teachers’ leadership styles and …€™ leadership styles and students’ academic performance...
TRANSCRIPT
TEACHERS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN
MATHEMATICS COURSES
by
SUSAN ISAAC
(Under the Direction of Wanda L. Stitt-Gohdes)
ABSTRACT
Colleges and accreditation agencies across America share the common goal of wanting to
improve student performance. In this era of accountability, the pressure for teachers to improve
student performance has increased. This study examined whether teachers’ classroom leadership
styles compared to a change in student performance in an entry-level mathematics course at a
community college in the south. For the independent variables, students completed two
leadership surveys to assess their teacher’s leadership styles: Blake and Mouton’s (1964)
paragraph rankings and Avolio and Bass’s (1995) Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-
5X). Students completed a pre-test and post-test to assess their mathematical skills, and the
difference between those scores was the dependent variable. The analysis did not indicate any
significant results at or below a probability of .05 between these leadership styles and improved
student performance. This study indicated that a connection does not appear to exist between the
leadership styles indicated by these surveys and a change in student performance.
INDEX WORDS: Teacher leadership, Leadership, Student performance, Mathematics, Community college, Multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5X)
TEACHERS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN
MATHEMATICS COURSES
by
SUSAN ISAAC
B.S., East Tennessee State University, 1994
M. A., East Tennessee State University, 1997
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2011
© 2011
Susan Isaac
All Rights Reserved
TEACHERS’ LEADERSHIP STYLES AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
IN MATHEMATICS COURSES
By
SUSAN ISAAC
Major Professor: Wanda L. Stitt-Gohdes
Committee: Elaine Adams John Schell Clifton Smith
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso Dean of Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2011
iv
DEDICATION
Without the support, patience, and love from my husband, this degree would have been
impossible to complete. I thank him for being there for me. I also thank my family for their
patience when I missed holidays and for their faith in me for being the first person in my family
to complete my doctoral degree. I thank my co-workers for being patient at times when I was
stressed trying to balance my career while furthering my education. I thank my doctoral
committee for guiding me through this process, and my professors for opening a new educational
world to me. I thank the members of my Community and Technical College Leadership Initiative
(CTCLI) cohort for making my time in graduate school an enjoyable memory. With such
support, only success could ensue – thank you all!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 7
Purpose Statement and Research Objectives ...................................................................... 9
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 12
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 15
Leadership and Performance in the Workforce ................................................................ 15
Leadership and Performance in Education ....................................................................... 38
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 47
METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 49
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 49
Research Objectives .......................................................................................................... 49
Design of Study................................................................................................................. 50
Population and Sample ..................................................................................................... 52
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 55
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 63
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 65
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 70
vi
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 71
Research Objective One .................................................................................................... 71
Research Question Two .................................................................................................... 73
Research Objective Three ................................................................................................. 73
Research Objective Four ................................................................................................... 74
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 76
Conclusions,Concerns, and Practical Effects.................................................................... 85
Recommendations for Future Studies ............................................................................... 91
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 92
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 94
A GMC MASTER SYLLABUS FOR MAT 106, MATH MODELING ........................... 109
B MATH MODELING PRE-TEST.................................................................................... 111
C MATH MODELING POST-TEST ................................................................................. 115
D MIND GARDEN PERMISSION LETTER FOR MLQ-5R ........................................... 119
E IRB PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY ................................................................. 120
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 75
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
With increased pressure from globalization and the race to produce excellent students and
future superior workers, governments are pushing for educational institutions in their countries to
improve student performance (Arbuckle, 2009; Friedman, 2006; Nakamura, 2007; Schmickle,
1998). America has felt this increased pressure as demonstrated through the landmark legislation,
No Child Left Behind (Herszenhorn, 2006). In addition, accrediting agencies like the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) have felt the pressure to increase assessment in
order to account for student learning (Wheelan, 2009).
While SACS has always focused on improving student learning, in the past ten years they
have required colleges to conduct research through a Quality Enhancement Plan to demonstrate
how they are improving student learning and measuring the outcomes (Commission on Colleges,
2008). In a webcast given by Dr. Belle Wheelan (2009), the president of SACS, she stated that
due to the Higher Education Act of 2008, assessing student learning outcomes will be an even
higher priority. SACS had already placed greater emphasis on assessing student learning
outcomes with their addition of sub-section 3.3.1.1 to the 2008 SACS manual. With this change,
colleges are now working to demonstrate that student learning has improved by measuring
student learning outcomes (Commission on Colleges, 2008). However, educational researchers
continue to search for better ways to improve student learning.
2
Throughout history, teachers have been considered an integral part of the learning
process. Before formal education, learning for the workforce occurred when a master taught an
apprentice how to perform specific tasks and build the necessary skills. The ancient Greeks
helped to establish a foundation for education based on the master and student model, such as
Socrates teaching Plato, then Plato teaching Aristotle (Coulter & Rimanoczy, 1955). The teacher
teaches the student, and then the student becomes the master and teaches another student. This
model of education influenced education in the Western world (Coulter & Rimanoczy, 1955).
Education in its early years focused more on what was taught then toward the 1950s it focused
on how it was taught, and now it focuses on how people learn (Crebbin, 2004). Some researchers
believe in the expert teacher but do not agree on what constitutes an expert teacher and recognize
that there is no reliable way to identify them or produce them (Bereiter & Scardamalisa, 1993;
Berliner, 1986; Knighton, 2005). However, one identifying factor of an expert leader should be
the teacher that can improve student performance.
Teacher leadership research demonstrates that there may be a connection between the
teacher’s leadership style and student learning or performance (Cheng, 1994; Pounder, 2008;
Wallace, 2007; Yildirim, et al., 2008). Unfortunately, Wallace (2007) demonstrated that while
teachers do not even think of themselves as leaders in the classroom, their students do.
Leadership research may provide insight into what constitutes an expert teacher, and if it does,
then education could modify the leadership training for the military and business leaders in order
to train teachers.
Background of the Problem
Since the early 1900s, educational researchers have studied various ways to improve
student learning; and they have examined this issue from two vantage points: the student and the
3
teacher. Some researchers have focused on improving student learning by ensuring that the
teacher incorporates students’ learning styles into their teaching methods. Other researchers
have focused on how the teacher can assist students in improving their learning, and a number of
researchers have focused on several topics in this area: teachers’ behavior, teaching styles,
teachers’ interaction with students during class, and most recently, teachers’ classroom
leadership styles (Brophy, 1986; Cheng, 1994; Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1996; Pounder, 2008; Shea & Howell, 1999; Wallace, 2007; Yildirim, et al., 2008).
One camp of educational researchers has examined the role of teachers’ instruction in
relation to student learning. According to Brophy (1986), the study of teacher behavior and
student learning is referred to as “process-product,” “process outcome” or “teacher effects
research” (p. 1069). Two categories of literature address this topic. First, some researchers have
examined the characteristics of teachers in relation to student learning by asking the teachers and
students what they believe improves student learning (Brown, Molfese, & Molfese, 2008;
Carnell, 2007; Lammers & Smith, 2008; Muñoz & Chang, 2007; Naser & Peel, 1998). Second,
other researchers have examined teaching styles in relation to student learning (Abbott, et al.,
1998; Baird, 1973; Cantrell, Stenner, & Katzenmeyer, 1977; Johnson, Kahle, & Fargo, 2007;
Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998; Tallmadge & Shearer, 1969). While researchers continue
to search for an effective teaching style that can guarantee improved student learning, increasing
pressure is placed on educational institutions to improve student learning.
The leadership theories applied to the workforce since the early 1900s are now being
used to examine education (Bess & Goldman, 2001). The bulk of the leadership literature
relating to student performance was conducted in secondary schools and focused on principals’
leadership styles and improving student learning (Gurr, Drysdale, & Mulford, 2007; Koh, Steers,
4
& Terborg, 1995; Ylimaki, 2007). A few researchers have used this literature base as a means of
studying teachers’ leadership styles in the classroom in relation to factors related to improving
student learning (Cheng, 1994; Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Pounder,
2008; Shea & Howell, 1999; Wallace, 2007; Yildirim, et al., 2008).
At first, several researchers explored the connection between charismatic leadership and
worker performance by using students as subjects in simulated experiences where trained actors
portrayed the leadership styles, and the leader gave a task to the students to learn and perform
(Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Shea & Howell, 1999). Along the way,
researchers investigated other leadership theories, such as transformational leadership and task
versus people leadership, in relation to student learning. Instead of directly correlating teachers’
classroom leadership styles with student learning, these researchers studied teacher leadership in
connection with factors related to student learning. They focused on factors like students’
reaction toward the classroom, reactions toward learning, classroom behavior, affective
performance, social climate, and perception of the physical environment (Cheng, 1994; Pounder,
2008; Wallace, 2007). However, Yildirim, Acar, Buli, and Sevine (2008) are the only researchers
who have made a direct link between a teacher’s classroom leadership style and student learning.
Yildirim, et al. (2008) conducted an experiment with 746 eighth grade students in Turkey
to determine if the students’ perception of the teachers’ leadership style or the students’ learning
style was a better predictor of student achievement in verbal and quantitative areas. They found a
correlation between teachers with a people-oriented leadership style and successful student
achievement and a correlation for teachers with a task-oriented leadership style and unsuccessful
student achievement. In addition, they did not find a significant difference with learning styles
for visual, auditory, individual, tactile, or kinesthetic with students’ achievements. However,
5
they did find a significant relationship for group learning styles for verbal skills with
unsuccessful student achievement and quantitative skills with successful student achievement.
Although people-oriented and task-oriented leadership styles were utilized, Yildirim, et
al. (2008) did not discuss the major leadership theorists in this field: Stodgill’s research in the
1940s and 1950s, the Ohio State studies in the 1950s, the Michigan State studies in the 1960s,
and Blake and Mouton’s studies starting in 1964 and continuing today (Northouse, 2007).
Therefore, they did not take the opportunity to look for teacher leaders who exhibited both a high
people-oriented and a high task-oriented leadership style, which is the preferred leadership style
described by Blake and Mouton (1964).
Blake and Mouton (1985) developed a leadership grid, formerly referred to as the
Managerial grid, which measures a leader’s task-orientation and people-orientation skills. Their
preferred leadership style is called a 9, 9 leadership style or Team Management leadership style.
These terms are used interchangeably throughout the leadership literature. In contrast, the least
preferred leadership style is referred to as a 1, 1 leadership style or Impoverished Management
leadership style (Blake & Mouton, 1964). Leaders can also be measured as a 1, 9 or Country
Club Management leader; a 9, 1 or Authority-Compliance Management leader; or a 5, 5 or
Middle-of-the-road Management leader (Blake & Mouton, 1964). Yildirim, et al. examined task-
oriented leadership and people-oriented leadership separately and did not look at the interactive
relationship between these two leadership factors.
However, Cheng (1994) discovered that teachers with a high task-oriented and a high
people-oriented leadership style in the classroom did have positive results on student factors
related to student learning, such as social climate in the classroom and students’ affective
performance. In addition, Cheng also found that teachers exhibiting a low task-oriented and low
6
people-oriented leadership style in the classroom had a negative result on factors related to
student learning. To date, there has been no research which examines whether there is a
correlation between high people-oriented and high task-oriented leadership and improved student
performance.
Additionally in 1999, Yukl challenged leadership theorists by emphasizing the
importance of studying more than two-factor leadership theories, such as Blake and Mouton’s
leadership theory. As he said, studying only two-factor leadership theories moves the field of
leadership backwards and not forwards. Therefore, based on Yukl’s comments, this study will
examine two leadership theories: Blake and Mouton’s people-oriented versus task-oriented
leadership and transformational leadership, and it will distinguish transformational leadership
from charismatic leadership by using Bass’ (1985) leadership theory.
Bass and Avolio (1997) believe that leaders progressively move from laissez-faire
leadership (lack of leadership), to transactional leadership (a leader using positive and negative
reinforcement), to transformational leadership. This study will utilize Bass’s definition of a
transformational leader. According to Bass, transformational leadership is what leaders should
do in order to motivate their subordinates. A transformational leader exhibits four factors that
elicit responses from followers. The first factor is “charisma,” (p. 35) which makes followers
want to follow the leader’s vision. The second factor is “inspirational leadership,” (p. 62) which
inspires followers to be motivated and committed to the leader’s vision. The third factor is
“individualized consideration,” (p.81) which helps followers succeed as the leader acts like a
mentor or coach. The fourth factor is “intellectual stimulation,” (p. 99) which fosters more
imagination and mental awareness in followers. As leaders move from transactional to
transformational leadership, they do not necessarily ignore transactional leadership and may use
7
positive and negative reinforcement along with these transformational traits (Bass & Riggio,
2006).
With pressure from government to increase accountability in colleges, administrators and
faculty look for ways to improve student learning. While some researchers have turned to
leadership as a means to investigate improving student learning, all but Yildirim et al. (2008)
have failed to discern if a teacher’s leadership is related to student learning. While Yildirim et al.
took a step closer to examining this possibility, their research design left many questions
unanswered, and they did not utilize the previous leadership research to frame their study.
Therefore, teacher leadership needs to be examined further to see if it relates to student learning.
Problem Statement
In colleges across America, most administrators and faculty members share a common
goal of improving student learning. Currently, the demand from the government and
accreditation agencies for colleges to demonstrate improved student learning has increased
(Wheelan, 2009). Through the landmark legislation, No Child Left Behind, the American
government has pressured K-12 schools for more accountability in the performance of students;
this pressure now exists at the college level by accrediting agencies like SACS (Wheelan, 2009).
In this era of accountability, colleges and professors continue to search for ways to improve
student learning, often by focusing on improving their teaching skills. However, emerging
evidence suggests that teachers may benefit by taking the time to understand their role as leaders
of students in their classrooms.
While teachers may attend conferences, workshops, or other professional development
opportunities to improve their teaching strategies, most teachers do not see themselves as leaders
of students; yet students do perceive their teachers as classroom leaders (Wallace, 2007).
8
Researchers have shown a link between teachers demonstrating preferred and undesirable
leadership styles in the classroom and factors related to student learning (Cheng, 1994; Pounder,
2008; Wallace, 2007).
Two theories associated with teacher’s classroom leadership style have emerged in the
literature and have been correlated to factors relating to student learning: (a) Bass’
Transformational leadership theory and (b) Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Team Management
theory. Both of these studies demonstrated a correlation between students’ perceptions of
teachers’ classroom leadership styles and factors related to student learning. Clearly, the next
step is to determine if a relationship exists between teacher leadership styles and student
learning. Yet, only one study conducted by Yildirim, Acar, Buli, and Sevine (2008) has
attempted this research. However, it was limited because these researchers omitted important
details about their research design. They failed to include in their research design whether or not
a high-people oriented and high- task-oriented leader could be correlated with improved student
performance. They did not provide a specific instrument used to measure leadership or include
reliability and validity of that instrument, and they left out a group of subjects without
explanation.
Furthermore, while different leadership theories have been used to examine factors
related to student learning, a study examining multiple leadership theories, as recommended by
Yukl (1999), has not been used to evaluate the improvement of students’ academic learning.
Researchers have stated the need to explore whether there is a correlation between teachers’
classroom leadership styles and student learning in the hopes that this research could provide
insight into improving students’ learning.
9
Purpose Statement and Research Objectives
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to determine which leadership style,
from Blake and Mouton’s (1964) or Avolio and Bass’s (1995) theories, exhibited by teachers
best relates to improving students’ performance in a first-year mathematics course at a two-year
community college. These research objectives were examined:
1. To describe students who have completed a mathematics modeling course at a
community college.
2. To compare students pre-test and post-test scores on mathematics competency.
3. To compare students’ perceptions of mathematics instructor’s leadership styles on Avolio
and Bass’s (1995) Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) by change in
mathematics competency.
4. To compare students’ perceptions of mathematics instructor’s leadership styles on Blake
and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid by change in mathematics competency.
Theoretical Framework
All humans and animals exhibit characteristics that can be used to describe and classify
them such as gender, age, and ethnicity. These factors can be selected as quasi-independent
variables. Leadership style is another characteristic that an individual can exhibit. This leadership
style, as with other personal traits, is carried with each individual regardless of the setting. This
research study examined if the quasi-independent variable of leadership related to the
performance of students in mathematics courses in a two-year community college environment.
Immanuel Kant referred to this type of quasi-experimental design as Transcendental
Idealism, for he defined this concept as having “synthetic a priori” (Wood, 2005, p. 27) or
determining that the truth comes from propositions that are applied to the world yet were not
10
derived from the world. These truths are established through argument. In other words,
leadership already exists. It is a priori, but only through discussion can researchers establish its
existence. This field of research has examined leadership as synthetic a priori. Leadership exists,
but what it is, how it is identified, and how it affects others has been argued by leadership
theorists since the beginning of this field.
Several explanations of how leadership is characterized and defined exist in the
leadership field. Starting with the fascination of great leaders and studying their traits, this field
of leadership has grown and developed by building leadership theories through the examination
and criticism of previous leadership theories. With the criticism of trait research by Stodgill
(1948) and others, the leadership field began to expand its thinking to two-factor theories of
leadership.
The Ohio studies and Michigan studies conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s
focused on two traits of leadership: the leaders’ emphasis on the task versus the leaders’
emphasis on people. Blake and Mouton (1964) expanded this two-factor leadership theory by
investigating combinations of the two traits, and they found their subordinates considered a
leader as one who emphasized both the task and the people. They referred to this leader as a team
management leader or scoring a nine on production (or task) and a nine on people. Blake and
Mouton (1985) continued to revise the instrument for research and development. This leadership
theory was further expanded by Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency Theory of leadership, which added
the importance of the task structure and the leader’s position of power to the theory.
Later in this field, researchers started to examine the concept of leadership. House (1976)
took the leadership theory back to the study of traits and theorized that charisma played an
important role in leadership, which became known as the Charismatic leadership theory. Along
11
the same time as House, Burns (1978) started investigating a leadership theory that stated a
leader develops her leadership style by moving through stages, from laissez-faire leadership (not
caring) to transactional leadership (using reinforcement as manipulation) to transformational
leadership (changing the environment to increase the subordinate’s motivation).
Bass (1985) expanded the theory of transformational leadership by stating it has nine
factors: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behaviors), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-
exception (active), management-by-exception (passive), and laissez-faire. Then, Kouzes and
Posner (2002) condensed Bass’s (1985) theory by combining their nine factors into four factors:
“to model the way,” (p. 43) “to inspire a shared vision,” (p. 109) “to challenge the process,” (p.
173) and “to enable others to act” (p. 241).
The field of leadership has developed and expanded as different researchers struggle with
the concept of what quantitatively defines a great leader. Organizations want to know and be able
to determine these characteristics in order to hire or train leaders to become great leaders.
Leadership and great leaders exist. Researchers may be able to determine the characteristics of a
great leader and develop instruments to find or train those people. However, being a great leader
is not enough; these leaders should also be able to improve production.
In an academic setting, the organization is the college; and the production is student
performance. This study focused on teachers as leaders in the classroom and how this leadership
related to student performance. Teachers have always played an important role in education from
the time of apprenticeships where the teacher was the master to the time of a more formal
education such as was seen in ancient Greece. Whether the teacher is passing on their wisdom or
helping students recall it from a past life as Plato believed, they are the key to guiding students
12
toward knowledge and understanding (Coulter & Rimanoczy, 1955). As with leaders, over time
research has focused on what makes a teacher a great teacher like Socrates, Kant, or Confucius.
Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) stated that there are expert teachers who are revered; but there
is no way of identifying or producing an expert teacher, for these qualities cannot easily be
separated from other factors in the classroom, such as the teacher’s personality, instructional
strategies, the students’ motivation, skill level, or the group dynamics. However, some
researchers are now trying to find a way to identify these expert teachers through leadership
styles (Wallace, 2007; Wang, 2007; Yacapsin & Stick, 2007, and Yildirim et al., 2008). If a
teacher possesses leadership characteristics and these characteristics are related to improving
student performance, then there is a possibility that education could train teachers to achieve the
preferred leadership style.
Significance of the Study
This study built upon the work of Wallace (2007) and Yildirim et al. (2008) by
continuing to examine teachers’ classroom leadership styles in relation to student learning in
mathematics. Wallace (2007) utilized Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) definition of transformational
leadership, built upon Bass’s theory, and studied factors related to student learning with students
in alternative schools. Wallace discovered that these teachers’ leadership styles did have a
significant effect on students’ “reaction, learning, and behavior” in mathematics courses (p. 137).
Later, Yildirim et al. (2008) conducted research to find that high people-oriented leadership
skills do relate to improving students’ performance in quantitative subjects. This research built
upon their work and will add to the discussion of teachers’ classroom leadership styles and
student learning in mathematics.
13
Regardless of the results of this study, it added to the theoretical discussion of teachers’
classroom leadership styles in relation to student learning, specifically in the subject area of
mathematics. Over time, if this body of literature demonstrates a statistically significant
relationship between teachers’ classroom leadership styles and improving student learning, then
it would have practical applications as well.
Theoretically, this study takes the next step called for in prior literature by attempting to
correlate a teachers’ classroom leadership style with improved student performance in that
classroom. Instead of students giving their opinions on what leadership styles they think would
help them improve, as was conducted in Yildirim et al’s (2008) study, this study will survey
students in a classroom and ask them to rate their professor’s leadership style. Therefore, the
amount of student learning obtained in the course can be measured more precisely with a pre-test
and post-test design and correlated with the students’ perceptions of their teachers’ leadership
style while still taking their course.
This area of research can have practical application to the field of education. The
workforce currently uses workshops to help their leaders modify their leadership styles in order
to improve worker performance. Therefore, if this study and additional research shows a relation
between teachers’ perceived classroom leadership styles and improved student learning, then
colleges and teachers could benefit from this knowledge by developing workshops to help
teachers understand, modify, and in turn, change their leadership style to improve student
learning. Blake and Mouton have used their leadership theory to conduct workshops to possibly
influence the leadership styles of business leaders since the 1960s, and Kouzes and Posner
(2002) have a similar workshop based in the transformational theory. The educational field
could model workshops like these for teachers to improve their leadership in the classroom.
14
These workshops could, in turn, benefit the colleges with accreditation and help the accreditation
agencies demonstrate to the state and federal government that the colleges are improving student
learning.
This research expanded the knowledge in the field of teachers’ classroom leadership
styles in relation to improving student learning. First, it addressed the question of whether or not
a relationship exists between two specific leadership styles (Bass’s transformational leadership
style and Blake and Mouton’s Team Management or 9, 9 leadership style) and improving student
learning in a specific subject area. Second, this research determined if students perceive these
two preferred leadership styles mentioned above as similar leadership styles. Overall, this
research added to the discussion of improving student learning.
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to determine which leadership style,
from Blake and Mouton’s (1964) or Avolio and Bass’s (1995) theories, exhibited by teachers
best relates to improving students’ performance in a first-year mathematics course at a two-year
community college.
Several databases and search terms were used to gather the literature related to this
research. The databases searched were ERIC at EBSCOhost, JSTOR, Academic Search
Complete, Research Library (at PROQUEST), Education Full Text, Psych Info, Sociological
Abstracts, and Business Source Complete. The search terms used were “leadership and
performance,” “leadership in the workforce,” “leadership and productivity,” “Transformational
leadership and performance,” “Charismatic leadership and performance,” “Contingency Model
and performance,” “Blake and Mouton and performance,” “leadership and team performance,”
“leadership and education,” “leadership and student performance,” “leadership and student
learning,” “teachers as leaders,” and “leadership and gender.”
Leadership and Performance in the Workforce
In the quest to improve employee production, researchers utilized leadership theories to
examine the performance of leaders and subordinates in business, industry, and the military in
order to improve the performance of both the individual worker and teams.
In the early 1900s, different leadership theories were used to examine individual worker
performance. Since the 1930s, researchers have examined leaders’ behaviors and personality
16
traits in connection with performance, but most of the research in this area since the 1980s has
concentrated on leadership styles, such as charismatic, transformational, and transactional
leadership, as a means for examining worker performance. In the 1960s, Fiedler and other
researchers examined the performance of leaders by using the Contingency Model.
Since the 1990s, researchers have begun to examine team performance in connection to
leadership and have acknowledged that individuals and teams may react to leadership differently;
and researchers have realized the importance of examining multiple leadership theories in
relation to team performance. The connection between leadership and performance was first
examined in the workforce, so this literature must be reviewed in order to understand the
connection between teacher leadership and student performance.
Individual Performance
Most of the leadership research that investigated performance has focused on the
individual in the workforce (Bons & Fiedler, 1976; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Keller,
2006; Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006; Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2008; Walumbwa,
Avolio, & Zhu, 2008). Researchers have been intrigued by the idea that leadership can improve
the performance of employees. This idea has been examined utilizing a variety of leadership
theories. For example, Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency Model was used to match leaders to
followers in a specific situation, as a way to examine performance; and even behavior and
personality traits were used to examine the effects on performance. However, the majority of
leadership and performance research focuses on leadership styles, specifically charismatic,
transformational, and transactional leadership.
Brief history of leadership styles. Before examining these leadership theories in relation
to worker performance, a brief history of “task and relationship” leadership style theories must
17
be addressed, for they provide the foundation for the other leadership theories examined.
According to Northouse (2007), three different researchers built the foundation for leadership
style research. In the 1940s, Stodgill laid the groundwork for the Ohio State studies where the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) was developed; and this instrument sought
to determine whether a leader was more task-oriented, people-oriented, or a mix of both on two
different lines of a continuum, one end for task orientation and one end for people orientation.
Leaders were labeled as either extreme or having a mixture of both orientations, which was the
preferred leadership style.
Following the Ohio State studies in the 1950s, the University of Michigan in the 1960s
expanded the research from Ohio State and looked for “employee orientation and production
orientation” (Northouse, 2007, p. 71). They wanted to learn whether leaders exhibited a
leadership style that demonstrated concern about their employees, their production, or both.
These leadership behaviors were placed on a single continuum with employee orientation at one
end and production at the other end, and this placement determined the leaders’ style. Similar to
the Ohio State studies, a leader with both concern for the employee and production was
preferred.
The third development in leadership styles was conducted by Blake and Mouton (1964)
who developed the “Managerial Grid,” which later became known as the “Leadership Grid.”
This measurement tool typed leaders’ styles on a grid based on the subjects’ responses to case
scenarios on a questionnaire. The horizontal line on the grid measured the leader’s concern for
production, and the vertical line measured the leader’s concern for the people, as seen in Table 1.
Scoring a nine on the scale constitutes the highest tendency for exhibiting this behavior, and
18
scoring a one constitutes the lowest tendency for exhibiting this behavior. Together, this
information told the researcher what leadership style the leader exhibited.
Once the questionnaire was completed by the leader, the behaviors were mapped on the
grid; and a combination of both behaviors determined the leader’s style. The grid focused on five
main types of leadership styles: “Country Club Management,” “Team Management,” “Middle-
of-the-road Management,” “Impoverished Management,” and “Authority-Compliance
Management” (Northouse, 2007, p. 74). The preferred leadership style was the Team
Management style or 9, 9 leadership style.
According to Blake and Mouton (1964), most leaders rate themselves as a 9,9 Team
Management leader; but after completing their workshop, leaders understand their own
leadership style, accurately type themselves, and then work to become true 9,9 Team
Management leaders. Blake and Mouton’s leadership style theory was used mainly in research
involving leader and subordinate controversy, but this theory has been noted in recent research
involving leadership in education (Blake & Mouton, 1979, 1982; Rosenthal & Hautaluoma,
1988; Thomas & Kilmann, 1978; van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995; Volkema &
Bergmann, 1995).
Table 1
Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid
9 - High Concern for People 1,9 Country Club Management
9,9 Team Management
5,5 Middle-of-the-road Management
1 - Low Concern for People 1,1 Impoverished Management
9, 1 Authority-Compliance Management
1 - Low Concern for Tasks 9 - High Concern for Tasks
19
However, Hersey and Blanchard, (1982) who are situational leadership theorists, argued
that Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Leadership Grid measures leadership styles that are attitudinal
dimensions and not observed behavior; therefore, they claimed that the Managerial Grid cannot
be used in order to predict the behaviors of leaders. Blake and Mouton (1982) argued that their
grid did in fact measure behavior; but unlike Hersey and Blanchard’s model, their model
examined task-oriented and people-oriented as interdependent and not independent dimensions.
Blake and Mouton even give a chemistry example to prove their point that being both task-
oriented and people-oriented can occur. Regardless, Hersey and Blanchard advocated other
models of leadership in relation to performance, such as Fiedler’s Contingency Model (1967),
transformational, and charismatic leadership.
Contingency model. Fiedler (1967) used his Contingency Model of Leadership
Effectiveness to examine leaders’ performance. The Contingency Model, also known as the
Leader-Match theory, is concerned with both leadership styles, “task-motivated” and
“relationship-motivated,” like the previous research. However, he added three types of
situational variables: (a) “Leader-member relations,” which is either good or poor; (b) “task
structure,” which is either high or low; and (c) the leader’s “position power,” which is either
strong or weak in order to determine what leadership style the leader should exhibit in that
particular situation (Northouse, 2007). As a situational leadership theorist, Fiedler (1967) stated
that the leader must allow for this three-way relationship between the leader, the subordinate, and
the incident that occurs in a specific situation. Table 2 provides the construct for Fiedler’s
Contingency Model.
20
Table 2
Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Leader-
Member
Relation
Task Structure
(How instructions
are given)
Position Power of
Leader
Preferred Leadership Style
Good Relationship
High (Clear) Strong Power Task Oriented
Weak Power Both Task and Relationship-oriented
Low (Unclear) Strong Power Both Task and Relationship-oriented
Weak Power Relationship-oriented
Poor Relationship
High (Clear) Strong Power Relationship-oriented
Weak Power Relationship-oriented
Low (Unclear) Strong Power Relationship-oriented
Weak Power Task Oriented
In a study with this leadership theory and performance, Bons and Fiedler (1976)
predicted that when experienced leaders had to change jobs, it would have less of an effect on
their performance than inexperienced leaders who had to change jobs. They also hypothesized
that a difference in the leader’s performance would occur, depending on whether the leader’s
style matched or conflicted with the relationship between the leader, subordinate, and the
situation.
In their findings, Bons and Fiedler (1976) discovered that task performance was “affected
by the leaders’ experience and change in boss” (p. 464). Overall, they discovered that “task-
performance leaders” performed better in new positions, and “relationship-motivated leaders”
(Bons & Fiedler, p. 467) performed better when they gained experience in their jobs. In this
study, Bons and Fiedler mentioned that this model used “global performance ratings,” and in
future studies, they needed to make a clearer distinction between “person-related and task-related
performance ratings” (p. 471). While some of Fiedler’s (1967) research focuses on performance,
his Contingency Theory mainly has been used to examine the behavior of leaders in the context
21
of situational differences instead of focusing on worker performance. However, other leadership
theories have been examined in connection with worker performance.
Charismatic leadership. Another leadership theory that researchers explored in relation to
performance is charismatic leadership. House (1976) constructed a theory that he referred to as
charismatic leadership, which has been used interchangeably in the research literature with
transformational leadership; but in fact, it is another leadership theory. Charisma is merely a
component of transformational leadership; whereas, charismatic leadership focuses solely on the
leader’s charisma. Northouse (2007) lists the “personal characteristics” of charismatic leadership
as, “being dominant, having a strong desire to influence others, being self-confident, and having
a strong sense of one’s own moral values” (p. 178). Charismatic leaders are believed to increase
the “self-efficacy” and “confidence” (Northouse, p. 179) of the followers and connect followers’
“self-concept” to the identity of the organization. Several studies have been conducted with
charismatic leadership.
For example, Shea and Howell (1999) found that charismatic leaders motivated
subordinates to perform equally on a task when one group received task feedback and one did
not. This result differed from non-charismatic leaders who needed to provide task feedback in
order to improve task performance. In a meta-analysis study, DeGroot, Kiker, and Cross (2001)
examined charismatic leadership in relation to performance and other factors, “leadership
effectiveness, subordinate satisfaction, subordinate effort, and subordinate commitment” (p. 356)
from “eleven samples” (p. 362.). DeGroot et al. found that charismatic leadership was
significantly related to performance. Their overall conclusion stated that the charismatic
leadership style is more effective at influencing group performance than individual performance.
However, Howell and Frost (1989) found that charismatic leadership increased task performance
22
in individual productivity. However, most research with individual performance related it to
transformational and transactional leadership.
Transformational and transactional leadership. The terms “transformational and
transactional leadership” were coined by Downton (1973), but Burns (1978) was the first
researcher to discuss these terms as a leadership theory. Burns viewed transactional leadership
and transformational leadership as the ends of a continuum. Transactional leadership focuses on
whether a leader operates within an existing framework where exchanges take place between the
leader and the follower. For example, transactional leadership occurs when a leader uses
reinforcement to manipulate the follower into performing the desired task. These transactions are
established by the organizational environment; whereas, transformational leadership focuses on
creating a new framework to change the environment by increasing motivation and morale
between the leader and follower. Later researchers modified Burns’ theory.
In another development, Bass (1985) focused more on the followers than the leaders and
modified Burns’ (1978) theory of transformational and transactional leadership by viewing the
continuum as a movement from laissez-faire to transactional to transformational leadership. A
transformational leader exhibits four factors that elicit responses in followers: “charisma,” which
inspires followers to want to follow their vision; “inspirational motivation,” which causes
followers to be motivated and commit to the leader’s vision; “intellectual stimulation,” which
makes followers more “creative and innovative;” and “individualized consideration” (Northouse,
2007, pp. 183-184), which makes followers succeed as the leader acts like a mentor or coach.
According to Northouse (2007), a transactional leader exhibits two factors: “contingent
reward,” which makes followers exchange effort for positive reinforcement and “management-
by-exception” (p. 185), which makes followers more productive by responding to negative
23
reinforcement; whereas, a laissez-faire leader exhibits one factor, “absence of leadership,” where
the followers receive no guidance at all from the leader (p. 186). Northouse further stated that
Bass (1985) took into account that leaders could motivate followers in negative ways, such as
Hitler, so he coined the term “pseudotransformational” to refer to leaders who were “self-
consumed, exploitive, and power-oriented, with warped moral values” (p. 177).
Transformational and transactional leadership gained new perspectives through the work
of Kouzes and Posner (2002). According to Northouse (2007), Kouzes and Posner interviewed
over 1,000 middle and senior managers in “private and public sector organizations” and asked
for these subjects to describe their “personal best” leadership experiences (p. 188). Based on this
information, Kouzes and Posner developed a five-factor model for leaders. The first leadership
practice is to “model the way” (p. 43) where leaders look inside themselves to find their values
and beliefs, and then they base their actions on them. The second leadership practice is called,
“inspire a shared vision,” (p. 109) where leaders develop a vision and communicate it to their
followers. The third leadership practice is called, “challenge the process,” (p. 173) where leaders
take chances and try new approaches. The fourth leadership practice is called, “enable others to
act,” (p. 241) where leaders focus on building trust, motivating, and collaborating with their
followers. The fifth practice is called, “encourage the heart,” (p. 315) where leaders praise and
reward their followers for their accomplishments. These five practices guide leaders in how to
become transformational leaders.
Some researchers have utilized transformational and transactional leadership in relation
to improving performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Keller, 2006; Purvanova, Bono,
& Dzieweczynski, 2006; Walumbwa, et al., 2008). These leadership theories examined different
types of performance, such as citizenship, supervisor-rated, military, and performance on
24
research projects. In one study, Purvanova, Bono, and Dzieweczynski (2006) examined
transformational leadership and its connection to “employee’s citizenship performance” (p. 1).
Purvanova et al. define “citizenship performance” based on four categories: (a) the
characteristics of the individuals’ attitudes, (b) the organizations’ structure, and (c) the type of
task and (d) its relation to transformational and transactional leadership.
Purvanova et al. (2006) surveyed employees from a utility company and employees from
a manufacturing company on their managers’ leadership behaviors and their impressions about
their jobs. A couple months after the employees completed the surveys, the managers were
surveyed as to the citizenship performance of their employees. Purvanova et al. found that
transformational leaders had a positive link to the manager’s ratings of the employee’s
“citizenship performance” (p. 17). Therefore, they demonstrated that transformational leaders
could improve citizenship performance, (r = .15, p<.01) and found that transformational
leadership and citizenship performance had been mediated by employees’ perceptions of their
jobs.
In a similar study, Walumbwa, Avolio, and Zhu (2008) researched transformational
leadership and its relationship to task performance as rated by supervisors in six bank
organizations in the United States. Like Purvanova et al. (2006), Walumbwa et al. believed that
factors could mediate the effect of transformational leaders’ influence on employee performance.
They hypothesized that transformational leadership would positively relate to three factors: (a)
individual identification with the work unit, (b) self-efficacy, and (c) means efficacy. These
factors would then relate to individual performance. Walumbwa et al. defined “self-efficacy” as
a person’s belief about whether or not they can accomplish the task and “means efficacy” as the
resources needed to complete the task in terms of adequacy and quality (p. 798).
25
Walumbwa et al. (2008) found that supervisors’ ratings from transformational leaders for
subordinates’ task performance improved when employees identified with the work unit,
displayed more confidence in their abilities, and believed to have the resources required to
complete the task. Therefore, other factors could mediate the effect of transformational
leadership on subordinates’ performance.
Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) did not look at mediating factors, but examined
the direct influence of transformational leaders on subordinates’ performance in the military.
They found that transformational leadership was significant for improving follower performance
in the military; but they suggested that future researchers look at each of the components of
transformational leadership separately, which are “exhibiting charismatic behaviors, providing
inspirational motivation, arousing intellectual stimulation, and treating followers with
individualized consideration” (p. 736). In addition, Dvir et al. found a stronger relationship
between transformational leadership and performance than transactional leadership and
performance, which demonstrated that transformational leadership had more of an impact on
improving the performance of the troops. However, one wonders if the data collected in a
military setting will translate to the educational setting in a similar way.
