The Moderating Role of Teacher Collegiality in the Relationship Between Instructional Leadership and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Abstract

This study elucidates the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy by identifying the moderating role of teacher collegiality. Survey data were collected from 1,498 teachers at 53 middle schools in Henan, China. Findings indicate that instructional leadership has a positive impact on teacher self-efficacy. More importantly, teacher collegiality was found to moderate the relationship between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. More specifically, when there was a high level of teacher collegiality, instructional leadership positively predicted teacher self-efficacy; however, when there was a low level of teacher collegiality, instructional leadership barely predicted teacher self-efficacy. In addition to elaborating on the relationship between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy, this study underscores the importance of teacher collegiality in promoting the effectiveness of instructional leadership.

Plain Language Summary

How teacher collegiality works on principal instructional leadership impact

An increasing number of studies have examined whether and how principal instructional leadership influences teacher attitudes. However, the impact of principal instructional leadership on teacher collegiality and self-efficacy has not been explored simultaneously. This study investigated a moderation model of principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. Survey data were collected from 1,498 teachers at 53 middle schools in Henan, China. The results showed principal instructional leadership has a positive impact on teacher self-efficacy. More importantly, teacher collegiality moderated the relationship between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. When there was a high level of teacher collegiality, instructional leadership positively predicted teacher self-efficacy; however, when there was a low level of teacher collegiality, instructional leadership barely predicted teacher self-efficacy. This study extended the relationship between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy and emphasizes the importance of teacher collegiality in promoting the effectiveness of instructional leadership.

Keywords

instructional leadership teacher self-efficacy teacher collegiality China

Introduction

The rise of the accountability movement in the Western countries resulted in a greater focus on student and school achievement. Given the importance of “instructional leadership” for school effectiveness, subsequent research focused on the relationship between instructional leadership and student achievement. Empirical studies have demonstrated that principal instructional leadership has an indirect influence on student achievement (Hallinger et al., 1996). In this respect, one of the most important paths involves the influence of principal leadership on teacher self-efficacy (Dale & Phillips, 2011). Meanwhile, numerous studies have found that instructional leadership significantly predicts teacher self-efficacy (Bellibas & Liu, 2017; Calik et al., 2012; Duyar et al., 2013). However, research on the internal influence mechanism of instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy is still in its infancy, while few studies have explored potential sophisticated moderating effects.

Different social systems and cultures produce different instructional leadership practices (Hallinger, 1995; Walker & Hallinger, 2015). The concept of instructional leadership originated in a Western context, and research in this field was largely limited to Western countries before 2000 (Hallinger, 1989; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). In recent years, an growing number of scholars have invested in building a global knowledge base of instructional leadership practices in a cross-cultural context (Hallinger & Lee, 2014; Hallinger & Walker, 2017; Harris et al., 2017; Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Truong et al., 2017). This study contributes to this burgeoning field by exploring instructional leadership in the Chinese context.

The Chinese education system has traditionally been highly centralized and uniform. Within this education system, the role of the principal has been to implement the agenda of the Ministry of Education (MOE), with relatively little autonomy. Since the turn of the millennium, China has adopted a series of curriculum reforms that have required teachers and principals to amend their practice to facilitate student learning (Qian & Walker, 2013). This reform created a new institutional context for principals and reshaped the relationship between principals and teachers (Liu, Hallinger, et al., 2016). Principals are expected to take a more active role in leading teachers in the development of teaching and learning (Qian & Walker, 2013). In the Professional Standards for Compulsory Education School Principals issued by the MOE in 2013, instructional leadership was listed as one of the professional responsibilities of principals for the first time (Zheng et al., 2019). These policies have drawn attention to the importance of practicing instructional leadership. Therefore, within the Chinese context, this study examines the instructional leadership role of principals and how their practices shape teacher self-efficacy.

Theoretical Framework

This section reviews the relevant literature on instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher collegiality, and establishes this study’s conceptual model.

Principal Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership research originated with several studies exploring effective schools in the early 1970s (Hallinger et al., 1983). In their review of the existing educational leadership literature, Murphy et al. (1983) identified some of the major recurring problems in the field, namely, the limited generalizability of findings, lack of explanatory models and behavioral indicators, and premature application of research findings. To address these issues, they developed a model of instructional leadership comprising three dimensions: defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive school learning climate (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Known as the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), this conceptual framework and associated survey instrument have been proven reliable and valid over the past 30 years (Hallinger, 2011). Indeed, the PIMRS has become the most prevalent conceptualization of principal instructional leadership (Hallinger et al., 2017).

