UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) The effect of ... · Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). Based on these ﬁndings, we predicted in hypothesis 1 that sense of self-efﬁcacy would have

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

The effect of teacher psychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’professional learning in Dutch schools

Geijsel, F.P.; Sleegers, P.J.C.; Stoel, R.D.; Krüger, M.L.

Published in:The Elementary School Journal

DOI:10.1086/593940

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological, schoolorganizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The ElementarySchool Journal, 109(4), 406-427. https://doi.org/10.1086/593940

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 18 Mar 2021

https://doi.org/10.1086/593940

https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/the-effect-of-teacher-psychological-school-organizational-and-leadership-factors-on-teachers-professional-learning-in-dutch-schools(6b594359-51ee-4517-a925-ebfa62381793).html

https://doi.org/10.1086/593940

The Effect of TeacherPsychological andSchool Organizationaland LeadershipFactors on Teachers’Professional Learningin Dutch Schools

Femke P. GeijselPeter J. C. SleegersReinoud D. StoelMeta L. KrugerUniversity of Amsterdam

Abstract

In this study we examined the relative impor-tance of teachers’ psychological states, schoolorganizational conditions (teacher collaborationand participative decision making), and theleadership practices (vision, individual consid-eration, and intellectual stimulation) of princi-pals at their schools in explaining variation inteachers’ professional learning. We examinedteachers’ learning by focusing on their partici-pation in the following professional learning ac-tivities: keeping up to date (or collecting newknowledge and information), experimentation,reflective practice, and innovation. The data weused came from the Dutch School ImprovementQuestionnaire consisting of 54 items adminis-tered to teachers from 18 Dutch primary schools(grades 1–8). To test our theoretical model, datafrom 328 teachers were analyzed using struc-tural equation modeling. As expected, resultsshowed that psychological factors (teachers’sense of self-efficacy and internalization ofschool goals into personal goals) had strongeffects on teachers’ participation in the profes-sional learning activities. Furthermore, differen-tial effects of leadership practices and organiza-tional conditions on the 2 psychological factorsand the professional learning activities werefound. To better understand change mecha-nisms in schools and based on our findings, westress the need to conduct research using mod-els that contain factors at both the school andteacher levels.

Research on school change has shown thataltering teachers’ practices is extremely dif-ficult (Fullan, 2002). In their efforts to un-derstand the complexity of educationalchange, researchers have reconceptualizedteacher change by using perspectives inwhich teacher learning in the context of theschool is considered a key component ofschool improvement (Bransford, Brown, &

The Elementary School JournalVolume 109, Number 4© 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0013-5984/2009/10904-0005$10.00

Cocking, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2000;Smylie & Hart, 1999). According to Clarkeand Hollingsworth (2002), views of teach-ers as learners and schools as learning com-munities are both fundamental to theseperspectives. As a consequence, the capac-ity of schools to enhance professional learn-ing of teachers and transform large-scalereform into accountable student-orientedteaching practice has become a major focusin recent research (Hopkins, 2001; Sleegers,Bolhuis, & Geijsel, 2005; Smylie, 1995; Toole& Louis, 2002).

In line with this focus, a wide range ofstudies of organizational learning, profes-sional learning communities, and schoolsas learning organizations have been con-ducted (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999;Leithwood & Louis, 1998; Silins, Mulford,& Zarins, 2002). Many of these studies haveused a system theory of change that linksstructural, cultural, and political dimen-sions of school workplace environments toprofessional learning. Results have shownthat school organizational conditions suchas participative decision making, teaming,teacher collaboration, an open and trustfulclimate, and transformational leadershipcan foster teachers’ professional learning inschools.

Although these studies have suggestedthat schools can be supportive environ-ments for professional learning, researchershave largely ignored the role of teachers’psychological states in explaining theirlearning. Research that has examined theinfluence of psychological states on teacherlearning, however, has shown that individ-ual factors such as personal teaching effi-cacy, teacher autonomy and perceived con-trol, and teachers’ sense making affectteachers’ learning (Coburn, 2004; Richard-son & Placier, 2001; Spillane, Reiser, & Rei-mer, 2002; van Veen, 2003).

Systematic research in which organiza-tional and psychological antecedents ofteachers’ professional learning are exam-ined in combination is missing (Kwakman,2003; Smylie, 1988; Smylie, Lazarus, &

Brownlee-Conyers, 1996). The results of thefew available studies have show that indi-vidual factors have relatively large effectson learning. The influence of dimensions ofschool workplace environments on profes-sional learning appears to be mediated bypsychological factors. To increase the un-derstanding of teachers’ learning in theworkplace and the implications of learningfor school reform, more research is neededon the interplay between psychological fac-tors and organizational conditions (Rich-ardson & Placier, 2001; Smylie, 1988).

This study aimed to contribute to thisline of research by examining the relativeimportance of school organizational condi-tions and leadership practices and teachers’psychological states in explaining variationin teachers’ professional learning. We usedtheories of adult learning and changewithin organizations and research onteacher cognitions, workplace conditions,and leadership to identify several organiza-tional and psychological factors that affectteacher learning. We present a structuralmodel that hypothesizes relations amongthese variables and teacher learning. Thismodel was tested using data from 328teachers in 18 Dutch primary schools.

Teachers’ Professional LearningAcross theories of adult learning, a rela-tively consistent view of learning in theworkplace has emerged (Jarvis, 1987; Mar-sick & Watkins, 1990; Smylie, 1995). Smylie(1995) reviewed adult learning theories forunderstanding teachers’ professional learn-ing and school reform and concluded that,in most adult learning theories, learning inthe workplace is seen as an active and con-structive process that is problem oriented,grounded in social settings and circum-stances, and takes place throughout adults’lives. Inspired by this view and in line withsituated cognitive perspectives on learning(Anderson, Greeno, Reder, & Simon, 2000;Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Kwakman,

TEACHERS’ LEARNING 407

2003; Putnam & Borko, 2000), we viewteacher learning as a constructive and so-cially and culturally situated process. Fromthis perspective, the focus of teacher learn-ing in our study is on professional activitieswithin schools and on becoming a partici-pant in a community of learners (Sfard,1988; Ten Dam & Blom, 2006). This per-spective implies that teachers take respon-sibility for their own professional function-ing and acquire the necessary knowledgeand repertoire of activities to participatecritically in the social and cultural practiceswith regard to education. By participatingin a variety of professional activities withinthe school, teachers stimulate both theirown professional development and the de-velopment of the school and thus make asignificant contribution to improving teach-ing and learning.

To improve schools as places for teach-ers to learn, it is important to acknowledgethat not all teacher learning promotes pro-fessional development and school im-provement. Acknowledging this raises theimportant question of which professionalactivities can improve teachers’ participa-tion in school practice and thus what typeof teacher learning needs to be promoted.Using several adult learning theories anda conception of teaching as a complex,dynamic, and reflective practice, Smylie(1995) distinguished four learning out-comes that are crucial for enabling teachersto deal with the rapid changes with whichthey are faced: conceptual change, reflec-tive thinking, experimentation, and innova-tion. Kwakman (2003) found types of pro-fessional learning activities that weresimilar to those Smylie referred to asteacher learning outcomes. Like Smylie, sheidentified experimenting and reflection asimportant activities teachers perform indi-vidually as part of their work to improvetheir practice and promote student learn-ing. Furthermore, Kwakman identifiedkeeping up to date as a third individuallearning activity; this included gaining new

knowledge by reading professional litera-ture and undertaking many kinds of train-ing and thus keeping up to date with newinsights and developments such as teach-ing methods, curriculum, and educationand teaching in general. Although keepingup to date as a learning activity differs fromSmylie’s conceptual change as a learningoutcome, both concepts stress the impor-tance of teachers obtaining new informa-tion, insights, and developments from dif-ferent sources as part of the professionalknowledge base underlying their work.

