a review of transformational leadership research: a … · 2012. 11. 1. · teaching me to fish. my...

A REVIEW OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH: A META-ANALYTIC APPROACH

by

Jingping Sun

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Jingping Sun 2010

ii

A REVIEW OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH: A META-ANALYTIC APPROACH

Doctor of Philosophy, 2010 Jingping Sun

Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education University of Toronto

Abstract

This research is a meta-analytic review of the effects of transformational school

leadership (TSL)-- a systematic, comprehensive synthesis of the quantitative research on

transformational school leadership. The review method used in this research is standard

meta-analysis supplemented by narrative synthesis and vote-counting methods. The types

of effect sizes involved in meta-analytical calculations are correlation coefficients rs. The

evidence reviewed was provided exclusively by unpublished theses or dissertations that

were completed between 1996 and 2008.

This study identified 33 dimensions of transformational leadership as developed

by various scholars and captured by a variety of leadership measures, which were

synthesized into 11 core leadership dimensions. This study meta-analyzed the effects of

transformational school leadership and its dimensions on a large range of school

outcomes, including 17 school conditions (e.g., school culture, shared decision-making

processes), 23 teacher-related outcomes (e.g., teacher satisfaction), and five types of

student outcomes.

Transformational school leadership was most influential on teachers’ emotions

and inner states. TSL had large effects on teachers’ individual inner states and their

practices while it had small effects on their group inner states. Leaders effectively

influence teachers’ psychological inner states and practices mainly through modeling

iii

good practices themselves, providing support and intellectual stimulation to teachers

individually and setting shared school goals.

TSL was also very influential on school conditions. It had large effects on four

key school conditions. This review detected significant, positive small direct effects of

TSL on student achievements. The indirect effects of TSL on student learning vary when

different school or teacher variables are controlled. This review identified seven

important moderators and three mediators that significantly contributed to student

learning along with TSL. Specific leadership practices that effectively influenced school

and student outcomes were also examined and discussed.

Regarding the moderating effects of contextual and methodological factors,

school level and leadership measures were found to moderate leadership impacts

significantly in some cases. The findings of this study provide guidance for school

administrators and policy makers who want to improve school leadership as a means of

improving school quality.

iv

Acknowledgements

Going through the doctoral program and completing the thesis has been a process

through which I have gained tremendous intellectual growth in my life. I am extremely

grateful to all who, in one way or another, promoted my learning, and sustained and

helped me.

My sincere thanks start with my thesis committee, a group of leading scholars and

wise men who influenced, aided and supported me profoundly. It is with great

appreciation and respect that I thank Professor Kenneth Leithwood, my thesis supervisor,

for his invaluable mentorship. It is under his suggestion and with his support that I

embarked on the journey of doing meta-analysis research, from which I have benefited

tremendously. Learning from and working with him on many projects including this

thesis research has helped me to learn the art of research. A proverb says, “Give me a fish

and I eat for a day. Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime.” Thank you, Ken, for

teaching me to fish.

My great appreciation extends to my other committee members. My deep

gratitude goes to Professor Ben Levin, who honored me by immediately accepting me,

generously giving me wonderful opportunities, providing with me invaluable support,

insight, inspiration, encouragement and advice; to Professor Stephen Anderson, for his

unfailing support, thoughtfulness and help throughout my graduate studies at OISE for

nearly ten years, and for guiding me to do qualitative research with sophisticated

procedures; to Professor Richard Wolfe, a top statistician and methodologist, for sharing

his expertise and answering my questions on the key methodological issues of my thesis

whenever I needed assistance. I own deep gratitude as well to Professor Ron Heck, an

v

internationally well-known scholar and my external examiner, for his on-line mentoring

and intellectual stimulation. I am deeply indebted to him for his extremely kind and

strong support, for his precious advice, and for sharing with me his insights and wisdom,

helpful sources, and his experiences.

These five people have formed the best committee I could have ever expected. I

feel fortunate to have them. They have provided constructive feedback which has pushed

me to think deeper and helped open up new horizons for research built upon my thesis

research. They have provided on-going support to me far beyond the thesis research. All

these served as scaffolds to my learning and academic growth. Learning from and

working with them has helped me to learn the pursuit of truth and excellence.

I have been extremely grateful to Professor Paul Begley. Without him, I would

probably not have had embarked on the doctoral journey.

The faculty and staff at OISE/UT have been more than helpful in this process.

Especially, I would like to thank, in alphabetical order, Drs. Nina Bascia, Ruth Child,

Ruth Hayhoe, Blair Mascall, Susan Padro, Julia Pan, Jim Ryan, Lyn Sharratt, and

Richard Townsend, for their most generous support and help whenever I turned to them.

This list could go on. I would also like to take the opportunity to express my thankfulness

to all my colleagues and friends who have aided me and contributed to my academic

growth in various ways.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and relatives. I would like to thank my

parents, whom I can never thank enough for all they have done for me. Without their

support, sacrifice and encouragement I could not achieve my goals. A special thank you

goes to my husband Weixiang. I reserved my last thank you to our adorable son, Sunny,

vi

for his love, understanding, and for sacrificing time with me. Your tenacity to learn, your

care and your laughter have brought great happiness to me that has motivated me beyond

words.

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii Chapter One Background and Research Objectives ........................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives and Research Questions ................................................................................ 3 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 5

Chapter Two: Review of Reviews and Framework Guiding This Review ......................... 6 The Development of Transformational Leadership ........................................................ 6 Previous Reviews ............................................................................................................ 8 Framework Guiding the Review ................................................................................... 24

Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................................ 30 Development of Meta-analysis...................................................................................... 32 Methodological Procedures ........................................................................................... 34 Characteristics of the Final Database Used for this Review ......................................... 45 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 46

Chapter Four: Syntheses of Results and Discussion ......................................................... 63 The Nature Of TSL ....................................................................................................... 63 The Impact of TSL on School Organizational Outcomes ............................................. 73 The Impact of TSL on Teacher Outcomes .................................................................... 77 The Impact of TSL on Student Outcomes ..................................................................... 82 The Moderating Effects on TSL’s Impacts ................................................................... 95

Chapter Five: Conclusions ................................................................................................ 98 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 98 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 98 Implications for Theory and Research ........................................................................ 101 Implications for Policy and Practice ........................................................................... 107

References ....................................................................................................................... 235

viii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Practices Measured by Instruments Used in the Research ................................ 64 Table 4.2 The Impact Of Transformational Leadership On School Organizational

Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 73 Table 4.3 The Impacts of Individual TSL Practices on Each of the School Organizational

Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 75 Table 4.4 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Organizational

Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 76 Table 4.5 The Impact Of Transformational Leadership On Teacher Outcomes ............... 78 Table 4.6 The Impacts Of Individual TSL On Each of Teacher Outcomes ...................... 80 Table 4.7 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Outcomes .............. 81 Table 4.8 The Direct And Indirect Impacts Of TSL On Student Achievements .............. 82 Table 4.9 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Student Achievements ........ 87 Table A1 Transformational School Leadership Practices Examined by the Research ... 115 Table B1 The Impacts Of Transformational Leadership On School Organizational

Outcomes ................................................................................................................... 117 Table B2 The Distribution of Leadership Instruments.................................................... 123 Table B3 The Distribution of School Levels .................................................................. 123 Table B4 The Distribution of School Types ................................................................... 124 Table B5 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and School Culture ........................................ 127 Table B6 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM................................. 128 Table B7 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM ................................ 129 Table B8 Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (FEM) ............... 129 Table B9 The Moderating Effect of School Level, Type and Leadership Instrument

on the Relationship between TSL and School Culture based on MEMs .................. 131 Table B10 A Summery of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on School Culture and

Homogeneity Analyses in Subgroups Based on MEMs ........................................... 131 Table B11 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Culture ................ 136 Table B12 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and Shared Goal/Mission............................... 140 Table B13 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 141 Table B14 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM .............................. 142 Table B15 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Shared

Goal/Mission ............................................................................................................. 143 Table B16 The Distribution of School Levels ................................................................ 144 Table B17 The Distribution of School Types ................................................................. 144 Table B18 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and Shared Decision-making ......................... 146 Table B19 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 147 Table B20 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Shared Decision-making . 147

ix

Table B21 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 149

Table B22 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Working Environment .............................................................................................................. 149


Table B24 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Organizational Factors ....................................................................................................................... 151


Table B26 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Instruction ....................... 153 Table B27 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 154 Table C1 The Impacts Of Transformational Leadership On Teacher Outcomes ........... 155 Table C2 The Distribution of Leadership Instruments Used .......................................... 159 Table C3 The Distribution of School Levels .................................................................. 160 Table C4 The Distribution of School Types ................................................................... 160 Table C5 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and Teacher Commitment ............................. 164 Table C6 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 165 Table C7 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM & Heterogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 165 Table C8 Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effects

Model) ....................................................................................................................... 166 Table C9 The Moderating Effect of School Level and Leadership Instrument on the

Relationship between TSL and Teacher Commitment based on Mixed Effects Models ....................................................................................................................... 166

Table C10 A Summary of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on Teacher Commitment and Homogeneity Analyses in Subsgroups Based on Mixed Effects Models ....................................................................................................................... 166

Table C11 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Commitment ..... 169 Table C12 The Distribution of Leadership Instruments.................................................. 171 Table C13 The Distribution of School Levels ................................................................ 171 Table C14 The Distribution of School Types ................................................................. 172 Table C15 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and Teacher Satisfaction ................................ 174 Table C16 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM............................... 175 Table C17 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM .............................. 175 Table C18 Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effects

Model) ....................................................................................................................... 176 Table C19 The Moderating Effect of School Level, Type and Leadership Instrument

on the Relationship between TSL and School Culture based on Mixed Effects Models ....................................................................................................................... 177

x

Table C20 A Summary of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on Teacher Satisfaction and Homogeneity Analyses in Subgroups Based on Mixed Effects Models ....................................................................................................................... 177

Table C21 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................................ 179

Table C22 The Distribution of School Levels ................................................................ 180 Table C23 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and Leaders’ Effectiveness ............................ 182 Table C24 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 182 Table C25 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM .............................. 183 Table C26 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Perception of

Principal’s Effectiveness ........................................................................................... 184 Table C27 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and Leaders’ Effectiveness ............................ 187 Table C28 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 187 Table C29 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Empowerment ... 188 Table C30 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations ................ 191 Between Transformational School Leadership and Individual Teachers’ Efficacy ........ 191 Table C31 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 191 Table C32 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM .............................. 192 Table C33 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Efficacy ............. 193 Table C34 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 195 Table C35 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 196 Table C36 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Trust ................................ 197 Table C37 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 198 Table C38 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Collective

Efficacy ..................................................................................................................... 199 Table C40 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher’s OCB ............... 201 Table C41 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 202 Table D1 Transformational School Leadership Effects on Students Outcomes ............. 203 Table D2 The Distribution of Leadership Instruments ................................................... 204 Table D3 The Distribution of School Levels .................................................................. 205 Table D4 The Distribution of School Types ................................................................... 205 Table D5 The Distribution of Leadership Instruments ................................................... 216 Table D6 The Distribution of School Levels .................................................................. 217 Table D7 The Distribution of School Types ................................................................... 217 Table D8 Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations Between

Transformational School Leadership and Student Achievements ............................ 219 Table D9 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM ................................ 219

xi

Table D10 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM .............................. 220 Table D11 Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (FEM) ............. 221 Table D12 The Moderating Effect of School Level and Leadership Instrument on the

Relationship between TSL and School Achievement based on MEMs .................... 222 Table D13 A Summary of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on Student

Achievement and Homogeneity Analyses in Subgroups Based on MEMs .............. 223 Table D14 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 226 Table D15 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Student Achievements in

Reading...................................................................................................................... 227 Table D16 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 227 Table D17 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity

Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 229 Table D18 The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Student Achievements .... 229 Table D19 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity




Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 233

xii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Framework for reviewing transformational school leadership research……29

xiii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: A Detailed Analysis of How Transformational Leadership Is Conceptualized And Measured ................................................................................. 109

Appendix B: A Detailed Analysis of the Impacts of TSL on School Organizational Outcomes ................................................................................................................... 117

An Overview ............................................................................................................... 117 Meta-analysis of the TSL Impacts on School Organizational Outcomes ................... 119

Appendix C: A Detailed Analysis of TSL Impacts on Teacher Outcomes ..................... 155 An Overview ............................................................................................................... 155 Meta-analysis of TSL Impacts on Teacher Related Outcomes ................................... 157

Appendix D: A Detailed Analysis of TSL Effects on Student Learning ........................ 203 An Overview ............................................................................................................... 203 Meta-analysis of TSL Impact on Student Achievements ............................................ 204

1

Chapter One Background and Research Objectives

Background

A number of leadership models have been developed with school contexts in mind,

for example, models variously labeled instructional, moral, and constructivist. Other

leadership models aim to span organizational types and sectors, for example, servant,

“authentic”, contingent and situational models. Transformational leadership models are

among the most-studied of this second type. A search of key words in materials published

from 1990 to 2003 in the PsycINFO database revealed that there have been more studies

on transformational or charismatic leadership than on all other popular theories of

leadership combined (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

In educational contexts, improved student learning has been the focus of nation-wide

or regional efforts across continents. School leaders are the key players in accounting for

differences in their success (Datnow & Castellano, 2001; Leithwood, Louise, Anderson,

& Wahlstrom, 2004). With the unprecedented interest in searching for the ‘best’ or most

‘effective’ educational model, scholars have conceptualized various leadership models in

the educational context, including instructional, transformational, moral, participative,

managerial, and contingent forms of school leadership (Leithwood & Duke, 1999), and

more recently, distributed leadership (Gronn, 2002; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Spillane

et. al., 2001). Among these seven leadership models, both transformational and

instructional models of leadership have been advocated as promising approaches to

school reform and improved student achievement. Empirical evidence of the effects of

both approaches is still quite limited however. Furthermore, evidence about

transformational leadership effects has largely been collected in non-school contexts. An

2

increasing amount of evidence appears to support its positive effects on various school

outcomes. A more systematic review of this evidence would be needed to further confirm

the robustness of this claim.

Transformational leadership was initially conceptualized by Burns (1978) and

fully developed by Bass (e.g., 1985) in non-educational contexts. It was fully developed

by Leithwood and his colleagues in educational contexts. Transformational school

leadership (TSL) emphasizes leaders’ providing individual support and intellectual

stimulation to staff and engaging them in shared goals. These leadership behaviors help

develop people and build organizations’ capacities and thus fit well the current

multicultural milieu in which principals work. Evidence collected in school contexts has

been reviewed by Leithwood, Tomlinson and Genge (1996), Leithwood and Jantzi

(2005), and most recently by Leithwood and Sun (2009). These reviews inquired, among

other things, into the organization-level effects of TSL. Due to the “vote counting”

method (summarizing study results by grouping them mainly according to the nature of

results such as “positive results”, “statistically significant” or not, and giving not much

attention to the magnitude of effect sizes) used by these reviews, however, they have

been limited in their ability to evaluate the unique contribution of each TSL practice,

explain contradictory results, assess the robustness of the claims made and the strength of

the relationships reported, and examine how these relationships are subject to contextual

and methodological factors. One meta-analysis (Chin, 2007) has been conducted

examining the relationship between TSL and a few specific outcome variables (i.e.

teacher job satisfaction, teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness, and culture). It only

reviewed studies that used Bass’ conception of transformational leadership, Multifactor

3

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The present meta-analysis is more inclusive, adopting

a wider focus as indicated in the research questions that follow, and addresses the above-

mentioned limitations of earlier narrative reviews by conducting a quantitative meta-

analytical review.

Objectives and Research Questions

The purposes of this study are to inquire systematically into: the nature of

transformational school leadership and its effects on a large array of school, teacher and

student outcomes, using standard meta-analysis techniques. This review seeks to answer

questions

1. How is transformational leadership conceptualized and measured?

2. What school outcomes have been examined by transformational leadership

research and what effects on each of these outcomes does transformational

leadership appear to have?

3. What are the leadership practices that are most effective in improving each

of these school conditions?

4. What is the extent of the effectiveness of these leadership practices on

each of these school conditions?

5. How are these leadership effects on each of school, outcomes moderated

by contextual factors or methodological factors?

6. What teacher-related outcomes have been examined by transformational

leadership research and what effects on each of these outcomes does

transformational leadership appear to have?

4

7. What are the leadership practices that are most effective in influencing

each of these teacher-related outcomes?

8. What is the extent of the effectiveness of these leadership practices on

each of the teacher-related outcomes?

9. How are these leadership effects on each of teacher outcomes moderated

by contextual factors or methodological factors?

10. How much of the variation in student learning can be explained by the

direct effects of transformational leadership practices?

11. What are the leadership practices that are most effective in improving

student achievements directly?

12. And what is the extent of the direct impacts of these leadership practices

on student achievements?

13. How are the leadership effects on student learning moderated by

contextual factors or methodological factors?

14. How much of the variation in student learning can be explained by the

indirect effects of transformational leadership practices?

15. What are the leadership practices that are most effective in improving

student achievements indirectly?

16. And what is the extent of the indirect impacts of these leadership practices

on student achievements?

These research questions can be grouped into five areas: the nature of TSL, its impacts on

school organizational outcomes, its impacts on teacher outcomes, its direct and indirect

5

impacts on student learning, and moderating effects of school level, type and leadership

measures on these impacts.

Significance of the Study

In response to the call for a more solid synthesis of the research findings on such

an important leadership model, the contribution of this study lies in:

• Synthesizing core transformational leadership practices measured and

used in empirical studies

• Systematically reviewing the effects of TSL on all examined school,

teacher, and student outcomes

• Resolving conflicting results of empirical research that have been hard to

interpret in narrative reviews and generalizing them into stronger claims.

• Adding to our understanding of the complex process by which leaders

influence school processes and teachers and lead change for achieving

student success.

• Providing roadmaps for future research in this regard

• Provide relatively robust evidence about whether transformational

leadership practice warrant significant attention in the development of

school leaders

6

Chapter Two: Review of Reviews and Framework Guiding This Review

The Development of Transformational Leadership

The conceptualization of transformational leadership is usually seen as beginning

with Burns’ (1978) work, Leadership. According to Burns, the purpose of leadership

influence is to motivate followers to work towards transcendental goals instead of

immediate self-interest and towards achievement and self-actualization instead of safety

and security. The origin of the concept of transformational leadership is also associated

with Weber’s (1921; 1947) coining of ‘charisma’ from the Greek, meaning ‘divine gift’.

He defined charismatic leaders as those who use their considerable emotional appeal to

direct their followers. Many scholars who developed the concept of transformational

leadership thereafter incorporated charisma as one of the most important components of

transformational leadership.

Since the 1970s, the conception of this type of leadership has undergone major

development, for example:

• Bass and his associates (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1994) have emphasized the

characteristics of leadership practices and their influential outcomes and

developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) which measures both

transformational and transactional leadership;

• Kouzes and Posner (1995) have focused more on specific leader behaviors (e.g.

challenging the process, inspiring, enabling others to act) and have developed the

Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) to measure them;

• Sashkin has addressed leadership behaviors (i.e. communication, trust building,

caring, empowering), characteristics (e.g. self-efficacy, empowerment) and

7

culture as measured by his Leader Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ) and its latest

version, The Leadership Profile (TLP) (Sashkin, 2004); and

• Tichy and Devanna’s (1990) three-act play of redesigning organizations.

These different approaches have explored or extended transformational leadership in one

or more dimensions: leader characteristics (e.g. cognitive capabilities, motivation, and

self-efficacy), leader behaviors, and the interaction of leadership behaviours with context

factors (e.g. culture).

In a non-educational context, the model of transformational leadership has been

developed in its most mature form from Bass and his associates (e.g. Bass, 1985; Bass &

Avolio, 1993). They developed a ‘two-factor theory’ along with Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ). According to Bass and Avolio, transformational and transactional

leadership are two separate ends of a continuum. Most leaders do some of both but

transformational leadership has augmented effects above transactional leadership.

In an educational context, the model of transformational leadership has been most

fully developed to date by Leithwood and his colleagues over a number of years (e.g.,

Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1991b; Leithwood, 1992; Leithwood

et al., 1996; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Their

latest version (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2004) defines

transformational leadership as including four broad categories of practices with a total of

fifteen specific sets of practice: Setting Directions, Developing People, Redesigning the

Organisation, and Managing the Instructional Program, and measures transformational

leadership using their newly-revised instrument School Leadership and Management.

8

Developed by many groups of scholars over decades, the various versions of

transformational leadership, especially Leithwood and his colleagues’ model (Leithwood

et. al., 2006), subsume instructional leadership and managerial leadership (see the

Managing the Instructional Program dimension of transformational leadership in

Leithwood et. al., 2006 for an example), ground its roots in moral foundations (see Bass,

1997; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998 for detailed arguments), and can be participative (see

Bass, 1997 for details). In other words, the development of transformational leadership in

the educational context has aimed to absorb and integrate many other leadership models,

a goal considered worth pursuing by a number of scholars (e.g., Antonakis, Cianciolo, &

Sternberg, 2004; Hunt, 1999). Researchers, these scholars argue, are now in a position to

integrate overlapping and complementary conceptualizations of leadership. Hybrid-

integrative frameworks or theories (e.g., Marks, H. M., & Printy) are now often viewed

as the most promising direction for new leadership research. Considering the state of this

development, a thorough understanding and evaluation of transformational approaches to

leadership is in order.

Previous Reviews

This section reviews the review research on the effects of transformational

leadership conducted in both educational contexts and non-educational contexts. The

insights and findings of these previous reviews shed light on the framework for this

review. Also the limitations of these reviews are discussed as a way to inform the design

of this review. Four reviews have been conducted in educational contexts by Leithwood

and his colleaques using vote-counting methods. One meta-analytical review was done

by Chin (2007).

9

Reviews of research in school contexts

Leithwood, Tomlinson and Genge (1996)

Leithwood, Tomlinson and Genge (1996) reviewed 34 empirical studies including

both qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies conducted in elementary and

secondary schools. The sources for this review covered both published research and

unpublished dissertation research. They were largely concerned with school principal

leadership, but also district-level leadership roles including superintendents and district

staff. This study inquired into the nature of transformational leadership, the internal

validity (which can be considered part of the inquiry into the nature of leadership) and

external validity (which can be considered part of the inquiry into the effects of

leadership) of transformational and transactional leadership as conceptualized in Bass’s

two-factor theory, and the effects of transformational leadership on various forms of

outcomes. The researchers identified specific dimensions of transformational leadership

found to be relevant in school contexts which were originally proposed for non-school

settings. These dimensions are: charisma/inspiration/vision, intellectual stimulation,

individual consideration (justified by substantial evidence of positive effects), contingent

reward, high performance expectations, goal consensus, modeling (supported by meager

but promising or ambiguous evidence), and culture building and structuring (supported

by meager direct evidence but found to be unique to school-based research). The

researchers also described the specific school leadership practices associated with each of

those dimensions. The specific leadership practices most consistently explaining all

transformational effects were direction setting/vision-related practices, intellectual

stimulation, and individual consideration. Modeling, holding high expectations, culture

building and structuring ranked next, with contingent rewards having positive effects

10

more consistent with predictions concerning transformational rather than transactional

leadership. Management-by-exception (active or passive) evidently has negative effects

(Leithwood et al., 1996). This summary provides a useful ‘starter set’ for future research

to approximate a set of dimensions, including a set of leadership behaviors for each

dimension, crucial to the enactment of transformational leadership. The limitation of this

review, identified by its authors, is its inability to evaluate the unique contribution of each

leadership behavior to effects anticipated for the leadership dimension of which it is a

part.

Regarding the internal and external validity of transformational and transactional

leadership as conceptualized in Bass’s two-factor theory, Leithwood and his colleagues

(Leithwood et al., 1996) summarized the evidence from 8 studies (relevant to the test of

transformational leadership and transactional leadership as distinctly separate constructs

and the augmentative effects of transformational leadership beyond transactional

leadership). They claimed that the internal and external validity of a two-factor

conception of transformational school leadership is supported with some adaptations (i.e.,

reconceptualizing contingent reward as a transformational dimension and enriching

transactional leadership by identifying new managerial functions which are important to

school settings). However, this claim was based on the contradictory results these studies

reported. For example, quite a few studies reported that contingent reward loaded more

on transformational leadership while one study reported that contingent reward and

management-by-exception clustered together. Though quite a few studies supported the

idea that transformational leadership adds value to transactional leadership, they also

called into question the necessity of the inclusion of transactional leadership in relation to

11

some dependent measures. “Indeed, the two outcomes for which transactional leadership

did predict significant variation in King’s study were the same two for which correlations

with transactional leadership in Hoover’s study approached zero” (p. 820). The inability

to explain these contradictions is the second limitation of this review.

The review also summarized the results of 20 studies, using both qualitative and

quantitative methods about the effects of transformational leadership on 13 types of

outcomes which the researchers grouped into 5 categories: effects on perceptions of

leaders, effects on the behavior of followers, effects on followers’ psychological states,

organization-level effects, and student effects. The major finding was that

transformational school leadership had positive effects on organizational

improvement/effectiveness, teachers’ perceptions of student outcomes, and the

organizational climate and culture. Its effects on the remaining outcomes were judged to

be “epistemically in the clear” (meaning “there were no better grounds for rejecting the

knowledge claim than for accepting it”) (Fenstermacher, 1994 cited in Leithwood et al.,

1996). Although a ‘summing-up’ procedure using a simple counting method did a good

job of painting a general picture of the research results from which general claims could

be made and general relationships could be found, it could not provide an assessment of

the robustness of those claims and the strength or magnitude of the relationships. The

authors did go one step further in assessing the robustness of their claims by describing

their level of confidence in making their judgments using three degrees (i.e., "evident",

"beyond reasonable doubt", and "epistemically in the clear"). These confidence

judgments themselves, however, involved subjective assessments on the part of the

researchers.

12

Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2005) Review

In a second review, Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) examined research studies

published between 1996 and 2005, including 26 quantitative, 1 mixed methods and 5

qualitative studies (32 in total). They used the “vote counting” method to summarize

results. In this review, among other things, Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) clarified the

nature of transformational school leadership as it is actually measured. They grouped

transformational leadership behaviours measured or developed by the empirical studies

they reviewed into four broad categories of practices, including a total of fifteen more

specific sets of practice: setting directions (identifying and articulating a vision; fostering

the acceptance of group goals; high performance expectations), helping people (providing

individualized support/consideration; providing intellectual stimulation; providing an

appropriate model), redesigning the organisation (creating collaborate cultures;

restructuring; building productive relationships with families and communities), and the

transactional and managerial aggregate (contingent reward; management by exception

active and passive; establishing effective staffing practices; providing instructional

support; monitoring school activities; buffering staff from excessive and distracting

external demands). This set of transformational leadership practices is largely consistent

with what was identified in their previous review (Leithwood et al., 1996), but extends it

by adding four more specific leadership behaviours (i.e., establishing effective staffing

practices; providing instructional support; monitoring school activities; buffering staff

from excessive and distracting external demands) to the management dimension of

leadership. These four leadership practices reflect the instructional management

dimension of transformational school leadership. The identification and development of

these sets of core practices of transformational leadership in the educational context is a

13

significant contribution to refining the transformational leadership conception, going

beyond Bass’ model and the MLQ. Note here that one of the biggest difference between

Leithwood et al’s (2005) conception of transformational leadership and that of Bass is

that the managerial dimension of school leadership including the leadership behaviours

(such as contingent reward) is one component of transformational leadership rather than

being another leadership style (i.e. transactional leadership) opposite to transformational

leadership. While this review was quite comprehensive, its vote-counting methods did

not permit the estimation of the relative effects of individual transformational leadership

behaviours.

This second review identified 41 outcome variables on which TSL had impacts. (In

the review, these outcome variables are called mediating variables, as they are the

conceptualized as linking leadership and student outcomes). These outcome variables

include characteristics of leaders’ colleagues (e.g. job satisfaction, teacher commitment),

characteristics of students (e.g. prior achievement), organizational structures (e.g.

participatory decision-making) and organizational conditions (e.g. school culture,

pedagogical quality). The review concluded that transformational leadership had

uniformly positive effects at the individual teacher level on teacher commitment,

satisfaction, changed classroom practices and pedagogical or instructional quality, and at

the organisational level on school culture, planning and strategies for change,

organizational learning and collective teacher efficacy (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).

The only dependent variable in Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2005) review framework of

transformational leadership was student outcomes. Transformational leadership effects on

academic achievement were “mixed but tending toward positive” with a quite promising

14

but limited amount of evidence (p. 23). Also, “the evidence of transformational

leadership effects on students’ engagement in school, while still modest in amount, is

uniformly positive” (p. 24).

Leithwood and Sun’s (2009) Review

The third review conducted more recently by Leithwood and Sun (2009) provided a

comprehensive synthesis of unpublished research examining the effects of

transformational leadership practices on four sets of outcomes – teachers’ emotions and

beliefs, teachers’ practices, school conditions and student achievement. Based on a

sample of dissertations about transformational leadership in education completed

between 1996 and 2004, this study identified 13 sets of transformational leadership

practices involved in and measured by six TSL models or instruments. They can be

classified into five broad leadership dimensions: direction setting, developing people,

redesigning the organization, the managerial or transactional leadership dimension, and

laissez-faire. All instruments used in the research measure a dimension of TSL concerned

with direction setting and inspiring people to focus their work on a vision for the

organization that is widely shared. Most instruments also include measures of the degree

to which leaders provide their colleagues with individualized support. Modeling

behaviors and intellectual stimulation are also common to at least three of the instruments

measuring TL. The remaining practices described are much less frequently measured.

Studies measuring TSL using three surveys--the MLQ, the Nature of School Leadership

survey (NSL) developed by Leithwood and his associates (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2006)

and the LPI--were based on a more comprehensive conception of transformational

leadership than those which used the remaining instruments.

15

Consistent with transformational leadership theory, the body of evidence in the third

review demonstrated strong effects of such leadership on teachers’ emotions and beliefs.

Among the 56 analyses performed by the studies included in the review, 35 (63%)

demonstrated positive effects, 10 (18%) mixed effects and 10 (18%) non-significant

effects. The results of this review warranted a relatively high degree of certainty about

this claim as it applied to teacher commitment and job satisfaction. These were the

teacher emotions about which there was most evidence, almost all of it either positive or

mixed. While there was less evidence about TSL effects on teachers’ beliefs about

leaders’ effectiveness and teachers’ sense of empowerment, this evidence also reported

either positive or mixed TSL effects. There was only limited evidence about the other

teacher emotions or beliefs included in the review. There was also limited data to draw

any conclusions about the impact of transformational school leadership on teacher

practices.

This review identified eight school conditions researched by its 32 studies. The

majority of these studies (57%) reported only positive effects of transformational

leadership. Ten studies reported mixed results and one study resulted in non-significant

effects.

Nineteen studies provides evidence about TSL effects on five different types of

student outcomes-- achievement, attendance, college-going rates, dropout rates, and

graduation rates (Table 4). In this review, evidence about TSL effects on student

achievement was thin. This evidence does suggests, however, that studies using research

designs incorporating measures of both moderating and mediating variables, along with

16

the use of sophisticated statistical modeling, are much more likely to contribute to an

understanding of how TSL influences student achievement.

In summary, these three reviews have contributed to the development of TSL in

educational contexts and mapped out and synthesized the effects of TSL on a large array

of school, teacher and student outcomes. These reviews have provided a classification

system or framework guiding the data organization, data coding and organization of

analysis for this meta-analytic review. Due to their vote-counting method, however, these

reviews did not have the strength to assess the magnitudes and robustness of these effects

and how research design and the like influenced the effects. Also they were not able to

draw firm conclusions when facing conflicting findings. This present review will address

these issues by employing a meta-analytic approach.

Chin’s (2007) Review

Chin (2007) meta-analyzed the overall relationship between transformational school

leadership and three measures of school outcomes. The sample for this review was 28

unpublished studies collected from the United States and Taiwan. This review found that:

1) in terms of the mean effect sizes, TSL had positive and very large effects on teacher

job satisfaction (weighted mean r = .71), school effectiveness (.70) and student

achievement (.49). School levels and locations (U.S. vs. Taiwan) were found to be

significant moderators of TSL effects. The correlation between TSL and three school

outcomes was significantly higher in the U.S. than in Taiwan. The correlation between

TSL and teacher job satisfaction and school effectiveness were significantly higher in

elementary schools than in secondary schools while the correlation between TSL and

student achievements was lower in elementary schools than in secondary schools. The

17

limitations of this study are associated with a small sample, a focus on studies that use

only one type of TSL measure (i.e., MLQ), a limited number of outcome variables

examined and a focus on overall effects alone.

Reviews of research in non-school contexts

In non-educational contexts, five meta-analyses of transformational leadership

research have been published (e.g., Dumdum, Lowe & Aviolo, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Compared with the comprehensive

reviews conducted by Leithwood and his colleagues, these reviews are much more

focused and less overarching, but provide more statistically robust claims due to the use

of meta-analytic methods.

Gasper (1992)

Gasper’s (1992) study is a very early review of transformational leadership research

which sought to advance the understanding of this type of leadership by integrating all

available sources of research on it. The integrative review approach it employed involves

the analysis of data derived from qualitative and quantitative studies. The studies

reviewed in this review research included all sources of evidence that were available,

including journal articles, books, documents, unpublished doctoral dissertations, and any

other sources that could be traced through networks. The sample for this review consisted

of seven qualitative studies and 29 quantitative studies, the majority of which were

conducted in non-educational contexts. The results of the meta-analysis of the

quantitative data based on 24 synthesizeable studies indicated that transformational

leadership is preferred to a greater extent than transactional leaders by subordinates. It is

associated with higher levels of perceived leader effectiveness, follower satisfaction with

18

the leaders and a greater willingness to put forth extra effort on the part of the

subordinates. For both demonstrated leadership and preferred leadership, the effect sizes

in the between-groups variance for military versus non-military groups and for United

States versus other countries both proved significant. For the effects of transformational

leadership on satisfaction and extra efforts, organization type (i.e., military versus non-

military) proved to be the significant moderator. The moderating effects of organizational

type on the effects of transformational leadership on effectiveness was not significant.

The limitations of this review are associated with the small number of

synthesizeable studies available due to the early date when this research was conducted.

It based its analysis on a mixed sample of studies that were conducted in a variety of

organizations with a variety of subjects and did not differentiate the sources of the

sampled studies (e.g., published and unpublished). These issues reduce the validity of the

study. Also, it focused on only the overall effects of transformational leadership as

measured by MLQ.

Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam (1996)

Lowe and his colleagues’ (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996) meta-analytic

review covered 39 studies up to 1995 using the MLQ. These studies were published in

journals and books. As well, some studies were unpublished dissertations, conference

proceedings and working papers. This review tested the nature of transformational

leadership using a 5-factor model (Charisma, Individualized Consideration, Intellectual

Stimulation, Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception), its overall effects and

moderators of the relationship between leader behaviors and various conceptions of

“effectiveness”. Regarding the nature of transformational leadership, measurement of

19

leadership behaviors displayed sufficient internal consistency (reliability) for four of the

five scales with only Management-by-Exception below the normally accepted value of

.70. Transformational leadership scales of the MLQ significantly predicted work unit

effectiveness across the set of studies examined. This review suggested the following

moderator variables: level of the leader in the organization’s hierarchy (high or low),

organizational setting (public or private), and operationalization of the criterion measure

(subordinate perceptions or organizational measures of effectiveness). Results of the

review suggested that: transformational leadership behaviors and leaders’ management

were more commonly observed in public organizations than in private organizations;

lower-level leaders practice more transformational leadership; the type of organization

(private vs. public) and the type of criterion used to measure effectiveness (subordinates’

perception vs. organizational measures) are powerful moderators influencing the effects

of MLQ scales on leader effectiveness.

Dumdum, Lowe and Aviolo’s (2002) review

Dumdum, Lowe and Aviolo’s (2002) meta-analytic review was an update and

extension of the work of Lowe et al. (1996). These researchers examined all research

using the MLQ that was not included in the Lowe et al. (1996) review covering both

published and unpublished research dating from 1995 to 2002. This meta-analysis

inquired into the nature of transformational leadership using a 12-dimensional model, its

effects or consequences on two criterion variables (performance effectiveness and

satisfaction), and the moderating influences of type of organizations and type of criterion

measures on these effects. The researchers found that all transformational scales had

internal consistency reliabilities exceeding 0.70 (above the conventional level for

20

acceptance). All transformational leadership scales were highly and positively correlated

with the effectiveness (consistent with their previous review) and satisfaction criteria;

Contingent Reward tended to have the same positive relationship with performance

effectiveness and satisfaction (consistent with their previous review). Regarding the

moderators, the relationships for Public vs. Private sector organization were higher for

Attributed Charisma (consistent with their previous review) while relationships reported

for the other three transformational dimensions were higher in private organizations

(inconsistent with their previous review); a significant between-study difference existed

in the corrected correlation coefficient for Management-by-Exception (an exception

comparing the two meta-analyses); and transformational leadership scales were more

highly correlated with satisfaction with the leader than with satisfaction with the job and

were associated with subjective effectiveness (a type of criterion, still a moderator

consistent with the researchers’ previous review).

Results of the two Lowe meta-analyses together suggest that transformational

leadership can be a promising form of leadership in public schools and that management

can be an important dimension of transformational school leadership. This is consistent

with Leithwood and his colleagues’ arguments that more specific leadership behaviors

critical to the management dimension of school leadership need to be identified

(Leithwood et al., 1996). This need is reflected in their later work (Leithwood & Jantzi,

2005) which included a substantive revision of transformational leadership on the

management dimension. These two reviews also suggest that school types and measures

of outcomes are potential moderators on the relationship between transformational school

leadership and school outcomes. The limitations of Lowe et al (1996) and Dumdum et

21

al’s (2002) reviews are associated with: 1) small samples, 2) source bias (not exploring

the potential moderating effects of the published/unpublished dichotomy), 3) limited

generalizability of conclusions due to the single construct analyzed (MLQ), and 4) the

limited number of moderators considered.

Judge and Piccolo (2004)

Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) covered 87 studies including both published journal

articles (68) and unpublished dissertations and data sets dating from 1995 to 2004. This

review inquired into the nature of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

leadership and their effects in terms of relative validities using the MLQ full-range model.

The researchers found that: consistent with the two previous meta-analytic reviews,

transformational leadership and contingent reward leadership displayed the strongest and

also the most consistent correlations across the leadership criteria (i.e., follower job

satisfaction, follower leader satisfaction, follower motivation, leader job performance,

group or organization performance, and rated leader effectiveness). In this review,

transformational leadership appeared to display stronger relationships with criteria that

reflect follower satisfaction and motivation than with criteria that reflect performance

(consistent with the other two previous meta-correlation reviews); laissez-faire leadership

had relatively strong and negative estimated true score correlations with follower

satisfaction with the leader (-.58) and leadership effectiveness (-.54); and there were

hierarchical augmentation effects of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire

leadership.

Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) meta-review also investigated whether validities varied

depending on four moderators: research design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal),

22

independence of data sources (same source vs. different source), study setting (business,

college, military, or public sector), and level of leadership (supervisory level vs. mid- to

upper-level). Transformational leadership had a higher validity in cross-sectional than in

longitudinal studies and a higher validity when both leadership and criteria were

measured by the same rather than by different sources. The same results were true for

contingent reward. The validity of transformational leadership appeared to generalize

across study setting while contingent reward appeared to have a stronger validity in a

business setting than in college, military, or the public sectors. The level of the leader

considered in a study did not affect the validities for transformational leadership or

contingent reward.

Unlike the other two meta-analyses, Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) study posited that

although transformational leadership has augmentation effects beyond the other two

leadership styles, those effects are substantially weakened when controlling for their

mutual influences, and that there are high correlations between transformational and

contingent reward (.80) and with laissez-faire leadership (-.65) and transactional

leadership. These positions challenge Bass’ arguments that these three types of leadership

have unique effects. The overall validity of transformational leadership according to

Lowe et al. (.73) is 65.9%, higher than the overall validity presented by Judge and

Piccolo (.44). Although the potential moderating effects of different types of criteria, the

number of factors of MLQ scales used, and samples of different periods may explain

some inconsistencies between previous meta-analytic reviews, these inconsistencies set

the stage for the future analysis of transformational leadership research. My study

23

addressed these issues by investigating comparable statistics in the educational context

and comparing the findings of educational and business settings.

Underdue Murph (2005)

Underdue Murph’s (2005) study sought to unpack the dynamic relationship

between transformational leadership, worker outcomes, and organisational outcomes.

This quantitative review was based on 10 studies retrieved from various sources, both

published and unpublished, which were conducted in both public and private sector

organizations undergoing organizational change. Organizational setting (public vs.

private sector) was the moderator tested in the study. The study found that

transformational leadership had significant, positive, fairly large effects on worker job

satisfaction in public organizations but not in private organizations, rather large effects on

worker commitment in both public and private sector organizations, moderate effects on

organisational success in both the private and public sector, and small but significant

effects on worker productivity from both public and private organizations. Its relationship

with organization outcomes was also significant. This study also suggests that particular

transformational leadership behaviours (i.e., idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) are not significantly different

from each other: they are part of the same overall construct of transformational

leadership.

