This study aimed to explore schools’ ambidexterity profiles and examine how each profile influences the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher instructional practices. Using data from 1150 teachers across 108 schools in Turkey, we employed multilevel latent profile analysis to group schools into clusters based on aggregated teachers’ responses to organisational ambidexterity. We conducted moderation analyses with latent profile variables. Results revealed two distinct profiles: high explorative-exploitative and low explorative-exploitative schools. The study also provided evidence of the significant moderating role that school ambidexterity profiles played in the link between leadership and teaching. We discussed implications for policy and practice.
AkramHRazaMJanMF, et al. (2022) Identified leadership practices and teachers’ professional development in Karachi, Pakistan: The moderation effect of training. Education3(13): 1–18.
2.
ArgyrisCSchönD (1978) Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.
3.
BaškaradaSWatsonJCromartyJ (2016) Leadership and organisational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Development35(6): 778–788.
4.
BellibaşMŞGümüşSLiuY (2021a) Does school leadership matter for teachers’ classroom practice? The influence of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on instructional quality. School Effectiveness and School Improvement32(3): 387–412.
5.
BellibaşMŞKılınçAÇPolatcanM (2021b) The moderation role of transformational leadership in the effect of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning and instructional practice: An integrated leadership perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly57(5): 776–814.
6.
BellibaşMŞPolatcanMKılınçAÇ (2022) Linking instructional leadership to teacher practices: The mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership50(5): 812–831.
7.
BinghamAJBurchP (2019) Reimagining complexity: Exploring organisational ambidexterity as a lens for policy research. Policy Futures in Education17(3): 402–420.
8.
BirkinshawJGuptaK (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organisation studies. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 287–298.
9.
BjorkC (2000) Responsibility for improving the quality of teaching in Japanese schools: The role of the principal in professional development efforts. Education and Society18(3): 21–43.
10.
BlaseJBlaseJ (2000) Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration38(2): 130–141.
11.
BliesePD (2000) Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: KleinKJKozlowskiSWJ (eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 349–381.
12.
BossertSTDwyerDCRowanB, et al. (1982) The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly18(3): 34–64.
13.
BridgesEM (1967) Instructional leadership: A concept re-examined. Journal of Educational Administration5(2): 136–147.
14.
BrieveFJ (1972) Secondary principals as instructional leaders. NASSP Bulletin56(368): 11–15.
15.
BryantDWalkerA (2024) Principal-designed structures that enhance middle leaders’ professional learning. Educational Management Administration & Leadership52(2): 435–454.
16.
BrykASSebringPBAllensworthE, et al. (2010) Organising Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
17.
BushTNgAYM (2019) Distributed leadership and the Malaysia education blueprint: From prescription to partial school-based enactment in a highly centralised context. Journal of Educational Administration57(3): 279–295.
18.
ChabalalaGNaidooP (2021) Teachers’ and middle managers’ experiences of principals’ instructional leadership towards improving curriculum delivery in schools. South African Journal of Childhood Education11(1): 1–10.
19.
Da’asRA (2023) The missing link: Principals’ ambidexterity and teacher creativity. Leadership and Policy in Schools22(1): 119–140.
20.
Darling-HammondL (1997) Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. Kutztown, PA: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
21.
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.
22.
DimmockCWalkerA (2000) Cross-cultural values and leadership. Management in Education14(3): 21–24.
23.
DuffMBowersAJ (2022) Identifying a typology of New York City schools through teacher perceptions of organisational capacity: A latent class analysis. Leadership and Policy in Schools21(4): 791–815.
24.
EdmondsR (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership37(1): 15–24.
25.
GeijselFPSleegersPJStoelRD, et al. (2009) The effect of teacher psychological and school organisational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal109(4): 406–427.
26.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organisational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
27.
GoddardYLGoddardRDBailesLP, et al. (2019) From school leadership to differentiated instruction: A pathway to student learning in schools. Elementary School Journal120(2): 197–219.
28.
GümüşSBellibaşMŞŞenS, et al. (2024) Finding the missing link: Do principal qualifications make a difference in student achievement?Educational Management Administration & Leadership52(1): 28–51.
29.
HallingerP (2011) Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration49(2): 125–142.
30.
HallingerPGümüşSBellibaşMŞ (2020) Are principals’ instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics122(3): 1629–1650.
31.
HallingerPHeckRH (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly32(1): 5–44.
32.
HallingerPMurphyJ (1985) Assessing the instructional management behaviour of principals. The Elementary School Journal86(2): 217–247.
33.
HallingerPWangWC (2015) Assessing Leadership for Learning with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Switzerland: Springer.
34.
HammadWHilalYYBellibaşMŞ (2024) Exploring the link between principal instructional leadership and differentiated instruction in an understudied context: the role of teacher collaboration and self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management38(4): 1184–1203.
35.
HattieJ (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
HeckRHHallingerP (2014) Modelling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration52(5): 653–681.
37.
Hendawy Al-MahdyYFHallingerPOmaraE, et al. (2024) Exploring how power distance influences principal instructional leadership effects on teacher agency and classroom instruction in Oman: A moderated-mediation analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership52(4): 878–900.
38.
JansenJJPKostopoulosKCMihalacheOR, et al. (2016) A socio-psychological perspective on team ambidexterity: The contingency role of supportive leadership behaviours. Journal of Management Studies53(6): 939–965.