Other factors that improve performance. In the performance literature, a debate exists
concerning whether leadership improves performance or other factors are responsible for
improving performance. According to Keller (2006), several researchers argued that
transformational and transactional leadership can improve performance; whereas, another group
of researchers believe that performance is really improved based on other factors, such as the
subordinate’s ability and task performance. In relation to performance on different kinds of
projects, Keller examined performance in relation to two theories: Transformational leadership
26
and Initiating Structure, which occurs when the leader “defines, directs, and structures the roles
and activities of the subordinates” (p. 203). The two tasks that he used for the study dealt with a
research project requiring radical changes and a developmental project requiring slow,
incremental changes.
Keller (2006) found that transformational leadership was more effective for performance
with research projects that deal with radical changes, and initiating structure was more effective
for performance with developmental projects that deal with slow, incremental changes.
Therefore, this study demonstrates that the type of project given to the subordinates may
influence the type of leadership needed to enhance performance.
Criticism of these leadership theories. Some researchers have criticized charismatic,
transformational, and transactional leadership theories. For example, Yukl (1999) stated that
transformational and charismatic leadership contained conceptual weaknesses; and the theories
needed to be refined. Yukl explained that the descriptions of these leadership styles are not clear,
and the processes of how these leaders affect followers has not been described in sufficient detail
in order to replicate the studies. For example, no explanation exists for how a transactional leader
enforces rules and looks for mistakes.
Yukl (1999) also talked about the overlapping of terms and factors between transactional
and transformational leadership and between charismatic and transformational leadership. He
argues that transactional and transformational leadership styles both use positive reinforcement,
so the factors in these leadership styles need to be clarified. In addition, an overlap exists
between the two theories, charismatic and transformational leadership, as researchers have begun
to treat them as the same.
27
Yukl (1999) also called for a move from “dyadic” or “two-factor” (p. 3) models of
leadership like transactional and transformational to an examination of more behavioral,
situational, group, and organizational factors that may mediate these leadership styles. For
example, Yukl stated that manipulative behaviors have not been explored in relation to these
leadership styles. While he clearly stated these leadership theories are important, he called for a
modification and clarification of research related to leadership styles. However, Yukl’s argument
did not take into account Bass’ (1985) theory of leadership, for Yukl wrote that transactional and
transformational leadership are not two ends of a continuum, but instead, transformational
leaders can exhibit both transformational and transactional qualities, such as utilizing positive
reinforcement.
In the same edition of Leadership Quarterly, Hunt (1999) agreed with Yukl’s (1999)
argument that emphasizing two-factor theories and relying heavily on surveys for research in
leadership can lead the field back to stagnation. He called for “comparative static” studies where
multiple leadership theories are examined within one study and “processual studies” (p. 11)
where the study is a controlled experiment. Hunt interviewed both House and Bass to discuss
their involvement in moving the field of leadership forward, and he clearly is of the opinion that
transformational and charismatic leadership has rejuvenated the leadership field and does not
want the leadership field to lose its credibility, which he feels will happen if researchers continue
to use surveys and two-factor theories.
Other researchers have voiced skepticism as to whether a leader can improve
organizational performance or not (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977). They
claim that leadership is more complicated and has many factors and mediating variables that
need to be considered when studying a leader’s impact on follower performance. They accuse
28
researchers of overgeneralization and bias in the research with charismatic and transformational
leadership. However, other researchers have studied more than one leadership theory in relation
to performance (Molero, Cuadrado, Navas, & Morales, 2007; Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2008;
Yukl, 1999).
Multiple leadership theories. The studies discussed in this section have examined more
than one leadership theory in relation to performance, which is what Yukl (1999) and Hunt
(1999) referred to when each mentioned the importance of looking at more than two-factor
theories.
Molero, Cuadrado, Navas, and Morales (2007) studied the relationship between
transformational leadership and two other leadership styles: (a) democratic versus autocratic and
(b) relationship versus task-oriented leadership. For this study, supervisors rated the performance
of 35 work teams in an organization and found that transformational leadership positively
correlated with democratic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leadership, which led them
to conclude that transformational leadership may not differ from other styles of leadership.
However, they did notice that leaders with a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) score that was higher than the 75th percentile for transformational leadership had a more
positive effect on increasing effort in the workplace than the other leadership styles, including
transformational leadership at the lower levels. Therefore, the Molero, et al. (2007) study showed
the importance of examining high and low MLQ scores in relation to performance for
transformational leadership.
In another multiple leadership study, Vecchio, Justin, and Pearce (2008) examined
transformational leadership by taking into account contingent rewards from the Path-goal theory
of leadership in order to predict performance. In the Path-goal leadership theory, the leader
29
motivates the subordinate toward the desired outcome. However, Vecchio et al. do not mention
that contingent reward is also a factor of transactional leadership.
According to Vecchio et al. (2008), the transformational leader uses extrinsic rewards to
motivate the subordinate, but refrains from using extrinsic rewards that are based on the
performance of the subordinate. Therefore, they hypothesized that contingent rewards will
moderate the effects of transformational leadership on subordinate’s performance. Vecchio et al.
found that if the contingent reward was low, then the transformational leaders’ vision and
intellectual stimulation were positively correlated with performance. Furthermore, Molero et al.
(2007) also examined contingent reward as a mediator for transformational leadership and found
a high correlation between contingent reward and transformational leadership. Therefore,
contingent reward could moderate transformational leadership. These research studies addressed
Yukl’s (1999) concern of the overlap with transformational and transactional leadership in
connection with reinforcement.
Charismatic and transformational leadership have been shown to have a relationship to
worker performance. However, the mediating factors of employees’ perceptions of their jobs, the
type of project, and contingent reward need to be taken into account. When examining the
performance of students, the students’ perceptions of their role in school, the type of written
project assigned (research or essay), and contingent reward may be factors that could affect this
study. However, Blake and Mouton (1985) stressed the theory of the one dominant leadership
style. In addition to these theories of leadership styles, researchers have attempted to make
connections to a leader’s behavior and personality; and in the case of narcissism, researchers
have begun to examine the negative side of leadership in relation to performance.
30
Behavior and personality. In connection with leadership theories, such as
transformational leadership, researchers have found that behavior and personality can influence
leadership. Three areas of focus in the leadership research related to performance are self-
sacrificial leadership, the big five personality traits, and narcissistic leadership.
According to De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2004), researchers view self-sacrificial
leadership as “an effective form of leadership” (p. 151). De Cremer and van Knippenberg
examined how self-sacrifice interacted with self-confidence in order to determine if a leader’s
self-sacrificial behavior could mediate that person’s leadership effectiveness. This research is
also important because “self-sacrifice” and “self-confidence” are key components of charismatic
and transformational leadership (De Cremer & van Knippenberg). De Cremer and van
Knippenberg found that “self-sacrifice” and “self-confidence” had an even greater impact when
working together to improve leadership effectiveness and employees’ “perceptions of charisma”
(p. 151).
As the components of charismatic and transformational leadership continued to be
studied, van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005) examined “prototypicality” or typical
behavior of a leader (p. 25) as a mediator for self-sacrificial leadership in a series of four studies
related to charismatic leadership. They reported several findings. Van Knippenberg and van
Knippenberg found that leader self-sacrifice influenced charisma, especially when the leader did
not identify with other leaders or exhibited low “prototypicality,” or typical representation of a
leader in that organization (p. 25). In addition, they found in the first study that self-sacrificial
leadership “positively affected follower performance” (p. 34). These studies support the findings
that self-sacrificial behavior can affect charisma and that charismatic leadership can improve
follower performance.
31
In addition to behavior, researchers examined the relationship between leadership and
personality. For example, Hofman and Jones (2005) examined leadership in relation to individual
and collective personality to see how they would relate to collective performance. By examining
the big five personality traits associated with leadership, “Conscientiousness, Openness to
Experience, Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Emotional Stability,” in relation to leadership,
Hofman and Jones hypothesized that transformational leadership would positively relate to
“collective openness, collective agreeableness, collective extraversion, and collective
conscientiousness,” and transactional leadership would positively relate to “collective
conscientiousness” (p. 511). Hofman and Jones also hypothesized that passive leadership, also
known as laissez-faire leadership, would be negatively related to “collective openness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability” (p. 511).
Hofman and Jones (2005) found transformational leadership positively related to all four
collective personality traits, and passive leadership was negatively related to collective
conscientiousness and extraversion as they predicted; but it was also negatively related to
collective agreeableness and emotional stability. Through this study, Hofman and Jones
demonstrated a relationship between the big five personality traits and transformational and
laissez-faire leadership.
In another study examining the big five personality traits with transformational
leadership, Kickul and Neuman (2000) found that extroversion and openness to experience were
related to transformational leadership, which corroborates Hofman and Jones’ (2005) results.
However, Kickul and Neuman also found that cognitive ability was a predictor of emergent
leadership behaviors, and cognitive ability and conscientiousness were predictive of team
performance. While performance has been examined in relation to the big five personality traits
32
to identify positive traits of leadership, performance has also been examined in relation to
negative personality traits like narcissism to understand the effect that a leader’s negative
personality traits may have on subordinates’ performance.
One personality disorder focused on by leadership researchers is narcissism, for this
personality disorder can have a negative influence on leadership and follower performance.
According to Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006), narcissism is defined as, “a personality trait
encompassing grandiosity, arrogance, self-absorption, entitlement, fragility, self-esteem, and
hostility” (p. 617). According to Rosenthal and Pittinsky, charisma is also a trait of narcissistic
leaders. Therefore, Rosenthal and Pittinsky argue that a new definition of narcissism in relation
to leadership should be developed in order to move away from the “good vs. bad debate” (p.
630) of a leader in charismatic and transformational leadership toward an “examination of the
dynamics between leaders’ psychological motivations and behaviors and the motivations and
behaviors of the constituents and institutions they lead” (p. 630) in order to truly discover the
role narcissism plays in leadership. With its connection to charismatic and transformational
leadership, narcissism in leadership needs to be studied in order to examine the effects of
narcissism in relation to performance because a transformational leader can sometimes be a
pseudotransformational leader.
In research examining the relationship between narcissistic leaders and performance,
Judge, LePine, and Rich (2006) conducted two studies on the performance of leaders where they
administered two surveys, a self-evaluation and an evaluation by the subordinates. Judge et al.
(2006) divided performance into four areas: “leadership, workplace deviance, contextual
performance, and task performance” (p. 763). Judge et al. (2006) explain these four areas: (a)
leadership as the performance of the leader when leading a group of subordinates, (b) workplace
33
deviance as the counterproductive performance of the subordinates, (c) contextual performance
as the leaders’ social atmosphere created by the reaction of the leaders’ peers, and (d) task
performance as the job-related behaviors of the leader. For study one, Judge et al. obtained
participants who were students in a Master of Business Administration (MBA) program and a
Master of Science in Management (MSM) program. For study two, the participants were
members of a beach patrol.
For both studies, the hypotheses remained the same. Judge et al. (2006) believed that
leaders would evaluate themselves favorably in relation to their own leadership, contextual
performance, and task performance; and they would rate themselves as not experiencing
workplace deviance. They also believed that the evaluations from the subordinates would give
low ratings to these narcissistic leaders for their leadership, contextual performance, and task
performance, while rating them high for stimulating workplace deviance. Therefore, the
narcissistic leaders would view themselves as the perfect leader, while the subordinates would
have the opposite reaction to the leadership style of these narcissistic leaders.
For study one, Judge et al. (2006) found that narcissistic leaders did give themselves
favorable ratings for leadership as predicted, but they did not find that narcissistic leaders rated
themselves high for contextual performance or task performance. In study two, Judge et al. found
that narcissism was negatively related to leadership and contextual performance in subordinates’
ratings, while positively relating narcissistic leaders to workplace deviance. Therefore, the
narcissistic leaders did view themselves favorably in leadership, while the subordinates had the
opposite reaction; but the findings in the other areas of contextual performance, task
performance, and work related performance were not found for the narcissistic leaders but were
34
found from the subordinates’ perspective. This study shows that narcissistic leaders may have an
inflated opinion of their leadership abilities.
In addition to these findings, Judge et al. (2006) also controlled his study for the big five
personality traits; and he discovered that “openness and conscientiousness” (p. 771)
demonstrated a positive increase in the self-ratings of these narcissistic leaders. As Judge et al.
illustrated, individuals exhibiting conscientiousness have been found to “engage in self-
deception” (p. 771), but no previous research has shown openness to be associated with self-
deception. This study demonstrated that high self-evaluation scores may be misleading; for while
narcissism is an undesirable personality, openness and conscientiousness are desirable
personality traits, so one must be cautious of narcissists rating themselves high for openness and
conscientiousness.
In addition, there is a note of caution when others rate performance for leadership; for as
Robins and Beer (2001) stated, the length of time the rater knows the narcissist may factor into
the rating. Narcissists can sometimes be rated positively in short-term relationships, but rated
negatively in long-term relationships, which is what Judge et al. (2006) saw in relation to
leadership performance between study one and study two.
Researchers have utilized these theories in leadership research in order to examine how
workers perform and whether or not their performance can be improved through leadership. With
the influence of situational leadership, where the relationship of the leader to a follower is
examined, researchers began to study the influence of the leader on the individual follower.
Later, researchers discovered that the leader-follower relationship may be different if the
follower was not one person, but a group of individuals. Then, researchers began to examine how
a follower’s performance may influence the leader. All of this research needs to be examined in
35
order to understand how leadership with teams relates to performance, since teachers frequently
ask students to function as teams when working on projects.
Team Performance
In the 1990s, leadership theories and team performance were studied in order to
demonstrate that leadership may not have the same effect on individuals as it would in relation to
a group of subordinates working together. This research is important to examine because
teachers sometimes utilize teams in peer groups in order to learn the material. Team performance
may differ from individual performance; therefore, both team and individual performance must
be considered. In examining team performance, researchers examined several leadership theories
(Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Lim & Ployhart, 2004).
For example, Howell and Avolio (1993) examined management-by-exception leadership,
contingent-reward leadership, charismatic leadership, and transformational leadership, and their
relationship to the performance of a unit or group of subordinates. They hypothesized that both
transactional and transformational leadership can utilize contingent reward leadership, where the
leader rewards the follower for completing the task, but contingent reward leadership will be
mostly associated with transactional leadership.
Howell and Avolio (1993) also theorized that transactional leadership is “management by
exception,” which occurs when the leader focuses on the follower’s mistakes. The leader can
take an active role and criticize the follower’s performance as the task is being completed, or the
leader can take a passive role and criticize the follower’s performance after the task has been
completed. Either actively or passively, the leader stresses that the subordinate has made a
mistake.
36
The transformational leadership style has three main factors: “charisma, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration” (Howell & Avolio, 1993, p. 891). These authors
also hypothesized that a leader with an internal locus of control would likely be a
transformational leader. Locus of control is where the person bases the control for their lives.
Some people believe that locus of control is internal, so they believe that they control their own
lives or destinies. Others believe that locus of control is external, so they believe that fate
controls their lives or destinies. Howell and Avolio make the case that a person’s locus of control
can indicate whether a person will be a transformational leader.
In this study, Howell and Avolio (1993) found that management-by-exception, whether
active or passive, negatively predicted the unit’s performance and that all three components of
transformational leadership positively predicted unit performance. However, contingent reward
negatively affected the unit’s performance. This finding was contrary to their hypothesis and
contradicted the results with contingent reward found by Vecchio et al. (2008) and Molero et al.
(2007). They also found that leaders with an internal locus of control were positively correlated
with transformational leadership than leaders with an external locus of control. Once again, this
study, as with others, demonstrated that transformational leadership predicts performance; and
they add the importance of locus of control. However, Howell and Avolio did show that
contingent reward might not always predict performance.
In a military study examining team performance, Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003)
assessed transformational and transactional leadership to determine whether these styles could
predict unit performance when the unit was under high stress during a combat simulation
exercise. These researchers found that contingent reward was positively related to performance,
which contradicted the findings of Howell and Avolio (1993) and supported the findings of
37
Vecchio et al. (2008) and Molero et al. (2007). Bass et. al. stated that future research “needs to
explore the distinction between the higher and lower order forms of contingent reward leadership
and their relationship to motivation and performance” (p. 215). They also confirmed the findings
that transformational leadership predicted performance.
In another military study, Lim and Ployhart (2004) conducted research with 39 combat
teams in the Asian military. They examined transformational leadership in relation to
Thurstone’s (1934) five-factor model of personality and performance. They found that
neuroticism and agreeableness had a negative correlation to transformational leadership, which
differs from Judge and Bono’s (2000) findings that neuroticism had no effect and agreeableness
had a positive effect on transformational leadership. Since these results are conflicting, one
should note the varying results when comparing personality factors with transformational
leadership.
Lim and Ployhart (2004) also found that transformational leadership related to team
performance in a maximum context, rather than a typical context. They define “maximum
context” as occurring when the subordinate is aware of the evaluation, when the subordinate
accepts the instructions to “perform maximally on a task,” and when the duration of the task is
short in order to maximize effectiveness (p. 612). Therefore, maximum context versus typical
context may need to be taken into account.
Summary. Several leadership theories have been used to examine performance in the
workplace and several settings have been examined, such as business, industry, and military.
These studies show that leadership styles can affect the performance of a subordinate, but that
factors such as employees’ perceptions of their jobs, type of projects, contingent rewards, need to
be taken into account. Furthermore, this literature showed a connection between personality
38
factors, both positive and negative, and a distinction between individual performance and team
performance.
Leadership and Performance in Education
The leadership theories first applied to the workforce also have been used to examine
education (Bess & Goldman, 2001). However, most of the leadership research related to student
performance was conducted in the secondary schools and focused on principals’ leadership styles
and improving student learning (Gurr, Drysdale, & Mulford, 2007). Principals exhibiting
transformational leadership had a positive effect on student academic achievement (Koh, Steers,
& Terborg, 1995; Ylimaki, 2007).
This research started the trend toward examining leadership theories in relation to
education. Now, instead of focusing on principals, researchers have started to think about how
teachers are leaders in the classroom and have begun to examine leadership as a means for
improving student learning. While some research has been conducted with leadership theories in
relation to teachers and students, researchers are calling for more research in this area.
Teachers as Leaders
Starting with a study in the 1980s, leadership theories have been used to examine
teachers as leaders inside the secondary and post-secondary classrooms. Peterson and Cooke
(1983) studied “147 teachers” and “2,430 students” (p. 50) in ten community colleges to
determine if individual and organizational variables affect a teacher’s classroom leadership
behavior. Using Likert’s (1967) system of leadership, they focused on system four leadership,
which occurs when a leader is “actively participative,” in relation to individual and
organizational variables (p. 51). A system four leader is preferred over system one, two, and
three leaders. A system four leader is supportive and has a participative relationship with
39
subordinates; whereas, a system one leader is authoritarian and exploitive; a system two leader is
authoritarian but generous; and a system three leader merely consults subordinates (Likert,
1967).
The individual variable examined was teachers’ control, whether they preferred more
student control or more teacher control. The organizational variables examined were the leaders’
formal participation, openness to new ideas, their perceived participation in the organization, and
their leadership behavior as a teacher. Peterson and Cooke (1983) found that leaders with
participative attitudes were influenced more by these four organizational variables, but were not
influenced by their attitudes toward control. Therefore, Peterson and Cooke asked administrators
to think about the impact that a participative versus authoritative organizational style may have
on system four leaders who are more participative. Peterson and Cooke also found that teachers’
leadership behavior could be moderated by the teachers’ assessment of whether the students
were participative.
