The Roles of Collective Teacher Efficacy and Commitment in the Relationship Between Turkish Language Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and School Principal Distributed Leadership

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between principal distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction, with the mediating role of collective teacher efficacy. It also investigated the moderating role of teacher commitment in the link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. Drawing data from a sample of 338 Turkish language teachers in secondary schools in Turkey, the current study employed a cross-sectional survey design. Moderated mediation structural equation modeling was utilized to analyze the data. Results provided a moderate direct association between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction and an indirect relationship mediated by collective teacher efficacy. Researchers also found the moderating role of teacher commitment in the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction to be positive and significant. Results provide evidence from a non-Western developing context and Turkish language teachers, contributing to the global knowledge base by confirming the positive and direct link between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction while highlighting the significant mediating role of collective teacher efficacy between these two constructs and the moderating role of teacher commitment in reflecting this role in teacher job satisfaction. Implications for policymakers and practitioners are discussed.

Plain language summary

The roles of collective teacher efficacy and commitment in the relationship between Turkish language teachers’ job satisfaction and school principal distributed leadership

Our study is unique in that it examines the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction using collective teacher efficacy as a moderator. Furthermore, this study investigates the role of teacher commitment as a moderator in the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. Another distinguishing feature of our study that differs from general teacher interpretations is that Turkish language (TLT) teachers are expected to perform tasks that are not officially part of their job descriptions. Unlike other groups of teachers at the school, these teachers plan special days and weeks, promote school-family cooperation, and help students develop high-level communication skills. The curriculum, of course, aims to provide students with high-level communication skills, but TLT teachers aim to develop these skills to a higher level than the curriculum requires. Such circumstances necessitate strong distributed leadership, collective teacher efficacy, and job satisfaction. We used a cross-sectional survey design and data from 338 TLT teachers in Turkey to estimate the empirical links between our study variables using moderate mediation structural equation modeling. The findings revealed a moderate direct relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction, as well as an indirect relationship mediated by collective teacher efficacy. Furthermore, teacher commitment plays a positive and significant moderating role in the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. This helps us to make a generalizable conclusion for teachers with high workload.

Keywords

distributed leadership teacher job satisfaction collective teacher efficacy teacher commitment Turkish language teacher

Introduction

The significant role of schools in student development has long been recognized, and this role has recently undergone a significant transformation (Kyriakides et al., 2000). Schools are not only expected to provide students with academic competencies but also to support them in developing identity, agency, purpose, thinking, and cooperation competencies (OECD, 2019). Within this complex structure, teacher job satisfaction has a role in increasing both student achievement (Banerjee et al., 2017; Caprara et al., 2006) and desirable outcomes, such as extra-role behavior (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000) and decreasing undesirable outcomes such as turnover intention (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011) and burnout (Brief & Weiss, 2002).

Researchers have often considered and tested the relationship between leadership approaches and teacher job satisfaction (Dou et al., 2017; Yohannes & Wasonga, 2023). These studies have provided findings that there are strong links between leadership and teacher job satisfaction. In terms of distributed leadership, previous studies have provided strong empirical evidence that school administrator distributed leadership behaviors have a direct positive effect on teacher job satisfaction (Garcia Torres, 2019; Hulpia et al., 2009; Y. Liu et al., 2021; Y. Liu & Werblow, 2019). For example, Garcia Torres (2019) pointed out that teacher’s role in decision-making in the school environment is related to their attitudes towards both the school field and the teaching profession and that higher levels of distributed leadership may be associated with a more attractive working environment for teachers, and teachers may be less likely to leave schools where they have more influence in shaping school policy and teaching.

Besides the direct link between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction, there are some reasons to think that collective teacher efficacy will mediate this relationship. Firstly, the functions of distributed leadership in creating a culture of shared responsibility and supporting a collaborative school environment support teachers by creating a culture of mutual support. This support offers teachers the opportunity to pursue their profession in a more fulfilling way but also allows them to embrace a broader responsibility that extends beyond the classroom. This leadership approach makes teachers feel supported and can be the basis for creating a culture of collective solutions to school-wide problems (Garcia Torres, 2019). Secondly, in the Turkish education system, Turkish language (TLT) teachers are expected to organize programs related to national special celebration days in cooperation with their colleagues and participate in various competitions and programs on behalf of the school (Aslan, 2010; Şengül & Alkaya, 2016). These are extra-role behaviors beyond the official job descriptions of TLT teachers, and the perception of collective teacher efficacy can be an effective mediator in undertaking these roles. Thirdly, Turkish culture is non-Western and stands out with its collectivist characteristic (Eroğlu & Pıçak, 2011). Collectivist cultures tend to be protected by the group and prioritize the relationship (Hofstede, 2011). In this respect, TLT teachers expected to be cooperative and have extra task responsibility may attribute importance to the perception of collective efficacy in the relationship between more authority and job satisfaction. Finally, past research provides a broad empirical basis for the positive effects of distributed leadership on collective teacher efficacy (P. Liu, 2019; López Alfaro et al., 2022) and the positive effects of collective teacher efficacy on teacher job satisfaction (Buonomo et al., 2020; Klassen et al., 2010). These studies provided evidence for the dual empirical linkages of the variables researchers considered and encouraged toward the potential mediating role of collective teacher efficacy.

The reasons mentioned above can be evaluated under the umbrella of Self Determination Theory, and this theory formed the theoretical basis of this study. Self Determination Theory focuses on competence, autonomy, and relatedness and argues that meeting these basic psychological needs supports motivation, performance, and well-being (Deci et al., 2017). Self Determination Theory argues that employees’ feeling of autonomy is important in maintaining their motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Within the scope of this study, it is thought that the school principals distributed leadership behaviors who distribute authority and support teachers to feel autonomous (S. Liu et al., 2021) will increase teachers’ collective competencies and improve teachers’ positive feelings toward work (Deci et al., 2017).