Based on the above-mentioned concep-tion of learning through participation, weexamined teachers’ professional learningby focusing on their participation in thefollowing professional learning activities:keeping up to date (or collecting newknowledge and information), experimenta-tion, reflective practice, and innovation. Ac-cording to the taxonomy of adult learningas Jarvis (1987) presented, innovation(changed practice) and keeping up to dateinvolve nonreflective learning, and experi-mentation and reflective practice representhigher-order reflective learning. Given thisconceptualization, in this study teachers’professional learning thus refers to the par-ticipation of teachers in a variety of activi-ties within the school that promote bothnonreflective (keeping up to date, changedpractice) and reflective (experimentationand reflective practice) learning.

To identify which organizational condi-tions and psychological factors affect theseprofessional learning activities, theoriesthat adopt an interactionist perspective ofthe relations between teachers as learnersand their work environments are needed.In the following sections, we use theories ofadult learning and change and empiricalresearch on teacher cognitions, workplaceconditions, and leadership practices to hy-pothesize relations between teachers’ psy-chological states, school organizationalconditions, leadership practices, and teach-ers’ professional learning activities.

408 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

MARCH 2009

Teachers’ Psychological StatesOne of the most comprehensive adultlearning theories is Bandura’s (1986) socialcognitive theory. In this theory humanlearning and functioning are explained interms of a triadic reciprocality: individualbehavior, cognitions, and environmentalconditions operate as interacting determi-nants of one another. According to Bandura(1997), one important construct, perceivedself-efficacy, mediates learning and behav-ior. Self-efficacy is a future-oriented beliefabout the competence a person expects todisplay in a given situation. As Bandura(1986) noted, evidence suggests that peoplewho see themselves as efficacious set them-selves challenges that enlist their interestand involvement in activities. They are alsomore likely to take risks and to experiment,and they are more creative in their learning,thinking, and work. Research on the effectsof teachers’ sense of self-efficacy has con-firmed these results by showing that teach-ers’ efficacy beliefs are related to their pro-fessional learning and to their enhancementof student achievement (Bandura, 1993;Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). Based onthese findings, we predicted in hypothesis1 that sense of self-efficacy would have apositive effect on teachers’ participation inprofessional learning activities.

In addition to sense of self-efficacy,teacher commitment to the school as anorganization has been identified as posi-tively related to increased effort, perfor-mance, and professionalism. According toPorter et al. (1974), organizational commit-ment can be generally characterized by atleast three factors, including: (1) a strongbelief in and acceptance of the organiza-tion’s goals and values, (2) a willingness toexert considerable effort on behalf of theorganization, and (3) a desire to maintainorganizational membership. Research onteacher commitment as a key aspect of aschool’s capacity for reform has often sug-gested that Porter’s first component is anelement of teacher motivation and that the-

ories of motivation can predict the causesand consequences of teacher commitment(Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Mo-tivational processes are a function of one’spersonal goals and of beliefs about one’scapacities and one’s context (Bandura,1986; Ford, 1992). Therefore, in this studywe considered teachers’ beliefs in and in-ternalization of the school goals and valuesas an element of teacher motivation. In linewith this view on teacher commitment, weassumed that teachers are more motivatedif they have internalized school goals andvalues as their personal goals.

Personal goals motivate action when aperson’s evaluation of present circum-stances is different from the desired stateand may influence learning. Furthermore,Bandura (1986) argued that individuals aremore likely to develop a positive sense ofself-efficacy in settings where there arechallenging and attainable goals with spe-cific standards. To promote self-efficacy,goals must also be concrete and clear andinclude short-term objectives that are un-derstood as valuable within the context oflonger-term goals. Therefore, examiningthe relation between teacher motivationand teacher participation in learning activ-ities, one would expect that the more teach-ers have internalized a school’s goals andvalues as their personal goals, the morethese goals would enhance teachers’ learn-ing and their sense of self-efficacy. Re-search has shown that teachers’ internaliza-tion of school goals into personal goalsinfluences their professional learning activ-ities, both directly and via teacher self-efficacy (Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, &Jantzi, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Wol-bers & Woudenberg, 1995). From this back-ground, we derived the following hypoth-eses: teachers’ internalization of schoolgoals into personal goals will have a posi-tive effect on their participation in profes-sional learning activities (hypothesis 2),and the effect of teachers’ internalization ofschool goals into personal goals on theirparticipation in professional learning activ-


ities will be mediated partly by sense ofself-efficacy (hypothesis 3).

School Organizational ConditionsAlthough psychological factors appear tobe strongly related to teacher learning, theorganizational design of schools also mat-ters (Kwakman, 2003; Rowan, Raudenbush,& Kang, 1991). In debates about school re-form, a more “organic” form of manage-ment, involving the developing of staffcollaboration and participative decisionmaking, is assumed to increase the commit-ment of the teaching staff and their identi-fication with the school, which in turn willlead to improved teaching and learning(Rowan, 1990). Theories of adult learningand change within organizations have alsoidentified organizational conditions thatpromote learning in the workplace, such asopportunities for individuals to work withand learn from similar and dissimilar oth-ers and the nature of interactions amongindividuals with whom one works (Ban-dura, 1986; Marsick & Watkins, 1990). Co-operative, friendly, and collegial relation-ships; open communication; and freeexchange of ideas may provide emotionaland psychological support for teachers’work and promote critical reflection, exper-imentation, and other types of learning(Smylie, 1995; Smylie et al., 1996). Collabo-ration also provides: opportunities forteachers to work together to solve problems,feedback and information, and assistanceand support (Kwakman, 2003; Rosenholtz,1991; Sleegers, van den Berg, & Geijsel, 2000).Studies of the effects of the school organiza-tion on teachers’ motivation and changedpractice have shown that teacher collabora-tion—when strongly related to daily class-room practices and pupil learning—hasstrong positive effects on professional devel-opment and change (Bakkenes, de Bra-bander, & Imants, 1999; Bryk et al., 1999; Ge-ijsel, Sleegers, van den Berg, & Kelchtermans,2001; Leithwood, 2000; Little, 1990; Rosen-holtz, 1991; Rowan, 1995; Silins et al., 2002;

Smylie, 1988). Therefore, we predicted thatcollaboration would have a positive effect onteachers’ participation in professional learn-ing activities (hypothesis 4).

Teacher participation in decision mak-ing, as a condition that supports an organicform of school organization, can add to per-sonal goals and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and thus motivate teacher learning.Participative decision making may increaseteachers’ ownership of organizational goalsand can reinforce the extent to which teach-ers have internalized school goals and val-ues as their personal goals (Sleegers et al.,2005; Smylie, 1988; Smylie et al., 1996). Assuch, this type of decision making may pro-vide standards teachers can use to evaluatetheir own practice and may clarify instruc-tional goals, if the decision making con-cerns issues that are strongly related toteaching and student learning. Bandura(1986) argued that increased perceptions ofself-efficacy may result from specific feed-back related to individual performance andfrom challenging and attainable goals.Therefore, one would expect participativedecision making to relate positively toteachers’ internalization of school goalsinto personal goals and thus to enhanceteachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Positive ef-fects of participative decision making onteacher motivation have been found in sev-eral empirical studies (e.g., Jongmans, Slee-gers, Biemans, & de Jong, 2004; Rowan,Raudenbush, & Cheong, 1993; Smylie et al.,1996). On the basis of these findings, wepredicted that the positive effect of partici-pative decision making on teachers’ partic-ipation in professional learning activitieswould be mediated by teachers’ internal-ization of school goals into personal goalsand sense of self-efficacy (hypothesis 5).

