Examining a congruency-typology model of leadership for learning using two-level latent class analysis with TALIS 2018

Abstract

Unclassified OECD EDUCATION WORKING PAPERS SERIES OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the author(s). Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. Comments on Working Papers are welcome, and may be sent to the Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD,

The Moderation Role of Transformational Leadership in the Effect of Instructional Leadership on Teacher Professional Learning and Instructional Practice: An Integrated Leadership Perspective

“…This type of system aligns with traditional practices of professional development for school principals and teachers, where teachers are sent randomly to a series of mandated and isolated in-service programs or activities outlined by MoNE for professional development and learning. According to a recent international report, Turkish teachers report some of the lowest levels of teacher self-efficacy, shared beliefs about learning, opportunities for decision making, and professional collaboration on lessons, as well as teacher cultures of shared responsibility and trust in building nested learning communities (Bowers, 2020). Moreover, school principalship is not considered as an independent profession; thus, teaching experience is deemed sufficient for the preparation of school principals, and the main requirement for the principalship position (Recepoğlu & Kılınç, 2014).…”

“…Due to its first-order effect orientation, IL is considered essential for the improvement of teaching and learning, while the second-order effect orientation of TL helps bring about organizational change to help facilitate this improvement (Hallinger, 2003). Thus, scholars developed the theories of "leadership for learning" (Bowers, 2020;Boyce & Bowers, 2018a;Hallinger, 2011a) and "integrated leadership" (Agasisti et al, 2019;Duff & Bowers, 2021;Marks & Printy, 2003;Urick & Bowers, 2014). While both conceptualizations center on the notion that principals do and should demonstrate various types of leadership simultaneously for better school outcomes, the key difference between the theories is methodological.…”

“…Although past research has separately established positive links between TPL and TL (e.g., Thoonen et al, 2011) and IL (e.g., Hallinger et al, 2019), one could expect a somewhat stronger association if principals integrate their focus on teaching and learning with TL practices to promote teacher capacity and organizational change (Urick & Bowers, 2014). Second, the literature suggests that the nature of leadership practices and their influence might vary across countries due to political, cultural, and structural differences (Bowers, 2020;Liu, 2020;Printy & Liu, 2021). However, the existing knowledge regarding how school leadership influences teaching and learning is based predominantly on western Anglo-Saxon cultures, where educational systems are typically decentralized.…”

Exploring school leadership profiles across the world: a cluster analysis approach to TALIS 2018

“…academic pressure, team innovativeness, stakeholder involvement, and more). Conceptual mapping of the Leadership for Learning theory and the TALIS 2018 items from both teacher and principal questionnaires was performed by Bowers in a working paper about leadership typologies using the same data (Bowers, 2020).…”

“…For instance, Urick and Bowers (2014) examined different types of principals but only in the U.S. context. In addition, pioneering work on leadership typologies around the world using TALIS data has recently been conducted, where at least three different profiles were identified at school and teacher levels through latent class analysis (Bowers, 2020).…”