39.
JitaLCMokheleML (2013) The role of lead teachers in instructional leadership: A case study of environmental learning in South Africa. Education as Change17(1): 123–135.
40.
JunniPSaralaRMTarasVAS, et al. (2013) Organisational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 299–312.
41.
KalmanMArslanMC (2016) School principals’ evaluations of their instructional leadership behaviours: Realities vs. ideals. School Leadership & Management36(5): 508–530.
42.
KimTLeeY (2020) Principal instructional leadership for teacher participation in professional development: evidence from Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review21(2): 261–278.
43.
KılınçAÇErEBeycioğluK (2021) Mapping the terrain of training and appointment of educational leaders in the Turkish context: An historical perspective. In: SamierEElKalehEHammadW (eds) Internationalisation of Educational Administration and Leadership Curriculum. UK: Emerald, 139–157.
44.
KoJ (2019) Forging the links between teaching quality, professional collaboration, and organisational ambidexterity in three schools in Hong Kong. In: ScuttCHarrisonS (eds) Teacher CPD: International Trends, Opportunities, and Challenges. London: Chartered College of Teaching, 44–51.
45.
KoryakOLockettAHaytonJ, et al. (2018) Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy47(2): 413–427.
46.
LeithwoodKHarrisAHopkinsD (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management28(1): 27–42.
47.
LeithwoodKJantziD (2008) Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly44(4): 496–528.
48.
LevinJAFoxJAFordeDR (2010) Elementary Statistics in Social Research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Pearson.
49.
LiuSHallingerP (2021) Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(2): 214–233.
50.
LiuSHallingerP (2024) The effects of instructional leadership, teacher responsibility and procedural justice climate on professional learning communities: A cross-level moderated mediation examination. Educational Management Administration & Leadership52(3): 556–575.
51.
LochmillerCR (2016) Examining administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly52(1): 75–109.
52.
LouisKSDretzkeBWahlstromK (2010) How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement21(3): 315–336.
53.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
54.
MarksHPrintyS (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly39(3): 370–397.
55.
MarzanoRJPickeringDJPollockJE (2001) Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
MuthénBAsparouhovT (2012) Bayesian structural equation modelling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods17(3): 313–335.
62.
NgFSDNguyenTDWongKSB, et al. (2015) Instructional leadership practices in Singapore. School Leadership & Management35(4): 388–407.
63.
NinkovicSFloricOK (2024) School leadership and teaching practice: A systematic review of studies of the indirect effects. Journal of Educational Administration62(4): 357–372.
64.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organisational Behaviour28: 185–206.
65.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2011) Organisational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review53(4): 5–22.
66.
ÖzdemirN (2019) Principal leadership and students' achievement: Mediated pathways of professional community and teachers' instructional practices. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy16(1): 81–104.
67.
ÖzdemirN (2020) How to improve teachers’ instructional practices: The role of professional learning activities, classroom observation and leadership content knowledge in Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration58(6): 585–603.
68.
ÖzdemirNÇobanÖBuyukgozeH, et al. (2024) Leading knowledge exploration and exploitation in schools: The moderating role of teachers’ open innovation mindset. Educational Administration Quarterly93. OnlineFirst. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X241281391.
69.
ÖzdemirNKılınçAÇTuranS (2023) Instructional leadership, power distance, teacher enthusiasm, and differentiated instruction in Turkey: Testing a multilevel moderated mediation model. Asia Pacific Journal of Education43(3): 912–928.
70.
PariseLMSpillaneJP (2010) Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. The Elementary School Journal110(3): 323–346.
71.
PietschMTulowitzkiPCramerC (2022) Principals between exploitation and exploration: Results of a nationwide study on ambidexterity of school leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership50(4): 574–592.
72.
PietschMTulowitzkiPCramerC (2023) Innovating teaching and instruction in turbulent times: The dynamics of principals’ exploration and exploitation activities. Journal of Educational Change24(3): 549–581.
73.
PimentelJL (2019) Some biases in Likert scaling usage and its correction. International Journal of Science: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)45(1): 183–191.
74.
PitnerN (1988) The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In: BoyanN (ed) Handbook of Research in Educational Administration. New York, NY: Longman, 99–122.
75.
PolatcanMÖzdemirNKılınçAÇ, et al. (2023) Leading teacher instructional practices in Türkiye: Do inner school conditions matter?Journal of Educational Administration61(4): 341–361.
76.
RaischSBirkinshawJ (2008) Organisational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management34(3): 375–409.
77.
RaischSBirkinshawJProbstG, et al. (2009) Organisational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science20(4): 685–695.
78.
RaudenbushSWBrykAS (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. London: Sage.
79.
SebastianJAllensworthE (2012) The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly48(4): 626–663.
80.
SebastianJAllensworthEHuangH (2016) The role of teacher leadership in how principals influence classroom instruction and student learning. American Journal of Education123(1): 69–108.
81.
ShengnanLHallingerP (2021) Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(2): 214–233.
StrongeJHWardTJTuckerPD, et al. (2007) What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education20(3/4): 165–184.
ThoonenEESleegersPJOortFJ, et al. (2011) How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organisational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly47(3): 496–536.
87.
WoleryMHemmeterML (2011) Classroom instruction: Background, assumptions, and challenges. Journal of Early Intervention33(4): 371–380.