Leadership PracticesTransformational leadership is one of themost prominent contemporary approachesto leadership that has emerged in responseto the more competitive global environ-


MARCH 2009

ment and large-scale changes. Drawing onthe work of Burns (1978) concerning polit-ical leadership, Bass (1985) developed amodel of transformational leadership thatconceptualized transactional and transfor-mational forms as separate but interdepen-dent dimensions. Transactional leadershipis generally sufficient for maintaining thestatus quo, but transformational leadershipfocuses on development for the purpose ofchange. Such leadership motivates follow-ers to do more than they originally ex-pected and often even more than theythought possible (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Based on the work of Bass (1985), re-search on transformational leadership ineducational settings identified three coredimensions of transformational leadershipin schools: vision building through initiat-ing and identifying a vision for the school’sfuture, providing individual support, andproviding intellectual stimulation (Geijsel,Sleegers, & van den Berg, 1999; Leithwood& Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 1999;Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006).

Many researchers have viewed vision asa critical component of transformationalleadership. According to Bennis and Nanus(1985, p. 89), a vision is “a mental image ofa possible and desirable future state of theorganization.” A vision clarifies the settingof organizational goals and provides thedirection of change. Through initiating andidentifying a vision, school leaders contrib-ute to vision building in the school thatgenerates excitement, builds emotional at-tachment, and reinforces the personal andsocial identification of followers with theorganization and thus increases collectivecohesion. As a consequence, individualsmay feel increased self-efficacy, may bemore willing to internalize organizationalgoals and values as their personal goals,and may have more confidence in theirability to attain the vision.

Individual support or consideration rep-resents an attempt to understand, recognize,and satisfy followers’ concerns and needswhile treating each follower uniquely. Acting

as a role model, coaching, delegating chal-lenging tasks, and providing feedback arecommon ways of helping followers elevatetheir personal potential. Through individualconsideration, school leaders may help tolink teachers’ current needs to the school’sgoals and mission and enhance teachers’sense of self-efficacy.

Through intellectual stimulation, trans-formational school leaders encourage teach-ers to question their own beliefs, assump-tions, and values and enhance teachers’ability to solve individual, group, and orga-nizational problems. An intellectually stimu-lating school leader arouses teachers’ aware-ness and recognition of their own beliefs andpersonal values as well as those of their col-leagues.

Research on effects of transformationalleadership on teachers’ commitment andextra effort has shown that such leadershippractices influence teachers’ self-efficacyand internalization of student goals intopersonal goals (e.g., Geijsel et al., 2003;Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Nguni et al.,2006). The vision building and providingindividual support dimensions appear tohave stronger effects on teachers’ psycho-logical states than the intellectual stimula-tion dimension of transformational leader-ship. We thus expected that the positiveeffect of transformational leadership onteachers’ participation in professionallearning activities would be mediated byteachers’ internalization of school goalsinto personal goals and by their sense ofself-efficacy (hypothesis 6).

Although researchers have learned agreat deal about the effects of transforma-tional leadership on individual and organi-zational outcomes, little is known about therole that teamwork processes (such as col-laboration, cohesion, communication, andconflict management) may play in the linkbetween transformational leadership andindividual, team, and organizational per-formance (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, &Spangler, 2004). Dionne et al. (2004) pro-posed a model of the relations among trans-


formational leadership, teamwork processesand team performance. They expected thatvision building, individual consideration,and intellectual stimulation would improveteamwork processes by producing shared vi-sion, team commitment, an empowered teamenvironment, and functional team conflict.Although evidence concerning these claimsin schools is extremely thin, some researchhas suggested that transformational leader-ship can enhance teamwork processes suchas teacher participation in decision makingand collaboration (Leithwood et al., 1999;Sleegers, Geijsel, & van den Berg, 2002).Based on these findings and our expectationsabout the effects of participative decisionmaking and collaboration on teachers’ psy-chological states and learning (see hypothe-ses 4 and 5), we predicted that the positiveeffect of transformational leadership onteachers’ participation in professional learn-ing activities would be mediated by teachercollaboration (hypothesis 7) and that the ben-efits of transformational leadership for teach-ers’ internalization of school goals into per-sonal goals, sense of self-efficacy, andparticipation in professional learning activi-ties would be mediated by participative de-cision making (hypothesis 8).

A summary of the various paths

through which teachers’ participation inprofessional learning is influenced, as wehypothesized, is presented in Figure 1. Tounderstand the relative effect of psycholog-ical, organizational, and leadership factorson teachers’ professional learning, wetested this model using a survey.

MethodSampleThe data we used to test our theoretical

model came from the Dutch School Im-provement Questionnaire administered toteachers in 18 elementary schools (studentage 4–12 years) governed by one schoolboard in the Netherlands. All schools werelocated in one city (about 150,000 citizens)in the eastern part of the Netherlands. Theschools differed largely with regard tobackground characteristics (such as de-nomination, number of students and teach-ers, percentages of pupils with high andlow socioeconomic status). The schools aresimilar to those in any (smaller) city in theNetherlands. As in the United States orother Western countries, teachers and ad-ministrators in these schools are concernedwith school improvement and innovationin line with contemporary ideas of con-

FIG. 1.—Theoretical model of the relations among teachers’ psychological states, organizational conditions,leadership practices, and teachers’ professional learning activities (with hypotheses indicated between brackets).*For ease of presentation, the three exogenous and four endogenous variables are combined in one circle. Theresidual correlations between the outcome variables are all estimated.


MARCH 2009

structivism. Current educational policy inthe Netherlands allows schools to maketheir own decisions about the extent andcontent of innovation. The school board inthis study encourages its schools to moveforward and also to keep up with nationalquality standards without requiring thatthey implement a specific program. So,each school in the sample chose its ownmanner of coping with the contemporarychallenges such as multidimensional re-structuring demands, tightened “output”controls due to accountability policies, andenhancing their capacity to improve teach-ing and learning.

All teachers in these schools partici-pated in the survey. The questionnaire wassubmitted to 367 teachers. A total of 328teachers returned the questionnaire—a re-sponse rate of 89.3%.

Background information on teachersand schools was provided by the adminis-tration office of the school board. Of theteachers responding to the survey, 16%were male and 84% were female (nationalpercentages: 20% and 80%, respectively).Teachers in the sample varied in the size oftheir appointment (ranging from half a dayto full time), years of experience in primaryeducation (ranging from less than half ayear to 45 years), and years of experience inthe school in which they currently taught(ranging from 1 month to 37 years).

MeasuresThe concepts in this study were opera-

tionalized and measured using existingscales and items (Geijsel, 2001; Geijsel et al.,2001; Jongmans et al., 2004; Kwakman,2003; Leithwood, Dart, Jantzi, & Steinbach,1993; Silins, 1994; van Woerkom, 2003) aswell as additional newly formulated items.We carefully translated English items andadjusted them for appropriateness in theDutch context. To verify the validity of theitems, experts reviewed item formulations(i.e., senior administrators on the schoolboard, an external change facilitator con-

nected to the schools, and two expert teach-ers). All items were included in the DutchSchool Improvement Questionnaire forteachers. The teachers indicated the extentto which the item content applied to themon four-point scales. More detailed infor-mation about the items per variable can befound in Appendix A.

AnalysesOriginally, the questionnaire contained

114 items. We performed exploratory factoranalyses and item analyses in SPSS to selectthe best items for each factor. This resultedin a decrease in the number of items to 64.In these initial analyses, we found that theitems assessing “reflective practice” sharedconsiderable variance with the items about“experimentation” and did not constitute aseparate factor. We therefore removedsome of the reflective practice items fromthe scale and combined some of these itemswith the items regarding experimentationto form one factor. This factor was termedexperimentation/reflective practice.