The limitations of this review include the small sample (only 10 studies), the lack

of ability to make coherent comparisons based on various measures of transformational

leadership, and failure to attend to publication bias due to a very limited sample. (It did

not differentiate published studies from unpublished studies). My study will use a larger

24

sample, test the moderating effects of TSL measures, and group studies based on a

sophisticated classification of the outcome variables.

In sum, previous reviews of TL research have mapped a large array of school

outcomes on which TSL has significant impacts. They shed light on a framework for

looking at the effects of transformational leadership systematically, which will be

discussed in detail in the next section. Previous reviews also suggest that contextual and

methodological factors may moderate the TSL effects examined and reported by the

original studies. The limitations of previous reviews are mainly associated with small

samples and vote-counting methods. Also, the reviews that were based on published

studies also tend to have “publication bias” as research that yields significant results is

more likely to be published. Many of these limitations have informed the design of this

study. The present research, from a meta-analytic approach, makes a systematic inquiry

into the nature and effects of transformational leadership behaviors, computes the

magnitudes of the relationship between them, explains ‘conflicting’ results, tests the

robustness of the claims made by the previous reviews, and addresses the other

limitations associated with the previous reviews.

Framework Guiding the Review

As suggested by the previous reviews, the concept of TSL has been developed by

different scholars and was conceptualized by including a variety of leadership practices.

Besides looking at their aggregated effects, these different practices should be

synthesized into key practices and looked at individually. It is also better not to group

them into more abstract constructs when examining their specific effects. The nature of

TSL in the present study was investigated firstly by unpacking all leadership dimensions

25

included, in and measured by, various transformational leadership scales used by the

studies/samples. Then these behaviors were consolidated and synthesized into core

leadership practices cutting across various leadership models. These core, specific

leadership practices, not abstract aggregated leadership practice sets, were used to meta-

analyze the impacts of individual TSL practices on various outcomes in subsequent

analyses.

The consequences or outcomes of transformational school leadership were

classified as various school outcomes, teacher-related outcomes and student outcomes, as

was suggested by two previous reviews (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood & Sun,

2009). School outcomes include such important school conditions as school culture and

shared decision-making processes. Teacher-related outcomes include individual teachers’

inner states such as teacher commitment, group teachers’ inner states such as collective

teacher efficacy, and teacher practices such as their organizational citizenship behaviors.

Student outcomes mainly consist of student achievements but also include such outcomes

as attendance, graduation rates, and college-going rates. This outcome variable

classification system served as a starting framework for coding and organizing the results

of the sampled studies. It also helped group the subsequent data analysis and served as a

structure around which the results of this review research were organized in response to

the research questions.

To analyze the effects of TSL on student outcomes, the effect sizes reported by

the original studies were grouped based on whether they examined direct or indirect

effects. Studies using direct designs examined the relationship between TSL and student

achievement only, while indirect effects designs also included either mediating or

26

moderating variables (Leithwood & Sun, 2009). For examining the indirect effects, the

original studies and the corresponding effect sizes they reported were classified into three

categories:

• studies that incorporated moderating variables,

• studies that incorporated mediating variables, and

• the studies that incorporated both types of variables.

This classification was informed by a previous review (Leithwood & Sun, 2009),

which revealed this pattern when mapping empirical research in this area. It is also

Hallinger and Heck’s (1996) claim that, “although it is theoretically possible that

principals do exert some direct effect on students’ learning, the linkage between principal

leadership and student learning (as measured by school outcomes) is inextricably tied to

the actions of others in the school” (p. 24). Drawing on previous reviews and a theoretical

framework proposed by Pitner (1988 in Hallinger & Heck, 1996), Hallinger and Heck

(1996) reviewed the studies of the principal’s role in school effectiveness, which fell into

four conceptual and methodological categories: effects without antecedent variables

(Model A), effects with antecedent variables (Model A1), mediated effects without

antecedent variables (Model B), and mediated effects with antecedent variables (Model

B1). Model A1 studies hinted at the possibility of antecedent effects on principal

leadership; Model B studies further suggested that principal leadership may indirectly

affect school outcomes. Positive indirect effects of principal leadership that emerged

from the studies using an indirect design reflect the stronger conceptual underpinnings of

the research and a more promising direction for future research examining the complex

role and influence of principals. In Hallinger and Heck’s (1996) work, "antecedent" may

27

refer to the administrator variable standing as both a dependent and independent variable:

as a dependent variable, it is subject to the influence of other variables within the school

and its envelopment; as an independent variable, it influences the actions of teacher,

school and student outcomes. My study focuses on the effects TSL rather than the effects

of antecedents or their effects on school outcomes through leadership. Correspondingly,

my study examines the moderated relationship. In Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2005) review,

moderators were defined as unalterable characteristics of the leaders’ colleagues (e.g.

teacher age, years of teaching experience), of the leaders (e.g., leader gender), of students

(e.g., SES), and of organizational structures (e.g., school size, location). Given the

orientation of this review, I chose not to include the discussion of antecedents.

To clarify, the following briefly describes the meanings of "mediating variables"

and "moderating variables" as these terms are used in this study when referring to the

variables examined and/or controlled in the original studies included in this review.

• Mediating Variables (Mediators)

Mediating variable X2 is an intervening variable; if X1 causes X2, which in

turn leads to Y, then X2 is the mediator. In other words, X1 may influence Y

through its effects on X2. (see Warner, 2008)

• Moderating Variables (Moderators)

Moderating variable X2 is said to moderate the relationship between X1 and Y

if the slope to predict Y from X1 differs significantly across groups that are

formed by looking at scores on the X2 control variable. In this case, we can

also say that X1 and X2 show an interaction as predictors of Y. (see Warner,

2008)

28

A further clarification about moderating variables needs to be made. In this study,

"moderators" can be of two types. One is the kind of moderating variables examined

and/or controlled in the original studies included in this review, as defined above. The

other is the kind of moderating variables involved in meta-analysis. In meta-analysis,

moderating variables are features of the sample studies that moderate the effects

examined and reported by the original studies included in the meta-analysis. These

moderating variables correspond to two general areas: contextual information related to

where the original research was conducted such as school level and school type, and

methodological features related to the study design such as variable measures. Potential

differences in leadership effects as represented by the values of effect sizes may be

related to these contextual and/or methodological factors. In my study, these were called

"moderators", in that they moderate the effects of TSL on examined outcome variables.

This review research examines the moderating effects of three factors: school level,

school type and leadership measure by employing standard meta-analysis. The choice of

these moderators was informed by previous studies as reviewed in the last section, but

was also determined by the data available for my study. This will be illustrated in detail

in the next chapter on methodology. Bear in mind that, in this study, "moderating

variables" may refer to different types of variables when used in different contexts.

Although there are different types of moderating variables referred to in this study, in

nature they are the same thing: variables that moderate the relationship of interest. They

can be the features of the subjects or contexts involved and controlled in the original

studies, or they can be the study features examined when reviewing and meta-analyzing

the results of those original studies.

29

In sum, this study identifies key TSL practices and examines TSL effects as

organized and classified into an effect system based on the nature of outcome variables

(see Figure 1). This effect classification consists of the effects on: a) school conditions, b)

teacher-related outcomes including individual inner states and emotions, group inner

states and teacher practices, and c) student-related outcomes. This study examines direct

and indirect effects of TSL separately. The indirect effects of TSL on student learning are

examined by classifying the original studies by those which control a) mediating

variables, b) moderating variables, and c) both types of variables. By doing so, this study

attempts to integrate a body of research into a coherent conceptual framework to better

understand the complex role of principal leadership in influencing schools, teachers and

students.

Figure 3.1 Framework for reviewing transformational school leadership research

T SL

e .g ., S h a re d V is io n

In te lle c tu a l S t im u la t io n

In d iv id u a liz e d S u p p o r t

F o s te r in g C o lla b o r a t io n

In s tru c t io n a l M a n a g e m e n t

S ch oo l P ro ce s s e s

e .g ., S h a re d M is s io n

S c h o o l C u ltu re

T ea c h e r s

T e a c h e r In n e r S ta te s (e .g ., S a tis fa c t io n )

T e a c h e r G ro u p S ta te s (e .g ., C o lle c t iv e E f f ic a c y )

T e a c h e r P ra c t ic e ( e .g ., O rg a n iz a tio n C it iz e n s h ip B e h a v io u r )

S tu d en ts

30

Chapter Three: Methodology

As more empirical studies emerge, reviews are necessary and important for to

representing the current state of knowledge, for the accumulation or production of

knowledge and for providing resources for policy making. Reviews can take a variety of

forms and they are structured by different interpretations of the role of the reviewer in

relation both to the field of research and to that of practice (Foster & Hammersley, 1998).

At least three different approaches to evidence about leadership and its effects are

reflected in previous reviews of research--eclectic, comparative and focused (Leithwood

& Sun, 2009). In terms of methods used for synthesis, reviews can take the form of

narrative reviews, vote counting reviews and, more recently, meta-analytical reviews. To

maximize the findings of particular studies that are of value to practitioners and policy-

makers, there has been a movement by governments to encourage everyone to base their

practices on the best available evidence. So practitioners and policy-makers alike have

been encouraged actively to question their current policies and practices, to review the

evidence on which their rationales have been based, and to determine if there are

different practices which are better supported by the available evidence in such countries

as the U.K., the U.S., and New Zealand (Evans & Benefield, 2001). An increasing

number of scholars (e.g., Hargreaves, 1996; Hemsley-Brown, & Sharp (2004) have been

arguing for the use of systematic reviews to meet this aim of the movement. The key

features of a systematic review include addressing explicit research questions,

documenting the methods used for literature searching, carrying out exhaustive searches,

establishing explicit criteria for assessing the quality of studies, establishing explicit

criteria for including or excluding studies, and using a consistent approach to combining

31

results (Evans & Benefield, 2001). Rigorous assessments and synthesis of reported

findings are a crucial part of this process for producing knowledge. Meta-analysis is a

most highly recommended synthesis method because of its solid statistical foundations

and standard synthesis techniques.

Systematic reviews of leadership research in the field of educational

administration are rare. In particular, there are only a few examples of meta-analytical

reviews. Narrative reviews are good at providing content summary and eliciting the

reviewer’s insights but not as good at summarizing studies that have conflicting results.

Vote counting reviews advance upon narrative review by counting the numbers of studies

to identify patterns. But still they retain source of the weaknesses of traditional narrative

reviews, in particular, difficulty in explaining conflicting results and assessing the

magnitude of relationships. Meta-analysis makes a large advance in this regard, by

systematically reviewing studies while applying statistical methods to analyze the results

reported by the original studies, which yields insights and results that are not obtainable

by pure conceptualization of human minds. With this strength, however, current meta-

analysis is subject to the criticism such that it uses much ink to explain the technical

science with standard procedures and rigid statistical calculations and testing, and

therefore loses the vivid description of a landscape which most people can understand

more easily and instinctively.

This review mainly employed systematic meta-analysis, which was

complemented by narrative review and vote-counting methods. The rigorous, exhaustive

search, sampling, and coding procedures involved in meta-analysis provided a rich and

solid foundation for data analysis. The narrative review method was used mainly to

32

answer the first research question (i.e., synthesizing and identifying core TSL leadership

practices) and also to report content analysis when appropriate. The vote-counting

method was used to map out the themes of TSL impacts on a large array of school,

teacher and student outcomes and to point to the areas where meta-analyses were needed.

Standard meta-analysis techniques were used to assess the magnitude of each of the

effects, and to explore and test differences in effect sizes caused by contextual or research

methodological factors of the original studies. Thus, by incorporating the strengths of the

three review methods, this study aims to provide a landscape of research on TSL. The

following section will first provide an overview of meta-analysis, and then describe in

detail the methodological procedures used in this study.

Development of Meta-analysis

If Karl Pearson’s 1904 collection of correlation coefficients to determine the

extent to which inoculation against smallpox was related to survival can be counted

(Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001), meta-analysis has been in existence for more than a

hundred years. However, Pearson’s approach was quite different from what was

developed later and it was not until the latter two decades of the twentieth century that

meta-analysis became popular in fields such as biomedicine, the behavioural sciences,

psychology, behavioural medicine and other areas. Glass and Smith’s (1997) work

measuring the magnitude of the relationship between psychotherapy and an outcome

using the entire literature on its outcomes and Glass’s (1976) AERA presidential address

marked the beginning of the meta-analytic movement in psychology (Rosenthal &

DiMatteo, 2001). Since then, the methods for meta-analysis have been developed and

advanced by Cooper (1989), Light and Pillemer (1984), Rosenthal (1991), Hunter and

33

Schmidt (1990) and others (Rosenthal, 1991). The development of meta-analytic

techniques came in response to rapidly expanding bodies of research along with

considerable conflicting evidence in many fields such as medicine and TV show analysis.

Meta-analysis helps to address these challenges by:

• allowing the combining of numerical results from a few or many studies,

• allowing the accurate estimate of descriptive statistics,

• allowing the explanation of inconsistencies as well as the discovery of

moderators and mediators in bodies of research findings,

• allowing researchers to arrive at conclusions that are more accurate and

more credible than can be presented in any one primary study or in an

non-quantitative, narrative review, and

• allowing researchers to see the larger “landscape or distribution of results

rather than limiting their view to the results of individual studies

(Rosenthal & Dimatteo, 2001).

Compared with traditional qualitative reviews, meta-analytic procedures display

the landscape of a research domain (Rosenthal & Dimatteo, 2001); not only summarize

results but also classify and summarize study characteristics such as methodological,

procedural, and theoretical variables (Strube & Hartmann, 1983). Meta-analytic reviews

keep statistical significance in perspective, minimize wasted data, become intimate with

the data summarised, ask focused research questions, and find moderator variables

(Rosenthal & Dimatteo, 2001). Other claimed advantages of meta-analysis include

theory-building (Cook & Leviton, 1980), testing the plausibility of hypotheses that have

not been tested in single studies, “constructing” variables and testing their relationship to

34

study outcomes, and predicting study outcomes using statistical procedures such as

regression analysis (Strube & Hartmann, 1983).

Nowadays, meta-analysis is a very popular method in almost all areas of natural and

social sciences and in medical science. In the Social Science database alone, as of

January 2007, there were 43,659 records containing the word "meta-analysis." (If a

variety of key words were used such as "meta analysis", "secondary analysis", and

"quantitative reviews", this number would increase substantially). Limiting the database

to educational contexts, there were 9186 records found in the four educational on-line

data bases (i.e. E-Journals @ Scholars Portal, Education: A SAGE Full-Text Collection,

Educational Administration Abstracts, and ERIC). However, in the Educational

Administration Abstract index where the study of educational administration and

leadership dominates, there were only five entries, only one of which (Witziers, Bosker &

Kruger, 2003) dealt with leadership.

The inability to use meta-analysis in earlier reviews in an educational context may

have been due to the infant development of meta-analytical methodology. Also, there

may have been an insufficient number of studies consistent in research design that would

permit meta-analysis. As time has gone by, however, more advanced meta-analysis

theories and techniques have been developed and there has been an accumulation of more

than a hundred studies of transformational leadership. My study will fill a gap by

conducting a meta-analysis in this area.

Methodological Procedures

Scholars generally agree upon the basic meaning of "meta-analysis” as referring to

the quantitative synthesis of empirical study results and as being a methodology for

35

systematically examining a body of research. Nonetheless, there remains considerable

variation among scholars in selecting and sampling research studies, combining data,

calculating effect sizes, and exploring moderators and mediators to explain the effects of

interest. For example, to Rosenthal, the term "meta-analysis" broadly refers to the use of

statistical techniques either to combine or compare effect size measures or probability

levels from either two studies or more than two studies. Glass (1976), however, defines

meta-analysis by emphasizing objective methods of finding studies for a review, the

calculation of the effect sizes (not just statistical significance), and the use of statistical

techniques to relate study features to study outcomes. As well, large collections of studies

that can be included in meta-analytic reviews.

Regarding the calculations of the mean of effect size of correlation coefficients r,

Shadish and Haddockarg (1994) have argued that few statisticians would advocate the

use of untransformed correlations unless sample sizes are very large because standard

errors, confidence intervals, and homogeneity tests can be quite different. Hunter and

Schmidt (1990) have argued that the average z transformation is positively biased, so they

have prefered combining correlations without z transformation. In spite of these

differences, a common understanding of the major components or steps involved in

conducting meta-analysis include:

�� Exhaustive searching for related literature & selecting a body of studies to

be analyzed using appropriate inclusion criteria;

�� Systematically coding the characteristics of studies, effect sizes and the

related statistics;

36

�� Calculating the mean effect size;

�� Homogeneity analysis and heterogeneity analysis of the effect size

distribution variances;

�� Description, interpretation and the report of findings.

Which specific technique and treatment to adopt in each of the steps listed above

when conducting meta-analysis is very much determined by the nature and the number of

samples obtained, the field to which they are applied and the hypothesis tested. It is also

influenced by the characteristics of the studies included, the potential moderators

identified and their interactions with the effect sizes and the judgement of the meta-

analysis on these aspects. The following sections will explain these components, one by

one, as they relate to the conduct of my study.

Source of Evidence

The evidence reviewed in this study was provided exclusively by unpublished

theses or dissertations. The choice of this source of evidence was made by taking into

account and responding to four things: minimizing publication bias, reducing the mix of

studies of different qualities, mining insights from ignored and as-yet-to-be published

research, and maximizing the inclusiveness of the research. While there are many ways in

which a review of research literature, whether of a qualitative or quantitative nature, can

lead to erroneous or biased analyses or conclusions, one cause of biased conclusions is

biased samples. Both traditional narrative and meta-analytic reviews have potential

problems with their review samples. Slavin (1995) pointed out that “a constant problem

in all research synthesis is publication bias, also know as the ‘file-drawer’ problem” (p.

37

9). One of the major criticisms meta-analysis faces is that published research is biased in

favour of significant findings because nonsignificant findings are rarely published; this in

turn leads to biased meta-analysis results: “A study is often abandoned if it becomes

apparent that statistically significant findings will not be forthcoming. Reports of non-

significant findings are generally unpublishable even when they are replications of earlier

studies reporting significant results.” (Kraemer & Andrews, 1982, p. 405). Rosenthal has

called this the “file drawer problem” because of the tendency for studies supporting the

null hypothesis of no significant results to be buried away in file drawers. This may

enhance the likelihood of a type I publication bias error in finding more positive results

than is really the case were all studies to be located and included in reviews (Wolf, 1986).

The extreme view of this problem is that “the journals are filled with the 5% of the

studies that show Type I errors while the file drawers back at the lab are filled with the

95% of the studies that show nonsignificant (e.g., p > .05) results” (Rosenthal, 1979, p.

638). To address the bias in favour of significant results in published research studies

and to solve the problem of the published and unpublished dichotomy, both Slavin (1995)

and Wolf (1986) mentioned that one approach was to review results in books,

dissertations, unpublished papers presented at professional meetings, and the like, and

compare them to the results for published articles. Thus, the choice of unpublished

dissertations in this study reduces the publication bias to a minimum.

Another major persistent criticism of meta-analysis has to do with the mix of

studies included in a meta-analysis and a related and more troublesome issue is the

mixing of study findings of different methodological qualities in the same meta-analysis

(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Results of meta-analyses can be uninterpretable because results

38

from “poorly” designed studies are included along with results from “good” studies. This

criticism applies to traditional reviews as well, where the findings of “poorly” designed

studies are boxed together with “well” designed studies when counts of studies that found

significantly positive, non-significant, or significantly negative effects and so on are

summarised. “Some critics argue that a research synthesis should be based only on

findings from the highest quality studies and should not be degraded by inclusion of those

from methodologically flawed studies” (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 9). Leaving aside the

hot debate around what counts as a “good” study and the fact that there is relatively little

agreement among researchers on what constitutes methodological quality, published

articles, in a sense, by adhering to the fairly strict rules and high standards involved in the

peer review process, are justified as more likely to yield high quality evidence. However,

unpublished reports often are better designed than published ones, as Slavin (1995) has

commented: “[I]t may sometimes be easier to get a poorly designed study into a low

quality journal than to get it past a dissertation committee” (p. 14). Further to this, the

dark side of reviewing based on only the “best” evidence can be that its results may

summarize only a narrow research domain and have little generality. Therefore, Slavin

(1986; 1995), while arguing for best evidence synthesis and proposing the principle of

best evidence, suggested that some arbitrary limitations often placed on inclusion of

studies in traditional reviews make little sense and should be abandoned, perhaps the

most common being the elimination of dissertations and unpublished reports. Thus, it is

really up to the reviewer to decide, as Lipsey and Wilson (2001) have observed, how far

to go in including findings from studies that are judged interpretable but flawed, knowing

that relaxed methodological standards may result in a derisive reproach of “garbage in,

39

garbage out”, while stringent standards are likely to exclude much, or most, of the

available evidence on a topic. The body of unpublished dissertations or theses is

characterized by a fairly standard and defendable methodological quality as a result of the

passing of thesis committees. Admittedly, even within the population of thesis research,

the issue of methodological quality still exists. (Some are “good” theses while some are

not). I will address this issue in the inclusion criteria later in this section.

Thirdly, theses make up a substantial proportion of the whole population of

studies inquiring into any given hypothesis. Some of them may be published in journals

at a later time; some are not. Some may be presented at conferences and the findings of

some may be included in book chapters or reports. Thus, the body of unpublished

dissertations, as the original source from which various types of later literature stem,

maximizes the inclusiveness of the literature used in an analysis. “Exhaustive inclusion

does not completely solve the problem of publication bias, as studies with null findings

are still more likely to be missed, but it greatly reduces it” (Slavin, 1995, p. 10). In

addition, the body of unpublished dissertations is a source of data largely ignored by

previous reviews of transformational leadership effects and so may provide insights as

yet unreported in the published literature.

Search methods

The largest on-line database for doctoral dissertations, the Proquest Dissertation

& Theses, was searched for all dissertations that researched transformational leadership

in education with a completion time between 1996 and 2008. Full texts (as opposed to

abstracts) of several dissertations were not available through this on-line system. In this

case, I obtained hard copies of the majority of the these dissertations through an inter-

40

library loan service. Still, a few dissertations were not retrievable. This whole process

yielded an initial total of 137 theses available for further selection.

Selection criteria

This research aimed to include all theses that used quantitative research or mixed

methods and had the focus of interest. To achieve this, the inclusion criteria were set to

include all theses that 1) reported quantitative data; 2) investigated the relationship

between transformational leadership and at least one variable concerning school

conditions, teacher characteristics or practices, or student outcomes; 3) conducted at least

one of the following types of statistical analysis: correlation, regression, ANOVA, and T-

Test. I read the abstract and methodology sections of each thesis and selected 91 theses

that met these criteria. The studies that used purely qualitative research methods were

therefore excluded.

While achieving this exhaustiveness, I also took into account the quality of the

studies. There is a debate about the ‘quality’ issue for inclusion. While quality may

involve a variety of issues, one major concern with dissertations is sampling or sample

sizes since the other aspects of their research methods usually meet defensible standards.

Studies using small sample sizes for statistical inferential analyses may be more likely to

yield unreliable results and may add more errors or non-random variances to the

distributions of all population effects. Slavin (1995), using a simple example, illustrated

that one category of studies that may be excluded from some literature reviews is studies

with very small sample sizes since small samples are generally susceptible to unstable

effects. Based on a similar rationale, I excluded a few studies that used small samples

such as studies using mixed methods that involved doing surveys and case studies in one

41

or two schools, or studies that achieved only a few participants in each selected school

(i.e. the sample in some cells was too small). No theses were eliminated based on other

aspects of research design. After this second screening, 79 dissertations were finally

selected for this review.

Study Coding

Study results coding

The following results as reported by the studies included in this review were

coded:

�� the dimensions of leadership instruments used,

�� the impact(s) of each dimension of leadership models used,

�� the impacts of overall leadership measured by using leadership aggregated scores,

�� the effect sizes representing the correlational relationship between TSL and

school, teacher or student outcome variables,

�� the types of outcome variables classified according to their natures (e.g., teachers’

internal states, teachers’ overt practices, teachers’ group internal states, etc.)

If a study reported both results based on individual teacher-level analyses

(teachers as units) as well as on the aggregated school level (schools as units), the

records were based on the latter, the school-level analyses. If a study reported both

results based on teachers’ ratings as well as on principals’ ratings, the records were

based on the teachers.

42

Effect Size Coding

Pearson r was the effect size (ES) statistic used to represent the research findings

to be meta-analyzed. This choice was based on the nature of the research questions this

study explored and the nature of the relationships those research questions entailed. This

study explores the effects of transformational leadership on school and teacher variables

and student outcomes. In other words, this study analyzed findings that deal with the

covariation or association between two variables. In such cases, the effect size index used

in meta-analysis is usually the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient and its

variants (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The value of the effect size r and its akin types (e.g.,

Pearson r, Spearman r) were coded. In particular, the following rules for effect size

coding were applied in this study:

• Record the ES value if a Pearson correlation r is reported

• Record Regression R or R2 values if correlation r is not reported

when the regression has only one predictor.

• Record the type, values and related statistical information of ES if

it is not a Pearson correlation r. This information was used to calculate rs.

• If a study provides two or three correlation coefficients through the

individual level analysis as well as aggregated school level analysis, then

record the rs resulting from the latter

• Code whether the effect size is significant or not and indicate at

what level (i.e. 1 = not significant; 2 = <. 01; 3 = <.05).

43

• If a thesis contains two studies, for instance, one at the elementary

school level and the other at the secondary school level, then treat the two

studies as two separate cases and record them as two cases.

Sample size coding

I recorded sample sizes of the studies for calculating inverse variance weight ω’.

This value is required to calculate the weighted mean of effect sizes as a way to eliminate

sampling error. If a study contained two or more samples (e.g. principals and teachers), I

recorded the number of analysis units as the sample size and recorded the corresponding r

generated from the number of the analysis units. If the study performed analyses based on

more than one type of analysis units (i.e., school-level and individual teacher-level), I

recorded the sample size of that study based on the numbers associated with the schools.

Effect Size Conversion

If various statistics other than Pearson r were reported by the original studies,

such as t or F as the results of statistical analyses such as T-test or ANOVA, then ES r’s

were calculated based on the converting formulae provided by Fox and Tracy (1986, p.

35) when the related statistics available or reported by the original studies permitted me

to do so. If there was only one predictor in the regression analysis, the proportion of

variance explained as denoted by R2 was used to calculate r.

Reliability coding

I recorded the reliabilities of both independent variables and dependant variables.

The information on these reliabilities could come from three sources. It could be: 1)

empirically calculated and reported by the study, 2) cited from the original work of the

author(s) who developed the measures, 3) calculated by the researcher of this review

44

based on whatever information was available. This recorded information was used to

determine whether adjustments for attenuation of ES could be applied to eliminate effects

of errors of measurement.

Study Characteristics Coding

In addition to collecting the information necessary for calculating effect sizes and

weights (e.g., correlation coefficients between leadership practices and mediating

variables such as teacher commitment and sample sizes), a number of other

characteristics that correspond to two general areas were coded: contextual information

related to the research conducted, and methodological variables related to the study

design. Both categories of variables were considered as potential moderators in order to

explore the moderating effects of these factors on the mean effect size results.

Contextual variables. Contextual variables helped examine potential differences

in effect size related to the contexts in which the leadership research was conducted.

Findings from previous reviews and preliminary analysis of the availability of this sort of

data reported by the studies included in this review suggested two variables for

exploration:

• School type

• School level

School type includes the four categories of public schools, private schools,

secondary vocational schools, and mixed sample schools. School level includes three

categories: elementary schools, secondary schools and mixed sample schools.

Methodological Variables. Initially, the methodological variables I planned to

examine in this study include the following:

45

• Type of research sampling (e.g., random sampling, all population)

• Organization and/or participant response rate

• Model of leadership measurement as represented by leadership

instrument (e.g., Bass’ MLQ, Leithwood et al’s NSL)

After coding, however, I found that there were not enough data reported by the sampled

studies for performing any of the moderating tests except for those related to leadership

instrument. For example, initially I recorded and coded the sampling strategies and return

rate of each study, but found later that a substantial amount of studies did not state

whether the sampling was random or not. In some cases, the achieved returned rate was

not reported. I intended to investigate the moderating effects of this aspect of study (types

of sampling) initially but dropped later due to insufficient information. In the end, only

the leadership instrument used for measuring TSL, as a variable of the methodological

kind, was selected and used to test its moderating effect on the relationship between TSL

and outcome variables.

Characteristics of the Final Database Used for this Review

Seventy-nine of the original 137 theses met all of the criteria above. These studies

were conducted primarily in North America, but also in England, Hong Kong, Korea, the

Philippines and Tanzania. Most were conducted in a range of rural, urban and suburban

public schools. A small number took place in private schools, Catholic schools, or

vocational schools. 29 studies were carried out in elementary schools, 28 in middle or

high schools, and 21 in a mixed sample of schools. One study contained two separate

studies that were carried out in elementary and secondary schools respectively. The

achieved samples in these studies ranged from 6 to 214 schools, 39 to 319 principals, and

46

90 to 1236 teachers. The quality of these studies is generally good in terms of meeting

defensible standards for various aspects of research designs (at least for obtaining the

approval of a thesis committee). Most of the studies used the instruments that were

reported to have high reliabilities by the original instrument developers. Most of the

studies that reported actual instrument reliabilities achieved a Chronbach alpha reliability

coefficient of .70 (considered to be acceptable or reliable according to conventional

standards) or higher for both leadership and outcome measures.

Among the more than 200 analyses, most of them mainly used correlation and

reported correlation coefficients. Much less frequently used statistical procedures were

regression, ANOVA, T-Test, and R2. In general, the impacts of transformational

leadership on various school and student outcomes reviewed in this chapter are

correlational in nature.

Data Analysis

Narrative Synthesis

The narrative synthesis method was used in this study to review and conceptually

compare all TSL models and the leaderships instruments used to derive, synthesize and

identify core TSL leadership practices (i.e., answering the first research question). It was

also used to provide content analysis for synthesizing outcome measures and

subsequently for grouping outcome variables and classifying TSL impacts when

appropriate. The third way that narrative synthesis was used was for highlighting typical

results of the original studies and providing narrative reviews of study results

complementing the meta-analysis. Finally, this method was used in the discussion of TSL

47

impacts on student outcomes with studies that did not report related data that could be

meta-analyzed

TSL impacts were classified by grouping impacts on similar variables or constructs

with different names together. That is, for example, in the category of TSL impacts on

school culture, there were studies that inquired into the leadership impacts on

organizational learning, school climate, and organizational culture. These three outcome

variables were treated as one specific variable and given the name of Org. Culture/Sch.

Climate/Org. Learning instead of treating it as three different variables.

Another measure I took when classifying and categorizing study results was to

unpack each outcome construct, looked at the dimensions or components of the scale for

measuring that construct, and pulled out the related results for that dimension or

component and grouped them around an existing variable in the review if it could be

equivalent to that dimension or component. For example, Yu’s (2000) study examined

leadership impacts on school working environment. The author used the Change Process

in Elementary Schools (Leithwood et. al., 1993 in Yu, 2000) survey instrument to

measure in-school working environment/organizational characteristics. “Questions

concerning organizational characteristics were designed to measure aspects of the culture,

school improvement strategies, school structure, and school resources” (Yu, 2000, p. 30).

Thus the first component of school condition is equivalent to organizational culture and I

recorded its related results under the category of TSL impacts on organizational

culture/school climate.

Synthesis Using a Vote-counting Method

A vote-counting method was used in this study in the following five ways to:

48

• report frequency of leadership aggregate and individual dimensions examined by

original studies included in this review,

• map out the themes of TSL impacts and identify the impact themes that have been

researched by two more studies that reported statistical data that permit to conduct

a meta-correlational analysis of the theme,

• provide preliminary analysis of study results, summarize distributions of studies

in terms of contextual and methodological features,

• determine the availability of data for the analysis of effect sizes and moderating

effects using meta-analytical approach, and

• identify areas for meta-analysis and thus prepared waves for next round of the

meta-analyses of selected TSL impacts.

When synthesizing study results using a vote-counting method, the following

categories were used to group study results. The result(s) of an analysis was recorded as

positive only when 1) the study reported positive effect(s) between an outcome variable’s

aggregated scores and the aggregated scores of transformational leadership, or 2) between

all dimensions of the outcome variable and leadership aggregated scores if the aggregated

scores of that outcome variable were not used, or 3) between outcome variable

aggregated scores and all leadership dimension scores if leadership aggregated scores

were not used. And, if one leadership dimension was found to have negative or no effects

on the aggregated scores of an outcome variable (in the case that no aggregated

leadership scores were used) or on even one dimension of that outcome variable (in the

case that no aggregated scores of the outcome variable were used by the study), the total

effects of leadership on that outcome variable were treated as mixed.

49

Meta-analysis: Effect Size Adjustment & Calculation

Standard meta-analysis techniques were used to assess the magnitude of each of the

effects, test differences in effect sizes associated with contextual or research

methodological factors of the original studies included in the review. The following texts

will illustrate key components involved in data analysis using meta-analytic techniques.

Effect Size Adjustments

The correlation coefficient is subject to three sources of error that can be

eliminated at the level of meta-analysis: sampling error, error of measurement, and range

variation (Hunter, Schmidt & Jackson, 1982). This study did the corrections of the

variance for sampling error. The correction for attenuation (error of measurement) was

attempted but eventually was not done because the application of the adjustment

procedure for unreliability did not improve the analytical results or reduce the variance as

expected in the trial examination of the effect size distribution concerning the TSL

impact on teacher commitment. As to the third source of error, range variation, the

samples of the studies included in this review were not restricted or deliberately selected

from a particular sub-population that were used to study a particular a group of school

principals that differed greatly in the range of values from the those of populations.

Therefore, there is no need to do a range correction.

Weighted effect size means: Reducing sampling error

Calculating weighted means is the best way to reduce sampling error (Hunter,

Schmidt & Jackson, 1982). Different studies have different sample sizes. From a

statistical perspective, “effect size values based on larger samples are more precise

estimates of the corresponding population value than those based on smaller samples

50

(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Therefore, the effect size of each study should carry a different

‘weight’ in the sample of research findings to be meta-analyzed. When calculating the

mean of the effect sizes, this needs to be taken into account. Although the optimum

weights are based on the standard error of the effect size, in practice, the standard error

for a given statistic is estimated from sample values using a formula derived from

statistical theory (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). This study followed this rule and used the

inverse variance weight ω (the inverse of the squared standard error value) to adjust the

value of each effect size ESi. That is, I used )3(1−N (Rosenthal, 1994, p. 238; Lipsey &

Wilson, 2001, 64) as the formula to calculate the inverse variance weight ω , i.e., rz

ω = n

– 3. Then the weighted mean effect size was calculated as:

∑∑=

i

iiESES

ωω )(

(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

Fisher z transformation of r

Another concern about r is that as the population value of r gets further and

further from zero, the distribution of r’s sampled from that population becomes more and

more skewed. This fact complicates the comparisons and combination of r’s (Rosenthal,

1994). So Fisher (1928, cited in Rosenthal, 1994) devised the transformation (Zr), which

is distributed nearly normally to address this complication. Some scholars agree with

Rosenthal, others do not. Among those who do not, for example, Hunter and Schmidt

(2003) suggest averaging the effect size r directly since Fisher z transformation will add

further bias to the estimates. Practically, these two kinds of treatments usually result in

very similar values of the mean of the effect size estimates since r ranges from 0 to 1 and

in such a small range, a non-linear line can be regarded as a linear line. In other words,

51

the mean of r, which is not of a linear function and cannot be added up directly

arithmetically is roughly equal to the mean of the adjusted r using log functions (Fisher z

transformation) since the non-linear function r can be transformed into linear functions

with the use of logarithms (i.e., Fisher z transformation). In this study I used the first

treatment and transformed the effect sizes (ES) to get the group of adjusted effect sizes

(ES’). I then averaged them to get the mean of the effect sizes. This is the way that most

scholars do this calculation. This study used the following formula to adjust ES (ri) and

then average them (Zi) to get the mean of the ES.

Zi = 1i

i

rr

−+

11

ln21

(Rosenthal, 1994)

Reliabilities adjustment: Eliminating error of measurement

Hunter et al. (1982) have provided methods for adjusting for the unreliablity of

measures (correction for attenuation). Their objective has been to permit the meta-analyst

to come as close as possible to estimating the magnitude of the relationship represented in

an effect size as it would appear under ideal research circumstances. They have

provided procedures to adjust for the unreliability of the variables and other adjustments.

Both Rosenthal (1984) and Green and Hall (1984) have argued against these procedures.

They have argued that the goal of getting an estimate of what effect size we might expect

to find in the best of all possible worlds is to teach us better what is, and this is not a

proper goal for a meta-analysis. Correction for unreliability alone can yield corrected

effect size correlations greater than 1.00 (Rosenthal, 1991). They have recommended

looking for correlates (referred to as moderating effects in my study) of effect sizes in

lieu of these procedures. Putting this debate aside, due to the fact that the information

required to apply most of these adjustments is often unavailable for all of or even for a

52

majority of the research studies coded for a meta-analysis, Lipsey and Wilson (2001)

have recommended that it is up to the meta-analyst to decide if it is better to adjust some

effect sizes while not adjusting others or to leave them all unadjusted under the rationale

that they are more comparable that way, even if they are less accurate.

In this study, I first coded or calculated the reliabilities for both dependant and

independent variables and got prepared for doing reliability adjustment. Cronbach α

coefficient was chosen as the reliability index since all the studies included in my review

based their discussion of reliability on this index. I used the following two formulas to

eliminate the effect of error of measurement in each study by correcting for attenuation:

yyxx

xyTU

rr

rr = (Hunter, Schmidt & Jackson, 1982, p. 79),

where TUr is the “ideal” corrected correlation, xyr is sample correlation, xxr is

the reliability of TSL measure (the measure of the independent variable), and yyr is the

reliability of the measure of the dependent variable.

In the case where stratum Cronbach α coefficients for each dimension of the

scale were reported, a composite reliability R com was calculated using the following

formulae:

R com =1- ])([

)]([2

mean

mean

rKKKKK−+

− α (Kline, 2005, p. 178)

where R com = the reliability of the composite, K = the number of components,

meanα = the mean reliability of the components, and meanr = the mean correlation between

components. If a study did not calculate or report the Cronbach α coefficients but

reported the inter correlations between components, the Cronbach α coefficients cited by

53

the author from the original studies in which the measures of TSL or outcome variables

were presented were used to calculate the composite reliability.

When the attenuation is corrected, the inverse variance weight must also be

adjusted. The correction for measurement unreliability increases the sampling error

variance and hence decreases the inverse variance weight. The adjustment can be applied

to standard error or directly to the inverse variance weights. This study used the latter

adjustment following the formula:

Adjusted ω‘ = ω (ryy) (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

I then tested how the adjustment for attenuation improved the analyses based on a

sub - sample of the review, the group of studies containing the greatest number of effect

sizes to be meta-analyzed for one leadership impact theme in my study. This was the

group of studies that examined the relationship between TSL and teacher commitment.

Reliability adjustment was firstly done on the dependent variables. Based on 23 studies

and 55 effect sizes, the total variances of the distribution denoted by Q in the

homogeneity tests increased from 200.97 to 454.91. In heterogeneity analyses, where the

moderating effects of study features (i.e., school type, school level, leadership

instruments) were tested, all findings remained the same, with both with-study variances

and between-study variances increasing by approximately 1 time in Fixed Effects Models

and remaining almost the same in Mixed Effects Models. The application of the

adjustment procedure for unreliability did not improve the analytical results but rather,

increased variances. The majority of the studies in this review did not report the actual

reliability of their variables, so I used the reliabilities reported by the studies which

developed the measurement instrument of the variables (in most cases, these reliabilities

54

were cited by the studies included in my review) or by other studies that used the same

measure. Also, in a couple of cases where even this information was not available, I used

the mean of the reliabilities of this group of studies. In two of the 23 studies, the

corrected effect sizes were greater than 1 and therefore were adjusted to .99. The use of

these estimated reliabilities and adjustments may have added to the heterogeneity of the

studies. Based on these results and the fact that the majority of the studies included in my

research did not report reliabilities, I decided not to apply the measurement reliability

adjustment procedure to the meta-analyses involved in my study. Instead, following

Rosenthal’s (1991) suggestion, I tested whether the measurements themselves had

moderating effects. (In my study these were called moderators). I tested the moderating

effects of the measures of the independent variables, i.e. leadership measures since the

way that various conceptualizations or models of leadership moderates the leadership

effects themselves is the interest of this study. If their reliabilities were adjusted, the

pattern of difference would be lost. This test of the moderating effects of leadership

instruments or models enhanced the validity of this study.