In another study relating leadership to teachers, Yacapsin and Stick (2007) sampled 100
adjuncts at a university and found that a statistically significant relationship existed between
leadership and teaching style. The instrument used was the Kaleidoscope Profile, which pairs
four leadership types, “Intuitive Feeler, Intuitive Thinker, Intuitive Judger, and Sensing
Perceiver,” with four teaching styles, “Abstract Global, Abstract Sequential, Concrete Global,
and Concrete Sequential” (Yacapsin & Stick, p. 5). These factors were cross-tabulated with a
Chi-square analysis, and Yacapsin and Stick received a 23.830 with nine degrees of freedom
with .005 significance and concluded that “There was a relationship between college instructor
leadership type and teaching styles as measured by the Kaleidoscope Profile” (p. 6).
40
However, Yacapsin and Stick (2007) warned the reader that The Kaleidoscope Profile
instrument’s credibility has been questioned as to its reliability and validity; nonetheless, this
instrument is the only one that takes into account leadership in education. They called for more
research with leadership styles in relation to teaching styles and student learning.
In additional research, Pounder (2008) conducted a study at a university in Hong Kong
between business professors who exhibit transformational leadership and undergraduate business
students in order to determine if transformational leadership had an effect on three student
outcomes: extra effort, perception of the leader, and satisfaction with the leader. He found
transformational leadership to be positively associated with these student outcomes, so he called
for future research to examine transformational leadership in relation to other outcomes related
to this leadership theory. Pounder specifically mentioned three factors for future research from
leaders that “evoke intellectual curiosity, facilitate creativity, and stimulate ethical conduct” (p.
5).
These three studies demonstrate how researchers have connected leadership to teaching.
The earliest study found was conducted by Peterson and Cooke (1983). They examined teachers
as leaders and possible mediating effects on teachers’ leadership styles. They found that teachers
with a leadership style that displays active participation might be mediated by the leaders’ formal
participation, openness to new ideas, perceived participation in the organization, and the
leadership behavior of the teacher.
When Yacapsin and Stick (2007) studied leadership in connection with teaching styles,
they also found a significant relationship; but the instrument used was in question due to the
uncertainty of its reliability and validity. With Pounder’s (2008) research, one sees a specific
leadership style, transformational leadership, in connection with student outcomes; and they
41
found a significant relationship between this leadership style and students’ extra effort,
perception of the leader, and satisfaction of the leader. These articles demonstrate the
progression of research conducted in the literature connecting teaching with leadership.
Teacher Leadership Improving Student Performance
In the search for improving student achievement, researchers have turned to leadership
theories for a solution. For example, Dinham (2007) argued that educational leadership,
specifically a teacher with a leadership style with “high responsiveness and high demand,” which
is similar to Blake and Mouton’s (1964) 9, 9 leadership style, could improve student learning (p.
272). Researchers have started to link leadership theories to teacher’s leadership styles as a
means for improving student achievement (Cheng, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Wallace,
2007; Yildirim, Acar, Buli, & Sevine, 2008).
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) examined three core components: the leader’s vision, how
the vision is implemented through task cues, and the communication style of the leader
(charismatic versus non-charismatic). These three variables were compared to students’
performance on completing a task. These researchers brought in two trained actors to portray a
charismatic leader and a non-charismatic leader in upper-level business classes. In addition, these
actors conveyed two different factors, either the leader had a vision or did not have a vision and
either the leader gave task cues or did not give task cues. They then examined the interaction of
these variables on performance, attitudes, and perceptions; and they examined the intervening
variables of self-efficacy and quality goals.
For performance, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found that the communication style did
not matter, but what affected performance the most was whether a task cue was present and
whether the leader had vision. While self-efficacy and quality goals did not show significance as
42
intervening variables, Kirkpatrick and Locke stated that they believed that an “intervening
relationship” had occurred and explained that “the vision of quality affected quality goals and
self-efficacy, which then affected performance quality” (p. 44). Therefore, this research stressed
the importance of task cues and vision over communication style; and they called for more
research examining this leadership style to differentiate between charismatic and non-charismatic
leaders.
In another study examining the relationship between teacher leaders and students,
Wallace (2007) examined transformational leadership, which includes the trait of charisma; and
he discovered that Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) transformational leadership theory had a
significant effect on students’ “reaction, learning, and behavior” and stated, “Well, the verdict is
in. Leadership does occur in classrooms, by teachers, to a high degree” (p. 137). From “40
teachers” and “198 students in 101 classes” (p. 83) in North Carolina’s alternative schools,
Wallace found that students’ perception of teachers’ leadership accounted for a large amount of
the variance to students’ reaction toward being in the classroom (40-45%), to learning (40-47%),
and to student behavior (20-27%). The results from teachers for learning (15-20%) and student
behavior (10-14%) showed that they placed less emphasis on leadership than the students did.
This study called for future research to examine differences in leadership styles and gender, since
the data from this study suggested that female teachers have a negative impact on the students’
perceptions. Wallace also proposed the idea of examining research in other specific subject areas
to find if teacher leadership can be connected directly to student success.
The importance of teacher leadership and students learning leadership styles at a young
age was explored by Lamb and Busse (1983). In an effort to produce leaders, they measured
students’ perceptions of preferred leaders using Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid and
43
found that the students preferred a 1, 1 leader by 63%. With their suspicions confirmed, they
taught Blake and Mouton’s theory to the teachers and students. Then, they surveyed the students
again and found that 55% preferred the team management or 9, 9 leader. In addition, the class
that had the higher preference for the 9, 9 leadership style also had the highest gain in academic
achievement (Lamb & Busse, 1983).
The next study directly examined teacher leadership and student achievement. Yildirim,
Acar, Buli, and Sevine (2008) conducted an experiment with 746 eighth grade students in Turkey
to determine if the students’ perception of the teachers’ leadership style, which was defined as
people-oriented versus task-oriented, or the students’ learning style was a better predictor of
student achievement in verbal and quantitative areas. They found a significant difference for
people-oriented leadership style and successful student achievement and a significant
relationship for task-oriented leadership style with unsuccessful student achievement. In
addition, they did not find a significant difference with learning styles for “individual, visual,
auditory, tactile or kinesthetic” with student achievement; but they did find a significant
relationship for group learning styles with verbal and unsuccessful student achievement and
quantitative with successful verbal achievement.
Although people-oriented and task-oriented leadership styles were utilized, Yildirim et al.
(2008) did not discuss the leadership styles of Stodgill, the Ohio State Studies, the Michigan
Studies, or Blake and Mouton’s work in relation to this study. They also did not take the
opportunity to look for leaders who exhibited both high task and high people-oriented leadership,
which is the preferred leadership style, rated as a 9, 9, as described by Blake and Mouton (1964).
However, the following study focused specifically on the Ohio State Studies and its relation to
teacher leadership and student performance.
44
Cheng (1994) also examined people-oriented and task-oriented leadership. Based on a
grant from the “Universities and Polytechnic Grants Committee of the Hong Kong Government,”
Cheng conducted a study that sampled “21,622” sixth graders in “678 classes” (p. 57). Cheng
wanted to see how leadership style in relation to power affected students’ “affective
performance, social climate, and perception of physical environment,” (p. 57) which this
researcher saw as the link to improving students’ performance.
The leadership style that Cheng (1994) utilized was from the Ohio State Studies where
four leadership factors were assessed, high and low levels of “initiating structure and
consideration” with the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (p. 55). Then,
Cheng measured the power base of these teachers in relation to their leadership style and found
that the leadership styles and power bases were interrelated. The power bases that had a positive
influence were personal power, charisma of the teacher, and expert power, which is providing or
withholding the expertise of the teacher. Coercive power, which is providing or withholding
punishment, had a negative relationship between the leadership style and the teachers’ power
base. Cheng also found that the leadership style of “high consideration and high initiating
structure” had a positive relation to “nearly all the dimensions of the social climate in the
classroom” and “students’ affective performance” (p. 66).
Cheng (1994) noted that two extremes were seen with the leadership styles: (a) “high
consideration and high initiating structure,” which had positive results, and (b) “low
consideration and low initiating structure,” which had negative results. Cheng made the
connection between Blake and Mouton’s (1964) (1, 1) leadership style as that of the “low
consideration and low initiating structure” style, which is undesirable, but failed to state that the
“high consideration and high initiating structure” is similar to Blake and Mouton’s 9, 9
45
leadership style, which is the preferred style for leaders. Cheng also failed to mention the
connection between personal power defined as the teachers’ charisma and the fact that charisma
plays a large part in the leadership styles of charismatic and transformational leadership styles.
However, Cheng (1994) basically advocated that leaders should follow the 9, 9 leadership
style that Blake and Mouton (1964) view as the model leader. A 9, 9 leader is a person who
simultaneously emphasizes the importance of the task and the people performing the task. In
addition, Cheng emphasized that teachers should utilize their power for charisma and sharing
their expertise but should avoid positive or negative punishment with students. For future
research, Cheng mentioned examining different leadership styles in relation to power bases and
called for more research in education in this area.
Performance Effects Leadership
While leadership theories have been used to examine performance, performance has also
been used to examine leadership. This research is important to examine because teachers may
have prior knowledge of students’ performance, which may affect their leadership and in turn
affect the students’ performance and because students in the classroom can form group behaviors
or exhibit social behaviors that may affect the teachers’ performance, which in turn may affect
the students’ performance.
In one study, Farris and Lim (1969) conducted an experiment where 200 management
students acted out the “Change of Work Procedure” case (p. 490). In this experiment, the leaders
were told that the group they were leading had high or low performance to see what effect it
would have on the leader’s behavior in four areas: “support, interaction facilitation, goal
emphasis, and work facilitation,” (p. 490). In the study, the leaders had three groups: one group
46
was a low-performing group; and one group was a high-performing group, but the leader did not
receive information about the last group.
Farris and Lim (1969) found that all four behavioral areas were affected by the leaders’
knowledge of the group’s prior performance. As hypothesized, leaders who were told the group
had high performance were found to be more supportive, more interactive, emphasized goals
more, and emphasized work facilitation. The opposite was true when leaders were told the group
had performed at a lower level.
In turn, the leaders’ behavior for groups with higher past performance influenced the
subordinates, for they performed higher in areas such as, “decision making, greater group
cohesiveness, and greater satisfaction” (Farris & Lim, 1969, p. 496). This study showed that if
the leader has prior knowledge of a groups’ performance, then that information could influence
the leader in either a positive or a negative way, which in turn may influence the subordinates to
perform to the level the leader expects. This phenomenon is referred to in the educational
literature as the Pygmalion effect (Rosenthal, 1994).
In another examination of followers’ behavior on leader performance, Wang (2007)
examined leaders’ self-efficacy in relation to a groups’ social behavior through informal
feedback. Wang found three results: (a) leaders who received positive feedback had higher self-
efficacy than those who received negative feedback, (b) females relied more on positive
feedback to increase their self-efficacy than males, and (c) older leaders relied more on external
feedback to increase their self-efficacy than younger leaders. One factor to keep in mind with
Wang’s study is that the mean age of the leaders was 24, since college students were used as
leaders and followers. In addition, the researcher did not use formal feedback in the study but
relied instead on informal feedback. While the results are intriguing, further studies with a more
47
varied age group and more formal feedback might be necessary to expand the literature in this
area.
Researchers suggest that leadership theories can be influenced by other factors such as
gender and culture. However, the research on whether gender affects leadership style is
conflicting. Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen (2003) examined gender in relation to
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles and found “that female leaders
were more transformational than male leaders and also engaged in more of the contingent reward
behaviors that are a component of transactional leadership” (p. 569). In contrast, Engen, Leeden,
and Willemsen (2001) found that gender did not affect leadership styles when conducting their
research in department stores. This difference could have occurred based on chance because the
difference shown in the Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen meta-analysis was weak. In
addition, Engen, Leeden, and Willemsen mention this difference and note “the small effect size”
(p. 583) along with their study’s setting, for they explain that real world settings differed from
laboratory settings, which produces a stronger effect.
Another factor to consider is culture, for it may influence leadership styles. Casimir,
Waldman, Bartram, and Yang (2006) found in their study that transformational and transactional
leadership was mediated by trust for Australians’ performance, but not for Chinese people’s
performance. Therefore, these two factors need to be examined in more detail.
Summary
Leadership has been shown to affect subordinates’ performance in the workforce and
student success in education. However, several questions still need to be explored. These
researchers examining teacher leadership and student performance have yielded encouraging
results but have called for additional research in this field (Cheng, 1994; Wallace, 2007;
48
Yacapsin & Stick, 2007). More research is needed to determine how student performance can be
affected by a teacher’s leadership style because current research has not shown that a particular
leadership style has a relationship with student performance within a specific discipline, yet the
direct connection between teachers as leaders and student performance is inconclusive.
Furthermore, while different leadership theories have been used to examine student
performance, a study examining multiple leadership theories, as recommended by Yukl (1999),
has not been used to evaluate students’ academic performance. This is important because
researchers need to see if there is a difference between Transformational leadership and Blake
and Mouton’s (1964) 9, 9 leadership style. The research of Yildirim et al. (2008) and Cheng
(1994) demonstrate that Blake and Mouton’s (1964) theory of people-oriented and task-oriented
leadership may be connected to student performance. The researchers examining performance in
the workplace and in education in relation to charismatic, transformational, and transactional
leadership have shown connections between leadership and performance that have been tested in
a variety of settings, such as business, industry, military, and education.
Additionally, researchers have not investigated the connection between the leadership of
teachers and improving student performance in specific subject areas, such as improving
students’ performance in mathematics. In his discussion section, Wallace (2007) calls for more
research in this area. More information would help elucidate the importance of teachers
acknowledging, identifying, and then possibly modifying their leadership styles in order to
improve student performance. The foundation of this research stems from leadership in the
workforce and in education in connection to performance. As Lamb and Busse (1983) state,
“Teachers, whether they wish it or not, are models of leadership” (p. 21).
49
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
This research study examined how the classroom leadership of teachers relates to student
learning by examining students in freshmen mathematics classes at a two-year community
college. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed explanation of the method used in
this quasi-experimental study. After refreshing the reader as to the purpose of the study and the
research objectives, this chapter will provide information on the design of the study, the
participants chosen, the instrumentation selected, the data collection method, and the procedures
for analyzing the data.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine which leadership style, from Blake and
Mouton’s (1964) or Avolio and Bass’s (1995) theories, exhibited by teachers best relates to
improving students’ performance in a first-year mathematics course at a two-year community
college. Several research objectives were examined.
Research Objectives
1. To describe students who have completed a mathematics modeling course at a
community college.
2. To compare students pre-test and post-test scores on mathematics competency.
3. To compare students’ perceptions of mathematics instructor’s leadership styles on Avolio
and Bass’s (1995) Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) by change in
mathematics competency.
50
4. To compare students’ perceptions of mathematics instructor’s leadership styles on Blake
and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid by change in mathematics competency.
Design of Study
For this quasi-experimental study, the students rated the teachers for two types of
leadership styles: Blake and Mouton’s (1985) leadership style rankings and Bass’ (1985)
leadership style with the MLQ (5x) rater form. The students’ ratings of their teachers’ leadership
styles were compared to the change in performance of the students in a mathematics course
measured by the pre-test and post-test. By using a quasi-experimental design, the researcher
wanted to add to the discussion of teacher leadership related to student performance in the
quantitative realm.
Researchers have investigated teachers’ transformational and team management
leadership styles as a means for improving factors they believe related to improving student
performance (Cheng, 1994; Pounder, 2008; Wallace, 2007; Yildirim et al, 2008). However, only
one group of researchers has tried to show a direct association between teachers’ leadership
characteristics and student performance (Yildirim et al, 2008). This research study attempted to
extend the quantitative work of Yildirim et al.
Researchers agree that studies examining leadership should include more than one
leadership theory in order to advance the field of leadership (Hunt, 1999; Yukl, 1999).
While limited research has examined the leadership of teachers in the classroom, three types of
leadership theories dominate the literature: charismatic leadership theory, task versus people
leadership theory, and transformational leadership theory (Cheng, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1996; Pounder, 2008; Wallace, 2007; Yildirim et al., 2008). The charismatic leadership research
was not able to be tied to factors related to improving student performance (Kirkpatrick &
51
Locke, 1996). However, task versus people leadership styles and transformational leadership
were linked to factors related to student performance (Cheng, 1994; Pounder, 2008; Wallace,
2007; Yildirim et al., 2008). Therefore, this study was based on two leadership theories: Blake
and Mouton’s (1985) leadership theory and Bass’ (1985) transformational leadership theory.
This study was a quasi-experimental design because the independent variable of teacher’s
leadership styles is a characteristic of the instructors. Leadership style is a characteristic of the
individual and not directly manipulated by the researcher. This study built upon Yildirim et al.’s
(2008) quasi-experimental method, since they were able to link task versus people with student
performance but failed to examine whether a leader who scored high on both task and people
could be related to student performance, as Cheng (1994) indicated in her study. In addition, the
Yildirim et al. study had several flaws. They stated they designed their own survey that was
given to students to determine whether their leader exhibited task or people oriented leadership;
but they did not provide the instrument they used. The source to which they refer the reader is a
textbook by Gordon (1999). However, when this researcher located this source, she could not
locate the instrument they modified nor find where the instrument could be obtained. Their
article also did not describe the reliability or validity of the instrument they used.
In addition, Yildirim et al. (2008) measured student performance by grades and created
two categories: successful, grade of 75 to 100, and unsuccessful, grade of 30 and below. These
researchers threw out subjects with grades in between these scores.
However, a strength of their study was that they did ask students to rate the teacher’s
leadership style. The students’ perceptions of the leader’s style are probably more accurate than
having instructors rate their own leadership styles because they may have inflated opinions about
their leadership abilities (Blake & Mouton, 1985). Other researchers also had the students
52
determine the teachers’ leadership style as opposed to asking the teachers to rate their own
leadership styles (Cheng, 1994; Wallace, 2007). Therefore, this researcher asked students to rate
the leadership style of their math professor.
Building upon the work of Wallace (2007), this study also examined the performance of
students in a mathematics course. The dependent variable was the change in student
performance, and the quasi-independent variable was teachers’ leadership styles. The researcher
had students rate the leadership styles of their teachers based on their experience with these
teachers in the classroom.
There are design threats when using a quasi-experimental design. First, the independent
variable cannot be controlled by the researcher, since it is strictly a variable that is inherent to the
teacher. Second, unidentified extraneous variables can influence the subject ratings of the
instructors. For example, the leadership style may be clouded by the student’s relationship with
that instructor, personality traits of the leader, or the mood of the student while taking the
evaluation. These issues are consistent across the range of subjects as well as the range of
teachers evaluated. However, these design issues are also consistent in the leadership studies
within the literature.
Population and Sample
The researcher purposefully selected a two-year community college with campus
locations in several areas of a southern state. The college selected has six main campuses and
two extension centers. Based on spring 2010 data, this college had a total headcount of 5,314
students, 1,711 of whom placed in learning support services (remedial) courses, which is 63% of
the student body. This college has more full-time students (68%) than part-time students (32%).
