Based on qualitative data collected over a 6-month period, this article examines how teachers’ experiences of principal leadership practice influence their capacity to engage in meaningful collegial interactions during structured collaboration. Similar to previous studies, our findings confirm the limitations of leadership that relies primarily on structural changes to foster collaboration. Our findings contribute further to leadership research by presenting teachers’ perspectives on why particular principal leadership practices matter to teacher collaboration and by illustrating how the principal’s enactment of leadership practices influences teachers’ sense of efficacy and motivation, both of which are critical to professional learning during collaboration.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman & Company.
2.
ElmoreR. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
3.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
4.
GeijselF. P.SleegersP. J.StoelR. D.KrügerM. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal, 109, 406–427.
5.
GilesC. (2007). Building capacity in challenging US schools: An exploration of successful leadership practice in relation to organizational learning. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 30–38.
6.
GoddardR.HoyW.HoyA. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507.
7.
GoddardY.GoddardR.Tschannen-MoranM. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109, 877–896.
8.
HornI. S.LittleJ. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 181–217.
9.
IngersollR. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work?: Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
JohnsonS. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. Scranton, PA: Harper Collins Publishers.
11.
JohnsonS. M.KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39.
12.
KelloughR. D.KelloughN. G. (2008). Teaching young adolescents: Methods and resources for middle grades teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
KingM. B.BouchardK. (2011). The capacity to build organizational capacity in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 653–669.
15.
LeithwoodK.JantziD. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 201–227.
LevineT. (2011). Experienced teachers and school reform: Exploring how two different professional communities facilitated and complicated change. Improving Schools, 14, 30–47.
18.
LittleJ. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American educational research journal, 19(3), 325–340.
19.
LittleJ. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. The Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
20.
LittleJ. W. (2002). Professional community and the problem of high school reform. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 693–714.
21.
MainK. (2012). Effective middle school teacher teams: A ternary model of interdependency rather than a catch phrase. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18, 75–88.
22.
MalenB.RiceJ. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18, 631–660.
23.
MarksH.LouisK. S.PrintyS. (2000). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for pedagogical quality and student achievement. Understanding schools as intelligent systems, 239-266.
24.
MarksH. M.PrintyS. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370–397.
25.
MartinezJ. I.JarilloJ. C. (1989). The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 489–514.
26.
MertensS. B.FlowersN.AnfaraV. A.CaskeyM. M. (2010). Common planning time. Middle School Journal, 41(5), 50–57.
27.
MitchellC.SackneyL. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
MuijsD.HarrisA. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 961–972.
30.
National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
31.
O’DayJ.GoertzM. E.FlodenR. E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
32.
O’ReillyC.ChatmanJ. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157–200.
33.
PascaleR. T. (1990). Managing on the edge. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
34.
RobinsonV. (2007). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why (Vol. 41). Winmalee, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
35.
RosenholtzS. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 421–439.
36.
RunhaarP.SandersK.YangH. (2010). Stimulating teachers’ reflection and feedback asking: An interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teacher and Teacher Education, 26, 1154–1161.
37.
ScribnerJ.SawyerK.WatsonS.MyersV. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 67–100.
38.
ShulmanL. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
39.
SlavitD.KennedyA.LeanZ.NelsonT.DeuelA. (2011). Support for professional collaboration in middle school mathematics: A complex web. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 113-131.
40.
StollL.BolamR.McMahonA.WallaceM.ThomasS. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of educational change, 7(4), 221–258.
41.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE.
42.
TalbertJ. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In LiebermanA. (Ed.), International handbook of educational change. (pp. 555-571) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
43.
ThoonenE.SleegersP.OortF.PeetsmaT.GeijselF. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496–536.
44.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2004). Trust matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
Tschannen-MoranM.HoyA. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
46.
WahlstromK. L.LouisK. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 458–495.
YoungsP.KingM. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670.
