CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OFdigital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2361.pdf · CLASSROOM...
Transcript of CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OFdigital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2361.pdf · CLASSROOM...
CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF
LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM,
SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL
COMMUNITY
By
TERRI LYN EDWARDS
Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education Langston University Langston, Oklahoma
1989
Master of Science in Teaching Northeastern State University
Tahlequah, Oklahoma 1997
Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the
Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 2007
ii
CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF
LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM,
SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL
COMMUNITY
Dissertation Approved:
Dr. Diane Montgomery
Dr. Kay Bull
Dr. Steven Harrist
Dr. Heidi Anne Mesmer
Dr. A. Gordon Emslie
iii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere heartfelt appreciate for my chair, Dr. Diane
Montgomery. She has been a teacher, friend, counselor, and mentor. I will always
remember all she has done to help and support me; her knowledge and experiences were
invaluable. I would like the thank Dr. Kay Bull, Dr. Steve Harrist, and Dr. Heidi Mesmer
who served on my committee at Oklahoma State University and lent me their insights and
gave me their time.
I could not have accomplished my goals if it had not been for the love and support
of my husband, Eddie Edwards. He endured many late hours and made many sacrifices to
allow me to pursue my dreams. Along the way, our four children made their share of
compromises to encourage me to continue with their support and love. My parents started
me on my educational journey and to them I cannot say enough to show my appreciation
and love. Thank you so much, Joanne and Sparky Wilmoth, you helped me to reach
further and achieve my goals.
I would like to acknowledge Delta Kappa Gamma Society International. They
have helped to support my professionalism and personal growth through meetings with
the members of the Epsilon Chapter in Muskogee, Oklahoma. I have received monetary
assistance from the state society, Gamma State, and from the International Society by
being honored with the M. Margaret Stroh Scholarship. I will remain committed to Delta
Kappa Gamma and continue to pursue excellence in education.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………..1
Significance of Study ……………………………………………………………..3 Statement of the Research Problem...................................................................... 4 Theoretical Framework........................................................................................ 5 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................. 6 Research Questions ............................................................................................. 7 Need for the Study............................................................................................... 7 Definition and Terms........................................................................................... 9 Delimitations and Limitations............................................................................ 11 Summary........................................................................................................... 13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………..15 History and Theory Involving Teacher Leadership……………………………....15 Educational Leadership………………………………………………………...21 Definitions of Teacher Leadership……………………………………………. 23 Teacher as Leader ……………………………………………………………..25 Formative Teacher Leadership........................................................................... 29 Factors that Inhibit and Equip Teacher Leaders.................................................. 32 Value of Teacher Leadership……………………………………………………..35 Q-Methodology ................................................................................................. 37 Summary........................................................................................................... 40 III. METHOD ………………………………………………………………………..41 Q-Methodology ................................................................................................. 42 Concourse Development.................................................................................... 43 Research Instruments......................................................................................... 44 P-Set or Participants ……………………………………………………………..50 Procedure .......................................................................................................... 51 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………….53 Summary …………………………………………………………………………55
v
Chapter Page IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................................................ 56 Description of the Participants ........................................................................... 57 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 58 Response to Research Questions .................................................................. 63 Summary........................................................................................................... 76 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................ 77 Summary of the Study ....................................................................................... 77 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 78 Implications....................................................................................................... 82 Implications for Practice .............................................................................. 83 Implications for Theory………………………………………………………85 Areas for Future Research ................................................................................. 88 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 92 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 105 Appendix A: Solicitation………………………………………………………..105
Appendix B: Researcher’s Script: Directions for Sorting Q Statements………..107 Appendix C: Informed Consent…………………………………………………110
Appendix D: Demographic Information………………………………………...114 Appendix E: Record Sheet………………………………………………………116 Appendix F: Factor One- Classroom Oriented Teachers………………………..119 Appendix G: Factor Two- Collaborative Teachers……………………………...124 Appendix H: Factor Three- Collegial Teachers ………….……………………..128
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page I. Q Sorting Board Arrangement………………………………………………..49
II. Factor Matrix…………………………………………………………………59
III. Correlations between Factor Scores………………………………………… 62
IV. Actual Loads to Ideal Loads………………………………………………….72
V. Summary of Changes from Actual to Ideal Sort………………………………73
VI. Summary of Q Sort Positions Consistent in Actual and Ideal…………………74
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1. Q Sort Statements…………………………………………………………………46 2. Sorting Array……………………………………………………………………..49
3. Demographic Information………………………………………………………..57
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
There was a time in American education when teacher leadership was imperative
and not optional (Merideth, 2007). That time involved teachers writing and assessing
policies, seeking out their own professional development, and teaching each individual
student regardless of grade level or aptitude. The setting was the one-room school house
and the time pre-dates multi-building school systems containing the massive
administrative hierarchies of the twenty-first century. The present system relies on
outside sources such as elected officials, for-profit companies, and a handful of
administrators in a main office to dictate the policies for teachers to follow. Often these
people or others in state or federal offices mandate the content for teachers to teach. This
bureaucratic system and hierarchical school structure keeps teachers, who are on the front
line and who have the knowledge, skills and dispositions required to improve student
learning, from being leaders in their classrooms, the schools, and their educational
communities (Ash & Persall, 2000; Harris, 2003).
This study was designed to investigate the perceptions of those at the center of
teacher leadership, the teachers. The study provides information to those in the teaching
and learning profession. The information includes a variety of view points concerning
leadership based on perceptions held by classroom teachers who are teaching in the
2
public schools. Understanding these perceptions will assist in decisions that lead to
change within the current educational leadership structure.
Research on educators’ perceptions of leadership is limited and most focuses on
principal leadership, involves large numbers of teachers, and uses survey instruments.
Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) used a survey to collect variations in teachers’ leader
perceptions concerning their principals using 423 classroom teachers. Chrispeels and Yep
(2004) compared principal and teacher perspectives toward shared leadership using case
study techniques in a single elementary school district in California. Lee, Smith and Cioci
(1993) surveyed 9000 teachers exploring their perspectives pertaining to their power at
various levels of their organizations. Another survey of 53,000 teachers examined
teachers’ views on control over school policy and practices (US Department of
Education, 1993).
This study identified the subjective opinions that teachers have about leadership
in their classroom, in the school, and in the educational community. It also identifies their
ideal perceptions of leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational
community. The study describes relationships between how teachers perceive leadership
and specific demographic information. The demographic information includes their
gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience, grade level, subject area, degrees held and
certifications.
The results help guide decision makers regarding teachers as leaders and help to
create dialogue concerning how teachers feel about leadership. This study adds to the
information educational stakeholders need to make appropriate decisions pertaining to
advancing and utilizing teacher leadership within their schools. It will be useful when
3
designing and implementing future research in teacher leadership, professionalism, and
teachers’ perceptions of their leadership. “Studies are needed that go beyond purely
descriptive accounts of teacher leadership…” (Harris, 2005 b, p. 214). This study allowed
the participants to share their perspectives of leadership, while avoiding the prescribed
descriptions and interpretations with parameters that the researcher might make.
School leadership must respond to the needs of our ever changing, information
filled society by embracing new forms of leadership, especially teacher leadership (Frost
& Durrant, 2003). Formative leadership spreads the responsibility of leading to multiple
individual educators in an anti-hierarchical or horizontal manner. Gonzales (2004)
suggests democratizing education by redefining teacher leadership as shared leadership
for all teachers. “Teacher leaders can transform schools into communities that prepare
students for citizenship and work in a complex, technological, and democratic society”
(Lieberman & Miller, 2004, p.12). Silins and Mulford’s (2002) research illustrates the
strong relationship between higher student outcomes and leadership distributed
throughout the school community involving teacher empowerment in areas teachers
considered as their strengths.
Significance of Study
Confident teacher leaders who have the support of their colleagues are central to
learning achievement and necessary school reform. Teacher leaders can insist schools
abandon their old structural systems and lead them into beneficial organizational
improvement (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006). In a recent review of accomplished school
reform, Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001) noted characteristics of schools that
4
were improving through documented student learning over time. First on the list was the
characteristic of shared or distributed leadership.
Teachers must participate in leadership in order to advance the progress of school
change (Ash & Persall, 2000; Lieberman, 1992; McCay, et al., 2001). Recent data
highlight teachers choosing to remain in schools that offer teachers collaboration and
leadership opportunities (Harris & Muijs, 2005). This research suggested shared
leadership opportunities as a way to recruit and retain teachers. Kilcher (1992) noted that
when teachers felt valued as participants in a cohesive community and were empowered
as true decision makers, they passed this empowerment on to their students by giving
them a voice in decision making and by including them when planning and designing
student instruction.
Statement of the Research Problem
What K-12 teachers believe about leadership will influence the direction of
teacher leadership change in our schools and eventually lead to increased teacher
satisfaction and improved student learning. Teachers report that they do not believe they
are being utilized as leaders within the existing structure of pre-kindergarten through
twelfth grade public schools in America (US Department of Education, 1993).
Underutilization leads to dissatisfaction and teachers are leaving the profession in
alarming numbers after a few short years in the classroom (Gonzales, 2004).
Understanding the teachers’ perceptions concerning leadership will assist all educators in
creating leadership change to improve teacher satisfaction and ultimately student
5
learning. Identifying demographic similarities among teachers’ varying perceptions of
leadership will provide additional information and expose possible patterns related to the
demographic areas and emerging factors.
Theoretical Framework
Formative Leadership Theory was developed by Ash and Persall of Samford
University in 2000 to redefine and characterize leadership within schools. Formative
leadership, also known as emerging leadership, is founded on the belief that there are
multiple leaders within a school. Teachers are leaders and principals are leaders of
teacher leaders. The premise is to create a culture and structure to encourage everyone to
participate as a leader to establish an environment that is leader-full. Teacher leadership
is a collaborative movement that requires a new perspective of school leadership and its
structure (Ash & Persall, 2000; Cooper, 1993; Harris & Muijs, 2002).
Formative leadership theory refers to the principal as the Chief Learning Officer
or CLO. The CLO is given the task of facilitating learning and encouraging risk taking
among the faculty and staff. The center of attention is not the teaching or teachers’ work;
it is the students’ learning and academic work (Ash & Persall, 2000). This is not to say
that teachers do not need any supervision regarding their practice, instead the idea is for
teachers to work collaboratively to learn the necessary skills required to lead students to
higher levels of achievement.
Conversation and listening to one another are keys to formative leadership.
Collaboration and group interactions are necessary to assist the teachers in bringing out
their strengths and talents. Constant communication among all involved is required to
6
lead to improved pedagogical practice and increased student learning. The faculty and
staff unite to help make the school run more efficiently using data driven information to
achieve student and teacher satisfaction.
Formative leadership theory contrasts with the old notion that considered
leadership as something that only took place outside of the classroom. It contends that
teaching in and of itself is in fact leading (Ash & Persall, 2000). Traditional teacher
leadership roles such as mentoring others are still of use but there are new leadership
skills that must be accepted in order to achieve a new paradigm. Formative leadership
encourages teaching roles such as, “…interdisciplinary teaching, curriculum
development, student assessment, counseling, peer review, and parental involvement”
(p. 3) - all of which must be collaborative and collegial in nature. Teacher leadership
structured within this model is designed to improve teaching and increase student
learning in schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective perceptions teachers have
of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community and their ideal
perceptions of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community. The study
identified patterns of beliefs teachers hold about leadership by using Q-methodology, a
research method crafted by William Stephenson (1953) and further developed by Steven
Brown (1980). Q-methodology gives the researcher an organized technique to uncover
qualitative data within the participants’ opinions, as well as, a way to quantify this data
using factor analysis procedures. Q-sort statements aligned with the leadership model
7
developed by Ash and Persall (2000), known as formative leadership theory, were
utilized to identify the teachers’ perceptions. The study described relationships between
how teachers perceive leadership and their gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience,
grade level, subject area, degrees held, certifications and opportunities for leadership.
The demographic page also asked about specific leadership roles.
Research Questions
Research questions to be investigated for the present study are:
1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the
classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?
2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?
3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teacher’s varying
perceptions of leadership?
Need for the Study
Our schools have become so diverse and complex, that no one administrator could
possibly manage a school by him or herself (Keedy & Finch, 1994). This has led to the
concept of school within schools. New leadership definitions involving teachers are
required for schools to improve using shared decision making (Kilcher, 1992). Harris
(2003) states, “…it is clear that the head as the solitary dynamic leader is inadequate for
the new directions in education…” (p. 318). Administrators and other educational
stakeholders should rely on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions teachers possess to
effectively contribute to the leadership of the educational settings. Roles requiring
8
teachers to be leaders are expanding; formal and informal roles are creating new ways of
leading, and each aspect is contributing to the growing collaborative cultures (Lieberman,
1992). As teachers are expected to take on more responsibility in their ever-expanding
roles, they should gain similar increases in the degree of respect afforded them by parents
and students.
We live in a time where teachers are not given the proper respect and authority
they were once granted within our society. Parents and students can be equally
disrespectful of a teacher’s opinions and efforts. This lack of respect hinders leadership in
the classroom and demands more leadership from teachers within the school and the
educational community. Within the dimension of teacher leadership, teachers feel like
they are making a difference and helping to make changes in school improvement; they
have a sense of ownership (Day & Harris, 2002). Only teachers, in the role of leader, can
successfully regain the respect and status they as a group have lost.
Understanding teachers’ perceptions of their leadership will eventually lead to
higher teacher satisfaction and higher retention rates. Teacher leadership must be looked
at in-depth and must involve teacher leaders in the process (Faye, 1992). The purpose of
this study is to reveal teachers’ perceptions of leadership within their classroom, school
and the education community and their ideal perceptions. Identifying teachers’
perceptions of leadership will uncover challenges that need to be addressed as well as
areas of success. “Where teachers believe they are empowered in areas of importance to
them, they are very positive about their school and the way it is organized and run”
(Silins & Mulford, 2002, p. 604).
9
Teachers’ perceptions of leadership will assist educational stakeholders as they
strive to abide by No Child Left Behind guidelines and work toward improving school
culture for higher student achievement. “To effectively change the culture of a school,
leadership must exist at both the administrative level and the teacher level” (Katzenmeyer
& Moller, 1996, p. 31). Harris (2003) clearly states that ignoring teacher leadership is
knowingly investing in leadership that makes little or no difference in student
achievement.
Teacher leadership will not be the answer to all of our schools’ problems. It is,
however; an essential ingredient in the recipe for renewed professionalism and ultimately
for the advancement of educational practices that directly affect student learning and
development (Kilcher, 1992; Center for Teaching Quality, 2006; McCay, et al., 2001;
Pearson & Hall, 1993). Getting teachers more involved and supporting what they do with
high regard will impact the quality of teaching and learning for students in the classroom
(Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Harris & Muijs, 2002).
Definition of Terms
Views and perceptions – thoughts, personal point of view, understanding, knowledge or
values that influence behaviors.
CLO – chief learning officer (Ash & Persall, 2000).
Concourse – potential Q items compiled during a literature review, interviews, or other
credible sources; a set of related statements whose focus is on meanings not facts
(Brown, 1993).
10
Condition of instruction – guidelines for sorting Q-items involving a continuum such as
most like, most unlike, or no opinion coupled with a guiding question.
Factor analysis – statistical way of grouping individuals through the method involving Q-
sorting.
Form board – construction paper or board used by the researcher to allow participants to
organize Q-sort items according to the condition of instruction.
Leadership – facilitative ability in team inquiry and learning and collaborative problem
solving, for example: imagining future possibilities; examining shared beliefs; asking
questions; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data; and engaging in meaningful
conversation about teaching and learning (Ash & Persall, 2000).
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards – The National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards, or NBPTS, was established in 1987. It is a nonprofit
organization with high standards for teachers’ knowledge, skills and performance. The
board issues certification within a voluntary system to identify teachers who meet these
standards.
No Child Left Behind – The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 or Public Law 107-110, is
known as NCLB. It is a United States federal law designed to enhance several federal
programs that were created to improve the performance of America’s elementary and
secondary schools. The law allows parents more choices when selecting schools their
children will attend. It also promotes reading and re-authorized the 1965 Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Non-significant loading –sort that does not reach significant level in order to define the
factor.
11
P-set or P-sample – group of people participating in a Q methodology study.
Q-item – a viewpoint or feeling on a given topic, derived from the concourse.
Q-methodology – a research method that allows participants to speak for themselves
expressing opinions, beliefs, and perspectives instead of using prespecified measures
(Stephenson, 1953).
Q-sample – consists of written statements or any phenomenon which one can attach
meaning (art, music, pictures, etc.); subset of statements drawn from the concourse.
Q-sort – the displayed arrangement of Q-items for each individual in a Q methodology
study after they have followed the condition of instructions; a participant’s rank ordering
of the statements (Brown, 1993).
