To explore the impact mechanism of principals’ transformational leadership on students’ modernity, this study adopted the structural equation model to test the multiple mediating effects of school climate, teacher quality, and effective teaching on the relationship between principals’ transformational leadership and students’ modernity. Results showed that there was a positive correlation between principals’ transformational leadership and students’ modernity; school climate, teacher quality, and effective teaching fully mediated the relationship between principals’ transformational leadership and students’ modernity, totally accounting for 64.37% of all the indirect effects; the mediating effects of school climate, teacher quality, and effective teaching, respectively, accounted for 30.20%, 52.29%, and 17.51%. According to these results, principal should adopt the approach of transformational leadership, promote the constructing of a fair, inclusive and innovative school climate, emphasize the improvement of teachers’ social, emotional, and innovative qualities, and encourage teachers to reflect their teaching and conduct rational practices to improve students’ modernity.
BassB. M.AvolioB. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press.
2.
BockG. W.ZmudR. W.KimY. G.LeeJ. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669
3.
BronfenbrennerU.MorrisP. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. John Wiley.
4.
DahieA. M.AbdiA.AligeesM.MohamedR. A. (2017). School environment and academic performance: Empirical study from secondary schools in Mogadishu-Somalia. International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development, 4(4), 1109–1116.
5.
DayC.SammonsP.LeithwoodK.HopkinsD.GuQ.BrownE. J.AhtaridouE. (2011). Successful school leadership: Linking with learning and achievement: Linking with learning. Open University Press.
6.
DeweyJ. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
7.
DrexlerJ. A. (1977). Organizational climate: Its homogeneity within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.1.38
8.
FangJ.ChiouH.ZhangM. Q. (2011). Analysis of contextual effects on multilevel structural equation modeling: Compared with multilevel modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(2), 284–292. (In Chinese)
9.
GriffithJ. (1999). School climate as “social order” and “social action”: A multi-level analysis of public elementary school student perceptions. Social Psychology of Education, 2(3–4), 339–369. https://doi.org/10.1086/499658
10.
GumusluogluL.IlsevA. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.032
11.
HallingerP.BickmanL.DavisK. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527–549. https://doi.org/10.1086/461843
12.
HassanrezaZ.HassanR. (2010). Factors affecting teacher trust in principal: Testing the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5(1), 1004–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.226
13.
HouC. (2004). Children’s Psychological growth theory: Children socialization from the perspective of growth theory. Nanjing Normal University Press.
14.
HwangK. K. (2003). Critique of the methodology of empirical research on individual modernity in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-839x.2003.00125.x
15.
IacobucciD. (2008). Mediation analysis. SAGE.
16.
InkelesA. (1983). Exploring individual modernity. Columbia University Press.
17.
JudgeT. A.PiccoloR. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
18.
LackeyC. (1995). Preparing students for their future: A sociological practice approach to teaching about life in complex organizations. Teaching Sociology, 23(3), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319220
19.
LeithwoodK.HarrisA.HopkisD. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organization, 28, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
20.
PernaL. W.TitusM. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An Examination of racial group difference. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485–518. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0036
PituchK. A.WhittakerT. A.StapletonL. M. (2005). A comparison of methods to test for mediation in multisite experiments. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4001_1
23.
PortesA. (1973). The factorial structure of modernity: Empirical replications and a critique. American Journal of Sociology, 79(1), 15–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/225504
24.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879
25.
RobertsA.SmithK. I. (2002). Managing emotions in the college classroom: The cultural diversity course as an example. Teaching Sociology, 30(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211478
26.
RobinsonV. M.LloydC. A.RoweK. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915152.n6
27.
SchnaibergA. (1970). Rural urban residence and modernism: A study of Ankara Province, Turkey. Demography, 7(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060024
28.
SchulteM.OstroffC.ShmulyianS.KinickiA. (2009). Organizational climate configurations: Relationships to collective attitudes, customer satisfaction, and financial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014365
WalumbwaF. O.AvolioB. J.ZhuW. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 793–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00131.x
31.
WangB. (2006). Temperament- and interest-oriented Chinese teaching and students’ psychological health. Educational Research, 9, 82–86. (In Chinese)
32.
WangS. T. (2016). A study on the effect mechanism of principals’ transformational leadership on students’ modernity. Xi’an Jiao Tong University press. (In Chinese).
33.
WangS. T.TianL. X. (2016). Principal leadership types and student’s modernity development: Taking western school students as respondents. Journal of East China Normal University (Education Science Edition), 1, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2016.01.012 (in Chinese)
34.
WenZ.HauK. T.MarshH. W. (2004). Structural equation model testing: Cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and chi-square test. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(02), 186–194. (In Chinese).
35.
WenZ.YeB. (2014). Analyses of mediating effects: The development of methods and models. Psychological Science in Progress, 22(5), 731–745. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731 (in Chinese).
36.
XiaY. (1998). The college students’ modernity and tradition of the personality and their relationship with mental health. In YangXinhui (Ed.), A new review of psychology (pp. 102–103). Najing: Nanjing Normal University Press (In Chinese).
YangK. S. (1989). Chinese psychology and behavior. Laurel Book Publishing.
40.
YangK. S. (2003). Methodological and theoretical issues on psychological traditionality and modernity research in an Asian society: In response to Kwang-Kuo Hwang and beyond. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-839x.2003.00126.x
41.
YangK. S.HchuH. Y. (1974). Determinate, correlates, and consequences of Chinese individual modernity. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology Academia Sinica, 37, 1–37. (In Chinese)
42.
YaoJ.ShenJ. (2010). Construction and revision of teaching intrinsic autonomy questionnaire for primary and middle school teachers. Psychological Development and Education, 3, 302–307.
43.
YoungR.SweetingH.EllawayA. (2011). Do schools differ in suicide risk? The influence of school and neighbourhood on attempted suicide, suicidal ideation and self-harm among secondary school pupils. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 874–889. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-874
44.
YuC.YangY. (2015). Study on relationship between career motivation of primary school principal and student engagement. Research in Educational Development, 22, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2015.22.015
ZhangX. G.ZhengX. (2002). A comparative research on adolescent’s modernity in personality between town and countryside. Psychological Development and Education, 3, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-4918.2002.03.002 (in Chinese)
47.
ZhangX. G.ZhengX.WangL. (2003). Comparative research on individual modernity of adolescents between town and countryside in China. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839x.t01-1-00010
48.
ZhongY. P.LuG. S.WeiX. L. (2005). The effects of individual modernity on the demand for higher education among senior secondary students. Peking University Education Review, 3(4), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-9468.2005.04.005 (in Chinese)
