The presentation by Vartika Dutta at EDU-CARNIVAL 2014 - the 6th International conference for school leaders, IIT DELHI.

1. School Leadership and its effect on
Student achievement :
The mediating role of
School Climate and Teacher Job Satisfaction
Presented By : Vartika Dutta
28th
Dec, 2014
6th
International Conference on Excellence in
School Education, IIT Delhi
VGSOM, IIT Kharagpur

2. 2
Outline
 Motivation of the study and Main Research Questions
 Theoretical and Empirical Framework
 Mediated-Effects Perspective
 Proposed Conceptual Model
 Conceptualization of Variables
 Data Sampling and Measurement
 Data Collection and Target Population
 Sampling Strategy
 Data Analysis and Results
 Scale Reliabilities
 Path Analysis
 Research Findings and Limitations of the study

3. 3
Motivation of the study
 “School leadership is second only to classroom teaching
as an influence on pupil learning1
”
 While classroom factors explain more than one-third of the variation in
student achievement, leadership explains only 5−7% of the difference in
student achievement across schools2
. Nonetheless, this difference is actually
about one-quarter of the total difference across schools (12−20%) explained
by all school-level variables.
 If an average principal demonstrably improved her leadership
responsibilities, then this would lead to a 10 percentile point in student test
scores3,4
.
 Drawing on data from 23 countries involved in the TALIS survey, a recent
OECD report5
indicated that greater instructional leadership contributes
significantly to a wide range of teacher and school outcomes.
1
Leithwood et al. (1982); 2
Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998); 3
Waters et al. (2003); 4
Marzano et al. (2005); 5
OECD (2009)

4. 4
However …
 Negligible or weak direct effect sizes!
 Research shows that the direct effect of school leadership on student
outcomes is either negligible or statistically nonsignificant.
 Indeed, several different meta-analysis2−5
report negligible to small direct
effect sizes of leadership on student learning outcomes.
 Leadership effects on student outcomes occur indirectly through principal
actions (e.g., providing a clear school mission, optimizing student learning by
grouping practices that shape the school’s learning climate, etc.)
 Main Question: How to quantify the indirect effects of principal leadership
behaviors on student outcomes?
 Owens (2004): Schools as learning organizations
 Leadership is essentially a group function that builds on interactions with other
people.
 Leaders “intentionally seek to influence the behavior of other people” relying more
on a sound understanding of human nature and developing strong interpersonal
relationships than on extracting obedience and compliance from their “followers”.
1
Leithwood et al. (1982); 2
Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998); 3
Waters et al. (2003); 4
Marzano et al. (2005); 5
OECD (2009)

5. 5
Main Research Questions
 How do teachers perceive their principals, vis-à-vis their
transformational and instructional behaviors?
 How do such behaviors relate to teachers’ job satisfaction, their
perception of the school climate and student learning outcomes?
 Extend current research by examining the role of teacher job
satisfaction and school climate in mediating the differential effects
of leadership practices on student learning.

6. 6
Conceptions of “How” School Leadership Influences Student Learning
 Research on the role of school leadership runs under two traditions:
 School effectiveness (predominant paradigm since the 1980s)
 School improvement (more recent)
 Summer 1982 issue of the Educational Administration Quarterly
 Bossert1
and his colleagues re-conceptualized the school leader’s role in indirectly
impacting student outcomes through several organizational factors such as
instructional practices, social processes and structures.
 Predated a whole new generation of work on mediated-effects models.
 Research shows that the direct effect of school leadership on student outcomes
is either negligible or statistically nonsignificant.
 Leadership effects on school effectiveness occur indirectly through principal actions
(e.g., providing a clear school mission, optimizing student learning by grouping
practices that shape the school’s learning climate, etc.)
 Indeed, several different meta-analysis2−5
report negligible to small direct effect sizes
of leadership on student learning outcomes.
 Answering the “how” questions Identifying the most powerful mediators.
1
Bossert et al. (1982); 2
Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998); 3
Witziers et al. (2003); 4
Waters et al. (2003); 5
Robinson et al. (2008)

7. 7
Proposed Conceptual Model of School Leadership
 Principal leadership is hypothesized as a multi-dimensional construct that is
anchored by the two most dominant leadership styles of principals, namely,
instructional and transformational.
 The benefits of the leadership style of the principal for student achievement are
primarily hypothesized as indirect, with either a weak or statistically non-
significant direct positive effect on student outcomes (shown by the dashed
arrow).
 Mediators considered in this study: School climate and teacher job satisfaction.