It has more female students (62%) than male students (38%). The college also has predominantly
53
Caucasian (48%) and African American students (44%). Only one campus has 200 residents,
while the other campuses have only commuter students.
As with any two-year community college, this college has freshman-level mathematics
courses; however, this college has two types of freshman mathematics. Students typically take a
course called math modeling if transferring to a four-year college within this southern state upon
completing their Associate degrees, and students typically take a course called college algebra if
transferring out of the state. This study focused on the math modeling course used when
transferring within the state.
The researcher’s familiarity with the college and the participants might bias the results;
therefore, measures were taken to maintain objectivity. The emails sent to the students did not
include any information about the researcher’s affiliation with the college. The courses were
chosen based solely on topic area stemming from the research of Wallace (2007). However, this
study can inform the field of leadership and education as to the possibilities of leadership styles
relating to student performance, which others could use to design and conduct future research in
this area.
Based on spring 2010 data, this college had five professors teaching math modeling. The
math modeling classes had a total of 160 students, 64 of whom participated in this study. The
response rate for each teacher ranged from 32% to 86%. Teacher A had an 86% response rate
with 12 out of 14 students respond. Teacher B had a 33% response rate with 24 out of 72
students respond. Teacher C had a 32% response rate with 8 out of 25 students respond. Teacher
D had a 54% response rate with seven out of 13 students respond. Teacher E had a 36% response
rate with 13 out of 36 students respond.
54
According to Israel (2009), a population of 175 individuals requires at least 64
participants. This sample size has a level of precision of ±10% with a confidence level of 95%
and P=.5 (Israel, 2009). The probability of .5 is desirable for degree of variability because “it is
often used in determining a more conservative sample size, that is, the sample size may be larger
than if the true variability of the population attribute were used” (Israel, 2009, p. 2). For this
study, purposeful sampling was used in selecting math modeling students at this particular
college. However, the students within this population were randomly selected. Due to purposeful
sampling, one should not relate this study to populations that are dissimilar from this college
taking this mathematics course.
This sample met the three assumptions that need to be satisfied in order to use an
independent t-test or analysis of variance (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). First, the observations
within each sample must be independent (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). Each student rated his/her
teacher’s leadership styles independently of each other on both leadership instruments.
Second, the population from which the samples are selected must be normal (Gravetter &
Wallnau, 2007). The students enrolled in the mathematics modeling course based on their
mathematics competency needed to satisfy their follow-on-institution. Therefore, the researcher
assumed that this sample is representative of the college population. The results for objective one
lists the demographics that show that the sample also has more female than male students, more
Caucasian and African American students, and 62% of the sample took a remedial mathematics
courses. This data matched the demographic data listed above for the college.
For the third assumption, the samples demonstrated homogeneity of variance or that the
samples being compared have the same variance (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). An analysis of
variance was conducted examining the pre-test scores of the students within each class; and no
55
significant difference was detected, F (4, 58) = 1.654, p = .173. The Levene statistic was also
conducted in SPSS to determine homogeneity of variance, and this statistic showed a 1.235 at a
significance level of .306, which demonstrated that the variance is homogenous, since it is above
a probability level of .05.
In addition, the need for remediation in mathematics was not a factor in the study because
this institution has conducted research for their Quality Enhancement Plan showing that students
needing remediation were not significantly different at or below a probability of .05 than
students who did not need remediation for this mathematics course on the pre-test, t(81, 47) = 1.27,
p < .21 and on the post-test, t(81, 47) = 1.71, p < .09 for spring 2010, which was the quarter the data
for this project was collected (Isaac & Kallina, 2010).
Instrumentation
Several instruments were used in this quasi-experimental design: (a) pre-test and post-test
for the math course, (b) Avolio and Bass’s (1995) Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-
5X) rater form, and (c) Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid paragraph ranking survey.
The pre-test and post-test for the math course was used to measure the change in students’ math
performance as they entered and exited the course. These instruments allowed the researcher to
measure the change in student performance obtained within the course by comparing the results
on the first test given at the beginning of the course with the results on the second test given at
the end of the course. The difference between these test scores demonstrated the change in
student performance in this math modeling course. The leadership questionnaires by Bass and
Avolio and Blake and Mouton allowed the students to rate the leadership styles of the teachers.
The researcher collected the data in the spring 2010 quarter.
56
Math Pre-test and Post-test
The instruments used to measure student performance in the math course were assessments
developed by the department of mathematics at the participating college. This department
implemented these assessments in the winter 2010 quarter on all campuses as course-level
assessments. This requirement was already in place for the assessment plan developed by the
assessment committee at this college. The content of the exams came from the student learning
outcomes (SLOs) on the master syllabus for each course, which are attached in Appendix A. The
tests contained ten questions and were multiple choice in format. Each test was scored by
assigning one point to each correct answer for a total of ten points.
The math modeling student learning outcomes stated that students successfully completing
this course will be able to:
(1) Create and use linear, quadratic, polynomial, exponential, and logarithmic models of
real-world phenomena.
(2) Know, use, and understand functional notation and the graphs of functions.
(3) Solve applied problems using the models described above as well as other techniques.
(4) Use appropriate technology to solve mathematical problems.
The college requires all professors to use the master syllabus for the courses they are teaching.
The pre-test and post-test assessments have the same testing format, for the formulas were not
altered; but the numbers were changed to prevent students from learning only the answers and
not the method for getting to the answers. The pre-test used can be found in Appendix B and the
post-test in Appendix C.
The professors in these math courses used the same pre-test and post-test for each course.
The division chair emailed the pre-test for each course to the department chairs to forward to
57
their math faculty. The pre-test was given at the beginning of the quarter. The post-test was
distributed in the same manner, but it was given during the final exam time. The faculty
members entered the test results into the college online grade book system. The instructional
technology designer developed a program for pulling these test results into an Excel spreadsheet,
which this researcher was given access. In addition, the faculty members sent the tests to their
division chair in Milledgeville who supplied the researcher with the original tests in order to
double check the electronic system.
Reliability. An instrument is considered to be reliable if the results are repeatable when
measured again with the same instrument (Goodwin, 2010). Three sources of measurement error
can occur: the way the students responded to the instrument, the procedure for administering and
scoring the instrument, and the wording of the instrument (Cherry & Meyer, 1993). Since the
exam simply provided a mathematical formula and asked students to select the answer, the
students should have been able to choose the answer or not. The multiple choice nature of the
exam left little room for ambiguity if the question was clearly worded. Members of the math
department piloted the questions with students in the winter 2010 quarter and found no
adjustments needed to be made to the pre-test or to the post-test. However, they did not analyze
the data for a Cronbach’s alpha for reliability. The mathematics department provided the final
score on the pre-test and post-test assessments to the researcher. However, they did not provide
the individual answers for each question. Therefore, this researcher was not able to test for
reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha.
An email sent by the division chair included instructions for how to administer the exams
and how to report the data, so consistency occurred in every course. A key was also provided by
the division chair to each instructor for grading the pre-test and post-test assessments.
58
Validity. An instrument is considered to be valid if it measures what it was designed to
measure (Goodwin, 2010). The student learning outcomes provided the framework for the course
and for the exam, which standardizes the course content and the exam regardless of the professor
teaching the course. In addition, the mathematics’ faculty matched the pre-test and post-test
questions to the student learning outcomes.
Avolio and Bass’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
As demonstrated across four meta-analyses, several studies have used the Multi-factor
leadership instrument to measure leadership (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2001; Dumdum, Lowe,
& Avolio, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). The original instrument had 73
items paired down from 142 statements from Burn’s (1978) instrument measuring
transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). After criticism from Yukl (1998) that the
instrument had questions not focused on leadership behaviors, Bass and Avolio (1997) revised
the instrument from 73 items to 67 items (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The rater instrument was also
refined into the 45 items that are found in the MLQ (5X) (Avolio & Bass, 1995).
The MLQ (5X), also referred to as the short-form, consists of four statements per each of
the nine leadership dimensions: idealized influence (attributed charisma), idealized influence
(behaviors), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration,
contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), management-by-exception (passive), and
laissez-faire (Avolio & Bass, 1995). In addition, there are nine statements that address “extra
effort,” “effectiveness,” and “satisfaction” (Avolio & Bass). The students rate each statement as
it applies to their leader. The instrument uses a zero to four scale. The zero stands for “not at all;”
the one stands for “once in a while;” the two stands for “sometimes;” the three stands for “fairly
often;” and the four stands for “frequently, if not always” (Avolio & Bass). As stated in the
59
permission letter from Mind Garden in Appendix D from whom this instrument was purchased,
the statements cannot be reproduced in their entirety. Therefore, the instrument is not attached.
However, five sample statements may be included in this section. Here are the first five
statements from the instrument:
1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts
2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious
4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from
standards
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise
This instrument was purchased by the researcher from Mind Garden, a company that sells
surveys and other instruments for research. Based on the agreement, the researcher cannot
include the survey instrument in its entirety in the appendix.
This instrument was created for leaders to measure their own leadership abilities and a
rater form was created for subordinates to rate their leaders. Atwater and Yammarino (1993)
conducted a study at the U. S. Naval Academy and found a correlation of .35 to .34 between the
leaders’ ratings of themselves and the subordinate’s ratings of the leaders. This instrument was
not used to measure teacher leadership, but it does show a weak correlation. This researcher is
not surprised by the weak correlation because Blake and Mouton (1985) stated that leaders tend
to exaggerate their leadership abilities. Due to this phenomenon, the rater form was used instead
of the self-rater form.
Reliability. Pile (1988) tested the instrument using six-month intervals between
assessments and was able to correlate the data between the two assessments. For internal
60
reliability, all but one item on the MLQ demonstrated reliability with alpha coefficients above
.70 level, except individual consideration, which was a .68 (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Pounder,
2008). Pounder (2008) stated that most social science studies accept an alpha above .60, but
prefer an alpha above .70. Pile’s (1988) study demonstrated that the data can be replicated. The
Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .940 with the 45 items, which is above the generally
accepted alpha level.
Validity. The MLQ (form 5X) does measure what it intends to measure. After conducting
two studies with large samples, Antonakis et al. (2003) found that the MLQ was valid even
across gender. In addition, three meta-analyses support the validity of the MLQ (DeGroot, Kiker,
& Cross, 2000; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
The MLQ has been modified based on recommendations of other researchers (Bass, Avolio, &
Jung, 1999).
Bass, Avolio, and Jung (1999) took data from two samples and ran several correlated
models of the MLQ (one factor to seven factors) and found the six factor model to be the best.
The six factor model correlated these factors: “passive versus management-by-exception (active
only) versus contingent reward versus three transformational factors” (p. 446). The six factor
model is used in the MLQ (Form 5X), which was the questionnaire used for this study.
Between the two samples, the instrument showed little shrinkage in terms of best fit
(Bass, Avolio, & Jung, 1999). These researchers used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with
LISREL to analyze the data. According to Bass, Avolio, and Jung (1999), the CFA is a widely
used technique to test instruments and provides goodness of fit. The models were tested for:
“Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) and Root Mean Squared
Residual (RMSR)” and “Normed Fit Index (NFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)” (p. 448).
61
Originally, the six factor model had a GFI of .73, a RMSQ of .10, and chi square with
2,889 degrees of freedom and 13,378 (p<.0001), which they stated indicated a poor model (Bass,
Avolio, & Jung, 1999). Therefore, the model was improved by trimming individual items from
each scale by using the Modification Indices (MI) to look for items that had “high cross loadings
with other factors” (Bass, Avolio, & Jung, 1999, p. 449) Due to the large sample size, the
researchers decided to include the NFI and TLI to measure goodness of fit.
According to Bass, Avolio, and Jung (1999), the six factor model improved in the chi
square analysis with 579 degrees of freedom and 2,788 (p<.0001). The GFI improved from .73 to
.91 for both samples. Goodness of fit is determined at .90 or greater (Garson, 2009). The AGFI
was at .90 and .89 for the two samples, which also indicates a good model (Bass, Avolio, &
Jung, 1999). AGFI should be close to 1.0 to determine goodness of fit (Garson, 2009). The
RMSR fell from .10 to .04 and .05 for the two samples (Bass, Avolio, & Jung, 1999). For a good
model, RMSR should be 1.0 or greater (Garson, 2009). The NFI was .91 and .90 for the two
samples (Bass, Avolio, & Jung, 1999). For an acceptable model, it should be .90 or larger
(Garson, 2009). The TLI was .89 and .88 for the two samples (Bass, Avolio, & Jung, 1999). For
an acceptable model, it should be close to 1.0, but it has been used as low as .80 (Garson, 2009).
Based on this information, the MLQ (Form 5x) is a valid instrument to use. Bass and Avolio
(1997) stated in the manual for this instrument that “the latest version of the MLQ, Form 5X, has
been used in nearly 300 research programs, doctoral dissertations, and masters theses around the
globe in the nearly ten years between 1995 and 2004” (p. 35).
Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid
The Leadership Grid developed by Blake and Mouton (1964) measures five leadership
styles that include six elements: (a) initiative, (b) inquiry, (c) advocacy, (d) conflict resolution,
62
(e) decision making, and (f) critique. Five paragraphs consisting of one sentence that represents
each of these elements comprises the five leadership styles. Raters were then asked to rank order
the paragraphs giving the paragraph that best fits their leader a one and giving the paragraph that
least describes their leader a five. The interaction of the concern for people and the concern for
performance expresses how leaders use their authority (Blake & Mouton, 1964). The instrument
is designed to be taken by the leader as a self-assessment to assist leaders in identifying the
assumptions they have about their leadership styles. However, subordinates can also have
assumptions about a leader’s abilities based on observation and experience with that leader
(Blake & Mouton, 1985). While this instrument was intended for improving leadership skills and
was not designed as a rater form, others have used it in research to have students identify
leadership styles (Lamb & Busse, 1983).The instrument can be located in the first chapter of
Blake and Mouton’s (1964) book. Students were instructed to rank order the paragraphs based on
their perception of their professor’s leadership.
Due to copyright laws the researcher will not append a copy of the instrument. However,
the researcher could not get authorization to use the instrument, since both researchers are
deceased and the book is no longer in print. However, the instrument is provided in the book
with the intent of the reader to complete it in order to learn more about their leadership theory.
The instrument was based on the idea that organizations are constant, regardless of the
type of work; and all organizations have a purpose, have people, have a power structure, and
have an organizational culture (Blake & Mouton, 1985). These criteria also apply to the
educational setting, whose purpose is to educate students. In the participating college classrooms,
the purpose of the course was outlined on the syllabus. The classroom setting was comprised of
people: a professor and students. A power structure existed because professors had authority over
63
their students. Therefore, each class was thought of as an organizational culture because each
professor established a classroom climate based on his/her leadership abilities.
Reliability. The only reliability for this instrument comes from a comment made by Blake
and Mouton (1985) explaining that the team management leadership style is selected by leaders
every time as the preferred leadership style. No additional information as to the reliability of the
instrument could be found. Cronbach’s alpha cannot be conducted on this instrument since the
outcome is based on a single score per paragraph that indicates the leadership style.
Validity. This instrument has been used in research for about fifty years, and Blake and
Mouton (1985) stated that it has been “independently assessed for its conceptual vigor and found
to meet the highest standards for conceptual logic” (p. 16). This instrument was created as a tool
to help leaders develop their leadership abilities. It was not designed for research. However,
researchers studying task versus people leadership have used this instrument or developed their
own survey based on the statements from this instrument (Bernardin & Alvares, 1976; Cheng,
1994; Keys, 1977; Lamb & Busse, 1983; Yildirim, et al., 2008).
Data Collection
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Georgia approved the study,
then data was collected (Appendix E). The Vice President for Academic Affairs/Dean of Faculty,
Vice President of Institutional Research and Planning, and the Division Chair for Mathematics
approved of conducting this study at this college. All students taking and math faculty teaching
math modeling were invited to participate in the study. Participants were emailed the informed
consent form that ensured confidentiality that the results would not be used as an evaluation of
the faculty members’ or students’ performance. Participants returned the email to the researcher
consenting to participate.
64
The faculty members participating were then asked to inform their students in their math
classes that an email from this researcher would be sent inviting them to participate in the study.
The students received an email from the researcher with the consent form, and they returned the
email with their consent if they wished to participate. If the student agreed to participate in the
study, then five types of data were collected from these students: mathematics pre-test,
mathematics post-test, Blake and Mouton (1964) leadership instrument, Avolio and Bass’s
(1995) MLQ-5X rater forms, and demographic information.
During the first week of the course, students took a pre-test to determine their
mathematical ability. The tests for these classes were standardized assessments and graded by the
math professors using a common key.
Then, a third of the way through the course, the participating students received an email
through the college email system and were asked for their consent. Those who consented to
participate in the study clicked on the link that took them to one document containing the
demographic questions and the two leadership questionnaires. First, students were asked to
report demographic information, such as name, gender, ethnicity, campus location, course name
and number, instructor’s name, program of study, if they received the Pell Grant, and if they took
a Learning Support Services’ (remedial) class in mathematics. Second, these students rank
ordered the five paragraphs based on the one that best described their professors’ leadership style
(Blake & Mouton, 1985). Third, the students were asked to complete the MLQ-5X rater form
answering questions on a 0 to 4 scale to determine the teachers’ leadership style (Avolio & Bass,
1995).
At the end of the course, students were asked to take a post-test to determine their
mathematical ability. This same test was given and graded by all the math professors. The results
65
for the pre-test and post-test were extracted from the college’s online grade book system, which
every faculty member was required to use. All data was entered into a statistical program, SPSS,
and analyzed using this program.
All data was kept on a secure, password-protected system. The online surveys were
created using the software, SNAPs, currently used by the college. The Vice President of
Institutional Research and Planning agreed to allow the researcher to use the college’s internal
email system in order to protect the data being collected. The data was stored on a computer tied
to the college’s system, which is password-protected. The only person who had access to the data
was the researcher.
Data Analysis
As seen in Table 4, the researcher planned to conduct several analyses to address each
research objective. The researcher collected demographic information from the top part of the
form completed by the students as shown in Table 3 to address the first research objective. The
sample size and percentage for each category was listed in the results section in Table 5.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics
Student Demographics Gender : Female Male Ethnicity: Caucasian African-American Asian Hispanic Other Need for Remediation: Took Remedial Math Did not take a Remedial Math Final Course GPA: A = 4.0 B = 3.0 C = 2.0 D = 1.0 F = 0.0
Second, the pre-test and post-test information was graded by each participating professor;
and then a cover sheet with the professor’s name, campus location, and the course section
66
number was attached to the exams and sent through inter-office mail to the division chair who
gave it to the researcher. The exams had the students’ names on the tests. The researcher coded
each student with a unique identifier. Then, she input the campus location number, student code,
course section number, and scores into a spreadsheet in SPSS. Then, the post-test data was
collected the same way at the end of the quarter.
For research objective one, the sample population of the students who completed the
math modeling course at the community college was described. Then for research objective two,
a dependent t-test was used to compare the pre-test and post-test scores on math competency.
This analysis was used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the
tests with a probability at .05 or below. The increase in the pre-test score to the post-test score in
the mathematics course was used to indicate the change in students’ performance. A repeated
measures t-test was used because the participants were measured more than once on the same
dependent variable (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). The repeated measures t-test allowed the
researcher to determine the overall mean difference and determine if student learning met the
null hypothesis (H0) or the alternative hypothesis (H1).