We used Mplus3 (Muthen & Muthen,2004) to analyze the measurement andstructural models. For evaluation of modelfit, we investigated the matrix of discrep-ancies (i.e., the matrix of residual variancesand covariances) as McDonald and RingoHo (2002) suggested. If the discrepanciesare well scattered, the standardized rootmean squared residual (SRMR) can be usedto summarize this information. We also re-port the overall chi-square statistic with theassociated p-value (i.e., the robust Yuan-Bentler chi-square statistic; Yuan & Bentler,2000) and the root mean squared error ofapproximation (RMSEA). The fit of themodel is considered acceptable whenSRMR � .08 and RMSEA � .06 (Hu &Bentler, 1999). We compared nested modelsby using the scaled chi-square difference(��SB

2 ; Satorra & Bentler, 1999) with degreesof freedom (df ) equal to the number of con-strained parameters, and the Bayesian In-formation Criterion (BIC; Raftery, 1993),


with smaller values of the BIC indicating abetter-fitting model.

We constructed separate measurementmodels for the items in each group of fac-tors (i.e., leadership, organization, psycho-logical states, and professional learning)and combined these models to form onemeasurement model. In these analyses, anadditional 10 of the 64 items were removeddue to low or double factor loadings orstrong residual covariance with otheritems.

The measurement model depicts the re-lations between the factors and the indica-tors, as well as the correlations between thefactors. The resulting (combined) measure-ment model provides a good fit to the data.Although the chi-square was significant,the discrepancies were well scattered, andthe SRMR and RMSEA were low (RM-SEA � 0.040, SRMR � 0.056, BIC �34451.28; �2(1332) � 2043.139, p � .00). Thetheoretical concepts of our framework,indicators, shortened variable names, andnumber of items are summarized in Table 1.

The parameter estimates (i.e., the factorloadings, residual variances, and factor cor-relations) are presented in Appendix A.The proportion of explained variance forthe individual items ranged from 0.21 to0.77. Furthermore, the internal consisten-cies of the scales (provided in Appendix A)indicated that all factors had reasonable togood reliability (range � 0.66–0.88). Factorcorrelations indicated that all factors corre-lated positively, as expected.

Given the nested structure of our sam-ple (teachers nested within schools), andthe possible dependence between subjectswithin schools that may result, we com-puted the intraclass correlations. These cor-relations, provided in Appendix B, weresignificantly different from zero for all vari-ables, which means that the teachers withina school were more similar to each otherthan to teachers from other schools. Ignor-ing the nested structure of the data wouldtherefore lead to incorrect results. That is,standard errors would be underestimated,leading to a higher type I error rate (i.e.,finding a parameter significant when it isactually zero in the population). Given thesmall number of schools (N � 18) and thefact that the study focused on importantregression parameters (fixed effects) andnot on school-level variance (random ef-fects), we decided to perform further anal-yses on the within-school covariance ma-trix by means of testing the “complexstructure” in Mplus (Muthen & Muthen,2004). This did result in a correction for thedependence inherent in the nested struc-ture of the data but produced a loss ofinformation concerning the school-levelvariance (as would be obtained in a fullmultilevel analysis including random ef-fects). However, as we noted, the totalnumber of schools was too small to obtaincorrect estimates of the school-level vari-ance (Maas & Hox, 2004a, 2004b). Futureresearch with a larger sample of schoolsmight shed light on this.

TABLE 1. Overview of Scaled Variables

Components Indicators Variable Name (Short) Items

Transformationalleadership practices(TLP)

Initiating and identifying a vision TLP-vision 5Offering individualized support TLP-support 4Offering intellectual stimulation TLP-stimulation 6

School organizationalconditions (SOC)

Participative decision making SOC-participative 5Collaboration among teachers SOC-collaboration 8

Teachers’ psychologicalstates (TPS)

Internalization of school goals intopersonal goals

TPS-goals 5

Sense of self-efficacy TPS-efficacy 4Professional learning

activities (PLA)Keeping up to date PLA-keeping 4Experimentation/reflective practice PLA-exp/refl 5Changed practice PLA-changed 8


MARCH 2009

The fit of the measurement model im-proved slightly when corrected for thenested structure of the data: �2(1332) �1917.685, p � .00; RMSEA � 0.038, SRMR �0.056, BIC � 34451.279). Introducing thestructural relations to the measurementmodel according to the theoretical frame-work did not decrease the fit of the modelsignificantly: �2(1391) � 2000.095, p � .00;RMSEA � 0.037, SRMR � 0.062, BIC �34145.97; ��SB

2 (59) � 33.12, p � .10; note thatthis test can be regarded as an omnibus(i.e., multiparameter) test of the con-strained parameters. In this model, themodification indices indicated one largemodel misspecification. This was the casefor the effect of leadership’s initiation andidentification of a vision for the school (TL-vision) on changed practice as a profes-sional learning activity (PL-changed). Wehypothesized that this effect would be in-direct. Adding this effect to the model re-sulted in a better-fitting model: ��SB

2 (1) �12.27, p � .00; �2(1390) � 1987.828, p � .00;RMSEA � 0.036, SRMR � 0.059, BIC �34140.256.

Based on the principle of parsimony, weconstrained all nonsignificant effects tozero. The scaled chi-square difference test

indicated that the model fit did not signif-icantly decrease: ��SB

2 (13) � 12.44, p � .49;�2(1403) � 1997.747, p � .00; RMSEA �0.036, SRMR � 0.062, BIC � 34082.124. Weagain examined the modification indices,which resulted in the estimation of the the-oretically meaningful effect of collaborationamong teachers on participative decisionmaking: ��SB

2 (1) � 10.38, p � .00; �2(1402) �1987.369, p � .00; RMSEA � 0.036, SRMR �0.060, BIC � 34077.080. The results of thisfinal model will be presented in the nextsection.

ResultsThe parameter estimates of the final modelare presented in Figure 2. To facilitate in-terpretation, direct, indirect, and total ef-fects are presented in Table 2.

Results of the final structural modelshowed psychological, organizational, andleadership factors to have joint effects onparticipation in professional learning activ-ities, with percentages of explained vari-ance of 32, 30, and 16, respectively, for ex-perimentation/reflective practice, keepingup to date, and changed practice. A closerlook at the results in Figure 2 shows thatparticipation in professional learning activ-

FIG. 2.—Completely standardized solution for the path analysis of professional learning activities explainedby psychological, organizational, and leadership factors (residual variances are provided between brackets). Forease of exposition, only the structural part of the model is depicted.


ities was directly influenced by teacher ef-ficacy (hypothesis 1). The effect of teachers’internalization of school goals into personalgoals on their participation in professionallearning activities was direct for keepingup to date and experimentation/reflectivepractice but not for changed practice,which was somewhat different, as we pre-dicted in hypothesis 2. The absence of theexpected direct effect of teachers’ internal-ization of school goals into personal goalson changed practice was compensatedslightly by the indirect effect via teacherefficacy (.09; see Table 2), however, whichsupported hypothesis 3. In summary,teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and their in-ternalization of school goals into personalgoals appeared to be the most importantexplanatory factors in our model (see alsoTable 2).

Besides these two psychological factors,collaboration among teachers had a directeffect on keeping up to date and experi-mentation/reflective practice—two typesof participation in professional learning ac-tivities (in line with hypothesis 4). Collab-oration seemed particularly important forexperimentation/reflective practice (totaleffect of .41; see Table 2), which could bedue to the more social nature of experimen-tation as opposed to keeping up to date.Although we also expected a direct effect ofcollaboration on teachers’ changed prac-

tice, results did not confirm this expecta-tion.

With regard to the effect of participativedecision making on participation in profes-sional learning activities via teachers’ senseof self-efficacy and their internalization ofschool goals into personal goals (hypothe-sis 5), findings indicated that only teachers’personal goals were affected by participa-tive decision making (.36; see Fig. 2): themore teachers felt that they had influenceon and were part of decision-making pro-cesses, the more they appeared to internal-ize the school’s goals and vision. The ab-sence of a direct effect of participativedecision making on teachers’ sense of self-efficacy was slightly compensated by theindirect effect via teachers’ internalizationof school goals into personal goals (.36 �.36 � .12; see Fig. 2). Thus, as expected,participative decision making affected par-ticipation in professional learning activitiesvia the two psychological factors includedin this study.