With the global focus on student achievement, a growing number of studies on instructional leadership have emerged in the field of leadership. However, there are some doubt regarding and criticisms of instructional leadership, resulting in the development of several competing leadership models, primarily transformational leadership (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Silins, 1992), and distributed leadership (Gronn, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 2009; Heck & Hallinger, 2010). Although scholars continue to debate the strengths of different types of leadership, Robinson et al. (2008) show that instructional leadership has a much greater effect on student achievement compared to other forms of leadership. Significantly, instructional leadership has an indirect effect on student achievement insofar as it occurs via teachers (Hallinger, 2003, 2005; Hallinger et al., 1996; Miller et al., 2015).

As the research on instructional leadership matured in the Western context, scholars began turning their attention to Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Al-Mahdy et al., 2018; Hallinger, 2019, 2020; Hallinger & Lee, 2014; Hallinger & Walker, 2017; Hallinger et al., 2018; Walker & Hallinger, 2015). They confirm that different politics, economies, cultures, and institutions shape different leadership practices (Hallinger & Lee, 2013; Harris et al., 2017; Qian et al., 2017). In China, studies on principal instructional leadership still lack empirical evidence (Walker & Qian, 2015; Walker et al., 2012). In recent years, some Chinese scholars have sought to address this issue through a series of studies, becoming active in the field of international studies as a result.

In this respect, Zhao and Liu (2010) constructed a framework comprising four dimensions based on localization practice, namely, (1) defining the school mission and goals, (2) promoting teacher development, (3) managing instruction, and (4) managing public relations. More recently, based on the framework developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), Qian et al. (2017) interviewed 22 Chinese primary school principals and provided a preliminary framework of Chinese principals’ instructional leadership using qualitative analysis. They subsequently expanded and refined this preliminary framework using a larger and more diversified sample comprising 101 primary school principals (Walker & Qian, 2020). Based on interview data, this refined framework consisted of six dimensions: (1) defining purpose and direction, (2) managing and improving teaching and learning, (3) nurturing positive and collaborative teacher culture, (4) developing and improving school curriculum, (5) fostering professional development to enhance teachers, and (6) promoting connections with external stakeholders’ capacity. Meanwhile, another study constructed four dimensions based on localization practice, namely Defining the school mission and goals, Promoting teacher development, Managing instruction, and Managing public relations (Zhao & Liu, 2010). Comparing the instructional leadership frameworks in Chinese and Western contexts found that Chinese principals pay more attention to the development of teachers, explaining why “promoting teacher development” is a separate dimension in the Chinese framework (Hou et al., 2019; Qian et al., 2017; Walker & Qian, 2020).

Influenced by Confucian values, research indicates that Chinese principals tend to prioritize the cultivation of harmonious relations between teachers (Qian et al., 2017; Walker & Qian, 2020). At the policy level, in 2013, the MOE released Professional Standards for Compulsory Education School Principals, which identified instructional leadership as one of the responsibilities of a principal and presented specific behavior indicators in this respect (Liu, Xu, et al., 2016). For example, this guideline requires principals to conduct in-depth classroom observations, provide teaching feedback to teachers, stipulate the classroom observation time for each semester; pay attention to the development of each teacher, and guide teachers to formulate professional development plans based on their characteristics (Liu, Xu, et al., 2016).

Compared to the United States, Britain, Australia, and other Western countries, China was the last to formulate professional standards for principals. Nevertheless, the traditional organizational structure and institution of Chinese schools—including the presence of subject-based teaching research groups (jiaoyanzu), collective lesson preparation (jitibeike), class observation and evaluation (tingpingke), and public lessons (gongkaike)—provide fertile grounds for the development of principals’ instructional leadership (Walker & Qian, 2020; Zheng et al., 2019). In this regard, one of the principal’s daily tasks is to participate in teaching and research activities and provide guidance to teachers, as well as ensure that all teachers participate in these activities. According to the 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), of the 48 participating countries and regions, Chinese principals rank first in terms of the proportion of total working time spent on curriculum and instruction. Conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), TALIS survey data revealed the high investment of Chinese principals in the curriculum and instruction. Underlying this result is the complex and anxious psychology of Chinese principals facing the great challenge of educational reform.

In the 21st century, Chinese education entered a new stage, with quality-oriented education (suzhi jiaoyu), which focuses on the all-round development of students, becoming the goal of education reform (Qian et al., 2017). Educational reform has resulted in changes to the traditional curriculum model and teaching methods, including a shift away from traditional teacher-centered instruction toward student-centered learning and the transition from highly centralized curriculum to the development of unique school curricula (xiaoben kecheng) (Qian et al., 2017). Principal instructional leadership has become particularly important in the institution of such reform (Guo & Lu, 2018). In the context of education reform, principals’ concerns are no longer restricted to students’ academic performance, but expanded to include balancing the implementation of national education reform policies and high expectations for students’ academic performance (Qian et al., 2017). Accordingly, scholars have called for the construction of a richer database on Chinese instructional leadership to explore its complexity (Walker et al., 2012).