H0: µD ≥ 0 = Student performance in math will not improve after taking the course.
H1: µD < 0 = Student performance in math will improve after taking the course.
According to Gravetter and Wallnau (2007), the researcher should report the effect size when
reporting a statistically significant difference. Therefore, the researcher also measured the effect
size with the Cohen’s d test. This test was recommended by Gravetter and Wallnau and is
defined as, “measuring the mean difference in terms of the standard deviation” or Cohen’s d =
mean difference/standard deviation. (p. 257). Gravetter and Wallnau stated that Cohen’s d has a
67
small effect when 0 < d < 0.2; a medium effect when 0.2 < d < 0.8; and a large effect when d >
0.8.
Next, the leadership styles were determined. For Blake and Mouton’s (1964) instrument,
the leadership style preferred by the student was coded as a one after the students rank ordered
the paragraphs. This leadership style was then recorded as the preferred leadership style for that
faculty member.
For Avolio and Bass’s (1995) instrument, the leadership style was determined by
calculating the score for each leadership style. The leadership style that received the largest score
was recorded as the preferred leadership style for that faculty member.
Once the subjects completed both leadership instruments, then the leadership styles were
coded and entered into a spreadsheet in SPSS that contained the students’ identifier,
demographic information, pre-test score, post-test score, and the difference between these two
scores.
With this data, the researcher addressed the third research objective to compare students’
perceptions of math instructor’s leadership styles on the MLQ-5X by change in math
competency. This objective contained nesting where students in one particular class were asked
to select a leadership style from three choices, and students chose Tranformational and
Transactional leadership, while only one student chose Laissez-Faire leadership. Therefore,
Transactional and Laissez-Faire leadership were combined into one variable, Non-
Transformational. Since this objective had only two variables, Transformational and Non-
Transformational, an independent t-test instead of the one-way analysis of variance was
conducted. If the results were statistically significant with a probability of .05 or below, then the
68
Cohen’s d post hoc test would be used to measure the effect size. The null and alternative
hypotheses for research question one are as follows:
H0: µD ≥ 0 = Transformational leadership will not have more of an effect on student
performance than the other leadership styles in this theory.
H1: µD < 0 = Transformational leadership will have more of an effect on student
performance than the other leadership styles in this theory.
The fourth research objective was to compare students’ perceptions of math instructors’
leadership styles on the managerial grid by change in math competency. For this analysis, a one-
way ANOVA was conducted to compare Team, Impoverished Management, Middle-of-the-Road
management, Authority Compliance, and Country Club leadership styles with the dependent
variable. The leadership styles are from Blake and Mouton’s (1964) instrument. If a probability
of .05 or below is found to support the alternative hypothesis, then the Bonferroni post hoc will
be conducted to measure the effect size. Warner (2008) recommends the Tukey HSD test to
reduce the chance of a Type I error. However, the Tukey HSD requires the treatment groups to
be the same size. Since students are rating the leadership style of their professors, it is likely that
the groups will not be the same size. Therefore, a more conservative test called the Bonferroni
procedure can be used to limit the Type I error by limiting the alpha level by dividing it by the
number of groups in the comparison (Warner, 2008).The null and alternative hypotheses for
research objective four are as follows:
H0: µD ≥ 0 = Team leadership style will not have more of an effect on student
performance than the other leadership styles in this theory.
H1: µD < 0 = Team leadership style will have more of an effect on student performance
than the other leadership styles in this theory.
69
Table 4
Research Design
Research Objectives Independent Dependent Statistical Variable (Quasi) Variable Procedure 1. To describe students who have Summary completed a math modeling Statistics course at a community college 2. To compare students pre-test Pre-Test Paired t- and post-test scores on and Post- test and mathematics competency Test Scores Cohen’s d 3. To compare students’ perceptions Bass’ Leadership Change in of mathematics instructor’s leadership Style (MLQ) performance T-test, styles on Avolio and Bass’s (1995) Laissez-Faire from Pre-Test Cohen’s d Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire Transactional to Post-Test (MLQ-5X) by change in math competency. Transformational in MAT 106 4. To compare students’ perceptions Blake and Mouton’s Change in Analysis of math instructor’s leadership styles Leadership Style performance of on Blake and Mouton’s (1964) impoverished from Pre- Test Variance, Managerial Grid by change in math management to Post-Test Bonferroni competency. country club in MAT 106 procedure
middle-of-the-road authority-compliance
team management
These analyses answered the major objectives of this research project: First, what are the
demographics of students who have completed a mathematics modeling course at a community
college. Second, if student performance increased significantly from the pre-test to the post-test
in these mathematics modeling courses. Third, if students’ perceptions of mathematics
instructor’s leadership styles on the Multi-Factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was
significantly different due to a change in student performance. Fourth, if students’ perceptions of
mathematics instructor’s leadership styles on the Managerial Grid was significantly different due
to a change in student performance.
70
Summary
This study examined two types of preferred leadership styles, transformational and team
management, that appeared to relate to a change in student performance (Cheng, 1994; Pounder,
2008; Wallace, 2007; Yildirim, et al, 2008). The dependent variable was the change in
performance of the students measured by a difference in scores on the pre-test to post-test in
these math modeling courses. The quasi-independent variables were the measures of two
leadership styles: Blake and Mouton’s (1964) team management leadership style and Avolio and
Bass’s (1995) transformational leadership style. By using two leadership theories, the field of
leadership can be advanced (Yukl, 1999). Regardless of the results, this researcher hopes to add
to the discussion of other quantitative researchers studying this topic within the field of
leadership by conducting this quasi-experimental study in a freshmen mathematics course at a
two-year community college.
71
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to determine which leadership style,
from Blake and Mouton’s (1964) or Avolio and Bass’s (1995) theories, exhibited by teachers
best related to improving students’ performance in a first-year mathematics course at a two-year
community college. This section provides the description of the sample and the analysis
conducted for each research question.
Research Objective One
The first objective was to describe students who have completed a mathematics modeling
course at a community college. Each participant answered demographic questions regarding
gender, ethnicity, remedial mathematics courses completed, and final course grade point average.
The total sample was 64 students. These students volunteered to rate the leadership styles of the
six teachers.
Table 5 lists the demographics of this sample population. As with the overall college
population, there were more female than male students. Also like the overall college population,
Caucasian students were represented the most followed by African American students. For this
sample, 62% of the students had mathematics remediation prior to taking the math modeling
course. The overall college population’s need for remediation in the spring 2010 quarter was
63%. The mean for the final grade for the course was 2.26 with a median of 2.0, which is a “C”
average. This data demonstrated that the sample population’s demographics were relatively
similar to that of the overall college population.
72
Table 5
Description of Student Demographics
n % Gender
Male 26 40.63
Female 38 59.38
Ethnicity
Caucasian 35 54.69
African American 24 37.50
Asian 2 3.13
Hispanic 2 3.13
Other 1 1.56
Remediation Math Needed
Took a Remedial Math Course 40 62.50
Did not take a Remedial Math Course 24 37.50
Final Course Grade Point Average in Math Modeling
A = 4.0 13 20.31
B = 3.0 18 28.13
C = 2.0 16 25.00
D = 1.0 7 10.93
F = 0.0 10 15.63
73
Research Question Two
The second objective was to compare student’s pre-test and post-test scores on
mathematics competency. For this analysis, a dependent t-test was used to see if there was a
significant difference (p < .05) between the pre-test and post-test results of the math modeling
students to determine if there was an overall gain in student performance. The test scale ranged
from one point to ten points based on the number of correct answers. A significant difference
was found with a t-test score equal to t (63) = 8.21, p = .000 with a pre-test mean score of 3.17 and
a post-test mean score of 5.86. The Cohen’s d effect size was large at 1.03 with a sample mean
difference of 2.688 divided by the standard deviation of 2.618. This effect is considered to be
large since it is over 0.80 (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007).
Research Objective Three
The third research objective was to compare students’ perceptions of mathematics
instructor’s leadership styles on Avolio and Bass’s (1995) Multi-Factor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) by change in mathematics competency.
Using Avolio and Bass’s (1995) MLQ-5x instrument, the students were asked to rate
their teacher’s leadership style. This questionnaire consists of 45 questions covering
Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire leadership. The scores on the questions were
summed for each leadership style and then divided by the total number of items for that
leadership style to determine the average. The leadership style with the highest score indicated
that teacher’s leadership style. This calculation was made for each student survey to determine
the student’s rating of their teacher’s leadership style.
The dependent variable, student performance, was determined by the student’s difference
between the pre-test and the post-test score in the math modeling course. For the independent
74
variable, 33 students rated their teacher as Transformational, 30 students rated their teacher as
Transactional, but only one student rated his/her teacher as Laissez-Faire. For this objective, the
independent variables were Transformational and Non-Transformational. The Non-
Transformational variable combined students’ ratings of their teachers with the leadership styles
of Transactional and Laissez-Faire. Therefore, instead of conducting the one-way analysis of
variance, an independent t-test was used to determine if there was a difference between
Transformational leadership and non-Transformational leadership styles when compared with a
change in student performance. The test showed a non-significant result with a t (62) = -.174, p =
.862.
The Cohen’s D analysis was not conducted since the results were not significant at or below a
.05 probability level.
Research Objective Four
The fourth objective was to compare students’ perceptions of mathematics instructor’s
leadership style on Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid by change in mathematics
competency.
Students selected the Blake and Mouton (1964) leadership style of their teacher by reading
five paragraphs and ranking the paragraphs from 1 – 5. The paragraph that best matched the
leadership style of their teacher was rated as a one. Once the students had selected the leadership
style, then a one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine if these leadership styles
showed a significant difference when compared to the change in student performance. The test
showed a non-significant result with F (4, 59) = .441, p = .778, r2 = .029. Therefore, r2 indicates
that approximately 3% of a student’s gain may be linked to the leadership style as reported by
participating students. However, this gain may have occurred just by chance. The overall sample
75
size was 64. The number of responses varied depending on the leadership style. There were 23
responses for Team Leader, 12 responses for Improverished, 11 responses for Country Club, 6
responses for Middle of the Road, and 12 responses for Authority Compliance. The following
table displays the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, ANOVA result, and the
probability level.
Table 6
One-Way ANOVA Results for Research Objective Four
Source df Mean Square F p
Leadership 4 3.108 .441 .778
Within Groups 59 7.045
The post hoc analysis was not conducted since the results were not significant at or below a .05
probability level.
This chapter examined the results of all four research objectives. The demographic data
was reported on the students who have completed a mathematics modeling course at a
community college. A dependent t-test demonstrated that student performance had improved
with a large effect size. However, an independent t-test and an analysis of variance determined
that the preferred leadership styles of Avolio and Bass (1995) and Blake and Mouton (1964) did
not have a significant difference for improving student performance than the non-preferred
leadership styles.
76
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Most administrators, faculty members, and accrediting agencies share a common goal of
improving student learning; and the demand for improving student learning is becoming even
more critical. America’s educational system is reacting against the pressure of globalization and
the need to improve the workforce to keep jobs in this country (Arbuckle, 2009: Friedman,
2006). Landmark legislation like No Child Left Behind demonstrates how the government has
pressured K-12 schools for more accountability in the performance of students. This pressure
now exists at the college level by accrediting agencies like SACS (Wheelan, 2009). In this era of
accountability, colleges and professors continue to search for ways to improve student learning,
often by focusing on improving their teaching skills. Student learning has been shown to be
impacted by many factors stemming from the student, the principal, or the teacher, while other
researchers believe that separating these factors is not possible (Berliner, 1986; Campbell &
Mayer, 2008; Ford & Chen, 2001; Knighton, 2005; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Duckerich, 1985;
Shulman, 1987). However, some researchers have shown a link between teachers demonstrating
preferred and undesirable leadership styles in the classroom and factors related to student
learning (Cheng, 1994; Pounder, 2008; Wallace, 2007).
Two theories associated with teacher’s classroom leadership style have emerged in the
literature and have been correlated to factors relating to student learning: (a) Avolio and Bass’
(1995) Transformational leadership theory and (b) Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Team
Management theory. Both of these studies demonstrated a correlation between students’
perceptions of teachers’ classroom leadership styles and factors related to student learning. One
77
study conducted by Yildirim, Acar, Buli, and Sevine (2008) attempted to find a more direct
relationship between student learning and teachers’ leadership styles; but they did not provide
their instrument for replicating their experiment. While different leadership theories have been
used to examine factors related to student learning, a study examining multiple leadership
theories, as recommended by Yukl (1999), has not been used to evaluate the improvement of
students’ academic learning.
The purpose of this study was to determine if the preferred leadership style, from Blake
and Mouton’s (1964) or Avolio and Bass’s (1995) theories, affects or even relates to improving
students’ performance in a first-year mathematics course at a two-year community college.
Several research objectives were examined:
1. To describe students who have completed a mathematics modeling course at a
community college.
2. To compare students pre-test and post-test scores on mathematics competency.
3. To compare students’ perceptions of mathematics instructor’s leadership styles on Avolio
and Bass’s (1995) Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) by change in
mathematics competency.
4. To compare students’ perceptions of mathematics instructor’s leadership styles on Blake
and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid by change in mathematics competency.
Students in this study rated their teachers’ leadership styles on two scales to determine
the leadership types: one for Blake and Mouton’s theory and one for Bass and Avolio’s theory.
These leadership styles became the independent variables for the study. Their teachers also gave
these students a pre-test and a post-test to determine their mathematical ability. The difference
78
between these two scores determined the student’s performance in the class, which was the
dependent variable.
In this study the difference in the pre-test to post-test scores in the mathematics course
demonstrated a significant improvement in student performance. However, no differences were
found between the leadership styles from Avolio and Bass’s (1995) or Blake and Mouton’s
(1964) theories with student performance.
Yildirim, Acar, Buli, and Sevine (2008) found a significant effect when students rated
their teachers as exhibiting people-oriented leadership and students passing their courses. They
also found a significant effect between task-oriented leadership and students failing their courses.
Their study differed from this study in two respects. First, they did not disclose the instrument
they developed and used to measure teacher leadership. Therefore, this study could not use the
same instrument. Second, they had students measure their teacher’s leadership style after these
students knew their course grade. This second factor may have skewed their results. The students
already knew if they passed or failed the class, so their perceptions of their teacher’s leadership
could have been biased. For example, students who pass the course may rate their teacher higher
on positive items, than students who fail the course. However, Yildirim, et al. (2008) were more
interested in the students’ perceptions of their teachers’ leadership styles in relation to student
performance instead of demonstrating that teachers’ leadership styles may influence student
performance.
Wallace (2007) stated that he found a connection between teacher’s leadership styles and
student performance. Wallace’s study differed from this one in that it did not use the same
method to measure student learning and to rate teacher’s leadership styles. For student learning,
the students and the teachers completed an instrument based on Donald Kirkpatrick’s (1959)
79
survey, which also measures other factors: reaction, behavior, and results (Wallace, 2007). There
were five questions on learning in this 26-question survey. For teacher’s leadership, the students
completed Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) survey (Wallace,
2007). Instead of examining the students’ and teachers’ impressions of whether or not the student
learned the material, this study measured student performance more directly and did not find an
effect or relationship. However, the leadership instruments used differed from Wallace’s
instrument.
While this study differed from Yildirim, et al. (2008) and Wallace (2007), it
demonstrated that a more direct connection may not exist between student performance and
teacher’s leadership styles. More research is needed to investigate this connection in order to
either dismiss it or accept it. Berliner (1986) and Knighton (2005) may be right that pinpointing
what makes an expert teacher may be more difficult to determine, since student performance
involves not only the teacher’s leadership but the student’s motivation and ability as well.
Without an instrument developed to measure the leadership of teachers and not just business
leaders, this area of research is difficult to explore. Whether the area being explored is expert
teachers, teaching styles, or teachers as leaders, educational researchers have explored avenues to
try to identify teachers who are seen as the best in their field or master teaching methods as a
means to improve student performance. However, the teacher is only one component of
improving student performance; and Meindl, Ehrlich, and Duckerich (1985) may be correct that
separating teachers, students, and the group interaction that occurs in the classroom is too
complicated to isolate in a research setting in order to find ways to improve student performance.
Student performance could be influenced by a variety of factors that stem from the
teacher, the student, and the learning environment. For instance, Shulman (1987) believed that
80
knowing the subject matter and knowing how to teach the subject matter are two different but
key factors to improving student learning. The National Research Council (2000) agreed with
Shulman and stated that expert teachers must know the structure of their disciplines or the
sequence of skills needed to master a particular level and the expertise to know which areas are
harder or easier for students to master in order to create an effective learning environment.
This argument leads to another factor that can influence student learning, which is the
instructor’s style of teaching and their experience with teaching. Opdenakker and Damme (2006)
developed a questionnaire to examine the differences between teachers in three areas: (a) Learner
Style, (b) Content Style, and (c) the Classroom Management Style. They asked questions that
examined the teacher’s background, teaching behavior, educational and pedagogical framework,
the orientation towards school and education, and their life and work experience in relation to the
school environment. They wanted to explain the relevant class and teacher differences with
respect to instructional support, opportunity to learn, and class climate. They found a lot of
variance between teachers on these variables and stated that with respect to class climate and the
learning environment, the teacher seemed to matter. This study was just one of many that
examined teaching or instructional styles. Ford and Chen (2001) examined a teacher’s teaching
style and looked at whether the instruction first presented breadth of knowledge or depth of
knowledge to see which impacted student’s learning outcomes. They found students did best
when their preference was matched with the teaching style. Campbell and Mayer (2008) studied
the Socratic method of teaching and found that students exposed to this teaching method
outperformed those students who were not exposed to it. Many different types of teaching and
instructional methods exist; and researchers have found varied ways to measure their
effectiveness.
81
As an example of expertise in teaching, Borko and Livingston (1989) examined expert
and novice teaching and found that novices had difficulty with interactive teaching when they
improvised and that they took more time planning and presenting content. They were more
comfortable with passive learning than active learning. Their novice teachers were student
teachers, and the expert teachers were those with whom the novice teachers were given as
supervisors.
Teachers’ behaviors could also be an intervening variable. Grinsven and Tillema (2006)
compared different teacher and student variables to see which ones best supported student self-
regulation. This study also accounted for variables, such as autonomy, teacher behavior, student
motivation, and self-regulation in learning. They found that the variable of teachers exhibiting
supportive behaviors was an important predictor for the value that students give to a task.
Tonelson (1981) stated that the teacher’s self-concept and personality characteristics can also be
factors related to student performance.
Students also could affect their own performance in the classroom. The National
Research Council (2000) stated that learning is more than just the acquisition of facts. A student
comes into the classroom with “prior knowledge, skills, beliefs, and concepts,” and these factors
could influence how students approach and learn the material (p. 10). They provided an example
of a story about a fish who wanted to explore land, but could not. Instead, he befriended a
tadpole, who becomes a frog and brings back knowledge of people, birds, and cows. The fish
constructed this new knowledge based on his prior knowledge and envisions fish with feet, fish
with wings, and fish with udders. This story illustrated how prior knowledge could shape
students’ learning, and each student brings unique experiences into the classroom.