Significant loading – factor loading not explainable by random assignment.
Teacher leaders - teachers with sense of empowerment to make decisions and lead within
the classroom, the school, and the community. Teachers who influence others and
encourage them to improved performance and development. Ongoing development of
this concept is continuing to unfold (Lieberman & Miller, 2004).
Delimitations and Limitations
The classroom teachers who participate in this study do not represent the teachers
in all schools. The participants in this study were K-12 teachers currently teaching in
northeastern Oklahoma schools. Working within the parameters of Q methodology, the
participants did, however; represent teachers and what some teachers in today’s society
may likely report.
12
I can not make generalizations to other professions or to teachers who are not
included in this study. Teachers are people who have chosen to successfully pursue a four
year college degree, enter today’s classrooms, and teach to the best of their abilities
within their subject area. This is not a random selection from the population at large. It is
somewhat purposive in that they have acquired the certification and licensure required of
teachers in our schools today.
External reliability is limited in the degree of generalizability to other
communities with different situations and various relevant conditions (Lecompte &
Goetz, 1982). This study is not measuring the how or why concerning teacher leadership.
It is fully immersed within the perceptions of the teachers involved. Teachers speak for
themselves and there is no cause for research misinterpretation. This is not meant to
suggest that only teachers’ perceptions are of the highest importance when addressing
teacher leadership. By examining teachers’ subjective points of view, researchers expose
insights that may lead to solutions involving issues that intimately affect teachers and
their students.
The most important issue concerning reliability for Q methodology is the idea that
the same condition of instruction will lead to factors that are schematically reliable and
represent closely related view points on the topic involving similarly structured Q
samples, involving different people (Van Exel, 2005). A study must be reliable, referring
to the accuracy and repeatability of the research findings. If a Q sample is reliable, then
the Q sample could be used on the same person in the future and obtain similar results or
consistency within the data collected.
13
Validity refers to the study’s relevance, correctness, and significance in its basic
hypothesis, method, and interpretation of data. Therefore, a study is valid if it measures
what it claims to measure. In Q methodology, validity is instilled by including only
relevant statements in the Q sample. After this condition is met, validity is not an issue
since the participants are giving their own opinions and it is they who are doing the
measuring (Brown, 1993). Q methodology generalizes among people who share certain
views or opinions. These generalizations are valid for those who share the same ideals
about a defined factor (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). A valid research method does not
always produce significant results. It may confirm a null hypothesis, but if conducted
properly, a study using such a method should produce valid, reliable results.
Summary
Teachers are not being utilized as leaders within the existing structure of pre-
kindergarten through twelfth grade public schools in America (Ash & Persall, 2000;
Lieberman, Saxl, & Miles, 1988; McCay, et al., 2001). Our school children are
increasingly more and more diverse adding additional demands to an already stressed,
outdated administrative system. Formative leadership throughout the school will enable
those in the closest contact with students, the classroom teacher, to make necessary
decisions that ultimately lead to increased student learning. Understanding teachers’
perceptions of leadership will eventually lead to higher teacher satisfaction through the
direct use of such information within the school environment. Teacher leadership must be
looked at in-depth and must involve teachers in the process (Faye, 1992). Chapter Two is
a review of the literature involving teacher leadership and Chapter Three is an
14
explanation of Q methodology. Chapter Four is and analysis and interpretation of the
data and Chapter Five is a summary with conclusions and recommendations.
15
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This literature focuses on teacher leadership in American schools. It includes a
brief review of the history and theory involving teacher leadership within K-12 public
schools and the growing need for teacher leadership. Educational leadership structures
are discussed along with various definitions of teacher leadership the definition used in
this study. Barriers and factors that equip teacher leaders are addressed and questions are
presented. Formative Leadership Theory is explained and the value of teacher leadership
is discussed. The chapter concludes with the ways that Q-methodology was used to
describe teacher perceptions of leadership.
History and Theory Involving Teacher Leadership
Over the last 100 years, numerous features of the American educational system
have remained the same. You can ask any citizen in our country to describe a school
classroom and most likely the descriptions will be dramatically similar and may even be
close to what they looked like over a century ago. During the same 100 years, many
dramatic changes have also been integrated. These changes followed critical reports that
challenged the effectiveness of our educational system and called for higher standards
and accountability. These challenges are calling for improved school leadership and
organizational structure.
16
There are differing ideas about teacher leadership and effectiveness that have
been debated in recent years; this has led to the development of “differentiated models”
of teacher leadership (Campbell, Kyriakides, Mujis, & Robinsonet, 2004, p. 3). To
understand the changes that have taken place in teacher leadership, one must first look at
teacher leadership through history. It is important to note that while evaluating teacher
leadership is important, some researchers suggest the literature and research available on
teacher leadership and effectiveness is somewhat incoherent, poorly documented, and
tends to be correlational (Campbell, et al., 2004; Merideth, 2007; Rogus, 1988).
Teachers are agents of change in any society, yet they are often overlooked as
non-professionals in ours. When researching literature on educational leadership, there
are overwhelming volumes pertaining to school administrators and other who are not
teachers. Teacher leadership is a relatively new concept with a large number of possible
participants.
At the start of the nineteenth century, most schoolmasters were men though
married women were commonly hired in New England settlements as early as the 1700’s
(Altenbaugh, 1992). This eventually changed to the hiring of adolescent females because
they did not have the demands of a family as the married man or woman did and they
typically were more educated than the previous. Women were deemed inferior to men for
centuries and were not respected equally when they entered the classroom. This is a small
explanation of one of the many reasons that teachers have not been able to dominate the
leadership established within our schools.
The inferiority of women led to male teachers being given higher pay and more
optimal teaching schedules (Preston, 1982). The nineteenth –century labor needs brought
17
more women into the profession. They were in demand to educate the growing
population and meet the requests for common school reform. Most professions at the time
excluded woman so teaching became a likely position for many young ladies. So many
young women joined the profession, that salaries remained low due to the large supply of
available teachers (1982). As the salaries remained low, the large supply of female
teachers allowed the men in the profession to rise into the hierarchical administrative
structure of the educational environment.
In the isolated one room school houses, these young women awaited marriage in
our family dominated society (Altenbaugh, 1992). Their youth and physical size made it
difficult to handle young male adolescent students in an appropriate disciplinary manner.
These obstacles and many others helped to maintain the male superiority within the
educational system. Through the years, men left to fight wars and work in better paying
urban settings. This left the educational field dominated by female employees. They
appear to have taken over the teaching profession, but not the administration of the
institution (1992).
The definition of teacher leadership and effectiveness has not changed
significantly since the colonial period; though it is now being debated. Most ideas explain
teacher leadership as a combination of activities that result in classroom management and
improved student learning (Campbell, et al., 2004). Historically, teacher leadership was
viewed much like any trade or craft; it required principles that guided a trained leader to
effect positive changes in students using lecture, group interactions and intuitive thinking
(Campbell, et al., 2004; Likert, 1961). Many feel that in the colonial era, teaching was
viewed as intuitive, whereas now teaching and teacher leadership has become more
18
scientific and analytical in nature, with teachers adopting multiple models or paradigms
of instruction for advancing student achievement and school improvement (Campbell, et
al., 2004; Field, Holden, & Lawlor, 2000).
Early teaching focused on theory and the belief that children had an innate
ability to learn when teaching was focused on a pupil-teacher model that included lecture
and practice-based training (Atikinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Maslow, 1976). It wasn’t until
the late 19th century that models of education began to develop, where freer child
centered attitudes toward teaching began to develop. These suggested teacher leadership
was personal and part of one’s pedagogy focused on child development and not subject-
centered structures (Campbell, et al., 2004).
More elaborate models of teacher leadership and what constitutes effective
teaching began to surface during the early twentieth century and beyond. Teachers and
researchers began to examine the use of previous models and practices. Their hope was
that more positive results and achievements might be seen in the classroom, for students
and teachers, using curriculum aimed toward more subject-focused themes (Field, et al.,
2000). Improvements within the teaching profession were slow and demands grew for
education reform on a nationwide basis.
Teacher quality was a focus in a federal report released in 1983 titled A Nation at
Risk. The report sparked one of these periods of change and it had a long-lasting effect on
the educational system. The main objective of this document was the need for
improvements within the educational structure. In addition, it drew attention to the
quality of teachers working in our schools. According to the report, there were a large
number of outstanding educators in the United States; however, many were not remaining
19
in the classroom. Furthermore, the professional educators who remained in the system
were not being fully utilized or recognized for their accomplishments within the teaching
profession.
The authors went on to point out that the professional life of a teacher in our
country was unacceptable. This led to the ongoing debate of whether or not teaching
should be considered a profession. Seven recommendations were suggested as a way of
bringing teaching into the fully excepted arena of professionalism. The recommendations
pertaining to teacher professionalism have been developing since the publication.
Ingersoll (1997) described professional characteristics and described authority as a
characteristic that helps distinguish a profession from a non-profession. Authority
enhances ones ability to become a leader.
Another organization helped subject oriented teacher leadership emerge from the
National Standards for Subject Leaders (TTA, 1998; Field, et al., 2000). The group
suggested that students required clear knowledge of a subject in order to fulfill their role
in the classroom and also to ensure students developed mastery of a subject outside of the
classroom. Previous to this, during the period to the early 1980s, teachers were
considered middle managers with respect to their leadership role, with one individual
designated as the head teacher and others considered subordinated to this “master of
subject” (2000, p. 13).
The Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession released another influential
report A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the Twenty-first Century (1986). The authors
suggested that teachers become leaders in curriculum, pedagogy, school restructuring,
20
and their own collective professional development. The core idea was teachers being
enabled to take control of their profession.
The genesis of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
was a report authored by the Carnegie Task Force. From this report, a nonpartisan,
independent, not-for-profit board was established one year after its publication. The
mission of NBPTS encompassed high and rigorous standards to guide teachers in the
knowledge they should possess and in the skills they should master. The board sought to
establish a voluntary structure to evaluate and certify educators to see if they were
meeting these standards. The main mission of the board was to improve student learning
in our nation’s schools and identified teachers as the most important element influencing
achievement.
In 1989, the National Board released its policy What Teachers Should Know and
Be Able to Do, which became the board’s philosophical platform. The policy drove the
development of the standards that guide the assessment process for accomplished
teaching in each certification area. The policy contained five core propositions that
supported the structure communicated in the standards.
A prerequisite for the success of these standards was that teachers had to be
committed to students and their learning processes. Second, teachers had to be well-
educated in the subject areas they taught and had to attain the teaching skills necessary to
relate the curriculum to their students. Third, teachers had to be responsible for managing
and monitoring student learning. Fourth, teachers had to think systematically about their
practice and learn from educational and classroom experiences. Finally, teachers were
required to be members of learning communities (NBPTS, 1989). These core
21
propositions all equate to teachers being leaders in the classroom, the school, and the
educational community. They have helped to make teacher leadership and teacher
professionalism synonymous (McCay, et al., 2001). Currently, fewer than 2% of all U.S.
teachers have earned National Board certification (NBPTS, 2007).
Educational Leadership
Throughout the last century, school leadership has existed within a top down
hierarchical structure (Murphy, 2005). Principals and administrators have authority and
power and teachers are those who need to be led. Teachers are not viewed as leaders as
other groups within the system are, such as principals (Hatfield, Blackman, & Claypool,
1986). This structure is not equipped to acknowledge teachers as leaders and therefore
keeps them in their traditional role.
Teacher leaders are now encouraged to remove notions of a hierarchical approach
to learning and leading in favor of a more horizontal or collaborative approach to leading.
They are encouraged to focuses on objectives for student performance rather than subject
matter alone. Some have referred to this change in leadership or educational style as
bottom-up learning, suggesting the idea that teacher leaders are as much leaders in the
classroom and school as anyone else in the environment, capable of providing innovation
and motivation for themselves and their students.
In a recent teacher survey titled The American Teacher – An Examination of
School Leadership, 54% of teachers reported that the principal in their school worked
collaboratively, while 89% of principals reported that they worked collaboratively. Only
58% of the teachers reported that their principal was mutually respectful and just 60%
22
were reported as supportive. Teachers are more likely to describe the teacher-principal
relationship as inflexible, uncomfortable, and hierarchical than are principals. This lack
of support, respect and collegiality contributes to teacher dissatisfaction and gives an
overall picture of the challenges teachers face in becoming teacher leaders in their
schools.
There are several examples of how some districts are participating in furthering
teacher leadership within their schools. Many of them exist within small private schools
and charter schools within the public school systems. Several states, including California
and Minnesota, have established teacher-run charter schools. The Minnesota New
Country School in Henderson, Minnesota is led by a teacher cooperative known as
EdVisions. The school was given a $4.5 million grant in 2000 from the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation. The grant was established to duplicate this model in 15 other schools
over a five year period (McGhan, 2002).
Our schools have become so diverse and complex, that no one administrator could
possibly manage a school by themselves (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995;
Keedy & Finch, 1994). Principals are overburdened with the role of instructional leader,
administrator, manager, and disciplinarian. This suggests that no one person can perform
all of these tasks and more without the assistance of the teaching staff (Donaldson, 2001).
Studying teacher leaders has led to findings describing the skills and abilities that lend
themselves to becoming a more effective leader. These skills and abilities can be labeled,
effectively taught and learned (Leiberman, et al., 2000). Administrators and other
educational stakeholders need to rely on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that
teachers possess to effectively contribute to the leadership of the educational settings.
23
As for current school reform, teacher leadership is different from other strategies.
It is an embedded concept unlike charter schools or school-based management (Murphy,
2005). Teacher leadership is more of a “defining strand in a larger reform effort rather
than as a distinct strategy” (p. 4). Teacher leadership is not a fad or current trend. It is a
paradigm that will assist in the movement toward school reform and increase student
learning. Along the way as it does so, there are obstacles that must be addressed.
Definitions of Teacher Leadership
We currently lack a comprehensive, agreed upon idea of what teacher leadership
is, how it can work, and whether it can be utilized for reform within in the educational
system, particularly from the teachers point of view (Harris, 2003; Lord & Miller, 2000).
“We can be sure that if we are ambivalent about the need for and definition of leadership
with our field, those on the outside looking in at us are even more confused” (Gonzales,
2004, p. 2). We are far from an agreed upon definition or a common understanding.
“Misunderstandings about the definitions… are plentiful” (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001,
p. 4). Harris (2003) claims, “The literature on school leadership contains a bewildering
array of definitions, theories and models” (p. 318).
We do know who is at the core of the concept and we have very large number of
viable prospects. Palmer (1998) wrote, “In our rush to reform education, we have
forgotten a simple truth: reform will never be achieved by renewing appropriations,
rewriting curricula, and revising texts if we continue to demean and dishearten the human
resource called the teacher, on whom so much depends” (p. 3).
24
In the structure of teacher leadership, power is spread out and authority is shared
among the teaching community (Day & Harris, 2002). This most recent form of teacher
leadership is antihierarchical and places high esteem upon collegiality and
professionalism (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996; Lieberman, et al., 2000; Silva, et al.,
2000; Ash & Persall, 2000). Teachers view leadership differently than others do, not as a
top down organizational structure (Fay, 1992). Believing that only a few chosen people
can help schools and districts realize the difficult standards and demands placed upon
them is not realistic (Lieberman & Miller, 2004).
There are varying ways to view teacher leadership. One is the traditional view
where some teachers are leaders. Teachers are no different than others who are leaders
within countries, organization, and communities. Not everyone leads and there are a few
with this exceptional ability. Another way to view teacher leadership is the democratic
way where all teachers are leaders ( Lieberman et al., 2000; Rost, 1981). According to
Bolman and Deal (1994), “good leaders, like good teachers, are as good at listening and
sensing as they are at persuading and teaching” (p. 79). Here everyone has a role in the
leadership process. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) say that all teachers have leadership
abilities to contribute which reach outside of their classroom and that these should not be
taken lightly or go unused. Students and parents look to teachers for guidance and
whether the teacher chooses to or not, they are leading and facilitating.
Teacher leaders have been described as teachers who
contribute to school reform or student learning in and beyond the classroom, influence
others to improve professional practices, or contribute to the community of leaders
(Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). These teachers are willing to initiate and participate in
25
collegial support groups to encourage one another and reflect on their practice. They have
a voice when deciding on professional development activities and improved curriculum
programs and forms of school wide assessment. They choose to carry out action research
to improve their pedagogy and share the findings with their colleges. They are aware of
the school’s mission and vision and it is evident in their curriculum and conversations
“leadership...enables people to collaborate in the service of shared visions, values, and
missions” (Bolman & Deal, 1994, p. 79). Harris (2003) states that teacher leaders are
those teachers who simply exercise leadership.