Principal Instructional Leadership and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Based on Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, the concept of teachers self-efficacy refers to teachers’ belief in their abilities to attain desired results in terms of student involvement and learning, even with students who lack motivation (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Self-efficacy can influence an individual’s actions, emotional state, thinking processes, cognitive function, choice of activities and behavioral settings, coping activities, and performance (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1989). Research demonstrates that principal leadership has a positive effect on teacher self-efficacy (Bellibas & Liu, 2017; Calik et al., 2012; Cansoy & Parlar, 2018; Fackler & Malmberg, 2016; Ma & Marion, 2021). Moreover, several studies have shown that a higher degree of teacher self-efficacy positively impacts teachers’ psychological well-being and success (Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Zee & Koomen, 2016). More importantly, it can also influence student achievement and motivation (Caprara et al., 2006). Teacher self-efficacy thus plays a mediating role in the impact of principal leadership on teacher professional learning, collective teacher efficacy, and student academic achievement (Calik et al., 2012; Dale & Phillips, 2011; Liu & Hallinger, 2018).

However, little research exists on the internal mechanism between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy, especially in China. That said, analyzing TALIS (2013) data, Bellibas and Liu (2017) found that the effect size of instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy differs from one context to another, indicating that a significant relationship cannot be generalized across different contexts. More recently, several significant empirical studies have examined how instructional leadership influences teacher self-efficacy in China (Ma & Marion, 2021; Zheng et al., 2019). These studies have similarly concluded that instructional leadership indirectly affects teacher self-efficacy through mediating variables. More specifically, Zheng et al. (2019) identified four components—namely, the professional learning community, collaborative activity, de-privatized practice, and reflective dialogue—that fully mediated the effects of instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy. Meanwhile, Ma and Marion (2021) found that two dimensions of instructional leadership—defining the school’s mission and managing the instructional program—were fully mediated by trust, while a third dimension, developing a positive environment, was partially mediated through trust.

Such research has undoubtedly enriched the existing literature on the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy (Ma & Marion, 2021). However, although these studies reveal potential paths between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy, they have not elucidated how the influence of teaching leadership on teacher self-efficacy can be optimized, underscoring the need to explore the mediating mechanism between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy.

Principal Instructional Leadership and Teacher Self-Efficacy and Collegiality

Collegiality is a vague and imprecise concept (Hargreaves, 1994), often used interchangeably with “collaboration” in educational practices (Fielding, 1999). Collaboration has been defined as having common goals, trust, and greater decision-making power at the school and classroom levels (Ford & Youngs, 2018; Torrance & Humes, 2015). It is closely related to Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and regarded as a key factor in their success (Ford & Youngs, 2018). Kelchtermans (2006) differentiated between collegiality and collaboration by defining the latter as teachers’ cooperative actions, and the former as the quality of teacher relations with normative and relational dimensions. There are two kinds of support in the workplace (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994): instrumental and emotional. The majority of research has focused on professional collaboration, which focuses on instrumental support but ignores emotional support, such as the sharing of emotional experiences. In this regard, Nias (1998) found that teachers need to be able to share their happiness in times of success and have someone to listen and understand in times of frustration. As this study is primarily interested in how teachers’ professional cooperation and emotional bonds promote the influence of instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy, “collegiality” is used to capture a wider range of teachers’ emotions, behaviors, and actions.

Many scholars have advanced the benefits of teacher collegiality, including improved student achievement (Y. Goddard et al., 2007; Shah, 2012); improved teacher attitudes and actions, such as job satisfaction (Pounder, 1999), efficacy (Slavit et al., 2011), professional development (Egodawatte et al., 2011; Park et al., 2007), trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2004), commitment (Shah & Abualrob, 2012), and instruction (Bertrand et al., 2006; Slavit et al., 2011); and positive influence on school climate (Westheimer, 2008). Shachar and Shmuelevitz (1997) found an association between a higher level of teachers’ collaboration and a higher level of teachers’ self-efficacy. Good collegiality helps teachers reinforce teaching competence and confidence, thereby increasing their self-efficacy (Shah, 2012; Wang, 2015). However, contrived collegiality—characterized as formal, predetermined, and fixed in time and space—has been shown to have a negative impact on teachers’ participation in collaboration, such as withholding their trust, restricting their participation, or leaving their school and the profession altogether (Hargreaves, 2019).