Due to the uneven distribution of outcome variable measures used, moderating

tests were not done on the dependent variable measures. The measures of outcome

variables used in the studies included in my review were often either too scattered with a

large variety (as was the case with school culture, where the studies used nine different

instruments for its measuring) or too focused with studies using the same measure (as

was the case with teacher satisfaction, where most of the studies used MLQ outcome

measures for its measuring). Although I did not test the moderating effects of the

measurements of dependent variables in the meta-analysis, I did analyze how various

55

measures used in the study were associated with study results, if there were any patterns

shown in this regard when I did narrative synthesis.

Outlier analysis

Extreme values may cause significant within-group heterogeneity of individual

effect sizes that may not exist in reality (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Furthermore, the

weighted averages given to large-sample-size studies may cause the overall effect size to

be influenced by relatively few studies. Thus, extreme values of effect sizes were

checked before computing the weighted means of effect sizes involved in each meta-

analysis. Quartiles (called fences) were used to calculate the extreme values in the tails of

each of the effect sizes distributions. If the lower quartile is Q1 and the upper quartile is

Q3 (defined as the 25th and 75th percentiles), then the difference (Q3 - Q1) is called the

interquartile range or IQ. The fences are then defined as follows:

1) lower inner fence: Q1 - 1.5*IQ

2) upper inner fence: Q3 + 1.5*IQ

3) lower outer fence: Q1 - 3*IQ

4) upper outer fence: Q3 + 3*IQ (NIST/SEMATECH, 2009).

In this study, I decided to remove only the extreme values (i.e., the values outside

of the upper and lower outer fences) from the analyses while retaining the moderate

extreme values (those within the inner fences) in the analysis following Hunter and

Schmidt’s (2004) suggestion that these values may occur simply due to large sampling

errors, which have been previously corrected. By applying this criterion, no original data

points were deleted in the following analyses.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section2/prc252.htm

56

Calculating the confidence intervals around the mean effect size

“Confidence intervals indicate the range within which the population mean is

likely to be, given the observed data” and “this is useful in indicating the degree of

precision of the estimate of the mean effect size” (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 114). This

study used the following formulae to calculate the standard error of the mean (SEES

) and

the lower and upper limits:

SEES

= ∑ iω1

(Hedges & Olkin, 1985 cited in Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 114)

ESESL = - z )1( α− ( SEES

)

ESESu = + z )1( α− ( SEES

) (Lipsey & Wilson, 200, p. 114-115)

Where ES is the mean effect size, z )1( α− is the critical value for the z-distribution

(1.96 for α = .05), and SEES

is the standard error of mean effect size.

If the confidence internal does not include zero, the mean effect size is statistically

significant at p ≤ α . A direct test of the significance of the mean effect size will be

obtained by computing a z –test as:

z = ESSE

ES (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001)

Meta-analysis: Homogeneity and Heterogeneity Analysis

In order to examine whether various effect sizes that are averaged into a mean value

all estimate the same population effect size, we need to know whether the effect sizes

form a homogeneous distribution. “In a homogeneous distribution, the dispersion of the

effect sizes around their mean is no greater than that expected from sampling error alone”

57

and “[a] statistical test that rejects the null hypothesis of homogeneity indicates that the

variability of the effect sizes is larger than would be expected from sampling error and,

therefore, each effect size does not estimate a common population mean” (Lipsey &

Wilson, 2001, p. 115) and vice versa. The homogeneity test is based on the Q statistic,

which is distributed as a chi-square with k-1 degrees of freedom where k is the number of

effect sizes (Hedges & Olkin, 1985, cited in Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). This study used an

algebraically equivalent formula that is computationally simpler to implement in order to

calculate the Q:

Q = (∑ 2iiESω ) -

∑∑

i

ii ES

ω

ω 2)( (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001), where each of the terms is

defined as above.

If Q was not significant (indicating homogeneity), I interpreted the results. “If Q

exceeds the critical value for a chi-square with k-1 degrees of freedom, then the null

hypothesis of homogeneity is rejected” (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 116). In a case where

Q was significant (indicating heterogeneity), I went to the next stage, the analysis of

heterogeneous distribution of ES. There are three ways to understand this heterogeneity

and handle this situation (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001):

1) Assume that the variability beyond subject-level sampling error is

random among studies whose sources cannot be identified. In this case,

the analyst adopts a random effects model (REM).

2) Assume that variability beyond subject level sampling error is

systematic and is derived from identifiable differences between studies.

In this case the analyst adopts a fixed effects model (FEM).

58

3) Assume that the variance beyond subject-level sampling error is derived

partly from systematic factors that can be identified and partly from

random sources that cannot be identified. This requires a mixed effects

model (MEM).

This study tried the REM, FEM, and MEM respectively to decide which model

was most suitable to each analysis. The FEM has more statistical power for detecting a

moderator relationship with effect size (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). For each meta-analysis,

I started with the FEM since identifying systematic between-study differences and the

moderators that impact study results regarding the leadership effects on various school,

teacher and student outcomes is the interest of this study. If Q was significant, further

analyses were conducted to identify the contrasts whose means were significantly

different, which is a procedure similar to the post hoc one-way ANOVA.

Wilson (2009) suggested using random effects models when

1) Total Q is significant and you assume that the excess variability across

effect sixes derives from random differences across studies, or

2) The with-studies Q from an Analog to the ANOVA (homogeneity

analysis appropriate for categorical variables, which looks for

systematic differences between groups of responses within a variable)

is significant (FEM).

Thus, when the above conditions appeared in my study, REM was applied after

the FEM was used. Also, if the random component was very large (relative sampling

error), MEM was used thereafter since a large random component leaves open the

possibility that the differences between studies are, in fact, systemic (Lipsey & Wilson,

59

2001). Even when this situation did not appear, I conducted FEM and REM for each

meta-analysis in order to compare the results and search for further explanations. As

Lipsey and Wilson (2001) have said, “a sensitivity analysis comparing the results from

fixed and mixed effects models is usually advisable” (p.125) As well, this comparison

served as additional research that is needed to sort out the conditions under which the

various models, fixed, random, and mixed, are most appropriate (Overton, 1998). I

therefore compared which model was the best at explaining variances and interpreted

results accordingly.

Macros for SPSS written by Wilson (Wilson, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) were

used to analylize effect size distributions. Both fixed and mixed models or random

models were used to compute weighted means, test moderating effects and moderators,

and calculate and compare group means. In the case of MEM, there are three methods of

estimating mixed effects: namely, Method-of-moments random effects, Full-information

maximum likelihood, and Restricted-information maximum likelihood. All three methods

were used in each of the meta-analyses in this study. Only the findings that resulted from

the Maximum likelihood (ML) method were reported, mainly because the confidence

intervals yielded by this method compared with the other two methods are often more

precise (i.e. narrower). I manually calculated the computations that Wilson’s Macros do

not cover, such as converting different types of effect sizes into Pearson correlation

coefficients, or calculating and combining effect sizes for each study, using the formulae

provided above in this section.

60

Reliability Issues

Reliability issues in meta-analysis are mainly concerned with consistency in the

location of studies, comprehensiveness of the collection of studies, coding of the features

and results of the studies to be included in the analysis, and the calculation and recording

of the effect sizes estimates and significance levels (Wolf, 1984). The degree of

reliabilities in these areas was greatly enhanced in this study by a thorough search of the

on-line data base for dissertations and theses, appropriate inclusion criteria that strike a

balance between an exhaustive examination of this body of literature and the exclusion of

the studies that were not suitable to be included for this review, systematic and consistent

coding of studies, and the application of standard meta-analytic techniques in the

calculation and conversion of effect sizes. In terms of the reliability of the coding of the

features of the studies, interrater reliability (as the coding was initially done by two

coders, including myself) was enhanced in this study by developing and pilot-testing

coding forms before coding characteristics for the meta-analysis; developing a detailed,

explicit coding scheme and procedures for coding; and the coders’ high involvement in

discussions and decisions concerning coding rules. At the beginning, another coder and I

coded the same studies independently. Then our work was compared and discussed and

the consistency between us was enhanced. At the stage of data analysis, I reviewed and

corrected all coding when necessary. For effect size coding, there was only one coder,

myself. All these procedures have ensured a very high consistency in coding, and hence a

very high internal reliability was achieved. Further, sampling error for the collection of

studies included in this review was reduced by calculating weighted means of effect

sizes. Adjustment for the unreliability of measures was initially prepared but later

dropped for a number of reasons (see details in the section “Correction for Attenuation”)

61

Validity Issues

External and construct validity of a meta-analysis are both related to the “apples”

and “oranges” problem of trying to determine which studies should be aggregated (Wolf,

1984). External validity was enhanced in this study by systematic narrative review and

the synthesis of outcome variable measures, separate meta-analyses on different outcome

variables, the exploration and testing of moderating effects, and the testing of the

homogeneity of the results. Internal validity in meta-analysis is concerned with whether

variations in design quality influence the outcomes of the meta-analysis (Wolf, 1984).

Internal validity was enhanced in this study by the achievement of a body of literature

(dissertations or theses) that contains studies of a similar high quality using appropriate

inclusion criteria and by reducing publication bias to a minimum by basing the analysis

on a sample of unpublished dissertations.

Research Findings Presentation

A combination of stem-and-leaf plots and tables was used to represent visually

most of the research findings of this study. Stem-and-leaf plots efficiently communicate

the central tendency, variability and normality of effect size distributions and have the

advantage that the original data can be recreated from the graphic display (Lipsey &

Wilson, 2001). They can also visually and directly show how effect sizes are blocked into

subgroups, which is helpful for discovering potential moderators. Rosenthal (1991) has

also endorsed this method for the illustration of effect size distribution, especially when

the number of effect sizes is not large. Summaries of other statistics, and analysis and test

results, are presented in tables and explained with narration.

62

In the sections focused on narrative synthesis of TSL effects, I first summarize the

features of the studies, touching on four areas: the outcome measures the studies used, the

leadership instruments used, and the school level and school types where the studies were

conducted. Then I synthesize the studies’ results and explore how these results may or

may not be associated with certain features of the studies. This part of the review gives a

vivid content analysis and provides insights that are not, or may not, be yielded by

statistical meta-analysis. It also informs the areas that are looked at in the next step of the

meta-analysis.

The meta-analyses that follow statistically examine the effect sizes and the

distribution of the studies’ results and look at how these results are influenced by certain

study features in a statistical manner. These parts of the analyses may confirm the claims

made in the earlier narrative review sections but also explore propositions that the

narrative reviews suggest, or are not able to explore. I present a detailed illustration of the

whole process of meta-correlational analysis of TSL effects on each of the school, teacher

and student outcomes. In particular, the first meta-analysis of the relationship between

TSL and school culture is presented fully and includes the process of how the best

statistical model explaining variances was reached. For the meta-analyses of the

remaining outcome variables, I follow the same analytical procedure but report only the

findings based on the best-fit model.

63

Chapter Four: Syntheses of Results and Discussion

As discussed in Chapter 3, meta-analytical review methods complemented by

narrative synthesis and vote-counting methods were used to conduct this comprehensive

review of unpublished empirical research on transformational school leadership. This

chapter summarizes results in response to the four sets of research questions: the nature

of TSL, its impacts on school organizational outcomes, its impacts on teacher-related

outcomes, and its direct and indirect impacts on student learning.

The Nature Of TSL

Six models of TSL have been developed, to date, and were used in the

studies included in this review to conceptualize and measure transformational leadership.

These models are Bass and Avolio’s (e.g., 1995; 2000) two-factor theory

(transformational leadership and transactional leadership are the two ends of leadership

continuum) measured using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ),

Leithwood, Aitken and Jantzi’s (2001) transformational school leadership model

measured with the Nature of School Leadership survey (NSL), Kouzes and Posner’s

(1995) Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), Sashkin’s visionary leadership measured

with the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ) (1990), a model developed by

Chong-Hee No (1994 in Ham, 1999) and measured with the Principal’s

Transformational Leadership Questionnaire, and author-designed transformational

leadership measures (Wiley, 1998). Thirty-three leadership practices were included in

these models, as a whole.

These six models conceptualize transformational leadership in various ways and

include various core leadership practices. Table 4.1 shows the ways in which these

64

different models conceptualized transformational leadership. Table 4.1 (left column)

includes a comprehensive set of leadership practices measured by these instruments. The

33 practices involved in these six models were synthesized and reduced to 12 practices

with practices classified in like groups. An “X” was given if a leadership practice listed in

the first column was included in the conceptualization and corresponding instrument of a

model the column of this model. Although different models include various leadership

practices, some key leadership practices are common to all or majority of these models.

For example, all instruments used in the research measure a dimension of TSL concerned

with direction setting and inspiring people to focus their work on a vision for the

organization that is widely shared. A detailed illustration and comparisons of these six

TSL models or instruments was provided in Appendix A.

Table 4.1

Practices Measured by Instruments Used in the Research

Leadership Practice MLQ1 NSL2 LPI3 LBQ4 PTLQ5 Wiley6

1. Setting Directions • Developing a widely shared vision for the

school/ Building consensus /Inspirational motivation/Charisma

X X X X X X

• Holding high performance expectations

X X

2. Developing People • Providing individualized

support/consideration X X X X X X

• Providing intellectual stimulation/Challenging the process

X X X

• Modeling behavior/Idealized influence - attribute, behavior, or total/Symbolization

X X X X

3. Redesigning the Organization • Strengthening school/organizational culture X X • Building collaborative structures/Enabling

others to act X X

• Providing a community focus

X

4. Managerial or Transactional Aggregate X • Focus on instructional development X • Contingent reward X X • Management by exception – active, passive, X X

65

or total

5. Laissez faire X 1Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1995) 2Early versions of the Nature of School Leadership survey (Leithwood, Aitken & Jantzi, 2001) 3Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 1995) 4Leadership Behavior Questionnaire (Sashkin, 1990) 5Principal’s Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (Chong-Hee No, 1994 in Ham 1999) 6Author self-constructed transformational leadership instrument (Wiley 1998)

The meanings of these 12 leadership practices were synthesized and defined as

follows:

1. Developing a shared vision and building goal consensus

Involved in the various conceptualizations of developing a shared vision and

building goal consensus are the identification, development and articulation of a shared

vision that is appealing and inspiring to staff, achieving goal consensus among staff,

motivating staff with challenging, but achievable goals, communicating optimism about

future goals, and giving staff an overall sense of purpose for their work, and monitoring

and referring to school goals when staff are making decisions.

2. Providing individualized support

Involved in the various conceptualizations of providing individualized support are

leaders listening and attending to individuals’ opinions and needs, acting as a mentor or

coach to staff members, treating them as individuals with unique needs and capacities and

supporting their professional development.

3. Modeling behaviour

Involved in the various conceptualizations of modeling behaviour are leaders

walking the talk, providing a role model for high ethical behavior, instilling pride, respect

66

and trust in staff, symbolizing success, and demonstrating a willingness to change own

practices as a result of new understandings.

4. Providing intellectual stimulation

Involved in the various conceptualizations of providing intellectual stimulation are

leaders challenging staff’s assumptions, stimulating and encouraging their creativity, and

providing information to staff to help them evaluate their practices, refine them, and carry

out their tasks more effectively.

5. Holding high performance expectations

Holding high performance expectations means leaders expecting a high level of

professionalism from staff, holding high expectations for students, and expecting staff to

be effective innovators (Leithwood et al., 2006).

6. Contingent reward

Contingent reward means that the leader rewards the follower for completing the

agreed-upon work.

7. Management by exception

The leader monitors and interferes when performance of the subordinate deviates

from the norm

8. Strengthening school culture

Strengthening school culture means that leaders promoting an atmosphere of caring

and trust among staff, building a collaborative school culture that reflects the school

vision, and encouraging ongoing collaboration for program implementation.

9. Building collaborative structures

67

Building collaborative structures means that leaders ensuring that staff have

adequate involvement in decisions about programs and instruction, establishing working

conditions that facilitate staff collaboration for planning and professional growth, and

distributing leadership broadly among staff (Leithwood et al., 2006). This dimension of

leadership was mainly developed in Leithwood model of TSL.

10. Engaging communities

Engaging communities was conceptualized and included only in Leithwood’s

model of TSL. It means that the leaders demonstrating sensitivity to community

aspirations and requests, incorporating community characteristics and values in the

school, and actively encouraging parents and guardians to become involved in their

children’s education (Leithwood et al., 2006).

11. Focusing on instructional development

Focusing on instructional development was conceptualized in both Leithwood and

Willey’s models of TSL. It involves a broach range of leaders’ practices of planning and

supervising instruction, providing instructional support, frequent and regular monitoring

of school progress, and buffering staff from district or state initiatives that are potential

distractions from school priories. The development and inclusion of this dimension of

leadership is a significant advancement or departure of transformational leadership from

business sector where Bass’ model was originally developed to school context.

12. laissez-faire

Laissez-farie means that leaders avoid their own supervisory responsibilities and

avoid trying to influence their subordinates (Bass, 1990). It is also called non-leadership.

68

This dimension of leadership was included only in Bass’ model of transformational

leadership.

These 12 practices can be grouped into four categories suggested by Leithwood

and Riehl (2005) and Leithwod and Jantzi (2005): setting directions, developing people,

redesigning the organization, and “managing” category. A fifth category is Laissez-faire

leadership. This non-leadership dimension was excluded from the conceptualization of

TSL and further inquiry in this research since it is not a dimension of transformational

leadership and in most of the sampled studies included in this review, its effect (laissez-

faire) was either non-significant or negative. Previous reviews (e.g., Judge & Piccolo,

2004) of transformational leadership research also commented on similar results.

Among the four leadership categories, Setting Directions and Developing People

are common to all conceptualizations of TSL. More specifically, developing a shared

vision for the school, inspiring staff to work towards shared goals, providing

individualized support and modeling are found in almost all TSL conceptions and were

the most frequently examined by the studies included in this review. Among the six TSL

models that have been developed along with instruments for their measurement, most of

them emphasize some of the four leadership functions while the Nature of School

Leadership (NSL) covers all four categories of leadership practices.

Among these 11 leadership practices (excluding laissez-faire), the most frequently

included in these six models or instruments are developing a shared vision and building

goal consensus, and providing intellectual stimulation. Providing individualized support

and modeling behaviors ranked next in frequency. The least frequently included TSL

69

practice, in these models, was focusing on instructional development. These results are

reported in greater detail in Appendix A.

This study revealed that the Direction Setting function of TSL, consisting of

developing a shared vision and fostering goal consensus and, especially of holding high

performances expectations lies at the heart of the TSL instrument. As the most frequently

examined set of TSL practices, developing a shared vision and fostering goal consensus

had large, significant, positive, overall effects on both school (weighted mean r= .43) and

teacher outcomes (weighted mean r = .50) while holding high performances expectations

had large, significant, positive overall effects on school outcomes (weighted mean r =

.45) with moderate, significant, positive effects on teacher outcomes (weighted mean r =

.25). These findings support the early claim (Leithwood, 1994) that the influence of

transformational leadership comes about through vision-building and fostering

commitment to group goals.

The general results found in this study about the key role transformational school

leaders play in direction-setting is consistent with the observation, made by earlier

reviews that employed more diverse conceptions of leadership (e.g., Brown, 2001;

Hallinger & Heck, 1998), that school goal and mission is a key avenue through which

principals influence school and teachers. More specifically, this study showed the

importance of high expectations in addition to shared vision and goal consensus.

People-developing dimensions were found to be the backbone of TSL. Leaders

modeling good practices themselves and providing support and intellectual stimulation

had significantly positive, large effects on both overall school and teacher-related

outcomes. In particular, providing individualized support contributed significantly to

70

student learning. Brown’s (2001) meta-analysis of studies using a more diverse

conceptualization of leadership also found a significant relationship between school

effectiveness and both leadership consideration (.36) and inspiration (.40). These findings

demonstrate the strong influence of TSL on many aspects of schooling and teaching, as

well as small but significant direct impacts on student learning.

While the early versions of transformational leadership placed more emphasis on

developing people and direction-setting, later conceptualizations of transformational

leadership gradually have given more emphasis to the culture-building dimension of

leadership, as reflected in NSL, Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI), and Leadership

Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ). These recent conceptions also have reconceptualized

management, especially managing instruction, as an inseparable part of this form of

leadership, as reflected in such models as NSL and Wiley (1998). Strong evidence

supports the inclusion and development of these leadership practices into a

conceptualization of TSL (e.g., Leithwood et al., 1996; Leithwood et al., 2006) that is

unique to school contexts.

Two sets of TSL practices, i.e., Building Collaborative Structures and

Strengthening School Culture had significant, positive, large effects on the overall school

outcomes and moderate but positive, significant effects on the overall teacher outcomes.

Providing Community Focus also had significant, positive impacts on teacher capacities,

although no studies included in this review examined this dimension of leadership as it

relates to any school outcomes. In particular, this study revealed that Building

Collaborative Structures was found to significantly, positively contribute to student

learning. Brown’s (2001) meta-analysis of studies using a more diverse conceptualization

71

of leadership also found a significant relationship between school effectiveness and

leadership dimensions related to climate (.29).

With more empirical studies detecting positive impacts of some of the

management dimensions of leadership (such as Contingent Reward) on various

outcomes, the management dimension of transformational leadership has gradually

asserted its role and has been included in the model as reflected in early versions of NSL.

Contingent Reward, the most active form of transactional leadership in MLQ, was

observed to have a positive impact on some organizational outcomes like the

transformational dimension of leadership and to correlate closer to aggregate

transformational leadership rather than to aggregate transactional leadership (e.g.,

Leithwood et al., 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). That said, conflicting results exist

regarding the function of Contingent Reward-- for example, quite a few studies have

reported that contingent reward loaded more on transformational leadership while one

study has reported that contingent reward and management-by-exception clustered

together (Leithwood et al., 2005).

This review supports the inclusion of Contingent Reward as a key component of

transformational leadership and further supports the important influence of the

managerial dimensions of TSL on various outcomes, especially student learning.

Contingent Reward, in this study, had very large effects on overall teacher outcomes

(weighted mean r = .51) and a moderate effect on overall school outcomes (weighted

mean r = .34). Verona’s (2001) study, which was included in this review, demonstrated

that principal transformational leadership, defined as including both transformational and

managerial dimensions of leadership (e.g., contingent reward), significantly affected the

72

New Jersey High School Proficiency Test passing rates in reading, mathematics, and

writing. As the author of that study commented, “transformational leadership, unlike

what others have previously purported, is indeed a mix of Bass and Avolio’s

transformational behaviors and some of their transactional behaviors” (p. 228).

An interesting finding concerns the leadership practice of Management-by-

exception. An important dimension of transactional leadership in the MLQ, it was

repeatedly found to be negatively related to school outcomes (e.g., Leithwood et al.,

1996). This meta-analysis also demonstrated significant negative effects of this practice

on overall teacher outcomes (weighted mean r = -.31) and non-significant impacts on

school outcomes. Unexpectedly, however, it correlated significantly and positively with

student learning in low SES schools (weighted mean r = .28). Perhaps in low SES

schools it is very important that the leader monitors and intervenes when teacher

performance deviates from the norm. This finding, however, was based on a meta-

analysis of only three studies. More research is needed in order to understand the function

of this dimension of leadership as it relates to student learning.

Although several leadership practices related to managing instruction have been

developed and added to the TSL conceptualization, as reflected in the recent version of

the NSL, no studies included in this review have examined its impacts. This limitation

warrants future research. Brown’s (2001) meta-analysis of studies using a more diverse

conceptualization of leadership discovered significant relationship between school

effectiveness and leadership dimensions focused on instructional organization (d = .66).

73

The Impact of TSL on School Organizational Outcomes

Forty-six analyses reported in thirty-two studies examined the effects of TSL on

17 school organizational outcomes. Table 4.2 summarizes the detailed analysis of these

results reported in Appendix B. The meanings of school outcome variables were also

provided in Appendix B. Based on 249 ESs, overall effects on various school outcomes

as a whole are large, significant and positive (weighted mean r = .44). Sufficient evidence

was available for six of these outcomes to permit meta-analyses. TSL had significant,

very large, positive effects on shared goals (.67), significant, large, positive effects on

working environment (weighted mean r = .56), on instruction (.55), and on

organizational culture (.44). It had a close-to-large effect on shared decision-making

(.36), and small effects on teacher perceived workplace conditions (.22). For outcomes

that were researched only by one study, the effects of TSL on them ranged from large (on

aspects of school improvement and school coherence) to small (on technology,

organizational effectiveness and school type). TSL appears to be most effective in

achieving shared goals and nurturing cohesiveness and collaboration within schools.

Table 4.2

The Impact Of Transformational Leadership On School Organizational Outcomes

Leadership Impacts

School Outcome Variables No. of

Analyses No. of effect

Sizes Weighted Mean

r, or r Aggregate Results School Coherence & Coordination 1 3 .69** Improved Direction Setting 1 3 .68** Shared Goal/Mission 7 14 .67*** Improvement in Developing People 1 3 .66** Working Environment 2 9 .56*** Peer Cohesion 1 1 .55*** Improved Instructional Work 2 4 .55** Organizational Culture/School Climate/Org. Learning 18 153 .44** Shared Decision-making 6 7 .36***

74

Decision-making Tech Supported 1 4 .25* School Technology Level 1 1 .24* Organizational Effectiveness 1 1 .20* Teacher Perceived Working Place Conditions 2 26 .22 Program Type I (program of choice) 1 10 .15 Program Type II (assignment &referral program) 1 10 -.26 Total 46 249 .44*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

This evidence strongly demonstrates contribution of TSL to conditions which enable

teaching and learning. Business sector evidence also documented the positive, large

effects of transformational leadership on organizational productivity (r = .37) during the

management of complex organizational change (Underdue Murph, 2005).

Moderating effects of school level, school type (public vs. religions, or private) and

leadership model were tested on the relationship between TSL and organizational

culture/school climate/org. learning. The strong effects of TSL on school culture did not

significantly differ between elementary and secondary schools or among school types.

Leadership model, however, was found to be a significant moderator. Principals’ TSL

behaviors as measured by NSL (r = .57) correlated significantly higher with school

culture than principals’ TSL behaviors as measured by MLQ (r = .33). The most

powerful leadership practices that influence school culture are those related to direction-

setting (e.g., developing a shared vision) and those related to building relationships and

developing people (e.g., providing intellectual stimulation).

Among the 11 TSL practices, nine were examined in terms of their relationships

with various school outcomes, except providing a community focus and instructional

focus. Table 4. 3 shows the individual TSL impacts whose effect sizes were either meta-

analyzed or calculable, or were reported by the original studies. Meta-analyses were

performed on the individual TSL impacts for which there were sufficient data to permit

75

so. Weighted mean r’s obtained through meta-analyses are in bold. It appears that most of

the TSL practices, including principals’ building shared vision, providing intellectual

stimulation and individualized support, modeling behaviors, high expectation, building

collaborate structures and strengthening cultures, have similar, significant impacts on

various school processes.

Table 4.3

The Impacts of Individual TSL Practices on Each of the School Organizational Outcomes

School Outcome Variables (17)

Impacts of the Individual TSL Practices (Weighted Mean r, or r)

SV1 IS2 Su3 MB4 HE5 CR6 ME7 CS8 SC9 CF10 FI11

Shared Goal/Mission .44*** .53*** .42*** .42** .35** .37* -.14 .48***

Working Environment .56*** .50*** .55*** .53*** .41** .31 -.21 .54** .55**

Improved Instructional Work

.36* .27* .16 .36* .28* .21 -.06

Organizational Culture/School Climate/Org. Learning

.45*** .44*** .42*** .43*** .47*** .27** -.12 .30*** .37***

Shared Decision-making .54** .42** .60** .41** .45** .46** .53** .55**

Decision-making Tech Supported .24** .31** .25** .20**

Organizational Effectiveness .21** .14

Teacher Perceived Working Place Conditions

.17 .16 .16 .15 .09 -.04

Program Type I (program of choice)

.13 .21 .26 .09

Program Type II (assignment &referral program)

-.07 -.21 -.24 -.075

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

1 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 Providing intellectual stimulation 3 Providing individualized support 4 Modeling behaviour 5 Holding high performance expectations

76

6 Contingent reward 7 Management by exception 8 Building collaborative structures 9 Strengthening school culture 10 Providing a community focus 11 Focusing on instructional development

The effect of each of these nine TSL practices on school organizational outcomes

as a whole was meta-analyzed. Table 4.4 shows the details. No previous studies have

meta-analyzed the magnitudes of the effects of TSL individual dimensions on school

processes. These leadership dimensions had large effect on school outcomes (.47- .40).

Contingent reward had a medium-sized effect (.34) while management by exception was

not effective in influencing the aspects of schooling measured by the studies.

These findings suggest that each TSL leadership dimension adds to the quality of

the school working environment and schooling quality. In other words, each school

process, or each aspect of schooling such as achieving a shared goal, fostering a good

teaching and learning environment or culture, and improving instruction, is a complex

process and requires the leader to enact a wide range of practices. A narrow leadership

approach does not work. Leaders influence school processes through their achievement of

a shared vision and agreed-upon goals for the organization, their high expectations and

support of organizational members, and practices that strengthen school culture and foster

collaboration within the organization.

Table 4.4

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Organizational Outcomes

TSL Leadership Dimensions N of

Studies Weighted

Mean r or r Standard

Error for zr

Building collaborative structures 5 .47*** .05 Holding high performance expectations 9 .45*** .04 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 24 .43*** .03

77

Providing individualized support 23 .43*** .03 Modeling behaviour 20 .40*** .04 Providing intellectual stimulation 21 .42*** .03 Strengthening school culture 5 .42*** .04 Contingent reward 12 .34*** .05 Management by exception 9 -.11 .07 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

The Impact of TSL on Teacher Outcomes

Eighty-eight analyses provided by forty-six studies examined the effects of TSL on 21

teacher-related outcomes. Sufficient evidence was available for nine of these outcomes to

permit meta-analyses. Appendix C includes the detailed analysis of these results. The

meanings of teacher outcome variables were also provided in Appendix C. As table 4.5

indicates, TSL’s overall effects on various teacher outcomes as a whole are large,

significant and positive (weighted mean r = .57), based on 183 Ess. The influence of TSL

on individual internal states is higher (.61) than its influences on teacher practices (.47)

and collective internal states (.23). This is generally consistent with the theory of

transformational leadership as it originated in Burns’s (1978) work, in which the

influence of transformational leadership is the elevation of motivation and morality both

in the leader and followers resulting in subordinates being motivated by the vision and

making heightened effort to achieve it.

In particular, TSL, as a whole, is extremely influential on the following teacher

outcomes (listed with their corresponding weighted mean r): 1) the individual inner states

of teachers: their perception of leaders’ effectiveness .82, job satisfaction .76, and teacher

commitment .70; 2) teacher practice: teachers’ Organization Citizenship Behavior .48; 3)

at the group level, teacher collective efficacy .18. Impacts on teacher motivation were not

78

significant. TSL appears to be very influential in prompting positive individual

perceptions of leaders, work environment and perhaps school outcomes.

One previous review (Chin, 2007) examined and identified the large effects of TSL

on two teacher-related outcomes, i.e., teacher job satisfaction (.71) and teacher perceived

school effectiveness (.70) as measured by MLQ outcome measures. The comparable

figures at which this study arrived are consistent with, but higher than, those in Chin’s

study (i.e., .76 on teacher satisfaction and .82 on teacher perceived leader’s

effectiveness). These findings support the earlier claims about effects on two teacher

individual inner states (teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction) (Leithwood et

al., 2005; Leithwood & Sun, 2009) and teacher collective efficacy (Leithwood et al.,

2005). Compared with the very large impacts of TSL on teachers’ inner states,

transformational leadership had smaller, but still positive, large effects on worker job

satisfaction (r = .47) in public organizations, on worker commitment (r = .48) and on

worker productivity (r = .14) in both public and private organizations that were

undergoing changes (Underdue Murph, 2005).

Table 4.5

The Impact Of Transformational Leadership On Teacher Outcomes

Leadership Impacts

Teacher Outcome Variables (21) No. of

Analyses No. of

Effect Sizes Weighted Mean

r, or r Aggregated Results Individual states 76 149 .61*** Teacher Perceived Leader Effectiveness 10 14 .82*** Job Satisfaction 19 36 .76*** Commitment 24 55 .70*** Teacher Perceived Student and Parent Outcomes 1 3 .58** Sense of community 1 1 .49*** Trust 2 2 .47*** Teacher Perception of Student Change 1 1 .46** Teacher Empowerment 6 21 .33***

79

Teacher tendency to take risks 1 2 .25*** Teacher Efficacy 6 6 .16*** (Reduce) Stress 1 1 .16*** Teacher motivation 4 7 .12 Collective states 4 15 .23*** Group Potency 1 6 .39*** Teacher Goal consensus 1 1 .25*** Teacher Collective Efficacy 2 8 .18*** Teacher practice 8 16 .47** Teacher Discipline Practice 1 1 .73*** Teacher Utilization Of Knowledge 1 1 .69** Teacher Effectiveness 1 3 .63* Organization Citizenship Behavior 3 7 .48*** Teacher Collaboration 1 3 .22** Teacher Leadership 1 1 .11 Total 88 180 .57*** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

The moderating effects of school level, school type and leadership model were tested on

the relationship between TSL and teacher commitment and job satisfaction when data

permitted doing so. The effects of TSL on teacher commitment (Fixed Effects Model) are

large and do not differ across school levels; principals’ transformational leadership

behaviors, as captured and measured by the MLQ, correlated significantly higher with

teacher commitment than those captured and measured by the NSL. When a Random

Effects Model was applied, this difference was not significant anymore. The strong

effects of TSL on teacher job satisfaction did not significantly differ between elementary

and secondary schools. The most leadership practices with greatest influence on both

teacher commitment and teachers’ job satisfaction are those related to building

relationships, developing people (i.e., modeling, providing intellectual stimulation and

individualized support) and developing a shared vision (a direction-setting practice).

Among the 12 TSL practices, ten were examined in terms of their impacts on

various teacher outcomes, except managing instruction. Table 4. 6 shows the individual

TSL impacts whose effect sizes were either meta-analyzed or calculable, or were reported

80

by the original studies. Meta-analyses were performed on the individual TSL impacts for

which there were sufficient data. Weighted mean r’s obtained through meta-analyses are

in bold. The significant, large impacts of individual TSL practices are often from

principals’ building shared vision, providing intellectual stimulation and individualized

support, and modeling behaviors.

Table 4.6

The Impacts Of Individual TSL On Each of Teacher Outcomes

Teacher Outcome Variables (21)

Impacts of the Individual TSL Practices (Weighted Mean r, or r)

SV1 IS2 Su3 MB4 HE5 CR6 ME7 CS8 SC9 CF10 FI11 Individual states Teacher Perceived Leader Effectiveness

.74*** .80*** .77*** .84*** .83*** -.34**

Job Satisfaction .68*** .70*** .72*** .77*** .26*** .68*** -.40*** Commitment .55*** .52*** .56*** .57*** .31*** .54*** -.04 .30 .32 Trust .17 .16 .16 .15 .09 -.04 Teacher Perception of Student Change .41* .24* .23 .39* .42* .34* -.10 Teacher Empowerment .53*** .42*** .55*** .36*** .45*** .39** .53** .56**

Teacher Efficacy .12** .13** .10* .13** .11** -.02 .13** .12** .21*** Teacher motivation .16 -.07 .09 .11 Collective states Group Potency .35* .49* .46* .27 .40 Teacher Collective Efficacy .22* .23* .18* .18* .21*

Teacher practice Teacher Discipline Practice .47** .64** .63** .67** .69** -.36** Teacher Utilization Of Knowledge .50 .58 .48 .54 .52 Organization Citizenship Behavior

.50*** .35** .42*** .20

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

1 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 Providing intellectual stimulation 3 Providing individualized support 4 Modeling behaviour 5 Holding high performance expectations 6 Contingent reward

81

7 Management by exception 8 Building collaborative structures 9 Strengthening school culture 10 Providing a community focus 11 Focusing on instructional development No previous studies have meta-analyzed the magnitudes of the effects of individual

TSL dimensions on teachers. This research meta-analyzed the effect of each of ten TSL

practices on various teacher outcomes as a whole. The findings summarized in Table 4. 7

suggest that leaders influence teachers mainly through people-developing practices

including modeling behaviors (.54), providing individualized support (.50) and

intellectual stimulation (54), achieving a shared vision and agreed-upon goals for the

organization (.50***) and contingent reward (.51). Holding high expectations and

organization redesigning practices such as strengthening school culture, building

collaborative structures, and providing a community focus have a small but significant

influence on teachers (.21-.25). Management by exception had significant, negative

effects on teachers’ internal states or practices (-.31). The separate meta-analyses

examining TSL impacts on teacher individual internal states yielded patterns of results

similar to those above.

Table 4.7

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Outcomes


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Modeling behaviour 30 .54*** .02 Providing individualized support 36 .52*** .02 Contingent reward 23 .51*** .04 Providing intellectual stimulation 36 .50*** .02 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 36 .50*** .02 Holding high performance expectations 14 .25*** .03 Strengthening school culture 5 .22*** .04 Building collaborative structures 5 .22*** .04 Providing community focus 2 .21*** .05 Management by exception 13 -.31*** .07

82

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

The Impact of TSL on Student Outcomes

Ninety-three analyses involved in thirty-three studies examined the direct or

indirect influence of TSL on various student outcomes (student achievements, student

attendance, college-going rate, dropout rate, graduation rate, and percent of time removed

from regular classes). Appendix D provides a detailed report of these results.

Among the six types of student outcomes measured, the most frequently-used was

student achievements (31 studies/82 analyses). Table 4.8 summarizes the effects of TSL

on student achievement. Except as noted in the farright column, the student outcome

variables used by the studies included in this review were measured by academic

performance indexes, usually state-wide academic tests. Among the 31 studies, twenty-

four of them examined the direct effects of TSL on student achievement. The majority

(23 studies) of the 82 analyses done by the 31 studies included in this summary table also

took into account other factors that interact or moderate the influence of principal

leadership on students, i.e., examined the “indirect effect” of TSL on student learning.

The studies that used indirect effect designs assessed the combined effects of TSL with

moderators, mediators, or with both.

Table 4.8

The Direct And Indirect Impacts Of TSL On Student Achievements

Authors (Year of publication)

Samples (schools)

Leadership Impacts on Student

Achievements

Mediating Variables

Moderating Variables Total Effects on Student

Achievements Direct Effect

Indirect Effect

Hedges (1998) 21 .10 Mixed T-test

Attendance + Stu. Achieve.

Fisher (2003) 34 N. S. Reg.

Le Clear (2005) 12 N.S., Stu. With

83

Reg. disabilities Kiper (2007) 7 .48

Mixed

Bonaros (2006) 21 .80 (+), Reg.

School Accountability Report scores

Vincenzo (2008) 212 -.02 Truitt (2002) 6 .68 Stu. Academic

Improvement Dickerson (2003) 158 .02

Anova

Holloway (2006) 10 N.S. Manova

Ross (1998) 150 -.11 N.S. Reg. Teacher Efficacy Teacher Empowerment

Reg R total = .16

Floyd (1999) 69 .20 N. S. Reg. Shared School Mission

Performance growth

Gepford (1996) 45 -.01, Anova Low SES Konkle (2007) 19 .11 Low SES Gulbin (2008) 112 .02 Low SES Layton (2003) 125 .03

Anova .08 High SES .04 Low SES

SES

Philbin (1997) 42 .06 Anova

Mixed, Anova .19 (+) .08

High SES & Cogntv. ablt. Low SES & Cogntv ablt.

Hoernemann (1998)

131 .01 ANOVA .03 .02

High SES & Cogntv. ablt. Low SES & Cogntv ablt

Verona (2001) 57 Mixed Type of schools Passing Rate Gunigundo (1998)

36 .03 N. S. Teacher Ed. Background Student Population Low SES

Bannon (2000) 29 .18 (+) N.S. Reg. Student teacher ratio SES Ethnic Diversity Student enrollment

Niedermeyer (2003)

37 Mixed, Reg. High Achiev. Low SES -.22; Low Achieve. Low SES .55**

Prior-Achievement Low SES

Stobaugh (2003) 40 .29 N. S. Reg. SES (+) Principal gender Principal tenure

Reg. Total R = .75 (+)

Prater (2004) 131 Mixed Reg.

Gender (Mix) Total Experience Building Experience Education (+) Enrollment SES (Mix) Community type


84

Managerial leadership Instructional leadership

Daniels (2005) N.S. ANOVA

Mixed SES (+) Racial composition (+) Teacher gender Teacher age Teacher’s experience Teacher time working with principal Teacher’s time at school Principal gender Principal’s age Principal’s administrative experience Principal’s time at school Principal’s education

Odegaard (2008) 41 31

.11 -.21

N.S., Reg. Enrollment (+) SES Attendance (+)

Reg. Total R = .61 (+) Improvement in stu. achievmt

Freeland (2006) 11 .02 Mixed, Reg. SES School Size School Configuration

Reg. R=.03 Reg. R=.46 (+) Reg. R=.47 (+)

Wiley (1998) 214 Mixed, HLM Professional Community

SES Minority Prior-Achievement.