For the purpose of this study, leadership will be defined using the Formative
Leadership Theory. The definition of leadership will be referred to as the abilities to
facilitate in team inquiry, learning, and collaborative problem solving in all areas of the
educational environment. Examples of these abilities are thinking of future possibilities;
analyzing and reflecting on shared beliefs; continually asking questions; collecting,
analyzing, and interpreting data; sharing data with others; participating in meaningful
conversation concerning teaching and student and faculty learning, and reflecting on
these conversations (Ash & Persall, 2000).
Teacher as Leader
Teachers are often used as examples when discussing leadership and leaders.
“Teaching and leading are indistinguishable occupations, but every great leader is
teaching and every great teacher is leading” (Gardner, 1990, p. 18). Teaching and leading
are often viewed as synonymous, though some would argue that not all teachers are
leaders. Leaders motivate followers and teachers motivate students.
26
There has been extensive research in the area of teacher leadership in recent years,
yet there is no consensus of a clear definition of teacher leader (Merideth, 2007). The
idea of teacher leadership is relatively new and it is increasingly gaining attention in this
time of school reform and educational improvement. Leadership theories in other areas of
our culture do not readily apply to the classroom teacher’s perspective of leadership or
their vision of success: student learning. Our present educational leadership establishment
was based on organizational, bureaucratic and management theory (Doyle, 2004). This
establishment is being blamed for the inadequacies in our students’ achievements.
Teachers are being asked to get more involved and take responsibility for identifying and
utilizing their leadership abilities.
Different educational organizations have different ideas of what teacher
leadership is. Within these organizations, there are varying views of the concept among
the constituents. Another issue is the reasoning for undertaking teacher leadership
(Murphy, 2005). Teacher leadership may be viewed differently when it underlies school
restructuring as opposed to when it is implemented to enhance teacher professionalism.
Teacher leadership is underdeveloped conceptually and in practice (Murphy,
2005). This is due to the fact that the term has many vague distinctions. The reason for
this may be due to the fact that teacher leadership is a fairly recent concept. The concept
is so new we have not gone past many of the obstacles. Teacher leaders are challenged
with a lack of time and stamina to reach out to colleagues in order to develop teacher
leadership as a formulated standard (Donaldson, 2006).
These teachers are willing to initiate and participate in collegial support groups to
encourage one another and reflect on their practice. They have a voice when deciding on
27
professional development activities and improved curriculum programs and forms of
school wide assessment. They choose to carry out action research to improve their
pedagogy and share the findings with their colleges.
Teacher leaders strive for control over their professional lives, not power
(Gonzales, 2004). Teachers realize that teacher leadership is a collective, organizational
endeavor. Teacher leaders encourage others to lead. We live in a time where teachers are
not given the proper respect and authority they were once granted within our society.
Teaching, once considered a vocation, is being viewed by some as a profession
(Lieberman & Miller, 2004). One of the characteristics of professions is the autonomy
afforded to the individual, which often leads to job satisfaction and empowerment.
Teacher autonomy is linked “… with the need for teachers to have control over their
work environment and to have personal on-the job decision making authority…”
(Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, p. 47). Teachers who lead are more empowered and more
autonomous:
Advocates of increases in faculty influence and increases in teacher autonomy
argue that teachers will not only make better informed decisions about
educational issues….but that top-down decision making often fails because it
lacks the support of those who are responsible for implementation and success of
the decisions. (Ingersoll, 1997, p. 7)
Teachers leave the profession for many reasons, but some of the top reasons are a lack of
professionalism, recognition, and autonomy (Pearson & Hall, 1993).
Teacher leaders want to share leadership with others. The vision is to take up their
roles as leaders and continue to develop values that encourage and expect other teachers
28
to lead from within their ranks (Lieberman & Miller, 1999). As they take on these
leadership roles, they must not forget their original role of teacher and must not allow a
management view to invade their student oriented view or disrupt their collegiality with
other teachers (Donaldson, 2006; Ash & Persall, 2000; Harris & Muijs, 2002). Teachers
spend much of their time taking care of their students needs, yet they get little help in
understanding their own needs. These include gaining recognition, encouragement,
support, and ongoing professional development (Lieberman, et al., 1988). This may lead
to poor retention of teachers in our schools. Only thirty percent of novice teachers stay in
the profession for five years (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Gonzales, 2004).
According to a report No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children, teacher
retention is a problem that has led to a shortage of teachers in America (1983). They go
on to report that the hardest hit areas are the urban, rural, and minority districts, where
under qualified and under experienced teachers come and go on a regular basis. One-third
of our novice teachers leave the profession by year three and about half leave before their
fifth year (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). These numbers will improve by allowing teachers
to lead within the schools creating a horizontal model of leadership.
Teacher leadership may be viewed differently when it is reported by novice and
veteran teachers. Novice teachers are generally just out of college and may not view
leadership in the same way a veteran teacher would. Veteran teachers have a variety of
experiences and years of professional development to rely on that the novice has not
experienced. In a study of perceptions concerning a mentoring program, novice teachers
and veteran teachers had vastly different perceptions of the process (Frazier, 2006).
Another study looking at teachers’ perceptions of their professional identity had drastic
29
differences between those of veteran and novice teachers (Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt,
1999). According to Johnson and Birkland (2003), novice teachers are provided little
support, get the least desirable placements and the most difficult to handle students. This
may have an impact on their leadership perceptions.
Another aspect that may affect teachers’ perceptions of leadership is certifications
they hold. A teacher certified in secondary Social Studies may perceive leadership
differently than a teacher certified in Early Childhood or a Nationally Board Certified
teacher. A study identifying teachers’ wants and needs, found that National Board
Certified teachers’ needs were more in line with aspects of leadership than those of non-
certified teachers’ needs and that certified teachers wanted to serve in leadership roles
more often than non-certified teachers (Petty, O’Conner & Dagenhart, 2002).
Formative Teacher Leadership
Formative Leadership Theory, developed by Ash and Persall (2000), was founded
on the belief that there are multiple leaders within a school. Teachers are leaders and
principals are leaders of teacher leaders. The premise is to create a culture and structure
to encourage everyone to participate in being a leader which would establish an
environment that is leader-full.
Formative teacher leadership spreads the responsibility of leading to multiple
individual educators in an anti-hierarchical manner (Ash & Persall, 2000). Gonzales
(2004) suggests democratizing education by redefining teacher leadership as shared
leadership for all teachers. In a report on teachers’ concepts of career, most teachers
reported that they prefer a horizontal expansion of teaching roles as to a vertical ladder
30
leading to higher pay and administrative duties (McLaughlin & Yee, 1988). Teachers
prefer professional growth and efficacy to movement up the ladder (Gonzales, 2004).
Harris (2003) states the following, “Whatever specific definition of teacher leadership
one chooses to adopt, it is clear that its emphasis upon collective action, empowerment
and shared agency is reflected …” (p. 317).
Schools today are not equipped to embrace the formative leadership structure due
to current hierarchical structures, our values, and our professional development training.
In order to establish and encourage formative leadership, Ash and Persall (2000) have
developed ten principles to guide this new educational paradigm:
1. Team learning, productive thinking, and collaborative problem solving should
replace control mechanisms, top-down decision making, and enforcement of
conformity.
2. Teachers should be viewed as leaders and school principals as leaders of
leaders. Leaders must be seen as asking the right kinds of questions rather than
knowing all the answers.
3. Trust should drive our working relationships. Leaders should not assume that
faculty, staff, and students will try their best to do their worst.
4. Leaders should move from demanding conformity and compliance to
encouraging and supporting innovation and creativity. One of the leader’s primary
responsibilities is to drive out fear.
5. Leaders should focus on people and processes, rather than on paperwork and
administrative minutiae. Time should be spent on value added activities.
31
6. Leaders should be customer-focused and servant-based. Faculty and staff
members are the direct customers of the principal, and the most important
function of the principal is to serve his or her customers.
7. Leaders should create networks that foster two way communication rather than
channels that direct the flow of information in only one direction.
8. Formative leadership requires proximity, visibility, and being close to the
customer. Leaders should move about the school and the surrounding community,
listening and learning, asking questions, building relationships, and identifying
possibilities.
9. Formative leadership should empower the people within the school to do the
work and protect them from unwarranted outside interference.
10. Formative leadership requires the ability to operate in an environment of
uncertainty, constantly learning how to exploit system wide change, rather than
maintaining the status quo.
For some time, teachers have been seen as employees who need to be managed
and told what to do. They have had little say in curriculum development, school reform
issues, or staff development structuring and planning. This has led to teacher- proof
curriculum packages and staff development programs that have little to do with what the
teachers need to improve their practice and ultimately student learning (Gonzales, 2004).
Yet many believe the burden of school reform and improvement lies most heavily with
the teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Formative teacher leadership guides teachers
toward improvement through the Ten guiding principles and assists them with obstacles
that inhibit their leadership.
32
Factors That Inhibit and Equip Teacher Leaders
Teachers are often short on time and overwhelmed with responsibilities. Seventy-
five percent of our teachers are women and they carry most of the responsibility of caring
for their families (Barth, 2005). Men in the profession often take on coaching positions or
second jobs in order to make financial ends meet. Once they get to school, they are
restricted within time schedules and asked to do more and more for the students and the
school community.
Teachers are not entrusted as resources for professional staff development. They
are not viewed as experts in their specialty areas. They are the most underutilized asset in
our current school structure. “Long-standing practices of school governance and teaching
have both emerged from and been reinforced by structures that do not easily give way to
support newer conceptions emphasizing shared leadership and collaboration among
teachers” (York-Barr & Duke, 2004, p. 14). Donaldson (2006) noted that principals are
thought to make organizational action; teachers typically are not.
Teachers are conditioned to be followers (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). They
follow the guidance offered by professors in their undergraduate work, they student teach
under a more experienced teachers, they complete entry year programs with a committee
in charge, and then they abide by the hierarchical system involving one school leader.
They have been expected to look to others for answers and ways of improving their
practice. Lawmakers legislate policy for teachers to abide by, often without their input.
There has been a common agreed upon assumption inside and outside of
education that teachers should teach and administrators and managers should lead schools
33
(Lynch & Strodl, 1991). Teacher leaders do not always want to move into administration;
they want to teach and stay close to students. They do not want their colleagues to refer to
them as an administrator; they want to remain a teacher. They have more than enough to
do yet they choose to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to help their
colleagues and their students. They want to make a difference.
Teachers have been isolated and controlled, unable to add valuable input
regarding aspects that affect the learning in their classrooms and schools (Ash & Persall,
2000; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Lieberman & Miller, 2004;
Lortie, 1975). The hierarchical frame of school leadership must shift to a more
democratic, participative structure. This will create a support structure that focuses on
teacher collaboration, rather than teacher isolation. This enhances teacher
communication, a vital characteristic that will better mirror the increasingly complex
society for which they are preparing students (Lieberman, et al., 1988). Donaldson (2006)
contrasts teacher leaders and principals by pointing out those teacher leaders’ values,
norms, and allegiances are aligned with the people they are leading and not segregated by
allegiances among the administration. Children are being overwhelmed with the demands
of our complex society. In order to more effectively meet the learning needs and
expectations of today’s children, teachers must utilize their individual, collective and
collaborative resources in a manner that reinforces what teachers are doing in the other
classrooms throughout the school. Teacher leaders can play a prominent role in the area
of supporting their colleagues’ collaborative efforts as well as organizing collective
resources.
34
Teacher conservatism and isolation within their classrooms inhibits leadership
(Lortie, 1975). Teacher isolation has been an ongoing problem within our schools for
some time (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Lieberman & Miller,
2004; Lortie, 1975). The benefits of isolation that teachers may enjoy do not outweigh the
negative consequences. Because teachers often have little idea what is going on in the
other classrooms of their own school, the environment is not conducive to sharing ideas,
time and resources with their colleagues (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). “The leap from
a productive individual contributor, working essentially behind a closed classroom door,
to a new identity of “teacher as leader” constitutes one of the most engaging transition in
teachers’ professional lives” (Bowman, 2004, p. 187).
Teacher leadership can be threatening to colleagues and to administration.
“Ironically, when classroom teachers do embrace leadership challenges in his or her
schools or school district, fellow teachers often chastise him or her...” (Bowman, 2004, p.
187). As reported by McLaughlin and Yee (1998), most teachers prefer a horizontal
expansion of teachers’ roles instead of a vertical ladder leading to higher pay and
administrative duties. “Teachers prefer professional growth and efficacy to movement up
the ladder (Gonzales, 2004).
Time has always been in short supply for any classroom teacher. Teachers barely
have time in their busy days to take a lunch break let alone add to their lists of
responsibilities and roles the position of leader. Using precious time to perform as a
teacher leader takes teachers away from their reasons for being in the classroom, their
students.
35
Teachers are decision makers. They are constantly deciding what actions to take
or not take in the classroom on a minute by minute basis. They are educated in designing,
planning, developing, observing, evaluating, analyzing, and reflecting. These skills and
more are necessary for anyone in a leadership position to possess. Teachers want to
mentor their colleagues, assist in school and district level decision making, and choose to
belong to professional organizations where their input is highly valued.
Value of Teacher Leadership
Research involving teachers has value in many areas of the educational
community. Colleges and universities vested in teacher education, national education
associations like the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, education
unions, administrators, and individual teachers will all benefit from the information
gathered about teachers’ perceptions of leadership. Research specifically focused on
teachers’ perceptions of their leadership has been limited in the realm of teachers as
leaders within the structure of school leadership (Smylie, 1995).
Colleges and universities are recognizing the need for preparing teacher leaders.
They are actively joining in by offering higher education degrees in teacher leadership.
A good example of this is the University of California at Berkley along with California
Statue University, San Francisco State, and San Jose State. These schools offer a joint
doctorate in Urban Educational Leadership. Their mission statement states, “Our central
role is to ignite the leadership capacity needed to create vital, democratic and caring
places for powerful teaching and learning.” They offer courses pertaining to what
teachers need to know in order to lead, to comprehend and act on school change issues, to
36
deepen understanding of school culture, to effectively handle conflict and to help
establish educational communities.
Input from multiple perspectives is important if a structure based on multiple
leaders is desired and expected to thrive (LeBlanc, 1997). The present structure involving
a principal as sole leader cannot effectively address the diverse needs of today’s students
or teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Formative or emerging leadership suggests that
leadership be distributed throughout the school in order to enable those in the closest
contact with students to make necessary decisions that ultimately lead to increased
student learning and enhanced teacher satisfaction (Ash & Persall, 2000). This most
recent form of teacher leadership is antihierarchical and places high esteem upon
collegiality and professionalism (Harris, 2003; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). With a
few adjustments to the structural frame, schools can become democratic entities that rely
on the expertise of all involved to help students achieve and maximize learning.
For the purpose of this research, the definition of teacher leadership used falls
within the framework of formative teacher leadership and is stated by Pellicer and
Anerson (1995), “Teacher leadership is concerned with teachers helping teachers so that
teachers can, in turn, better help students. Teacher leadership is helping teachers work
together to establish and achieve the goals and objectives of the school” (p. 22). Another,
closely related definition comes from Moller and Katzenmeyer (1996), “Our definition of
teacher leadership proposes that teachers are leaders when they are contributing to school
reform or student learning (within or beyond the classroom), influencing others to
improve their professional practice, or identifying with and contributing to a community
of leaders” (p. l6).
37
When speaking of teacher leaders, Donaldson (2006) writes that their opinions
greatly affect their ability to act for the good of the students and the school. The
identification of these perceptions will assist educational professionals on a variety of
levels within our schools in expanding the teachers’ role as leaders. Although many are
promoting teacher leadership as a necessary resource for school reform, there is little
written from the perspectives of the teachers themselves (Silva, et al., 2000). Silins and
Mulford (2002) write of a trickle down effect, “…how teachers say they are treated,
especially by the school administration, is reflected in how students say they are treated
by teachers” (p. 601). This trickle down effect makes it extremely necessary for us to
redefine our schema of school leadership.
Q-Methodology
Q methodology was created in the mid-1930s by British physicist/psychologist
William Stephenson (Brown, 1996). The idea had been previously used, but Stephenson
brought it to wider attention by explaining its underlying premise. This method holds
values, opinions, perceptions and other behaviors as measurable entities. Q methodology
relays subjective responses from personal perspectives and gives a picturesque view of
these perspectives when organized in unique factors. It allows one to examine individual
and sub-population characteristics and opinions often ignored in traditional R
methodology. It was designed to be used with small numbers of participants and large
numbers of statements.