China has a long history of teacher collaboration groups, which promote teachers’ teaching and learning. According to Zhang and Pang (2016), collectivist culture benefits teachers’ collaboration. Although the collaboration between Chinese teachers may seem contrived collegiality on the surface, further examination reveals it to be genuine collegiality (Wang, 2015). The results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and TALIS have seen Chinese teacher collaboration groups attract global attention, resulting in the Chinese version of the PLC becoming a research focus (Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Liu et al., 2022; Qian & Walker, 2020; Wang, 2015; Zhang & Pang, 2016; Zheng et al., 2019, 2021).

In recent years, some scholars have linked PLCs to principal leadership and emphasized the essential role of teacher collaboration (Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Qian & Walker, 2020; Zheng et al., 2019). As the organizer of teacher collaboration, Chinese principals believe that harmonious relationships among teachers helps sustain a healthy school environment and support teachers’ efforts (Qian et al., 2017). Meanwhile, other studies have confirmed the mediating role of trust in the relationship between principal leadership and PLCs (Li et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2019). Trust is one of the characteristics distinguishing arranged collegiality from contrived collegiality (Hargreaves, 2013), and is thought to facilitate genuine collegiality in Chinese PLCs (Wang, 2015). Whether focusing on PLCs or emphasizing trust, these studies similarly highlight the relationship between teachers.

Research indicates that teacher collaboration can affect teacher self-efficacy (Duyar et al., 2013) and is associated with instructional leadership (Li et al., 2016). Moreover, instructional leadership has a significant impact on teacher collaboration (Miller et al., 2015). As a facilitator of teacher-teacher relationships, the principal is required to provide teachers with opportunities to improve their interpersonal relationships (Shah & Abualrob, 2012). In this respect, scholars (Qian et al., (2017) found that “nurturing positive and collaborative relationships with and between teachers” is a major work dimension of Chinese principals, one playing a key role in their ability to create a positive and safe learning environment for staff.

Although some studies have explored collaboration as a mediation between leadership and teacher efficacy (R. Goddard et al., 2015; Ma & Marion, 2021; Zheng et al., 2019), most studies have focused on teacher collaboration as limited to the professional sphere of teacher relationships, neglecting emotional interaction between teachers beyond collaboration. Although both are essential factors in the efficient functioning of instructional leadership, scholars have yet to consider teacher professional and emotional interaction simultaneously. Accordingly, this study uses the concept of “collegiality,” which encompasses both professional and emotional interaction in the workplace.

This research addresses the two research questions. First, how principal instructional leadership can impact on teacher self-efficacy? Second, what role does teacher collegiality play in the relationship between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. As Figure 1 illustrates, based on existing research and collected data, this study proposes a moderation effect model comprising three variables: principal instructional leadership, teachers self-efficacy, and teachers collegiality. Based on the foregoing, this study proposes the following two hypotheses:

H1: Instructional leadership is positively related to teacher self-efficacy.

H2: Teacher collegiality moderates the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy such that when teacher collegiality is high, the positive impact of instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy will be stronger.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Methods

Data Collection

Survey data were collected from the Investigation of Curriculum and Instruction in China (ICIC), which comprised survey data from 1,498 teachers and 53 principals at 53 middle schools in Henan, China. An oral explanation of the purpose of the ICIC research project, as well as potential risks, benefits, and confidentiality was presented to all participants prior to their taking the survey. Survey participation was voluntary and anonymous.

In Henan, middle schools are distributed in four districts representing a range of socioeconomic statuses. Sampling procedures were executed to ensure the acquisition of a representative sample of middle schools from all four districts. Sample characteristics included school level (key, ordinary, and weak), school location (urban, rural-urban-continuum, and rural), and school nature (public and private). In terms of sex, 77.4% of the middle school principals were male and 22.6% were female, while teachers were predominately female (68.8%).

Instruments

Following the aforementioned variables, hypotheses, and the research model (Figure 1), we used the instruments for principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher collegiality.

Principal Instructional Leadership

The most prevalent conceptual framework of principal instructional leadership was developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), and comprises three dimensions: (1) defining the school mission, (2) managing the instructional program, and (3) developing a positive school learning climate. Indeed, this framework has been employed in 26 different countries and proven to be reliable (Hallinger et al., 2013). In this framework, five items were used to measure principal instructional leadership (Appendix A). Some studies have confirmed the significant differences between the perceptions of teachers and principals, with the bulk of evidence revealing that principal’s self-reports yield higher ratings than those of teachers (Hallinger, 2011). This study conducted a t-test on the matching questions in the questionnaire given to teachers and that given to principals; results were consistent with those of the aforementioned studies. Therefore, teacher perceptions remain the preferred source of data on the principals’ instructional leadership.