Nicholson, J. (2003)

31 .03 N. S. Reg

Teacher Job Satisfaction

SES (+)


Nicholson, M. (2003)

146 .12 Mixed

N. S. Reg. & SEM

Collective Teacher Efficacy

SES (+) Prior Achievement (+)

Witmer (2005) 70 N.S., SEM

Small effect (SEM indirect total r = .13)

Teacher commitment + Effective schools (small effects)

Parent Education (strong) SES % English learners

Solomon (2007) 138 .15 Mixed Partial r = .21 R2 change = .01

Teacher commitment .24(+) Teacher collective efficacy .39 (+)

SES .73 (+)


Direct Impact of TSL on Student Learning

Among six types of student outcomes, TSL had small but significant, positive

direct effects on student learning, the most frequently studied type of student outcome.

The weighted mean r was .09, with a 95% confidence interval around the mean effect

size (from .04 to .14). Separate analyses of TSL’s impacts on student learning in reading

85

(.15) and math (.18) yielded significant, positive effects, further endorsing the significant

but small direct impacts of TSL on student learning.

The detection of significant, positive direct effects of TSL on student

achievements in this review endorsed early claims such as “results from these eight

studies are mixed but lean toward the conclusion that transformational school leadership

has significant effect on student achievement" (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). The findings

of this study also support the tentative claims made by systematic reviews about the

effects of leadership on student outcomes (Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L., 2003) that

there is some evidence that school leaders can have some effect on student outcomes. The

finding of this study provide an affirmative “Yes” to the question of whether there are

significant effects of transformational school leadership on student learning and clear the

mist of conflicting results from research in this area. This finding is consistent with those

derived from the meta-analysis of the studies that used more diverse conceptual

leadership models: school leadership does have a positive and significant small effect on

student achievement with Zr = .04 in Witziers, Bosker and Krüger’s (2003) study and

with d = .52 in Brown’s (2001) study. These effects are similar to those of this present

study (weighted mean r =. 09) in that they both fall into the range of small size according

to Cohen’s (1978) standards. In Chin’s (2007) research of TSL’s impacts based on

unpublished studies (weighted mean r =. 49) and in Waters, Marzano and McNulty’s

(2010) research of 70 published studies (r = .25) studies that used more diverse

conceptual leadership models, the association between TSL and student learning are

much larger. Regardless of the magnitude of the association, all these studies identified

significant links between school leaders and student achievements.

86

Robinson, Lloyd and Rowe’s (2008) study presented a relationship of ES = .11

between TSL and student outcomes and they commented that the average effect of

instructional leadership on student outcomes was three to four times that of

transformational leadership. As the nature of the mean effect sizes reported in their study

is quite different from this study, it is difficult to make comparisons of the findings of this

study with theirs. The calculation procedure or techniques of effect sizes in their study

remained a black box to readers, the significance and homogeneity analysis of the effect

sizes were not presented, academic and nonacademic student outcomes were combined

together, effects sizes indicating direct or indirect effects were not discernable in their

study, and their analysis was based on a very small sample. Furthermore,

transformational leadership may be narrowly conceptualized in their study. That being

said, Robinson et al.’s (2008) study revealed strong average effects on student outcomes

for the leadership dimension involving promoting and participating in teacher learning

and development and moderate effects for the dimensions concerned with goal setting

and planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum, all of which are

leadership practices under TSL framework as included in the NSL.

As a more fully conceptualized TSL is investigated, its effects on students’

learning can be justified. In Brown’s (2001) study, the impacts of transformational

leadership and instructional leadership on school effects as measured by various student

outcomes are quite close (d = .62; .74). The impacts of two types of leadership on student

outcomes did not differ significantly (Brown 2001).

Regarding the effects of individual TSL practices on student learning, this study

revealed that two dimensions, i.e., Building Collaborative Structures (weighted mean r =.

87

17) and Providing Individualized Support (weighted mean r =. 15) had significantly

positive direct effects on student achievement. Table 4. 9 shows the details of the effects

of these leadership dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted mean

effect sizes, as well as the effect reported by only one study. These statistics are based on

the Fixed Effects Model.

Table 4.9

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Student Achievements


Studies Weighted Mean r

Standard Error for zr

Building collaborative structures 3 .17* .07 Providing individualized support 6 .15** .05 Holding high performance expectations 7 .08 .05 Modeling behaviour 7 .08 .05 Providing intellectual stimulation 8 .05 .04 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 7 .03 .05 Strengthening school culture 1 .03 - Contingent reward 1 .01 - Management by exception 1 -.15 - * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Witziers, Bosker, and Krüger’s (2003) study found positive significant

relationships between student learning and leadership dimensions. These were

conceptualized and operationalized in a way that fit Hallinger’s framework and

operationalization range from .02 to .19 and related to the following leadership behaviors:

supervision and evaluation (Zr = .02), monitoring (Zr = .07), visibility (Zr = .07), and

defining and communicating mission (Zr = .19). The authors commented that the effect of

the last dimension (defining and communicating mission) was not very robust. Note that

the visibility dimension of leadership in their study is one element of Building

Collaborative Structures in this current study.

In Waters et al.’s (2009) research of studies that used more diverse leadership

conceptualizations, leadership responsibility and practices related to culture, change,

88

outreach, intellectual simulation, situational awareness and mentoring had about medium

sized impacts (r = .30) on student learning, most of which are culture redesigning, as well

as people developing, dimensions of leadership in the TSL framework used in the present

study.

Neither school level nor leadership model was found to be an effective moderator

of TSL effects on student achievements. The effects of TSL on student learning did not

differ across school levels or with the use of MLQ versus NSL for measuring leadership.

Indirect Impacts of TSL on Student Learning

TSL did not have significant effects on student learning when controlling both

SES and students’ cognitive abilities. Meta-analyses of the indirect impacts of TSL on

student achievement scores in both math and reading resulted in the same non-significant

effects. That said, management by exception was found to be significantly correlated with

student learning when controlling for SES and student cognitive abilities.

Studies incorporating moderating variables

Twenty studies incorporated moderating effects by controlling moderators either

in statistical analyses or in the sampling procedure (i.e., selecting the schools that have

similar SES, student population). These moderators can be classified into four categories:

student characteristics, school characteristics, teacher background demographics, and

principal background demographics. Among these moderators, SES, principal education

level, parent education, student racial composition, enrolment, prior achievement, and

student attendance were reported as being positively related to student learning. Fifteen

studies took into account the moderating effects without considering the interacting

effects of TSL and any mediating variables. The combined effects of TSL and moderators

89

on student learning was, in most of the cases, significant, with total R ranging from .42 to

.75.

Studies incorporating mediating variables

Seven studies took into account the mediating effects of variables in their research

design. These mediators are: teacher commitment , teacher collective efficacy,

professional community, teacher efficacy, teacher empowerment, shared school mission,

and teacher job satisfaction. Among them, teacher collective efficacy (partial r = .39) and

teacher commitment (partial r = .21) were significantly positively related to student

achievements. Two studies took into account the mediating effects without controlling

any moderators. Both studies resulted in non-significant effects of TSL on student

learning. These findings suggest TSL may correlate highly with some school or teacher

variables and thus its impacts tend to disappear when these variables are controlled.

Studies incorporating both mediating and moderating variables

Among the thirty-one studies, five of them took into account both moderating

and mediating effects. When both moderators and mediators were included, their

combined effects with TS seemed to increase. For example, in Solomon’s (2007) study,

the regression total R between TSL, teacher commitment, teacher collective efficacy,

SES and student achievement was .79, a very large, significant, positive effect.

These results suggest that, in order to unveil the indirect impacts principal

leadership, it is more fruitful to identify important moderators or mediators that

significantly related to student learning and to examine the combined impacts of these

moderating or meditating variables with principal leadership, rather than examining the

‘separate’ principal leadership impacts when controlling these variables. The combined

90

effects of TSL on student learning vary when different school or teachers variables are

taken into account. The review of the studies identified seven important moderators and

two mediators that significantly contributed to student learning along with TSL. The

studies that incorporated both moderators and mediators offered the most promising

channel for detecting the indirect effects of leadership influence on students.

Evidence in this research demonstrates at least two things. One is that TSL has

small but significant impacts on student learning. The robust evidence of this research

supports the current agree-upon observation that school leadership is one of the key

contributors to student achievements. Drawn on an extensive longitudinal data set

spanning nearly two decades, Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010)

provided unique insights into why students in 100 public elementary schools in Chicago

were able to improve substantially in reading and math over a seven-year period. The

investigation reveals that school leadership is one of the five “essential supports” that

contributes to substantial gains in student achievements. School improvement is highly

unlikely without a strong principal. Schools with strong leadership were seven times

more likely to improve substantially in math than schools with weak leadership (Bryk et

al., 2010).

The identification of the directly, significant, positive link between TSL and

student learning is consistent with those derived from the meta-analysis of the studies that

used more diverse conceptual leadership models. The impact of TSL on student learning

is similar with that of more diverse leadership models in magnitude. This leads to the

consideration of TSL as one strong candidate for improving schooling and student

learning.

91

Secondly, evidence in this research demonstrates that the influence of TSL on

student learning is mostly indirect through key school conditions and the practices of

teachers. This finding is consistent with those of the studies that investigate school

leadership under broader or other leadership frameworks. This study demonstrates that

transformational school leaders are very effective in influencing such key school

conditions as school culture and shared decision-making processes, and such key teacher-

related outcomes as teacher satisfaction, teacher commitment, and teacher organizational

citizenship behaviors. The key conditions and teacher inner states and practices make

important and relatively direct contributions to student learning (Leithwood & Jantzi,

2005). In addition, school leaders also indirectly influence teachers’ inner states by

creating or influencing the quality of teachers’ working conditions. In Leithwood’s

(2006) review of school working conditions that matter, for example, school culture has

significant effects on seven of the eight teacher inner states examined, including teacher

individual and collective efficacy, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

stress/burnout, moral and engagement form the school or profession. All of these teacher

inner states were found to be more or less positively related to student achievements

(Leithwood, 2006; Sun, 2006). The central issue here is to identify the critical paths

through which transformational school leaders improve student learning. Based on the

finding of this study, and those of others, the following paths show promises and deserve

further exploration.

• TSL−−−−−− teacher commitment −−−−−− student learning (Sun, 2006)

• TSL−−−−−− teacher collective efficacy −−−−−− student learning

• TSL−−−−−− teacher perceived leader effectiveness------- student learning

92

• TSL−−−−−− teacher job satisfaction −−−−− student learning (Leithwood, 2006)

• TSL−−−−−− teacher empowerment --------- student learning

• TSL−−−−−− teacher group potency --------- student learning

• TSL−−−−−− teacher efficacy −−−−−− student learning (Leithwood, 2006)

• TSL−−−−−− teacher discipline practice--------- student learning

• TSL−−−−−− teacher organization citizenship behavior------ student learning

• TSL−−−−−− shared goal ------------- student learning

• TSL−−− school culture/learning culture −− student learning (Bryk et al., 2010)

• TSL−−−−−− shared decision-making --------- student learning (Leithwood et al.,

2010)

• TSL−−−− Teacher perceived working place conditions --------- student learning

• TSL−−−−−− working environment ------------- student learning

• TSL−−− improved instructional work/instructional guidance/instructional

practices −−− student learning (Bryk et al., 2010; Heck & Moriyama, 2010)

• TSL --------- professional learning community −−−−−− student learning (Bryk et

al., 2010; Blase & Blase, 2004)

• TSL----------- student home activities −−−−−− student learning (Hattie, 2009)

• TSL----------- community/parental involvement or guidance and support −−−−−−

student learning (Hattie, 2009; Leithwood, 2010)

• TSL---------- teachers’ use of student data--------- student learning

A dash “−−” indicates a significant positive relation that has been provided by

this study or others. A dotted dash “--” indicates the link that is important based on

93

literature but not yet proved by empirical research. These links fall into the four paths as

Leithwood (2010) summarized: emotions, rational, organizational and family paths.

Future research is needed to investigate the “dotted dash” in order to identify the critical

paths that school leaders influence student learning.

This list of links is just a start. More critical links like these should be identified.

For example, it is the widely agreed that it is the daily technology of instruction that

makes a difference to student learning. Few studies included in this review actually

looked at the instructional dimension of TSL, although it has been conceptualized as one

of the key component of TSL. Among teachers’ instructional practices, teacher use of

data becomes increasingly important nowadays. Large-scale efforts to improve student

achievement (e.g., The National Literary and Numeracy Strategy in England, the No

Child Left Behind Act in the US) have increasingly encouraged school personnel to make

better use of data for instructional improvement purposes. However, research on the

effects of such use on student achievement remains very thin. Teachers’ use of student

data such as test results to inform instruction and school improvement is one such new

practice, lying at the innermost core of change efforts. Evaluating how it impacts student

learning and how transformational school leaders can facilitate this practice is a

promising direction for future research. .

As another example, Bryk et al.’s (2010) study of 100 Chicago public schools

reveals four “essential supports”, in addition to school leadership, that contribute to the

gains in student achievement: parent can community ties, professional capacity of the

faculty, school learning climate, and instructional guidance. Future research is needed to

investigate the extent to which TSL can influence these variables or processes.

94

As a third example, the recent Wallace study (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, &

Anderson, 2010), the largest in-depth study of educational leadership to date in the

United States, shows that the principal plays the central role in school leadership, but

high-performing schools benefit from the leadership of many others, too, with the

principal encouraging teachers, parents and others to participate in making decisions.

Attending to teachers’ professional development needs is the second of three leadership

practices contributing to better instruction as reported in the Wallace study. Principals

improve student learning in large part by motivating teachers and encouraging

‘professional community” –the help and guidance that teachers give one another to

improve their teaching. This meta-analysis showed that TSL had significant and large

impacts on shared decision-making processes in schools. Further research is needed to

investigate, for example, what such successful collaborative decision-making looks like,

how TSL influences teachers to participate in decision making and to create powerful

professional learning communities.

Future research investigating these links should use structural equation modeling,

more comprehensive conceptual modeling, and incorporate important school, teacher and

student characteristics such as the seven moderators detected by this study. Such studies

have the potential to identify important combined effects of school leadership and key

school, teacher and contextual factors. An example of this type of study has recently been

reported by Heck and Hallinger (2009). This study examined the effects of distributed

leadership on school improvement and growth in student math achievement in 195

elementary schools in one state over a 4-year period using multilevel latent change

analysis. Future studies that aim to identify significant indirect effects of leadership and

95

school process on student learning need to conceptualize the relationships accurately in

terms of a multilevel organizational model of school processes, use methods of analysis

that are capable of detecting effects, base analysis on representative samples, and

examine how changes in organizational processes, especially changes in teachers’

practices, influence growth in student learning over time.

The Moderating Effects on TSL’s Impacts

The moderating effects of school level, school type and leadership model were

tested on the relationship between TSL and the outcomes including school culture,

teacher commitment and job satisfaction when data permitted doing so. School level and

the leadership measures used for research were found to moderate TSL’s impacts

significantly, in some cases, based on a Fixed Effects Model. School type (public vs.

private or religious) was not an effective moderator. When using a Mixed Effects Model,

in most cases, the effects of TSL on tested outcomes did not differ significantly across

school levels or when different TSL models were used.

The strong effects of TSL on school culture did not significantly differ between

elementary and secondary schools or among school types. Leadership model, however,

was found to be an effective moderator. Principals’ TSL behaviors as measured by NSL

(r = .57) correlated significantly higher with school culture than principals’ TSL

behaviors as measured by MLQ (r = .33).

The effects of TSL on teacher commitment are large and do not differ across

school levels; principals' transformational leadership behaviors as captured and measured

by MLQ correlated significantly higher with teacher commitment than those captured and

measured by NSL based on FEMs. When REM was applied, this difference was not

96

significant anymore. The strong effects of TSL on teacher job satisfaction did not

significantly differ between elementary and secondary schools.

In the case of TSL’s impact on student learning, neither school level nor the use

of different leadership measures moderated the TSL effects on student achievements

reported by the studies. Generally speaking, there are no certain patterns concerning the

direction of the moderating effects of school level and leadership measures on leadership

impacts.

Similar observations were made by Witziers, Bosker, and Krüger’s (2003).

Among the eight potential moderators tested in their review, only school level and study

location (The Netherlands vs. United States) were found to have a significant relationship

with the effect size, in some cases, while the results werer not altogether consistent in

direction. Chin’s (2007) study reflects a similar pattern. Although this study found

significant moderating effects of school level on TSL’s impacts on all three outcomes

examined (i.e. teacher job satisfaction, school effectiveness, and student achievement),

the directions are conflicting: TSL’s impacts on job satisfaction and school effectiveness

are higher in elementary schools than in secondary schools while its impacts on student

achievements are significantly higher in secondary schools than in elementary schools.

Study location (U.S. vs. Taiwan) was found to significantly moderate TSL’s impacts in

this study. Its impacts were higher in the U.S. than in Taiwan on all three outcomes

(teacher satisfaction, school effectiveness and student learning). Conducted in non-

educational contexts, Underdue Murph’s (2005) study suggests that there is no significant

difference in the outcomes of transformational leadership in public versus private sector

organizations. However the type of organization (private vs. public) and the type of

97

criterion used to measure effectiveness (subordinates’ perception vs. organizational

measures) are powerful moderators influencing the effects of MLQ scales on leader

effectiveness in Low et al.,’s (1996) study. Further studies are needed in order to identify

the consistency among the moderating effects of contextual or methodological factors on

TSL’s impacts.

98

Chapter Five: Conclusions

Summary

This study found strong effects of TSL on teacher outcomes, moderately strong

effects on organizational outcomes and weak but significant effects on student learning.

This study also resulted in a more comprehensive model of TSL than has been reported

or measured in previous research.

These results support the claims made in previous studies (Leithwood & Jantzi,

2005) but with more robust evidence. The evidence for this review was based on studies

that cover a span of fourteen years, a wide geographical region including North America

as well as England, Hong Kong, Korea, the Philippines and Tanzania, and both primary

and secondary school levels. This evidence provides strong support for transformational

leadership as an effective form of school-level leadership at schools.

Limitations

The review employed standard meta-analysis supplemented by narrative synthesis

and vote-counting methods, in order to optimize the strengths of both review methods.

The limitations of this research are those inherited from the meta-analysis method

adopted by this study. Firstly, although the choice of unpublished dissertations as the

sample base for the review has the advantages of minimizing publication bias, reducing

the mix of studies of different quality and mining insights from ignored and as-yet-to-be

published research, the effects obtained from meta-analysis based on such samples tend

to be significantly smaller than those obtained from other information sources such as

journals (Rosental, 1991). Therefore, bear in mind that the effects of TSL reported in this

review may be smaller than those that have been reported in other reviews based on

99

evidence from published sources. A second limitation of this study is its focus on

quantitative evidence only.

Third, although this study uses the terms leadership “effects” or impacts

throughout the text, the claims this study makes regarding the relationship between

leadership practices and their outcomes in schools and on teachers and students are

correlational in nature. This is because most of the statistical analyses used by the

original studies included in this review were correlation in nature and it was upon their

reported effect sizes that this meta-analytical review was based. Even using inference

analyses, strong causal inferences are not actually permissible because different research

procedures were used in the sample studies, that is, different sampling methods (random

or non-random), settings (elementary or secondary), student outcome measures (math vs.

reading, or other subjects) and other research design components (Cooper & Hedges,

1994). Even “specific confounds can be controlled statistically at the level of review-

generated evidence, but the result can never lead to the same confidence in inferences

produced by study-generated evidence from investigations employing random

assignment” (Cooper & Hedges, 1994, p. 524).

A fourth limitation of this study is associated with the criticisms that meta-

analysis most frequently faces, that is the ‘apples and oranges’ problem and the ‘garbage

in, garbage out’ problem. Critics argue that mean effect sizes and other such summary

statistics produced by meta-analysis are not meaningful if they are aggregated over

incommensurable study findings such as those with different outcome variables and

treatments (the apples and oranges problem) or if they are of different or of even but low

methodological quality (the garbage in, garbage out problem) (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

100

Ideally meta-analysis should be done on a sample of studies that have used the same

measures for both independent variables and dependent variables and that are of high

quality. However, in reality this is rarely possible. Variations existed in measures or

constructs for some of the TSL correlates included in this review. To minimize the

limitations associated with this, I was careful to group together studies with similar

outcomes, for example by going through all the correlates of leadership variables and the

scales used to measure them one by one both by myself and with my supervisor to make

sure that the same correlates (meaning the same constructs) went into a single sub-group

for broken out, separate meta-analysis. In addition, this study included only the effect

sizes that were at the school level and based on teachers’ reports (with exceptions in a

few cases where such effect sizes were not available). Furthermore, this study took

careful measures to select high-quality studies, for example by eliminating studies that

were conducted with very small non-random samples, while striking a balance between

strict inclusion criteria and a desire to include much or most of the evidence available for

meta-analysis.

Finally, “It is true that explaining a relatively high proportion of the observed

variance in study outcomes with a set of meta-analytic predictors does not imply that

these factors are actually the ones involved in the underlying processes. It is possible that

an alternative set of factors may explain just as much of the variance or that some of the

measured predictors are confounded with other, unmeasured factors that are actually

more important” (Kline, 2004, p. 266). Accordingly, it is best to see this meta-analytic

review as a means of better understanding the current state of transformational

101

leadership’s influence and emergence than as an end in itself or a substitute for primary

studies.

Implications for Theory and Research

More Comprehensive Conception of Transformational Leadership

This review identified the trends in the developments of this type of leadership in

the last two decades. Below, I suggest directions for future research regarding its

conceptualization, measuring, and model developments. As indicated earlier, the

direction-setting, people-developing dimensions of transformational leadership have been

much more fully developed than its functions in designing and building school cultures

and managing instruction and schooling. The expansion of leadership functions to

redesigning cultures and managing instruction in educational contexts, especially the

development of the key leadership practices such as building collaborative structures and

providing instructional support, has significantly extended current TSL models from their

early conceptualizations.

School leadership is a very complex phenomenon. A deeper understanding of the

nature of TSL with its full range of functions is needed. The empirical examination of its

full range of functions and the impacts of these functions, especially the leadership

functions in the areas of instructional management and redesigning organizational culture

that have been rarely examined, are badly needed. In particular, more effort should be

given to the development of leadership practices related to managing instruction and

building professional community, which were rarely examined by the studies included in

this review but are very important in educational contexts. Studies that use a more

sophisticated conception of leadership and a more fully developed measure of leadership

102

such as the latest NSL are more likely to discover its actual influence. Furthermore, as the

responsibilities and roles of school leaders are constantly evolving, studies that use

qualitative research methods, especially from grounded theory approaches, are more

likely to identify and further develop TLS leadership practices that are uniquely suited to

the educational milieu under current accountability policy contexts.

Critical TSL Impact and its Interaction with Other Important School

Interacting Factors

This research contributed to theory by meta-analyzing and calculating the strength

of the overall effects of TSL as well as its individual dimensions on all examined school,

teacher and student outcomes. This study provides robust evidence supporting the earlier

claims about the strong impacts of TSL on teachers and school processes. It detected

significant direct effects of TSL on student learning. Such findings were not obtained or

were not obtainable by previous reviews using traditional methods or by any individual

study.

This review showed that management dimensions of TSL were less frequently

examined or even overlooked by the studies included in this review (except Management-

by-exception). Therefore, future research is needed to explore how leadership in the

management domain, especially leadership practices related to instructional management,

contribute to various school processes, a very promising venue of TSL influence as it

more directly relates to student learning. Also, teacher group inner states and especially

teacher practices which are uniquely and especially important to student learning are

seldom examined by the empirical research included in this review. Future research is

badly needed to explore TSL’s impacts on them.

103

This review further suggested that the combinations of TSL aggregate or certain

dimensions of transformational leadership that are strongly associated with characteristics

of students and conditions of schools and certain school and/or teacher variables need to

be explored by future research in order to identify critical paths through which school

leaders influence students. The impacts of transformational leadership are contingent

upon different contexts and operate in coordination with other variables. They vary with

other factors that interact with TSL’s effects. These factors can be school level and

teacher-level factors. The study of TSL’s impacts on student learning together with key

variables that correlate significantly with student learning yields more fruitful results than

controlling for these variables.

The identification of mediating variables that are malleable to a principal’s

influence, and that have close relationships with students or with variables that are

positively related to student achievement such as quality of teaching, teacher-student

relationships, classroom behaviors and management (see Hattie, 2009 for a list of such

variables) is important in order to detect their combined impact, with principal leadership,

on student learning. Griffith’s (2003) study, as one of the very few to date which

incorporated such important mediating variables (teacher job satisfaction), discovered

that principal transformational leadership showed an indirect effect, through staff job

satisfaction, on school staff turnover (negative) and on school-aggregated student

achievement progress (positive). The teacher-related outcome variables such as teacher

commitment and job satisfaction that are significantly related to TSL as identified by this

review research can be seen, upon the discovery of their significant impacts on student

learning, to comprise a list of important mediators through which school leadership

104

influences student learning. Such mediating variables can be characteristics of leaders’

colleagues (e.g. job satisfaction, teacher commitment), organizational structures (e.g.

participatory decision-making) and organizational conditions (e.g. school culture,

pedagogical quality) that make a significant contribution to student learning (Leithwood

& Jantzi, 2005). The identification of these intermediate variables (i.e., defined as

mediators in Leithwood and Jantzi’s 2005 review) and the inclusion of these mediators in

conceptualizing leadership influence are needed, as they are important conditions for

transformational leadership to be effective.

Student and school characteristics as well as principal and teacher demographics

can also moderate the effects of TSL on student learning. This review identified SES,

principal education level, parent education, student racial composition, enrolment, prior

achievement, and student attendance as being positively related to student learning.

Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) have commented that support had been found for the

enhancing effects of prior student achievement, family educational culture, and smaller

school size. Future research needs to identify and combine both important mediating and

moderating variables and include the best combination of them into the conceptualization

and operations of leadership influence in order to tease out the important indirect effects

of TSL on student learning.

Research on Moderators

School level and leadership measures used for research were found to moderate

TSL’s impacts significantly in some cases based on a Fixed Effects Model. School type

was not a significant moderator in this study. On the one hand, the findings of this study

suggest that TSL is effective in general regardless of school type, school levels and

105

leadership measures used. On the other hand, the association between TSL impacts and

differences in contextual or methodological factors is not certain: there is no clear pattern

to the direction of moderating effects. This may be due to the limited meta-analyses that

allow for the testing of moderating effects in this study. The study of TSL moderators

seems to be in its infancy and the scarceness of meta-analytical research does not add

clarity to conflicting research results. Future research is needed in order to explain or

make strong claims about the directions of the moderating effects of contextual or

methodological factors and to identify significant moderators.

Advancement of Research Synthesis Methods

Methodologically, this present meta-analysis of research on transformational

school leadership was conducted with the advantages of optimized combinational use of

such an approach as well as traditional narrative and “summing-up” review methods. Due

to this approach, this review made strong claims about transformational leadership and

resolved conflicting results among previous empirical studies. Gone are the days when a

vote count of results decided an issue by saying “the data are inconsistent but appear to

indicate…” (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Each step of the meta-analysis in this study was

documented and open to scrutiny. Thus, review assertions are dramatically improved by

such explicit, well-defined meta-analytic procedures as systematic search, well-defined

coding frames, standard data-analysis processes (Cooper & Hedges, 1994), statistically

computing the magnitudes of relationships and providing the confidence intervals around

effect size estimates (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Due to this approach, this review detected

important relationships that had been obscured in previous reviews or were not able to be

106

discovered in individual studies such as the discovery of the significant direct effects of

TSL on student learning and the moderating effects of leadership measures.

Research synthesis in the field of educational leadership is not well enough

developed or implemented to explain contradictions in research results. There exist in the

field:

• a lack of robustness in the claims made regarding the strength or magnitude of the

relationships found;

• a weakness in evaluating the unique contribution of each leadership behavior;

• unclear, vague or problematic meanings of assertions due to summing across both

qualitative and quantitative studies;

• an inability to tell how variations in context are related to variations in leadership

impacts; and

• the extreme rarity of a meta-analytical approach to leadership literature synthesis

in educational contexts.

The systematic coding, the precision in estimates and the large number or more organized

handling of studies under review in the meta-analytical approach allows the production of

synthesized effect estimates with considerably more statistical power than individual

studies and thus meaningful effects and relationships upon which studies agree, and

differential effects related to study differences, are both more likely to be discovered

(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The contributions made by this study suggest significantly

more research in the future should use meta-analytical methods to synthesize research

and map out the landscapes in the field.

107

That said, however, differences in research design (such as the types of statistical

analyses used in various studies to be analyzed and therefore the types of effect sizes they

yield) make it difficult to conduct meta-analyses and often paralyze scholars, preventing

them from making sense of multiple studies' results at a deeper level than that afforded by

a vote-counting review. To solve this problem, we are now proposing a new method (Sun

& Zhang, 2010), which converts various effect sizes into values expressed on a single

scale using a common measurement unit and thus allows the comparison of effect sizes in

different forms. This new method provides a statistical tool for researchers to synthesize

results when more rigorous synthesis research methods such as meta-analysis cannot be

used due to the incomparability of the effect sizes available or due to their inaccessibility

to reviewers. By achieving this, more meaningful analysis of the accumulation of

research can be conducted beyond the use of a vote-counting or traditional narrative

method. The validity and accuracy of this method still need to be investigated in the

future.

Implications for Policy and Practice

In the past two decades, the policy contexts in which school leaders work in many

countries have been dominated by increased demands for external accountability. The

government approaches to educational accountability can be classified into four

approaches: creation of quasi-markets, decentralization, professionalization and

management approaches (Leithwood, 2001). School leaders need to respond differently

in each context in order to be effective. However, in the face of policy eclecticism and the

resulting sense of confusion and uncertainty, effective leadership always include such

practices as providing individualized support to staff, challenging them to think critically

108

and creatively, building a collaborative culture, developing structures that allow for

collaboration to occur, buffering and fostering parents’ involvements (Leithwood, 2001),

all of which are typical transformational leadership practices.

This study advises educational leaders and policy makers to consider

transformational leadership as a basis for school leadership in order to promote school

success. Results provide robust evidence demonstrating TSL’s significant positive

impacts on school, teacher and student outcomes. Also, this strong evidence supports the

idea of training in transformational leadership behaviours as a part of professional

development is well justified for current and aspiring principals.

This study provides a framework or guide for school administrators and policy

makers who want to develop dimensions of school leadership to assist in school

improvement. It did this by identifying the areas where TSL was most influential and sets

of leadership practices that were particularly effective in achieving certain outcomes with

statistical proof. This does not mean that a check-mark-style use of these practices

ensures positive impacts. Rather, this checklist should be used with thoughtful

coordination of TSL practices in alignment with the needs, characteristics and special

contexts of the schools and larger educational systems in which they will be used.

Nevertheless, sensitivity to these leadership practices and endeavors to put them in place

definitely form a scaffold for school, teaching and learning improvement and sustained

success in the long run.

109

Appendix A: A Detailed Analysis of How Transformational Leadership Is

Conceptualized And Measured

Among the 79 theses, the majority (43) used Bass and Avolio’s (e.g., 1995; 2000)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Twenty-seven theses used early versions

of Leithwood, Aitken and Jantzi’s (2001) Nature of School Leadership survey (NSL). Six

theses used Kouzes and Posner’s (1995) Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). The

remaining three theses used Sashkin’s Leadership Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ) (1990),

the Principal’s Transformational Leadership Questionnaire developed by Chong-Hee No

in 1994 (in Ham, 1999), or author-designed transformational leadership measures.

Studies using the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) measured 12

leadership practices in total and reflected the distinction between transactional leadership

and transformational leadership in Bass’s conception (e.g., 1985). There are seven

transformational leadership practices--idealized influence (attributed, behavior, or total),

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and

charisma; four transactional practices--contingent reward, management by exception

(passive, active, or total); and a non-leadership practice (laissez-faire). Some authors

used revised versions of the MLQ. For example, Nicholson (2003) constructed a two-

factor model of transformational leadership including intellectual stimulation and

individuaizedl consideration. Several authors treated contingent reward as a

transformational rather than a transactional leadership behavior. Some included charisma

and some did not.

Studies that used early versions of Leithwood and Jantzi’s Nature of School

Leadership (NSL) survey measured 11 dimensions of leadership practices in total. These

are: developing a widely shared vision for the school, providing intellectual stimulation,

110

providing individualized support, modeling behavior, building consensus about school

goals and priorities, holding high performance expectations, strengthening school

culture, building collaborative structures, participative structure (transformational

leadership), providing a community focus (management), management by exception total

and contingent reward (transactional leadership). One study (Odegaard, 2008) used the

Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (TLI) (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &

Bommer, 1996 in Odegaard, 2008) for measuring TSL. It has 6 leadership components:

identifying and articulating vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering acceptance

of group goals, high performance expectations, providing individualized support,

intellectual stimulation and contingency rewards. Since these 6 complements overlap

with and can be represented by corresponding dimensions in the NSL survey, the TLI

used by this single study was not labeled as another category.

Kouzes and Posner’s (1995) Leadership Practices Inventory measures five

dimensions of transformational leadership. They are: challenging the process, inspiring

shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart. The

dimension of encouraging the heart involves similar essential components as the

dimensions of high expectations and providing individual support in NSL. The dimension

of inspiring shared vision encompasses the elements involved in shared vision and

building consensus about goals and priorities as reflected in the NSL survey.

Sashkin and Rosenback’s (1984) Leadership Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ)

measures three dimensions of LBQ visionary leadership behaviors. They are visionary

leadership behaviors, characteristics and visionary culturing building. A review of all 50

items included in the scale suggests that most of the items included in these leadership

111

dimensions overlap with the elements involved in shared vision and goal setting,

individual consideration, and strengthening organizational culture in other leadership

models. Therefore, none of these dimensions were listed separately in the table, although

they are uniquely constructed.

The Principals’ Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (PTLQ) used in Ham’s

(1999) study and developed by Chong-Hee No (1994, in Ham, 1999) includes three

dimensions measuring TSL: providing for individual consideration, symbolizing good

professional practice, and fostering the development of vision. The leader behaviors

involved in these three dimensions mainly include respect for individual staff members

and a concern for their personal feelings, symbolizing good professional practice,

providing new opportunities to collaboratively develop, and articulating and inspiring

consensus-building for the achievement of school goals and priorities. The behaviors

involved in these three dimensions overlap with those involved in the dimensions of

shared vision, goal consensus, modeling and individual consideration in the NSL survey.

One study used the author’s self-designed TSL instrument. Based on Sergiovanni’s

(1992 in Wiley 1998) and Clark and Clark’s (1996 in Wiley 1998) leadership models,

transformational leadership in Wiley’s (1998) study contains three dimensions:

developing shared values and beliefs, communicating respect & values of teachers, and

supporting actions focused on instructional development. The leadership behaviors

involved in the first two dimensions are similar to those involved in shared vision and

providing individual support in other models. The third is a separate dimension different

from the others listed in the table, although it overlaps with the leadership practice of

providing instructional support in the later version of the transformational leadership

112

instrument developed by Leithwood and associates. The transactional aggregate in

Wiley’s study includes the two items of principals dealing with outside pressures and

principals making plans and carrying them out, which differs from the transactional

aggregate in Bass’s model.

These leadership practices fall into four categories of leadership functions: Setting

Directions, Developing People, Redesigning the Organization and Managerial or

Transactional dimensions of leadership. The NSL survey encompasses all four categories

of leadership practices. The MLQ encompasses three categories and does not measure

leadership behaviors concerning Redesigning the Organization. This is also the case for

Wiley’s (1998) self-constructed instrument but it contains fewer dimensions. Both LPI

and LBQ measure the first three categories of leadership behaviors and do not

conceptualize TSL as including any leadership practices that are managerial or

transactional in nature. PTLQ primarily focuses on leadership behaviors concerning only

direction-setting and helping people.

Setting Directions and Helping People are two major leadership functions common

to all conceptualizations of TSL and are reflected in all instruments. In particular,

leaders’ practices of developing a shared vision for the school, inspiring staff to work

towards shared goals and providing individualized support are common to all

conceptualizations. Building consensus about school goals and priorities and modeling

are used by four instruments. Intellectual stimulation is included in three of the

instruments measuring TSL. Contingent reward, the most active form of transactional

leadership in MLQ, was included as one component of transformational leadership in

NSL. Management-by-exception is similar. An important dimension of transactional

113

leadership in the MLQ, it was included in early versions of the NSL as one component of

the management function of TSL.

When doing meta-analysis comparing the effects of specific leadership dimensions,

the effect sizes of some closely-related leadership dimensions were aggregated. This

happened in the following situations:

• In the leadership models of LPI, LBQ and PTLQ, the leadership practices of

developing a widely shared vision and building consensus about organizational

goals and priorities were treated as one leadership dimension and therefore one

effect size was produced from each sampled study regarding the effect of this

dimension of leadership practices. In the case of NSL, where these leadership

practices were separated into two dimensions and therefore two effect sizes for

these practices were produced and reported by the sampled studies using that

leadership model, the two effect sizes reflecting these dimensions in NSL were

aggregated (averaged). Only this aggregated effect size for each sampled study

was inserted back into the distribution of the effect sizes for meta-analysis of the

effect of this leadership dimension (i.e., the leadership dimension of building a

shared vision among colleagues/enhancing ownership of the vision and achieving

agreed-upon goals among colleagues).

• In the leadership model LPI, the leadership dimension of encouraging the heart,

as mentioned above, encompasses practices involved in the dimensions of high

expectations and providing individual support in NSL. In this case, it is not

possible to calculate the separate effects of either of these two leadership practices

from the single effect size of encouraging the heart as reported by a study. A

114

closer examination of the six items included under this scale in LPI showed that

five of them are related to providing individual support. Therefore, in meta-

analysis, the effect size denoting the effect of this leadership dimension was

classified into the group of providing individual support.

• In the case of LBQ, as discussed earlier, most of the items included in the

leadership dimensions of visionary leadership behaviors (VLB), characteristics

(VLC) and visionary culturing building (VCB) overlap with the elements

involved in shared vision and goal setting, individual consideration, and

strengthening organizational culture in other leadership models. Again, it is not

possible to obtain the effect size showing the effect of leaders’ providing

individual consideration from the effect sizes reported by the original study since

the items measuring this aspect of leadership behaviors were scattered amongst

the scales of VLB and VLC. Therefore, for meta-analysis, the effect sizes related

to VLB and VCB were grouped into the effect sizes denoting the leadership effect

of shared vision and goal consensus and that of strengthening culture.

• If a study reported two effect sizes representing the effects of the leadership

practices of idealized influence (attribute) and idealized influence (behavior) as

measured by MLQ, then these two effect sizes were averaged and the average was

classified into the leadership dimension of modeling.

• If a study reported two effect sizes representing the effects of the leadership

practices of management by exception (active) and management by exception

(passive), then these two effect sizes were averaged and the average was

classified into the leadership dimension of management by exception.

115

With these adjustments, the specific TSL practices included in various leadership

instruments were classified into 11 dimensions. The non-leadership dimension of laissez-

faire was excluded from inquiry since it is not a dimension of TSL. In most of the

sampled studies included in this research, its effect (laissez-faire) was either non-

significant or negative. Previous reviews (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004) of

transformational leadership research also commented on similar results. Table 4.2

illustrates these 11 dimensions and their frequency of being examined. Further meta-

analyses were conducted to examine the effects of these specific leadership dimensions

Table A1

Transformational School Leadership Practices Examined by the Research

Transformational School Leadership Dimensions Frequency • Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 94 • Providing intellectual stimulation 93 • Providing individualized support 87 • Modeling behaviour 83 • Holding high performance expectations 47 • Contingent reward 43 • Management by exception 28 • Building collaborative structures 27 • Strengthening school culture 19 • Providing a community focus 2 • Focusing on instructional development 0

As table A1 shows, the most frequently examined leadership practices are

developing a shared vision and build goal consensus (94 analyses) and providing

intellectual stimulation (93 analyses). Providing individualized support (87 analyses) and

modeling behaviors (83 analyses) ranked next. The least frequently examined TSL

practice, while a very important component of school administrators’ leadership, was

focusing on instructional development. Although in Wiley’s (1998) study, supporting

actions focused on instructional development was conceptualized as one of the three key

116

components of transformational leadership, the impacts of this leadership dimension was

not examined. The lack of examination of this dimension of TSL may have been due to

the fact that none of the commonly-used transformational leadership models cover this

dimension except NSL, and only its more recent versions cover this dimension. In a

sentence, the TSL functions in setting directions and developing people have been much

more frequently examined than its functions in redesigning school cultures and in

managing instruction, two key aspects of transformational leadership at schools.