Although the empirical link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction has been shown in previous studies (Göker, 2012; Stephanou et al., 2013), this relationship may operate with different dynamics under different conditions. Collective teacher efficacy is not a construct designed to develop teachers’ positive emotions, such as job satisfaction. Collective teacher efficacy is primarily considered the extension of self-efficacy to the organizational level and refers to the perception of the school’s capacity to improve student achievement (Goddard et al., 2000). Previous research on school leadership and teacher perceptions and behaviors has been extensively explored in empirical studies. These studies are rooted in Self-Determination Theory, which posits that organizational practices influence individuals’ perceptions by interacting with individual characteristics in various ways (Deci et al., 2017). In this respect, according to the nature of Self-Determination Theory and TLT teachers in Turkish education system, it can be thought that the reflection of collective teacher efficacy on teacher job satisfaction will be through some mediating or moderating variables. In this study, the role of teacher commitment in this transfer task is addressed. Teacher commitment plays a driving role in teacher efforts toward the school goals (Meyer et al., 2012), which may collective teacher efficacy on teacher job satisfaction, a positive emotion. In addition, previous research has addressed the reciprocal relationships of these constructs. Previous research has shown that teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction is related (Anari, 2012; Bogler & Nir, 2015). As for the link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher commitment, previous research points to the significance of this link (Thien et al., 2023). These reciprocal relationships have also provided clues that teacher commitment may assume a moderator role. For the reasons above, this study designed and tested a structural model in which collective teacher efficacy mediates the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction. In addition, to explore the structure of the empirical link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction, the moderating role of teacher commitment in this relationship was tested (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Hypothesis model tested in the research.

Previous research has provided clues that collective teacher efficacy may mediate the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction, and teacher commitment may play a moderating role in the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. It is thought that the results of this study, which was conducted on TLT teachers in a collectivist and high-power distance culture and TLT teachers who are expected to have extra-role behavior, will provide insights into educational systems with similar cultural and role structure.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical roots of this research are based on Self-Determination Theory (Deci et al., 2017). Self-determination theory argues that employees’ positive feelings toward work are based on some psychological needs. Accordingly, employees’ competencies and autonomy are the basic requirements for their intrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). In this study, the relationship between distributed leadership and job satisfaction represents the autonomy-based psychological need of this theory. Fundamental approaches and research on distributed leadership have revealed that distributed leaders make their followers feel more autonomous by sharing their authority with them (Harris, 2010; S. Liu et al., 2021). In this respect, this study suggests that principals’ distributed leadership behaviors will support their job satisfaction. On the other hand, collective efficacy perception represents teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions spread throughout the organization and represents competence in terms of Self-Determination Theory in this study. It is thought that this perception of competence spread to the organizational level will support teacher job satisfaction (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

This study hypothesized that commitment would play a moderating role in the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of collective efficacy and their job satisfaction. According to the Self-Determination theory, the formation of motivation is influenced by social and individual variables (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Past research has shown that commitment is affected by collective efficacy (Thien et al., 2023) and job satisfaction (Anari, 2012; Bogler & Nir, 2015), which can be considered a situational variable moderating this relationship in terms of Self-Determination Theory.

Contextual Framework

Communication is so vital for people that all topics described above are insignificant without human communication. Therefore, states prioritize communication in the mother tongue in the curricula of their countries. In Turkey, the target of the curriculum prepared by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) is communication in Turkish, and among the behaviors expected from the students as performance are comprehension and expression skills (MoNE, 2019). This education is provided through Turkish secondary and high school lessons, and students take Turkish lessons for six periods a week. Due to the large number of lessons, TLT teachers have the number to form a department in a school. However, Turkey expects specific competencies from TLT teachers. These competencies include cooperating with school, family, and community. Within the framework of these collaborations, there are indicators such as managing and organizing activities within the scope of national special days and ensuring student active participation in these ceremonies, collaborating with the family and community in making the school a cultural and learning center, and being a social leader (MoNE, 2008).

Additionally, to these goals imposed on TLT teachers in Turkey, language should also be considered a universal social act (Holtgraves, 2001). In the social communication provided by language, multiple articulators and modals act like an orchestra (Holler & Levinson, 2019). This reflects the most objective aspect of communication. However, in the background, there are many complex processes in cognition (McQueen & Cutler, 2010), and they also work like an orchestra. The main reason for this is the common purposefulness of the mind and some affective features. Like this, people may act like an orchestra in line with common goals. This common purpose, in the most primitive form, is to ensure understanding and cooperation through language (Tomasello, 2008). The main reason for people’s cooperation is that behaviors become standard business methods, resulting in culture (Tomasello, 2009). In this way, specific common goals for organizations emerge. Therefore, teachers who conduct mother tongue education courses in a country should not only know the characteristics of the language of the country they are in but also be open and committed to all the collaborations of that culture. They should even create these collaborations when necessary (MoNE, 2008). This requires high job satisfaction, commitment, collectivist work, and trust in leadership.

Literature Review

Teacher Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction relates to employees’ enjoyment (Fritzsche & Parrish, 2005). While people are doing their jobs, working conditions, feeling competent, achieving goals, self-efficacy support, and being open to positive influence is extremely important (Lent & Brown, 2006). Regarding education, job satisfaction is the emotional reaction of educators towards their jobs and teaching roles (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). In teaching, excessive workload, role complexity, or role ambiguity can lead to attrition and turnover (Klassen & Anderson, 2009; Kunter et al., 2013). Teachers with low levels of job satisfaction lack the understanding of providing quality education (Collie et al., 2012). In contrast, job satisfaction reduces teacher attrition in many ways (McInerney et al., 2018; Perrachione et al., 2008) and positively affects student development (Caprara et al., 2006). Teacher job satisfaction is influenced by three main factors: intrinsic rewards of teaching, extrinsic school factors, and school-based factors (Dinham & Scott, 1998). Specific to these three main factors are salary (Darling-Hammond, 2003), education level (Culver et al., 1990; Meek, 1998), and years of experience (Renzulli et al., 2011). In addition, value congruence and social relationships help a strong sense of belonging, directly affecting the teacher job satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011).

The adverse situation created by role confusion (Klassen & Anderson, 2009) may be an influence factor that works more on TLT teachers. This is because TLT teachers organize activities on special days and weeks (MoNE, 2008). In addition, their communication role with families and the community causes them to work actively outside of school hours. Since communication is the most basic function in social relations, TLT teachers are expected to have the highest social relations. Therefore, the relationship between social relationships and job satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011) is expected to be more evident in this group of teachers. In addition, distributed leadership is vital to teacher job satisfaction (Garcia Torres, 2018, 2019; Y. Liu et al., 2021). Therefore, the partnership in leadership of TLT teachers, who have many workloads, is also crucial in job satisfaction.

Collective Teacher Efficacy

Collective efficacy is based on the beliefs in the Social Cognitive Theory of working together to create impact (Bandura, 1997). However, although it is based there in every way, it can go as far as Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development theory based on social learning. Because the endeavor to be whole is based on shared goals, common goals are based on communication, and communication is based on social learning. Teacher efficacy is the perception that teachers are trying to impact students positively (Goddard et al., 2000; Klassen et al., 2011). The collective efficacy of a group is influenced by the achievements and observations of different groups, the incentives of authorities, or their past achievements (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). The perception of collective efficacy is related to teacher perceptions of multifactorial stress (Klassen, 2010). The consequences of this stress may force teachers to resign (Jepson & Forrest, 2006). However, on the contrary, the ability to collaborate brings success and performance (Caprara et al., 2003). Vatou and Vatou (2019) found a positive significant relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. Based on the existing theoretical and empirical foundations, researchers propose that teachers’ collective efficacy perceptions are positively related to their job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). Personal and context-based factors that are directly related to collective teacher efficacy is critical in student achievement (Ninković & Knežević Florić, 2018; Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2018). Moreover, when school leaders aim for improvement in teaching through collective work, this has a positive impact on teachers’ collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2015). Therefore, the more collective efficacy beliefs a school has, the more the organization members work to achieve common goals (Goddard & Skrla, 2006). From this point of view, it can be assumed that it is more critical to address collective efficacy with many factors rather than alone.

Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership is a management theory in which leadership has clear boundaries and is spread throughout the organization (Woods et al., 2004). Distributed leadership has been adopted by stakeholders in the field of education (Gronn, 2002a) and has become a mainstream school leadership theory in the international arena (Wang, 2018). According to this theory, school leadership practices are modeled beyond formal and administrative roles (Harris, 2010) and emerge through group interaction beyond individual roles (Bennett, 2008). Therefore, it develops people’s management and leadership skills beyond formal administrative roles (Bush, 2018). However, the primary way to achieve cumulative success is to facilitate, support, and regulate leadership (Harris, 2008). This can positively affect teacher and student effectiveness, motivation, self-efficacy, and learning (Harris & Muijs, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).

The concept of leadership is placed in the social and situational context of the organization (Spillane et al., 2004). Although this approach takes the human factor outside of the organization (Bolden et al., 2009). Chreim (2015) stated that in distributed leadership research, a broader situation should be addressed, and the leadership practices of organizations should be examined and analyzed. General research on teachers has revealed that distributed leadership is positively and directly or indirectly related to teacher self-efficacy (J. Liu et al., 2023), job satisfaction (Garcia Torres, 2019; Zheng et al., 2019), or both (Y. Liu et al., 2021). Collective efficacy stems from self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Hence teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions are one of the concepts that are strongly related to collective teacher efficacy (Ninković & Knežević Florić, 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Based on the existing theoretical and empirical foundations, researchers propose that TLT teachers’ collective teacher efficacy (Hypothesis 2) and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3) are positively related to distributed leadership.

Teacher Commitment

Teacher commitment is a concept that reflects the commitment and feelings of teachers to the school where they work (McInerney et al., 2015) and needs urgent attention worldwide (Pan, 2023). If a teacher has a high commitment level, he/she makes superior efforts for students to learn (Dannetta, 2002). From this point of view, teacher commitment directly affects student achievement (Ackerman et al., 2006; Siri et al., 2020). The more a teacher is committed to the school, the more likely he/she is to work towards the school’s goals and beliefs (Meyer et al., 2012). Therefore, teacher commitment is one of the most critical issues to be determined about teachers (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Therefore, TLT teacher job satisfaction also leads to their commitment. This commitment, in turn, supports teachers in teaching and cooperation.

The Mediating Role of Collective Teacher Efficacy

Collective teacher efficacy is directly and positively related to job satisfaction (Vatou & Vatou, 2019). However, collective teacher efficacy also mediates many psychological states of teachers related to school and teaching. For example, collective teacher efficacy mediates school organizational climate and teacher burnout (Lim & Eo, 2014). In the study by Qadach et al. (2020), collective teacher efficacy was found to mediate between teachers’ instructional leadership and resignation tendencies. In addition, collective teacher efficacy mediates the relationship between teachers’ job stress and job satisfaction (Klassen, 2010). Collective teacher efficacy also mediates the relationship between teacher leadership and teacher commitment (Hammad et al., 2024). These theoretical and empirical data suggest that collective teacher efficacy mediates an increase or decrease in teachers’ job satisfaction. Therefore, researchers propose that distributed leadership has a significant positive indirect effect on teacher job satisfaction through collective teacher efficacy in TLT teachers with a higher workload than other teachers (Hypothesis 4).

The Moderating Role of Teacher Commitment

Teacher-principal relationships and support from leaders and colleagues directly impact teacher commitment (Jo, 2014; Li et al., 2019; Meyer et al., 2012; Price, 2012). In addition, distributed leadership in the organization plays a fundamental role in teacher commitment (Hulpia et al., 2012; Yang & Mossholder, 2010). Teacher commitment directly relates to teacher job satisfaction (Culver et al., 1990). Kılınç et al. (2024) found that teachers mediate between transformational leadership and innovative practices. In addition, teacher commitment mediates teacher efficacy and professional teacher behaviors (Siri et al., 2020). Thien et al. (2023) found that collective teacher efficacy is directly related to teacher commitment. In addition, distributed leadership affects teacher commitment through workload stress (Bellibaş et al., 2024). The mediating roles of teacher commitment in teachers’ innovative practices and professional behaviors are related to professional satisfaction. In addition, the commitment of TLT teachers with high workload stress is controversial. When all these are examined, it can be thought that teacher commitment will show a moderating effect between collective teacher efficacy and job satisfaction, which are directly related to teacher commitment. Therefore, researchers propose that the moderator role of teacher commitment is significant in the empirical link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction (Hypothesis 5).

Method

Procedure and Sample

The study collected data from TLT teachers working in public secondary schools in Ankara. Firstly, 140 secondary schools were determined by stratified sampling method according to the distribution of the number of teachers in 25 districts. Secondly, researchers contacted the principals of the identified schools by phone or e-mail and requested their approval. The researchers sent the online scales to the principals, who gave their approval. The principals shared these scales with the TLT teachers via WhatsApp, and the forms were filled out this way. This process was completed in about two and a half months.

Before finalizing the sample, researchers weeded out the outliers. The researchers determined the inclusion criteria as being a teacher for at least 1 year in the current school and having at least two teachers in the school’s Turkish department. As a result, the sample consisted of 338 TLT teachers. Of all the teachers, 202 (60%) were female, and 136 (40%) were male. In total, 249 (74%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 89 (26%) had a master’s or PhD degree. The average length of teachers was 17.25 years (SD = 7.18). The demographic characteristics of this study’s participants represent the national distributions observed across Turkey (OECD, 2019).

Initially, researchers upheld the confidentiality of respondents to prevent any potential influence on their responses, which could skew them towards leniency, agreement, or desirability (Jakobsen & Jensen, 2015). Next, researchers mitigated any potential bias related to item priming by maintaining the confidentiality of the questionnaire title and structuring the questions based on their respective roles as dependent, mediator, moderator, and independent variables. Lastly, researchers enlisted the expertise of academic professionals to evaluate the validity of our measurements, ensuring that they effectively represent the concepts of interest and remain uninfluenced by methodological factors.

Instruments

Distributed Leadership

The scale was initially formulated by Özer and Beycioğlu (2013). Researchers employed a shorter version of this scale, comprising six items that exhibited high factor loading scores. One sample item is: “Principal makes decisions with us.”

Collective Teacher Efficacy

The authors assessed collective teacher efficacy using a Turkish translation (Karaoğlu, 2019) of a scale that Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) developed. The scale consisted of 12 items and a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). A sample item from the scale is: “How well can you control disruptive behavior in the classroom?”

Teacher Commitment

Teacher commitment was measured with the school commitment scale (OECD, 2019). The scale consists of four items and is graded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item from the scale: “I usually look forward to each working day at this school.”

Teacher Job Satisfaction

Teacher job satisfaction was measured with a four-item, 5-point Likert-type scale measuring teachers’ overall job satisfaction (OECD, 2019). The scale is graded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item from the scale: “I look forward to going to school every day.”

Analytical Strategy

This study focuses on the roles of collective teacher efficacy and teacher commitment in the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction. In this context, distributed leadership was determined as the input, teacher job satisfaction as the output, and collective teacher efficacy as the mediating variable in the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Additionally, the moderating effect of teacher commitment in the empirical link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction was analyzed. This model was tested with partial least squares structural equation modeling (SEM) (Lohmöller, 1989). Before starting the analyses, skewness, kurtosis, and Mahalanobis distance values were calculated to test the normality of the distribution. Skewness and kurtosis values were found to be in the range of −1.5 to +1.5, and Mahalanobis distance (p > .001) was insignificant. Therefore, it was decided that the distribution was normal (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Also, the variables were analyzed for multicollinearity, and it was seen that there was no multicollinearity between the variables (VIF < 5, TI > 0.10).

The data were analyzed with a systematic approach. First, researchers applied covariance-based CFA to ensure the construct validity of the scales. The scales were also tested for construct validity in partial least squares structural equation modeling (see Table 1). The researchers then calculated descriptive statistical analyses, mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and Pearson correlation analysis (r) to provide an overview of the data (see Table 2). After that, researchers positioned the factor structures confirmed in CFA as latent measures in SEM. Hypotheses first focused on the direct empirical link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction (H1), distributed leadership and collective teacher efficacy (H2) and distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction (H3). The authors then test the indirect effect of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction through collective teacher efficacy (H4). Finally, the moderating role of teacher commitment in the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction is investigated (H5). All hypotheses are tested integrated in a single structural model. For this purpose, based on Hayes model 14, our variables were positioned in the structural model to be measured through the confirmed CFA models. To test the significance of the direct effects in the first three hypotheses, the indirect effects in the fourth hypothesis and the moderator effects in the fifth hypothesis, bootstrap analysis was performed in 5,000 samples without zero (0) at the upper and lower limits of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) (Hayes, 2013). Determining the moderator effect of teacher commitment in the fifth hypothesis in the moderator effect of teacher commitment, the levels were determined as −1SD, 0, and +1SD (Hayes, 2013). In partial least squares structural equation modeling, unlike covariance-based structural equation modeling, fit indices such as AIC, BIC, and their variants are used instead of fit indices such as χ², RMSEA, CFI, RFI, etc. (Garson, 2016). In this context, composite reliability (rho_a, rho_c > 0.60), SRMR (<0.08), AVE (>0.50) (Hair et al., 2022), and NFI (>0.85) were used in the structural model (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Table 1.

Fit Indices of the Scales.

Scales	α	χ²/df	RMSEA	SRMR	NFI	CFI	Rho_a	Rho_c	AVE
DL	.95	1.99	0.08	0.03	0.96	0.98	0.95	0.96	0.69
CTE	.95	2.09	0.08	0.02	0.94	0.97	0.95	0.95	0.63
TJS	.92	1.82	0.07	0.04	0.99	0.99	0.93	0.94	0.61
TC	.78	1.13	0.04	0.04	0.97	0.99	0.81	0.86	0.80

Note. DL = distributed leadership; CTE = collective teacher efficacy; TJS = teacher job satisfaction; TC = teacher commitment; Rho = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables.

Variables	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	1	2	3	4
1. DL	3.75	0.78	−0.73	0.62	1	0.548**	0.629**	0.672**
2. CTE	3.64	0.60	−0.25	0.82		1	0.445**	0.471**
3. TJS	3.79	1.23	0.11	−0.70			1	0.601**
4. TC	3.35	0.91	−0.44	−0.28				1

Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation.

p < .01.

Results

Validity and Reliability Analyses

At the beginning of the analyses, researchers first performed CFA on the scales filled in by the teachers. The fit indices of the variables in the measurement model are presented in Table 1.

Construct validity results revealed that distributed leadership, collective teacher efficacy, teacher job satisfaction, and teacher commitment data fit well with the model. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for reliability was calculated, indicating that all scales were reliable(α> .70). Additionally, composite reliability values (rho_a, rho_c > 0.60) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE > 0.50) values were appropriate for all scales.

Preliminary Analysis

Descriptive statistics for the variables showed that distributed leadership (M = 3.75, SD = 0.78) and teacher job satisfaction (M = 3.79, SD = 1.23) were just above the moderate level, while collective teacher efficacy (M = 3.64, SD = 0.60) and teacher commitment (M = 3.35, SD = 0.91) were at the moderate level. Additionally, skewness and kurtosis values indicated that the distribution was normal. Descriptive statistics and correlations are provided in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that all the variables are positively and significantly correlated with each other. distributed leadership exhibited a moderate positive association with both collective teacher efficacy (r = .548, p < .01) and teacher job satisfaction (r = .629, p < .01) and a high positive relation with teacher commitment (r = .672,p < .01). Additionally, collective teacher efficacy displayed a moderate positive relationship with both teacher job satisfaction (r = .445, p < .01) and teacher commitment (r = .471, p < .01). Also, teacher job satisfaction exhibited a moderate positive association with teacher commitment (r = .601, p < .01).

Hypothesis Testing

The researchers investigated the empirical link between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction via collective teacher efficacy (see Figure 2). The authors conducted an SEM moderated mediation model using Hayes’ Process Macro (Model 14) on SmartPLS 4.0 to test the proposed hypotheses. Analysis revealed that the final model fitted well (SRMR = 0.61; NFI = 0.84; d_ULS = 1.735; d_G = 0.796; R ²collective teacher efficacy = .31; R ² teacher job satisfaction = .48). The first three hypotheses focus on direct empirical links between the variables. First, the findings showed that the direct association between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction was positive and significant (β = .120, p < .01; [LCI = 0.014; UCI = 0.220]). This finding confirmed the first hypothesis. The empirical link between distributed leadership and collective teacher efficacy was positive and significant (β = .559, p < .001; [LCI = 0.458; UCI = 0.648]). This finding confirmed the second hypothesis. Furthermore, the findings illustrated a positive and significant relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction (β = .344, p < .001; [LCI = 0.233; UCI = 0.450]) confirmed the third hypothesis of the study.

Figure 2.

Standardized path coefficients.

Further, the fourth hypothesis of the study focuses on the indirect relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Researchers examined the indirect association between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction according to whether the lower and upper levels of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of the test findings in the 5,000 samples did not include zero (0) using the bootstrapping method (Hayes, 2013). Accordingly, the indirect link between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction via collective teacher efficacy was significant (β = .067, p < .001; [LCI = 0.007; UCI = 0.127]). This finding confirmed the fourth hypothesis.

The fifth and final hypothesis of the study focused on the moderating effect of teacher commitment on the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. The moderator role of the teacher commitment in the link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction was also significant (β = .104, p < .001; [LCI = 0.049; UCI = 0.166]). This finding confirmed the fifth hypothesis of the study (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Moderation slope analysis results.

Discussion

The researchers were building empirically on five decades of research examining the link between school leadership and psychological variables. This study aimed to investigate the direct relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction and the indirect relationship through the mediation of collective teacher efficacy. Moreover, the role of teacher commitment in the transfer of collective teacher efficacy to teacher job satisfaction was examined. The following section discusses the limitations of our study, avenues for future research, interpretation of findings, and potential implications for policy and practice.

Interpretation of Findings

Our analyses showed a positive and significant empirical link between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. This implies that when teachers collectively perceive efficacy, they will attribute higher meaning to their work and derive higher satisfaction. These findings supported previous research that found that higher collective teacher efficacy would lead to higher teacher job satisfaction in teachers (Buonomo et al., 2020; Klassen et al., 2010). It is possible to interpret this finding in two different ways. First, it extends the literature by confirming the role of collective teacher efficacy in increasing the teacher job satisfaction of TLT teachers who are expected to perform extra-role behaviors in the Turkish education system. Secondly, it contributed to filling the gap in the literature by emphasizing collective teacher efficacy as one factor that positively affects the teacher job satisfaction of TLT teachers in a vertical hierarchical and competitive structure and a collectivist culture. However, in light of the relatively weak relationship observed in our analysis, we encourage researchers to conduct further research in different educational contexts to confirm our findings.

The results showed a moderate positive correlation between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Our findings are broadly consistent with previous studies examining the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction (Garcia Torres, 2019; Y. Liu et al., 2021; Y. Liu & Werblow, 2019). For example, Y. Liu et al. (2021) found a moderate direct link between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction using TALIS data, similar to the present study. In contrast to this consistency, according to Hulpia et al. (2009), cohesive leadership teams, participatory decision-making, distributed support, and distributed supervision as components of distributed leadership in schools increase teacher commitment and teacher job satisfaction. Accordingly, he argued that distributed leadership, like teacher job satisfaction, is related to teachers’ degree of identification with and involvement in the school rather than positive feelings towards work. There may be some reasons underlying this limited discrepancy. Firstly, countries’ perceptions of power distance may have influenced the reflection of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction. Turkey is seen as a culture with high power distance (Hofstede, 2011). In this case, teachers may have perceived the school principal’s sharing his/her authority and power as a more satisfying situation. Secondly, TLT teachers, who constitute the sample of this study, represent a group expected to perform extra-role behavior in schools (Aslan, 2010). More authority and power through distributed leadership positively supported the teacher job satisfaction of TLT teachers. On the contrary, where leadership is not distributed, TLT teachers with extra workload feel inadequate in terms of professional satisfaction. Therefore, it can be said that the relationship between job satisfaction and workload is also due to distributed leadership.

Our findings showed a moderate positive correlation between distributed leadership and collective teacher efficacy. Previous research supports this (P. Liu, 2019; López Alfaro et al., 2022; Rashid & Latif, 2021). In particular, it has been reported that sharing values, cooperation, responsibilities, and accountability related to distributed leadership supports collective teacher efficacy (P. Liu, 2019). Distributed leadership is based on the idea of division of labor, and the social dimension of this division of labor is based on the assumption that employee participation in decision-making processes will increase the organization’s strength (Gronn, 2002b; Harris, 2011). With distributed leadership, the increase in organizational power through employee participation in decision-making processes can improve collective teacher efficacy, which is directly related to the perception of this power. In addition, since collective efficacy is related to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), the self-efficacy perceptions of teachers with high workloads (such as TLT teachers) should also be examined. Teachers with low self-efficacy may also have low perceptions of collective efficacy, and in this case, the effect of distributed leadership on job satisfaction may decrease. If job satisfaction results from the low school climate, teachers’ instructional practices are also weakened (Harrison et al., 2023). Therefore, the collective efficacy of self-efficacy can affect students’ educational lives, albeit indirectly.

The results of Mehra et al. (2006) conducted outside educational organizations provided essential clues regarding the mediating role of collective teacher efficacy in the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Accordingly, while leader-centered and distributed coordinated leadership similarly affected employee job satisfaction, distributed coordinated leadership increased employee team performance more. In this respect, the effect that makes a difference to other leadership types in the distributed leadership-teacher job satisfaction relationship can be realized through collective teacher efficacy. Another indirect support is provided by the research results of Sun and Xia (2018). Accordingly, distributed leadership behaviors of school administrators at both individual and school levels positively affected teacher job satisfaction directly and indirectly through teacher self-efficacy. Although authors could not reach direct evidence that examines the school and these variables in the same structure in the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction, our findings are supported by indirect evidence.

Our results revealed that teacher commitment moderated the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. This result showed that increasing teacher commitment levels strengthened the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction. Although past research does not directly support this moderator role, there is some indirect evidence. Firstly, past research confirms a direct relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction (Göker, 2012; Stephanou et al., 2013). Second, past research has shown that collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction is related (Anari, 2012; Bogler & Nir, 2015). Third, there is empirical evidence that collective teacher efficacy and teacher commitment is related (Thien et al., 2023). This evidence suggests that teacher commitment may be moderated in transmitting collective teacher efficacy to teacher job satisfaction. Our findings confirmed our expectation for this role and showed that teacher commitment plays an important moderator role. The fact that the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction almost did not work in teachers with low teacher commitment levels confirm this critical role.

Almost every student starts school knowing their mother tongue. However, reading and writing are uses of technology. The aim of reading acquisition is to bring reading closer to listening skills (Perfetti et al., 2005). While literacy is challenging to acquire and advance in, teachers’ low job satisfaction can negatively affect students’ future. Therefore, the job satisfaction of TLT teachers who aim to improve students’ reading and writing skills is essential for students’ future. Also, the high workload of TLT teachers compared to other teachers makes them more dependent on being affected by the school climate. Because the extra workload given to these teachers often requires them to take on social responsibilities. The relationship between leadership and TLT teachers determines how these social responsibilities will be realized. Therefore, the school principal’s leadership approach affects these teachers’ job satisfaction. Moreover, this approach affects teachers more because it also affects collective efficacy and commitment, which can affect job satisfaction. From this point of view, school climate affects job satisfaction more in teachers with extra workload.

Conclusion and Implications

Student academic achievement may not be the only indicator of school success, but school achievement plays a central role in societal development and is considered particularly important in developed societies. Various elements of the school play a role in ensuring student success. Since teachers, in particular, play a unique role in creating the conditions for student achievement, it is vital to understand how teachers contribute to student achievement (Caprara et al., 2006). One of the mechanisms that contribute to student achievement is teacher job satisfaction. Research has shown that teacher job satisfaction can positively support student achievement (Banerjee et al., 2017; Dicke et al., 2020). This study revealed that distributed leadership and collective teacher efficacy is important in improving teacher job satisfaction. In particular, the Turkish National Education System ranks last among OECD countries regarding teacher income, and it is pointed out that the salary factor does not motivate teachers (OECD, 2019). At this point, school factors supporting teacher job satisfaction become more important for Turkey. This study showed that decentralization of leadership in schools and teacher participation in decision-making processes increase teacher job satisfaction directly and indirectly by increasing their perception of collective teacher efficacy. Policymakers should consider this situation for school administrators and researchers, especially in Turkey, which has a collectivist culture with high power distance (Hofstede, 2011). In addition, it was also revealed that collective teacher efficacy does not increase teacher job satisfaction in teachers with low teacher commitment; on the contrary, teacher commitment should be high for collective teacher efficacy to increase teacher job satisfaction. In this respect, policymakers and researchers should consider that collective teacher efficacy is an essential factor in the development of teacher job satisfaction.

Although the data were collected in the country’s capital, there may be different problems related to leadership and job satisfaction of teachers working in different regions. However, the fact that the sample city is the capital city ensures that the demographic distribution of the teachers is almost equal, which shows that the relationship between leadership and job satisfaction does not change according to demographic structure in TLT teachers. This reveals the importance of the view of leadership in TLT teachers who have a high workload. The situations where differences can be seen may be school level and workload differences. In addition to the general context of teaching in non-Western, power-distanced, and collectivist cultures, this research has also produced some implications for teachers who teach their mother tongue and are expected to perform extra-role behaviors. In Turkey, TLT teachers are expected to perform many roles in addition to their formal role behaviors. TLT teachers perform these extra roles in cooperation with their colleagues and peers and, in many cases, by assuming leadership within these cooperation groups. In this respect, the results of this study emphasized the importance of leadership capacity and collective teacher efficacy. In addition, the commitment of TLT teachers to this extra role expectation played a vital role in job satisfaction. These findings provide a framework for improving teacher job satisfaction in similar roles.

Limitations and Future Research

Our findings have limitations regarding the data collection method, sample, and social desirability that need further consideration. Firstly, this study’s cross-sectional data collection prevented us from establishing a causal link between our variables. Determining a longitudinal approach in future research may provide clues for establishing a causal link between these variables. Secondly, the study data set consisted of the opinions of teachers working in Ankara, the capital and second-largest city of Turkey. It is a good representation of the demographic distribution of teachers in Turkey. Although researchers have provided a good representation for this study, data to be collected at the NUTS 1 level in future studies may provide an even better representation. Thirdly, researchers could not obtain findings at the school level because collected the data online. In particular, addressing leadership and collective efficacy with a multilevel approach in future studies will better explain the link between these variables and the job satisfaction of TLT teachers. Finally, this study could not be conducted as a self-other report. In this respect, teachers may have given somewhat biased answers with the perception of social desirability. In future studies, collecting data from school principals and teachers and analyzing the data from a holistic perspective may eliminate this bias.

Footnotes

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: Türk Eğitim-Sen [Turkish Education Union], an organization that supports scientific research and projects for the professional development of teachers, made significant contribution to the data collection of this study and provided institutional support for the publication process of the research with the funding number of 2023-001. For this reason, as the authors of the study, we would like to thank Türk Eğitim-Sen Headquarters and administrators.

ORCID iDs

Kürşat Kaya

Onur Erdoğan

Data Availability Statement

The datasets of this paper are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Ackerman

Heafner

Bartz

(2006). An examination of the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement [Paper presentation]. 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, USA, April 10, 2006.

Anari

N. N.

(2012). Teachers: Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(4), 256–269.

Aslan

(2010). An analysis of the problems of Turkish teachers and prospective Turkish teachers based on forum messages. Education Sciences, 5(4), 2254–2269.

Bandura

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

Banerjee

Stearns

Moller

Mickelson

R. A.

(2017). Teacher job satisfaction and student achievement: The roles of teacher professional community and teacher collaboration in schools. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 203–241.

Bellibaş

M. Ş.

Gümüş

Chen

(2024). The impact of distributed leadership on teacher commitment: The mediation role of teacher workload stress and teacher well-being. British Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 814–836. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3944

Bennett

(2008). Distributed leadership and IT. In Voogt

Knezek

(Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 597–613). Springer.

Bogler

Nir

A. E.

(2015). The contribution of perceived fit between job demands and abilities to teachers’ commitment and job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 541–560.

Bolden

Petrov

Gosling

(2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143208100301

10.

Brief

A. P.

Weiss

H. M.

(2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279–307.

11.

Buonomo

Fiorilli

Benevene

(2020). Unravelling teacher job satisfaction: The contribution of collective efficacy and emotions towards professional role. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 736.

12.

Bush

(2018). Prescribing distributed leadership: Is this a contradiction? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 535–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218768403

13.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Borgogni

Steca

(2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821

14.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Steca

Malone

P. S.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001

15.

Chreim

(2015). The (non)distribution of leadership roles: Considering leadership practices and configurations. Human Relations, 68(4), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714532148

16.

Collie

R. J.

Shapka

J. D.

Perry

N. E.

(2012). School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 189–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356

17.

Culver

S. M.

Wolfle

L. M.

Cross

L. H.

(1990). Testing a model of teacher satisfaction for blacks and whites. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027002323

18.

Dannetta

(2002). What factors influence a teacher’s commitment to student learning? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(2), 144–171. https://doi.org/10.1076/lpos.1.2.144.5398

19.

Darling-Hammond

(2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6–13.

20.

Deci

E. L.

Olafsen

A. H.

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

21.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Self-determination theory. In van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–436), Sage.

22.

Dicke

Marsh

H. W.

Parker

P. D.

Guo

Riley

Waldeyer

(2020). Job satisfaction of teachers and their principals in relation to climate and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 1061–1073.

23.

Dinham

Scott

(1998). A three-domain model of teacher and school executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 362–378.

24.

Dou

Devos

Valcke

(2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959–977.

25.

Eroğlu

Pıçak

(2011). Entrepreneurship, national culture and Turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(16), 146–151.

26.

Fritzsche

B. A.

Parrish

T. J.

(2005). Theories and research on job satisfaction. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 180–202). Wiley.

27.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.

28.

Garcia Torres

. (2018). Distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction in Singapore. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(1), 127–142.

29.

Garcia Torres

. (2019). Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers’ job satisfaction in U.S. schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.001

30.

Garson

G. D.

(2016). Partial least squares regression and structural equation models. Statistical Associates.

31.

Goddard

R. D.

Goddard

Y. L.

(2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 807–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00032-4

32.

Goddard

R. D.

Goddard

Kim

E. S.

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. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925

33.

Goddard

R. D.

Hoy

W. K.

Hoy

A. W.

(2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479

34.

Goddard

R. D.

Skrla

(2006). The influence of school social composition on teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05285984

35.

Göker

S. D.

(2012). Impact of EFL teachers’ collective efficacy and job stress on job satisfaction. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1545–1551.

36.

Gronn

(2002a). Distributed leadership. In Leithwood

Hallinger

(Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696). Springer.

37.

Gronn

(2002b). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.

38.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

39.

Hammad

Polatcan

Morad

(2024). Investigating links between teacher leadership, collective efficacy and teacher commitment in Egyptian schools: A mediated-effects analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(3), 750–768. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2023-0124

40.

Harris

(2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253

41.

Harris

(2010). Distributed leadership. In Bush

Bell

Middlewood

(Eds.), The principles of educational leadership and management (pp. 55–69). Sage.

42.

Harris

(2011). Distributed leadership: Implications for the role of the principal. Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 7–17.

43.

Harris

Muijs

(2004). Improving school through teacher leadership. Open University Press.

44.

Harrison

M. G.

King

R. B.

Wang

(2023). Satisfied teachers are good teachers: The association between teacher job satisfaction and instructional quality. British Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 476–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3851

45.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.

46.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

47.

Holler

Levinson

S. C.

(2019). Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(8), 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.006

48.

Holtgraves

T. M.

(2001). Language as social action. Routledge.

49.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M

. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

50.

Hulpia

Devos

Rosseel

(2009). The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers’ and teacher leaders’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(3), 291–317.

51.

Hulpia

Devos

Rosseel

Vlerick

(2012). Dimensions of distributed leadership and the impact on teachers’ organizational commitment: A study in secondary education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(7), 1745–1784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00917.x

52.

Jakobsen

Jensen

(2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.997906

53.

Jepson

Forrest

(2006). Individual contributory factors in teacher stress: The role of achievement striving and occupational commitment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X37299

54.

S. H.

(2014). Teacher commitment: Exploring associations with relationships and emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.004

55.

Karaoğlu

İ. B

. (2019). Adaptation of teacher sense of self-efficacy scale short form to Turkish: A study of validity and reliability. Journal of Academic Social Research, 7(99), 123–139.

56.

Kılınç

A. Ç.

Polatcan

Savaş

(2024). How transformational leadership influences teachers’ commitment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(2), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221082803

57.

Klassen

R. M.

(2010). Teacher stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(5), 342–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383069

58.

Klassen

R. M.

Anderson

C. J. K.

(2009). How times change: Secondary teachers’ job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in 1962 and 2007. British Educational Research Journal, 35(5), 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802688721

59.

Klassen

R. M.

Tze

V. M. C.

Betts

S. M.

Gordon

K. A.

(2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs progress or unfulfilled promise. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8

60.

Klassen

R. M.

Usher

E. L.

Bong

(2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(4), 464–486.

61.

Kunter

Klusmann

Baumert

Richter

Voss

Hachfeld

(2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583

62.

Kyriakides

Campbell

Gagatsis

(2000). The significance of the classroom effect in primary schools: An application of Creemers’ comprehensive model of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(4), 501–529, https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.11.4.501.3560

63.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2000). The effect of different sources of leadership on student engagement in school. In Riley

Louis

(Eds.), Leadership for change and school reform (pp. 55–66). Routledge.