Teacher Self-Efficacy

Building on Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, the concept of teachers self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to attain desired results in terms of student involvement and learning, even with students who lack motivation (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Based on the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale, which focuses on the three domains of classroom teaching (instructional practices, classroom management, and student engagement), this study used six items to measure this variable (Appendix B).

Teacher Collegiality

Although conceptually vague and imprecise (Hargreaves, 1994), collegiality describes the relationship among teachers in terms of instrumental and emotional support (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994). This study used five items divided into two dimensions (Appendix C) to measure this variable. Item response categories ranged from 1 (“Almost Never”) to 4 (“Almost Always”).

Reliability was measured with Cronbach’s alpha test of internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the construct validity of the measurement model. Model fit was deemed acceptable with CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, and RMSEA < 0.08. The reliability of the scales exceeded the standard of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein for exploratory research. As Table 1 shows, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and model fit indices were acceptable for all variables.

Table 1.

The Goodness of Fit Measures for the Main Constructs.

Construct	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA	Cronbach’s α
Principal instructional leadership	6.454	0.992	0.980	0.015	0.060	.829
Teacher collegiality	5.338	0.995	0.987	0.012	0.054	.858
Teacher self-efficacy	8.650	0.987	0.971	0.021	0.071	.863

Data Analysis

To analyze the data, this study first used SPSS 25.0 to test the impact of common method bias, as well as discern descriptive statistics and correlation. Next, Mplus 7.0 was used to test the moderation model. Standard z-scores were used to decrease potential multicollinearity problems in the analyses. Lastly, the Wald test was used to examine this model in different locations (urban, rural-urban-continuum, and rural), school levels (key, ordinary, and weak), and natures (public and private).

Results

As all measures were collected from the same source, this study tested the impact of common method bias. This study created a one-factor model combining all of the study variables into a single factor. Results showed that the items generated a total of three factors, which explained 53.25% of the variance. The one-factor model explained 33.79% of the variance, which is less than the 50% standard proposed by Hair et al. (1998).

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables. Data indicated that teachers perceived the principals to be moderately engaged in instructional leadership (M = 2.80, SD = 0.61). Teacher collegiality scored 2.98 (SD = 0.58) and self-efficacy scored 3.03 (SD = 0.51). Correlation results revealed a significantly positive correlation among principal instructional leadership, teacher collegiality, and self-efficacy.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of and Correlations Between the Constructs.

Variables	M ± SD	1	2	3
1. Principal instructional leadership	2.80 ± 0.61	1
2. Teacher collegiality	2.98 ± 0.58	.515**	1
3. Teacher self-efficacy	3.03 ± 0.51	.323**	.428**	1

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed test.

This study then tested the moderating effects of teacher collegiality on the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. To control for potential confounding variables, teacher’ sex, teaching experience, and highest education level were used as control variables. As Figure 2 shows, instructional leadership significantly predicted teacher self-efficacy (β = .133, t = 3.596, p < .001), while teacher collegiality had a moderating effect on the relationship between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy (β = .120, t = 2.537, p < .05).

Figure 2.

Moderation model.

Figure 3 illustrates the interactions between variables. The criteria for dividing teacher collegiality into two levels was dependent on the mean score ±1 SD (Cohen et al., 2003). When teacher collegiality was high, instructional leadership positively predicted teacher self-efficacy. When teacher collegiality was low, instructional leadership barely predicted teacher self-efficacy.

Figure 3.

Moderating role of teacher collegiality in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy.

Finally, this moderated model was tested in a different school location, level, and nature. Table 3 shows, none of the paths were significantly different. In other words, the moderated model is stable regardless of changes in school location, level, and nature.

Table 3.

Wald Test Results.

Items	Location			Level			Nature
Variables	Rural (a1)	Continuum (a2)	Urban (a3)	Weak (b1)	Ordinary (b2)	Key (b3)	Public (c1)	Private (c2)
	a1 = a2	a2 = a3	a3 = a1	b1 = b2	b2 = b3	b3 = b1	c1 = c2
Value	0.442	0.487	2.237	2.251	2.01	0.09	1.430
p-Value	.506	.485	.135	.134	.156	.764	.232

Discussion

Although scholars have recognized the importance of teacher collegiality (Shah & Abualrob, 2012), few studies have investigated its function in the field of principal leadership. Previous studies paid attention to collaboration, which was considered a subset of collegiality, and neglected teachers’ emotional interaction in the workplace. This elucidates the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy by revealing the moderating role of teacher collegiality in the Chinese context. This section discusses this study’s main findings and their implications.

