We combined network analysis and meta-analysis to systematically review the literature on the Teaching and Learning International Survey, focusing on the interplay between leadership practices and school-level conditions. Our initial network analysis utilized 83 nodes (variables in the reviewed studies) and 214 ties (variable associations), whereas our subsequent meta-analysis employed 21 selected variable associations. Results suggested that leadership practices interplayed with school-level conditions through multiple, interconnected variable associations with a range of effect sizes. First, variables concerning teacher working conditions and teacher qualifications indicated relatively smaller effects than teacher self-efficacy. Second, the association between teacher self-efficacy and teacher collaboration indicated the strongest effect among other variable associations, followed by the relationship between collective teacher perceptions of distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Third, variables regarding teacher perceptions of the principal's leadership effectiveness had larger effect sizes than the principal's self-assessment of their leadership practices. Results further suggested teacher self-efficacy and teacher collaboration as the two most prominent variables that would potentially play a bridging role between leadership practices and school-level conditions. We provide implications for educational leadership practices and research.
Ahn J, Bowers AJ and Welton AD (2021) Leadership for learning as an organization-wide practice: Evidence on its multilevel structure and implications for educational leadership practice and research. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 1–53.
2.
Ahn, J and Bowers, AJ (Under review) Do teacher beliefs mediate leadership and teacher behaviors?: Testing teacher self-efficacy's mediation role between leadership for learning and teacher outcomes.
3.
BorensteinMHedgesLVHigginsJPT, et al. (2014) Comprehensive Meta-Analysis: A Computer Program from Research Synthesis (Version 3). Englewood, NJ: Biostat Inc.
4.
BorgattiSPEverettMGFreemanLC (2002) UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
5.
BorsboomDCramerAOJ (2013) Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology9: 91–121.
6.
BridgesEM (1982) Research on the school administrator: the state of the art, 1967–1980. Educational Administration Quarterly18(3): 12–33.
7.
CampbellJLQuincyCOssermanJ, et al. (2013) Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research42(3): 294–320.
8.
Carver-ThomasDDarling-HammondL (2017) Teacher Turnover: Why it Matters and What We can Do About It. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
9.
ChaYHamS (2012) Constructivist teaching and intra-school collaboration among teachers in South Korea: an uncertainty management perspective. Asia Pacific Educational Review13: 635–647.
10.
CostantiniGEpskampSBorsboomD, et al. (2015) State of the aRt personality research: a tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. Journal of Research in Personality54: 13–29.
11.
DayCGuQSammonsP (2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly52(2): 221–258.
12.
GavaghanDJMooreRAMcQuayHJ (2000) An evaluation of homogeneity tests in meta-analyses in pain using simulations of individual patient data. Pain85(3): 415–424.
13.
GoddardRDHoyWKHoyAW (2000) Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal37(2): 479–507.
GrimmettG (2010) Probability on Graphs: Random Processes on Graphs and Lattices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HallingerP (2011) Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration49(2): 125–142.
17.
HallingerPChenJ (2015) Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia: a comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995–2012. Educational Management Administration & Leadership43(1): 5–27.
18.
HallingerPHeckRH (2011) Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement22(2): 149–173.
19.
HigginsJPThompsonSG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine21(11): 1539–1558.
Huedo-MedinaTBSánchez-MecaJMarín-MartínezF, et al. (2006) Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?Psychological Methods11(2): 193–206.
22.
KlassenRMChiuMM (2011) The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology36(2): 114–129.
23.
KyriakidesLCreemersBP (2010) Meta-analyses of effectiveness studies. In Creemers BPM, Kyriakides, L and Sammons, P (eds) Methodological Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research. New York, NY: Routledge, 317–338.
24.
LeithwoodKSunJSchumackerR (2020) How school leadership influences student learning: a test of “the four paths model”. Educational Administration Quarterly56(4): 570–599.
LiuYBellibaşMŞGümüşS (2021) The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership49(3): 430–453.
27.
LumbyJ (2013) Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration and Leadership41(5): 581–597.
28.
MeuserJDGardnerWLDinhJE, et al. (2016) A network analysis of leadership theory: the infancy of integration. Journal of Management42(5): 1374–1403.
29.
MoolenaarNDalyASleegersPJ (2010) Occupying the principal position: examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly46(5): 623–670.
30.
NeyeloffJLFuchsSCMoreiraLB (2012) Meta-analyses and forest plots using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Research Notes5(1): –6.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Online)372: 1–9.
33.
PasETBradshawCPHershfeldtPA (2012) Teacher-and school-level predictors of teacher efficacy and burnout: identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School Psychology50(1): 129–145.
34.
PietschMTulowitzkiPKochT (2019) On the differential and shared effects of leadership for learning on teachers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction: a multilevel perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly55(5): 705–741.
35.
PlowmanDABakerLTBeckTE, et al. (2007) Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal50(3): 515–543.
36.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers36(4): 717–731.
37.
PyhältöKPietarinenJHaverinenK, et al. (2021) Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education36(1): 219–242.
38.
RobinsonVMJLloydCARoweKJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly44(5): 635–674.
39.
SammonsPGuQDayC, et al. (2011) Exploring the impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: results from a study of academically improved and effective schools in England. International Journal of Educational Management25(1): 83–101.
40.
SiddawayAPWoodAMHedgesLV (2019) How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology70: 747–770.
41.
SilinsHMulfordB (2011) Re-conceptualizing school principalship that improves student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management25(1): 61–82.
42.
SkaalvikEMSkaalvikS (2010) Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: a study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education26(4): 1059–1069.
43.
StoreyA (2004) The problem of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management24(3): 249–265.
44.
TanCYDimmockCWalkerA (2021) How school leadership practices relate to student outcomes: insights from a three-level meta-analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Online publication first. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211061445
45.
ThompsonB (2006) Foundations of Behavioral Statistics: An Insight-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
46.
Tschannen-MoranMHoyAW (2001) Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education17(7): 783–805.
47.
WahlstromKLLouisKS (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly44(4): 458–495.
48.
Wang. Y. (2018) It all starts with social ties: Developing school leadership from the social network perspectives. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 102(4): 323–340..
49.
WitziersBBoskerRJKrügerML (2003) Educational leadership and student achievement: the elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly39(3): 398–425.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