Q methodology is beneficial because it allows the individual to qualify an answer
according to how it relates to previous questions as well as yet to be answered questions
38
(Addams & Proops, 2001). Q methodology allows answers to be complexly interwoven,
yet discernable. This type of methodology has been utilized to “reveal the subjectivity
involved in any situation – e.g., in aesthetic judgments, poetic interpretation, perceptions
of organizational role, political attitudes, appraisals of health care, experiences of
bereavement, perspectives on life and the cosmos…” (Brown, 1996, p. 563). It gives the
researcher organized techniques to uncover qualitative data within the participants’
opinions, as well as, a way to quantify this data using factor analysis procedures. In
contrast to traditional quantitative methodologies, Q methodology attempts to combine
the best elements of quantitative assessments and qualitative traditions (including
narrative forms) as a means of producing a more rounded outcome (Sell & Brown, 1984;
Brown, 1996).
Q methodology allows factor studies on one or a few individuals where people are
correlated, not tests (Stephenson, 1953). Burt and Stephenson disagreed on what was
being measured and the way it was being measured (Brown, 2000). “…there are no
operations in R-methodology by which the various statements are compared relative to
one another. This is basic, instead, to Q-technique” (Stephenson, 1953, p. 302).
Q methodology has been used by multiple researchers to uncover the values and
perceptions teachers hold concerning a variety of topics. Hull (1996) utilized Q
methodology to study teachers’ views about arts integration in the curriculum in
Oklahoma. In another study, special education and classroom teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion were examined using Q methodology (Elhoweris & Alsueikh, 2006). Q
methodology was used to look into music teachers’ attitudes towards the significance of
individual differences for teaching and learning in music (Hewitt, 2006). Ernest (2001)
39
chose to stray from traditional research techniques when he used Q methodology to study
teachers’ ideas about developmentally appropriate practices.
Q methodology was chosen in this study for several reasons. First and foremost,
Q methodology is the research technique best suited to expose a participant’s subjective
point of view. People usually have viewpoints on issues and are capable of voicing these
opinions themselves (Brown, 2000). In Q methodology, the subject reasons and
subjectively acts on the relevance of the statement in question. It allows the participants
to be more than just data points and it gives them a true voice in an often silent structure
through open ended questions and subjective choices.
Q methodology nurtures the researcher’s desire to use a method of impression as
opposed to one of expression as found in an R-methodology and correlation studies.
Methods of expression do not hear the participants’ voice deliberately. These methods are
concerned with data and how they add up, not the participants’ frame of reference
pertaining to the issue involved. Q methodology is quite the contrary. “With methods of
impression…the personal, intraindividual significance of ‘test stimuli’ is of primary
importance” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 23). Q methodology allows the participants
to rank or assign value to issues by referring them to their own personal thoughts and
individual situations. The quantitative nature and characteristics of Q methodology
elevate this research tool to a uniquely useful qualitative research method (Watts &
Stenner, 2003a).
The researcher can also appreciate Q methodology for its usefulness pertaining to
a small number of participants while allowing for a large number of statements
representing opinions, traits or other measurable entities. “As few as twelve participants
40
can generate statistically meaningful results” (Barry & Proops, 2000, p. 104). This
supports giving the participants’ traits and opinions merit which is not possible with
larger numbers. Another small yet important issue is being able to select participants
without having to randomize the pool of subjects.
Summary
This chapter discussed current and historical literature in the area of teacher
leadership. Scholarly journals, books on leadership within schools, dissertations and
reports were used to review current literature. Information involving the demands on
school leadership was explained along with the attributes teachers can contribute by
actively participating in a leadership role. It also examined the background of teacher
leadership and presented issues that are inhibiting further growth in the field. Chapter
Three is an explanation of the Q methodology and the theory and tools that support the
method.
41
CHAPTER III
METHOD
The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective perceptions teachers have
of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community. The study identifies
patterns of opinions teachers hold about their leadership, their perceptions of ideal
leadership and demographic similarities and differences among teachers’ varying
perceptions of leadership. The data exposes patterns related to the demographic areas and
emerging factors following Q methodology analysis. Q methodology was utilized to
examine the perceptions of teachers who participated in this study. The research
questions that guided the study were:
1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the
classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?
2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?
3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teachers’ varying
perceptions of leadership?
To comply with federal guidelines and the policy in place at Oklahoma State
University, this study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for
approval. This ensured compliance concerning the rights of human subjects involved in
the study. This chapter includes an overview and an explanation of Q methodology
including the concourse, Q samples, P samples, procedures and data analysis.
42
Q Methodology
Q methodology was chosen in this study for several reasons. First and foremost,
Q methodology is the research technique best used to expose a participant’s subjective
point of view. People usually have viewpoints on issues and are capable of voicing these
opinions themselves (Brown, 2000). In Q methodology, the subject reasons and
subjectively acts on the relevance of the statement in question. It allows the participants
to be more than just data points and it gives them a true voice in an often silent structure
through open ended questions and subjective choices.
Teachers’ opinions and perspectives are the core of this study and cannot be
predetermined in any manner. “Only subjective opinions are at issue in Q, and although
they are typically improvable, they can nevertheless be shown to have structure and form,
and it is the task of Q-technique to make this form manifest for purposes of observation
and study” (Brown, 1996, p. 58). In a presentation at the 9th Annual Meeting of the
International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, Thomas and Bass (1993)
noted, that subjectivity is self-referent in nature; therefore, processes used to measure
subjectivity should maintain the person’s point of view and not ignore it.
Q methodology allowed teachers to rank or assign value to issues by referring
them to their own personal thoughts and individual situations. The researcher can also
appreciate Q methodology for its usefulness pertaining to a small number of teachers
while allowing for a large number of statements representing values, traits or other
measurable entities. Q methodology is also known for its validity and reliability.
43
Q methodology requires participants to rank the Q statements in order according
to their own views and opinions. This diminishes the involvement of researcher bias. The
researcher decides which statements to include and what questions to ask within the
framework of the theory, but the participant expresses their own subjective ideals
pertaining to the topic in question. This supports the reasoning for identifying Q
methodology as a qualiquantological tool (Stenner & Stainton, 2004).
Concourse Development
Q methodology begins with the development of a concourse or the statements to
be used. According to Brown (1993), the concourse is the flow of communication
encompassing a topic in everyday conversation, commentary, or discourse of daily life.
He refers to the concourse as, “the flow of communicability surrounding any topic” (p.
94). It represents the dialog people might use when discussing or debating a particular
topic. The researcher may create the concourse from speaking with people, from a
theoretical perspective, a literature review or from a combination of a variety of
communication formats (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Possible sources for deriving a Q
concourse are existing research in the field of study, interviews conducted with a group
of individuals representative of the subject population, observations and field notes,
current trends in society, commonly held ideas, etc. (Van Exel, 2005). Care is taken to
omit statements that are repetitive or force participants to choose between opposing ideas
(McKeown & Thomas, 1988). They represent the communicative structure used within
the topic of study. Therefore, the statements in the concourse are grounded and exist as a
part of the entire study.
44
The concourse is not limited to verbal communications, but may include abstracts,
pictures, symbols, video clips, selections of music, etc. From this collection of
communicated ideas or statements, the researcher selectively filters out the Q-set or Q
sample best fitted to the research question involved. The sample usually consists of 40 to
50 statements, but may have more or less depending on the question, the theory, and the
researcher. The statements are subjective in that they are opinions and not facts. The
statements are recorded on a card and numbered randomly to make up a deck or stack of
Q cards. The Q-sample is administered by the researcher to the P set or P-sample.
The concourse for this study consisted of over 300 statements representative of
declarations made by teachers concerning the concept of teacher leadership. These
sample items came from a recent Q methodology study on teaching practices , transcribed
interviews with teachers, a recent teacher leadership blog from the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, and an in-depth review of teacher leadership
literature from the early 1900’s through the current year. Additional information was
gathered concerning teachers’ perceptions and attitudes in other aspects of the profession
within the K-12 school system. Scholarly journals, books, websites, dissertations, and
interviews were used to compile the selected concourse. The concourse is constructed for
the purpose of structuring the Q sort items or sampling the statements used in the
research instrument.
Research Instruments
A concourse typically has too many statements or items in it to be used in a
research study. There is no set agreed upon number of statements that make up a
45
concourse. Because of this, a subset of statements is extracted from the pool of those
collected and a reasonable number is meaningfully chosen. A theoretical framework is
used to structure the subset of statements in the selection process. Stephenson (1953)
cautioned against viewing the sample subset as ‘standardized’ as is often observed in R-
techniques. Q statements do not fit neatly into certain categories and may be interpreted
in a realm other than that initially intended on (Brown, 1993). Categories or cells develop
within the structure using the theoretical framework. The statements within cells are
homogenous due to their similarities and at the same time heterogeneous due to their
differences (Brown, 1980). Statements are grouped into categories and then reduced to
provide optimal diversity and eliminate redundancy.
The concourse used in this study consisted of more than 300 statements and was
reduced in order to give participants a reasonable number of declarations to reason with.
The statements were selected and eliminated according to the theoretical framework of
formative leadership and the categories of classroom, school, and educational
community. A small group of experts in the area of teacher professionalism assisted in
the selection process to help ensure the statements reflected the theory and were
represented within the 10 guiding principles and the categories previously stated.
The 10 guiding principles were organized into statements and then appropriated
into classroom, school, and educational community. Though several statements overlap
and take place in more than one area, they were segregated according to their
predominant occurrence in a particular setting. The concourse statements were then
categorized and grouped together according to the statements from the10 guiding
principles. With each statement in one of the three categories, the reduction of redundant
46
statements took place. Statements were then chosen to create a rich, diverse collection
within each of the three settings.
Figure 1.
Q Sort Statements________________________________________________________
Classroom
1. I set individual performance expectations for students in my classes
2. I use problem solving strategies to help students figure out what happened when
things go wrong
3. I ask students to evaluate me during the year to help improve my practice
4. I often reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate ways to improve them
5. I am well informed in ‘No Child Left Behind’ regulations and content
6. I assess my teaching in terms of my students’ achievement
7. Openness and communication is highly valued within my classroom.
8. I have updated my technological skills and encourage my students in this area
9. I encourage my students to celebrate each others accomplishments on a daily
basis
10. I determine the amount of homework my students receive
11. I choose the teaching techniques and materials used in my classroom
12. I adapt instructions to fit the preferred learning styles and desires of my students
13. I always assume students will try their best.
14. I encourage innovative thinking and sharing among students.
15. My main concerns pertain to students and their learning.
47
School
16. I often arbitrate disagreements between colleges
17. I am a mentor to another teacher in my school
18. I can easily motivate others to become actively involved
19. Our principal comes and goes often and freely, there is quite a bit of contact with
the teachers and the students.
20. Teachers in my school are shielded from unwarranted outside influences that
might interfere with teaching and learning.
21. I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators
22. I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from methods I use
23. I observe in other teachers’ classrooms to learn from their methods and pedagogy
24. The faculty and staff within my school use collaborative problem solving to work
through difficult issues.
25. Teachers are viewed as leaders in our school.
26. My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner.
27. There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration in our
school.
28. I enjoy participating in team building activities and working closely with others
29. We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning in our meetings and in
our spare time.
30. Our principal is available and always ready to serve according to the needs of the
teachers.
48
Community
31. I believe I can make a difference in the educational community by communicating
my ideas to others
32. I understand how to work with policymakers for effective improvement
33. I hold an office in an educational organization
34. I observe other teachers in their classrooms and invite them to observe in mine
35. I work with a higher education institution to bring new teachers into the system
36. After attending a workshop, I share the information with my colleagues through a
workshop or professional development meeting
37. I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my school to others
38. Parents and other people in the local community are vital to a healthy school
39. I conduct action research and share my results with educators, parents and
administrators
40. I am learning how to encourage system wide change.
41. I am encouraged to be part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and
effectively communicate with other educators.
42. Getting out into the community is vital to building relationships and learning from
one another.
43. I have presented at a state or national convention in the last three years
44. We are not isolated, we are encouraged to visit other schools and attend
conferences and seminars.
45. Listening and learning from educators outside of my district is extremely
important to me.
49
Figure 2. Sorting Array
Array___________________________________________________________________
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
A demographic information survey was developed for use in this specific study.
The demographic information includes gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience, grade
level, subject area, degrees held, certifications and opportunities for leadership. Both
instruments are intended to identify the perceptions teachers have pertaining to leadership
within the classroom, the school, and the educational community and expose possible
patterns related to the demographic areas and emerging factors.
Figure 2. is an illustration of the grid used to make up the form boards. Table I is
a description of the statements in each column, the sorting number of each statement, and
number used for analysis or the array position.
Table I.
50
Q Sort Board Arrangement
Statement Frequency 2 2 4 5 6 7 6 5 4 2 2
Column Number for Sorting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Array Position/Statistical Values -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5__
The following items were developed for use in this study:
1. Script of solicitation (Appendix A)
2. Researcher’s script, condition of instruction (see Appendix B )
3. Informed Consent Form (see Appendix C)
P-set or Participants
The P-set is the group of people, relevant to the question under investigation, who
participated in sorting Q-statements. It is not a random selection of participants but a
chosen group who have a viable connection to the question being asked. The participants
have personal experience with the concourse or an opinion pertaining to it (Brown,
1980). The number of people in the P set is most often smaller than the Q-set (Brouwer,
1999).
The P-set for this study consisted of 36 public school teachers. They ranged in
grade level and subject area from kindergarten to twelfth grade and had varying
educational backgrounds. These teachers were from urban, rural, and suburban school
districts in the northeastern area of the state of Oklahoma. They were solicited during
small in-service meetings in the Muskogee, Oklahoma, school district area. Teachers
were asked to participate in the study and encouraged to share the information with their
colleagues if they would be interested in participating. Various ages, ethnic backgrounds,
51
years of experience and certification areas were accounted for on the demographic
information sheet (Appendix D) used in the study. These variations assisted in ensuring
the participants have different perceptions concerning leadership. This information was
gathered through the demographic information survey. As common strands emerge, the
demographic information becomes useful to assist in identifying patterns among teachers’
perceptions (Stephens, 1985).
Procedure
Each participant was given an Informed Consent Form, a manila envelope
containing the Q set and a Demographic questionnaire. The large manila envelope
contained the set of Q statements, a form board, two sort record sheets and a
demographics sheet. They were asked to locate each of these items.
The teachers were assigned a number for identification only. To protect the
participant’s privacy, only the principle researcher had access to the identification
numbers. The identification numbers were used to identify participants who ask for future
contact or information.
Informed consent was obtained prior to Q sorting by requesting that participants
sign the consent form (Appendix C). Participants were given a personal copy to keep.
This form contained the purpose of the research, the procedures, and the risk of
participation, confidentiality statement, contact information, and the participant’s rights.
It was clearly explained that participation is voluntary and withdrawal at any time will
receive no penalty. Participants were given the opportunity to receive a summary of the
research conclusions and will be given details of how to obtain these. They were asked to
52
lay the form board out and to count out the number of statements they have to ensure that
they are all accounted for. The teachers then sorted the statements according to the
conditions of instruction (Brown, 2000). Essential to the Q methodology is the use of a
quantitative element that is described as a Q sort technique. Participants were asked to
carefully read through each card in order to gain an idea of the broad spectrum of the
statements involved (Appendix E).
The teachers sorted the statements using two conditions of instruction (Brown,
1996). One condition of instruction revolved around the teacher’s actual self when
considering leadership and the second condition was focused on the ideal self when
thinking of teacher leadership. The belief is that behavioral realizations depend on the
harmony between one's actual self and one's ideal conceptions of self (Stephenson,
1980). The first condition of instruction used the question, “What perceptions do you
have about your leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational
community?” The teachers then read each card again and sorted the statements into three
stacks. With the Form Board in front of them, they sorted into a stack to the right that
represented those statements most like him or her. The second stack was to the left of the
board and represented those statements most unlike him or her. A stack in between the
right and left piles and was the neutral stack. The ranking of these statements according
to a specific or explicit rule, also known as the condition of instruction, is central to the
assessment of the scores and the design of this methodology (Brown, 2000).
The participants were left with three piles of cards. They were instructed to start
with the pile to their right and select the two cards from this pile that are the most like
him or her and place them in the two spaces at the far right of the Form Board in front of
53
them in column 11. The order of the cards within the column (the vertical positioning of
the cards) does not matter. Then, they chose from the pile on the left the two cards that
was most unlike him or her and placed them in the two spaces at the far left of the Form
Board in front of them in column 1. They went back to the most like pile on the right and
selected the two cards from those remaining that were most like him or her and pile them
into the two open spaces in column 10. They returned to the most unlike pile on the left
and selected the two cards from those remaining and placed them into the two open
spaces in column 2. They worked back and forth, continuing to place cards onto the Form
Board until all of the cards were placed into all of the spaces. Once they placed all the
cards on the Form Board, they rearranged the cards until the arrangement best
represented their opinions. They then recorded the number of the statements on the Form
Board on the record sheet (Appendix E).
