tasks and with active collaboration
with colleagues, both of which are essential for knowledge
creation and school innovation. In this context, the results
of this study add to a growing body of literature showing
the importance of organizational variables in promoting
school performance, and they contribute toward developing
strategies to strengthen the competitiveness of CTE
schools.
Acknowledgments This study was funded by National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF-2011-330-B00171).
References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family supportive work environment: The

role of
organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,
414–435.
Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011, September 4). Do happier
people
work harder? The New York Times, p. SR7.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P., & Chen, Z. (2002). Trust as a mediator
of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes:
Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 267–285.
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing
transformational
leaders: A life span approach. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo
(Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational
effectiveness (pp. 276–308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bae, S. H., Gray, K., & Yeager, J. (2007). A retrospective
cohort
comparison of career and technical education participants and
non-participants on a state-mandated proficiency test. Career

and Technical Education Research, 32(1), 9–22.
Bae, S. H., Song, J. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Teachers’
creativity in
career technical education: The mediating effect of knowledge
creation practices in the learning organization. The Korean
Social Science Journal, 39, 59–81.
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement
and
performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189–206.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expecta-
tions. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Multifactor leadership
questionnaire: Short form 6S. Binghamton, NY: Center for
Leadership Studies.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational
leadership
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2010). The transformational

model of
leadership. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations:
Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed., pp. 76–86). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
York:
Wiley.
Boutin, F., Chinien, C., Moratis, L., & Baalen, P. (2009).
Overview:
Changing economic environment and workplace requirements:
Implications for re-engineering TVET for prosperity. In R.
Maclean
& D. Wilson (Eds.), International handbook of education for the
changing world of work (pp. 81–96). Netherlands: Springer.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with
LISREL,
PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers.
Campbell, P. (1986). Vocational education. Access, equity,
conse-
quence, Educational Horizons, 65(10), 10–15.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short
measure of
transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychol-
ogy, 14, 389–405.
Conner, L. (2007). Perspectives on the changing nature of
teacher
education. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 4, 3–8.
123
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-
analysis of
response rate in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836.
Crawford, C. B. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership
and

organizational position on knowledge management. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(6), 6–16.
Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail
survey.
Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225–249.
Dutrénit, G. (2000). Learning and knowledge management in
the firm:
From knowledge accumulation to strategic capabilities. Massa-
chusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990).
Perceived
organizational support and employee diligence, commitment and
innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armelo, S., & Lynch, P. (1997).
Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and
job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.
(1986).
Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 71, 500–507.

Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Aselage, J., & Sucharski, I. L.
(2004).
Perceived organizational support. In J. A.-M. Coyle-Sharpiro,
L.
M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment
relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspec-
tives (pp. 206–225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski,
I., &
Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions
to perceived organizational support and employee retention.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.
Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategic
leadership
and executive innovation influence: An international multi-
cluster comparative study. Strategic Management Journal, 26,
665–682.
Fenn, W., & Mixon, J. (2011). An examination of self-perceived
transformational leadership behaviors of Texas superintendents.
International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6,

1–14.
Ferrer, J. (2005). Employee engagement: Is it organizational
commitment renamed? (pp. 1–13). Working Papers Series:
Victoria University.
Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: Rationale,
strategy and impact. School Leadership & Management, 23,
173–186.
Garcı́a-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A.
J.
(2008). The effects of transformational leadership on organiza-
tional performance through knowledge and innovation. British
Journal of Management, 19, 299–319.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good:
A
conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organizational spon-
taneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.
Gertner, D., Roberts, J., & Charles, D. (2011). University-
industry
collaboration: ACoPs approach to KTPs. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 15, 625–647.

Ghafoor, A., Qureshi, T. M., Azeemi, H. R., & Hijazi, T.
(2011).
Mediating role of creative self-efficacy. African Journal of
Business Management, 5, 11093–11103.
Gray, K., & Bae, S. H. (2009). Skills shortages, over-education
and
unemployed youth: An international dilemma. In R. Maclean &
D. Wilson (Eds.), International handbook of education for the
changing world of work: Bridging academic and vocational
learning (pp. 2211–2228). Bonn: UNESOC-UNEVOC.
Gray, K., & Herr, E. (1997). Workforce education: The basics.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., &
Tatham, R.
L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hakanen, J., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2006). Burnout and
work
engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology,
43(6), 495–513.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections
on the
practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cam-
bridge Journal of Education, 33, 329–351.
Han, H. J. (2004). A study on the impact of principal’s
transforma-
tional leadership on organizational effectiveness and the mod-
erating effect of learning organization in business high schools.
The Journal of Business Education, 9, 121–154.
House, R. J. (2004). Illustrative examples of GLOBE findings.
In J.
H. Robert, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V.
Gupta
(Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study
of 62 societies (pp. 3–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A lab study of charismatic
leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 43, 243–269.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2008). Educational administration:
Theory,