First, results show that Chinese principals valued instructional leadership. Certainly, understood from the contextual perspective of traditional Chinese education, most principals may consider improving student achievement as the ultimate goal of school development. Moreover, most principals have rich teaching experience with which to guide teachers.

Second, instructional leadership had a positive effect on teacher self-efficacy, which was consistent with the findings of prior studies (Liu & Hallinger, 2018). This finding suggests that instructional leadership behaviors influenced teacher self-efficacy by setting goals and standards for the school, developing teacher professional learning, observing teachers’ classes, and providing feedback and guidance (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). According to Bandura (1997), four aspects of information influence the development and formation of self-efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physical and emotional states. From the perspective of Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, principals’ guidance and feedback can be classified separately as a source of vicarious experience and verbal persuasion, thereby promoting teacher self-efficacy.

Third, this study proposes a model of moderation in which teacher collegiality moderates the impact of principal instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy. Analysis revealed that this model remains stable, with no observable changes when applied to a school location, level, and nature. In other words, this model suggests that the impact of instructional leadership could become more effective when there is a high level of teacher collegiality. This result is particularly significant in the Chinese context. In populous China, restrictions on principals’ time and experience can limit one-on-one communication with teachers, hindering the efficacy of instructional leadership. Therefore, the results of this study provide a possible solution for principals in China or other populous countries, namely, that principals should strive to establish good teacher collegiality to promote the effect of their instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy.

Certainly, teacher collaboration has served as a key element in promoting school effectiveness and teacher performance (Y. Goddard et al., 2007). Zheng et al. (2019) found that teachers’ collaborative activity as a component of the PLC mediated the effects of instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy. In the context of Chinese collective culture, principals could take advantage of teaching and research activities (jiaoyan huodong) or lesson preparation groups (beikezu) to promote teacher collaboration in practice. Chinese principals are facilitators of collaborative relationships among teachers, with positive interpersonal interactions between staff found to play a significant role in sustaining a healthy school environment and supporting the work of principals (Qian et al., 2017). At the same time, greater value should be placed on emotional support between teachers. Nias (1998) found teachers have requirements for sharing their happiness in times of success and need someone to listen and understand in times of frustration. According to social exchange theory, positive relationships are essential sources of emotional support for employees (Colbert et al., 2016). As such, it is necessary to make principals aware of the importance of teacher collegiality in order to promote effective instructional leadership.

However, it is important to note that, under the influence of Confucian culture, Chinese teachers are used to obeying people of a higher status and older age, resulting in their rarely expressing their own views. Good teacher collegiality may help teachers break through the high power distance and express different opinions. However, principals should be wary of superficial harmony. In order to protect one another’s dignity (mianzi), communication between teachers often lacks depth and criticality (Zheng et al., 2019). Principals thus need to find a balanced mid-point between harmony and critical dialogue. As Hargreaves (2019) noted, “dialogue became deep and demanding, yet trusting and respectful at the same time.”

The findings of this study thus have important practical implications for the leadership approach of Chinese principals, particularly in view of the challenges faced in responding to and implementing China’s quality-education reforms. Findings suggest that instructional leadership had a positive impact on teacher self-efficacy, and teacher collegiality significantly moderated this relationship. Therefore, when promoting teacher self-efficacy, principals should not solely focus on instructional leadership but pay attention to creating a climate facilitating a high level of teacher collegiality. With a high level of teacher collegiality, teachers can gain instrumental support and emotional support, which will enhance their positive attitudes in the workplace.

This study contributes to research on instructional leadership research in China and the growing body of research on the effects of principal instructional leadership in non-Western, developing societies. In view of the fact that instructional leadership practices need to be understood in relation to different cultural and social contexts, this study has implications for societies with similar cultural characteristics. In highly hierarchical societies, individual teachers may feel intimidated by higher-status principals and be reluctant to express their own ideas or challenge the ideas of those in a higher position (Hallinger & Walker, 2017; Zheng et al., 2019). Therefore, principals in high power distance societies may be able to influence individual teachers more effectively by facilitating high teacher collegiality. Principals should take more responsibility for creating good relationships among teachers to ensure deep conversations.

Footnotes

Appendix A: Items of Instructional Leadership

Appendix B: Items of Teacher Collegiality

Appendix C: Items of Teacher Self-Efficacy

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Institute of Curriculum and Instruction, East China Normal University for supporting this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is to acknowledge the support by the China MOE Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences (No. 22JJD88024).

Ethical Approval

Research being conducted for the paper has been reviewed and approved by East China Normal University Committee on Human Research Protection. The purpose of the research project along with issues of risks, benefits, and confidentiality was explained orally to all participants before taking the survey. The survey was voluntary and anonymous.