Teacher collaboration also had an unex-pected direct effect on participative deci-sion making and can thus be considered astimulating factor. We did not predict thiseffect and the related indirect effects of col-laboration on the two psychological factorsand participation in professional learningactivities.

Contrary to our hypothesis regarding

TABLE 2. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of Explanatory Variables on the Three Dependent Variables

Professional Learning Activities

Keeping up to DateExperimenting/

Reflective Practice Changed Practice

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Teachers’ psychological states:Efficacy .31 .31 .30 .30 .25 .25Personal goals .30 .11 .41 .12 .11 .22 .09 .09

School organizational conditions:Collaboration .15 .03 .18 .39 .02 .41 .01 .01Participative decision making .15 .15 .08 .08 .03 .03

Transformational leadership practices:Stimulation .08 .08 .17 .17 .00 .00Support .06 .06 .03 .03 .01 .01Vision .10 .10 .03 .03 .28 .02 .30


MARCH 2009

the indirect nature of leadership effects, re-sults showed that teachers’ changed prac-tice was directly influenced most by onetransformational leadership dimension—vision (.28, see Table 2 and Fig. 2). Themore teachers perceived school leadershipas initiating and identifying a vision, themore they changed their practice in the di-rection of constructivism. The two psycho-logical factors also appeared to be influ-enced by transformational leadership, butless directly than we expected (hypothesis6). Teachers’ internalization of school goalsinto personal goals was influenced directlyby only one of the three dimensions oftransformational leadership—vision (.25,see Fig. 2). Thus, vision as a leadershippractice reinforced teachers’ internalizationof school goals into personal goals. Al-though we expected that both teachers’sense of self-efficacy and their internaliza-tion of school goals into personal goalswould also be directly influenced by theother two transformational leadership prac-tices—individual support and intellectualstimulation—the results did not confirm this.As Figure 2 shows, the effects of these trans-formational practices on the two psychologi-cal factors were indirect, through organiza-tional factors.

With regard to the influence of leader-ship factors on aspects of the school orga-nization, findings indicated that effects oftransformational leadership practices weredifferent than expected (hypotheses 7 and8). Vision appeared to have no direct effecton teacher collaboration and participativedecision making, whereas intellectual stim-ulation had a significant direct effect onteacher collaboration (.42; see Fig. 2). Indi-vidualized support had a significant directeffect only on participative decision mak-ing (.39; see Fig. 2). Individual support andintellectual stimulation had small indirecteffects on teachers’ self-efficacy, the inter-nalization of school goals into personalgoals, and their participation in profes-sional learning activities (see Table 2), ofwhich the indirect effect of intellectual

stimulation on experimentation/reflectivepractice (.17) was notable. Moreover, itshould be noted that the chain of variablesthrough which these effects of leadershippractices were mediated differed. The ef-fect of intellectual stimulation on keepingup to date and particularly on experimen-tation/reflective practice was mediated bycollaboration, confirming hypothesis 7. Theeffect of individual support moved throughparticipative decision making via the twopsychological factors on keeping up todate, experimentation/reflective practice,and changed practice, confirming hypothe-sis 8. Overall, individual support appearedto have the smallest explanatory value ofthe factors in the model.

Discussion and ConclusionsIn this study we examined the relative im-portance of teachers’ psychological statesand school organizational conditions andleadership practices in explaining variationin teachers’ professional learning. We con-ceptualized professional learning as theparticipation of teachers in a variety oflearning activities within the school con-text. We focused on four learning activities:keeping up to date, changed practice, ex-perimentation, and reflective practice, rep-resenting nonreflective as well as reflectivelearning. To identify factors affecting par-ticipation in these activities, we used theo-ries of adult learning and change withinorganizations, in addition to research onteacher cognitions, workplace conditions,and leadership, to hypothesize relationsamong dimensions of leadership, theschool organizational environment, teach-ers’ psychological states, and their partici-pation in professional learning activities.We tested a structural model with a sampleof 328 Dutch primary school teachers in 18schools. In this section, we discuss our mostimportant results.

First, results showed that three of thefour distinguished professional learning ac-tivities could be found in the data. Reflec-


tive practice did not emerge as a separatefactor. This is similar to the results ofKwakman’s (2003) study of teachers’ par-ticipation in professional learning activi-ties. Our results suggest that teachersperceive professional learning activitiesrepresenting higher-order learning (experi-mentation and reflective practice) as re-lated, whereas they view professionallearning activities representing nonreflec-tive learning (keeping up to date andchanged practice) as separate. In otherwords, teachers seem to view reflectivepractice as an integral part of experimenta-tion instead of a separate activity. Up tonow, systematic research on the participa-tion of teachers in a variety of learning ac-tivities within schools has been scarce.Although our research provides some in-sights into the nature and variation ofteacher learning in the workplace, more re-search is needed that focuses more in depthon how learning activities are interrelated.

Second, our data offer considerable sup-port for the effects of teachers’ sense ofself-efficacy on their participation in profes-sional learning activities. On average,teachers with a stronger belief in their owncapabilities are more involved in learningactivities. Similar to Bandura (1993) andGoddard et al. (2000), we found thatteacher efficacy is the only variable in themodel that directly relates to all three pro-fessional learning activities in our study.Thus, sense of self-efficacy appears to be arelevant and important psychological fac-tor for understanding teacher learning.

Teachers’ internalization of school goalsinto personal goals also affects their partic-ipation in learning activities, particularlyand most directly on the extent to whichthey keep up to date with new develop-ments. These results suggest that internal-ization of school goals into personal goals,as an object of teacher commitment, canstimulate teachers to become aware of theirdesired future states (Bennis & Nanus,1985) and corresponding actions and there-fore can help teachers to deal successfully

with present rapid changes in education.Our findings also indicate that internaliza-tion of school goals into personal goalsplays an important role in mediating theeffects of organizational and leadership fac-tors on teacher efficacy, confirming resultsof Leithwood et al. (1999), Geijsel et al.(2003), and Wolbers and Woudenberg(1995). Although teachers’ internalizationof school goals into personal goals does nothave the same effects on their participationin professional learning activities as teacherefficacy, it may be a key variable for in-creasing the understanding of the interplaybetween psychological and organizationalfactors affecting teacher professional learn-ing in the workplace.

Regarding the effect of these organiza-tional factors on teachers’ participation inlearning activities, in debates about schoolreform, it is often assumed that more“organic” forms of organizational design(Rowan, 1990), including participative de-cision making and collaboration amongteachers, will increase teachers’ commit-ment and learning in schools. Our findingssupport this idea. Collaboration as per-ceived by teachers had a greater effect onexperimentation/reflective practice thanon keeping up to date and on changedpractice. In addition, collaboration amongteachers indirectly influenced teachers’psychological states and their participationin professional learning activities via par-ticipative decision making.

Participative decision making appearedto affect teachers’ internalization of schoolgoals into personal goals directly and pro-fessional learning activities indirectly (viateachers’ psychological states). These re-sults thus clearly show that teachers’ psy-chological states and the school organi-zational environment interact to affectprofessional learning activities. Research todate, however, has focused primarily oneither the individual or the organization,and little work has been conducted inwhich these elements are combined. Moreresearch combining organizational and


MARCH 2009

psychological explanatory factors is neededto validate our findings and to increase theunderstanding of the interplay betweenthese factors in explaining teachers’ partic-ipation in professional learning activities asa key to educational change.

Finally, the results lend credence to theargument that transformational leadershipcounts for teachers. When teachers experi-ence transformational leadership practices,on the average, their commitment and theirparticipation in professional learning activ-ities increase.