research, and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2007). Knowledge as competitive
advantage
in the age of increasing globalization. In K. Ichijo & I. Nonaka
(Eds.), Knowledge creation and management: New challenges
for managers (pp. 3–10). New York: Oxford University Press.
International Labour Organization. (2001). World labour report.
Geneva: International Labour Organization.
Jackson, D. S. (2000). The school improvement journey:
Perspectives
on leadership. School Leadership & Management, 20, 61–78.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.80 for
Window
[computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International, Inc.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of
transformational
leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses
and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,
525–544.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
engage-
ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of
transformational
leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further
effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead
(pp. 67–91). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JAI.
Keung, C. C. (2009). Revitalizing teacher leadership via
bureaucratic-
professional practices: A structural equation model. The Asia
Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 283–295.
Khasawneh, S., Omari, A., & Abu-Tineh, A. M. (2012). The
relationship between transformational leadership and organiza-
tional commitment: The case for vocational teachers in Jordan.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(4),
494–508.
Kim, K.-Y., & Na, S.-I. (2005). The relationship between school

effectiveness and principal leadership, school climate and self-
teaching activity as perceived by teachers in vocational high
schools. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Human
Resource Development, 37, 57–72.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural
equation
modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Impact of transformational leadership
on
followers’ influence strategies. The Leadership and
Organization
Development Journal, 25, 58–72.
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied
linear
regression models. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Kwon, D. T. (2007). The effect of the principal‘s leadership on
teachers‘ organizational-commitment and group-cohesiveness in
elementary school. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and
Instruction, 7, 41–61.

123
Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working
conditions:
How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes. National Center
for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working
Paper 33. Washington, DC: CALDER.
Lee, H. (2007). What makes teachers learn together within the
workplace?: Listening to Korean teachers of English in second-
ary schools. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 4, 59–78.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring.
Educa-
tional Administration Quarterly, 30, 498–518.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of
transformational
leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement
with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38,
112–129.
Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving:

Evidence from school and district leaders. New York: SUNY
Press.
Levesque, K., & Hudson, L. (2003). Trends in high school
vocational/
technical course taking, 1982–1998 (pp. 2003–2025). Washing-
ton, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Lievens, F., Van Geit, P., & Coetsier, P. (1997). Identification
of
transformational leadership qualities: An examination of poten-
tial biases. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 6(4), 415–430.
Lin, H. F. (2011). Antecedents of the stage-based knowledge
management evolution. Journal of Knowledge Management,
15, 136–155.
Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007).
Does a
positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and
engagement
exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825–841.
McCharen, B., Song, J., & Martens, J. (2011). School

innovation: The
mutual impacts of organizational learning and creativity. Edu-
cational Management Administration & Leadership, 39,
676–694.
National Association of State Directors of Career and Technical
Education (NASDCTE). (2012, October). A look inside: A
synopsis of CTE trends. CTE, 1–5.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge
creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating
company:
How Japanese companies create the dynamic of innovation.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosiere, P. (2001). A theory of
organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic
process of creating knowledge. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J.
Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning
and knowledge (pp. 491–517). New York: Oxford University

Press.
Obiwuru, T. C., Okwu, A. T., Akpa, V. O., & Nwankwere, I. A.
(2011). Effects of leadership style on organizational perfor-
mance: A survey of selected small scale enterprises in IKOS-
IKETU Council development area of Lagos state, Nigeria.
Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7),
100–111.
Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (April, 2007). Learning leadership
matters: Teachers’ experiences of innovatively and convention-
ally prepared principals. Annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational behavior
in
education: Leadership and school reform. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Palmer, L. B., & Gaunt, D. (2007). Current profile of CTE and
non-
CTE students: Who are we serving? Journal of Career and
Technical Education, 23(1), 35–43.

Pennsylvania Department of Education (DPE). (2004).
Pennsylvania
secondary career and technical education reports. Web-based
reports at www.catsreports.ed.state.pa.us.
Perie, M., & Baker, D. P. (1997). Job satisfaction among
America’s
teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background charac-
teristics, and teacher compensation. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people.
Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Prusak, L., & Matson, E. (2006). Knowledge management and
organizational learning: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87, 698–714.
Rich, B., & Lepine, J. A. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents
and

effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal,
53, 617–635.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers
of
employee engagement. Institute of Employment Studies, Report
408.
Ross, J. (2004). Effects on early literacy achievement of
running
records assessment: Results of a controlled experiment. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Rutter, R. A., & Jacobson, J. D. (1986). Facilitating teacher
engagement. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective
Secondary Schools.
Sarah, H. L. (2009). Transformational leadership and ‘‘flow’’:
The
mediating effects of psychological climate. Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Work engagement. What do we know
and