117

Appendix B: A Detailed Analysis of the Impacts of TSL on School Organizational

Outcomes

An Overview

Table B1 summarizes the results concerning the influence of transformational

leadership on school organizational outcomes. This summary is based on the results of

correlation analyses reported by the original studies, or the analysis such as ANOVA and

Regression from which co-relational relationships between variables can be inferred

when correlation was not performed or reported by the original studies. When there is

more than one effect size reported for a relationship between subcomponents of either

independent or dependent variables, or both, by an original study, I calculated the average

effect size manually for that relationship. In such cases, the final effect size was grouped

and defined as positive when all effect sizes involved were positive; as negative when all

effect sizes involved in calculation were negative; and as mixed when the results were not

consistent.

Table B1

The Impacts Of Transformational Leadership On School Organizational Outcomes

Leadership Impacts

School Outcome Variables No effect Negative Positive Mixed Results

Total No. of Analyses

Decision-making Technology Supported 1 1 Improved Direction Setting 1 1 Improved Instructional Work 2 2* Improvement in Developing People 1 1 Organizational Effectiveness (MPE) 1 1 Organizational Factors 2 2* Peer Cohesion 1 1 Professional Learning Community 1 Program Effectiveness 1 Program Type I (program of choice) 1 1 Program Type II (assignment & referral program) 1 1 School Coherence & Coordination 1 1 School Working Environment 2 2*

118

School Culture/Climate/Organizational Learning 2 10 6 18* Shared Decision-making 2 4 6* Shared Goal/Mission 6 1 7* School Technology Level 1 1 School Outcomes Subtotal 6 35 7 48 * The Effects of TSL on this variable were meta-analyzed

As the table shows, the results of these studies were reported for 17 variables

reflecting school characteristics. Among the 46 analyses that inquired into leadership

impacts on school conditions, the majority of them, 69.4% (34/49), reported positive

effects of transformational leadership on various school organizational. 7 studies reported

mixed results and 8 studies resulted in non-significant effects. TSL had uniformly

positive effects on the majority of the outcomes (11 out of 15). These results indicated

transformational leaders had influential, positive impacts on various aspects of school

organizations. Six sets of these school outcomes were examined by more than two

studies, i.e., school culture (20 studies), shared decision-making (7 studies), shared goal

(7 studies), improved instructional work (2), teacher perceived working place conditions

(2), and school working environment (2). The remaining nine outcomes were examined

by only one study each. Seven of these nine outcomes were reported to have been

positively related to TSL. TSL was reported to have non-significant impacts on program

type. Meta-correlations were conducted on the six sets of school organizational outcomes

that were examined by more than one study to determine, among other things, whether

the overall effect of TSL on each of these outcomes is significant and the extent of the

effect. The following will provide meta-analytic reviews of the impacts of TSL on each

of these organizational outcomes.

119

Meta-analysis of the TSL Impacts on School Organizational Outcomes

TSL impacts on school culture

Study Features

School culture/organizational climate/organizational learning attracted the largest

number of studies (20 studies) among all school conditions. Two studies did not report

effect size data or the effect size r was not obtainable by manual calculation from the

reported data. The following synthesis is therefore based on the remaining 18 studies

Measures of School Culture. The 18 studies in this group employed a number of

similar constructs that reflect a variety of school culture elements. They are, namely,

school culture, organizational climate, school climate and organizational learning. The 18

studies conceptualized and measured school culture in eleven different ways. The

constructs of school culture in seven studies are associated with adaptation or

improvement of schools. Kristoff (2003) used the School Culture Assessment

Questionnaire (Sashkin, 1990 in Kristoff, 2003), measuring the effectiveness with which

the organization demonstrates culture strengths in terms of managing change/adaptation,

teamwork/integration, and goal attainment. Yu (2000) used The Change Process in

Elementary Schools questionnaire developed by Leithwood and his colleagues,

measuring aspects of school culture, school improvement strategies, school structure, and

school resources and policies. Part A of The Process of Professional Learning

Questionnaires (Leithwood, 1994 in Stasny, 1996) used by Stasny (1996) for measuring

school learning culture is very similar to what Yu (2000) used. Also developed by

Leithwood, it assesses participants’ perceptions of the conditions affecting organizational

learning within a school setting, including the six components of vision, structure,

120

culture, strategy, resources (internal) and district (external). In the same vein, Nader

(1997) used a modified staff survey, also developed by Leithwood and Jantzi (1991, in

Nader 1997), for measuring in-school and out-of-school conditions and processes that

affect the implementation of change. It includes school goals, collaboration, teachers’

commitment, community, school organization, personnel, physical features, instructional

program, resources, and district conditions. In the meta-analysis, the district conditions

were excluded from the calculation of effect sizes since the interest of this study is school

outcomes. Blatt (2002) used the CFK Ltd. School Climate Profile (Fox, 1973 in Blatt,

2002) measuring teachers’ perceptions of the climate of their schools. It includes eight

general factors: respect, trust, high morale, opportunities for input, continuous academic

and social growth, cohesiveness, school renewal and caring. Layton (2003) inquired into

adaptive cultures, meaning those school environments in which change and reforms are

readily embraced by the stakeholders of the school. Meier (2007) used the School

Assessment Survey (SAS) to collect data on school climate and organizational factors

related to school effectiveness and improvement. It has nine organizational dimensions:

goal consensus, facilitative leadership, classroom instruction, curriculum and resources,

vertical communication, horizontal communication, staff conflict, student discipline, and

teaching behavior. Each of these seven instruments touches on the change or

improvement processes of schools.

Four studies used school culture surveys to measure school norms, teacher

emotions and practices and school atmosphere. Marks’ (2002) study measured 14 aspects

of school norms including collegiality, experimentation, high expectations, trust and

confidence, support, reaching out to the knowledge base, appreciation and recognition,

121

caring, appreciation of leadership, clarity of goals, protection of what’s important,

involvement of stakeholders in decision-making, traditions, and honest, open

communication (Sagor & Curley, 1991 in Marks, 2002). In Miles’ (2002) and Schooley’s

(2005) studies, the dimensions of school culture included collaborative leadership,

teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support and

learning partnership (Gruenert & Valentine, 1998 in Miles, 2002). Johnson (2007) used

the survey School Leadership Study-- Developing Successful Principals, which was

developed by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute in conjunction with the

Finance Project and commissioned by the Wallace Foundation. Twelve items measured

three aspects of school culture: teachers’ commitment to improving student

achievements, students working hard, and cooperative efforts among the staff.

Seven studies measured school climate in elementary, middle, or secondary

schools respectively using the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire

(OCDQ) (e.g., Hoy & Clover, 1986 or Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991 for elementary

schools; Hoy & Sabo, 1998 for middle schools; Hoy, Kottkamp, & Mulhern, 1991 for

secondary schools). The OCDQ intends to examine organizational climate dimensions

including both principals’ behaviours (e.g., supportive, directive, or restrictive

behaviours) and teachers’ behaviours (e.g., collegial, committed or disengaged

behaviours). Because the principals’ behaviour dimensions on the OCDQ are leadership

measures, in the interest of this study reviewing the effects of transformational

leadership, I discuss only the relationships between transformational leadership and the

climate measures on the OCDQ, i.e., the teacher-related dimensions, not the leadership

behaviour dimensions. Therefore, only correlations between TSL and teacher-related

122

practices were included for meta-analysis. Edwards’ (2008) measure of school culture is

akin the OCDQ: it used the Organizational Health Inventory (Hoy and Tarter, 1991) for

examining the openness of teacher-teacher and principal-teacher interactions. “A healthy

school was defined as an organization in which the institutional, administrative, and

teacher levels were in harmony and the school was meeting functional needs” (Edwards,

2008, p. 61). This measure has 5 dimensions: institutional integrity, collegial leadership,

teacher affiliation, resource influence, and academic emphasis. Among them, collegial

leadership refers to friendly, open and collegial leadership behavior. Because principals’

behaviors on the OHI are also leadership measures, only the correlations between TSL

and the other four OHI climate measures were included in meta-analysis.

Overall, the various constructs measured the following aspects of school culture:

school change and improvement processes, teacher psychological factors such as

commitment, morale, efficacy and satisfaction, teacher practices such as teacher

collaboration and commitment, working environments (e.g., supportive or open

environments, policy, resources), and goal achievement.

Leadership Measures. In terms of the leadership instruments used by the 18 studies, the

majority of the studies (44.4%) used MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, see

Bass & Avolio, 1995 for example), seven studies (38.9%) used NSL (Nature of School

Leadership survey, see Leithwood, Aitken & Jantzi, 2001 for example), and three studies

used LPI (Leadership Practices Inventory, see Kouzes & Posner, 1995 for example),

LBQ (Leadership Behavior Questionnaire, see Sashkin, 1990 for example) and PTLQ

(Principal’s Transformational Leadership Questionnaire, see Chong-Hee No, 1994 in

123

Ham 1999) respectively. Table B2 illustrates the details. This distribution permits the

testing of moderating effects of leadership model (MLQ vs. NSL) in later meta-analysis.

Table B2

The Distribution of Leadership Instruments

Leadership Models No. of Schools Percent MLQ 8 44.4 NSL 7 38.9 LPI 1 5.6 LBQ 1 5.6 TLP 1 5.6 Total 18 100

School Level. In terms of the settings where these 18 studies were conducted, six studies

(33.3%) were conducted in elementary schools, eight studies were conducted at the

middle or high school levels and the remaining four were conducted in mixed level

samples schools (see Table B3). This distribution permits the testing of moderating

effects of school level (elementary vs. secondary) in later meta-analysis.

Table B3

The Distribution of School Levels

School Level No. of Schools Percent Elementary Schools 6 33.3 Junior or/and High Schools 8 44.4 Mixed 4 22.2 Total 18 100

School Type. The majority of the studies were conducted in regular public schools. Two

were conducted in private or religious schools, one in secondary vocational schools, and

three in a mixed sample of schools. There was one study that did not report the type of its

sampled schools, and I was not able to discern the type from any clues in the thesis. Table

B4 illustrates the distribution of the school types. This distribution permits the testing of

moderating effects of school type (public vs. private or religious) in later meta-analysis.

124

Table B4

The Distribution of School Types

School Type No. of Schools Percent Regular public schools 11 61.1 Private, Catholic or Christian 2 11.1 Vocational 1 5.6 Mixed sample 3 16.7 Unknown 1 5.6 Total 18 100

Study Results

Among the 18 studies that inquired into leadership impacts on school culture,

more than half of them (10/18), reported purely positive effects of transformational

leadership (TSL) on various aspects of school culture. Six studies reported mixed results

and two studies resulted in non-significant effects. These results suggest that TSL has

positive impacts on school culture. Whether and to what extent the overall impact of TSL

on school culture is significant will be further tested or confirmed by the meta-analysis

that follows.

The ten studies that reported positive effects used a variety of measures of school

culture. Miles’ (2002) study, for example, included in all dimensions of transformational

leadership as measured by The Principal Leadership Questionnaire (Leithwood model);

these were significantly positively related to all dimensions of school culture including

collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of

purpose, collegial support and learning partnership (Gruenert & Valentine, 1998 in Miles,

2002) with r ranging from .37--.62; p < .01. School culture/organizational learning

correlated, as another example, highly with transformational leadership as measured by

the Leithwood model (r = .80; p < .01 in Stasny, 1996), modestly with transformational

leadership as measured by MLQ (r =. 569; p < .01 in Blatt, 2002), and low with visionary

125

leadership behaviours as measured by LBQ (r = .38; p < .01 in Kristoff, 2003). The later

meta-analysis will statistically test whether the study results significantly differ when

using different leadership instruments.

Most of the six studies that resulted in mixed effects used the OCDQ for

measuring school culture. This group of studies also reveals mixed results about the

extent to which each of the TSL practices influences school culture. Based on the ratings

of teachers from elementary schools in Western Pennsylvania (in Mooney, 2003) and

from 57 middle schools in New Jersey (in O’Connor, 2001), idealized behaviors

(attributed or/and behavioral) and intellectual stimulation of transformational leadership

had a low positive correlation with collegial, committed or intimate teacher behaviors

while they had a low negative correlation with disengaged teacher behaviors on the

climate dimensions. Contingent reward was also found to have a low positive correlation

with collegial teacher behaviours (in O’Connor, 2001) and a low negative correlation

with disengaged teacher behaviours (in both O’Connor, 2001 and Mooney, 2003).

Brooker’s study also reported that teachers’ perceptions of principal transformational

leadership correlated significantly with principals’ perceptions of teacher-collegial

teachers’ collegial behaviours (r = .38; p = .005) and teachers’ committed behaviours (r =

.49; p = .002). In Ham’s (1999) study of 44 selected Korean secondary schools, based on

ratings of 559 teachers, all three dimensions of transformational leadership (i.e. providing

for individual consideration, symbolizing good professional practice, and fostering the

development of vision) measured by the Principals’ Transformational Leadership

Questionnaire (PTLQ) (Chong-Hee No 1994 in Ham, 1999) were significantly,

moderately correlated with teachers’ engaged behaviours (r = .53-.72; p < .01) while

126

negatively correlated with teachers’ frustrated behaviours (r = -.61— -.37; p < .01). That

being said, if taken together, the school climate dimension on the OCDQ, i.e., teacher

openness, was not significantly regressed on transformational leadership as measured by

MLQ (in O’Connor, 2001). Brooker’s (2004) study, however, found that teachers’

perceptions of principal transformational leadership as measured by MLQ and principals’

perceptions of the openness of teacher behaviour yielded significant results (r = .46; p =

.005) in 36 selected middle schools in Tennessee. O’Connor’s (2001) study added to this

by reporting that contingent reward, one dimension of transactional leadership, was

significantly, positively correlated with teacher openness (r = .26; p < .05). In the

apparent mist of mixed results, the evidence does support the fact that some dimensions

of transformational leadership such as idealized influence, intellectual stimulation,

providing for individual consideration, symbolizing good professional practice, and

fostering the development of vision were positively associated with teachers’ collegial

and engaged behaviours (or negatively associated with teachers’ disengaged behaviours).

Whether and to what extent the impact of each TSL dimension on school culture is

significant will be further examined in the following meta-analysis.

Effect Sizes Distribution

Table B5 shows the stem-and-leaf display and the summary statistics of the effect

sizes r reported by the 18 studies. Seventeen studies (94.4%) reported positive effect

sizes. The median r value of .37 and the overall mean r value of .38 show convincing

evidence that the effect of TSL on school culture is important. Also, this effect is close to

large, according to the widely used convention for appraising the magnitude of

correlation effect sizes established by Cohen (1977, 1988). (‘Large’ is defined as ≥ .40).

127

The interquartile range (IQR) suggested by the quantity of Q3 - Q1, the distance between

the 75th percentile and the 25th percentile, is .37, essentially the range of the middle 50%

of the data, and shows that the values of the effect sizes are not very close. This result is

also consistent with the observation that the most common results fell into one range,

with raw correlation effect sizes ranging from .31 to .38. According to Cohen (1977,

1988), these effects range from medium (‘medium’ is defined as = .25) to large (≥. 40).

Three studies reported small effects. One study (Stasny, 1996) reported an extremely

large effect (r = .80). This study examined the effect of TSL on the learning culture in

restructuring schools (schools committed to the Onward to Excellence program),

including elementary, middle and high schools from 11 states in the US. It used The

Process of Professional Learning Questionnaires (Leithwood, 1994 in Stasny 1996) for

measuring school learning culture and school leadership.

Table B5

Stem-and-Leaf Display and Statistical Summary of Correlations

Between Transformational School Leadership and School Culture

Correlations (r’s) Summary Statistics Stem (width 0.1) Leaf (Based on r, not on zr)

.0 55 Maximum .80

.1 1 Quartile 3 (Q3) .57

.2 03 Median (Q2) .37

.3 13568 Quartile 1 (Q1) .22

.4 469 Minimum .05

.5 778 Q3 - Q1 .36

.6 1 Mean .38

.7 Standard Error .04

.8 0 N 18 Proportion positive sign 100.00%

Homogeneity Analysis

128

Table B6 shows the overall results of descriptive and homogeneity analysis of the effect

sizes of TSL effects on school culture based on a fixed effects model (FEM). 153

correlation coefficients/effect sizes were involved in this analysis. The weighted mean r

is .44, indicating that the effect of TSL on school culture is large. The 95% confidence

interval around the mean effect size (.38 < µ < .49) does not include zero and indicates

the effect is significant and positive. The resulting Q value of 52.27 with 17 degrees of

freedom is significant (p = .00). The variance in this sample of effect sizes is

demonstrably greater than would be expected from sampling error alone. Thus, the

hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was rejected.

Table B6

Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM

Overall Effect N of ES

Weighted Mean r


95% Confidence Interval Q df P Lower End r Upper End r

Fixed Model 153 .44 .04 .38 .49 52.27* 17 .00

When the Total Q is significant based on a fixed effects model, a Random Effects

Model (REM) is recommended (Wilson, 2009). REM assumes that excess variability

across effect sizes derives from random differences across studies (sources one cannot

identify or measure). Table B7 shows the results obtained from a random effects model.

The weighted mean r is .44, indicating that the effect of TSL on school culture is large.

The 95% confidence interval around the mean effect size (.32 < µ < .54) does not include

zero and indicates the effect is significantly positive. These results are very close to those

of the FEM. The resulting Q-value of 13.47 with 17 degrees of freedom was not

significant anymore (p = .70). This suggests that the variability in the population of

effects (the unique differences of school culture in the set of true population effect sizes

129

of which the sample of this study was a part) plus sampling error sufficiently account for

the excess variances of the sampled effect sizes. That being said, however, the random

component (.05) is not much smaller than the standard error (.07) in this case. This

suggests that the differences between studies may also be systemic.

Table B7

Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM

Overall Effect N of ES Weighted Mean r


95% Confidence Interval Q df P Lower End Upper End

Random Model 153 .44 .07 .32 .54 13.47 17 .70

Heterogeneity Analysis & Moderator Testing

The sampled effect sizes were blocked into subsets according to potential

moderators, i.e., school level, school type and leadership instrument, in that order. Then

the main methods of modeling the systematic variance in effect sizes, the analog to the

ANOVA for categorical variables, were performed to test the moderating effects of these

potential moderators one by one. The application of FEM assumes that the excess

variability is systematic and is associated with these variables. The groups that included

studies that used mixed samples or that included only one sampled study were excluded

from analyses. Table B8 shows the results of the variance analyses.

Table B8

Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (FEM)

Moderator Source of Variance Q df P

School Level Elementary vs. secondary

Between Groups .36 1 .55 Within Groups 16.87 12 .15 Total 17.23 13 .19

School Type Between Groups .51 1 .47 Within Groups 46.31* 11 .00 Total 48.82* 12 .00

Leadership Instrument MLQ vs. NSL

Between Groups 15.05* 1 .00 Within Groups 34.12* 13 .00 Total 49.17* 14 .00

130

* Significant at α =. 05

The between-study variance QB was significant at α = .05 only for leadership

instrument. The mean effects of TSL on school culture differed significantly when

different leadership instruments were used (QB = 15.05; p = .00). This suggests leadership

instrument is an effective moderator. Qw, however, was also significant, which indicates

that leadership instrument, as represented in QB, may not be sufficient to account for the

excess variability in the effect size distribution.

QB was not significant for either school type or school level. The main effects of

TSL on school culture did not differ significantly between elementary and secondary

schools (QB = .36; p = .55; Qw = 16.87; p = .15). The Qw for secondary schools was

significant, which suggests that the effects of TSL on school culture may differ between

middle schools and high schools. (In this study, these two types of schools were grouped

together as “secondary schools”.) However, due to the limited sample size (only three

studies were conducted purely in high schools), further tests were not applicable.

The main effects of TSL on school culture did not differ significantly between

public schools and private or religious schools (QB = .51; p = .47). This finding is

tentative since a majority of the studies (11 out of 18) were conducted in public schools

alone and only two were conducted purely in private or religious schools. Qw was

significant as well, indicating heterogeneity among public schools.

The existence of Qw’s in the above tests suggests that there may exist a remaining

unmeasured (and possibly unmeasurable) random effect in the effect size distribution of

r’s in addition to sampling error. This suspicion is consistent with the results of the

previous heterogeneity analysis using REMs which showed that a random effect may

131

exist. Mixed Effects Models (MEMs) were then applied on school level, school type and

leadership model in order to explain the variances that these moderators were not able to

explain using FEMs. In MEMs, the variances may include both between-study

differences, subject-level sampling error, and an additional random component. Table B9

shows the overall results of applying MEMs. Table B10shows the details of the

moderating effects and descriptives in subgroups.

Table B9

The Moderating Effect of School Level, Type and Leadership Instrument on the

Relationship between TSL and School Culture based on MEMs


School Level Elementary vs. Secondary


School Type Between Groups .20 1 .66 Within Groups 10.55 13 .48 Total 10.75 14 .55


Between Groups 5.38* 1 .02 Within Groups 10.86 13 .62 Total 16.24 14 .30

* Significant at α = .05

Table B10

A Summery of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on School Culture and

Homogeneity Analyses in Subgroups Based on MEMs

N of ES

Weighted Mean r


95% Confidence Interval QW

df forQ

P ForQ Lower End Upper End

School Level Elementary 71 .35 .09 .19 .50 2.00 5 .85 Secondary 76 .40 .06 .30 .50 9.36 7 .23

School Type Public 119 .48 .09 .29 .57 10.35 10 .41 Private or religious 2 .36 .24 -.11 .68 .20 1 .66

Leadership Instrument MLQ 49 .33 .08 .17 .47 3.75 7 .81 NSL 75 .57 .10 .43 .69 7.11 6 .31

132

When the random variance was taken into account, the QB for school level in

REMs (Q B(1) = .32; p = .57) was still not significant, endorsing the idea that school level

was not an effective moderator that accounted for the between-study differences. The

means of TSL effects on school culture in secondary schools (M = .40; SE = .06) and in

elementary schools (M = .36; SE = .09) were not significantly different. The within-study

variance Q W was also not significant (Q W(12) = 11.37, p = .50). These results were

consistent with the results yielded from the fixed effect model, where neither QB nor Q

total was significant.

When the random variance was taken into account, QB for school type was still

not significant (QB = .20; p = .66), which endorses the result yielded from the FEM that

the effects of TSL on school culture did not differ significantly based on school type. In

other words, school type was not found to an effective moderator that explains between-

study differences in the effects of TSL on school culture. Transformational principals’

leadership could have had a similar influence on school culture regardless of whether

they were in public schools or private or religious schools. The total Q was not significant

anymore (QT = 10.75; p = .55), indicating that a random effect existed and the random

component sufficiently explained the remaining, immeasurable random effect. Note that

among the 13 studies, the majority (11) were conducted in public schools, with only two

conducted in private or religious schools. This uneven distribution of studies in terms of

school type may have affected the results of the homogeneity or heterogeneity analyses

above. Therefore, further analysis was done to compare the results when the groups that

had two or fewer studies were excluded from the analysis. After this screening, only the

group containing 11 studies that were conducted in public school settings was left. An

133

FEM homogeneity test showed that even within these 11 studies, the Q was significant

(QB = 46.07; p < .0001). An MEM homogeneity test showed that Q was not significant

(Q = 10.35; p = .41) when a random component was taken into account. This result, as

well as the previous findings yielded by applying FEM, suggest that the random

component accounted for the remaining variances.

In the case of the leadership models used by the studies for measuring principals’

transformational leadership, when the random variance was taken into account, the QB for

leadership models in REM (QB = 5.38; p = .02) was also significant, which endorses the

previous findings yielded from the FEM. The within-variance Q W was also not

significant (Q W(13) = 10.86, p = .62), indicating that a random effect existed and the REM

sufficiently explained the variances. The TSL effects on school culture were significantly

higher when using NSL (M = .57, SE = .10) than when using MLQ (M = .33; SE = .08).

This result indicates that the use of different leadership measures did moderate the TSL

effects on school culture reported by the studies. The studies that used NSL detected a

larger association between TSL and school culture. The mean effect size in terms of

correlation r, .57, is very large according to Cohen (1977; 1988). The true or real

association between NSL transformational principal behaviors and school culture may be

even greater than .57 when the effect sizes reported by the studies are adjusted for

attenuation through reliability adjustment for both leadership and culture measures.

In summary, the effect of TSL on school culture is significant, positive and large.

The weighted mean r is .44, with a 95% confidence interval around the mean effect size

(from .38 to .49). The null hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was rejected based on

homogeneity tests. MEMs as well as FEMs suggest that unique differences in the effects

134

of TSL on school culture existed in the set of true population effect sizes of which the

sample in this study was a part. This random component of variances plus sampling error

could sufficiently explain the excess variances in the sampled effect sizes. The random

component, however, is not small, which suggests the variances in the effect size

distribution could actually contain both systematic factors as well as random sources of

error beyond sampling errors. Mixed effects models explain the variances better than

fixed effects models. Neither school level nor school type was found to be an effective

moderator. The leadership model used by each of the studies for examining and

measuring TSL, however, was found to be an effective moderator, significantly

moderating the effects of TSL on school culture as reported by the studies. The above

statistical findings suggest that:

4) the effect of TSL on school culture is significant, positive and large;

5) the effects of TSL on school culture do not differ significantly across school

levels;

6) the effects of TSL on school culture do not differ significantly between public

schools and private or religious schools;

7) principals’ transformational leadership behaviors as captured and measured by

NSL correlated significantly higher with school culture than principals’

transformational leadership behaviors as captured and measured by MLQ.

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on School Culture

Knowing the large, significant, positive effect of TSL on school culture, further

analyses were conducted to examine the specific contributions of individual leadership

dimensions to school culture. Out of 11 TSL dimensions, nine were examined by the

135

sampled studies in relation to their impacts on a variety of cultural outcomes in schools.

These leadership dimensions, from the most to least frequently examined, are:

11. Developing a shared vision and building goal consensus (10 studies)

12. Providing individualized support (9 studies)

13. Modeling behaviour (8 studies)

14. Providing intellectual stimulation (8 studies)

15. Holding high performance expectations (4 studies)

16. Contingent reward (3 studies)

17. Management by exception (3 studies)

18. Strengthening school culture (2 studies)

19. Building collaborative structures (2 studies)

The four most frequently examined TSL dimensions include shared vision, a

direction-setting leadership practice, and three people-developing leadership practices

(i.e., providing intellectual stimulation, individual support and modeling).

According to Rosenthal (1991), one can perform meta-analyses on even two

studies. Therefore, meta-analyses were conducted on all of these nine TSL dimensions

since each of them had at least two studies that reported, or from which the researcher

could calculate, related effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to

which each of the specific leadership dimensions influences school culture was calculated

and these impacts were in turn compared. Table B11 shows the details of the effects of

these leadership dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted mean effect

sizes. These statistics are based on the Fixed Effects Model. Further analyses inquiring

136

into moderating effects were not performed for each TSL dimension due to the small

number of effect sizes available for each of them.

Table B11

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Culture




Holding high performance expectations 4 .47*** .06 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 8 .45*** .04 Providing intellectual stimulation 10 .44*** .05 Modeling behaviour 2 .43*** .05 Providing individualized support 9 .42*** .05 Strengthening school culture 8 .37*** .07 Building collaborative structures 2 .30** .10 Contingent reward 3 .27** .10 Management by exception 3 -.12 .10 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table B11, the most influential leadership practices on school

culture are those related to holding high expectations and direction-setting (i.e.,

developing a shared vision and build goal consensus) and those related to helping and

developing people (i.e., providing intellectual stimulation, modeling, and providing

individualized support). The effects of these leadership practices on school culture are

large, ranging from .42 to .47. The leadership practice that directly relates to culture-

building is understandably close to large (.37). These results suggest that leaders

influence school culture through the ways that they achieve a shared vision and agreed-

upon goals for the organization, the ways that they interact and support the organizational

members, and that are directly or closely related to strengthening the norms and values of

the organization (such as modeling and being visible). Building collaborative structures

and contingent reward have medium-sized effects on school culture. Management by

exception, as expected, has no significant effect on school culture-building.

137

TSL impacts on shared goal/mission

The next most frequently studied school condition was shared goal or missions

(seven studies).

Description and Features of Sampled Studies

Measures of Shared Goal/Mission. Floyd (1999) used the Successful School Survey for

Instructional Personnel developed by Evers and Bacon (1994, in Floyd, 1999) to measure

teachers’ perceptions of school mission. Bannon (2000) used the Shared School Goals

subtests of the Social Organizational Factors Questionnaire to measure teachers’

perceptions of the extent of shared school goals. "Shared school goals" in this study

mainly refers to the extent to which the organizational goals of the school point the

teachers in a unidimensional direction; teachers adopt a single gauge of their teaching

success and principals interact with teachers to shape their school reality, construct

school traditions, and develop goals for students’ basic skills mastery. The notion of

Shared goals includes seven factors: shared teaching goals, school goal setting, teacher

recruitment and selection, teacher socialization, teacher evaluation, teacher

isolation/cohesiveness, and managing student behaviors. In the remaining three studies,

shared goal/mission was a subcomponent pulled out from a larger construct that was the

researchers’ primary interest. For example, vision, in Stasny’s (1996) study, was one

component of organizational learning measured by The Process of Professional Learning

(developed by Leithwood, 1994, in Stasny, 1996) which addressed school’s vision related

to improving programs and instruction that fosters commitment to continuous learning by

both staff and students. All in all, these measures evaluate the degrees of consensus

among school staff on school mission, vision and goals, to which school administrators

138

and teachers refer for guidance or direction, which inform school activities and teacher

practices, and to which both administrators and teachers are committed to that direction.

Leadership Measures. In terms of leadership models, four studies used MLQ, two

used NSL, and the remaining one used LPI.

School Level. In terms of the settings where these seven studies were conducted,

four studies were conducted in elementary schools and the remaining three were

conducted in mixed sample schools.

School Type. In terms of school type, all studies were conducted in regular public

schools.

Due to the limited number of studies, moderator testing for school level, school type and

leadership models was not performed in the heterogeneity analysis.

Study Results

Among these seven studies, six studies reported significant, positive links

between transformational school leadership and shared goal/mission. In Floyd’s (1999)

study, for example, teachers’ perceptions of shared school mission in North Carolina

public schools as measured by SSSIP were moderately correlated with their principal’s

leadership behavior both in terms of leadership aggregated scores (r = .54; p = .0001) and

each of the leadership dimension scores as measured by LPI. Among them, the dimension

of modeling the way correlated highest with shared goals (r = .6254; p = .0001) while

inspiring a shared vision correlated lowest (r = .45; p = .0001). In another example,

Bannon’s (2000) study found a significant high positive relationship between teachers’

perception of the extent of their principal’s transformational leadership as measured by

MLQ and their perception of the extent of shared goals (r = .79; p = .000). Vision, in

139

Stasny’s (1996) study, was reported to be significantly correlated with transformational

school leadership in restructuring schools and with each leadership dimension as

measured by the Leithwood leadership model (r = .50 -.86; p< .01). Notably all

dimensions of transformational leadership correlated highly with shared goals (r = .72 -

.86; p< .01) when analyzed with schools as the unit. Consensus and Articulating a Vision

ranked the highest (.86-.81) when correlated with shared goals. “Articulating a vision has

the highest correlation (.86) with vision as a condition for organizational learning" (p.

80). Goal consensus among teachers, one component of organizational factors, was

reported to be significantly correlated with all dimensions of transformational leadership

(r = .61 -.65; p < .00) and with contingent reward as measured by MLQ (r = .42; p < .00)

in the schools of one southwest district in Michigan (Evans, 1997). In spite of using

various instruments measuring shared goals and various leadership models measuring

leadership, the findings of these studies unanimously suggest that transformational school

leaders in either elementary, middle or high schools are good at building or achieving a

sense of shared mission, goal or vision among their colleagues. The Direction-Setting

leadership practices included in the NSL instrument were found to be highly correlated

with the shared goal, or in other words, the most effective in achieving a shared mission

or vision among their colleagues. That being said, there was still one study that reported

mixed effects, i.e., some dimensions of TSL had positive effects, some had negative and

the others had non-significant effects. The following meta-analysis helped determine

whether the overall effects of TSL on shared decision-making ws significant and the

extent to which various TSL dimensions impacted shared school goal/mission among

staff.

140


Table B12 shows the stem-and-leaf display and the summary statistics of the

effect sizes rs reported by the seven studies. Among the seven studies, six reported

positive effect sizes and one reported an effect size with a negative sign. The median r

value of .63 and the overall mean r value of .56 show convincing evidence that the effect

of TSL on shared decision making is important. Also, this effect is large, according to the

widely used convention for appraising the magnitude of correlation effect sizes

established by Cohen (1977, 1988). (‘Large’ is defined as ≥ .40). The middle 50% of the

effect sizes fell into .31, suggested by the quantity of Q3 - Q1. The mean statistics (Mean

& Median) are quite close and consistent (i.e. .63; .56), which demonstrates the large

effect of TSL on school shared goal/mission.

Table B12


Between Transformational School Leadership and Shared Goal/Mission

Correlations (r’s) Summary Statistics Stem (width 1) Leaf (Based on r, not on zr)

0. 01344 Maximum .83 0. 5 Quartile 3 (Q3) .81 Median (Q2) .63 Quartile 1 (Q1) .50 Minimum -.07 Q3 - Q1 .36 Mean .56 Standard Error .12 N 6 Proportion of positive signs 85.7%



sizes of TSL effects on shared goal/mission based on a fixed model. The weighted mean r

141

is .67, indicating that the effect of TSL on shared goal is large. The 95% confidence

interval around the mean effect size (.59< µ < .73) does not include zero and indicates

the effect is significantly positive. The resulting Q value of 35.14 with 6 degrees of

freedom is significant (p = .00). The variance in this sample of effect sizes is

demonstrably greatly than would be expected from sampling error alone. Thus, the


Table B13

Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity Analysis


Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 14 .67 .07 .59 .73 35.14 6 .00

In sum, the effect of TSL on shared goal at the school level is significant, positive

and large. The null hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was rejected.


Model is recommended (Wilson, 2009). REM assumes that excess variability across

effect sizes derives from random differences across studies (sources one cannot identify

or measure). Table B14 shows the results obtained from a random effects model. The

weighted mean r is .62, indicating that the effect of TSL on school culture is large. The

95% confidence interval around the mean effect size (.37 < µ < .80) does not include

zero and indicates the effect is significantly positive. These results are very close to those

of the Fixed Model. The resulting Q-value of 5.14 with 6 degrees of freedom was not

significant anymore (p = .53). This suggests that the variability in the population of

effects (the unique differences of school culture in the set of true population effect sizes

of which the sample of this study was a part) plus sampling error sufficiently account for

142

the excess variances of the sampled effect sizes. That being said, the random component

(.17) is not very small compared to the standard error (.18) in this case. This suggests that

the differences between studies may also be systemic, but cannot be analyzed due to the

small number of effect sizes.

Table B14





Random Model 14 .62 .18 .37 .80 5.14 6 .53

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Shared Goal/Mission

Knowing the large, significant, positive effect of TSL on shared goal/mission,

further analyses were conducted to examine the specific contributions of individual

leadership dimensions to shared goal/mission. Out of 11 TSL dimensions, eight were

examined by the sampled studies in relation to their impacts on shaping shared vision

among staff in schools. Meta-analyses were conducted on six TSL dimensions that had at

least two studies that reported or from which I could calculate related effect sizes. The

weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which each of the six specific

leadership dimensions influences school culture was calculated and these impacts were in

turn compared. Table B15 shows the details of the effects of the eight leadership

dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted mean effect sizes or effect

sizes in the case where only one study researched on a dimension. These statistics are

based on the Fixed Effects Model. Further analyses inquiring into moderating effects

were not performed for each TSL dimension due to the small number of effect sizes

available for each of them.

143

Table B15

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Shared Goal/Mission


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Providing intellectual stimulation 5 .53*** .09 Building collaborative structures 1 .48*** - Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 5 .44*** .09 Modeling behaviour 4 .42** .13 Providing individualized support 5 .42*** .09 Contingent reward 4 .37* .13 Holding high performance expectations 1 .35** - Management by exception 3 -.14 .15 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001


culture are those related to helping and developing people (i.e., providing intellectual

stimulation, modeling, and providing individualized support) and those related to

direction-setting (i.e., developing a shared vision and build goal consensus).

TSL impacts on shared decision-making

The next most frequently-studied school condition was shared decision-making in

schools (seven studies). One study used Canonical correlation analysis. Since the

statistics resulting from this analysis are different from Pearson Moment correlation rs in

nature, the following review was based on the six studies that permit a meta-analysis

later.

Description and Features of Sampled Studies

Measures of Shared Decision-making. Among the six studies that researched school

shared decision-making processes, two studies (i.e., Copeland, 1997) used teachers’

participation in decision-making processes questionnaires to measure them. Lentz (1997)

studied the transformational leadership of principals in districts grounded in shared

decision-making. The variable of shared decision-making looked at in the remaining four

144

studies is a subset of larger constructs which the studies originally examined -- for

example, teacher empowerment is one such larger construct (see Marks, 2002; Martino,

2003; Ross 1998 for details). These measures evaluate the degree of teachers’

participation in school-based decisions in critical areas such as curriculum, personnel

selection, scheduling, program, etc.

Leadership Measures. In terms of leadership models, five used MLQ and the

remaining one used the Leithwood model.

School Level. In terms of the settings where these six studies were conducted, two

studies (33.3%) were conducted in elementary schools, one study was conducted at the

secondary level school and one in mixed sample schools. Two studies did not report the

levels of their sampled schools.

Table B16


School Level No. of Schools Percent Elementary Schools 2 33.3 Junior or/and High Schools 1 16.7 Mixed 1 16.7 Unknown 2 33.3 Total 6 100

School Type. In terms of school type, the majority of the studies (five out of six)

were conducted in regular public schools. One was conducted in Catholic schools. Table

B17 illustrates the distribution of the school types.

Table B17


School Type No. of Schools Percent Regular public schools 5 83.3 Private, Catholic or Christian 1 16.7 Total 6 100

145


leadership models were not performed in the heterogeneity analysis.

Study Results

Among these six studies, four reported significant, positive links between

transformational school leadership and shared decision-making processes. In Copeland’s

(1997) study, the factor analyses suggested a two-factor model for teachers’ participation

in decision-making items: participation in strategic decisions and participation in tactical

decisions. Based on the rating of 209 teachers in 2 districts in New Brunswick,

transformational school leadership was significantly correlated with teachers’

participation in strategic decisions (r = .51; p < .01) and in tactical decisions (r = .64; p

< .01). The findings of the study suggest that the amount of participation in strategic and

tactical change decisions is related to the type of leadership exercised by principals. Both

transformational and transactional leaders allow for participation in decision-making

while transactional leaders may limit participation at the school level to tactical decisions.

In Ross’ (1998) study, based on the ratings of 311 teachers from 150 randomly selected

elementary schools in Kentucky, decision-making, as a dimension of empowerment that

relates to teacher beliefs that they are authentically involved in making school-based

decisions in critical areas, was moderately correlated with the transformational leadership

of principals (r = .43; p < .01). That being said, two studies resulted in non-significant

results. The following meta-analysis helped determine whether TSL effects on shared

decision-making was significant.


146

Table B18 shows the stem-and-leaf display and the summary statistics of the

effect sizes rs reported by the 6 studies. All six studies reported positive effect sizes and

four out six studies reported medium to large effects. The median r value of .41 and the

overall mean r value of .35 show convincing evidence that the effect of TSL on shared

decision-making is important. Also, this effect is close to large, according to the widely-

used convention for appraising the magnitude of correlation effect sizes established by

Cohen (1977, 1988). (‘Large’ is defined as ≥ .40). The middle 50% of the effect sizes

fell into .36, suggested by the quantity of Q3 - Q1. The values of these three statistics

(Mean, Median and Q3 - Q1) are quite close and consistent (i.e. .35; .41; .36), which

demonstrates the persistent effect of TSL on school shared decision-making process.

Table B18


Between Transformational School Leadership and Shared Decision-making

Correlations (r’s) Summary Statistics Stem (width 1) Leaf (Based on r, not on zr)

0. 01344 Maximum .58 0. 5 Quartile 3 (Q3) .51 Median (Q2) .41 Quartile 1 (Q1) .15 Minimum .03 Q3 - Q1 .36 Mean .35 Standard Error .08 N 6 Proportion positive sign 100%



sizes of TSL effects on shared decision-making based on a fixed model. The weighted

mean r is .36, indicating that the effect of TSL on shared decision making is close to

147

large. The 95% confidence interval around the mean effect size (.25 < µ < .46) does not

include zero and indicates the effect is significantly positive. The resulting Q value of

9.35 with 5 degrees of freedom is not significant (p = .10). The variance in this sample of

effect sizes is due to sampling error. Thus, the hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was

not rejected. Heterogeneity analysis therefore was not performed.

Table B19



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 7 .36 .06 .25 .46 9.35 5 .10

In sum, the effect of TSL on shared decision-making at school level is significant,

positive and approximates to large. The null hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was

not rejected.