The Form Boards were cleared and the cards gathered in a stack for the second
condition of instruction. Under the second condition, the teachers were asked to sort the
cards using the following question, “What are your ideal perceptions of leadership in the
classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?” They sorted the cards into
three piles and followed the directions used from the first condition of instruction and
recorded the responses on another record sheet.
The participants then filled out a demographic questionnaire (Appendix D). The
questionnaire includes gender, age, ethnicity, years taught, subject area, highest degree
held and certifications. It asked about the percentage of their job involved in leadership
and what non-educational leadership roles they participate in.
Data Analysis
54
In Q methodology, the participants are the center of attention, not the data the
researcher is collecting. Factors evolve from the participants’ individual subjectivities
(Brown, 1993). There are usually two to four factors in a set. Individuals will cluster
together as factors according to their agreement with certain values or opinions (Smith,
2001). The researcher would ideally like to have four or five people represent each point
of view or define a factor, though the number of people is not important (Van Exel,
2005).
Q methodology examines participants’ relationships to one another by looking at
how they sort their statements. Factor analysis groups individuals who sort their
statements in a similar manner instead of grouping the items themselves (Senn, 1993).
Due to uncertain or vague meaning involving statements close to zero on the grid, the
focus of interpretation is narrowed to the extremes of each Q sort (±3, 4, and 5). From the
patterns of clustering, factors or opinions emerge. These factors are orthogonal and
represent the participants’ or exemplars’ perceptions. Participants who share perspectives
were grouped together using a particular factor. Two or more orthogonal factors represent
different perspectives pertaining to the Q-sample statements. Loading on a particular
factor, shows alignment between the participants’ Q-sort and the components of the
factor. Positive loadings represent shared subjectivity, while negative loadings
demonstrate opposition to the factor’s representative perspective. The goal is to analyze
relationships between those who participate in the study by uncovering aggregates of
similar participants (Bennett & Bowers, 1976).
55
For the purpose of this study, the use of a Q sample consisted of 45 statements,
derived using the 10 guiding principles of formative leadership theory. A demographic
instrument was included to gather information and illustrate patterns that immerge
concerning gender, age, ethnicity, and years of teaching, subject area, grade level, highest
degree held, major, and National Certification. It also asked two open ended questions.
The participants were asked to fill out the demographic survey after they had finished
sorting the Q statements.
Summary
This chapter explained how the teacher leadership theory from Ash and Persall
(2000) helped to create the concourse of statements used in this study using the ten
guiding principles. Q methodology was explained as the method of choice for this study
of teachers’ perceptions of their actual and ideal forms of leadership. The research
instrument, participants, the conditions of instruction and the data analysis method used
were examined and discussed. Chapter IV will discuss each of these areas pertaining to
the data collected in this study.
56
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective opinions that teachers
have about leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational community.
The relationships between their perceptions of leadership and their ideal perceptions of
leadership in each area were of particular interest. Further attention was given to the
relationships between how teachers perceive leadership and their specific demographic
information. The specific research questions for this study were:
1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the
classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?
2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?
3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teachers varying
perceptions of leadership?
Forty-five Q-sort statements were drawn from the leadership model developed by
Ash and Persall known as formative leadership theory (Ash & Persall, 2000). Thirty-six
K-12 classroom teachers sorted these 45 statements twice (under two conditions of
instruction) yielding 72 Q-sorts in order to reveal their perceptions of leadership. The two
conditions for the sorting were: What are your thoughts about leadership? and What is
your ideal leadership self? The process accumulated 72 Q-sorts to be used for analysis.
Two sorts were not included in the data analysis because one teacher refused to follow
57
through and sort for the second condition of instruction saying she felt her perceptions of
leadership and her ideal perceptions were identical, both of her sorts were left out of
analysis leaving a total of 70 sorts.
Description of Participants
The participants in this study were asked to fill out a demographic information
sheet containing choices for gender, ethnicity, the number of years they have taught, the
subject area and grade they currently teach in, their highest degree held, their National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards standing, and the percentage of time they
spend in leadership activities while at work. Figure 3 depicts the ethnographic
information of age, ethnicity, years teaching, certifications, degrees, National Board
standing, and percentage of time leading.
Figure 3. Demographic Information
Information_____________________________________________________________
Female 30 Male 5 Caucasian 27 Native American 7 African American 1 Asian American 0 Hispanic 1 Other 0 Average number of years teaching 12 Early Childhood 6 Elementary 9 Special Education 4 Spanish 1 Physical Education 1 Secondary 6 Alternative Certification 1 Bachelor Degree 26 Masters Degree 9 Never Attempted National Board Certification 19 National Board Candidate 8 Reattempting National Board 1
58
National Board Certified Teacher 7 Average % of job involved in school leadership 33%
Data Analysis
The data were entered into PQ Method 2.11, a program by Schmolk (2002),
which was originally known as Mainframe-Program Q Method created by John Atkinson
(1992). This program gives the analysis a mathematically pure solution. The objective is
to have the maximum number of sorts load on only one or more of the extracted factors.
It must be noted, “Q sorts really measure nothing if they are correctly applied, and their
meaning-conferring and intentionality only emerges by way of factor analysis of several
Q-sorts” (Stephenson, 1988, p. 211). The analysis started with correlating each sort to
every other sort, followed by principle components factor analysis of the sorts’
correlation matrix. This execution resulted in an unrotated factor matrix. Varimax
rotation was carried out on the extracted factors to identify those with the greatest number
of sorts defining each factor. Four characteristics of each factor were examined: variance,
number of significant sorts, number of confounded sorts, and number of non significant
sorts.
Varimax rotation uses the unrotated matrix file and allows you to choose from
multiple factor solutions. Varimax rotation was performed on 2, 3, 4, and 5 factor
solutions for this study. Factor loading significance was calculated using zero-ordered
correlation coefficients or SE = 1/(sqrt[N]), SE is the standard error and N is the number
of Q statement. In this study, there were 45 statements, the standard error is 0.149
59
(SE = 1/sqrt[45] = 1/6.708 = 0.149). Correlations are statistically significant at 0.01 when
they are within ±2.58 standard errors or 2.58(0.149) = 0.3844 or .38 (McKeown &
Thomas, 1988). Factor loadings at .38 or above were then hand flagged as significant (X
marks a defining sort in Table III). For optimal interpretation and meaning for the factor
and to substantiate a stable viewpoint, at least four sorts must be significant to retain a
factor (Brown, 1980).The fourth and fifth factor solutions were highly correlated and
contained numerous sorts that loaded significantly on more than one factor. Additionally,
the views could be explained using factors 1, 2, and 3; therefore, a three factor solution
was chosen in order to interpret the most stable solution for the relationship of these sorts.
After the three-factor solution was retained, z-scores were calculated for each statement
for each of the three factors. Z-scores are the normalized weighted average of the
participants statement scores for a particular defining factor or a measure of the strength
of the statement. They are the deviation of the score from the mean score. If a z- score is
1.8 then it is 1.8 standard deviations from the mean (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Large
z- scores define a factor in a magnified way and are most likely, not due to chance. The
statements are arranged in descending order by z-scores to yield a factor array, or the
theoretical result of the sorts that defined that factor. The factor arrays and various
comparisons of statements assist in interpretation of factors.
In Q Methodology, interpretations are based on the factor loading matrix and the
highly valued factor arrays. The items distributed at the extremes are of utmost
importance during interpretation because they are the most significant (Robbins, 2005).
These statements must be carefully analyzed and understood to assist in defining and
characterizing each factor. Factor arrays, or factor exemplars, are values given to the
60
statements for each of the factors used in the analysis (-5 to 5). Factors are displayed on
form boards ordering the statements in the array to assist with interpretation. Consensus
statements were also used in this interpretation along with the demographic information
and comments written in response to the open-ended questions about leadership.
To assist in reading the factor loading matrix in Table II, a series of numbers and
letters were used to identify each sort (see Table II). First there is the number of the sort,
one through 70, followed by an M or F for gender, next the number of years the person
has been a teacher is listed. The last letters represent the teacher’s National Board
standing with NA representing Never Attempted, NC Nationally Certified, CA currently
attempting, and BS Banked scores and reattempting. The odd numbered sorts have a
lower case ‘a’ at the end representing the actual condition of instruction and the even
sorts just have a number and the word Ideal to represent the ideal condition of instruction.
Sort number one would be 01F14NCactual for Actual Condition and 01Ideal for Ideal
Condition.
The three factor solution used in this study, accounted for 51% of the total
variance. Table II displays 17 defining sorts for Factor 1 (18% of variance), 13 defining
sorts for Factor Two (11% of variance), and 14 defining sorts for Factor 3 (12% of
variance). Collective characteristics were used to identify and name each factor. Factor
One identified the Classroom Oriented Teachers, Factor Two identified the Collaborative
Teachers, and Factor Three identified the Collegial Teachers. Seventeen of the seventy
sorts were confounded, meaning they achieved significance on more than one factor.
Nine sorts were insignificant because they did not load on any one factor in the three
factor solution.
61
Table II.
Factor Matrix – X Indicates Defining Sort______________________________________
QSORT Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1 01F14NCactual -0.0181 0.7142X -0.2941 2 01Ideal 0.0415 0.6581X 0.2087 3 02F26NAactual 0.1258 -0.1581 0.2937 (not significant) 4 02Ideal 0.1205 -0.2455 0.4323X 5 03F14NAactual 0.0798 -0.1291 0.5285X 6 03Ideal 0.4941 0.0878 0.4896 (confounded) 7 04F20NAactual 0.7052X 0.0039 0.2202 8 04Ideal 0.3606 0.2980 0.4649X 9 05M15NAactual 0.5873 -0.0167 0.3906 (confounded) 10 05Ideal 0.6317X -0.0408 0.3346 11 06F7NAactual 0.4588 0.0818 0.4953 (confounded) 12 06Ideal 0.5335 0.0686 0.4218 (confounded) 13 07F10NAactual 0.7019X -0.1499 0.2466 14 07Ideal 0.7080X 0.0590 0.0753 15 08M1NAactual 0.5763X 0.2130 0.0228 16 08Ideal 0.3515 0.0923 0.1311 (not significant) 17 09F29NAactual -0.0163 0.4241X -0.0311 18 09Ideal 0.0928 0.4615X -0.0131 19 10F3NAactual 0.3424 -0.1407 0.7886X 20 10Ideal 0.3647 -0.0861 0.7543X 21 11F21NAactual 0.1601 0.5885X 0.1798 22 11Ideal 0.1601 0.5885X 0.1798 23 12F3NAactual 0.4892 0.4717 -0.0040 (confounded) 24 12Ideal 0.4608 0.4152 0.0518 (confounded) 25 13F18NAactual 0.0864 0.2650 0.3247 (not significant) 26 13Ideal -0.0575 0.0235 0.4325X 27 14M1NAactual 0.5126X -0.0768 -0.1786 28 14Ideal 0.2901 0.2479 0.1472 (not significant) 29 15F3NAactual 0.5345X 0.1764 0.1734 30 15Ideal 0.2389 0.4432X 0.2493 31 16F5NAactual 0.5533X 0.1755 0.1780 32 16Ideal -0.2202 0.0581 -0.2008 (not significant) 33 17M1NAactual 0.4951X 0.1535 0.1584 34 17Ideal 0.2650 0.5321X 0.1416 35 18F2NAactual 0.6006X 0.1044 0.0848 36 18Ideal 0.3492 0.0077 0.4275X 37 19F5CAactual 0.8052 0.4034 0.0692 (confounded) 38 19Ideal 0.7896 0.4357 0.1225 (confounded) 39 20F5NAactual 0.0874 0.3215 0.5948X 40 20Ideal 0.0140 0.2945 0.6274X 41 21M2NAactual 0.4424 0.1502 0.3760 (confounded) 42 21Ideal 0.4571 0.4226 0.2165 (confounded) 43 22F8CAactual 0.4013 -0.0521 0.5979 (confounded) 44 22Ideal -0.2457 0.2991 0.4895X
62
45 23F28NAactual 0.2629 0.2010 0.2482 (not significant) 46 23Ideal 0.1274 -0.1749 0.5784X 47 24F9NCactual 0.3693 0.5336X 0.0806 48 24Ideal 0.1586 0.5321X 0.0555 49 25F35NCactual 0.5217X 0.2223 0.1434 50 25Ideal 0.6362X 0.0810 0.0192 51 26F10CAactual 0.3785X 0.1745 0.2096 52 26Ideal 0.2170 0.3132 0.4234X 53 27F8CAactual 0.6302X 0.0078 -0.0583 54 27Ideal 0.0145 0.0973 0.6057X 55 28F10CAactual 0.4261 0.5057 0.2151 (confounded) 56 28Ideal 0.4056 0.2673 0.6250 (confounded) 57 29F8BSactual -0.1717 0.6956X 0.1481 58 29Ideal -0.4645 0.3122 0.5001 (confounded) 59 30F11NCactual 0.1437 0.1748 -0.1994 (not significant) 60 30Ideal 0.0125 0.1841 -0.0649 (not significant) 61 31F14CAactual 0.7646X 0.1226 0.0027 62 31Ideal 0.6137X 0.0947 0.3147 63 32F4CAactual 0.5864 0.4877 0.0624 (confounded) 64 32Ideal 0.4243 0.1781 0.4066 (confounded) 65 33F8NCactual 0.3679 0.3654 0.2410 (not significant) 66 33Ideal 0.4787 0.4849 0.0719 (confounded) 67 34F29NCactual 0.2435 0.5892X -0.2256 68 34Ideal -0.0257 0.6080X -0.1438 69 35F26NCactual 0.2126 0.1940 0.5445X 70 35Ideal 0.5372X 0.3379 0.2726 Number Sorts 17 13 14 % expl.Var. 18 11 12
(X = Significant Loading at p>.05 and more than half of common variance explained.)
Table III demonstrates the factor correlations ranging from .15 to .45. Due to the
high correlation between Factor One and Factor Three, it is assumed that the participants
loading on these factors had similarity in the sorting patterns; yet, factor three was
retained because of some striking differences in views of leadership.
Table III.
Correlations between Factor Scores__________________________________ 1 2 3 1 1.0000
63
2 0.2779 1.0000 3 0.4537 0.1501 1.0000
Response to Research Questions
The factors were interpreted using the Q-sort items with their highest and lowest
ranking according to the z scores. Interpretation involved the items that associated with
one factor over another, consensus statements, and demographic information. Consensus
statements are items that ranked similarly across all three factors. A post sort question
was at the bottom of the demographic page. Many teachers left it blank but a few
responded concerning the difficulty they had in switching from actual to ideal. The
interpretation of the factors and analyses of the factor loading matrix were used to
respond to the research questions.
Research Question One: What perceptions do teachers have about their own
leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?
Actual and ideal sorts were analyzed together to answer this question. How
teachers actually view their own leadership and how they view their ideal leadership were
combined to reveal the perceptions these teachers have. Three distinct views were
extrapolated along with consensus statements.
A large number of consensus statements mirror the correlation between factors.
Consensus statements are statements that display no significant differences among the
participants’ rankings within the organization of the grid. Although the three factors have
their own distinctions, there was little polarization on the following statements:
Consensus Statements ‘Most Like’ Participants with Array Positions
64
__________________________________________________________________________ Item No. Statement/Sort Array Positions* 7. Openness and communication are evident each day within 5 5 4
my classroom.
28. I participate in team building activities and working 2 3 2 closely with other.
15. Students are innovative thinkers because of my 3 2 2
curriculum. Consensus Statements ‘Most Not Like’ Participants with Array Positions _______________________________________________________________________ Item No. Statement/Sort Array Positions* 3. I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the -2 -1 -3
year to help improve my practices. 24. I initiate collaborative problem solving to work -1 -3 -2
through difficult issues at work.
5. I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other -1 -2 0 federal regulations.
• Array positions for Factor One, Two, and Three, respectfully.
Item 7 should be recognized by its overtly shared importance. It states, “Openness
and communication are evident each day within my classroom.” Teachers loading on
Factors One and Two placed this statement in the category of most like them (+5) and
Factor Three teachers placed only two statements in higher regard (+4) when considering
this statement. An interesting concept appears when examining the teachers’ agreement
with statement 15 stating that students are innovative thinkers and their disagreement
with statement 3. This says that they help their students to think innovatively but they
establish their limits when asking their students to evaluate their practices. Other items
shared close rankings but fell into the statistical void of the middle ground demonstrating
65
that similarities exit among the teachers in the study. Items that fall into the middle of the
grid have little value to those sorting them. It is more apparent, however, that the three
factors contain individual meaning and varying views of teacher leadership. It was this
uniqueness that assisted in interpreting the data and defining the factors.