where do we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14,
3–10.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES—Utrecht
work
engagement scale: test manual. Utrecht: Department of Psy-
chology, Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. G. (2010). Defining and
measuring
work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A.
B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A
handbook
of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York:
Psychology Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. G., & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A
cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & van Rhenen, W. (2009). How
changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work

engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 30, 893–917.
Schneeberger, S. (2009). Realized power variation of some
fractional
stochastic integrals: Laws of large numbers and central limit
theorems. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Seppala, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, F., Kinnunen, U.,
Tolvanen, A., et al. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evi-
dence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459–481.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Linden, R. C. (1996). Social
exchange
in organizations: The differential effects of perceived organiza-
tional support and leader member exchange. Journal of
Psychology, 81, 219–227.
Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership,
conserva-
tion, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 46, 703–714.
Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2004). Using role theory to examine

determinants of transformational and transactional leader
behav-
ior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 41–50.
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational
support
and organizational justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M.
Kacmar
123
http://www.catsreports.ed.state.pa.us
(Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing
the social climate of the workplace (pp. 149–164). Westport,
CT:
Quorum.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study
of
the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 637–643.
Silins, H. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform.
Alberta

Journal of Educational Research, 38(4), 317–334.
Son, K. A., & Miskel, C. G. (2006). The Effect of
transformational/
transactional leadership on work effectiveness of university
presidents: Organizational culture as a moderating variable.
Seowan University, Korea (unpublished manuscript).
Song, J. H., & Kolb, J. A. (2009). The influence of learning
culture on
perceived knowledge conversion: An empirical approach using
structural equation modeling. Human Resource Development
International, 16, 529–550.
Song, J. H., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Role
of
transformational leadership in effective organizational knowl-
edge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees’ work
engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23,
65–101.
Song, J. H., Martens, J., McCharen, B., & Ausburn, L. (2011a).
The
complex structure of career technical teacher turnover intention:

Multi-structural relationships among organizational culture, job
autonomy, and turnover intention. Career Technical Education
Research, 36, 3–26.
Song, J. H., Uhm, D., & Yoon, S. W. (2011b). Organizational
knowledge conversion practices: Comprehensive and systematic
processes for scale development. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 32, 243–259.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and
modification:
An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 25, 173–180.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis:
Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T.
D., &
Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The
role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership

practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496–536.
Vehovar, V., Batagelj, Z., Manfreda, K. L., & Zaletel, M.
(2002).
Survey Nonreponse. In R. Groves, D. Dillman, J. Eltinge, & R.
J. A. Little (Eds.), Nonreponse in web surveys. New York:
Wiley.
Viviano, T. (2012). What 21st century leadership in Career and
Technical Education should look like. Journal of Career and
Technical Education, 27(2), 51–56.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling
knowledge
creation: How to unlock the mastery of tacit knowledge and
release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Ichijo, K. (1997). Develop
knowledge
activists. European Management Journal, 15, 475–483.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding
transfor-
mational leadership-employee performance links: The role of

relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived
organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social
exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
82–111.
Wefald, A. J. (2008). An examination of job engagement,
transfor-
mational leadership and related psychological constructs.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University,
Manhattan.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organization as loosely
coupled
systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-
year
teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned
retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 15, 861–879.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004).

Transfor-
mational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design:
Independent
and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 593–606.
Yi-Wen, Z., & Yi-Qun, C. (2005). The Chinese version of the
Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale: An examination of reliability and
validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 268–270.
Yoon, S. W., Song, J. H., & Lim, D. (2009). Beyond the
learning
process and toward the knowledge creation process: Linking
between learning and knowledge in supportive learning culture.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 1–21.
Yoon, S. W., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Joo, B. (2010).
Structural
determinants of team performance: The mutual influences of
learning culture, creativity, and knowledge. Human Resource
Development International, 13, 249–264.

123
Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTE
teachers: mutual impact of perceived school support,
transformational leadership, and work
engagementAbstractIntroductionResearch purpose and
theoretical foundationReview of the related literaturePerceived
organizational support (POS)Transformational Leadership and
work engagementKnowledge creationResearch methodsData
collection and sampleInstrumentsData analysis
strategiesResultsBasic assumption, reliability, and construct
validity testsConfirmatory analysis of the
measurementStructural equation modeling (SEM)
analysisConclusions and
implicationsAcknowledgmentsReferences

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTEt.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTEt.docx

Similar to Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTEt.docx (20)

More from jaggernaoma

More from jaggernaoma (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTEt.docx