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Shared Decision-making

Meta-analyses examining the specific contributions of individual leadership

dimensions to shared decision-making were not performed since there was only one study

(Ross, 1998) that researched the effects of individual leadership dimension. These

leadership dimensions had large effects on shared decision-making in schools. Table B20

shows the details.

Table B20

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Shared Decision-making

TSL Leadership Dimensions r Providing individualized support .60** Strengthening school culture .55** Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus .54** Building collaborative structures .53** Contingent reward .46** Holding high performance expectations .45**

148

Providing intellectual stimulation .42** Modeling behaviour .41** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

TSL impacts on School Working Environment

Two studies (Nader 1997; Yu, 2000) inquired into the relationship between TSL

and school working environment. School working environment is a fairly large construct

covering an array of aspects of schooling contexts and processes. These conditions

include, for example, school community, collaboration, school goals, personnel physical

features, resources, teachers, program and instruction etc (Nader, 1997). They were

measured by the modified sub-scale of The Primary Program developed by Leithwood &

Jantzi (1991 in Nader 1997), which indicate the extent to which in-school/out-of-

conditions and processes affect the implementation of change. In this review, only in-

school conditions researched by the original studies, as listed in the aforementioned

example, were taken into account. Yu (2000) also used a section of a similar

questionnaire, the Change Process Questionnaire developed by Leithwood and his

colleagues (1993 in Yu, 2000), for measuring the school working environment within a

school that affect implementation of change. It includes four conditions: school culture,

strategies, structure and environment. Both studies were conducted in elementary

schools. One study was conducted in public schools while the other (Yu, 2000) was

conducted in Hong Kong aided schools. One study resulted in a positive, significant

correlation between TSL and school working envrionment while the other reported mixed

results (effect sizes all significant positive except one). Meta-correlation shows that the

weighted mean effect size, r = .56, was significant (p = .00) and the two effect sizes were

149

homogeneous (Q = 0.56; p = .77) based on FEM. Table B21 shows the details. Therefore

heterogeneity analysis was not performed.

Table B21



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 9 .56 .10 .41 .67 .09 1 .77

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on School Working Environment

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, eight were examined by the sampled studies in

relation to their impacts on school working enviroment. Meta-analyses were conducted

on five TSL dimensions that had two studies that either reported or from which I could

calculate related effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which

each of the five specific leadership dimensions influences school envriorment was

calculated and these impacts were in turn compared. Table B22 shows the details of the

effects of the five leadership dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted

mean effect sizes as well as the effect sizes in the case where only one study researched

that dimension. The weighted means are based on the Fixed Effects Model.

Table B22

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Working Environment


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 .56*** .10 Providing individualized support 2 .55*** .10 Modeling behaviour 2 .53*** .10 Providing intellectual stimulation 2 .50*** .10 Building collaborative structures 1 .54** - Strengthening school culture 1 .55** - Holding high performance expectations 2 .41** .10 Contingent reward 1 .31 - Management by exception 1 -.21 - * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

150


working environment are those related to direction-setting (i.e., developing a shared

vision and build goal consensus) and those related to helping and developing people (i.e.,

providing intellectual stimulation, modeling, and providing individualized support).

Further analyses inquiring into moderating effects were not performed for each TSL

dimension due to the small number of effect sizes available for each of them.

TSL impacts on Teacher Perceived Workplace Conditions

Two studies (Smith, 2005; Evans, 1996) inquired into the relationship between

TSL and School Organizational factors. These factors were measured by the Social

Organizational Factors Questionnaire developed by Rosenholtz (1989 in Smith 2005),

which was designed to study teaching as a social construct in effective elementary

schools and to gather data on teachers’ perceptions of their workplace conditions. These

factors are teacher commitment, teacher collaboration, teacher certainty, teacher learning

and shared school goals. Both studies were conducted in elementary, public schools and

both used MLQ for measuring leadership practices. One study resulted in a positive,

significant correlation between TSL and school organizational factors while the other

reported non-significant effects. Meta-correlation shows that the weighted mean effect

size, r = .22, was not significant (p = .18) and the two effect sizes were heterogeneous (Q

= 6.56; p = .01) based on FEM. Table B23 shows the details. Due to the limited number

of studies, further analyses were not performed.

Table B23



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 26 .22 .17 -.10 .50 6.56 1 .01

151

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Teacher Perceived Workplace

Conditions

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, six were examined by the sampled studies in relation

to their impacts on shaping shared vision among staff in schools. Meta-analyses were

conducted on five of them for which there were two studies that either reported or from

which I could calculate related effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the

extent to which each of the five specific leadership dimensions influences school culture

was calculated and these impacts were compared. Table B24 shows the details of the


mean effect sizes as well as the effect sizes where there is only one study that researched


Table B24

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on School Organizational Factors


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Providing intellectual stimulation 2 .16 .17 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 .17 .17 Providing individualized support 2 .16 .17 Modeling behaviour 2 .15 .17 Contingent reward 2 .09 .13 Management by exception 1 -.04 - * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table B24, all TSL practices had non-significant effects on school

organizational factors. Further analyses inquiring into moderating effects were not

performed for each TSL dimension due to the small number of effect sizes available for

each of them.

152

TSL impacts on Instruction

Two studies (Johnson, 2007; Nader, 1997) inquired into the relationship between

TSL and school instruction. Improved program and instruction is a component I pulled

out from a larger construct, school working environment, measured by the sub-scales of

The Primary Program developed by Leithwood & Jantzi (1991) in Nader’s (1997) study.

Improved instruction measures the compatibility of teachers’ instructional practices with

school improvement plans, their classroom instructional practices, teaching strategies,

instruction planning, and students’ assessment. In Johnson’s (2007) study, school

improved instructional work, including the quality of the curriculum, was measured using

the items in the teacher survey of School Leadership Study-Developing Successful

Principal by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Both studies were conducted

in public schools and both used Leithwood’s model for measuring leadership practices.

One study was conducted in elementary schools while the other was conducted in mixed

sample schools. Both studies yielded a positive, significant correlation between TSL and

school improved instruction. Meta-correlation further confirmed this. The weighted mean

effect size, r = .55, was significant and large (p = .00) and the two effect sizes were

homogenous (Q = .16; p = .69) based on FEM. Table B25 shows the details.

Table B25



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 4 .55 .22 .19 .78 .16 1 .69

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Instruction

153


dimensions to school instruction improvement were not performed since there was only

one study (Nader, 1997) that researched the effects of individual leadership dimensions.

These leadership dimensions had mixed effects on instruction improvement at schools,

though the aggregated leadership practices had large, positive effects. Table B26 shows

the details.

Table B26

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Instruction

TSL Leadership Dimensions r Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus .36* Modeling behaviour .36** Holding high performance expectations .28* Providing intellectual stimulation .27* Contingent reward .21 Providing individualized support .16 Management by exception -.06 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

The impacts of TSL on other school organizational outcomes

The TSL effects on the remaining eleven of the 17 school organizational

outcomes were examined by only one study each. These outcomes are, in descending

order of the value of the effect size(s) that the studies reported or I calculated, School

Coherence and Coordination (.69**), Improved Direction Setting (.68**), Improvement

on Developing People (.66*), Peer Cohesion (.55***), Technology Supported Decision-

making (.25*), Organizational Effectiveness (.20*), School Technology Level (.24*), and

Program Types (.15, -.26). TSL had significantly positively effects on professional

learning community. It had no effects on school program types. TSL seems to have large

effects on enhancing coherence within schools.

154

Finally, all 249 ESs reported by 46 studies were involved in the meta-analysis

estimating the overall effect of TSL on various school organizational outcomes as a

whole. The weighted mean r was .44, which is large, significant and positive. Table B27

shows the details. This suggests that TSL is very influential in promoting various aspects

of schooling. These effect sizes are heterogeneous (Q = 171.83; p = .00) based on FEM.

Table B27



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 249 .44 .02 .40 .48 171.83 44 .00

In sum, this chapter demonstrates the strong effects of TSL on an array of school

organizational outcomes.

155

Appendix C: A Detailed Analysis of TSL Impacts on Teacher Outcomes

An Overview

The results of these studies were reported for 23 variables related to teacher

outcomes. As Table C1 shows, in the total of 90 analyses done by the studies included in

this review, 73 yielded positive impacts, with a positive effect ratio of 81%. Three

analyses reported mixed results and 14 reported no effects. Only one study reported a

negative relationship between transformational leadership and teacher stress. Although

apparently negative, this relationship actually indicates that less stress on the part of

teachers is associated with transformational leadership. That is, no studies in this review

reported purely negative effects of transformational leadership on any of the teacher

outcomes included our review. Nine sets of teacher related outcomes were examined by

more than one study, which are indicated by the star “*” in the table. The remaining

fourteen outcomes were examined by only one study each. Eleven of these fourteen

outcomes were reported to have been positively related to TSL. TSL was reported to have

non-significant impacts on teacher tendency to take risks and teacher leadership. Meta-

correlations were conducted for the nine sets of teacher outcomes that were examined by

more than one study to determine, among other things, whether the overall effect of TSL

on each of these outcomes was significant and the extent of the effect. The following

sections will provide meta-analytic reviews of the impacts of TSL on these teacher

outcomes.

Table C1

The Impacts Of Transformational Leadership On Teacher Outcomes

Leadership Impacts

Teacher Related Outcome Variables No effect Negative Positive Mixed Results

Total No. of Analyses

156

1 Individual Teachers’ Internal States Commitment 1 21 2 24* Job Satisfaction 2 18 20* Loyalty 1 1 MLQ Effectiveness 10 10* School Sense of Community 1 1 Stress 1 1 Teacher Efficacy 3 3 6* Teacher Empower 1 4 1 6* Teacher Motivation 3 1 4* Teacher Tendency To Take Risks 1 1 Trust 1 1 2* Teacher Perceptions of Student Changes 1 1 Teacher Perceptions of Impacted Students and Parents 1 1 Subtotal 12 63 3 78 2 Collective Teacher Internal States Group Potency 1 1 Teacher Collective Efficacy 1 1 2* Teacher Goal Consensus 1 1 Subtotal 1 3 4 3 Teachers’ Overt Practices Organizational Citizen Behavior 3 3* Teacher Discipline Practice 1 1 Teacher Leadership 1 1 Teachers’ Utilization Of Knowledge 1 1 Teacher Effectiveness 1 1 Teacher Collaboration 1 1 Subtotal 1 7 8 Total Number Of Analyses 14 73 3 90 * The Effects of TSL on this variable were meta-analyzed

Three categories have been used to group the teacher outcome variables:

individual teachers’ internal states, collective teacher internal states, and teachers’ overt

practices. Among these three categories of teacher outcomes, the most frequently studied

types of teacher-related variables are those concerning individual internal states and

dispositions with 78 analyses in total. 80% of the analyses reported positive results.

157

Meta-analysis of TSL Impacts on Teacher Related Outcomes

Individual teachers’ internal states

This sample of studies examined the effects of TSL on eleven types of individual

teacher internal states. The effect of TSL on seven of these outcomes permits meta-

analysis while the effects on the remaining four individual teachers’ internal states do not

since only one study examined each of the remaining four states.

TSL impacts on teacher commitment

Concerning teachers’ internal states, teacher commitment attracted the largest

number of studies (26 studies). These 26 studies reported positive impacts of

transformational leadership on a variety of teacher commitment measures and three

studies reported mixed effects. Two studies did not report effect size data or the effect

size r was not obtainable by manual calculation from the reported data. The following

synthesis is therefore based on the remaining 24 studies, the number of studies consistent

with the ones that were involved in later meta-analyses.

Measures of Teacher Commitment. Among the 24 studies, ten studies used the

MLQ outcome variable extra effort, exploring the extra effort a subordinate was willing

to put forth for the leader. The degree to which a teacher is willing to make extra efforts

in school is a main component of the concept of teacher commitment. Of the remaining

fourteen studies, five approached teacher commitment from organizational commitment

perspectives, one measured teacher commitment to change, and the other eight examined

larger constructs in which teacher commitment is one component. Amoroso (2002) used

the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCD) (e.g., Mowday, Steers, & Poerter,

1979 in Amoroso, 2002) to measure levels of organizational commitment among

158

individual employees (teachers in this case). Similar to Amoroso, Nguni (2004) also used

the OCD (1982 version) to measure teacher commitment, which includes two

components: value commitment (VC) and commitment to stay (VS). OCD “assesses

respondents’ loyalty and desire to remain with the organization, their belief in the

acceptance of the values and goals of organization, and the willingness to put in extra

effort to help the organization succeed” (Nguni, 2004, p. 90-91). Lee (2005) used OCQ

1974 version (Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulians, 1974) to measure employee

commitment. Copeland (1997) used Meyer, Allen and Smith’s (1993 in Copeland, 1997)

measures of affective organizational commitment (commitment as an affective

attachment), continuance organizational commitment (commitment as a perceived cost

associated with leaving and organization), and normative commitment to measure teacher

commitment in schools. Yu (2000) used adaptations of the instrument “The Change

Process in Elementary Schools” developed by Leithwood and his colleagues (1993 in Yu,

2000) to measure individual teachers’ commitment to change. The factors affecting

individual teachers’ commitment to change were designed to measure personal goals,

capacity beliefs, context beliefs and emotional arousal processes. In Evans’ (1996),

Bannon’s (2000) and Smith (2005) studies, teacher commitment was one of the school

organizational factors associated with effective schools as measured by the School

Organizational Factors Questionnaire developed by Rosenholtz. In three studies (e.g.,

Brooker, 2003), teacher commitment was one component of the school climate construct

as measured by OCDQ. In Johnson’s (2007) study, teacher commitment was one

component of teacher engagement. Edwards (2008) used teacher affiliation, a

subcategory of Organizational Health Inventory questionnaire developed by Hoy and

159

Tarter (1997, in Edwards 2008), for measuring teachers’ sense of friendliness and strong

affiliation with a school, their attitude about their job and their sense of accomplishment

about their jobs. In Nader’s (1997) study, the dimension teachers, in-school school

processes and conditions, as measured by modified Source and Nature of School

Leadership survey developed by Leithwood and his colleagues, reflect teachers’

commitment to school program and professional development.

Overall, the various constructs measured the following aspects of teacher

commitment: commitment to school change and improvement processes, teacher

psychological factors such as commitment, morale, efficacy and satisfaction, teacher

practices such as making extra efforts and teacher collaboration, working environments

(e.g., supportive or open environments, policy, resources), and goal achievement.

Leadership Measures. In terms of the leadership instruments used by the 24

studies, the majority of the studies (73.9%) used MLQ and six studies (26.1%) used NSL.

Table C2 illustrates the details. This distribution permited the testing of moderating

effects of leadership model (MLQ vs. NSL) in later meta-analysis.

Table C2

The Distribution of Leadership Instruments Used

Leadership Models No. of Schools Percent MLQ 17 70.8 NSL 7 29.2 Total 24 100

School Level. In terms of the settings where these 24 studies were conducted, half of

them (50.0%) were conducted in elementary schools, seven studies were conducted at the

middle or high school levels and five were conducted in a mixed sample of schools.

160

Table C3 illustrates the details. This distribution permitted the testing of moderating

effects of school level (elementary vs. secondary) in later meta-analysis.

Table C3


School Level No. of Schools Percent Elementary Schools 12 50.0

Secondary Schools 7 29.2 Mixed 5 20.8 Total 24 100

School Type. The majority of the studies were conducted in regular public schools. Two

were conducted in a mixed sample of schools. See Table C4 for details. Due to the very

uneven distribution of school types in which these studies were conducted, the testing of

moderating effects of school type (public vs. private or religions) was not performed in

later meta-analysis.

Table C4


School Type No. of Schools Percent Regular public schools 22 91.7 Mixed sample 2 8.3 Total 23 100

Study Results

Among the 24 studies that inquired into leadership impacts on school culture,

the majority of them (21/24), reported purely positive effects of transformational

leadership on various aspects of school culture. Two studies reported mixed results and

one study resulted in non-significant effects. These results suggest that TSL has positive

impacts on school culture. Meta-analysis was later performed to confirm this.

161

Using MLQ, fourteen studies reported unanimously that transformational

school leadership either in elementary schools or secondary schools was strongly or

moderately related to teachers’ willingness to make extra efforts with r ranging from .94 -

.58. Furthermore, this association was stronger in high-achieving, low SES status schools

(Spearman R2 = 0.56, p<0.001) than in low-achieving, low SES status schools (Spearman

R2 = 0.41, p<0.001) (Niedermeyer, 2003). The studies that reported mixed or non-

significant effects used MLQ for measuring both leadership and organizational

commitment for teacher commitment. The six studies that used NSL for measuring

school leadership all yielded positive relationships with teacher commitment measured in

various ways with r ranging from .33- .72.

Among the studies that measured teacher commitment from organizational

commitment perspectives, the correlation of Amoroso’s study implies a moderate,

positive relationship exists between teachers’ level of commitment to their school and all

three clusters of principals’ transformational leadership behaviors: challenging their staff

(r = 0.50, p<0.01), actively leading staff (r = 0.46, p<0.01, and supporting staff (r = 0.42,

p<0.01) as measured by the NSL survey. At the elementary school level, based on the

ratings of 545 teachers in the eastern educational zone of Tanzania, transformational

school leadership was a significant predicator of organizational commitment; its

association was stronger with value commitment (Rvc2 = 0.18, p<0.05) than with

commitment to stay (Rvs2 = 0.03, p<0.05) (Nguni, 2004). In the correlation analysis,

organizational commitment was significantly related to all dimensions of

transformational school leadership as measured by MLQ except Intellectual Stimulation

(r = 0.66 - .25, p<0.05). Contingent Reward was positively related to value commitment

162

(r = 0.29, p<0.05) but negatively related to commitment to stay (r = -.14, p<0.05). At the

secondary school level, based on the ratings of 118 teachers from 15 secondary schools in

the eastern educational zone of Tanzania, transformational school leadership was a

significant predicator of value commitment (Rvc2 = 0.16, p<0.05) but not of commitment

to stay (Nguni, 2004). In the correlation analysis, organizational commitment was

significantly related to all dimensions of transformational school leadership as measured

by MLQ (r = 0.60 - .24, p<0.05). Contingent Reward was also positively related to both

value commitment (r = 0.38, p<0.05) and commitment to stay (r = .19, p<0.05). Based on

the ratings of 209 teachers from 22 schools in two districts in New Brunswick,

Copeland’s (1997) study suggested that transformational school leadership (as measured

by MLQ) correlated significantly and positively with the affective and normative aspects

of organizational commitment (r = .27, p<0.01) but not with continuance organizational

commitment.

In Yu’s (2000) study, conducted in a large sample of 107 primary schools in

Hong Kong, China, transformational school leadership as measured by the NSL was

significantly, positively correlated with all aspects of teachers’ commitment, with r

ranging from .20 - .34; p<0.01.

In Evans’ (1996) and Bannon’s (2000) studies, teacher commitment was one of

the school organizational factors associated with effective schools as measured by the

School Organizational Factors Questionnaire. Teacher commitment was positively

correlated with all dimensions of principals’ transformational leadership as measured by

MLQ and transactional leadership (i.e., only contingent reward in this study), r ranging

from .72 - .59; p<0.01 (Evans, 1996) and with transformational leadership total scores, r

163

= .61; p<0.01 (Bannon, 2000). In both Brooker’s (2003) and O’Connor’s (2001) studies,

teacher commitment was one component of the school climate construct as measured by

OCDQ. Teacher committed was positively, significantly related to transformational

school leadership’s aggregated scores in the former study and most of the

transformational leadership dimensions (r = .30 -.32 p<0.01) except individualized

influence-Attributed and Individualized Consideration in the latter study.

In summary, it appears that TSL as a whole, in most cases, was significantly,

positively correlated with teacher commitment measured in different ways, but in a few

cases, not. TSL correlated significantly, positively with some dimensions of teacher

commitment such as value commitment, affective and normative aspects of teacher

commitment and teachers’ commitment to change but not with the other aspects of

teacher commitment such as commitment to stay. The majority of TSL dimensions

including contingent reward were significantly, positively correlated with teacher

commitment while the effects of some leadership dimensions such as individualized

influence-Attributed and Individualized Consideration on teacher commitment were not

consistent. The significance of the impact and the extent to which TSL and each of its

dimensions impacts teacher commitment were further tested and evaluated by the

following meta-analysis.


Table C5 shows the stem-and-leaf display and the summary statistics of the effect

sizes rs reported by the 24 studies. Both the median r value and the overall mean r value

are .60, suggesting that the effect of TSL on teacher commitment is very large, according

to the widely used convention for appraising the magnitude of correlation effect sizes

164

established by Cohen (1977, 1988). (‘Large’ is defined as ≥ .40). The range of middle

50% (Q3 - Q1.) effect sizes was .41, indicating a comparatively large range of the values

of effect size. The most common results fell into to two ranges, with raw correlation

effect sizes ranging from .4 to .5 and from .8 to .9. The latter group of effect sizes was

extremely large.

Table C5


Between Transformational School Leadership and Teacher Commitment


0. 0 Maximum .94 0. 2333 Quartile 3 (Q3) .84 0. 4444555 Median (Q2) .60 0. 66777 Quartile 1 (Q1) .43 0. 8888999 Minimum .00 Q3 - Q1 .41 Mean .60 Standard Error .05 N 23 Proportion positive sign 100%


Table C6 shows the overall results of descriptive and homogeneity analysis of the effect

sizes of TSL effects on teacher commitment based on a mixed model. 61 correlation

coefficients/effect sizes were involved in this analysis. The weighted mean r was .66,

indicating that the effect of TSL on teacher commitment is very large. The 95%

confidence interval around the mean effect size (.63 < µ < .70) did not include zero and

indicates the effect is significantly positive. The resulting Q value of 236.32 with 23

degrees of freedom is significant (p = .00). The variance in this sample of effect sizes is

165

demonstrably greatly than would be expected from sampling error alone. Thus, the


Table C6



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 61 .66 .03 .63 .70 236.32* 23 .00

Heterogeneity Analysis

Since the Total Q was significant based on a fixed effects model, a random effects model

was applied to see if there could be a random component that could explain the

variability between studies. The resulting Q-value of 19.29 with 23 degrees of freedom

was not significant (p = .68). This suggests that the variability in the population of effects

(the unique differences of school culture in the set of true population effect sizes of which

the sample of this study was a part) plus sampling error sufficiently account for the

excess variances of the sampled effect sizes. That being said, the random component

(.22) was very large compared to the standard error (.11) in this case. This suggests that

the differences between studies may also be systemic.

Table C7

Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on REM & Heterogeneity Analysis


Weighted Mean r



Random Model 61 .67 .11 .54 .77 19.29 23 .68

Moderating Effects of School Levels and Leadership Models

Among the 24 studies, 22 were conducted in regular public schools. The

examination of the moderating effects of school type was not performed due to this very

166

uneven distribution. Table C8 and Table C9 show the results of the variance analyses of

the moderating effects of school level and leadership instrument based on FEM and

MEM respectively. Table C10 shows the details of the moderating effects and

descriptives in subgroups.

Table C8

Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effects Model)



Between Groups .36 1 .55 Within Groups 207.12* 17 .00 Total 207.49* 18 .00


Between Groups 77.23* 1 .00 Within Groups 159.09* 22 .00 Total 236.32* 23 .00


Table C9

The Moderating Effect of School Level and Leadership Instrument on the Relationship

between TSL and Teacher Commitment based on Mixed Effects Models





Between Groups 3.27 1 .07 Within Groups 22.89 22 .41 Total 26.17 23 .29


Table C10

A Summary of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on Teacher Commitment and

Homogeneity Analyses in Subsgroups Based on Mixed Effects Models

N of ES

Weighted Mean r



df forQ



Leadership Instrument MLQ 40 .72 .11 .60 .80 21.59 16 .16 NSL 21 .49 .18 .18 .71 1.30 6 .97

167

Note: * p < .05

The main effects of TSL on teacher commitment did not differ significantly

between elementary and secondary schools (QB = .36; p = .55). The Qw, however, was

significant (Qw = 207.12; p = .00), suggesting a random component may exist in the

error. A closer look at the within-group variances in each group found that within-group

variances in both levels of schools were all significant, indicating heterogeneity in both

groups. This result also endorses the suspicion that there may exist a remaining


r’s in addition to sampling error. When the random variance was taken into account, QB

was not significant (QB = .03; p = .86) and within-study variance Qw was also not

significant at α = .05 (Qw = 17.27; p = .44).

The mean effects of TSL on teacher commitment differed significantly when

different leadership instruments were used (QB = 77.23; p = .00). This suggests leadership

instrument is an effective moderator. Qw, however, was also significant, which indicates

that leadership instrument as represented in QB may not be sufficient to account for the

excess variability in the effect size distribution. A closer look at the within-group

variances in each group found that within-group variances in the group of studies that

used MLQ for measuring TSL were heterogeneous (Qw = 151.18; p = .00), while within-

group variances in the group of studies that used NSL for measuring TSL were

homogeneous (Qw = 7.91; p = .24). When the random variance was taken into account

using MEM, the weighted mean differences between the studies that used MLQ and those

that used NSL were not significant. The within-group variance Q W was also not

significant (Q W(22) = 22.89, p = .41). However, the random component (.15) was very

168

large compared to the standard error (.09) in this case. This suggested that the differences

between studies may be systemic. That is, the TSL effects on teacher commitment were

significantly higher when using MLQ (M = .76, SE = .04) than when using NSL (M =

.39; SE = .05) (based on FEM).

In summary, the effect of TSL on teacher commitment is significant, positive and

very large. The weighted mean r is .66, with a 95% confidence interval around the mean

effect size (from .63 to .70). The null hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was rejected

based on homogeneity tests. MEMs as well as FEMs suggest that unique differences in

the effects of TSL on teacher commitment existed in the set of true population effect

sizes of which the sample in this study was a part. This random component of variances

plus sampling error could sufficiently explain the excess variances in the sampled effect

sizes. The random component, however, is large, which suggests the variances in the

effect size distribution could contain both systematic factors as well as random sources

beyond sampling errors. The leadership models used by each of the studies for examining

and measuring TSL could be an effective moderator. The above statistical findings

suggest that:

• the effect of TSL on teacher commitment is significant, positive and very large;

• the effects of TSL on teacher commitment does not differ significantly between

secondary schools and elementary schools;

• principals’ transformational leadership behaviors as captured and measured by

MLQ correlated significantly higher with teacher commitment than those

captured and measured by NSL.

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Teacher Commitment

169

Knowing the very large, significant, positive effect of TSL on teacher

commitment, further analyses were conducted to examine the specific contributions of

individual leadership dimensions to teacher commitment. Out of 11 TSL dimensions,

nine were examined by the sampled study in relation to their impacts on a variety of

teachers’ commitment outcomes in schools. The five most frequently examined TSL

dimensions include shared vision, a direction-setting leadership practice, three people–

developing leadership practices (i.e., providing intellectual stimulation, individual

support and modeling), and contingent reward, a management practice. The weighted

mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which each of the specific leadership dimensions

influence teachers’ commitment was calculated and these impacts were in turn compared.

Table C11 shows the details of the effects of these leadership dimensions in descending

order of the value of the weighted mean effect sizes.

Table C11

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Commitment




Modeling behaviour 9 .57*** .05 Providing individualized support 11 .56*** .04 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 11 .55*** .04 Contingent reward 8 .54*** .07 Providing intellectual stimulation 11 .52*** .05 Strengthening school culture 1 .32 - Holding high performance expectations 4 .31*** .06 Building collaborative structures 1 .30 - Management by exception 4 -.04 .13 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table 4. 42, the most influential leadership practices on teacher

commitment are those related to helping and developing people (i.e., modeling, providing

intellectual stimulation, and providing individualized support), shared vision building, a

direction-setting practice and contingent reward. The effects of these leadership practices

170

on teacher commitment are very large, ranging from .57- .52. Holding high expectations

had medium-sized impact (.31). Management by exception, as expected, has no

significant effect on school culture-building.

TSL impacts on teachers’ job satisfaction

In the group of teacher outcome variables, teachers’ job satisfaction attracted the

second largest numbers of studies (20 studies).

Measures of Teacher’s Job Satisfaction. Eleven studies used the MLQ outcome

variable satisfaction assessing subordinates’ satisfaction with their leaders’ abilities and

methods. These are the studies that also examined the MLQ outcome variable extra effort

as discussed above. Four studies used the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to

measured teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Amoroso (2002) used the

“Teacher Satisfaction Survey” designed by Evans and Johnson (1990, in Amoroso, 2002)

to assess teachers’ satisfaction in a number of areas related their employment such as

salary, rewards, personal satisfaction, work, equipment, meeting of needs, recognition,

decision-making, job security, etc. Satisfaction was operationally determined in

Ejimofor’s (2007) study by asking participants to indicate on a Likert Scale their level of

satisfaction in their respective schools. Lee (2005) and Copeland (1997) used the

Brayfield and Rothe (1951) Index of Job Satisfaction to assess the job satisfaction of

teachers. It is an 18-item, 5-point, Likert rating scale questionnaire. In Palczewski’s

(1999) study, teacher’s satisfaction with administration was measured by a component of

the Teacher Motivation Survey, developed by the author based on several related

instruments. In sum, these measures reflect the degree of teachers’ satisfaction with their

171

job itself, aspects of their working environment, and administration or leadership in their

schools.


majority of the studies (85%) used MLQ and the remaining three studies (15%) used

NSL. Table C12 illustrates the details. This uneven distribution does not permit the

testing of moderating effects of leadership model (MLQ vs. NSL) in later meta-analysis.

Table C12


Leadership Models No. of Schools Percent MLQ 17 85.0 NSL 3 15.0 Total 20 100

School Level. In terms of school levels, eight studies were conducted in elementary

schools (40%), seven in secondary schools (35%) and the remaining five (25%) in a

mixed sample of schools. Table C13 illustrates the details. This distribution permits the

testing of moderating effects of school level (elementary vs. secondary) in later meta-

analysis.

Table C13



School Type. In terms of school type, the majority of the studies (80%) were conducted

in regular public schools. One was conducted in religious schools and one in a mixed

sample of schools. There were two studies that did not report type of schools sampled. I

172

was not able to discern the type from any clues in the theses. Table C14 illustrates the

distribution of the school types. This distribution does not permit the testing of

moderating effects of school type (public vs. private or religions) in later meta-analysis.

Table C14


School Type No. of Schools Percent Regular public schools 16 80.0 Private, Catholic or Christian 1 5.0 Mixed sample 1 5.0 Unknown 2 10.0 Total 20 100

Study Results

Among the 20 studies that inquired into leadership impacts on teachers’

satisfaction, most of them (18/20) reported purely positive effects of transformational

leadership on various dimensions of teachers’ satisfaction. Two reported non-significant

results. These results suggest that TSL has positive impacts on teacher satisfaction. The

meta-analysis that follows will further confirm this and estimate the extent to which TSL

impacts teachers’ satisfaction.

Eleven studies that used MLQ outcome measures for evaluating teachers’

satisfaction with their leaders all yielded positive impacts, r ranging from .91 to .69. In

Small’s (2003) study, teacher satisfaction was highly correlated with all leadership

dimensions, r = .82 -. 68. All four studies that used the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire to measure teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction reported

positive impacts of transformational leadership on teachers’ job satisfaction, r ranging

from .29 to .53. In the third study (Njuni, 2004), teacher job satisfaction was significantly

correlated with each leadership dimension (r = 0.53 - .42, p<0.05 at the elementary

173

school level; r = 0.44 - .29, p<0.05 at the secondary school level). Contingent Reward

was also positively correlated with job satisfaction (r = 0.39, p<0.05 at the elementary

school level; r = 0.23, p<0.05 at the secondary school level).

Three studies that used NSL to measure TSL all yielded positive results, with r

ranging from .35 - .73. In Amoroso’s (2002) study, where the Teacher Satisfaction

Survey was used to assess teachers’ satisfaction, the correlation implies a significant,

positive relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and all three factors of principals’

transformational leadership behaviors: challenging their staff (r = 0.59, p<0.01), actively

leading staff (r = 0.59, p<0.01), and supporting staff (r = 0.49, p<0.01) as measured by

the NSL. The two studies that reported non-significant results both used MLQ for

measuring TSL. Teacher job satisfaction was measured by the Index of Job Satisfaction

in one study and by one component of the Teacher Motivation Survey in the other. These

results suggest that most TSL dimensions, including contingent reward, have a positive

impact on teachers’ satisfaction with their leaders as well with their working

environment, regardless of which leadership measure is used. The following meta-

analyses further test and confirm this and test moderating effects of school levels on the

impacts.


Table C15 shows the stem-and-leaf display and the summary statistics of the

effect sizes (rs) reported by the 20 studies. Eighteen studies (90%) reported positive

effect sizes. The median r value of .73 and the overall mean r value of .63 show

convincing evidence of the effect of TSL on teacher job satisfaction. Also, this effect is

very large, according to the widely used convention for appraising the magnitude of

174

correlation effect sizes established by Cohen (1977, 1988). (‘Large’ is defined as ≥ .40).

The middle 50% of the effect sizes fell into .42, suggested by the quantity of Q3 - Q1. The

values of these three statistics (Mean, Median and Q3 - Q1) (i.e. .63; .73; .42)

demonstrates that the effect of TSL on teachers’ satisfaction is very large. This result is

also consistent with the observation that the most common results fell into one range,

with raw correlation effect sizes ranging from .5 to .9.

Table C15


Between Transformational School Leadership and Teacher Satisfaction


-0. 0 Maximum .91 0. 23344 Quartile 3 (Q3) .86 0. 5567778888889 Median (Q2) .73 Quartile 1 (Q1) .44 Minimum -.06 Q3 - Q1 .42 Mean .63 Standard Error .07 N 20 Proportion positive sign 90%



sizes of TSL on teacher’s job satisfaction based on a fixed model. The weighted mean r is

.76, indicating that the effect of TSL on teacher job satisfaction is large. The 95%

confidence interval around the mean effect size (.74 < µ < .79) does not include zero and

indicates the effect is significantly positive. The resulting Q value of 199.88 with 19

degrees of freedom is significant (p = .00). The variance in this sample of effect sizes is

175



Table C16



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 36 .76 .03 .74 .79 199.88** 19 .00 * Significant at α =.05

When the Total Q is significant based on a fixed effects model, a Random Effects Model

is recommended (Wilson, 2009). Table C17 shows the results obtained from a random

effects model. The weighted mean r is .70, indicating that the effect of TSL on teachers’

job satisfaction is very large. The 95% confidence interval around the mean effect size

(.58 < µ < .79) does not include zero and indicates the effect is significantly positive.

These results are very close to those of the Fixed Model. The resulting Q-value of 18.60

with 19 degrees of freedom was not significant anymore (p = .48). This suggests that the

variability in the population of effects (the unique differences of job satsifaction in the set

of true population effect sizes of which the sample of this study was a part) plus sampling

error sufficiently account for the excess variances of the sampled effect sizes. That being

said, however, the random component (.18) is very large compared to the standard error

(.10) in this case. This suggests that the differences between studies may also be

systematic.

Table C17





Random Model 36 .70 .10 .58 .79 18.60 19 .48 * Significant at α =.05

176


The sampled effect sizes were blocked into subsets according to a potential

moderator, i.e., school level, used by the studies for measuring TSL. Then the main

method of modeling the systematic variance in effect sizes, the analog to the ANOVA for

categorical variables, was performed to test the moderating effects of school level. Table

C18 shows the results of the variance analyses.

Table C18

Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (Fixed Effects Model)




* Significant at α =.05

The between-study variance QB was not significant at α = .05 (QB = .52; p = .47).

This suggests school level is not an effective moderator. The main effects of TSL on

teachers’ job satisfaction did not differ significantly between school levels. Qw, however,

was also significant, which indicates that school level, as represented in QB, may not be

sufficient to account for the excess variability in the effect size distribution. A closer look

at the within-group variances in each group found that within-group variances in either

group were heterogeneous.

The existence of significant Qw’s in the above tests suggests that there may exist a

remaining unmeasured (and possibly unmeasurable) random effect in the effect size

distribution of r’s in addition to sampling error. This suspicion is consistent with the

results of the previous heterogeneity analysis using Random Effects Models which

showed that a random effect may exist. Mixed Effects Models were then applied on

177

school level in order to explain the variances that school level was not able to explain

using FEMs. Table C19 shows the overall results of applying MEMs. Table C20 shows

the descriptives in subgroups based on MEMs.

Table C19

The Moderating Effect of School Level, Type and Leadership Instrument on the

Relationship between TSL and School Culture based on Mixed Effects Models





Table C20

A Summary of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on Teacher Satisfaction and

Homogeneity Analyses in Subgroups Based on Mixed Effects Models

N of ES

Weighted Mean r



df forQ




REMs (Q B(1) = .61; p = .43) was still not significant, endorsing the idea that school level

was not an effective moderator that accounted for the between-study differences. The

means of TSL effects on teacher’ job satisfaction in secondary schools (M = .64; SE =

.16) and in elementary schools (M = .74; SE = .15) were not significantly different. The

within-study variance Q W was also not significant (Q W(13) = 14.49, p = .34). REM was

better than FEM in terms of explaining the excess variances.

In summary, the effect of TSL on teacher job satisfaction is significant, positive and

very large. The weighted mean r is .76, with a 95% confidence interval around the mean

effect size (from .74 to .79). The null hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was rejected

178

based on homogeneity tests. MEM as well as FEM suggest that unique differences in the

effects of TSL on school culture existed in the set of true population effect sizes of which

the sample in this study was a part. This random component of variances plus sampling

error could sufficiently explain the excess variances in the sampled effect sizes. Mixed

effects models explain the variances better than FEM. School level was not found to be

an effective moderator. The above statistical findings suggest that:

• the effect of TSL on job satisfaction is significant, positive and very large;

• the effects of TSL on job satisfaction do not differ significantly across school

levels;

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

Knowing the very large, significant, positive effect of TSL on teachers’ job

satisfaction, further analyses were conducted to examine the specific contributions of

individual leadership dimensions to teachers’ job satisfaction. Out of 11 TSL dimensions,

seven were examined by the sampled studies in relation to their impacts on a variety of

teachers’ satisfaction outcomes. The four most frequently examined TSL dimensions

include shared vision, a direction-setting leadership practice, and three people–

developing leadership practices (i.e., providing intellectual stimulation, individual

support and modeling).

Meta-analyses were conducted on seven TSL dimensions that had at least two

studies that reported or from which I could calculate related effect sizes. The weighted

mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which each of the five specific leadership

dimensions influences job satisfaction was calculated and these impacts were in turn

compared. Table C21 shows the details of the effects of the seven leadership dimensions

179

in descending order of the value of the weighted mean effect sizes as well as the effect

sizes in the case where there was only one study that researched that dimension. The

weighted means are based on the Fixed Effects Model.

Table C21

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Modeling behaviour 7 .77*** .04 Providing individualized support 9 .72*** .04 Providing intellectual stimulation 9 .70*** .10 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 9 .68*** .04 Contingent reward 6 .68*** .07 Holding high performance expectations 1 .26*** - Management by exception 4 -.40*** .09 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table C21, the most influential leadership practices on teachers’

job satisfaction are those related to helping and developing people (i.e., modeling,

providing individualized support, and providing intellectual stimulation), those related to

direction-setting (i.e., developing a shared vision and build goal consensus) and

contingent reward. Further analyses inquiring into moderating effects were not performed

for each TSL dimension due to the small number of effect sizes available for each of

them. The effects of these leadership practices on teachers’ job satisfaction are very

large, ranging from .68- .77. Management by exception, in contrast, had significant,

negative effect on teachers’ job satisfaction and this negative effect was large (r = - .40).

TSL impacts on teachers’ perception of leader effectiveness

Study Features

The next most frequently-studied variable concerning teachers’ internal states is

teachers’ perception of leader effectiveness. Ten studies examined the relationship

between teachers’ perception of their principal’s leadership effectiveness and the degree

180

to which these principals practiced transformational leadership. They used Bass and his

colleagues’ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1995) to

measure both variables. They were all conducted in public, regular school settings. In

terms of the school levels, five studies (50.0%) were conducted in elementary schools,

three in secondary level schools, and two in a mixed sample of schools, as shown in

Table C22.

Table C22




leadership models were not performed in the heterogeneity analysis.