Factor One Classroom Oriented Teacher Leaders
Most Like Statements
Z-scores Arrays
1. Individual performance expectations for students dominate my work in my classes.
1.554
4 2 1
14. My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative and control.
1.472
4 -1 -1
15. Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum. 1.416
3 2 2
11. I determine the amount of homework my students can accomplish.
1.331
3 -2 0
6. Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class.
1.274
3 1 -1
Most Not Like Statements
Z-scores Arrays
36. After attending a workshop, I share the information with my colleagues through a workshop or professional development meeting.
1.003
-3 3 3
20. I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside influences that might interfere with teaching and learning.
1.082 -3 -4 1
21. I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators.
1.191
-3 -5 0
39. I conduct action research and share my results with educators, parents and administrators.
1.320 -3 -1 -2
35. I work with a higher education institution to improve the teacher preparation system.
1.453 -4 4 -5
66
Factor One teachers were different from the other teachers in that they
demonstrated most of their leadership within the classroom which assisted in labeling
them Classroom Oriented Teachers. Most of these teachers were not connected with
National Board Certification, nationwide only 2% of teachers have achieved this
certification (NBPTS, 2007). The average percentage of time involving leadership for
everyone in Factor One was 28%. Of the twelve teachers, only one held a Masters
Degree. One of these teachers is Nationally Certified and three are attempting to be come
certified. This equates to less than one third of these teachers seeking National
Certification which is well above the national average.
Of the sorts that defined Classroom Oriented Teachers, twelve were within the
actual condition of instruction and five were within the ideal condition. For the twelve
teachers in the actual condition, eight teachers marked Caucasian for race and four Native
American. Of these teachers, nine were female and three were male. Four females were
Native American and the rest were Caucasian. For the ideal self, four were female and
one was male with one female teacher of Native American ancestry.
This factor was interpreted to represent a view called, Classroom Oriented
Teachers. These teachers individualize instruction in their classes and have control over
the work they assign to students. They lead with their students and encourage them to
think for themselves. They prefer value added activities and assessments and appear to
focus most of their leadership activities on their students and their curriculum. Teachers
whose sorts loaded on Factor One do not belong to professional organizations and choose
not to work with higher education institutions or conduct action research. They don’t
67
seem to spend much time mixing with other educators outside of their classroom or
improving their practice.
When examining the top 13 statements that were ‘most like’ Classroom
Oriented Teachers, nine of the 13 statements were within the orientation of classroom as
referred to by Ash and Persall (2000). It is evident that these teachers focus their energy
and time within the walls of their classroom and have little time to become part of the
educational community within their school beyond what is required of them. One teacher
wrote, “I know I’m not a leader by nature. I have no leadership desires.” Another teacher
stated, “My leadership is skewed as it is based upon current employer and definitely does
not exhibit leadership qualities.” These teachers are apparently focused on their students
and their curriculum. This seems to reveal that these teachers are truly oriented in their
classrooms and may not venture much further to advance their skills and knowledge base
or lend much of their time to leadership roles. They are leaders within their own
classroom environment.
Factor Two Community-Minded Teacher Leaders
Most Like Statements Z-scores Arrays
38. I invite parents and other people in the local community to be a vital part to a healthy school.
1.785 1 -5 1
35. I work with a higher education institution to improve the teacher preparation system.
1.672 -4 -4 5
9. My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily basis.
1.509 2 3 1
41. I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and effectively communicate with other educators.
1.137 1 -3 2
68
29. We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning in our meetings and in our spare time.
0.741 1 2 -1
Most Not Like Statements Z-scores Arrays
27. There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration in our school.
1.049 0 3 5
20. I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside influences that might interfere with teaching and learning.
1.523 -3 -4 -1
12. I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techniques used regardless of outside input.
1.748 2 -4 0
16. I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. 1.848 -2 -5 -3
21. I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators.
1.933 -3 -5 0
Of the teachers who loaded on this factor, seven were female and 1 was male. Six
of the teachers marked Caucasian for race, one Native American, and one
Caucasian/Hispanic. Three of the teachers were Nationally Certified, one of them was
currently attempting certification, and 4 had never participated in the process. The
average percentage of time involving leadership for everyone in factor was 34%. Q sorts
from six teachers identified with Collaborative Teachers for the first condition of
instruction involving their actual self. Of the six teachers, all were female teachers. One
was Native American, one Caucasian/Hispanic, and the rest were Caucasian. For the
ideal self, six were female and one was male with one female teacher of Native American
ancestry and one Caucasian/Hispanic.
The factor was named Collaborative Teachers due to analysis of the statements
that were uniquely most like them and most unlike them. Collaborative Teachers agreed
with Classroom Teachers that openness and communication are evident each day within
69
their classrooms. This is one of the two statements most like them. The other statement
most like them helps to define the label Collaborative Teachers because it states that they
choose to invite parents and other people in the local community to be a vital part of their
school. Unlike Classroom Oriented and Collegial Teachers, they work with higher
education institutions and communicate with other educators to improve communication
concerning teaching and learning. They value sharing information and connecting with
others to achieve positive results for everyone.
Collaborative Teachers stand apart from those teachers who are Classroom
Oriented and Collegial in that they do not feel they have a voice in hiring and do not
choose to arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. They do not feel influential in
shielding teachers from outside influences and do not claim to be in charge of choosing
the teaching techniques that they use in the classroom. Both of these statements could be
explained within this community mindedness by wanting others to come and be part of
the decision making process and having the community influence what goes on in the
school. For Collaborative Teachers, four of the eight ‘most like’ those statements fell
into the category of the educational community, as referred to by Ash and Persall (2000).
It appears as though they do not have a voice in many school decisions that affect them
and their students because they want to bring others into the school and to help them to
be part of the educational environment and decision making.
Factor Three Administration Friendly Teacher Leaders
Most Like Statements Z-scores Arrays
27. There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration in our school.
1.972 0 -3 5
70
10. I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it is apparent in my classroom and my teaching.
1.462 1 -1 5
19. Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school, there is quite a bit of contact with the teachers and the students.
1.409 0 0 4
30. I work with the principal to serve according to the needs of all teachers.
1.320 -1 1 3
26. My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner.
1.156 0 -1 3
Most Not Like Statements
Z-scores Arrays
45. Listening and learning from educators outside of my district is extremely important to me.
0.880 3 0 -2
41. I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and effectively communicate with other educators.
0.998 1 3 -2
3. I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year to help improve my practice.
1.119 -2 -1 -3
16. I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues.
1.133 -2 -5 -3
35. I work with a higher education institution to improve the teacher preparation system
2.268 -4 4 -5
Of the teachers who loaded on the factor known as Collegial Teachers, all twelve
were female. Nine of the teachers checked Caucasian as their race, two were Native
American, and one was African/American. The majority of these teachers are not
involved with National Board Certification. The average percentage of time involving
leadership for everyone in this factor was 43%, much higher than those of Classroom
Teachers or Collaborative Teachers. Q sorts from four teachers identified with this factor
for the first condition of instruction involving their actual self. All four teachers were
71
Caucasian and two of the four also loaded on this factor for their ideal self. For the ideal
self, ten teachers loaded on Factor Three. Of the ten, seven were Caucasian, two were of
Native American ancestry and one was African/American.
This factor was named Collegial Teachers due to analysis of the statements that
were uniquely most like them and most unlike them. Teachers who loaded on Collegial
Teachers claimed there is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration
in their school which is dramatically different from the other teachers loading on other
factors. Collegial Teachers were also aware of the vision and mission of their school and
made it apparent in their classroom and their teaching unlike Classroom Teachers and
Collaborative Teachers who placed this statement in array 1 and -1. These teachers feel
comfortable with their principal and accepting of administration coming and going within
the school. Teachers loading on both of the other two factors rated this statement in the
array position zero, meaning it is of little importance to them. Collegial Teachers believe
they can make a difference and they share information with others. One teacher wrote,
“There are many things that we need to improve.” They feel their principal is a leader
who guides them and they work with administration to help meet the needs of all of the
teachers. This reflects the concept of the principal being a leader of leaders or as the
Chief Learning Officer or CLO according to Ash and Persall (2000).
Collegial Teachers do not work with higher education institutions or hold an
office in an educational organization. This may be due to the fact that they are working
on improvements within their school and do not have time for issues concerning those
outside of it which is similar to the Classroom Oriented Teachers who concentrate on the
classroom. Collegial Teachers also align with Collaborative Teachers by using problem
72
solving strategies to help students and by promoting change within their systems. Of the
thirteen statements that were ‘most like’ Collegial Teachers, nine of them concerned the
arena of the school.
Research Question Two: In what way do these perceptions relate their ideal leadership
self?
The question requires an examination of the comparison of each teacher’s actual
Q sort loadings to their own ideal Q sort loadings. Table IV illustrates each teachers’
actual and ideal identification (Classroom Oriented, Collaborative, and Collegial), or as
labeled Not significant or Confounded. Those teachers who remained within the same
factor when sorting for their actual and then ideal leadership are marked with an asterisk.
Table IV.
Actual Loads to Ideal Loads ______________________________________________________________________ Subject # Actual Loads Ideal Loads______________ 1* Collaborative Collaborative 2 Not significant Collegial 3 Collegial Confounded 4 Classroom Oriented Collegial 5 Confounded Classroom Oriented 6* Confounded Confounded 7* Classroom Oriented Classroom Oriented 8 Classroom Oriented Not significant 9* Collaborative Collaborative 10* Collegial Collegial 11* Collaborative Collaborative 12* Confounded Confounded 13 Not significant Collegial 14 Classroom Oriented Not significant 15 Classroom Oriented Collaborative 16 Classroom Oriented Not significant 17 Classroom Oriented Collaborative 18 Classroom Oriented Collegial 19* Confounded Confounded 20* Collegial Collegial
73
21* Confounded Confounded 22 Confounded Collegial 23 Not significant Collegial 24* Collaborative Collaborative 25* Classroom Oriented Collaborative 26 Classroom Oriented Collegial 27 Classroom Oriented Collegial 28* Confounded Confounded 29 Collaborative Confounded 30* Not significant Not significant 31* Collaborative Collaborative 32* Confounded Confounded 33 Not significant Confounded 34* Collaborative Collaborative 35 Collegial Classroom Oriented (* indicates actual and ideal sorts as the same) More than half of the teachers, eighteen in all have different views for their actual
leadership and their ideal leadership. This is likely to cause disequilibrium within in ones’
comfort level within the teaching profession. One teacher who was confounded on both
sorts stated, “I wouldn’t say my needs are fulfilled.” The cause may be a lack of
administrative support or a lack of incentive, either intrinsic or extrinsic, to achieve ones’
ideal leadership self. Table V shows the amount of changes from actual to ideal within
the factors, including confounded and not significant.
Table V.
Summary of Contrast from Actual to Ideal Sort Condition of Instruction Condition of Instruction Number of Teachers_ Sort 1 Actual Sort 2 Ideal__________________________ Not significant Collegial 3 Classroom Oriented Collegial 4 Confounded Collegial 1
74
Classroom Oriented Collaborative 2 Collegial Classroom Oriented 1 Confounded Classroom Oriented 1 The only apparent pattern in the teachers who changed positions from the actual
sort to the ideal sort was those who changed to the Collegial Teachers’ leadership ideal.
Three Not significant loadings were changed to resemble Collegial Teachers, four
Classroom Oriented Teachers and one Confounded sort changed during the second
condition to load on Factor Three. The other changes are a mixture of small changes
involving only one teacher and there is no obvious pattern to the changes. Table VI
shows the teachers who remained consistent from the actual sort to the ideal sort
concerning teacher leadership. Five of the Collaborative Teachers identified their ideal
leadership in the same way they viewed their actual leadership. Three Classroom
Oriented Teachers and two Collegial Teachers also remained consistent. This
demonstrates their convictions concerning how they perceive the ideal teacher leadership
concept and their follow through with this concept in their practice.
Table VI. Summary of Q Sort Positions Consistent in Actual and Ideal (Teachers Who Were Consistent) Factor Number of Teachers______ Factor One – Classroom Oriented 3 Factor Two – Collaborative 5 Factor Three – Collegial 2 Confounded 6 Not Significant 1 Total Consistent Sorts 17
75
Research Question Three: What demographic patterns might assist in understanding
teacher’s varying perceptions of leadership?
Of the thirty-five teachers involved in the study, thirty were women and five were
men. The men in the study have never been involved with National Board Certification
and none of them had their Masters degree at the time of the study. This may be due to
the fact that three of the five men in the study have taught for less than five years. The
largest population of women and men identified with the ‘actual’ sort for Factor 1 (8
females and three males). The largest population of women in the ‘ideal’ condition, ten
women and no men, were within Factor Three.
Forty-six percent of the participants were part of the National Board Process in
some stage of the process which is much higher than the national statistics. Only 2% of
America’s teachers have achieved this certification (NBPTS, 2007). Twenty-six percent
of the teachers in the study have a Masters degree and several others were in the process
of achieving their Masters.
Seven Native American teachers took part in this study. Four of them identified
Classroom Oriented Teachers, for their actual practice and one of them for their ideal
practice. Three Native American teachers associated with Collegial Teachers, for their
ideal practice and one of them for their actual practice. Only one of these teachers was a
Collaborative Teacher, and it was the actual opportunities for leadership. The only
teacher of Hispanic dissent aligned with the Collaborative Teachers for both views of
leadership.
Participants were asked “What educational leadership opportunities are you
participating in that fulfill your need for professionalism?” Twenty-three of the thirty-five
76
teachers wrote down one or more roles they play in their school involving leadership.
Eight did not write anything or the word ‘none’. One teacher wrote “I wouldn’t say my
needs are met”. There was no connection between teachers in the three leadership groups
and the comments they made.
Another question stated “What else would you like to say about your completed Q
sorts?” Twenty-four teachers wrote nothing in this section. Four said it was very difficult
to place the Ideal statements. One wrote “I felt that the ideal was difficult because so
many items would be important in a ‘perfect’ world.” One wrote “There are too many
things we need to do.” Three reported that if they did the same study on another day that
they would make different choices. An older teacher commented that the research was
probably more interesting to younger teachers. Another teacher wrote “Professional
Organizations are important, but being active in the school at each and every grade level
is important.” There were no connections between the comments or the three factors of
teacher leadership.
Summary
This chapter presented the results of the data after it was entered into PQ Method
2.11. The analysis revealed a three factor solution. Using the statements loadings on each
factor, the factors were named: Classroom Oriented Teachers, Collaborative Teachers,
and Collegial Teachers. The participants aligning with each factor were described and
each of the three research questions was addressed using the three factor solution.
Chapter V explains the limitation and assumptions pertaining to this research,
implications, and areas for future research.
77
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective perceptions teachers have
of their leadership in the classroom, the school, and the educational community and their
ideal perceptions of leadership in the classroom, school, and the educational community
using the ten guiding principles from Ash and Persall’s (2000) teacher leadership theory.
Demographic patterns were also examined to uncover any relationships that might exist.
This chapter is a summary of the results and a discussion of future implications
concerning the theory, practice, and future research.
Summary of the Study
Thirty-five teachers from K-12 schools in Eastern Oklahoma participated in the
study. The teachers represented a range of years of experience in teaching, subject areas,
certifications, and ethnic make up. Q-methodology gave the researcher an organized
technique for uncovering qualitative data within the participants’ opinions and helped to
quantify this data using factor analysis procedures. Q-sort statements aligned with the
leadership model developed by Ash and Persall (2000), known as formative leadership
theory. The theory guided the reduction of the original concourse for this study from over
300 statements to 45 statements representing ideas from teachers concerning teacher
leadership. The teachers agreed to sort the statements under two conditions of instruction
78
and fill out a demographic survey. Teachers are one of the most important stakeholders
involved in the teacher leadership issue and the processes involved in this study helped to
give them a voice concerning this topic. The study identified three patterns of ideas this
group of teachers hold about leadership using Q-methodology and cannot be replicated
using other forms of data collection such as surveys or other empirical tools. The research
questions for this study were:
1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the
classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?
2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?
3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teachers varying
perceptions of leadership?
This study reveals that different teachers appear to have three general concepts
concerning teacher leadership activities and they fall distinctly into the categories of the
classroom, the school, and the educational community. Teachers indicated a strong
preference to one of three concepts of leadership and did not seem to be aversive to the
concept of teacher leadership, but in fact supportive of it. The three ways that teachers
identified their actual life and ideal opportunity for leadership were as Classroom
Oriented Teachers, Collaborative Teachers, and Collegial Teachers.
Conclusions
Teachers engage in teacher leadership in different ways and their structured ideas
could affect their future actions in the area of leadership. These actions will affect society
far beyond the environments of the classroom, school, and educational community. These
79
teachers are on the front lines with our children on a daily basis and their actions and
perceptions directly impact children’s development emotionally and cognitively. The
findings of this study will assist teachers and others in the educational community in
understanding the perceptions and ideas teachers have concerning their actual leadership
and their ideal concepts of teacher leadership. Each teacher was a leader in a certain area.