ORCID iD

Jiani Rong

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Al-Mahdy

Y. F. H.

Emam

M. M.

Hallinger

(2018). Assessing the contribution of principal instructional leadership and collective teacher efficacy to teacher commitment in Oman. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 191–201.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

Bandura

(1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Bellibas

M. S.

Liu

(2017). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’ perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 49–69.

Bertrand

Roberts

R. A.

Buchanan

(2006). Striving for success: Teacher perspectives of a vertical team initiative. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal-Electronic, 16, 1–10.

Calik

Sezgin

Kavgaci

Kilinc

A. C.

(2012). Examination of relationships between instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 2498–2504.

Cansoy

Parlar

(2018). Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550–567.

10.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Steca

Malone

(2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490.

11.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

12.

Colbert

Bono

Purvanova

(2016). Flourishing via workplace relationships: Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1199–1223.

13.

Dale

Phillips

(2011). Influences of instructional leadership, transformational leadership and the mediating effects of self-efficacy on student achievement [Paper presentation]. 6th International Conference of the American Institute of Higher Education, Charleston, SC.

14.

Duyar

Gumus

Bellibas

M. S.

(2013). Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(7), 700–719.

15.

Egodawatte

McDougall

Stoilescu

(2011). The effects of teacher collaboration in Grade 9 applied mathematics. Educational Research for Policy Practice, 10, 189–209.

16.

Fackler

Malmberg

L. E.

(2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 185–195.

17.

Fenlason

Beehr

T. A.

(1994). Social support and occupational stress: Effects of talking to others. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(2), 157–175.

18.

Fielding

(1999). Radical collegiality: Affirming teaching as an inclusive professional activity. The Australian Educational Researcher, 26(2), 1–34.

19.

Ford

T. G.

Youngs

P. A.

(2018). Creating organizational structures to facilitate collegial interaction among teachers: Evidence from a high-performing urban midwestern US district. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 424–440.

20.

Goddard

Sook Kim

Miller

(2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530.

21.

Goddard

Tschannen-Moran

(2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.

22.

Gronn

(2003). Leadership: Who needs it? School Leadership and Management, 23(3), 267–290.

23.

Guo

(2018). Assessing instructional leadership from two mindsets in China: Power distance as a moderator. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(4), 433–455.

24.

Hair

Anderson

Tatham

Black

(1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.

25.

Hallinger

(1989). Developing instructional leadership teams in secondary schools: A framework. NASSP Bulletin, 73(517), 84–92.

26.

Hallinger

(1995). Culture and leadership: Developing an international perspective in educational administration. UCEA Review, 36, 3–7.

27.

Hallinger

(2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–351.

28.

Hallinger

(2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239.

29.

Hallinger

(2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal instructional management rating scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271–306.

30.

Hallinger

(2019). A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in South Africa: Mapping knowledge production in a developing society, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(3), 315–333.

31.

Hallinger

(2020). Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management from the emerging regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1965–2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(2), 209–230.

32.

Hallinger

Adams

Harris

Suzette Jones

(2018). Review of conceptual models and methodologies in research on principal instructional leadership in Malaysia: A case of knowledge construction in a developing society. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(1), 104–126.

33.

Hallinger

Bickman

Davis

(1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527–549.

34.

Hallinger

Heck

(2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689.

35.

Hallinger

Hosseingholizadeh

Hashemi

Kouhsari

(2017). Do beliefs make a difference? Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commitment in Iran. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 800–819.

36.

Hallinger

Lee

(2013). Exploring principal capacity to lead reform of teaching and learning quality in Thailand. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(4), 305–315.

37.

Hallinger

Lee

(2014). Mapping instructional leadership in Thailand: Has education reform impacted principal practice? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 42(1), 6–29.

38.

Hallinger

Leithwood

(1996). Culture and educational administration: A case of finding out what you don’t know you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 98–116.

39.

Hallinger

Murphy

(1985). Assessing the instructional leadership behaviour of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–248.

40.

Hallinger

Murphy

Weil

Mesa

Mitman

(1983). Effective schools: The specific policies and practices of the principal. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 67, 83–91.

41.

Hallinger

Walker

(2017). Leading learning in Asia-Emerging empirical insights from five societies. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 130–146.

42.

Hallinger

Wang

W. -C.

Chen

C. -W.

(2013). Assessing the measurement properties of the principal instructional management rating scale: A meta-analysis of reliability studies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 272–309.

43.

Hargreaves

(1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work culture in the postmodern age. Cassell, Teachers’ College Press.

44.

Hargreaves

(2013). Push, pull and nudge: The future of teaching and educational change. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

45.