82
In addition, the National Research Council (2000) discussed how students can come to
the classroom as passive or active learners. Some students believe it is the teacher’s job to impart
wisdom upon them. These students are also likely to externalize their failures as the teacher’s
fault. Other students are active learners and understand that they need to take control of their
learning. They analyze their own thinking, which is referred to as metacognition (Dunlosky &
Metcalfe, 2009; Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser, 2009; Waters & Schneider, 2010).
Another factor for improving student performance dealt with motivation. Some students
are simply not motivated to learn the material and are in college due to a significant person in
their life placing pressure on them to get a college education. Raffini (1996) discussed several
ways for teachers to assist students with the development of intrinsic motivation. He stated that
intrinsic motivation is demonstrated through autonomy, competence, relatedness, self-esteem,
involvement, and enjoyment. He developed classroom strategies that incorporated Epstein’s
(1989) six structures: (a) “task structure” or design of the learning activity to engage all learning
levels; (b) “authority structure” or having the teacher share classroom control with the students;
(c) “reward structure” or the reinforcement for the students; (d) “grouping structure” or how
students are organized effectively for activities; (e) “evaluation structure” or how the goals and
intrinsic motivation are assessed; and (f) “time structure” or the amount of time allotted to an
activity (pp. 13-16). This method is just one for assisting students with the development of
intrinsic motivation in the classroom. A variety of student factors could influence student
learning; those mentioned are but a few.
The third area that could influence student learning is the learning environment. The
National Research Council (2000) recommended learning environments that are (a) “learner
centered,” (b) “knowledge centered,” (c) “assessment centered,” and (d) “community centered”
83
(p. 131). The community college for this study has had several speakers like Maryellen Weimer
discuss with the faculty abouthow to create a learner centered environment in the classroom. In
this environment, the teacher no longer plays the dominant role in learning as the lecturer.
Instead, the teacher designs activities, so that students can take an active role in the learning
process. For example, instead of a teacher taking the lead in discussing a piece of literature with
the class, each student would read the material, create a story board, discuss it with other
students, and then report out to the instructor and other students what the plot was for that story.
Regardless of the instruction in learner-centered teaching strategies, teachers may continue to
lecture in classes, since that is probably how they were taught the information, and it may be a
more comfortable atmosphere for some teachers.
This college also has brought several speakers like Richard Paul and Ron Berk to speak
to the faculty about critical thinking, which is what the National Research Center (2000) referred
to as “knowledge-centered” instruction. In fact, this college sent faculty members and
administrators to the Critical Thinking Workshop and Conference in San Francisco in the
summer of 2009. Teaching critical thinking is basically the ability to assist students with
examining and analyzing content at a more significant level in order to increase their
understanding of the topic, develop new insights, and apply this knowledge to other areas (Paul
& Elder, 2002). Again, while professors at this college have been exposed to these concepts, it
does not mean that all are using them in their classrooms. However, there is a greater likelihood
that some faculty members are while others are not.
The next learning environment mentioned by the National Research Council (2000) was
“assessment-centered environments” (p. 139). The goal was to provide as many assessment
opportunities as possible that give feedback and opportunities for revision or corrections in order
84
to increase learning. This community college’s Vice President for Academic Affairs/Dean of
Faculty has stressed the importance of assessing students frequently and with feedback. He has
discussed it numerous times at the faculty assemblies. In fact, this college developed an
academic alert program that is automated and ties to the student grade book system. As soon as a
student drops beneath a 70% average, the system places the student on academic alert.
Counselors, advisors, and teachers are then notified to assist these students in order to help them
improve their performance by identifying the problem areas and suggesting strategies. All
faculty members at this college should know that the system only works well when students are
assessed early and often. Most of the faculty at this college should have this incorporated into
their classroom environment, but it is not something that this study examined. However, it could
be another intervening factor.
The last educational environment recommended by the National Research Council (2000)
was creating a “community centered environment” (p. 144). By doing so, the professor fosters a
sense of community within the classroom. In addition, this concept also included how the
institution fosters a sense of college, local, national, and international community for the students
and its employees. Professors could influence the classroom environment based on their grading
practices. For example, a professor could create a competitive environment through grading or a
cooperative environment through group projects.
The teacher, student, and learning environment could create a complex learning situation.
All variables cannot be controlled for in a study such as this one. The leadership style of the
professor may be one variable among many that influences student learning, but trying to pull it
apart from the other dynamics may not be possible.
85
Conclusions,Concerns, and Practical Effects
Several conclusions and concerns emerged during this study with the instrumentation, the
reading level of the students, the surveying method, students rating the professors, and the
community college environment. If a pilot study with these instruments with a similar population
had been conducted prior to this study, then these concerns may have been addressed. These
concerns may need to be taken into account for future studies.
During the study, the researcher developed concerns about the instrumentation used since
it was originally developed for business leaders and not teachers as leaders. While most
statements were applicable to teachers as leaders not all statements were easily translated to the
educational environment. For instance, one statement on the Avolio and Bass (1995) instrument
asked students to rate whether their teacher “Is effective in meeting my job-related needs.” While
students could skip these questions in the Avolio and Bass instrument, they tended to answer all
of them.
Another concern arose from the Blake and Mouton (1964) instrument. One of the
teachers mentioned to me after the data was collected that some of her students were confused as
to whether they were rating themselves or the teacher, even though the instructions clearly stated
to pick the paragraph that best fit their teacher’s leadership style. This confusion may have
occurred since the paragraphs were written in first person. The point of view of the paragraphs
could be changed from first person to third person to avoid future confusion for other research
subjects.
When selecting the instruments for this study based on the background literature, several
problems arose. First, only Wallace (2007) used a leadership instrument without altering it. This
researcher explored purchasing the instrument but found the cost prohibitive. While some
86
companies will waive fees for doctoral research, this company clearly stated that they would not.
Therefore, the Multi-Factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was used instead.
Yildirim et al., (2008) and Cheng (1994) altered the instruments of others but did not
provide the altered instruments in their publications, so replicating the data using their
instruments was not possible. In all cases, the instruments used were created for business leaders
and not teachers as leaders. The only instrument that was found to exit to measure teacher’s
leadership styles was the Kaleidoscope Profile, but Yacapsin and Stick (2007) stated that they
believed the instrument to have questionable reliability and validity. Therefore, until a more
reliable instrument is developed to measure teacher’s leadership styles, this issue will remain a
problem when conducting research in this area.
Another issue with the instrumentation arose with the pre-test and post-test. When
obtaining housed data, the researcher should either obtain the actual tests in order to determine
the reliability of the instrument or obtain the reported Cronbach’s alpha. In this study, the
mathematics department did not test for reliability and provided only the final score to the
researcher. They did not review individual questions on these two tests; therefore, the reliability
could not be reported.
Another factor that concerned this researcher after conducting the survey was the reading
level of the students. This college, as an open-enrollment institution, has been concerned about
its students’ ability to read, which is one of the current focuses of their quality enhancement plan
for the Southern Association of Colleges. The college raised its reading cut score for the
Compass placement exam in the fall of 2009 based on low performance on the state reading
exam. This factor was not taken into account when this study was conducted; but after reading
the questions, the researcher wondered if students would comprehend terms and phrases used in
87
the statements, such as “articulates,” “aspirations,” and “compelling vision.” According to
Microsoft Office Word (2007), the Flesch-Kincaid grade level for Avolio and Bass’s (1995)
Multi-factor Leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was a 2.8. The Flesch Reading Ease score was
a 83.3. Based on the information provided by Microsoft Office Word (2007), the preferred
reading ease score is between 60 and 70 for most documents. While the grade level was low, the
readability was above the normal range.
For Blake and Mouton’s (1964) paragraph rankings, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level was a
6.6 and the Flesch Reading Ease score was 66.8, which falls in the normal range. However, the
students at this open enrollment institution can place into a lower level reading course and be
reading at the sixth grade level or below while they are taking this mathematics course. Reading
is not a pre-requisite for this course at this college.
Therefore, this researcher went back to the sample population to determine how many
students placed in developmental reading courses. Out of 64 students only six were placed in
developmental reading. Of these six students, five of them had completed their developmental
reading course before taking this mathematics course. Regardless of the low number of students
placing in developmental reading in this sample, the reading level of the instruments should be
checked against the sample population when conducted at an open enrollment institution in order
to account for this variable.
Another concern that arose while conducting this study was the sample size. While the
researcher emailed the students three times requesting volunteers and informed the teachers
ahead of time about the survey, very few students completed the online survey. After conducting
the study, this researcher mentioned the low sample size to the Vice President of Institutional
Research and Planning; and she said that this is not unusual. She stated that she rarely gives
88
online surveys because the completion rate is so low. She prefers to give surveys in class because
the students tend to complete them if given class time. The vast majority of these students are
commuter students. While the sample size was large enough to use for research purposes, a
larger sample size may have allowed the researcher to have at least ten samples for each
leadership style, which would have altered the method of analysis. Because the sample size for
Avolio and Bass’s (1995) leadership styles only had one teacher rated as Laissez-Faire, an
analysis of variance could not be conducted using all three variables. Instead, the researcher had
to use a t-test using transformational and non-transformational variables: Transactional and
Laissez-Faire grouped together.
Even with the incentive of winning a gift card, the students were not sufficiently
motivated to complete the survey. In the future, this researcher will administer surveys within the
class with the teacher’s permission in hope of increasing the rate of participation. During this
study, the researcher also noticed that this community college environment did not lend itself
well to conducting research.
The leadership literature indicated that the leadership style should be determined by the
subject and not the leader, since leaders tend to see themselves as perfect leaders without a
background in leadership theories and criticism from others (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Judge et
al., 2006 ). However, having students rate the teacher’s leadership styles may have added another
dynamic. The relationship between teacher and student may have influenced the student’s ratings
of his/her teacher. Future researchers may want to consider having the teachers rate their own
leadership styles as well as having the students rate the teachers.
While agreeable to allowing the research to be conducted, the teachers did not outwardly
demonstrate enthusiasm for mentioning this research experience to their students and did not
89
appear to perceive it as an opportunity to incorporate it into their learning environment. In
addition, the students did not seem receptive to participating in the study. The college did not
have a formal approval process for allowing graduate students to conduct a research project. This
process was created by the college for this study. The students and teachers at this college were
not exposed previously to research coming from outside the college.
These issues may or may not change the outcome of this study if replicated, but the issues
may need to be addressed to allay any concerns. Future researchers may develop an instrument
for teacher’s leadership styles, which would assist this field in its endeavor to explore any
connections that may exist between teacher’s leadership and student performance. If the study is
aimed at the community college level, then other factors may need to be addressed, such as the
reading level of the students, the remediation needed by the students, and the method of
surveying the students in order to increase participation.
This study also had some practical effects for this researcher. Throughout the dissertation
process, this researcher’s philosophy of education gradually changed. At the beginning, I focused
on how teachers improve student’s classroom performance. By the end of the study, my
philosophy focused on how students learn and what we, as teachers and administrators, can do to
assist students in the learning process.
As a faculty member and later as an administrator, I have attended many workshops that
focused on how to improve teaching styles. My focus was solely on how the teacher could
convey the content as a means to improve student performance. Through this study, I realized
that the teacher is only a part of the equation. The student and learning environment also pay a
major role.
90
For example, in my administrative duties, I am now over tutoring and disability services.
Instead of teaching tutors how to be better tutors, I have started reading about metacognition,
active learning, and how students learn. Instead of having tutors and teachers pay attention to
how students perform and learn, I realized the importance of having my teachers and tutors
provide guidance to students in order for them to learn how to monitor their own learning and to
take an active role in the classroom to improve their own performance. Students should be taught
how to take ownership of their learning instead of teachers and tutors learning new ways to teach
the course material.
These same principles can be applied to disability services. Student accessability has
become a new issue for me. I am now aware that all students do not mentally access the material
the same way. Teachers and staff and others have no trouble seeing why a student with a visual
or hearing impairement may need accommodations to access the material in order for them to
learn it or to alter the testing environment for them to report what they have learned. However,
they do not seem to understand that learning disabled students also have difficulty accessing the
material to learn or needing alternative testing in order to report what they have learned. They
are not less intelligent and are not receiving special privileges. Not all students process
information the same way. Teachers and staff need to understand that difference and need to help
students understand that difference. Some students never report their learning disability because
they are ashamed of it and do not understand why they are not like the majority of their peers.
Therefore, they sit in the classroom failing, and the teacher either tries to help and does not
understand why their strategies are not working or they simply give up.
While my philosophy of education has changed, I am also more cautious of mandatory
workshops that focus solely on improving teaching. I believe that teachers and staff cannot be
91
trained to improve one variable without considering how to help the students improve their own
learning and how the learning environment may impact student performance.
Recommendations for Future Studies
For future studies in the area of teachers as leaders, this researcher would recommend
developing a survey instrument that measures teacher’s leadership styles instead of adapting a
business survey to the educational environment. Wallace (2007) did have significant results with
the Kouzes and Posner (2002) survey, so it may be more compatible with the educational
environment. However, both Yildirim et al. (2008) and Cheng (1994) had to adapt other
leadership instruments in order to use them in their studies.
If conducting the research at an open-enrollment community college, the researcher may
want to take into account the reading ability and mathematical ability of the students. This
college did not demonstrate a significant difference in the performance of the remedial and non-
remedial students in the math modeling classes. However, significant results between the
performances of these two groups in the college algebra classes were found in a study conducted
by the college. Both groups, needing remediation and not needing remediation, performed
similarly on the college algebra pre-test, F (4, 250) = 2.23, p = .09 (Isaac & Kallina, 2010).
However, the group not needing remediation outperformed the group needing remediation on the
college algebra post-test F (4, 250) = 3.004, p = .03 (Isaac & Kallina, 2010). Therefore,
depending on the mathematics class or the success of the developmental program of that college,
a difference in student performance may occur.
The reading level of the instrument should probably be established as well as the reading
level of the students in order to eliminate the probable factor that students may not be able to
comprehend the statements or the vocabulary used in the surveys.
92
This study also focused on the teacher’s leadership style as perceived by the student; but
did not focus on the teacher, student, and classroom environmental factors that may have
contributed to the learning environment. While controlling for all of the possible variables may
be impossible, the researcher may want to control for at least some of the ones discussed in this
chapter.
Summary
While this study did not demonstrate significant results between teacher’s leadership
styles and student performance, it provided a platform for future studies wanting to investigate
these areas. It also outlined various concerns that may need to be addressed in future studies,
such as developing or selecting the instrument used to measure the teacher’s leadership style,
measuring the reading level of the students and comparing it to the reading level of the
instrument, and considering the survey method to increase participation. If the students are from
a community college, then future studies may want to take into account the remediation needed
for areas like mathematics and whether the remediation brought the students to the same level of
performance as those who tested out of remediation when both groups enter the course and work
their way through the course. The trend in the educational literature has evolved from looking at
the teacher’s traits, to how the teacher teaches, to how students learn (Crebbin, 2004). This study
focused on the teacher in relation to student learning but did not take into account the student’s
motivation, learning ability, or classroom environment, which may need to be considered in
future studies.
While this study may appear to revert to examining a collection of teacher’s traits, the
leadership literature in the workplace has shown that performance can be improved based on
leadership style (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Howell & Frost, 1989; Keller, 2006;
93
Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006). Researchers have started examining this connection
with research and finding relationships between teacher’s leadership styles and student
performance (Cheng, 1994; Pounder, 2008; Wallace, 2007; Yildirim, et al., 2008). While the
expert teacher may not exist as Berliner (1986) argues, it does not mean that teachers are not
connected to improving student performance. Some teachers may resist the idea that their
performance may relate to their students’ performances, especially as institutions and accrediting
agencies look for measures of improving student learning. However, somewhere in the middle
may lay the connection between teacher’s leadership styles and students being motivated and
capable of learning. This study has attempted to take a step closer to examining that issue.
Whether or not the teacher can be isolated from other variables influencing student performance
waits to be seen as researchers continue to explore this area of study.
94
REFERENCES
Abbott, R. D., O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F.
(1998, October). Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to
school. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 542-552. doi:10.1037/h0080363
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Arbuckle, M. (2009, May 3). Globalization demands an investment in U. S. education.
Greensboro News and Record, p. H1.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’ and
subordinates’ perceptions of military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645-668.
doi:10.1177/001872679304600504
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire rater form (5x-short). Palo
Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Baird, L. L. (1973). Teaching styles: An exploratory study of dimensions and effects. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 64(1), 15-21. doi:10.1037/h0034058
Bass, B. M. (1985, Winter). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Psychology, 13(3),
26-40. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
95
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Revised manual for the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/jOP%5F1.cfm.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207-218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New
Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Educational relevance of the study of expertise.
Interchange, 17(2), 10-19. doi: 10.1007/BF01807464
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Bernardin, H. J., & Alvares, K. M. (1976, March). The managerial grid as a predictor of conflict
resolution method and managerial effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1),
84-92. doi:10.2307/2391879
Bess, J. L., & Goldman, P. (2001, Winter). Leadership ambiguity in universities and K-12
schools and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly,
12(4), 419-450. Retrieved from http://www.jaipress.com/
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
96
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1979, October). Principles of behavior for sound management.
Training and Development Journal, 33(10), 26-28. Retrieved from
http://www.astd.org/TD/
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1982, February). How to choose a leadership style. Training and
Development Journal, 36(2), 39-47. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/TD/
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Bons, P. M., & Fiedler, F. E. (1976, September). Changes in organizational leadership and the
behavior of relationship and task-motivated leaders. Administrative Science Quarterly,
21, 453-473. doi:10.2307/2391854
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics
instruction by expert and novice. American Educational Research Association, 26(4),
473-498. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1162861
Brophy, J. (1986, October). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist,
41(10), 1069-1077. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1069
Brown, E. T., Molfese, V. J., & Molfese, P. (2008). Preschool student learning in literacy and
mathematics: Impact of teacher experience, qualifications, and beliefs on an at-risk
sample. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 106-126. doi:
10.1080/10824660701860474
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect
learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 747-759. doi:
10.1002/acp.1513
97
Cantrell, R. P., Stenner, A. J., & Katzenmeyer, W. G. (1977). Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and
classroom teaching correlates of student achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69(2), 172-179. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.69.2.172
Carnell, E. (2007, February). Conceptions of effective teaching in higher education: Extending
the boundaries. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 25-40.
doi:10.1080/13562510601102081
Casimir, G., Waldman, D. A., Bartram, T., & Yang, S. (2006). Trust and the relationship
between leadership and follower performance: Opening the black box in Australia and
China. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(3), 68-84.
doi:10.1177/107179190601200305
Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Teacher leadership style: A classroom-level study. Journal of Educational
Administration, 32(3), 54-71. doi:10.1108/09578239410063111
Cherry, R. D., & Meyer, P. R. (1993). Reliability issues in holistic assessment. In M. M.
Williamson and B. A. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment:
Theoretical and empirical foundations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). (2008).
The principles of accreditation: Foundations for quality enhancement (3rd ed.). Accessed
on 16 April 2009 from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/2008PrinciplesofAccreditation.pdf
Coulter, C. W., & Rimanoczy, R. S. (1955). A layman’s guide to educational theory. New York,
NY: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Crebbin, W. (2004). Quality teaching and learning. New York, NY: Peter Long Publishing.