8. 8
Instructional and Transformational Leadership
 Recent syntheses of evidence collected in both school and non-school contexts provide
considerable evidence about four sets of leadership practices in different contexts that
accomplish this goal, viz.,
 Building vision and setting directions
 Understanding and developing people
 Redesigning the organization
 Managing the instructional program
 These four leadership practices are comparable to Gary Yukl’s taxonomy of leadership
behaviors.
 Core Instructional dimensions
 framing and communicating school goals
 managing the instructional program, coordinating the curriculum and monitoring
school progress
 promoting professional development of teachers
 Core Transformational dimensions
 setting directions
 helping people
 redesigning the organization

9. 9
Instructional and Transformational Leadership . . .
 The two leadership styles are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Principals
exhibit varying degrees of both leadership behaviors.
 Principals exhibiting a higher instructional behavior also demonstrated a higher
transformational behavior.

10. 10
School Climate
 Central to most models of organizational behavior are perceptions of the work
environment, referred to generally as ‘organizational climate’.
 School climate refers to the overall feel, ideology and milieu of a school1,2
.
 Group phenomenon that is mostly based on people’s experiences related to
school life which reflects the norms, beliefs, values, relationship amongst
teachers and students, instructional practices and organizational structures
within a school3
.
 Freiberg and Stein (1999) claim that school climate is the “heart and soul of a
school” (p. 11).
 Climate is examined under two broad aspects in this study4
, viz.,
 Social and affective environment that has been captured by sub-dimensions5
like
collegial leadership, professional teacher behavior, achievement press, and
institutional vulnerability.
 Physical environment that includes the physical and material aspects of the school,
classroom and staffing conditions6−9
 e.g. items include, quality of school infrastructure8
(e.g., building, library, laboratories,
sanitary facilities, etc.), multi-grade teaching, average class size6
, usage of ICT aids9
, etc.
1
Kahn (1978); 2
Field and Abelson (1982); 3
Cohen et al., (2009); 4
Rajagopalan et al. (2011); 5
Hoy et al. (2002);
6
Mehta (2003); 7
NCERT (2005); 8
Uline and Tschannen-Moran (2008); 9
van Braak et al. (2004)

11. 11
Teacher Job Satisfaction
 Employee attitudes such as job satisfaction also have behavioral
consequences that directly relate to organizational goal
accomplishment
 Job satisfaction: refers to the favorable or unfavorable feelings
that individuals have towards their work or work environment,
resulting from an evaluation of their job or job experiences.

12. 12
School-aggregated Student Achievement
 School is the unit of analysis.
 School-aggregated student achievement is used as a measure of school
effectiveness.
 For the analyses, both mean promotion rates and mean student achievement
scores were evaluated using board examination results over a period of three
years (2011−2013)1,2
, to take into account annual variations.
 Known limitations of test scores as a measure of student’s scholastic
achievement include limited focus, questionable reliability and accuracy with
which they are able to estimate change over time3
.
1
Maslowski (2001); 2
Bruggencate et al. (2012); 3
Leithwood and Levin (2005)

13. 13
Data Collection and Target Population
 Data collected for the study was analyzed in two stages, viz. a sample pre-test
and a full-scale sample study.
 Pre-test: A total of 105 secondary schools were selected from the two major
metropolitan cities of India, namely, New Delhi and Kolkata.
 Final study: Final sample comprised 306 responses from principals and 1530
responses from teachers, from a select cohort of 306 secondary schools in New Delhi
and Kolkata.
 Method of data collection:
 Web-based survey utilizing self-administered questionnaires (Google docs)
 School response rate: 15.92% (Total 1922 schools contacted in final study)
 Description of target population in final study
 Total schools: 306 (Principals= 306, Teachers= 1539)
 Location: New Delhi (180 schools), Kolkata (126 schools)
 School type: private-unaided: 204, government: 93, private-aided: 9
 Curriculum: CBSE: 213, ICSE: 81, IB: 9, WBSSE: 3
 Average School Size: 2245 (smallest school had 1315 students and the largest school
had 4558 students)

14. 14
Sampling Strategy
 Two-stage random sampling strategy1
 First stage: A random sample of the primary units (schools) was taken from the
population of all secondary schools in New Delhi and Kolkata.
 Second stage: For each school selected in the first stage, five teachers per school
were sampled at random.
 Simulation studies on two-level models2
show that, if there are a total of 150
schools in a sample, then to have a statistical power close to 0.90 (i.e., a 90%
chance that an effect of medium size is detected), it is sufficient to have five
observations per school.
 Only those schools which provided at least five teacher responses were included
in the study.
 To bring the level of statistical analysis to the level of theory, variables
constructed at the teacher level were aggregated to the school level.
 The reliability of the aggregated variables turned out to be acceptable.
 Moderate to high intraclass correlation values demonstrated good school-
mean reliability2
.
1
Snijders and Bosker (1999); 2
Kreft and De Leeuw, 1998

15. 15
Research Instruments used in final study and Scale Reliabilities
Scales
No. of
original
items
No. of
items
retained
M SD
Cronbach’s
alpha
Loading
range
GFI CFI NFI RMSEA
Transformational leadership 12 9 43.08 4.624 0.88 0.513-0.788 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.001
Instructional leadership 12 10 42.51 4.621 0.81 0.521-0.862 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.028
Physical environment 8 7 23.53 4.03 0.77 0.587-0.800 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.002
Social and affective environment 12 10 41.51 4.594 0.82 0.501-0.858 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.025
Job satisfaction 9 6 24.03 3.114 0.76 0.504-0.671 0.985 0.982 0.987 0.056

16. 16
The Full (Saturated) Path-Analytic Model

17. 17
The Full (Saturated) Path-Analytic Model

18. 18
Research Hypotheses
 Hypothesis 1: Student achievement will be positively affected by teacher job
satisfaction.
 Hypothesis 2: Student achievement will be supported by a positive school climate.
 Hypothesis 3: A positive school climate will boost the job satisfaction of teachers.
 Hypothesis 4: The benefits of a positive school climate for student achievement will
be mediated by the job satisfaction of teachers.
 Hypothesis 5: The effect of the instructional and transformational dimensions of
principal leadership on student achievement will be mediated by the job satisfaction
of teachers.
 Hypothesis 6: The benefits of such leadership styles of the principal for student
achievement will be mediated by a positive school climate.

19. 19
Path Analytic Model
= 41.65, df = 40, p–value = .256, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = .984.
Only significant paths (p < 0.001) are shown in the path diagram.

20. 20
Key Findings: Indirect Leadership Effects
 Principal leadership behaviors were not associated directly with either
teacher job satisfaction or school-aggregated student achievement.
Rather,
 The transformational leader behavior showed an indirect effect, through the
social and affective component of the school climate, on teacher job
satisfaction.
 The physical climate, however appeared to play a dominating role in mediating
the instructional leadership effects on teacher job satisfaction.
 Evidence from this study suggests that principals exhibit varying degrees
of both leadership behaviors.
 Comparing the relative indirect effect sizes of the instructional and
transformational leadership behaviors on student achievement, the
former appears to be the dominant style of leadership embraced by
Indian principals.

21. 21
Some Limitations of the Study
 Data for the study were collected only once, during a limited timeframe.
 The sample size was dependent upon the number of principals and teachers
consenting to participate in the study.
 The study is limited by aggregating teacher data to the school level.
 Although this has led to a loss of variance, the reliability of the aggregated
variables turned out to be satisfactory.
 Applying multilevel techniques in the structural analysis is highly desirable.
 Cross-sectional nature of the study
 Inferred causality is not certain.
 In general, implementation of experimental research design is difficult when the
school is taken as the unit of analysis.
 Longitudinal studies can shed further light on the causality of the assumed
relationships, and remains a scope for future study.

22. Thank you for your attention!