Study Results

All ten studies reported positive impacts of TSL on teachers’ perception of leaders’

effectiveness as measured by the MLQ effectiveness factor. The correlation r between

transformational leadership aggregated scores or dimensional scores and teachers’

perception of their principals’ effectiveness in these schools and locations ranged from

high ( 90) to moderate (.53). In particular, Niedermeyer (2003) explored and compared

the impacts of leadership between high-achieving and low-achieving elementary schools

with high poverty. The results showed that transformational leadership as demonstrated

by principals correlated significantly and positively with teachers’ ratings of leadership

effectiveness in both types of schools, although slightly higher in high-achieving, low

181

SES status schools (Spearman R2 = 0.67, p<0.001) than in low-achieving, low SES status

schools (Spearman R2 = 0.42, p<0.001). Four studies reported that transactional

leadership had negative or no impacts on perceived leadership effectiveness. In

contrasting, contingent reward, one dimension of transactional leadership in Bass and his

colleagues’ original MLQ model, was highly or moderately positively related to the

perceived leadership effectiveness (r = .50 ― .86; p< .01 in Lesniewski, 2003 ; r = .55; p

= .001 in Lentz, 1997). Four out of five studies also reported that laissez-faire leadership

influenced teachers’ perception of their leaders’ effectiveness negatively (r = -.82 ― -

.47) with the fifth one showing no significant impact. The results of these studies

unanimously suggest TSL has prominent impacts on teachers’ perception of principal

effectiveness and that transformational leaders who provide idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration and contingent

reward are very effective in improving teachers’ perception of principal effectiveness in

either elementary or middle schools. These results are further endorsed by the following

meta-analyses.



effect sizes (rs) reported by the 10 studies. All ten studies reported positive effects. The

median r value of .78 and the overall mean r value of .83 show convincing evidence that

the effect of TSL on teachers’ perception of principal effectiveness is prominent and very

large.

182

Table C23


Between Transformational School Leadership and Leaders’ Effectiveness


0.5 3 Maximum .89 0.6 0 Quartile 3 (Q3) .87 0.7 14 Median (Q2) .83 0.8 235689 Quartile 1 (Q1) .68

Minimum .53 Q3 - Q1 .19 Mean .77 Standard Error .04 N 10 Proportion positive sign 100%



sizes of TSL effects on teachers’ perception of principal effectiveness based on a fixed

model. The weighted mean r is .82, a very large effect. The 95% confidence interval

around the mean effect size (.79 < µ < .85) does not include zero and indicates the effect

is significantly positive. The resulting Q value of 28.93 with 9 degrees of freedom is

significant (p = .00). The variance in this sample of effect sizes is more than sampling

error. Thus, the hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was rejected. Heterogeneity

analysis therefore was performed.

Table C24



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 14 .82 .04 .79 .85 28.93 9 .00

183

When the Total Q is significant based on a fixed effects model, a Random Effects Model

should be performed. Table C25 shows the results obtained from a random effects model.

The weighted mean r is .80, indicating that the effect of TSL on teachers’ perception of

leader effectiveness is very large. The 95% confidence interval around the mean effect

size (.73 < µ < .85) does not include zero and indicates the effect is significantly

positive. These results are very close to those of the Fixed Model. The resulting Q-value

of 9.71 with 9 degrees of freedom was not significant anymore (p = .37). This suggests

that the variability in the population of effects (the unique differences of teacher

empowerment in the set of true population effect sizes of which the sample of this study

was a part) plus sampling error sufficiently account for the excess variances of the

sampled effect sizes.

Table C25





Random Model 14 .80 .09 .73 .85 9.71 9 .37 * Significant at α =.05

In sum, the effect of TSL on teachers’ perception of principal effectiveness. The

null hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was rejected.

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Perceptions of Leader Effectiveness


to their impacts on teacher’s perception of leader effectiveness in schools. Meta-analyses

were conducted on five TSL dimensions that had at least two studies that reported or

from which I could calculate related effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of

the extent to which each of the five specific leadership dimensions influences teacher-

184

perceived leader effectiveness was calculated and these impacts were in turn compared.

Table C26 shows the details of the effects of the six leadership dimensions in descending

order of the value of the weighted mean effect sizes. The weighted means are based on

the Fixed Effects Model.

Table C26

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Perception of Principal’s

Effectiveness


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 3 .74*** .07 Providing individualized support 3 .77*** .07 Modeling behaviour 3 .84*** .07 Providing intellectual stimulation 3 .80*** .07 Contingent reward 3 .83*** .11 Management by exception 3 -.34** .11 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table C26, the most influential leadership practices on teachers’

perception of their principal’s effectiveness are those related to helping and developing

people (i.e., modeling, providing intellectual stimulation, and providing individualized

support), contingent reward, and those related to direction-setting (i.e., developing a

shared vision and build goal consensus).

TSL impacts on teacher empowerment

Study Features

Teacher empowerment attracted six studies. Five of them used the School

Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) to determine individual teachers’ level of school

participant empowerment designed by Short and Rineheart. Empowerment in these

studies means “a process by which educators develop expertise to be responsible for their

own growth and one that is positive, motivating, and promotes self-determination,

185

leading to increased professionalism” (in Dono-Koulouris, 2003, p. 16). The dimensions

of the scale are: decision-making, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy,

and impact. Fleming (1996) used Bacharach et al.’s (1990 in Fleming) Empowerment

Discrepancy Index for measuring teacher empowerment. This instrument identifies four

domains of participation: operational-organizational (concerning development and

evaluation), strategic-organizational ((concerning resource allocation issues), operational-

personal (concerning technique and material usage), and strategic-personal (concerning

teacher career matters). Overall, these measures assess the degree that teachers are

empowered through participation in decision-making in various aspects of schooling and

professional development. In terms of the leadership instruments used by the 6 studies,

four used MLQ and two used NSL. In terms of the settings where these 6 studies were

conducted, three were conducted in elementary schools, one study was conducted at the

secondary level schools and two studies were conducted in a mixed sample of schools. In

terms of school type, four studies were conducted in regular public schools, one in private

schools and the remaining one in vocational schools. Due to the limited number of

studies, the testing of moderating effects was not performed in later meta-analysis.

Study Results

Among the six studies that examined the impacts of TSL on teacher

empowerment, four yielded positive results. One study reported mixed results and the

remaining one reported non-significant results. These two studies used the School

Participant Empowerment Scale for measuring teacher empowerment and MLQ for

measuring leadership. Three of the five studies that used the School Participant

Empowerment Scale for measuring teacher empowerment demonstrated positive impacts

186

of transformational leadership on teacher empowerment. The correlation r between

transformational leadership and teacher empowerment was .27 in Ross’s (1998) study.

Based on the ratings of teachers from grades K through 12 in rural public schools in

Appalachia Intermediate Unit 8 in Pennsylvania, transformational leadership was found

to have a significant predictive relationship with teacher perception of empowerment

(Estep, 2000). Transformational leadership was also a significant predictor for all

components of teacher empowerment (Roth, 2002). Among the four studies that reported

positive impacts, two used the MLQ for measuring leadership and the other two used the

NSL. In Fleming’s (1996) study, none of the six leadership subscales was a significant

predictor of teacher empowerment discrepancy, but correlations between the key

variables by school (n = 36) indicated a statistically significant positive relationship

between the total scores of perceived leadership behaviors of principals and those of

teachers’ perceptions of their own empowerment (r = 0.59; p<0.01). In Dono-Koulouris’

(2003) study that reported mixed results, though transformational leadership had no

significant effects on any of the six subscales of teacher empowerment, there was a

significant relationship between transformational leadership style total scores and the

elements of status (r = .31; p< .05) and professional growth (r = .40; p< .01) within

teacher empowerment. This apparent mist of conflicting results is clarified by the

following meta-analyses.



effect sizes rs reported by the 6 studies. The median r is .29 and the overall mean r is

.34.

187

Table C27


Between Transformational School Leadership and Leaders’ Effectiveness


0. 1223 Maximum .59 0. 55 Quartile 3 (Q3) .55 Median (Q2) .29 Quartile 1 (Q1) .21 Minimum .11 Q3 - Q1 .34 Mean .34 Standard Error .03 N 6 Proportion positive sign 100%



sizes of TSL effects on teacher empowerment based on a fixed model. The weighted

mean r is .33, a moderate effect. The 95% confidence interval around the mean effect size

(.23 < µ < .43) does not include zero and indicates the effect is significantly positive.

The resulting Q value of 9.89 with 9 degrees of freedom is not significant (p = .00). The

variance in this sample of effect sizes is due to sampling error. Thus, the hypothesis of

homogeneity at α = .05 was not rejected. Heterogeneity analysis therefore was not

performed.

Table C28



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 21 .33 .06 .23 .43 9.89 5 .08

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Teacher Empowerment

188

Out of eight TSL dimensions, six were examined by the sampled studies in

relation to their impacts on teacher empowerment. Meta-analyses were conducted on five

TSL dimensions that had at least two studies that reported or from which I could


each of the five specific leadership dimensions influences teacher empowerment was

calculated and these impacts were in turn compared. Table C29 shows the details of the


mean effect sizes as well as the effect sizes in the case where only one study that

researched that dimension. The weighted means are based on the Fixed Effects Model.

Table C29

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Empowerment


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Strengthening school culture 1 .56** - Providing individualized support 2 .55*** .08 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 .53*** .08 Building Collaborative structures 1 .53** - Holding high performance expectations 2 .45*** .08 Providing intellectual stimulation 2 .42*** .08 Contingent reward 1 .39** - Modeling behaviour 2 .36*** .08 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table C29, the most influential leadership practices on teacher

empowerment are those related to helping and developing people (i.e., providing

individualized support, holding high expectations, providing intellectual stimulation) and

developing a shared vision and building goal consensus, a direction-setting practice.

189

TSL impacts on individual teacher’s efficacy

The next most frequently studied teachers’ inner state was teacher efficacy (seven

studies). The effect size correlation coefficient r in one study could not be obtained or

calculated. The following review is based on six studies.

Study Features

Measures of Teacher Efficacy. In Mascall’s (2003) study, three teacher efficacy

constructs were examined: general teacher efficacy reflecting a teacher’s belief about the

general relationship between teaching and learning (GTE), personal teacher efficacy

reflecting the teacher’s belief about his or her own skills and abilities to bring about

changes in student learning (PTE) and Teacher Efficacy (GTE + PTE). In the remaining

studies, teacher self-efficacy was one component of the teacher empowerment construct

as measured by the School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES), reflecting “teachers’

perceptions that they have the skills and ability to help students learn, are competent in

building effective programs for students, and can effect changes in student learning”

(e.g., in Dono-Koulouris, 2003, p. 16). In sum, these measures evaluate the extent to

which a teacher believes that his or her own abilities or teaching as a profession can bring

about changes in student learning.

In terms of leadership models, half of the studies used MLQ and the other half used

NSL. In terms of the settings where these seven studies were conducted, three studies

were conducted in elementary schools, one in secondary schools and the remaining one in

a mixed sample of schools. Five studies were conducted in regular public schools while

the sixth was conducted in Catholic schools. Due to the limited number of studies,

moderator testing for school level, school type and leadership models were not performed

in the heterogeneity analysis.

190

Study Results

Among the six studies that inquired into the impacts of TSL on individual

teachers’ efficacy, half of them yielded positive effects while the other half reported non-

significant results. Mascall’s (2003) research inquired into the role of head teachers’

transformational leadership as measured by the NSL in building teacher efficacy during

the implementation of large-scale reforms (England’s National Literacy and Numeracy

Strategies) in elementary schools. Based on the reports of 1076 teachers, views of

transformational leadership accounted for moderate but significant amounts of the

variation in the three efficacy constructs, ranging from 0.1% to 10% in the numeracy

survey and from 2% to 8% in the literacy survey, respectively. “Transformational

leadership appears to account for less of the variation in GTE, and considerable more for

PTE and TE…. when GTE and PTE are combined into TE, the effects are less than if

PTE is taken alone” (Mascall, 2003, p. 71). Only one of the four studies that used SPES

reported positive effects of TSL on teacher self-efficacy. The following meta-analysis

helps determine whether the overall effects of TSL on efficacy is significant and the

extent to which various TSL dimensions impacts teacher’s efficacy.



effect sizes rs reported by the six studies. The median r is .22 and the overall mean r is

.17. The middle 50% of the effect sizes fell into .11, suggested by the quantity of Q3 - Q1.

The mean statistics (Mean & Median) are quite close and consistent (i.e. .22; .17), which

demonstrates the small effect of TSL on individual teacher efficacy.

191

Table C30


Between Transformational School Leadership and Individual Teachers’ Efficacy


-0.1 1 Maximum .25 0.2 0033 Quartile 3 (Q3) .24 0.2 5 Median (Q2) .22

Quartile 1 (Q1) .12 Minimum -.11 Q3 - Q1 .11 Mean .17 Standard Error .02 N 6 Proportion of positive signs 83.3%



sizes of TSL effects on individual teacher efficacy based on a fixed model. The weighted

mean r is .16, indicating that the effect of TSL individual teacher efficacy is small. The

95% confidence interval around the mean effect size (.08 < µ < .23) does not include

zero and indicates the effect is significantly positive. The resulting Q value of 11.69 with

5 degrees of freedom is significant (p = .04). The variance in this sample of effect sizes is



Table C31



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 6 .16 .04 .08 .23 11.69 5 .04

192


Model should be performed. Table C32 shows the detailed results of this process. The

weighted mean r remains the same .16, but the effect is not significant anymore, as the

95% confidence interval around the mean effect size (-.17 < µ < .45) includes zero.

Although the resulting Q-value of .61 with 6 degrees of freedom was not significant

anymore (p = .99), the standard error increased to .17 in REM from .04 FEM when the

random effects variance component .01 was added. This suggests that the REM may not

be better in explaining the excess variances of the sampled effect sizes and that the

effects of TSL on teacher individual efficacy, which is small, significant and positive

based on FEM, is more acceptable.

Table C32





Random Model 6 .16 .18 -.17 .45 .61 5 .99

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Individual Teacher’s Efficacy

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, nine were examined by the sampled studies in relation

to their impacts on individual teacher efficacy. Meta-analyses were conducted on eight of

the TSL dimensions that had at least two studies that reported or from which I could


each of the eight specific leadership dimensions influences teacher efficacy culture was

calculated and these impacts were in turn compared. Table C33 shows the details of the

effects of the eight leadership dimensions in descending order of the value of the

193

weighted mean effect sizes or the effect sizes if there was only one study that researched

that dimension. These statistics are based on the Fixed Effects Model.

Table C33

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Efficacy


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Providing a community focus 2 .21*** .05 Providing intellectual stimulation 3 .13** .04 Building collaborative structures 3 .13** .04 Modeling behaviour 3 .13** .04 Strengthening school culture 3 .12** .04 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 3 .12** .04 Holding high performance expectations 3 .11** .04 Providing individualized support 3 .10* .04 Contingent reward 1 -.02 - * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table C33, the most influential leadership practices on individual

teacher efficacy are those related to building school community, collaborative structures

and school culture, those related to helping and developing people (i.e., providing

intellectual stimulation, modeling, and providing individualized support) and those

related to direction-setting (i.e., developing a shared vision and building goal consensus,

and holding high performance expectations). The influence of these leadership practices

is significant, positive but small.

TSL impacts on teachers’ motivation

Four studies inquired into the impacts of TSL on teacher motivation.

Study Features

Three studies used the items of The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) developed

by Hackman and Oldham to calculate the Motivating Potential Score (the overall value of

the job as perceived by the employee in terms of its motivational content). Palczewski

(1999) constructed The Teacher Motivation Survey (TMS) to define five dimensions of

194

teacher motivational attitudes, including satisfaction, teacher motivation, level of follower

identification with the work origination, willingness to express disagreement with

administration, and follower attitudes toward change. In terms of leadership models, one

study used MLQ and the remaining three used Leithwood’s model. In terms of the

settings where these four studies were conducted, one was conducted in elementary

schools, one study was conducted at the secondary level school and the remaining two

were conducted in a mixed sample of schools. They were all conducted in regular public

schools. Due to the limited number of studies, moderator testing for school level, school

type and leadership models were not performed.

Study Results

Among the four studies that inquired into the relationship between TSL and

teachers’ motivation, only one study yielded positive effects of TSL on teacher

motivation and the remaining three reported non-significant results. Among the three

studies that used JDS for measuring teacher motivation, Fernandez’s study (2002)

reported that “the central concept, that transformational leadership affects pedagogical

motivation, is supported” (p. 64). The other two studies resulted in no significant effects.

In Palczewski (1999), only the dimensions of individual consideration and inspirational

leadership of transformational leadership as measured by MLQ were significantly,

positively related to two dimensions of teacher motivation, i.e., teachers willingness to

disagree (r = 0.24; p=. 05) and attitude toward change (r = 0.31; p=0.02), respectively.

The following meta-analysis helps determine whether TSL effects on shared decision-

making is significant and which TSL dimensions can have significant impacts on teacher

motivation.

195



sizes of TSL effects on teacher motivation based a fixed model. The weighted mean r is

.12. The 95% confidence interval around the mean effect size (-.01 < µ < .25) includes

zero and indicates the effect is not significant. The resulting Q value of 3.67 with 3

degrees of freedom is not significant (p = .30). The variance in this sample of effect sizes

is due to sampling error. Thus, the hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05 was not

rejected. Heterogeneity analysis therefore was not performed.

Table C34



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 7 .12 .07 -.01 .25 3.67 3 .30

In sum, the effect of TSL on teacher motivation at the school level is not

significant based on four sampled studies. The null hypothesis of homogeneity at α = .05

was not rejected.

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Teacher Motivation


dimensions to teacher motivation were not performed since there was only one study

(Palczewski, 1999) that researched the effects of individual leadership dimensions. These

leadership dimensions had non-significant effects on teacher motivation.

TSL impacts on Trust

Two studies (Mannion, 1999; Marks 2002) inquired into the relationship between

TSL and trust. Teachers’ trust characteristics were measured by the Trust Scale (Hooy &

196

Kupersmith, 1985) in Mannion (1999). The scale measures three dimensions of teachers’

trust: trust in principal, trust in colleagues and trust in the organization. In Marks’ (2002)

study, teachers’ trust and confidence was a component of 14 school cultural norms

measured by the School Culture Survey (Sagor & Curley, 1991 in Marks 2002).

Both studies were conducted in middle or secondary public schools and both used

MLQ for measuring leadership practices. One study resulted in a positive, significant

correlation between TSL aggregated and teachers’ trust while the other reported non-

significant effects. Meta-correlation shows that the weighted mean effect size, r = .47,

was significant (p = .00) and the two effect sizes were homogeneous (Q = 1.40; p = .24)

based on FEM. Table C35 shows the details. Due to the limited number of studies, further

analyses were not performed.

Table C35



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 2 .47 .13 .25 .64 1.40 1 .24

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Trust


to their impacts on teachers’ trust. Meta-analyses were conducted on five of them that

had at least two studies that reported or from which I could calculate related effect sizes.

The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which each of the five specific

leadership dimensions influences teacher trust was calculated and these impacts were in

turn compared. Table C36 shows the details of the effects of the five leadership

dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted mean effect sizes as well as

197

the effect sizes if there is only one study that researched that dimension. The weighted

means are based on the Fixed Effects Model.

Table C36

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Trust


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Providing intellectual stimulation 2 .16 .17 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 .17 .17 Providing individualized support 2 .16 .17 Modeling behaviour 2 .15 .17 Contingent reward 2 .09 .13 Management by exception 1 -.04 - * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table C36, all TSL practices had non-significant effects on teacher

trust. Further analyses inquiring into moderating effects were not performed for each TSL

dimension due to the small number of effect sizes available for each of them.

TSL impacts on the other individual teacher internal states

Only six studies reported evidence of TSL effects on six remaining individual

teacher’s internal states. One study found very large, positive effects on teacher loyalty

(Piderit, 1999) (r = .79***). Three studies each found large, positive effects of TSL on

teacher perception of impacted student and parent outcomes (r = .58**), school sense of

community (Hoernemann, 1998) (r = .49**), and teacher perception of student outcomes

(Nader, 1997) (.46**). One study reported a small but positive significant correlation

between TSL and reduced teacher stress (.16***). The remaining study reported non-

significant effects on teachers’ tendency to take risks in Blue Ribbon schools (Wipf,

1998) (r =. 25). These results are consistent with previous findings in that TSL tends to

be influential on teachers’ perceptions of outcomes and their loyalty.

198

Collective teacher internal state

This sample of studies examined the effects of TSL on three types of collective

teacher internal states: teacher collective efficacy, group potency and teacher goal

consensus. Only the effect of TSL on teacher collective efficacy permited meta-analysis

while the effects on the remaining two teacher group outcomes did not since only one

study examined each of the remaining two teacher internal states.

TSL impacts on Teacher Collective Efficacy

Two studies (Nicholson, 2003; Solomon, 2007) inquired into the relationship

between TSL and teacher collective efficacy. Teacher collective efficacy reflects

perceptions of the staff’s ability to positively influence student achievement. It was

measured by collective efficacy scales developed by Goddard and his colleagues’

(Goddard, 2001; 2002; Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000) in both studies, covering theoretical

dimensions of task analysis and group competence.

Both studies were conducted in public schools. One study was conducted in

elementary schools using MLQ for measuring leadership practices and the other in

secondary schools using NSL. One study resulted in a positive, significant correlation

between TSL and teacher collective efficacy while the other reported non-significant

effects. Meta-correlation shows that the weighted mean effect size, r = .18, was

significant (p = .00) and the two effect sizes were homogeneous (Q = .24; p = .62) based

on FEM. Table C37 shows the details. Due to the limited number of studies, further

analyses were not performed.

Table C37


Overall Effect N of Weighted Standard 95% Confidence Interval Q df P

199

ES Mean r Error for zr Lower End r Upper End r Fixed Model 8 .18 .06 .06 .29 .24 1 .62

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Teacher Collective Efficacy


dimensions to teacher collective efficacy were not performed since there was only one

study (Solomon, 2007) that researched the effects of individual leadership dimensions.

These leadership dimensions had significant, positive, small effects on teachers’

collective efficacy in schools. Table C38 shows the details.

Table C38

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher Collective Efficacy

TSL Leadership Dimensions r Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus .22* Modeling behaviour .18* Holding high performance expectations .21* Providing intellectual stimulation .23* Providing individualized support .18* * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

TSL impacts on the other teacher group – level outcomes

Only two studies reported evidence of TSL effects on the remaining two teacher

group internal states. One study found large positive effects on teachers’ group potency

(Mchugh, 1999) (r =. 39) while the other found small but significant positive effects on

teacher goal consensus (Hoernemann, 1998) (r = . 25). Clearly, teacher group outcomes

have received very little attention by those studying TSL effects.

Teachers’ overt practices

This sample of studies examined the effects of TSL on six types of teachers’ overt

behaviours. Only the effect of TSL on teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviours

permitted meta-analysis while the effects on the remaining teacher behaviours-related

200

outcomes did not since only one study examined each of the remaining five teacher

behaviours.

TSL impacts on Organizational Citizenship Behaviours

Three studies (Mannion, 1999; Marks 2002) inquired into the relationship

between TSL and teachers’ Organizational Citizenship behaviors (OCB). OCB refers to

individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the

formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the

organization. Discretionary means that the behaviour is not an enforceable requirement of

the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s

employment contract with the organization; the behaviour is rather a matter of personal

choice (Organ, 1988, p. 4 in Benki, 2006). Benki (2006) measured Civic Virtue, one of

the five dimensions of OCB, using the items in a large-scale survey conducted by

Leithwood and his colleagues (in Benki, 2006). Civic Virtue means that the individual is

concerned about the wellbeing of the organization by being involved in meetings, voting,

etc.

All three studies were conducted in public schools. One study was conducted in

elementary schools, one in secondary, and the remaining one in a mixed sample of

schools. Two studies used MLQ for measuring leadership practices and the third one used

NSL. All three studies resulted in positive, significant correlations between TSL

aggregated and teachers’ OCB. Meta-correlation showed that the weighted mean effect

size, r = .48, was significant (p = .00) and large and the three effect sizes were

homogeneous (Q = .67; p = .72) based on FEM. Table C39 shows the details. Due to the

limited number of studies, further analyses were not performed.

201

Table C39 Descriptions of Effect Size Distribution Based on FEM & Homogeneity Analysis


Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 7 .48 .06 .36 .58 .67 2 .72

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Teachers’ OCB

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, four were examined by the sampled studies in relation

to their impacts on teachers’ OCB. Meta-analyses were conducted on these four

dimensions that had at least two studies that reported or from which I could calculate

related effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which each of

the four specific leadership dimensions influences teacher trust was calculated and these

impacts were in turn compared. Table C40 shows the details of the effects of the four

leadership dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted mean effect sizes.

The weighted means are based on the Fixed Effects Model.

Table C40

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Teacher’s OCB


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Providing intellectual stimulation 2 .35** .11 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 .50*** .11 Providing individualized support 2 .42*** .11 Contingent reward 2 .20 .11 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table C40, developing a shared vision, one direction-setting TSL practice,

and two people-developing dimensions of TSL (i.e., providing individualized support and

intellectual stimulation) had significant, positive and large impacts on teacher OCB.

Contingent reward had no significant impacts on it.

202

TSL impacts on the other teacher behaviours

Only five studies reported evidence of TSL effects on five remaining sets of teacher

practices. Three studies each found very large positive effects on teachers’ discipline

practices (Abu-Tineh, 2003) (r =. 73), their use of knowledge (Stasny, 1996) (r = . 69),

and teacher effectiveness (Johnson, 2007) (r = . 63) and one study found a small but

significant effect of TSL (r = . 22) on teacher collaboration (Johnson, 2007). A non-

significant effect of transformational leadership on teacher leadership was reported in one

study (Dickerson, 2003). Clearly, teacher practices have received very little attention by

those studying TSL effects.

Finally, all 180 ESs reported by 46 studies in 88 analyses were involved in the meta-

analysis estimating the overall effect of TSL on various teacher-related outcomes as a

whole. The weighted mean r was .57, which is large, significant and positive. Table 4.73

shows the details. This suggests that TSL is very influential in influencing teachers’

perceptions and emotions. These effect sizes were heterogeneous (Q = 1166.27; p = .00)

based on FEM. Table C41 shows the details.

Table C41



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 180 .57 .01 .55 .59 1166.27 87 .00

In sum, this chapter demonstrates the strong impacts of TSL on an array of teacher

outcomes.

203

Appendix D: A Detailed Analysis of TSL Effects on Student Learning

An Overview

93 analyses involved in thirty-three studies examined the direct or indirect influence

of TSL on various student outcomes. Six types of student outcomes were used to examine

leadership impacts on students. They are: student achievements, student attendance,

college-going rate, dropout rate, graduation rate, and percent of time removed from

regular classes. Among the six types of student outcomes, the most frequently-used

student outcome measure is student achievements (31 studies/82 analyses). Regardless of

whether direct or indirect effects were examined, the majority of the studies (18) reported

no effects of TSL on student learning and 12 studies reported mixed results. One study

yielded purely positive effects. Seven studies examined the impacts of TSL on the five

remaining types of student outcomes and no significant results were found on any of

them. Five of these seven studies also inquired into the impacts of TSL on student

achievement. Table D1 shows the details.

Table D1

Transformational School Leadership Effects on Students Outcomes

Leadership Impacts

Student Outcome Variables No effect1 Positive2 Mixed3 Total No.

Of Studies Attendance 3 3 College-going Rates 1 1 Dropout Rate 1 1 Graduation Rate 2 2 Student Achievement 18 1 12 31

Total Number of Studies 20 1 12 33 1Studies did not find any significant effects of TSL through either direct or indirect designs, or both 2Studies found only significant positive effects of TSL through either direct or indirect designs, or both 3 Studies found mixed effects of TSL through either direct or indirect designs, or both

204

The following section will focus on a review of the effect of TSL on student

achievements.

Meta-analysis of TSL Impact on Student Achievements

Measures of Student Achievements. Thirty-one studies with a total of 82 analyses

inquired into the effects of TSL on student learning as measured by various academic

performance indexes. Most of the studies used state-wide test results such as test results

from the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). One study (Wiley, 1998) used student

scores in the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88) database. The

subjects extended to mathematics, reading, science, writing, language arts, and social

studies. Most studies used one-site student scores while a few used growth or gain of

student achievements as their dependent variables.

Leadership Measures. In terms of the leadership instruments used by the 31

studies, the majority of the studies (58.1%) used MLQ (Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, see Bass & Avolio, 1995 for example), nine studies (38.9%) used NSL

(Nature of School Leadership survey, see Leithwood, Aitken & Jantzi, 2001 for

example), three studies used LPI (Leadership Practices Inventory, see Kouzes & Posner,

1995 for example), and one study used the author’s self-designed measure. Table D2

illustrates the details.

Table D2


Leadership Models No. of Schools Percent MLQ 18 58.1 NSL 9 29.0 LPI 3 9.7 Author 1 3.2 Total 31 100

205

School Level. In terms of the settings where these 31 studies were conducted, fifteen

studies (48.4%) were conducted in elementary schools, twelve studies were conducted at

the middle or high school levels and the remaining four were conducted in a mixed

sample of schools. Table D3 illustrates the details.

Table D3


School Level No. of Schools Percent Elementary Schools 15 48.4 Junior or/and High Schools 12 38.7 Mixed 4 22.2 Total 31 12.9

School Type. In terms of school type, the majority of the studies were conducted in

regular public schools. Two were conducted in private or religious schools, and one in a

mixed sample of schools. There was one study that did not report the type of its sampled

schools, and I was not able to discern the type from any clues in the thesis. Table D4

illustrates the distribution of the school types.

Table D4


School Type No. of Schools Percent Regular public schools 24 77.4 Private, Catholic or Christian 2 6.5 Mixed sample 4 12.9 Unknown 1 3.2 Total 31 100

Study Results

Among the 31 studies that inquired into leadership impacts on student learning,

12 studies reported mixed effects of TSL on variously measured student achievement

outcomes. Eighteen studies reported non-significant results and one study reported a

206

significant positive effect. As shown in Table 4.6, the majority of the 82 analyses done by

the 31 studies included in this summary table (23 studies) took into account other factors

that interact or moderate the influence of principal leadership on students. This type of

design can be considered to examine the “indirect effect” of TSL. Among these 23

studies that used “indirect-effect” designs,

• Two studies incorporated mediating variables. Both studies reported non-

significant results of the indirect effects of TSL on student achievements.

• Fifteen studies incorporated moderating variables. Six studies reported mixed

results; nine studies reported non-significant results.

• Five studies incorporated both mediating and moderating variables. Two studies

reported mixed results; two reported non-significant results. The remaining study

reported a small effect.

The majority of the studies that used indirect-effect designs also inquired into the direct

effects of TSL on student achievements. Altogether, 24 studies examined the direct

effects of TSL on student achievement. Among these studies,

• Three studies reported mixed results.

• Two studies reported significant, positive effects.

• The remaining 19 studies reported non-significant effects.

These results suggest that the studies that simply used direct-effect designs usually

failed to detect the effects of TSL on student learning. The studies that incorporated both

mediating and moderating variables were more promising in their detection of the

indirect effects of TSL on student learning. Moderating variables should be controlled in

order for the effects of TSL to manifest.

207

The indirect effects of TSL on student achievements

Studies incorporating mediating variables

Seven studies took into account the mediating effects of variables in their research

design. These mediators are: teacher commitment (partial r = .21*), teacher collective

efficacy (partial r = .39*), professional community, teacher efficacy, teacher

empowerment, shared school mission, teacher job satisfaction, and teacher commitment

with effective schools. Among them, collective teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

were significantly, positively related to student learning. However, in M. Nicholson

(2003), TSL had no significant impacts on collective teacher efficacy, and hence, no

indirect effects of TSL on student learning.

Among the seven studies that incorporated mediating variables, two took into

account the mediating effects without controlling any moderators. Both studies resulted

in non-significant effects of TSL on student learning. Ross’s (1998) regressed student

achievements derived solely from the performance of fourth graders on state-mandated

assessment measures on the measures of teacher empowerment, teacher efficacy, and

transformational leadership. The regression model yielded no significant predictors of

student achievement. However, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients

revealed two subscales that significantly correlated with student achievements: personal

teaching efficacy (r = .20; p < .05) and holding high expectations for staff performance

(r = .21; p < .05), a dimension of transformational leadership in the Leithwood model.

Floyd (1999) examined, using regression models, the respective and combined

impacts of teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s leadership behaviour and shared

208

school mission on student achievement as measured by growth and performance of North

Carolina schools in randomly selected public elementary and middle schools. None of

these relationships were significant.

Studies incorporating moderating variables

Twenty studies incorporated moderating effects by controlling moderators

either in statistical analyses or in the sampling procedure (i.e., selecting the schools that

have similar SES, student population). These moderators can be classified into four

categories: student characteristics, school characteristics, teacher background

demographics, and principal background demographics.

• Student characteristics identified in this review research include SES, prior

achievement, attendance, minority percentage, enrolment, student cognitive

abilities, percentage of English learners, and student population.

• School characteristics identified include school types, community types, school

size, school configuration, and student-teacher ratio.

• Teacher background demographics identified include teacher education

background, teacher gender, age, teacher’s experience, teacher time working with

principal, and teacher’s time at school.

• Principal background demographics include principal gender, age, administrative

experience, building experience, tenure and principal educational level.

• Parent education

Among these moderators, SES, principal education level, parent education, student

racial composition, enrolment, prior achievement, and student attendance were reported

as being positively related to student learning. SES had the largest association with

209

student learning. Principal gender had mixed effects on student learning, reported in one

study. These variables, which were shown to have significant correlation with student

learning, need to be controlled in the research designs of future studies that examine the

effects of leadership on student learning.

Among the twenty studies that incorporated mediating variables, fifteen took into

account the moderting effects without considering the interacting effects of TSL and any

mediating variables. The combined effects of TSL and moderators on student learning

was, in most of the cases, significant, with total R ranging from .42 to .75. The following

are a few typical cases of the studies in this group.

Niedermeyer’s (2003) study was conducted in 106 Indiana public elementary

poverty schools (controlling for SES) with grade configurations of kindergarten through

grade 5. Principals in low-achieving schools scored higher in transformational leadership

as measured by MLQ than principals in high-achieving schools. Spearman rank

correlation shows that idealized influence (attributed) (R2 = .47; p = .00), idealized

influence (behaviour) (R2 = .28; p = .00), inspirational motivation (R2 = .20; p = .01),

contingent reward (R2 = .38; p = .00), and management by exception (active) (R2 = .27; p

= .00) were significantly correlated with student achievements as measured by ISTEP+

test scores in low-achieving, low socio-economic status (SES) schools. In high-achieving,

low SES schools, only intellectual stimulation (R2 = -.17; p = .01) was significantly but

negatively correlated with student achievements while management by exception (active)

(R2 = .28; p = .00) and management by exception (passive) (R2 = .44; p = .00) were

positively significantly correlated with student achievements.

210

Another example is Philbin’s (1997) study, which was conducted in Indiana high

schools of a grade 9 to 12 configuration. The sample was stratified in terms of student

socio-economic status and cognitive ability for schools that tested above or below state-

identified expectations. Transformational leadership as measured by the MLQ was not

found to be linked to increased student learning across the overall sample, which did not

control for contextual factors. However, transformational leadership was linked to

increased student learning in the highest strata of SES and cognitive ability (controlling

for these two variables). There was no link between transformational leadership and

student achievement in the lowest strata of contextual factors.

Verona’s (2001) study examined the influence of principal transformational

leadership style on high school proficiency test results (HSPT) in New Jersey

comprehensive and vocational-technical high schools. The transformational leadership

variable was calculated as the ratio of the average of responses to the MLQ

transformational questions plus the MLQ contingent reward questions to the average of

responses to the MLQ transactional questions. The leadership interaction variable was

defined as the transformational leadership variable multiplied by school type (vocational

=1 or comprehensive schools = 0). This study, based on principal scores on the MLQ,

provided strong statistical evidence that principal transformational leadership

significantly affects HSPT passing rates in the reading, mathematics, and writing sections

and all sections combined of the HSPT. The strongest relationship between

transformational leadership and HSPT passing rate was from all sections combined.

“These results strongly suggest that a school having a principal with a high

transformational score would be likely achieve higher HSPT passing rates particularly on

211

all three sections of the HSPT combined rather than any one section alone" (Verona,

2001, p. 227). Transformational leadership does interact with school type: to achieve the

same HSPT passing rates for the reading section, mathematics section, writing section,

and all sections combined, stronger transformational leadership is needed in vocational

high schools compared to comprehensive high schools and this differentiated effect of

principal transformational leadership in vocational schools was most significant for

HSPT passing rates for all sections combined, followed by the writing section, the

reading section, and the mathematics section.

As a final example, based on ratings of 443 teachers in 131 high schools located

throughout Missouri, Prater (2004) examined the relative impact of principal TSL and

two other types of leadership (managerial & instructional leadership) on state mandated

student achievement scores, controlling for several demographic characteristics of

principals along with schools’ socio-economic status, enrolment and community types.

The results showed that the combination of certain principal demographic variables,

school contextual variables and the principal leadership factors explained variability in

student achievements in various subjects:

• the principal education level and “instructional improvement”, “identifying a

vision”, and “providing a model” explained variability in student achievement on

the language arts subtest;

• the principal gender and school socio-economic status demographic variable and

the principal transformational leadership factors “identifying a vision” and

“providing a model” explained variability on the mathematics subtest;

212

• the principal educational level and school socio-economic status demographic

variable and “curriculum improvement” , “identifying a vision”, and “providing”

explained variability on the science subtest; and

• the principal education level, principal gender, school socio-economic status

demographic variables and the principal leadership factors “instructional

improvement” and “providing a model” explained variability on the social studies

subtest.

Studies incorporating both mediating and moderating variables

Among these thirty-one studies, five of them took into account both moderating and

mediating effects. When both moderators and mediators were included, their combined

effects with TS seemed to increase. For example, in Solomon’s (2007) study, the

regression total R between TSL, teacher commitment teacher collective efficacy and SES

and student achievement was .79, a very large, significant, positive effect. The effects of

TSL on student learning seemed contingent upon which moderating and mediating

variables were taken into account. The following three examples show this.

Michael Raymond Nicholson’s (2003) study is a typical one that examined the

influence of transformational school leadership on students through an intermediate

variable-- in this case, teacher collective efficacy-- in 146 elementary schools in Ohio.

The findings show collective efficacy is positively related to student achievement (as

reflected by scores from the Ohio grade proficiency exams) even when controlling for

SES and prior achievement. This study, however, failed to find a significant link between

transformational leadership and collective efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling

demonstrated that transformational leadership behaviour (a structure of a two-factor

213

model including intellectual stimulation and providing individual consideration), is

directly related via intellectual stimulation to student math scaled scores but is not

indirectly related to them through collective efficacy. Although both the leadership

factors of individual consideration (r = .21; p < .05) and intellectual stimulation (r = .22;

p < .01) were positively, significantly related to students’ 2002 scaled scores (but not

significantly related to students’ 2001 scaled scores), when relating transformational

leadership behaviours to student achievement and controlling for SES, only intellectual

stimulation was statistically significant in the path model of student math achievements (r

= .20; p < .05). However, in the reading achievement model, intellectual stimulation did

not relate significantly to reading achievement when SES, prior school achievement, and

collective efficacy were taken into account.

In a second study, based on 214 high schools in the U.S. from the HSES survey

(cognitive achievement tests developed by the Educational Testing Service for the

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88) representative of 10th grade

urban/suburban public and private high schools in 1990 from 30 metropolitan areas),

Wiley (1998), using Hierarchical Linear Modeling, examined the impacts of

transformational leadership constructed from the survey (including the dimensions of

developing shared values and beliefs, supporting actions focused on instructional

development, and communicating respect & value of teachers) and professional

community (shared goals, teacher collaboration, teacher learning and cooperative focus

on improvement of teaching to increase student learning) on student math achievements,

controlling for mean school socio-economic status, percentage of minority students and

mean school math achievements at grade 12. Although neither the main effect of

214

professional community nor the main effect of transformational leadership is associated

with a school’s 10th to 12th grade mathematics achievement slope, the interaction of

transformational leadership and professional community is highly associated with a

school’s 10th to 12th grade mathematics achievement slope. The effect of each of these

two variables on the amount of student learning in mathematics at a school is dependent

on the effect of the other. Transformational leadership positively affects the amount of

learning in mathematics in schools with a below-average level of professional

community, while professional community only positively affects the amount of learning

in mathematics when the level of transformational leadership is above average (Wiley,

1998).

In a third study, Juanita Lynett Nicholson (2003) investigated the relationship

between Virginia high school principal leadership style as measured by MLQ, teacher job

satisfaction, SES and student achievement as measured by Standards of Learning (SOL)

scores used in the areas of English, math, social studies and science. Regressions showed

that no significant relationships existed between the two predictors and the percentage of

students passing the SOL tests. Incidental findings indicated a direct negative correlation

between the principal’s transactional leadership style and student social studies or

English scores.

Studies that use direct design

Nine studies used “direct-effect” designs. The majority of the studies that

incorporated “indirect-effect” designs also examined the direct effects of TSL. Altogether

24 studies examined the direct effects of TSL on student learning. Among these 24

studies, two studies reported significant positive effects of TSL on student learning and

215

three studies reported mixed effects. The majority of the studies reported very small, non-

significant effects. No studies reported purely negative effects of transformational

leadership both in terms of aggregated scores and leadership dimensional or factor scores

on any of the student outcome variables included our review except one study that

reported that student achievement negatively regressed on one dimension of

transformational leadership (i.e., intellectual stimulation as measured by MLQ). These

results suggest that TSL has very small effects, if any, in this area. Whether and to what

extent the overall impact of TSL and its individual dimensions on student learning is

significant is further tested by the meta-analysis that follows.