98
De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004, November). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
effectiveness: Moderating the role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140-155. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2001). A meta-analysis to review organizational
outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
17(4), 356-371. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00234.x
Dinham, S. (2007, November). How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for
teacher learning, student success and school renewal. Australian Journal of Education,
51(3), 263-275.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in a revolutionary process.
New York: Free Press.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (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). Oxford, UK: JAI/Elsevier.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002, August). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. The Academy
of Management Journal, 45(4), 735-744. doi:10.2307/3069307
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003, July). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
99
Engen, M. L., Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context and leadership styles: A
field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 581-598.
Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/jOP%5F1.cfm
Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: a developmental perspective. In
C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education (Vol. 3). New York:
Academic Press.
Farris, G. F., & Lim, F. G. (1969). Effects of performance on leadership, cohesiveness,
influence, satisfaction, and subsequent performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
53(6), 490-497. doi:10.1037/h0028666
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning
and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5-22.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. (2nd ed.).
New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Garson, G. D. (2009). [web site]. Structural equation modeling: statnotes, from North Carolina
state university. Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm
Goodwin, C. J. (2010). Research in psychology: Methods and design (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley and Sons.
Gordon, J. R. (1999). Organizational behavior: A diagnostic approach (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2007). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. (7th ed.)
Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
100
Grinsven, L., & Tillema, H. (2006). Learning opportunities to support student self-regulation:
comparing different instructional formats. Educational Research, 48(1), 77-91. doi:
10.1080/00131880500498495
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2007). Instructional leadership in three Australian
schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 20-29. Retrieved
from http://www.educationpublishing.com/
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Handbook of Metacognition in Education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982, May). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training
and Development Journal, 36(5), 50-53. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/TD/
Herszenhorn, D. M. (2006, December 15). Expert panel proposes far-reaching redesign of the
American education system. The New York Times, p. 33.
Hofman, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 509-522. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.509
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Crosscurrents in leadership (pp. 164-200). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
101
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90052-6
Hunt, J. G. (1999, Summer). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the
field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00015-6
Isaac, S., & Kallina, W. (2010). Quality Enhancement Plan Report. Unpublished manuscript,
Georgia Military College.
Israel, G. D. (2009). Determining sample size. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007, May). Effective teaching results in increased
science achievement for all students. Science Education, 91(3), 371-383.
doi:10.10021sce.20195
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of
the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance,
leadership, task and conceptual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762-
776. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for
leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202-210. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.202
Keys, B. (1977, April). The management of learning grid for management development. The
Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 289-297. doi:10.2307/257910
102
Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000, Fall). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of
personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAS.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 27-51. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/home/main.mpx
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American
Society of Training Directors, 13, 3-9. doi: 10.1037/a0007601
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996, February). Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(1), 36-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.36
Knighton, J. (2005). The development of expertise in teaching: A situated learning perspective.
(Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 2004). Dissertation Abstract International,
65(11-A), 3154822.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16, 319-333. doi:10.1002/job.4030160404
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lamb, R. A., & Busse, C. A. (1983, February). Leadership beyond lip service. Roeper Review,
5(3), 21-23. doi:10.1080/02783198309552696
Lammers, W. J., & Smith, S. M. (2008). Learning factors in the university classroom: Faculty
and student perspectives. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 61-70.
doi:10.1080/00986280802004586
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw Hill.
103
Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor
model and team performance in typical maximum contexts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(4), 610-621.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Quarterly, 30, 78-102. doi:10.2307/2392813
Microsoft Office Word. (2007). [Computer software.] Bellevue, WA: Microsoft.
Molero, F., Cuadrado, I., Navas, M., & Morales, J. F. (2007, November). Relations and effects of
transformational leadership: A comparative analysis with traditional leadership styles.
The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 358-368.
Muñoz, M. A., & Chang, F. C. (2007). The elusive relationship between teacher characteristics
and student academic growth: A longitudinal multilevel model for change. Journal of
Perspective Evaluation Education, 20, 147-164. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9054-4
Nakamura, A. (2007, January 5). Return to rigid school system hit. The Japan Times, A1.
Naser, K., & Peel, M. J. (1998, January). An exploratory study of the impact of intervening
variables on student performance in a principles of accounting course. Accounting
Education, 7(3), 209-223.
National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
104
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishers.
Opdenakker, M., & Damme, J. (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as
effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education,
22, 1-21. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008
Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your
Professional and Personal Life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Peterson, M. F., & Cooke, R. A. (1983). Attitudinal and contextual variables explaining teachers’
leadership behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 50-62.
doi:10.1037//0022-0663.75.1.50
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104-112.
doi:10.2307/257611
Pile, S. (1988). Visionary leadership: Creating a generative internal map. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles.
Pounder, J. S. (2008). Transformational leadership: Practicing what we teach in the management
classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 2-6. Retrieved from
http://www.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/
Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational leadership, job
characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19(1),
1-22. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1901-1
Raffini, J. P. (1996). 150 Ways to Increase Intrinsic Motivation in the Classroom. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
105
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about self: Short-term benefits and long-
term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 340-352.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.340
Rosenthal, D. B., & Hautaluoma, J. (1988, October). Effects of importance of issues, gender, and
power of contenders on conflict management. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(5), 699-
702. doi:10.1080/00224545.1988.9922926
Rosenthal, R. (1994, December). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 176-179. doi:10.1111/1467-8721
Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006, December). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633. doi:10.1016/j.leagua.2006.10.005
Schmickle, S. (1998, January 11). Chile links trade with its schools: As a means to prosperity,
spending on education has doubled, and students are required to spend more time in the
classroom. Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities, p. 18A.
Shea, C. M., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory
study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3),
375-396. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00020-X
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374-384.
doi:10.1037//0022-0663.90.3.374
Stodgill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.
Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
106
Studenmund, A. H. (2005). Using econometrics: A practical guide. (5th ed.) Boston, MA:
Addison Wesley Publishers.
Tallmadge, G. K., & Shearer, J. W. (1969). Relationships among learning styles, instructional
methods, and the nature of learning experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology,
60(3), 222-230. doi:10.1037//h0027623
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1978, June). Comparison of four instruments measuring
conflict behavior. Psychological Reports, 42(3), 1139-1145.
Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 41, 1-32.
doi:10.1037/10049-016
Tonelson, S. W. (1981). The importance of teacher self concept to create a healthy psychological
environment for learning. Education, 102(1), 96-100.
van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995, April). Managing conflict with a
subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(2), 271-281. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.80.2.271
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005, January). Leaders’ self-sacrifice and
leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(1), 23-37. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25
Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and
transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-
goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 71-
82. doi:10.1348/096317907X202482
107
Volkema, R. J., & Bergmann, T. J. (1995, February). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral
patterns in interpersonal conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 5-15.
doi:10.1080/00224545.1995.9711395
Wallace, J. M. (2007). The relationship of leadership behaviors with follower performance: A
study of alternative schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2007).
Dissertation Abstract International, 67(7-A), 3227480.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its
influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs.
Personnel Psychology, 61, 793-825. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00131.x
Wang, L. (2007). Sources of leadership self-efficacy: Follower feedback and group performance
outcomes. International Journal of Business Research, 7(6), 140-148.
Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Waters, H. S., & Schneider, W. (2010). Metacognition, Strategy Use, and Instruction. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Wheelan, B. (2009, January 21). Preparing for accreditation review at a community college.
Magna’s Online Seminar.
Wood, A. W. (2005). Kant. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Yacapsin, M., & Stick, S. L. (2007, February). Study discovers link between an instructor’s
leadership type and teaching styles in the higher education classroom. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED495250). Online submission.
108
Yildirim, O., Acar, A. C., Buli, S., & Sevine, L. (2008, January). Relationships between
teachers’ perceived leadership style, students’ learning style, and academic achievement:
A study on high school students. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 73-81.
doi:10.1080/01443410701417945
Ylimaki, R. M. (2007). Instructional leadership in challenging US schools. International Studies
in Educational Administration, 35(3), 11-19. Retrieved on
http://www.educationpublishing.com/
Yukl, G. A. (1999, Summer). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2
109
APPENDIX A
GMC MASTER SYLLABUS FOR MAT 106, MATH MODELING
GMC Master Syllabus for MAT 106, Math Modeling
This master syllabus is a guide for the professor. IT IS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO STUDENTS.
Faculty member’s name, Quarter and year
Office Location, Office Hours, E-Mail Address, Office Phone Number MAT 106 Intro to Mathematical Modeling (revised May 2009) Prerequisite: Satisfactory score on the math placement exam or completion of MAT 099 with a grade of “C” or better. Quarter Hours: 5 Course Description: This course is designed as an alternative to college algebra for those students who will not require calculus in their future study. This course is an introduction to mathematical modeling using graphical, numerical, symbolic, and verbal techniques to describe and explore real-world phenomena. Completion of this course with a grade of “C” or better
will establish math competency which is required for graduation. A student who
successfully completes MAT 109 for the Essential Skills requirement cannot use MAT 106
to satisfy the Math/Science elective.
Student Learning Outcomes:
A student successfully completing this course will be able to: 1. Create and use linear, quadratic, polynomial, exponential, and logarithmic models of real-
world phenomena. 2. Know, use, and understand functional notation and the graphs of functions. 3. Solve applied problems using the models described above as well as other techniques. 4. Use appropriate technology to solve mathematical problems.
Course Materials: List text(s) and E Library address (www.gmc.cc.ga.us/elibrary). All texts
must be selected from the approved textbook list. Make a statement regarding any support items
such as lab manual, study aid, required readings, reserved materials, supplements, etc. and why
they are important to the class.
Methodologies of Instruction and Learning/Assessment: Teacher will include discussion of
the style of presentation of course material and student activities to be used. State how you will
assess the Student Learning Outcomes in this course. Teacher will tie assessment to Student
Learning Outcomes and explain calculation of final course grade.
110
The following information must be included: A: 90-100 B: 80-89 C: 70-79 D: 65-69 F: 64 and below Any grade review must be initiated with the faculty member, division chair, or assistant dean within thirty days of the end of the grading period in which the grade was reported. Students with disabilities for which accommodations may be required must notify the instructor during the first week of class if they wish to benefit from any accommodations. Arrangements for accommodations are made through the Disabilities Officer in Student Personal Services. Administrative Procedures:
A. Completion of the drop/add process and the withdrawal process is the responsibility of the student.
Procedure A above must be included as written; additional policies that must be stated in this
section include:
B. Maximum number of absences allowed before withdrawal for non-attendance.
C. Specific tardy policy.
D. Policy for make-up work.
E. Other specific policies and requirements for the class.
Ethics: GMC emphasizes character and ethical behavior in all aspects of the curriculum. During the quarter, ethical issues/dilemmas will be discussed as they pertain to mathematics. Teachers will
include some type of activity in this area. Since the primary goal of education is to increase one’s own knowledge, academic dishonesty will not be tolerated at GMC. Students and faculty are expected to abide by the GMC Honor
Code: I will neither lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do. Within the first week of classes,
all faculty (full-time and adjunct) are to discuss The GMC Honor Code in all their classes.
111
APPENDIX B
MATH MODELING PRE-TEST
MATH MODELING PRE-TEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Choice. Place the letter of the best choice in the blank. Use CAPITAL letters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____ 1. The number of country clubs in a small country is given by t
etC
427.01001
3)(
−
+
= hundred clubs where
t is the number of years since 1980, 250 ≤≤ t . Which of the following statements about C(t) is TRUE?
A. C(t) is an increasing function and the number of clubs will approach 100 as the years increase.
B. C(t) is a decreasing function and the number of clubs will approach 300 as the years increase
C. C(t) is an increasing function and the number of clubs will approach 300 as the years increase
D. C(t) is a decreasing function and the number of clubs will approach 100 as the years increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____ 2. The cost C, in dollars, of operating a certain car that gets 28 miles per gallon is a function of the price g,
in dollars per gallon, of gasoline and the distance d, in miles that you drive. The formula is
28),(
gddgC = .
Which one of the following statements is TRUE?
A. g and d are both dependent variables and C is the independent variable.
B. g and d are both independent variables and C is the dependent variable.
C. C and d are both dependent variables and g is the independent variable
D. C and g are both independent variables and d is the dependent variable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112
3. Which of the following defines y as a function of x?
A. The correspondence: B. The graph: C. The set
of ordered pairs (x, y):
x y
{(3, 4), (-2, 5), (4, 6), (3, 6)}
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____ 4. xxW ln743.4321.1)( += centimeters models the length of an average earthworm where x is its age in
weeks, x>0. Evaluate the model at x = 2. Circle the letter of the choice below that gives the best
interpretation of your result.
A. The average 2-week old earthworm will be about 1.154 cm long.
B. The average 4.6-week old earthworm will be about 2 cm long.
C. The average 1.154-week old earthworm will be about 2 cm long.
D. The average 2-week old earthworm will be about 4.609 cm long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5-6. 102.0)( −= xxP hundred dollars represents the profit of a group that sells raffle tickets where x is the
number of tickets sold, 0≥x .
_____5 .How many tickets must be sold for the group to break even?
A. 10 B. 50 C. 100 D. cannot be determined from the given information
_____6 .Give a practical interpretation for the parameter 0.2 in the function )(xP .
A. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit increases by 2 dollars.
B. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit increases by 20 dollars.
C. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit increases by 200 dollars.
D. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit decreases by 1000 dollars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113
_____7. In early 2006, a new Jeep Wrangler Sport Edition sold for $23,970. The value of the Jeep was projected to decrease by 25% each year for the next ten years.
Complete the model: “______________________ dollars gives the value of a Jeep Wrangler Sport
Edition, where x is the number of years after 2006, 100 ≤≤ x .”
A. xxV 25.0970,23)( −= B. xxV 5.5992970,23)( −=
C. )25.1(970,23)( xxV = D. )75.0(970,23)( xxV =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____8 .Which type of function would best model the data whose scatter plot is shown along with the first
differences (L3), second differences (L4),
and percentage change (L5) for the data.
(Note that the input data values were
evenly spaced so these calculations have
meaning.)
A. linear B. quadratic
C. exponential D. cubic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____9 .The value of an antique armoire is given by )24.1(975)( xxV = dollars, where x is the number of years
past 1999. Which of the following statements about V(x) is TRUE?
A. The value of the armoire increases by 124 dollars each year past 1999.
B. The value of the armoire increases by 124% each year past 1999.
C. The value of the armoire increases by 24 dollars each year past 1999.
D. The value of the armoire increases by 24% each year past 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114
_____10.Between the years 1995 and 2007, the city of Milledgeville’s population can be modeled by P(t) thousand
people, where t is the number of years after 1990. Which one of the following statements is TRUE?
A. P(6) is interpolation and P(15) is extrapolation. B. P(6) is interpolation and P(15) is
interpolation.
C. P(6) is extrapolation and P(15) is extrapolation D. P(6) is extrapolation and P(15) is
interpolation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
115
APPENDIX C
MATH MODELING POST-TEST
MATH 106 Post-Test
Multiple Choice. Place the letter of the best choice in the blank. Use CAPITAL letters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____ 1. The number of country clubs (in hundreds) in a small country is given by t
etC
427.01001
4)(
−
+
= where
t is the number of years since 1985, 250 ≤≤ t . Which of the following statements about C(t) is TRUE?
A. C(t) is an increasing function and the number of clubs will approach 100 as the years increase.
B. C(t) is a decreasing function and the number of clubs will approach 400 as the years increase
C. C(t) is an increasing function and the number of clubs will approach 400 as the years increase
D. C(t) is a decreasing function and the number of clubs will approach 100 as the years increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____ 2. The cost C, in dollars, of operating a certain car that gets 25 miles per gallon is a function of the price g,
in dollars per gallon, of gasoline and the distance d, in miles that you drive. The formula is
25),(
gddgC = .
Which one of the following statements is TRUE?
A. C and d are both dependent variables and g is the independent variable
B. C and g are both independent variables and d is the dependent variable
C. g and d are both dependent variables and C is the independent variable.
D. g and d are both independent variables and C is the dependent variable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
116
_____ 3. Which of the following defines y as a function of x?
A. The correspondence: B. The graph: C. The set
of ordered pairs (x, y):
x y
Domain Range
{(3, 4), (-2, 5), (4, 7), (3, 7)}
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____4. xxW ln743.4321.1)( += centimeters models the length of an average earthworm where x is its age in
weeks, x>0. Evaluate the model at x = 2. Circle the letter of the choice below that gives the best
interpretation of your result.
A. The average 2-week old earthworm will be about 1.154 cm long.
B. The average 4.6-week old earthworm will be about 2 cm long.
C. The average 1.154-week old earthworm will be about 2 cm long.
D. The average 2-week old earthworm will be about 4.609 cm long.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5-6. 183.0)( −= xxP represents the profit of a group that sells raffle tickets (in hundreds of dollars), where
x is the number of tickets sold, 0≥x .
_____5 .How many tickets must be sold for the group to break even?
A. 18 B. 30 C. 60 D. cannot be determined from the given information
117
_____6 .Give a practical interpretation for the parameter 0.3 in the function )(xP .
A. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit increases by $3.
B. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit increases by $18.
C. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit increases by $300.
D. For each additional raffle ticket sold, the group’s profit decreases by $18.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____7. In early 2006, a new Jeep Wrangler Sport Edition sold for $23,970. The value of the Jeep was projected to decrease by 25% each year for the next ten years.
Complete the model: “______________________ gives the value of a Jeep Wrangler Sport Edition (in
dollars), where x is the number of years after 2006, 100 ≤≤ x .”
A. xxV 25.0970,23)( −= B. xxV 5.5992970,23)( −=
C. )25.1(970,23)( xxV = D. )75.0(970,23)( xxV =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____8 .Which type of function would best model the data whose scatter plot is shown along with the first
differences (L3), second differences (L4),
and percentage change (L5) for the data.
(Note that the input data values were
evenly spaced so these calculations have
meaning.)
A. linear B. quadratic
C. exponential D. cubic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____9 .The value of an antique armoire is given by )28.1(985)( xxV = dollars, where x is the number of years
past 2009. Which of the following statements about V(x) is TRUE?
A. The value of the armoire increases by $128 each year past 2009.
B. The value of the armoire increases by 128% each year past 2009.
C. The value of the armoire increases by $28 each year past 2009.
D. The value of the armoire increases by 28% each year past 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118
_____10.Between the years 1995 and 2007, the population in Cherrylog, Georgia, can be modeled by P(t) thousand
people, where t is the number of years after 1990. Which one of the following statements is TRUE?
A. P(6) is interpolation and P(15) is extrapolation. B. P(6) is interpolation and P(15) is
interpolation.
C. P(6) is extrapolation and P(15) is extrapolation D. P(6) is extrapolation and P(15) is
interpolation.
119
APPENDIX D
MIND GARDEN PERMISSION LETTER FOR MLQ-5R
For use by Susan Isaac only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on April 22, 2010
www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyright material; Instrument: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Authors: Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
Copyright: 1995 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
for his/her thesis research. Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal, thesis, or dissertation. The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other published material. Sincerely,
Robert Most Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com
120
APPENDIX E
IRB PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY