SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL) / 2016 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1

Comparison and Evaluation of Four Models of Teacher Leadership

Pamela S. ANGELLE
Corey A. DEHART
Pages
85–118
Publication Date
2016-07-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Though focused on the four-factor model of teacher leadership, this study filled a theoretical gap by examining educational leadership through the lens of teacher as the cornerstone.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this quantitative study was to employ confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to compare the four-factor model of teacher leadership with three alternative models.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The alternative models of teacher leadership include: (a) a two-factor model investigating teacher leadership as teacher-driven and principal-driven factors, (b) a three-factor model of teacher-driven factors of teacher leadership, and (c) a five-factor model in which a factor from the four factor model is split into two separate factors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Though focused on the four-factor model of teacher leadership, this study filled a theoretical gap by examining educational leadership through the lens of teacher as the cornerstone.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Teacher leadership · Leadership models · Factor analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this quantitative study was to employ confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to compare the four-factor model of teacher leadership with three alternative models. The alternative models of teacher leadership include: (a) a two-factor model investigating teacher leadership as teacher-driven and principal-driven factors, (b) a three-factor model of teacher-driven factors of teacher leadership, and (c) a five-factor model in which a factor from the four factor model is split into two separate factors. While the fit indices indicated that the three-factor model provided the best model fit for the data used in this study, evaluation of CFA models of the strength and interpretability of the parameter estimates demonstrated that the four-factor model provides a better representation of teachers’ perceptions of teacher leadership in a school. Though focused on the four-factor model of teacher leadership, this study filled a theoretical gap by examining educational leadership through the lens of teacher as the cornerstone.

🔖

Cite This Article

ANGELLE, P. S., DEHART, C. A. (2016). Comparison and Evaluation of Four Models of Teacher Leadership. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1, 85–118. https://ajindex.com/articles/139182

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Acker-Hocevar, M., & Touchton, D. (1999, April).A model of power as social relationships: Teacher leaders describe the phenomena of effective agency in practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317-332.
  2. Andrew, M. D. (1974). Teacher leadership: A model for change. (ATE Bulletin No. 37). Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators. Angelle, P. S., & Dehart, C. A. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher leadership: Examining differences by experience, degree, and position. NASSP Bulletin, 95(2), 141 – 160. Angelle, P. S., & Dehart, C. (2010, April). Measuring the extent of teacher leadership: Construction, testing, and factors in the Teacher Leadership Inventory. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Angelle, P. S., Taylor, D. L., & Olivier, D. (2008, March). School improvement through increased leadership capacity: Preliminary construction of a measure of teacher leadership. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Angelle, P. S., & Beaumont, J. B. (2006, November). Teacher leadership: A definitional perspective from principals and teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, San Antonio, Texas. Barth, R. S. (1999).
  3. The teacher leader. Providence, RI: The Rhode Island Foundation. Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443–449.
  4. Bartlett, L. (2004). Expanding teacher work roles: A resource for retention or a recipe for overwork? Journal of Educational Policy, 19(5), 565–582.
  5. Boles, K., & Troen, V. (1994, April). Teacher leadership in a professional development school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Boles, K., & Troen, V. (1996). Teacher leaders and power: Achieving school reform from the classroom. In G. Miller & M. Katzenmeyer (Eds.), Every teacher as a leader: Realizing the potential of teacher leadership (pp. 41–62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986).Prosocial organizational behaviors. The Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710-725.
  6. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  7. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applicati