The leadership dimensions in this studywere rather highly correlated—about 75%.High correlations (above .80 or even .90)are the standard in studies of transforma-tional leadership and have led to questionsabout the empirical value of distinguishingamong dimensions (Avolio et al., 1999). Inthe present study, we tested whether thedimensions derived from theory on trans-formational leadership refer to distinguish-able leadership practices as perceived byteachers. Our factor analyses confirmedthat the items on initiating and identifyinga vision, providing individualized support,and providing intellectual stimulation referto three different leadership practices, andthe correlations between the variables didnot require higher-order factor analyses.Moreover, the structural analyses specifieddifferential paths of influence for the differ-ent practices of transformational leader-ship. These tested paths of influence allowus to reflect on leadership effects identifiedin earlier research. This enables us to com-pare and interpret different effects of thethree dimensions on specific school organi-zational and teacher psychological vari-ables and in turn on the participation ofteachers in different types of professionallearning activities. This leads to a deeperanalysis of leadership effectiveness regard-ing the professional learning of teachers.

As in other studies (Geijsel et al., 1999,2003; Hallinger & Heck, 2002), our resultsconfirm the critical role of vision in trans-formational leadership. The findings clearly

show that, through initiating and identify-ing vision, school leaders can reinforce thepersonal and social identification of teach-ers with the school, clarify the setting ofpersonal goals, and enhance teachers’ con-fidence in their ability to change their ownpractice. The results also show that visiondoes not affect teamwork processes such ascollaboration as we had expected based onthe model of Dionne et al. (2004). In ourstudy we did not measure team vision andcohesion as defined by Dionne et al. Thismight explain why we did not find effectsof vision on teamwork processes. Futureresearch should include other and differentteamwork processes such as team cohesionand team vision to test the role that team-work processes may play in the link be-tween initiating and identifying vision as adimension of transformational leadershipand teacher commitment and learning.

The other dimensions of transforma-tional leadership (i.e., intellectual stimula-tion and individualized support) affectteacher psychological states and participa-tion in learning activities via school organi-zational conditions, although the way theyinfluence these variables differs. Valuingteachers’ individual opinions, as leaders ex-press when offering individual support,seems important for school leaders duringdecision-making processes as a motivatorfor teachers to keep investing their timeand patience. Furthermore, individual sup-port indirectly affects the extent to whichteachers internalize a school’s goals andvalues as personal goals. Our findingstherefore confirm the claim that, throughsupport and consideration to individualteachers, school leaders can link teachers’current needs to the school’s organizationalgoals and mission.

Results also show that leaders’ actionsto stimulate learning increase teacher col-laboration, which then seems to function asa catalyst for teachers’ participation inlearning activities, especially those thatrepresent higher-order reflective learning.The effect of intellectual stimulation on


teachers’ psychological states is, however,small and indirect. Based on these findings,we can conclude that intellectual stimula-tion contributes to work group processessuch as collaboration, leading to an interac-tive context needed for teachers’ higher-order learning.

Together these results indicate that, tobe effective, school leaders need to use acombination of transformational leadershipbehaviors. Further research is needed toexamine the relative effects of differenttransformational leadership dimensions onteamwork processes, teachers’ psychologi-cal states, and professional learning inschools.

Limitations and Future ResearchThe present study contributes to the devel-opment of models needed to understandhow organizational design and teacher ca-pacity influence teacher learning as schol-ars have advocated for years (Richardson &Placier, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1991; Smylie,1988). Our study was limited, though, bythe population of 18 schools, compelling usto analyze our data using within-school co-variance; as a result, school-level variancewas not included in the analyses. Thus, wecould not identify teacher collaborationand participative decision making as orga-nizational conditions or “design” charac-teristics but had to restrict ourselves to ex-amining teachers’ perceptions of the schoolorganizational environment and leadershippractices. Although most studies of schoolimprovement and effectiveness have foundsmall school-level variance (less than 20%),analyses that take the nested structure ofthe data into account are preferable. Hence,follow-up research is needed with a largersample of schools, allowing for multilevelstructural equation modeling to include theexamination of interdependence of teacherinterpretations within schools. This re-search could contribute to the testing ofmore complex multilevel models in whichboth organizational and individual con-

cepts are integrated. These complex modelsare needed to develop theory that can yieldinformation about the complex interplaybetween change mechanisms operating atdifferent levels (individual, group, organi-zation) in schools (House, Rousseau, &Thomas-Hunt, 1995).

A second limitation of our study is thatour model of factors affecting teachers’ pro-fessional learning activities explains only asmall to moderate percentage of the vari-ance in learning activities. The variance ofkeeping up to date and experimentation/reflective practice was explained for about30%; the variance of changed practice forabout 16%. Thus, it is likely that other fac-tors not included in our model may alsoaffect teacher learning. Future researchshould explore the influence of other lead-ership and organizational factors often con-sidered as crucial for the capacity of schoolsto enhance professional learning, including“distributed” forms of leadership, organi-zational conditions such as school climateand culture, and teamwork processes suchas consensus, conflict management, andcollective efficacy. More recently, scholarshave stressed the need to include system-level variables such as the support schoolsreceive from parents, districts, and the Min-istry of Education (Leithwood & Jantzi,2006; Spillane et al., 2002). In addition, theinclusion of classroom conditions in themodel (class size, population, academicheterogeneity) may help researchers to un-derstand the influence of school factors onindividual teacher learning and improve-ment (Smylie, 1988).

Finally, in our study we focused on col-laborative working relationships and op-portunities for teacher participation in de-cision making. Although these activitiessupport teacher learning and educationalchange as long as they are related to theclassroom, we did not examine one of themost enduring features of teachers’ work,namely, autonomy. Although autonomy isoften considered a problematic by-product


MARCH 2009

of the work of teachers, it can also beviewed as a condition teachers need in or-der to adapt and update their practice tocope effectively with rapid changes in ed-ucation. Schools may create an optimallearning environment when they stimulateteacher collaboration without diminishingrespect and appreciation of teachers’ auton-omy and expertise (Clement & Vanden-berghe, 2000).

Future studies should examine how au-tonomy, collaborative working relation-ships, and participative decision makingprovide enough and rich variation andchallenge in teachers’ work and promoteteacher learning in the workplace. Themodel tested in our study might function asa useful framework for follow-up researchin which the relative importance of the sug-gested additional factors in explaining avariety of teachers’ professional learningactivities is examined.

Like other organizations, schools are ex-periencing the pressure and demands of aninformation society, leading to national re-form movements. To cope with these com-plex demands and enormous pressures,schools have to increase their capacity toenhance teachers’ professional learningand transform large-scale reform into ac-countable, learner-oriented teaching prac-tice. By focusing on the interplay betweenpsychological and organizational factors af-fecting teacher professional learning in theworkplace, we have tried to make a signif-icant contribution to the existing knowl-edge base. Building on our findings, futureresearch should use complex multilevelmodels in which the effects of psychologi-cal, organizational, and leadership factorson professional learning in schools aretested. In our view, this is imperative totheory building regarding school improve-ment and educational change.

Appendix A

Operational Definitions, Item Parameters, and Scale Descriptions forVariables in the Dutch School Improvement QuestionnaireItem RepresentationThe final Dutch items were translated to English by a native speaker and then to Dutch by anotherperson with both persons having no preliminary knowledge of this study. There were no misun-derstood item translations. Thus, these English items represent the Dutch items to a reasonableextent. For use in countries other than The Netherlands, cultural differences should nevertheless betaken into account.

Transformational Leadership: Initiating and Identifying a VisionThe extent to which the school leader initiates and identifies a vision for the school (see Geijsel etal., 2001; Leithwood et al., 1993; Silins, 1994).