Hargreaves

(2019). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 25(5), 603–621.

46.

Harris

Jones

Cheah

K. S. L.

Devadason

Adams

(2017). Exploring principals’ instructional leadership practices in Malaysia: Insights and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 207–221.

47.

Heck

Hallinger

(2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 654–678.

48.

Hou

Cui

Zhang

(2019). Impact of instructional leadership on high school student academic achievement in China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(4), 543–558.

49.

Kelchtermans

(2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions-A review. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220–237.

50.

Leithwood

(1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 498–518.

51.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher leadership on student engagement in school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(Supplemental), 679–706.

52.

L. J.

Hallinger

Kennedy

K. J.

Walker

(2016). Mediating effects of trust, communication, and collaboration on teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(6), 697–716.

53.

Liu

Hallinger

(2018). Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 501–528.

54.

Liu

Hallinger

Feng

(2016), Learning-centered leadership and teacher learning in China: Does trust matter? Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6), 661–682.

55.

Liu

Yin

(2022). Can professional learning communities promote teacher innovation? A multilevel moderated mediation analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103571

56.

Liu

Grant

Strong

Fang

(2016). Professional standards and performance evaluation for principals in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2), 238–259.

57.

Marion

(2021). Exploring how instructional leadership affects teacher efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 188–207.

58.

Miller

Goddard

Larsen

Jacob

(2015). Instructional leadership: A pathway to teacher collaboration and student achievement. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530.

59.

Murphy

Hallinger

Weil

Mitman

(1983). Instructional leadership: A conceptual framework. Planning and Changing, 14(3), 137–149.

60.

Nias

(1998). Why teachers need their colleagues: A developmental perspective. In Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

Hopkins

(Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 223–237). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

61.

Park

Oliver

J. S.

Johnson

T. S.

Graham

Oppong

N. K.

(2007). Colleagues’ roles in the professional development of teachers: Results from a study of national board certification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 368–389.

62.

Pounder

(1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work-related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317–348.

63.

Qian

Walker

A. D.

(2013). How principals promote and understand teacher development under curriculum reform in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 304–315.

64.

Qian

Walker

(2020). Creating conditions for professional learning communities (PLCs) in schools in China: The role of school principals. Professional Development in Education, 47(4), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1770839

65.

Qian

H. Y.

Walker

X. Y.

(2017). The west wind vs the east wind: Instructional leadership model in China. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 186–206.

66.

Robinson

Lloyd

Rowe

(2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 564–588.

67.

Shachar

Shmuelevitz

(1997). Implementing cooperative learning, teacher collaboration and teacher’s sense of efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 53–72.

68.

Shah

(2012). The importance and benefits of teacher collegiality in schools—A literature review. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1242–1246.

69.

Shah

Abualrob

(2012). Teacher collegiality and teacher professional commitment in public secondary schools in Islamabad, Pakistan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 950–954.

70.

Silins

(1992). Effective leadership for school reform. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38(4), 317–334.

71.

Slavit

Kennedy

Lean

Nelson

Deuel

(2011). Support for professional collaboration in middle school mathematics: A complex web. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38, 113–131.

72.

Torrance

Humes

(2015). The shifting discourses of educational leadership: International trends and Scotland’s response. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 792–810.

73.

Truong

T. D.

Hallinger

Sanga

(2017). Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: Exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(1), 77–100.

74.

Tschannen-Moran

(2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. Jossey-Bass.

75.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

76.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956.

77.

Walker

Hallinger

(2015). A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 554–570.

78.

Walker

Qian

(2012). Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 369–399.

79.

Walker

Qian

(2015). Review of research on school principal leadership in mainland China, 1998-2013: Continuity and change. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 467–491.

80.

Walker

Qian

(2020). Developing a model of instructional leadership in China. Compare, 52(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1747396

81.

Wang

(2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying professional learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 908–930.

82.

Westheimer

(2008). Learning among colleagues: Teacher community and the shared enterprise of education. In Cochran-Smith

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 756–783). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group and the Association of Teacher Educators.

83.

Zee

Koomen

(2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.

84.

Zhang

Pang

N. S. K.

(2016). Exploring the characteristics of professional learning communities in China: A mixed-method study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 11–21.

85.

Zhao

Liu

(2010). Wo Guo Xiao Zhang Jiao Xue Ling Dao Li Mo Xing Yan Jiu (Pinyin). Zhong Xiao Xue Guan Li (Pinyin), 3, 10–13.

86.

Zheng

Yin

(2019). Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 843–859.

87.

Zheng

Yin

Liu

(2021). Are professional learning communities beneficial for teachers? A multilevel analysis of teacher self-efficacy and commitment in China. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(2), 197–217.