Meta-analysis of the direct effects of transformational school leadership on student

achievements

Study Features

Among the 24 studies that examined the direct effects of TSL on student

learning, 20 of them reported statistics that either reported correlation coefficients data or

allowed me to calculate effect sizes in the form of correlation coefficients. The following

synthesis is therefore based on these 20 studies

Measures of Student Achievements. As has been mentioned earlier, most (16) of

the 20 studies used one-site, state-wide test results. Three studies used student growth or

improvement in achievement as the outcome measure. One study used student scores in

the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88) database. 19 out of 20

studies examined the relationship between TSL and aggregated scores of student

achievements in various subjects. The subjects extended to mathematics, reading,

science, writing, language arts, and social studies. One study only used student

216

achievement in reading as the outcome measure. Although meta-analyses of the

moderating effects of subject and types of student achievement measures (one-site scores

vs. growth) on TSL’s influence on student learning could not be performed due to the

uneven distributions, additional meta-analyses were conducted in which the three studies

that used achievement or performance growth or gains were excluded. Corresponding

results are discussed later.


majority (55.0%) used MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, see Bass & Avolio,

1995 for example), six studies (30.0%) used NSL (Nature of School Leadership survey,

see Leithwood, Aitken & Jantzi, 2001 for example), and three studies used LPI

(Leadership Practices Inventory, see Kouzes & Posner, 1995 for example). Table D5

illustrates the details. This distribution permits the testing of moderating effects of

leadership model (MLQ vs. NSL) in later meta-analysis.

Table D5


Leadership Models No. of Schools Percent MLQ 11 55.0 NSL 6 30.0 LPI 3 15.0 Total 20 100

School Level. In terms of the settings where these 20 studies were conducted, nine

studies (45.0%) were conducted in elementary schools, eight studies were conducted at

the middle or high school levels and the remaining three were conducted in a mixed

sample of schools. Table D6 illustrates the details. This distribution permits the testing of

moderating effects of school level (elementary vs. secondary) in later meta-analysis.

217

Table D6



School Type. In terms of school type, the majority of the studies (15 studies) were

conducted in regular public schools. Two were conducted in private or religious schools,

and three in a mixed sample of schools. This distribution does not permit the testing of

moderating effects of school type (public vs. private or religious) in later meta-analysis.

Table D7


School Type No. of Schools Percent Regular public schools 15 75.0 Private, Catholic or Christian 2 10.0 Mixed sample 3 15.0 Total 18 100

Study Results

Among the 20 studies that inquired into the direct effects of TSL on student

learning, two studies reported significant positive effects of TSL on student learning and

three studies reported mixed effects. The remaining fifteen studies reported very small,

non-significant effects. One study (Bonaros, 2006) reported a very high correlation

between TSL and student achievement using regression (R = .80). This study used a

slightly different measure of student achievement than the other studies, i.e., annual

School Accountability Report scores calculated by a point system, rather than the direct

state-wide standardized test scores (i.e., schools were awarded one point each for each

percentage point of students who score highly on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment

218

Test). Two studies (Truitt, 2002; Kiper, 2007) also reported comparatively large effects

of TSL (r = .68 and .48 respectively). These findings were based on very small samples

(i.e., 6-7 schools) in both studies. The following section will further analyze the

distribution of the effect sizes using meta-analytical methods.


Table D8 shows the stem-and-leaf display and the summary statistics of the effect

sizes r reported by the 20 studies. Seventeen studies (85.0%) reported positive effect

sizes. The median r value of .11 and the overall mean r value of .17 show that the effect

of TSL on student achievements is small, according to the widely-used convention for

appraising the magnitude of correlation effect sizes established by Cohen (1977, 1988).

(‘Small’ is defined as ≤ .10). The interquartile range (IQR) suggested by the quantity of

Q3 - Q1, the distance between the 75th percentile and the 25th percentile, is .25, essentially

the range of the middle 50% of the data, and shows that the values of the effect sizes are

close. This result is also consistent with the observation that the most common results fell

into two ranges, with raw correlation effect sizes ranging from .01 to .18. Based on the

Boxplots, the study that reported an extremely large effect (r = .80) and a second one that

also reported a large effect (r = .68), as mentioned earlier, were two outliers. However,

according to the definition of outliers specified in this study’s inclusion criteria for meta-

analysis, they are not outliers. Therefore, they were both included in the later meta-

analyses. That being said, an additional meta-analysis was conducted when these two

studies were excluded and the corresponding results will be also discussed.

219

Table D8


Between Transformational School Leadership and Student Achievements


-2 1 Maximum .48 -1 Quartile 3 (Q3) .27 -0 2 Median (Q2) .11 0 1223336 Quartile 1 (Q1) .02 1 01258 Minimum -.21 2 09 Q3 - Q1 .25 3 2 Mean .17 4 8 Standard Error .06 N 20 Proportion positive sign 85.00%


Table D9 shows the overall results of descriptive and homogeneity analysis of the effect

sizes of TSL effects on student learning based on a fixed effects model (FEM). The

weighted mean r is .09, indicating that the effect of TSL on school culture is large. The

95% confidence interval around the mean effect size (.04 < µ < .14) does not include zero

and indicates the effect is significant and positive. The resulting Q value of 34.48 with

19 degrees of freedom is significant (p = .02). The variance in this sample of effect sizes

is demonstrably greater than would be expected from sampling error alone. Thus, the


Table D9



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 45 .09 .03 .04 .14 34.48* 19 .02

220


Model (REM) is recommended (Wilson, 2009). Table D10 shows the results obtained

from a random effects model. The weighted mean r is .12, indicating that the effect of

TSL on student learning is small, but positive. The 95% confidence interval around the

mean effect size (.04 < µ < .20) does not include zero and indicates the effect is

significantly positive. These results are very close to those of the FEM. The resulting Q-

value of 23.86 with 19 degrees of freedom was not significant anymore (p = .20). This

suggests that the variability in the population of effects (the unique differences of school

culture in the set of true population effect sizes of which the sample of this study was a

part) plus sampling error sufficiently account for the excess variances of the sampled

effect sizes.

Table D10





Random Model 45 .12 .04 .04 .20 23.86 19 .20

One may suspect that the significant, positive effects may have been contributed largely

by the few studies that reported unusually large effects of TSL on student achievements.

A separate meta-analysis was conducted with the two outliers detected by the boxplots

excluded from the distribution. The weighted mean r was still significant (p = .01) but

decreased to .07. The resulting Q-value of 14.17 with 19 degrees of freedom was not

significant anymore (p = .66), indicating a homogeneity of the remaining effect sizes

when the two outliers were excluded. Further, to consider the difference between the

studies that used one-site scores and those that used growth or gain scores when

measuring student learning, the three studies that used the latter measures were excluded

221

from the effect size distribution and a third round of meta-analysis was conducted. The

weighted mean r was still significant (p = .01), remaining .07. The resulting Q-value of

10.86 with 15 degrees of freedom was also not significant (p = .76), indicating

homogeneity of the remaining effect sizes. These results consistently demonstrate that the

direct effects of TSL on student achievements were significant and positive, but small.


The sampled effect sizes were blocked into subsets according to potential

moderators, i.e., school level and leadership instrument. Then the main methods of

modeling the systematic variance in effect sizes, the analog to the ANOVA for

categorical variables, were performed to test the moderating effects of these potential

moderators one by one. The application of FEM assumes that the excess variability is

systematic and is associated with these variables. Table D11 shows the results of the

variance analyses.

Table D11

Summary of One-Way Analog to the Analysis of Variance (FEM)






* Significant at α =. 05

The between-study variance QB was not significant at α = .05 for both school level

and leadership instrument. The mean effects of TSL on student achievements did not

differ significantly when different leadership instruments were used (QB = .01; p = .94),

or across school levels (QB = .81; p = .37). Qw, however, was also significant, which

222

indicates that either school level or leadership instrument, as represented in QB, may not

be sufficient to account for the excess variability in the effect size distribution. A closer

look at the within-group variances in each group found that within-group variances in the

group of the studies that used MLQ for measuring TSL (Qw = 25.51; p = .00), or the

group of the studies that were conducted in elementary schools (Qw = 23.41; p = .00),

were heterogeneous, while within-group variances in the studies that used NSL for

measuring TSL (Qw = 9.54; p = .22) or the studies that were conducted in secondary

schools (Qw = 4.68; p = .46) were homogeneous. This may be due to the study that

reported an extremely large effect of TSL on student learning, which was conducted in

elementary schools and used MLQ for measuring leadership.

The existence of Qw’s in the above tests suggested that there might exist a remaining


r’s in addition to sampling error. Mixed Effects Models (MEMs) were then applied on

school level and leadership model in order to explain the variances that these moderators

were not able to explain using FEMs. In MEMs, the variances may include both between-

study differences, subject-level sampling error, and an additional random component.

Table D12 shows the overall results of applying MEMs. Table D13 shows the details of

the moderating effects and descriptives in subgroups.

Table D12

The Moderating Effect of School Level and Leadership Instrument on the Relationship

between TSL and School Achievement based on MEMs



Between Groups 1.09 1 .30 Within Groups 20.05 15 .17 Total 21.13 16 .17


Between Groups .33 1 .57 Within Groups 19.63 15 .19

223

Total 19.96 16 .22 * Significant at α = .05

Table D13

A Summary of Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of TSL Impacts on Student Achievement and

Homogeneity Analyses in Subgroups Based on MEMs

N of ES

Weighted Mean r



df forQ


School Level Elementary .17 .04 .03 .29 15.96 8 .04 Secondary .07 .03 -.06 .19 4.09 7 .77

Leadership Instrument MLQ .14 .04 .03 .25 16.25 10 .09 NSL .08 .07 -.11 .27 3.38 5 .64


REMs (Q B(1) = 1.09; p = .30) was still not significant, endorsing the idea that school

level was not an effective moderator that accounted for the between-study differences.

The means of TSL effects on student learning in secondary schools (M = .07; SE = .03)

and in elementary schools (M = .17; SE = .04) were not significantly different. The

within-study variance Q W was also not significant (Q W(15) = 20.05, p = .17). These

results were consistent with the results yielded from the fixed effect model, where QB

was not significant.

In the case of the leadership models used by the studies for measuring principals’

transformational leadership, when the random variance was taken into account, the QB for

leadership models in REM (QB = .33; p = .57) was not significant, which endorses the

previous findings yielded from the FEM. The within-variance Q W was also not

significant (Q W(15) = 19.63, p = .19), indicating that a random effect existed and the REM

sufficiently explained the variances. The TSL effects on student learning were not

significantly different when using NSL (M = .08, SE = .07) and when using MLQ (M =

224

.14; SE = .04). This result indicates that the use of different leadership measures did not

moderate the TSL effects on student achievements reported by the studies.

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Student Achievement

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, nine were examined by the sampled studies in relation

to their impacts on a variety of cultural outcomes in schools. These leadership

dimensions, from the most to the least-frequently examined, are:

1. Providing intellectual stimulation (8 studies)

2. Developing a shared vision and building goal consensus (7 studies)

3. Holding high performance expectations (7 studies)

4. Modeling behaviour (7 studies)

5. Providing individualized support (6 studies)

6. Building collaborative structures (3 studies)

7. Contingent reward (1 studies)

8. Management by exception (1 studies)

9. Strengthening school culture (1 studies)

The four most frequently examined TSL dimensions include three people-

developing leadership practices (i.e., providing intellectual stimulation, holding high

performance expectations and modeling) and shared vision, a direction-setting leadership

practice.

According to Rosenthal (1991), one can perform meta-analyses on even two

studies. Therefore, meta-analyses were conducted on all of these nine TSL dimensions

since each of them had at least two studies that reported or from which the researcher

could calculate related effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to

225

which each of the specific leadership dimensions influences student learning was

calculated and these impacts were compared. Findings show that the two most influential

leadership practices on student learning are building collaborative structures and

providing individualized support. Though significant, the direct effects of these

leadership practices on student achievements are small (i.e., weighted means r ranging =

.15; .17). This is understandable since those two leadership practices are the ones that

student can directly feel or through which students can be influenced more directly. The

other leadership practices had no significant, direct impacts on students’ learning. This is

also understandable since these leadership practices are more directly connected with

teachers or school operations, such as those related to direction-setting (i.e., developing a

shared vision and building goal consensus) and those related to helping and developing

people (i.e., providing intellectual stimulation, modeling, and providing individualized

support); their direct impacts on students were not significant. That being said, these

findings were based on a small sample of 20 studies and therefore they are only tentative,

suggestive findings.

I was not able to conduct testing of the moderating effects of subject areas on the

impacts of TSL on student learning due to the very limited number of studies available.

However, separate small meta-analyses were conducted in the subgroups of sampled

studies that examined the student achievements in same subject areas. Math and reading

are two subjects into which more than two studies inquired, which permitted the meta-

correlations that follow.

The Direct Effect of TSL on Student Achievements in Reading

226

Four studies inquired into the relationship between TSL and student learning in

reading. One of them was conducted in elementary schools, two in middle or secondary

schools, and the fourth one in a mixed sample of schools. Two of them were conducted in

public schools, one in charter schools, and the remaining one in a mixed sample of

schools. Two studies used MLQ for measuring leadership practices while the other two

used NSL. Meta-correlation showed that the weighted mean effect size, r = .15, was

significant (p = .01). This suggests that the direct effect of TSL on student achievement in

reading is significant. The effect sizes were homogeneous (Q = 2.58; p = .46) based on

FEM. Table D14 shows the details.

Table D14



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 9 .15 .05 .04 .25 2.58 3 .46

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Student Achievements in Reading

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, seven were examined by the sampled studies in

relation to their impacts on student learning. Meta-analyses were conducted on five of

them that had at least two studies that reported or from which I could calculate related

effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which each of the five

specific leadership dimensions influences student achievement in reading was calculated

and these impacts were in turn compared. Table D15 shows the details of the effects of

the six leadership dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted mean

effect sizes as well as the effect sizes if there is only one study that researched that

dimension. The weighted means are based on the Fixed Effects Model.

227

Table D15

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Student Achievements in Reading


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 2 .14 .08 Holding high performance expectations 2 .14 .08 Modeling behaviour 2 .13 .08 Providing intellectual stimulation 2 .13 .08 Providing individualized support 3 .09 .06 Strengthening school culture 1 .03 .08 Building collaborative structures 1 -.05 .08 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table D15, all TSL practices had non-significant effects on

student learning in reading. This may be due to the small number of studies involved in

the analysis. Further analyses inquiring into moderating effects were not performed for

each TSL dimension due to the small number of effect sizes available for each of them.

The Direct Effect of TSL on Student Achievements in Math

Three studies inquired into the relationship between TSL and student learning in

math. One of them was conducted in elementary schools, one in middle schools, and one

in high schools. Two of them were conducted in public schools and the remaining one in

a mixed sample of schools. Two of them used MLQ for measuring leadership practices

while the remaining one used NSL. Meta-correlation showed that the weighted mean

effect size, r = .18, was significant (p = .00). This suggests that the indirect effect of TSL

on student achievement in math is significant and positive. The effect sizes were

homogeneous (Q = .61; p = .74) based on FEM. Table D16 shows the details.

Table D16



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 8 .18 .05 .08 .28 .61 2 .74

228

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Student Achievements in Math

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, five were examined by the sampled studies in relation

to their impacts on student learning. Meta-analyses were conducted on only two of them

that had two studies that reported or from which I could calculate related effect sizes. The

weighted mean of the effect sizes indicating the extent to which either of them influences

student learning in math was not significant. None of the remaining leadership

dimensions which only one study examined was reported to have significant correlation

with student outcomes in math.

Meta-analysis of the Indirect Effect of TSL on Student Achievements

The majority of the studies involved in this review that examined the indirect

effects of TSL on student learning used multiple regressions and more sophisticated

statistical modeling such as Structural Equation Modeling. Due to the variety of variables

involved in these study and due to the different nature or types of effect sizes reported by

these studies, the types of meta-analyses conducted above were not possible in this case.

That being said, several small meta-analyses were conducted within a small number of

studies that controlled the same variables and that used the same type of statistical

analyses and sequentially comparable effect sizes. The following are the meta-analyses of

the indirect effects of TSL on student achievements, when controlling SES and student

cognitive abilities.

The Indirect Effect of TSL on Student Achievements in Low SES schools

Six studies inquired into the relationship between TSL and student learning in low

SES schools. Four of them were conducted in elementary schools and two in middle or

secondary schools. All of them were conducted in public schools. Five of them used

229

MLQ for measuring leadership practices while the remaining one used NSL. Meta-

correlation showed that the weighted mean effect size, r = .07, was not significant (p =

.17). This suggests that the indirect effects of TSL on student achievement in low SES

schools is not significant. The effect sizes were homogeneous (Q = 3.51; p = .62) based

on FEM. Table D17 shows the details.

Table D17



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 9 .07 .05 -.03 .17 3.51 5 .62

The Influence of Specific TSL Practices on Student Achievements in Low

SES Schools

Out of 11 TSL dimensions, eight were examined by the sampled studies in

relation to their impacts on student learning. Meta-analyses were conducted on six of

them that had at least two studies that reported or from which I could calculate related

effect sizes. The weighted mean of the effect sizes of the extent to which each of the six

specific leadership dimensions influences student achievements in low SES schools was

calculated and these impacts were in turn compared. Table D18 shows the details of the

effects of the six leadership dimensions in descending order of the value of the weighted

mean effect sizes as well as the effect sizes if there was only one study that researched


Table D18

The Effect of the Individual TSL Dimensions on Student Achievements


Studies Weighted


Error for zr

Management by exception 3 .28** .10 Developing a shared vision and build goal consensus 4 .13 .07

230

Modeling behaviour 4 .13 .07 Contingent reward 3 .05 .10 Building collaborative structures 1 .02 - Strengthening school culture 1 .02 - Providing intellectual stimulation 4 .00 .07 Providing individualized support 4 -.05 .07 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

As is shown in Table D18, all TSL practices had non-significant effects on

student learning except Management by exception. Management by exception had

significant, medium-sized, positive effects on student achievements (weighted mean r =

.38). Developing a shared vision within a school and modeling can be important practices

in relation to student learning, although their impacts on it were not significant based on

this small sample of studies. These results suggest that, on one hand, school leadership

can be more effective when a school leader devotes more of his or her valuable time to

important things such as shaping the vision of the school, gives freedom or authority to

teachers and leaves the responsibilities and instructional decisions of improving student

learning to them, and only gives attention to deviations. On the other hand, this

leadership practice can be powerful when it is necessary to monitor student data/scores,

make managerial decisions and interfere when student scores go below standards. Further

analyses inquiring into moderating effects were not performed for each TSL dimension

due to the small number of effect sizes available for each of them.

The Indirect Effect of TSL on Student Achievements in High SES and High

Cognitive Ability schools

Two studies inquired into the relationship between TSL and student learning in

high SES schools where students’ cognitive abilities are also high. In this group of

studies, two important contextual factors were controlled. The cognitive ability

contextual variable was defined as the students’ potential learning (see Philbin, 1997 for

231

an example). One study was conducted in elementary schools and the other in high

schools. Both of them were conducted in public schools and both used MLQ for

measuring leadership practices. Meta-correlation shows that the weighted mean effect

size, r = .05, was not significant (p = .50). This suggests that the indirect effects of TSL

on student achievement when controlling for SES and student cognitive abilities was not

significant. The effect sizes were homogeneous (Q = .97; p = .33) based on FEM. Table

D19 shows the details. Meta-analysis of the influence of specific TSL practices on

student achievements was not conducted due to the lack of data available.

Table D19



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 2 .05 .08 -.10 .20 .97 1 .33

The Indirect Effect of TSL on Student Achievements in Low SES and Low

Cognitive Ability Schools

The same two studies inquired into the relationship between TSL and student

learning in low SES schools where students’ cognitive abilities are also low. Meta-


.73). This suggests that the indirect effects of TSL on student achievement when

controlling for SES and student cognitive abilities was not significant. The effect sizes

were homogeneous (Q = .15; p = .70) based on FEM. Table D20 shows the details. Meta-

analysis of the influence of specific TSL practices on student achievements were not

conducted due to the lack of data available.

232

Table D20



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 2 .03 .08 -.12 .18 .15 1 .70

It was not possible to conduct testing on the moderating effects of subject areas on

the indirect impacts of TSL on student learning due to the very limited number of studies

available. However, two separate small meta-analyses were conducted in the subgroups

of sampled studies that examined the student achievements in the same subject areas.

Math and reading are two subjects that are examined by more than two studies, which

permits the meta-correlations that follow.

The Indirect Effect of TSL on Student Achievements in Reading in Low SES

Schools


reading in low SES schools. Both studies were conducted in secondary public schools.

One study used MLQ for measuring leadership practices while the other used NSL. Meta-


.74). This suggests that the indirect effect of TSL on student achievement in reading in

low SES schools is not significant. The effect sizes were homogeneous (Q = .18; p = .67)

based on FEM. Table D21 shows the details. The data regarding the impacts of TSL on

student learning were not reported in these two studies and therefore meta-analyses of the

impacts of specific leadership practices were not conducted.

Table D21


Overall Effect N of Weighted Standard 95% Confidence Interval Q df P

233

ES Mean r Error for zr Lower End r Upper End r Fixed Model 2 .03 .09 -.14 .19 .18 1 .67

The Indirect Effect of TSL on Student Achievements in Math in Low SES

Schools


math in low SES schools. Both studies were conducted in secondary, public schools. One

study used MLQ for measuring leadership practices while the other used NSL. Meta-


.93). This suggests that the indirect effect of TSL on student achievement in math in low

SES schools is not significant. The effect sizes were homogeneous (Q = .00; p = .96)

based on FEM. Table D22 shows the details. The data were not reported regarding the

impacts of TSL on student learning in these two studies and therefore meta-analyses of

the impacts of specific leadership practices were not conducted.

Table D22



Weighted Mean r



Fixed Model 2 .01 .09 -.16 .17 .00 1 .96

Summary of the Impacts of TSL on Student Achievements

In summary, this review detected significant, positive small direct effects of TSL

on student achievements. The studies that incorporated both moderators and mediators

offered the most promising channel for detecting the indirect effects of leadership

influence on students. TSL did not have significant effects on student learning when

controlling SES, and controlling both SES and students’ cognitive abilities. Meta-

234

analyses of the indirect impacts of TSL on student achievement scores in both math and

reading resulted in the same non-significant effects. That being said, management by

exception was found to be significantly correlated with student learning when controlling

SES and student cognitive abilities. Certain moderators that have significant impacts on

student learning, such as students’ socio-economic status, should be included in the

design of future studies as controlling factors. The combined effects of TSL on student

learning vary when different school or teachers variables are taken into account. The

review of the studies identified seven important moderators and three mediators that

significantly contributed to student learning along with TSL. Many more linking

variables, especially teacher-related variables, need to be identified and examined in

relation to their direct contribution to student learning as well as their role in linking the

efforts of school leadership to student learning. The combinations of TSL or certain

dimensions of transformational leadership particularly suitable for certain characteristics

of students and conditions of schools and interacting with certain school or teacher

variables are worth future exploration in order to identify critical paths through which

school leaders influence students.

235

References

Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg (2004). Leadership: Past, present and future. In In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3-13). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). The ethics of transformational leadership. KLSP: Transformational Leadership, Working Papers. Academy of Leadership Press. Retrieved December 25th 2006 from http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_p1.htm

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research, (pp. 49-80). Toronto: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Duplicate set: Rate form, for MLQ for 5x-short. California: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical report (2nd ed.). California: Mind Garden

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1998, September, 24) Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership, retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html

Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school headteachers and principals on student outcomes. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science, Research Unit, Institute of Education. Retrieved on February 4 2010 from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=317

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003, Spring). Distributed leadership: Full Report. The Open University and University of Gloucestershire.Culbertson, J. A. (1988). A century’s quest for a knowledge base. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American educational research association (pp. 3-26). New York: Longman.

http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_p1.htm

http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html

236

Blase. J., & Blase J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Brown, L. I. (2001). A meta-analysis of research on the influence of leadership on student outcomes. Doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the United States.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Chen, J. P. (2007). Meta-analysis of transformational school leadership effects on school outcomes in Taiwan and the USA. Asia Pacific Education, 8 (2), 166-177.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cook, T. D., & Levition, L. C. (1980). Reviewing the literature: a comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysis. Journal of Personality 48(4), 449-472.

Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide to literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cooper H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.)(1994). Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Found.

Culbertson, J. A. (1988). A century’s quest for a knowledge base. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American educational research association (pp. 3-26). New York: Longman.

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E.(2001, April). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in Success for All Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 219-249.

Dundum, Lowe & Avolio (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35-66). New York: An Imprint o f Elsevier Science.

Evans, J., & Benefield, P. (2001) Systematic reviews of educational research: does the medical model fit? British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 527–541.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and met-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.

237

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school Performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, K. Seashore-Louis, G. Furman-Brown, P. Gronn, W. Mulford, & K. Riley (eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Foster, P., & Hammersley, M. (1998). A review of reviews: Structure and function in reviews of educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 24(5), 609- 628.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1996) Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and prospects. Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture, London, TTA.

Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievements. New York: Routledge.

Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the Contribution of Distributed Leadership to School Improvement and Growth in Math Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46 (3), 659 –689.

Heck, R.H., Larson, T., & Mercoulides, G. (1990). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.

Heck, R. H., & Moriyama, K. (2010). Examining relationships among elementary schools’ contexts, leadership, instructional practices, and added-year outcomes: a regression discontinuity approach. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Manuscript received from the author.

Hemsley-Brown, J.V. & Sharp, C. (2004). The use of research to improve professional practice: A systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 24 (9), 449 - 470.

238

Hunt, J.G. (1999). Transformational/Charismatic leadership’s transformational of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, H. G. (1944). An empirical study of the influence of errors of measurement upon correlation. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(4), 521-536.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.

Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: a practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations (Revised ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kulik, J. A. (1998). In Kulik C. C., American Educational Research Association. (Eds.), Meta-analysis: Historical origins and contemporary practice. Washington, DC: ERIC.

Kraemer, H. C., & Andrews, G. (1982). A nonparametric technique for meta-analysis effect size calculation. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 404-412.

Leithwood, K. (1992). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 498-518.

Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217-235.

Leithwood, K. (2006). Teacher working conditions that matter: Evidence for change. Toronto: Elementary teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

Leithwood, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2010). School leaders’ influences on student learning: The four Paths. In T. Bush, L. Bell & D. Middlewood (Eds.), The principles of educational leadership & Management (2nd ed.), (pp. 13-30). Los Angeles: Sage.

239

Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy, & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 45-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K., Aitken, R., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Making school smarter: Leading with evidence (3nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249-280.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School effectiveness and school improvement, 10(4), 451-479.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources

of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quanterly, 35, 679-706.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 113-129.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Silins, H., & Dart, B. (1993). Using the appraisal of school

leaders as an instrument for school restructuring. Peabody Journal of Education,

68(2), 85-109.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of the evidence linking leadership to student learning. New York: the Wallace Foundation.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about school leadership? In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York: Teachers College Press.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1991b). Indicators of transformational leadership in the everyday problem solving of school administrators. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 221-244.

240

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. P. (2009). Transformational school leadership effects on schools, teachers and students. In W. Hoy & M. Dipaola (Series Eds.), Research and theory in educational administration: Vol. 8. Studies in school improvement programs (pp. 1-22). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In Leithwood (Ed.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 785-840). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S., & (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report of Research Findings to the Wallace Foundation. Retrieved July 23, 2010 from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-from-Leadership-Investigating-Links-Final-Report.pdf.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-Analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Aurora, CO: ASCD and McREL.

NIST/SEMATECH (2009). E-Handbook of Statistical Methods. Retrieved on September 4, 2009 from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Lloyd, K. J. (2008). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Rosenthal R. (1979). The ‘file drawer’ problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (revised ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. M. Cooper & L. V. Hedges(Eds.), Handbook of Research Synthesis, (pp. 231-245). New York: Russell Sage Found.

Rosenthal, R., DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-Analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review Psychology, 5, 59-82.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/

241

Sashkin, M. (1990). The visionary leader: Leadership behavior questionnaire. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.

Sashkin, A. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches: A review and synthesis. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 171-196). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. M. Cooper & L. V. Hedges(Eds.), Handbook of Research Synthesis, (pp. 261-281). New York: Russell Sage Found.

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-11.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epedemiology, 48, 9-18.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Dianmond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. In Educational Research, 30(3), 23-28.

Strube, M. J., & Hartmann, D. P. (1983). Meta-Analysis: Techniques, applications, and functions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical psychology, 51(1), 14-27.

Sun, J. P. (2006). Understanding teacher commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the CSSE, Toronto, Canada.

Sun, J. P., Zhang, J. S. (2010). A new method for synthesizing effect size. Proposal submitted to the annual meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, USA.

The Wallace Foundation (2010). Connecting leadership to learning. Knowledge in brief: findings you can use form new Wallace Research. Retrieved July 23, 2010 from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/knowledge-in-brief-connecting-leadership-to-learning.pdf.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader. Toronto: John Willey and Sons.

Underdue, M. Y. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between transformational leadership during complex organization change and worker and organizational outcomes in public and private sector organizations. Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, the United States.

Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

242

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2010). McREL’s Balanced Leadership Framework: Developing the Science of Educational Leadership. Retrieved March 1 2010 from http://www.nga.org/cda/files/0404mcrel.pdf.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.

Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. In J. A. Fox & P. E. Tracy (Eds.), Randomized response: A method for sensitive surveys. pp. 9-65. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis & Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The nature of leadership, (pp. 101-125).

References of the dissertations reviewed

Abu-Tineh, A. M. (2003). Exploring the relationship between the perceived leadership style of principals and their teachers’ practice of the five disciplines of learning schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02)A, AAI3081429.

Amoroso, P. F. (2002). The impact of principals’ transformational leadership behaviors on teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(09)A, AAI3066129.

Banki, Sara (2006). Effect of transformational leadership behaviour on teachers’ citizenship behaviour. M.A. dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses. (Publication No. AAT MR21428).

Bankowski, B. J. (2002). A study of the relationship between transformational leadership and teacher motivation in New York city elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(11)A, AAI3069574.

Bannon, K. C. (2000). Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which principals exercise transformational leadership in schools and the relationship of these leadership perceptions to teachers’ perceptions of the extent of shared school goals and teacher commitment in these schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(04)A, AAI9968759.

Bonaros, D. J. (2006). A study of transformational leadership and student achievement in inner-city elementary schools. Ed.D. dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, United States -- Florida. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3207798).

http://refworks.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/Refworks/~1~




243

Blasius, T. (2007). Comparison of moral reasoning and transformational leadership of public school principals using inclusive education in Michigan. Ed.D. dissertation, Central Michigan University, United States -- Michigan. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3290057).

Blatt, D. A. (2002). A study to determine the relationship between the leadership styles of career technical directors and school climate as perceived by teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12)A, AAI3076358.

Booker, J. E. G. (2003). Teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of leadership styles and their relation to school climate. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05)A, AAI3089826.

Conners, R. T. (2003). Leadership styles of Ohio community school principals, 2002((2003: An exploratory study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05)A, AAI3092080.

Copeland, J. A. (1997). Transformational leadership and participation in decision-making in public schools. MBA thesis, Moncton, NB: University of New Brunswick, Canada.

Cormier, S. F. (1997). School restructuring, transformational leadership, and teacher participation in decision-making. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(07)A, AAI9803580.

Daniels, Kisha Nicole (2005). The influence of principal’s leadership style on school variables in urban middle schools. Ed.D. dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States -- North Carolina. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3200632).

Dickerson, P. L. (2003). Principal leadership style and the dimensions of teacher leadership in Texas public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06)A, AAI3094644.

Dono-Koulouris, M. J. (2003). Leadership style, teacher empowerment, and job satisfaction in selected catholic elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(09)A, AAI3107132.

Ejimofor, F. (2007). Principals’ transformational leadership skills and their teachers’ job satisfaction in Nigeria. Ph.D. dissertation, Cleveland State University, United States -- Ohio. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3298282).

Estep, T. A.,III. (2000). A study of the relationships between transformational leadership, transactional leadership and specified demographic factors as enablers of teacher







244

empowerment in rural Pennsylvania school districts in Appalachia intermediate unit 8. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(01)A, AAI9959142.

Evans, T. J. (1996). Elementary teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of principal leadership style and school social organization. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(07)A, AAI9639808.

Fernandez, S. A. (2002). Leadership style and staff motivation: A study of transformational leadership and its impact on new york city public middle and intermediate schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12)A, AAI3073663.

Fisher, M. W. (2003). Effects of principal leadership style on school climate and student achievement in select Idaho schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05)A, AAI3091403.

Fleming, S. S. (1996). Leadership for teacher empowerment: The relationship between the communication skills of principals, transformational leadership, and the empowerment of teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(08)A, AAI9701556.

Floyd, J. E. (1999). An investigation of the leadership style of principals and its relation to teachers’ perceptions of school mission and student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(09)A, AAI9946412.

Freeland, J. (2006). The relationship of transformational leadership and reading achievement in Broward County, Florida charter schools. Ph.D. dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, United States -- Florida. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3240596).

Gepford, J. D. (1996). The relationship between school success and the leadership style of the principal in low socio-economic schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, United States-Carolina.

Gunigundo, M. S. T. (1998). An exploration of the relationship between principal leadership style and student academic achievement in the philippines. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(08)A, AAI9902636.

Holloway, T. M. (2006). The effect of principals’ leadership style on student growth and teacher behavior in the accountability era. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, United States -- Mississippi. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3225222).

Ham, S. (1999). A study of the relationship between principal leadership and school climate in Korean secondary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(08)A, AAI9945411.









245

Hedges, B. J. (1998). Transformational and transactional leadership and the school principal: An analysis of catholic K-8 school principals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(06)A, AAI9836413.

Hill, M. Prevalent leadership characteristics among principals/lead teachers in alternative education programs for at-risk youth. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana State University, United States -- Indiana. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3318956).

Hoernemann, M. E. (1998). Transformational leadership and the elementary school principal. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(07)A, AAI9939358.

Johnson, M. (20070. Essential leadership: The real wave of school reform. Ed.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, United States -- New York. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3269083).

Kiper, R. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of principals as transformational leaders and AYP testing mandates for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: A correlational study using Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments. Ed.D. dissertation, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3303743).

Konkle, C.. An examination of leadership styles of school principals and student effectiveness in urban elementary schools in the State of Ohio. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati, United States -- Ohio. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3264459).

Kristoff, B. L. (2003). Transformational leadership, professional school culture, and perceived effectiveness in specialized programs for students with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(04)A, AAI3088477.

Le Clear, Elizabeth A. (2005). Relationships among leadership styles, school culture, and student achievement. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Florida, United States -- Florida. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3204426).

Lee, Y. Yu. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of principals’ transformational leadership and teachers’ job satisfaction and school commitment. Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, United States. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3178858).

Layton, J. K. (2003). Transformational leadership and the middle school principal. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(10)A, AAI3108364.





246

Lentz, M. B. (1997). Transformational leadership of principals in a district grounded in shared decision making. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12)A, AAI3074542.

Lucks, H. J. (2002). Transformational leadership and teacher motivation across new york city public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(06)A, AAI3058275.

Mannion, P. T. (1999). The relationship of principal transformational leadership characteristics to principal trust characteristics, colleague trust characteristics, and organization trust characteristics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(05)A, AAI9929712.

Meier, A. (2007). The leadership strategies of high school principals in relationship to organizational structure. Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Nebraska - Lincoln, United States -- Nebraska. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3275078).

Marks, D. E. (2002). A study of two leadership styles and school cultural norms in small middle schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(02)A, AAI3041397.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.

Martino, A. M. (2003). Leadership style, teacher empowerment, and job satisfaction in public elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(09)A, AAI3104415.

Mascall, M. B. (2003). Leaders helping teachers helping students: The role of transformational leaders in building teacher efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(05)A, AAINQ91890.

McHugh, K. J. (1999). Exploring the relationship between perceptions of principals’ leadership behaviors and potency of teaching teams at the middle level. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06)A, AAI9935171.

Michael, C. M. (2003). The relationship of the transformational leadership of the administrators in America’s middle college high schools and their feeder institutions to selected indicators of effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(07)A, AAI3098049.

Miles, M. T. (2002). The relative impact of principal instructional and transformational leadership on school culture. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(05)A, AAI3052200.










247

Mooney, M. P. (2003). A study of the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational climate of elementary schools in western Pennsylvania. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02)A, AAI3081035.

Mosbacker, B. L. (2005). An investigation of technology and school leadership in Christian schools in the United States. Ed.D. dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, United States. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3161849).

Nader, J. M. (1997). The value of transformational leadership in an exemplary school district in Ohio: Examination of conditions, processes and practices associated with school improvement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(05)A, AAI9732753.

Nicholson, J. L. (2003). An exploration of the ability to predict student achievement from leadership behaviors, teacher job satisfaction, and socioeconomic status. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03)A, AAI3083806.

Nicholson, M. R. (2003). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: A model of school achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06)A, AAI3093682.

Niedermeyer, B. H. (2003). The relationship of principal leadership style and student achievement in low socio-economic schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(11)A, AAI3113852.

Nguni S. (2005). Transformational Leadership in Tanzania Education: A study of the effects of Transformational Leadership on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Tanzania Primary and Secondary Schools. Doctoral thesis, Rodbound University.

O’Connor, G. J. (2001). A study of leadership styles and school climate. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(11)A, AAI3032711.

Odegaard, L.(2008). The relationship between teacher-identified principal leadership behavior and effectiveness and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. Ed.D. dissertation, University of South Dakota, United States -- South Dakota. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3318826).

Overton, R. C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for met-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3, 354-379.

Palczewski, S. (1999). A study of the relationship between transformational leadership and teacher attitudes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06)A, AAI9935411.








248

Philbin, L.III. (1997). Transformational leadership and the secondary school principal. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(09)A, AAI9808502.

Piderit, M. A. (1999). The effects of principal leadership on teacher loyalty in urban and suburban catholic elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12)A, AAI3038211.

Prater, M. E. (2004). The relative impact of principal managerial, instructional, and transformational leadership on student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(06)A, AAI3137738.

Solomon, C. (2007). The relationships among middle level leadership, teacher commitment, teacher collective efficacy, and student achievement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri - Columbia, United States -- Missouri. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3322742).

Ross, A. T. (1998). Exploring connections among teacher empowerment, teacher efficacy, transformational leadership, and student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(09)A, AAI9906642.

Roth, W. B. (2002). The effect of principal’s leadership style on school council members’ perceptions of empowerment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(04)A, AAI3050353.

Rugg, L. J. (2005). Teacher satisfaction with principal transformational leader behavior. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, United States -- Indiana. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3210777).

Schooley, M. L. (2005). An analysis of the relationship between transformational leadership and school culture. Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri - Columbia, United States -- Missouri. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3235157).

Small, S. K. M. (2003). The relationships of transformational/transactional leadership behavior of elementary school principals with teacher outcomes: Extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(08)A, AAI3099650.

Smith, J. The relationship between North Carolina elementary principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership styles and the social organization of the school. Ed.D. dissertation, Fayetteville State University, United States -- North Carolina. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3287784).







249

Stasny, K. M. (1996). The effects of dimensions of transformational leadership on the conditions for organizational learning and sources of knowledge utilization in restructuring schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(08)A, AAI9701572.

Stobaugh, R. R. (2003). School reform, transformational leadership, and student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(01)A, AAI3120082.

Timmerman, A.(2007). Examining the relationship between teachers’ perception of the importance of the transformational individual consideration behaviors of school leadership and teachers’ perception of the importance of the peer cohesion of school staff. Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, United States -- North Carolina. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3306649).

Truitt, J. L. (2002). Effective principal leadership practices as perceived by teachers in schools demonstrating continuous student academic improvement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(04)A, AAI3050327.

Verona, G. S. (2001). The influence of principal transformational leadership style on high school proficiency test results in new jersey comprehensive and vocational-technical high schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(03)A, AAI3009382.

Wiley, S. D. (1998). School leadership and professional community: Effects on student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(10)A, AAI9910535.

Wipf, D. A. (1998). Transformational leadership and teachers’ tendency to take risks. Dissertation, University of Montana, United States-Montana. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 9840733.

Wilson, D. B. (2009). Meta-analysis stuff. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html.

Witmer, M. L. (2005). Relationships among transformational leadership, family background, teachers’ commitment to change, effective schools’ characteristics, and student achievement in California public comprehensive high schools: A structural equation model. Ed.D. dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, United States -- California. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3160499).

Yu, H. (2000). Transformational leadership and Hong Kong teachers’ commitment to change (China). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11)A, AAINQ53883.