The school leader . . .Factor

Loading Residual

1. Makes use of all possible opportunities to communicate the school’s visionto the team, the pupils, parents, and others

.73 .38

2. Refers explicitly to the school’s objectives during the decision-makingprocess

.53 .60

3. Explains to the team the relationship between the school’s vision andinitiatives taken by the school board, consortiums of schools, or thenational government

.67 .46

4. Clearly defines current problems from the perspective of a vision of thefuture of the school

.73 .36

5. Outlines during meetings how the vision of the future of the school affectsschool life at the present time

.68 .36

Scaling � (1) disagree, (2) disagree more than agree, (3) agree more than disagree, (4) agree; meanscore (valid N) � 2.78 (307); standard deviation � .71; alpha � .87; intraclass correlation � .38.


Transformational Leadership: Providing for Individualized SupportThe extent to which the school leader—acknowledging teachers’ efforts—provides individualizedsupport for teachers (see Geijsel et al., 2001; Leithwood et al., 1993; Silins, 1994).


Loading Residual

1. Takes the beliefs of individual teachers seriously .77 .342. Shows appreciation when a teacher takes the initiative to improve teaching

in the school or to engage in other forms of professional development.82 .30

3. Listens carefully to the ideas of members of the team .83 .224. Helps teachers to put their emotions into words .62 .56


Transformational Leadership: Providing for Intellectual StimulationThe extent to which the school leader provides teachers with intellectual stimulation (see Geijsel etal., 2001; Leithwood et al., 1993; Silins, 1994).


Loading Residual

1. Encourages teachers to try new things in line with their own interests .79 .292. Helps teachers to reflect on new experiences that they have gained on the

job.74 .34

3. Encourages teachers to seek and discuss new information and ideas that arerelevant to the direction in which the school is developing

.63 .47

4. Engages individual teachers in ongoing discussion about their personalprofessional goals

.67 .35

5. Encourages teachers to experiment with new teaching methods .68 .466. Creates sufficient opportunities for teachers to work on their professional

development.50 .63

Scaling � (1) (almost) never, (2) sometimes, (3) often, (4) (almost) always; mean score (valid N) �2.55 (292); standard deviation � .71; alpha � .88; intraclass correlation � .45.

Participative Decision MakingThe extent to which teachers experience that they participate in processes and outcomes of theschool’s decision making regarding issues of education, innovation, and school improvement (seeGeijsel et al., 2001; Jongmans et al., 2004).

FactorLoading Residual

1. Teachers at our school are involved in decisions about using newteaching methods

.41 .60

2. Teachers at our school take decisions about coordinating the curriculumover the different school years together

.49 .58

3. At our school we take decisions about new educational objectives forthe school together

.52 .48

4. At our school teachers have a say in the purchase of new teachingmaterials and resources

.37 .64

5. At our school changes to classroom teaching are a matter for shareddecision making

.48 .47



MARCH 2009

Collaboration among TeachersThe extent to which teachers experience professional collaboration that extends the level of ex-changing information and offers opportunities to learn from each other (see Geijsel, 2001; Little,1990).


1. My colleagues discuss new teaching methods with me .56 .492. My colleagues give me positive feedback about my teaching .51 .563. The conversations I have with colleagues about my work are superficial

(negatively formulated item)�.40 .68

4. My colleagues give me support when I try out new teaching methods .62 .375. My colleagues tell me what problems they have come across and how

they solve them.49 .54

6. My colleagues are only interested in their own lessons (negativelyformulated item)

�.42 .65

7. My colleagues pass on to me things they have learned from furthertraining

.44 .67

8. My colleagues let me observe their lessons .43 .70

Scaling � (1) (almost) none, (2) the minority, (3) the majority, (4) (almost) everyone; mean score(valid N) � 2.80 (321); standard deviation � .54; alpha � .85 (negatively formulated items wererecoded); intraclass correlation � .15.

Internalization of School Goals into Personal GoalsThe extent to which teachers have internalized the goals and vision of the school (see Leithwood etal., 1993).


1. I make an effort to put the school’s vision of education into practice .41 .572. I have noticed that I am expanding my own repertoire as a teacher in order

to put the school’s vision into practice.44 .66

3. I do my best to understand what implications the school’s vision has forthe way I teach

.43 .55

4. I assume that I will be given the opportunity acquire concrete knowledgeabout what the school’s vision means for my class and the school as awhole

.49 .52

5. I know what the next steps are that I should take in order to be able to putthe school’s vision into practice

.45 .68


Sense of Self-EfficacyThe extent to which teachers experience a sense of self-efficacy with regard to their own profes-sionalism (original Dutch items stem from: van Woerkom, 2003).


1. Do you feel that you are able to work effectively? .35 .702. Are you satisfied with the quality of your work? .41 .443. Do you feel that you are being successful in your work? .50 .234. Do you have sufficient self-confidence to defend your own points of view

about the work?.36 .73



Professional Learning Activities: Keeping Up to DateThe extent to which teachers keep up with developments in the field of education by readingprofessional literature and undertake other activities (see Geijsel et al., 2001; Kwakman, 2003).


1. I take the initiative to work on my own professional development .49 .562. I take part in further training and in-service training even if it is not compulsory .50 .653. I read professional literature .49 .644. I study textbooks and lesson material thoroughly and on a regular basis .33 .79


Professional Learning Activities: Experimentation and Reflective PracticeThe extent to which teachers try out new things and/or undertake action explicitly meant toimprove their practices and/or enable reflection on their practices (see Geijsel et al., 2001; Kwak-man, 2003).


1. I observe colleagues’ lessons to learn from them .44 .712. I try out new knowledge and skills in my lessons .47 .553. I make my own teaching materials .36 .794. I use pupils’ reactions to improve my classroom teaching .39 .685. I discuss problems in my classroom teaching with others in order to learn

from them.44 .64


Professional Learning Activities: Changed PracticeThe extent to which teachers change their practice during the last years toward promoting process-oriented student learning, focusing on strategic, meaningful, and social learning as well as onpupils’ motivation for learning.

Compared with three to five years ago . . .*Factor

Loading Residual

1. I focus more on increasing pupils’ motivation .69 .422. I have expanded my repertoire of teaching strategies .43 .623. My interaction with pupils has become richer .69 .344. I vary the pace of the work more to suit the needs of different groups

and individual pupils.60 .45

5. I use a greater variety of teaching methods .49 .636. I pay more attention to the emotional perception of pupils .73 .417. I leave pupils to work together more often .52 .668. I pay more attention to different cultures .52 .70

*Teachers with less than 3 years’ teaching experience should read this as: since the beginning ofmy teaching career . . .Scaling � (1) disagree, (2) disagree more than agree, (3) agree more than disagree, (4) agree; meanscore (valid N) � 3.03 (322); standard deviation � .63; alpha � .88; intraclass correlation � .06.


MARCH 2009

References

Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., &Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learn-ing, thinking, and activity. Educational Re-searcher, 29, 11–13.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999).Re-examining the components of transfor-mational and transactional leadership usingthe Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 71, 441–462.

Bakkenes, I., de Brabander, C., & Imants, J.(1999). Teacher isolation and communica-tion network analysis in primary schools.Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 166–202.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughtand action: A social cognitive theory. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy incognitive development and functioning. Ed-ucational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise ofcontrol. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyondexpectations. New York: Free press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improvingorganizational effectiveness through transforma-tional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strat-egies for taking charge. New York: Harper &Row.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R.(1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experi-ence, and school. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999).Professional community in Chicago elemen-tary schools: Facilitating factors and organi-zational consequences. Educational Adminis-tration Quarterly, 35, 751–781.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York:Harper & Row.

Clarke, D. J., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elab-orating a model of teacher professionalgrowth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18,947–967.

Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teach-ers’ professional development: A solitary orcollegial (ad)venture? Teaching and TeacherEducation, 16, 81–101.

Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Re-thinking the relationship between the insti-tutional environment and the classroom. So-ciology of Education, 77, 211–244.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., &Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformationalleadership and team performance. Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, 17, 177–193.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals,emotions, and personal agency beliefs. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. EducationalLeadership, 59(8), 16–20.