64.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.006

65.

H. J.

Huang

Jin

(2019). Not all leaving is created equal. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 18(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000216

66.

Lim

(2014). The mediating roles of collective teacher efficacy in the relations of teachers’ perceptions of school organizational climate to their burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.007

67.

Liu

Qiang

Kang

(2023). Distributed leadership, self-efficacy and wellbeing in schools: A study of relations among teachers in Shanghai. Humanities Social Sciences Communications, 10, 248. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01696-w

68.

Liu

(2019). Building collective teacher efficacy through distributed leadership in Chinese primary schools. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 47(3), 70–87.

69.

Liu

Keeley

J. W.

Sui

Sang

(2021). Impact of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction in China: The mediating roles of teacher autonomy and teacher collaboration. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, 101099.

70.

Liu

Bellibaş

M. Ş.

Gümüş

. (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 & Leadership, 49(3), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438

71.

Liu

Werblow

(2019). The operation of distributed leadership and the relationship with organizational commitment and job satisfaction of principals and teachers: A multi-level model and meta-analysis using the 2013 TALIS data. International Journal of Educational Research, 96, 41–55.

72.

Lohmöller

J. B.

(1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Physica.

73.

López Alfaro

P. A.

Gallegos Araya

Maureira Cabrera

. (2022). Liderazgo distribuido y eficacia colectiva docente, factores preventivos del síndrome de burnout: Un estudio en el profesorado de escuelas primarias en Chile. Revista Complutense de Educacion, 33(3), 531–541.

74.

McInerney

D. M.

Ganotice

F. A.

King

R. B.

Morin

A. J. S.

Marsh

H. W.

(2015). Teachers’ commitment and psychological well-being: Implications of self-beliefs for teaching in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 35(8), 926–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895801

75.

McInerney

D. M.

Korpershoek

Wang

Morin

A. J. S.

(2018). Teachers’ occupational attributes and their psychological wellbeing, job satisfaction, occupational self-concept and quitting intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.020

76.

McQueen

J. M.

Cutler

(2010). Cognitive process in speech perception. In Hardcastle

W. J.

Laver

Gibbon

F. E.

(Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 489–520). Wiley-Blackwell.

77.

Meek

(1998). America’s teachers: Much to celebrate. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 12–16.

78.

Mehra

Smith

B. R.

Dixon

A. L.

Robertson

(2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232–245.

79.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

D. J.

Jackson

T. A.

McInnis

K. J.

Maltin

E. R.

Sheppard

(2012). Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.005

80.

Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2008). Turkish teacher special field competences. Öğretmen Yetiştirme Genel Müdürlüğü.

81.

Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2019). Turkish language art curriculum (Elementary and middle school grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

82.

Ninković

S. R.

Knežević Florić

O. Č

. (2018). Transformational school leadership and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216665842

83.

OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing.

84.

Özer

Beycioğlu

(2013). The development, validity and reliability study of distributed leadership scale. Elementary Education Online, 12(1), 77–86.

85.

Pan

H.-L. W.

(2023). The catalysts for sustaining teacher commitment: An analysis of teacher preparedness and professional learning. Sustainability, 15(6), 4918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064918

86.

Perfetti

C. A.

Landi

Oakhill

(2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skills. In Snowling

M. J.

Hulme

(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Blackwell.

87.

Perrachione

B. A.

Rosser

V. J.

Petersen

G. J.

(2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. Professional Educator, 32(2), 25–41.

88.

Price

H. E.

(2012). Principal-teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417126

89.

Qadach

Schechter

Da’as

(2020). Instructional leadership and teachers’ intent to leave: The mediating role of collective teacher efficacy and shared vision. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219836683

90.

Rashid

A. R. A.

Latif

S. A.

(2021). The relationship between distributive leadership and teachers’ collective efficacy. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(6), 1–12.

91.

Renzulli

L. A.

Parrott

H. M.

Beattie

I. R.

(2011). Racial mismatch and school type: Teacher satisfaction and retention in charter and traditional public schools. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710392720

92.

Şengül

Alkaya

(2016). Turkish language teachers’ competencies in special field: A case study. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 49(2), 87–108.

93.

Singh

Billingsley

B. S.

(1998). Professional support and its effects on teachers’ commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597548

94.

Siri

Supartha

I. W. G.

Sukaatmadja

I. P. G.

Rahyuda

A. G.

Foroudi

(2020). Does teacher competence and commitment improve teacher’s professionalism. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1781993. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1781993

95.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611

96.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001

97.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001

98.

Somech

Drach-Zahavy

(2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649–659.

99.

Spillane

J. P.

Halverson

Diamond

J. B.

(2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726

100.

Stephanou

Gkavras

Doulkeridou

(2013). The role of teachers’ self-and collective-efficacy beliefs on their job satisfaction and experienced emotions in school. Psychology, 4(3), 268–278.

101.

Sun

Xia

(2018). Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–97.

102.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

103.

Thien

E. M.

Darmwan

I. N.

Adams

(2023). (Re)Investigating the pathways between instructional leadership, collective teacher efficacy, and teacher commitment: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(4), 830–845. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2022-0516

104.

Tomasello

(2008). Origins of human communication. MIT Press.

105.

Tomasello

(2009). Why we cooperate. MIT Press.

106.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk Hoy

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

107.

Vatou

(2019). Collective teacher efficacy and job satisfaction: Psychometric properties of the CTE scale. Journal of Contemporary Education Theory & Research, 3(2), 29–33.

108.

Voelkel

R. H.

Chrispeels

J. H.

(2018). Understanding the link between professional learning communities and teacher collective efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(4), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1299015

109.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: Development higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

110.

Wang

(2018). The panorama of the last decade’s theoretical groundings of educational leadership research: A concept co-occurrence network analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(3), 327–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18761342

111.

Woods

P. A.

Bennett

Harvey

J. A.

Wise

(2004). Variabilities and dualities in distributed leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204046497

112.

Yang

Mossholder

K. W.

(2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004

113.

Yohannes

M. E.

Wasonga

T. A.

(2023). Leadership styles and teacher job satisfaction in Ethiopian schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(5), 1200–1218.

114.

Zheng

Yin

Liu

(2019). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: The mediation of satisfaction and trust. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 28, 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00451-7