• The largest number of teachers identified with leading within their
classroom
• Classroom Oriented Teachers participated in the smallest amount
leadership activities
• Collaborative Teachers welcome the community into their school
• Collegial Teachers Leadership is viewed as an ideal leadership
• Two-thirds of the teachers do not want to change their actual leadership
Research on concepts and perceptions has consistently shown that behaviors and
attitudes can be changed with communication and education (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
The statement “Openness and communication are evident each day within my classroom”
was the most positively marked, agreed upon statement from the teachers in all three
factors. This commitment to openness and communication should entice teachers into
conversations with other teachers and with other stakeholders involved in educational
advancement. Conversations concerning teacher leadership are necessary in order for
teaching professionals to continue to develop and evolve eventually leading to greater
teacher satisfaction and improved student learning. These teachers welcome
“...opportunities that enable the faculty and staff to become leaders capable of
anticipating and leading productive change” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 2).
80
Classroom Oriented Teachers were different from the other teachers in that they
demonstrated most of their leadership within the classroom and were not collaborative or
collegial within their schools or the educational community. Their statements revolved
around the students and their classroom environment. They spent the least amount of time
in leadership roles and most of them did not choose to seek National Board Certification
or a Masters Degree. Twelve of the teachers in the study identified Classroom Teachers
as their actual leadership while only five teachers thought this perception of teacher
leadership was their ideal concept of leadership. This perception was the least accepted
when considering the ideal teacher leadership.
Of the teachers who identified with Collaborative Teachers, six teachers
identified with the first condition of instruction involving their actual self and seven saw
this idea of teacher leadership as their ideal leadership. These teachers stood apart from
the others by choosing to invite parents and other people in the local community to be
part of their school. They also work with higher education institutions and other
educators to improve communication concerning teaching and learning. They like sharing
information and connecting with others teachers. They appear to want others to come be
part of the decision making process and influence what goes on in the school even if that
means that they give up a portion of their voice in the process.
Considering the Collegial Teachers, there were four teachers who identified with
the first condition of instruction involving their actual self and ten teachers loaded on it
involving their idea of their ideal leadership. This was the smallest group considering
actual practice and the largest number pertaining to the ideal concept of leadership. They
spent more time in leadership activities than the teachers in the two other groups. These
81
teachers have a great deal of trust concerning the administration in their school which is
extremely different from the teachers in the other two groups. Collegial Teachers know
the visions and missions of their schools and are comfortable with their principal moving
in and out of their classrooms. They feel their principal is a leader who guides them and
they work with administration to help meet the needs of all of the teachers. This reflects
the concept of the principal being a leader of leaders or the Chief Learning Officer or
CLO according to Ash and Persall (2000). They seem to be working on improvements
within their school and do not have time for issues concerning those outside of it; this
aligns with the Classroom Oriented Teachers’ perceptions who concentrate on the
classroom.
Teachers may not be fully conscious of their perceptions or that their perceptions
affect their professionalism. Donaldson (2006) writes that teachers’ opinions greatly
affect their ability to act for the good of the students and the school. The identification of
these perceptions will assist in expanding the teachers’ role as leaders. Although many
are promoting teacher leadership as a necessary resource for school reform, there is little
information pertaining to the perspectives of the teachers themselves (Silva, et al.,
2000).Q methodology is the research tool that made their ideas operant. Of course, there
are limitations regarding Q Methodology, as there are with any research method. The
teachers were not randomly chosen but were from various school sites within the
northeastern section of the state of Oklahoma. These teachers’ perceptions regarding
leadership do not speak for all teachers, though they do represent the teachers involved in
the study. The results found that there are three types of teacher leaders among this group
Classroom, Collaborative, and Collegial. Most do not see the Classroom Oriented
82
Teacher as their ideal leadership, though more teachers identify with it in actual practice.
The smallest group actually aligns with the Collegial Teacher and it had the largest group
seeing it as the ideal leadership.
Implications
Understanding teachers’ perceptions of their leadership will eventually lead to
higher teacher satisfaction and higher retention rates. The need for teachers to step up and
take the leadership roles necessary to make improvements within the teaching profession
to enhance teacher satisfaction and improve student learning is evident. Ash and Persall
(2000) see the need for teachers to be leaders and for principals to be leaders of leaders.
The teachers identifying with Collegial Teachers aligned with their recommendations of
teachers leading and allowing principals to assist them in leading. Several teachers
aligned with the other two factors saw Collegial Teachers as the ideal form of teacher
leadership. Working more collaboratively and communicating effectively appear to be
the avenues to achieve the desired goals of teacher leadership.
Teachers must participate in leadership in order to advance the progress of school
change (Ash & Persall, 2000; Lieberman, et al., 2000; McCay, et al., 2001).
Understanding their perceptions is critical to increasing their leadership roles. Teachers
remain in schools that offer collaboration and leadership opportunities (Harris & Muijs,
2005a). This suggests that shared leadership opportunities are a way to recruit and retain
teachers. Kilcher (1992) states that when teachers feel valued and are empowered as
decision makers, they pass this empowerment on to their students by including them
when planning and designing student instruction.
83
By passing on this empowerment, teachers will be respected as authority figures
and their opinions and efforts will be valued. This respect will perpetuate their abilities to
lead in the classroom and enable them to become stronger leaders within the school and
the educational community. This will give teachers the ownership they need in order to
make a difference (Day & Harris, 2002). Only teachers, in the role of leader, can
successfully regain the respect and status they as a group have lost.
This analysis helps all involved to have a better understanding of what teachers
believe about their leadership and about their ideal perceptions of leadership. They want
to work with administration in an open and engaging manner. They want administrators
to come and go freely and assist them with decisions making. These beliefs should drive
the necessary changes needed to improve teacher leadership in our schools. Though there
are limitations to this study, the data suggests that more information is needed to help
make significant improvements to the current state of teacher leadership. Continued
discussions with teachers are necessary to further uncover teachers’ perception of
leadership and to move forward with improvements within the profession. Further
research is necessary to uncover teachers’ perceptions of barriers that keep them from
participating in leadership roles within the classroom, school, and the educational
community.
Implications for Practice
The data analyzed will help guide decision makers regarding teachers as leaders
and help to create dialogue concerning how teachers feel about leadership and working
with administration. This study adds the teachers’ perceptions to the information
84
educational stakeholders need to make appropriate decisions pertaining to advancing and
utilizing teacher leadership within their schools and restructuring the administrative
hierarchy. It will be useful when designing and implementing future research in teacher
leadership, educational professionalism, administrative structuring, and staff development
opportunities. The teachers in this study fell into three distinct categories that aligned
with the three environments where teacher leadership is necessary and typically played
out: the classroom, school, and educational community.
Teachers have been conditioned to be followers (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996).
The majority of the teachers identified with Classroom Oriented. They are comfortable
leading in the classroom but their leadership does not advance beyond their immediate
environment and their students. Teacher isolation within their classrooms inhibits
leadership (Lortie, 1975). Teacher isolation has always been an ongoing problem (Ashton
& Webb, 1986; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Lieberman & Miller, 2004; Lortie, 1975).
The benefit of isolation that teachers enjoy does not outweigh the negative aspects and
should be addressed. Because teachers often have little knowledge of what is going on in
the classroom next door, the environment is not conducive to sharing ideas, time and
resources with their colleagues (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). This was apparent for the
teachers in this study.
Teachers may be spread so thin that they are only able to demonstrate leadership
abilities in one of these areas and no more. One teacher wrote that there are too many
things that they need to do in this area, they may be overwhelmed by this. If this is the
case, we should not expect them to branch off into various areas of leadership. Instead the
educational community should assist them in focusing on the area of leadership they are
85
most comfortable with and helping them to nurture this leadership to benefit them
personally and their students in the long run.
Teachers must participate in leadership in order to advance the progress of school
change (Ash & Persall, 2000; Lieberman & Miller, 1992; McCay, et al., 2001). Teachers
want to stay in schools that offer them collaboration and leadership opportunities (Harris
& Muijs, 2002). The teachers in this study are participating in leadership in their
classrooms, schools, and educational community. As they grow more comfortable with
their roles of leadership they will become more accepting of the Formative Teacher
Leadership principles especially those involving a leaderful school. This will assist in
guiding more of them toward their ideal leadership involving a friendly relationship with
administration and/or a more open leadership approach involving the community.
Understanding how they identify with these leadership roles will help to identify areas in
need of improvement and eventually lead to improved teacher efficacy in all three areas.
Teachers should be comfortable and practicing leadership within their ideal concept of
leadership.
Implications for Theory
Formative leadership theory is a relatively new concept in educational leadership
though shared or distributed leadership has taken place in many areas of society for some
time. Formative Leadership Theory is centered on the concept of multiple leaders and
plenty of leadership opportunities. Leadership is not meant for those at the top of the
hierarchical structure, but exists for all to participate in without specified roles for
anyone. “...the job of the school leader is to fashion learning opportunities for the faculty
86
and staff in order that they might develop into productive leaders” (Ash & Persall, 2000,
p. 5). Teachers are leaders and principals are leaders of leaders or Chief Learning
Officers.
This research does not include measurements of student outcomes, though the
literature included connects teacher leadership with improved student achievement (Silins
& Mulford, 2002). Harris and Muijs (2005) agree “There is evidence to suggest that if
teachers are empowered and their disciplinary knowledge is valued, experimentation and
new modes of teaching are more likely to develop and teaching effectiveness is likely to
increase” (p. 75). They claim that many researchers are viewing teacher effectiveness
and teacher leadership as constituents to each other. Collaborative teacher leadership
activities enhance greater student outcomes and it appears that a lack of such activities
would equate to lower student achievement. “Student learning must now become the
focus of our educational efforts, and school leaders must have the ability to create
systemic change and pursue ever-higher levels of student achievement. To be effective
instructional leaders, school administrators and faculty must think in new patterns and act
within new models” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 4). The majority of the teachers in this study
are not collaborating or seeking new ideas from others around them. They are not
choosing to commit to another ideal of leadership other than the one they are actually
involved in.
Formative leadership theory promotes leadership as non role-specific, in other
words it is not just for administration. The teachers in this study do not seem to feel the
same way. “Instinctively, teachers fear taking leadership roles...” (Bowman, 2004, p.
187). The Formative Leadership also encourages learning for all within the school, adults
87
as well as students. This is also not apparent in the majority of those in the study. In an
era of data-driven decision making, these teachers are not participating in action research
or attending organizational meetings to assist them in making necessary improvements.
Understanding teachers’ perceptions will assist in decisions that lead to change
within the current educational leadership structure. Teacher leadership will not be the
answer to all of our schools’ problems though further research and development
involving teachers, students, administrators, and parents will help to advance
improvements regarding teacher satisfaction and improvements in student achievement.
“The formative leader must possess a high level of facilitation skills because team inquiry
and learning and collaborative problem solving are essential ingredients of this leadership
approach” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 4). Teachers may be missing these ‘essential
ingredients’ causing them to remain complacent in their leadership abilities. All of the
teachers ranked openness and communication as a leader trait that was most like them,
this is encouraging considering it is the key to this theory. Teacher leadership leads to
calls for renewed professionalism and ultimately for the advancement of educational
practices that directly affect student learning and development (Center for Teaching
Quality, 2006; Kilcher, 1992; McCay, et al., 2001; Pearson & Hall, 1993). Further
research involving student achievement and the dynamics of leadership in the
environment are paramount.
Shared leadership and distributed leadership appear to be synonymous with
formative leadership theory, which embraces a leaderful organization (Ash & Persall,
2000). Getting teachers more involved and purposefully supporting what they do will
impact the quality of teaching and learning for students in the classroom (Fullan &
88
Hargreaves, 1991; Harris & Muijs, 2002). Only teachers, in the role of leader, can
successfully regain the respect and status they as a group may have lost and make
essential decisions that will lead to greater satisfaction and student learning.
Direction for Future Research
The attitudes these teachers hold concerning teacher leadership could be very
useful in continuing the discussion of teacher leadership in the classroom, the school, and
the educational community at large. Many are advocating teacher leadership, but teachers
perceptions of leadership are missing from the literature. Teacher leaders will insist
schools create innovative leadership structures and participate in leading them through
organizational improvement. In a recent review of accomplished school reform,
Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001) shared characteristics of schools that were
advancing in the area of long term student learning included shared or distributed
leadership which is aligned with the Formative Leadership Theory of Ash and Persall
(2000). Recent research suggests that student success is based on the attitudes of those
involved with managing the school (Rogus, 1988). Teachers must work and communicate
with parents, administrators, and other teachers to create communities of learners and
leaders. Barth claims this is the only way to effectively utilize the strengths and expertise
of everyone involved (1988). The teachers in this study do not want to change their
leadership and that will not assist them in collaborating with others who can collectively
help them make the necessary improvements that will lead to improvements.
More research is needed to identify problems and issues that inhibit teacher
leadership, such as internal politics, and how these might be addressed. In the review of
89
literature, very little information was found addressing the history of teacher leadership.
Most authors spoke of it using a paragraph or two and very little more than that. This
represents the lack of information and research in this area. Q methodology has proven
itself as a valuable tool in this area of educational leadership research. It could be used in
future studies involving more in depth analysis of teacher leaders or for studies
identifying perceptions of administrators that might be inhibiting teacher leadership
development. Input from various perspectives is necessary if a framework involving
multiple leaders is desired and expected to succeed (LeBlanc, 1997).
Overcoming the obstacles within the current hierarchical system must also be
examined. The small number of leaders at the top of school organizations must be willing
to share their perceptions and make adjustments to the system in order to assist teachers
in their leadership roles. Bowman (2004) claims “...for the teacher as leader, shrinking
from these difficult challenges is ignoring one’s responsibility as an effective educator”
(p. 187). Research specifically focused on teachers’ perceptions of their leadership has
been limited involving teachers as leaders within the idea of school leadership (Smylie,
1995). More research involving Formative Leadership Theory and other distributive and
collaborative theories are necessary to bring about the improvements that are not being
addressed by traditional education leadership theories. Treating the teachers like
customers and meeting their needs as well as the needs of their students may be a new
concept, but they have yet to be expanded on. Teachers may in fact be their own worst
enemy; the results here say they do not want to change what they are doing. This may
mean that they are not open to change or advancing toward improved professional in the
area of leadership.
90
Without added information, Formative Leadership Theory will fall by the way
side as many valuable educational concepts do when they are not examined and put to
use. Teachers and administrators must be willing to be scrutinized and possibly criticized
in order to identify and make the necessary changes take place in this structural
rearrangement.
Harris (2003) claims that ignoring teacher leadership is knowingly investing in
leadership that makes little or no difference in student achievement. As we reevaluate the
No Child Left Behind (2001) guidelines and work to advance student literacy and
achievement, we must utilize our best resource and largest, educated population.
Accomplished school reform and documented student learning, according to Glickman,
Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001), is greatly characterized through shared or distributed
leadership within schools. The teachers in this study are leading, but not all of them are
demonstrating their ideal teacher leadership.
This study documented the perceptions of the teachers who sorted the statements
concerning Formative Teacher Leadership Theory. They shared their ideas and
opportunities concerning leadership in their schools. There is an apparent need for more
communication between all of those involved. Evidence presented here suggests that
some teachers want to make changes to improve their actual practices in leadership.
Some chose their ideal leadership through a friendlier administrative concept and others
chose the idea of bringing the community into the schools and letting them help with
decisions. Without knowledge of the teachers’ perceptions, it is unlikely that positive
change will occur to make either or both ideals possible. Hart regrets “ ...teacher
leadership will contribute and succeed or will fail or be quietly reformed into a new label
91
for old work patterns” (1995. p. 25). We must do more to hear what teachers are saying
and thinking.
Replication of these results is necessary before more broad generalizations are
assumed. Interesting findings may be uncovered by branching out into other areas of the
country or even abroad. The objective was to understand these teachers’ perceptions not
to generalize. Another objective was to use Q Methodology to help uncover deeper
hidden phenomena about teacher leadership. Q sets are never finite or complete; there is
always something to add to the richness of the topic (Watts & Stenner, 2005). In this
study, the teachers’ perceptions were confined by the Q sample which reflected the
researcher’s ideas of structure and content. The statements that made up the concourse
were derived from the literature on teacher leadership, specifically the Formative
Leadership Theory by Ash and Persall (2000). Future research in this area may reflect a
need to create a concourse from a more natural setting such as more in-depth interviews
with teachers concerning teacher leadership.
92
REFERENCES
Ackerman, R., & McKenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering Teacher Leadership. Educational
Leadership, 63, 24-99.