Geijsel, F. P. (2001). School and innovations: Con-ditions fostering the implementation of educa-tional innovations. Nijmegen, the Nether-lands: Nijmegen University Press.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., &Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leader-ship effects on teachers’ commitment andeffort toward school reform. Journal of Edu-cational Administration, 41, 229–256.

Appendix BTABLE B1. Correlations among Factors in the Final Measurement Model

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Transformational leadership practices:1. Vision 12. Support .73 13. Stimulation .79 .77 1

School organizational conditions:4. Participative decision making .41 .44 .40 15. Collaboration .31 .28 .44 .33 1

Teachers’ psychological states:6. Personal goals .39 .37 .35 .45 .21 17. Efficacy .10 .09 .15 .26 .18 .35 1

Professional learning activities:8. Keeping up to date .17 .09 .22 .19 .27 .45 .43 19. Experimentation/reflective .09 .08 .24 .16 .47 .33 .39 .69 110. Changed practice .29 .18 .26 .25 .17 .26 .28 .26 .34


Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., & van den Berg,R. M. (1999). Transformational leadershipand the implementation of large-scale inno-vation programs. Journal of Educational Ad-ministration, 37, 309–328.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., van den Berg,R. M., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditionsfostering the implementation of large-scaleinnovations in schools: Teachers’ perspec-tives. Educational Administration Quarterly,37, 130–166.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000).Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,measure, and impact on student achieve-ment. American Educational Research Journal,37, 479–507.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do youcall people with visions? The role of vision,mission, and goals in school leadership andimprovement. In K. Leithwood & P. Hal-linger (Eds.), Handbook of research in educa-tional leadership and administration (2d ed., pt.2, pp. 9–40). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer.

Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real.London: Routledge Falmer.

House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M.(1995). The meso paradigm: A frameworkfor the integration of micro and macro orga-nizational behavior. Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 17, 71–114.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria forfit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alterna-tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social con-text. London: Croom Helm.

Jongmans, K., Sleegers, P., Biemans, H., & deJong, F. (2004). Teachers’ participation inschool policy: Nature, extent and orienta-tion. Journal of Agricultural Education and Ex-tension, 10, 1–13.

Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’participation in professional learning activi-ties. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149–170.

Leithwood, K. (ed.). (2000). Understanding schoolsas intelligent systems. Stamford, CT: JAI.

Leithwood, K., Dart, B., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach,R. (1993). Building commitment for change andfostering organizational learning (Final reportfor phase four of the research project, Imple-menting British Columbia’s Education Pol-icy). Victoria: British Columbia Ministry ofEducation.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transforma-tional school leadership for large-scale re-form: Effects on students, teachers, and their

classroom practices. School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, 17, 201–227.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999).Changing leadership for changing times. Buck-ingham: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Or-ganizational learning in schools. Lisse, theNetherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy:Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ profes-sional relations. Teachers College Record, 91,509–536.

Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2004a). The influenceof violations of assumptions on multilevelparameter estimates and their standard er-rors. Computational Statistics and Data Analy-sis, 46, 427–440.

Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2004b). Robustnessissues in multilevel regression analysis. Sta-tistica Neerlandica, 58, 127–137.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal andincidental learning in the workplace. Londonand New York: Routledge.

McDonald, R. P., & Ringo Ho, M. (2002). Prin-ciples and practice in reporting structuralequation modeling. Psychological Methods, 7,64–82.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2004). Mplus:The comprehensive modeling program for ap-plied researchers; user’s guide (3d ed.). Los An-geles: Muthen & Muthen.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006).Transformational and transactional leader-ship effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, or-ganizational commitment, and organiza-tional citizenship behavior in primaryschools: The Tanzanian case. School Effective-ness and School Improvement, 17, 145–177.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., &Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational com-mitment, job satisfaction and turnoveramong psychiatric technicians. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 59(5), 603–609.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do newviews of knowledge and thinking have tosay about research on teacher learning? Ed-ucational Researcher, 29, 4–15.

Raftery, A. E. (1993). Bayesian model selection instructural equation models. In K. A. Bollen& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equationmodels (pp. 163–180). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacherchange. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp. 905–947). Washing-ton, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.


MARCH 2009

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: Thesocial organization of schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Al-ternative strategies for the organizationaldesign of schools. In C. Cadzen (Ed.), Reviewof Research in Education, 16, 353–389.

Rowan, B. (1995). The organizational design ofschools. In S. B. Bacharach & B. Mundell(Eds.), Images of schools: Structures and roles inorganizational behavior (pp. 11–42). ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin.

Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W., & Cheong, Y. F.(1993). Teaching as a nonroutine task: Impli-cations for the management of schools. Educa-tional Administration Quarterly, 29, 479–500.

Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W., & Kang, S. J.(1991). Organizational design in highschools: A multilevel analysis. AmericanJournal of Education, 99, 238–266.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A scaleddifference chi-square test statistic for mo-ment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66,507–514.

Sfard, A. (1988). On two metaphors for learningand the dangers of choosing just one. Edu-cational Researcher, 27, 4–13.

Silins, H. C. (1994). The relationship betweentransformational and transactional leader-ship and school improvement outcomes.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5,272–298.

Silins, H., Mulford, B., & Zarins, S. (2002). Or-ganisational learning and school change. Ed-ucational Administration Quarterly, 38, 613–642.

Sleegers, P., Bolhuis, S., & Geijsel, F. (2005).School improvement within a knowledgeeconomy: Fostering professional learningfrom a multidimensional perspective. InN. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K.Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.), Inter-national handbook of educational policy (pp.527–543). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Klu-wer.

Sleegers, P. J. C., Geijsel, F. P., & van den Berg,R. M. (2002). Conditions fostering educa-tional change. In K. Leithwood & P. Hal-linger (Eds.), Second international handbook ofeducational leadership and administration (pt. 1,pp. 75–102). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer.

Sleegers, P. J. C., van den Berg, R. M., & Geijsel,F. (2000). Building innovative schools: Theneed for new approaches. Teaching andTeacher Education, 16, 801–808.

Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement functionof staff development: Organizational andpsychological antecedents to individualteacher change. American Educational Re-search Journal, 25, 1–30.

Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in theworkplace: Implications for school reform.In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Pro-fessional development in education: New para-digms and practices (pp. 92–113). New York:Teachers College Press.

Smylie, M. A., & Hart, A. W. (1999). Schoolleadership for teacher learning and change:A human and social capital developmentperspective. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational ad-ministration (2d ed., pp. 297–322). San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes ofschool-based participative decision making.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18,181–198.

Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002).Policy implementation and cognition: Re-framing and refocusing implementation re-search. Review of Educational Research, 72,387–431.

Ten Dam, G., & Blom, S. (2006). Learningthrough participation: The potential ofschool-based teacher education for develop-ing a professional identity. Teaching andTeacher Education, 22, 647–660.

Toole, J., & Louis, K. S. (2002). The role of pro-fessional learning communities in interna-tional education. In K. Leithwood & P. Hal-linger (Eds.), Second international handbook ofeducational leadership and administration (pt. 2,pp. 245–281). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer.

van Veen, K. (2003). Teachers’ emotions in a con-text of reforms. Nijmegen: University of Nij-megen.

van Woerkom, M. (2003). Critical reflection atwork: Bridging individual and organisationallearning. Enschede, the Netherlands: TwenteUniversity.

Wolbers, M., & Woudenberg, C. (1995). Teachers’commitment to change. Unpublished master’sthesis, University of Toronto and Universityof Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Threelikelihood-based methods for mean and co-variance structure analysis with nonnormalmissing data. Sociological Methodology, 30,167–202.


Documents

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) The effect of ... · Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). Based on these ﬁndings, we predicted in hypothesis 1 that sense of self-efﬁcacy would have