Addams, H., & Proops, J. (2001). Social discourse and environmental policy an
application of Q methodology. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.
Altenbaugh, R. J. (1992). The teacher’s voice: Colonial history of teaching in twentieth
century America. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press
Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing
teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 15-22.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986), Teachers’ Sense of efficacy, classroom behavior,
and student achievement. In P. T. Ashton & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Teachers’ sense
of Efficacy and Student Achievement (pp. 125-144). New York: Longman.
Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its
control processes. In K. Spence, & J. Spence, (Eds), Advances in the Psychology
of Learning and Motivation, 2(1). New York: Academic Press.
Atkinson, P. (1992). Mainframe-Program Q Method. Kent, Ohio.
93
Barry, J., & Proops, J. (2000). Citizenship, sustainability and environmental research: Q
methodology and local exchange trading systems. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Barth, R. (2005). The teacher leader. Edutopia online. Retrieved fall, 2006, from
http/:www.glef.org
Barth, R. S. (1988). School as a community of leaders. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a
professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Beijaar, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (1999). Teachers' perceptions of professional
identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16, 749-764.
Bennett, S. & Bowers, D. (1976). An Introduction to Multivariate Techniques. London,
UK: MacMillan Press.
Bittel, L. R. (1989). The McGraw-Hill 36-hour management course. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: another search party’s
report", Educational Administration Quarterly, 30 (1), 77-96.
Bowman, R. F. (2004). Teachers as leaders. The Clearinghouse, 77 (5), 187-190.
Brouwer, M. (1999). Q is accounting for taste. Journal for Advertising Research, 39, 35-
39.
Brown, S. (1996). Q-methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,
6, 561-567.
94
Brown, S. R., & Sell, D. K. (1984). Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and
quantitative research: Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign
study program participants. Qualitative Research in Education, 79-87.
Brown, S. R. (2000). The history and principles of Q methodology in Psychology and the
Social Sciences.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91-138.
Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Mujis, D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher
effectiveness: Developing a differentiated model. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for
the 21st century (Rep.). New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the
Economy.
Center for teaching quality. (2006). Where teachers are central to improving schools.
Retrieved Fall, 2006, from http/:www.teachingquality.org/twc/main.htm
Chrispeels, J., & Yep, M. (2004). Principals and teachers reflect on sharing leadership.
AERA Presentation. San Diego. Retrieved November 6, 2006 from:
http://education.ucsb.edu/news/facultyresearch/sharedleadership.html
Cooper, B. S. (1993). When teachers run schools. In T. Austuto (Comp.), When teachers
lead. University Park, PA: UCEA Monograph.
Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Feruson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders:
How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
95
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, & again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3-13.
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995, April). Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 597-604.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 33.
Day, C., & Harris, A. (2002). Teacher leadership, reflective practice, and school
improvement. In P. Hallinger & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Second International
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 957-977). Boston:
Kluwer Academic.
Donaldson, G. A. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools connecting people, purpose,
& practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Doyle, L. H. (2004). Leadership for community building: Changing how we think and
act. The Clearing House, 77 (5), 196-199.
Elhoweris, H., & Alsueikh, N. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. International
Journal of Special Education, 21, 115-118.
Ernest, J. M. (2001). An alternative approach to studying beliefs about developmentally
appropriate practices. Contemporary Issue in Early Childhood, 2, 337-353.
Faye, C. (1992). Empowerment through leadership: In the teachers' voice. In C.
Livingston (Ed.), Teachers as leaders evolving roles (pp. 57-90). Washington,
D.C: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association.
Field, K., Holden, P., & Lawlor, H. (2000). Effective subject leadership. London:
96
Routledge.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intention, and behavior: an
introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley series in Psychology.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Frazier, M. (2006). An evaluation of perceptions of a mentoring program of beginning
teachers in a rural East Tennessee secondary school (Doctoral dissertation, East
Tennessee University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International.
Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher-Led Development Work. London: David Fulton.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What's Worth Fighting for? Working together for
your school (Rep. No. ED342128). Ontario, Canada: Regional laboratory for
Educational Improvement.
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press
Gillman, D., & Lanman-Givens, B. (2001). Where have all the principals gone?
Educational Leadership, 58, 72-74.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2001). Supervision and Instructional
Leadership: A Developmental Approach. Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.
Gonzales, L. D. (2004). Sustaining teacher leadership: Beyond the boundaries of an
enabling school culture. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarize other papers. British
Medical Journal. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7101/180.
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: changing leadership practice in
an era of school reform. London, UK: Paul Chapman.
97
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or
possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23, 313-324.
Harris, A. (2005a). Leading from the chalk-face: An overview of school leadership.
Leadership, 1, 73-87.
Harris, A. (2005b). Teacher leadership: more than just a feel-good factor? Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 4, 201-219.
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2002). Teacher leadership: A review of research. Nottingham,
UK: National College for School Leadership.
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. UK: MPG
Books, Bodmin, Cornwall
Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. The Elementary
School Journal, 96(1), 9-28.
Hatfield, R., Blackman, C., & Claypool, C. (1986). Exploring leadership roles performed
by teaching faculty in K-12 schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of
the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Chicago, IL.
Hewitt, A. (2006). A Q study of music teachers’ attitudes towards the significance of
individual differences for teaching and learning in music. Psychology of Music,
34, 63-80.
Hoffman, K., & Kunze, R. (1971). Linear Algebra. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Hull, D. F. (2003). A Q methodological study describing the beliefs of teachers about arts
integrated in the curriculum in Oklahoma K- 12 schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
98
Ingersoll, R. M. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A
multilevel analysis (Rep. No. NCES 97-069). Washington, DC: US Department of
Education.
Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Toward an explanation of variation in teachers'
perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32, 512-538.
Johnson, M., & Birkland, S. (2003). The schools that teachers choose. Educational
Leadership, 160, 20-24.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership
development for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Keedy, T., & Finch, A. (1994). Examining teacher principal empowerment: An analysis
of power. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 162-173.
Kilcher, A. (1992). Becoming a change facilitator: The first-year experience of five
teacher leaders. In C. Livingston (Ed.), Teachers as leaders evolving roles (pp.
91-114). Washington, D.C: NEA Professional Library, National Education
Association.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge how to get
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LeBlanc, P. R., & Shelton, M. M. (1997). Teacher leadership: The needs of teachers.
Action in Teacher Education, 19, 32-48.
Lecompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in
ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60.
99
Lee, J. A. (1982). The gold and the garbage in management theories and prescriptions.
Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Cioci, M. (1993). Teachers and principals: Gender-related
perceptions of leadership and power in secondary schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 153-180.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Berry, W. D. (1986). New tools for social scientists advances and
applications in research methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers - transforming their world and their work.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lieberman, A., Saxel, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (1988). Teacher leadership: Ideology and
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., Saxel, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (2000). Teacher Leadership: Ideology and
Practice. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 348-365). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lord, B., & Miller, B. (2000). Teacher leadership: An appealing and inescapable force
in school reform? (Rep.). US Dept of Educations' National Committee on
Mathematics & Science Teaching for 21 Century.
Lortie, D. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Loughran, J., & Wallace, J. (2003). Leadership and professional development in science
education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning. London: Routledge
Farmer.
100
Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational behavior. Boston, Mass: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Lynch, M., & Strodl, P. (1991, February). Teacher leadership: Preliminary development
of a questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eastern
Educational Research Association, Boston. MA.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. In V.Vroom, & E. Deci, (1970),
Management and motivation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
McCay, L., Flora, J., Hamilton, A., & Riley, J. F. (2001). Reforming schools through
teacher leadership: A program for classroom teachers as agents of change.
Educational Horizons, 79 (3), 135-142.
McGhan, B. (2002). A fundamental education reform: Teacher-led schools. Phi Delta
Kappa, 83, 538-40.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Yee, S. M. (1988). School as a place to have a career. In Building
a professional culture in schools (pp. 23-44). New York: Teachers College Press.
Merideth, E. M. (2007). Leadership strategies for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Moller, G., & Katzenmeyer, M. (1996). Every teacher as a leader: Realizing the
potential of teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1989). What Teachers Should
Know And Be Able To Do. Cambridge, MA: Wolfard Hall, For Education Policy
and Reform.
101
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, (2007). 55,000 Reasons to Believe:
The Impact of National Board Certification on Teacher Quality in America.
Published by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Washington, D.C.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach exploring the inner landscape of a teachers’
life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. C. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy
scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 172-177.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and
stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational
Research Quarterly, 29, 37-53.
Pellicer, L. O., & Anderson, L. W. (1995). A handbook for teacher leaders. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Petty, T. M., O'Conner, K., & Dagenhart, D. (2002). Identifying the wants and needs of
North Carolina high school mathematics teachers for job success and
satisfaction. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Preston, J. A. (1982). Feminization of an occupation: Teaching becomes women’s work
in nineteenth-century New England. Dissertation Abstracts International. 43,
2115A. University Microfilms No. 8220108.
102
Robbins, P. (2005). Q methodology. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed), Encyclopedia of social
measurement (Vol. 3, pp. 209-215). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Rogus, J. F. (1988). Teacher Leader Programming: Theoretical Underpinnings. Journal
of Teacher Education, 39 (1), 46-52.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Knopf.
Schmolk, P. (2002). PQ Method, 2.10. Retrieved from:
http://www.Rz.unibwmuenchen.de/-p41bsmk/qmethod
Se.., D.K. & Brown, S. R. (1984). Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and
quantitative research: Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign
study program participants. In J. L. Vacca & H. A. Johnson (Eds.), Qualitative
research in education (pp. 79-87). Kent, OH: Bureau of Educational Research and
Services, Kent State University
Senn, C. Y. (1993). Women’s multiple perspective and experiences with pornography.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 319-341.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. A. Leithwood, & P.
Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and
administration (pp. 561-612). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, G., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the Doors: Locking and Unlocking
Possibilities for Teacher Leadership. Teachers College Record, 102, 779-805.
Smith, J. A., Harrâe, R., & Langenhove, L. V. (1995). Rethinking methods in psychology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, N. W. (2001). Current systems in psychology: history, theory, research, and
applications. Wadsworth.
103
Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary School
Journal, 96 (1), 3-7.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Toward a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern
University, Institute for policy research.
Spoehr, L. (2004). Where do principals come from? Journal of Education, 184, 57-69.
Stenner, P., & Stainton-Rogers, R. (2004). Q methodology and qualiquantology: The
example of discriminating between emotions. In Z. Tod, B. Nerlich, B.
McKeown, & D. Clark (Eds.), Mixing Methods in Psychology. London, UK:
Routledge.
Stephens, D. (1985). W-methodology in communication science: An introduction.
Communication Quarterly, 33, 198-208.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stephenson, W. (1988). William James, Niels Bohr, and complimentary: Phenomenology
of subjectivity. The Psychological Record, 28, 203-219.
Stricklin, M., & Almeida, R. (2002). PCQ: Analysis software for Q-technique, Academic
version 1.41. Portland, Oregon. PCQ Software.
Teaching for America's Future: Quality Teaching in High-Priority Schools. (2006,
June/July 9). Retrieved fall 2006, from
http://www.nctaf.org/article?c=5&sc=41&ssc=0&a=398
Thomas, D., & Bass, L. R. (1993). Read the romance, building the best seller: A Q-
methodology study of reader responses to Robber James Waller's The Bridges of
104
Madison County. Manuscript submitted for publication, Presentation 9th Annual,
International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity.
Toft, B. (1996). A theoretical model for implementation of total quality leadership in
Education. Total Quality Management, 6, 469-86.
TTA. (1988) National Standards for Subject Leaders. London: TTA
US Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Who's in
charge? Teachers' views on control over school policy and classroom practices.
(Office of Research Rep. No. 0491). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
US Census Bureau. 2000. http://www.census.gov/Press- Retrieved May 14, 2007.
Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001737.html
Van Exel, N. J. (2005). Q Methodology A Sneak Preview. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from
http://home.planet.nl/~exel0001/publications/qmeth/vanexel_degraaf_qsp.pdf
Waters, D. (1979). Management and headship in the primary school. London: Ward
Lock.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2003). Q Methodology, quantum theory and psychology.
Operant Subjectivity 26, 182-89.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method, and
interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67-91.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings
from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1-45.
106
Dear Teachers,
My name is Terri Edwards and I am conducting a research study on how teachers perceive leadership in the classroom, school and educational community. This study is designed to investigate the perceptions of those at the center of teacher leadership, the teachers. The study will provide information to anyone involved in the teaching and learning profession with a variety of view points and beliefs concerning leadership held by teachers currently in the field. Understanding these perceptions will assist in decisions that lead to change within the current educational leadership structure.
The study will also look for relationships between how teachers perceive leadership and specific demographic information. This information will include your gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience, grade level, subject area, degrees held and certifications.
I’m asking for your help in two ways. I hope that you consider being a participant in the study and I hope that you can help find other teachers you know to participant. I am particularly interested in teachers in various stages of their career and with a variety of certifications. The study involves about 40 minutes of your time. You will be asked to sort 45 different statements about leadership in the classroom, school and educational community under two different conditions of instruction. Directions on finding fast ways to sort so many items will help us complete this quickly and you will be asked to complete a short survey on characteristics that describe you. No names will be used on any information collected and all materials are confidential. If you can help with this study, please call to schedule a time. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Terri Edwards
108
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Please make sure you have the materials in front of you. You should have a Form Board and an envelope containing 45 cards, each with a statement printed on it pertaining to teacher leadership. You will need a pencil later. Step 1: Please account for the following materials: a large manila envelope that contains a set of the Q statements, a Form Board, a Record Sheet with two figures printed that look like the Form Board in miniature, and a Demographic Information Sheet on the back of the Record Sheet. Step 2: As you read through each card carefully, please put them into three (3) piles according to this idea:
What are your thoughts about your leadership?
The pile on your right are those statements that are most like your perceptions of leadership and the pile on your left are those statements that are most unlike your perceptions of leadership. Put any cards that you do not have strong feelings about in a middle pile. This will be the ‘neutral’ pile. Step 3: Now that you have three piles of cards, start with the pile to your right, the “most like” pile and select the two (2) cards from this pile that are most like your response to the question and place them in the two (2) spaces at the far right of the Form Board in front of you in column 11. The order of the cards within the column (the vertical positioning of the cards) does not matter. Step 4: Next, from the pile to your left, the “most unlike” pile, select the two (2) cards that are most unlike your response to the topic and place them in the two (2) spaces at the far left of the Form Board in front of you in column 1. Step 5: Now, go back to the “most like” pile on your right and select the two more (2) cards from those remaining that are in your most like pile place them into the two (2) open spaces in column 10. Step 6: Next, return to the “most unlike” pile on your left and select the two (2) cards from those remaining in your most unlike pile and place them into the two (2) open spaces in column 2.Work back and forth until all cards have been placed in a space. Step 7: After you have placed all of the cards that are “most like” and “most unlike” on the board, place the cards from the middle pile into appropriate places on the board.
109
Step 8: Once you have placed all the cards on the Form Board, feel free to rearrange the cards until the arrangement best represents your opinions. Step 9: Record the number of the statements on the top part of the Record Sheet. Repeat Steps 2 through 9 of the previous steps, sorting according to this question:
What is your IDEAL situation for leadership? Finally, please fill in the demographic survey on the back of the Form Board and add any comments that might help us understand your ideas and feelings about leadership. Thank you!
111
Project Title: Classroom teacher perceptions of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community
Investigator: Terri Edwards, M.Ed., Instructor, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions teacher
have about leadership in the classroom, school and educational
community.
Procedures: You will be asked to complete a Q-sort which involves reading a number of statements and sorting them into categories based on the extent to which the statements reflect those you believe are most like or most unlike your perceptions. In addition, you will be asked to complete a short demographic survey and respond to an open ended questions regarding teaching. The process will take 40 minutes.
Risks of Participation:
There are no known risks associated with this project which are
greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life.
Benefits: There is no expected benefit from participation.
Confidentiality: Your responses to both the Q-sort and the demographic survey are confidential. No names or other identifying information will be attached to your packet and only aggregate data will be reported. This consent form will be collected separately from any research information you provide. The researcher may use information from the open-ended questions to support findings from the analysis of the Q-sort data. The data will be permanently stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office until destroyed one year after data collection. Only the
112
researcher and her faculty advisor will access the data. The aggregate data may be used in reports or publications. The OSU IRB has the authority to inspect consent records and data files to assure compliance with approved procedures.
The records of this study will be kept private. Any written results will discuss group findings and will not include information that will identify you. Research records will be stored securely and only researchers and individuals responsible for research oversight will have access to the records. It is possible that the consent process and data collection will be observed by research oversight staff responsible for safeguarding the rights and wellbeing of people who participate in research.
Researchers are not prevented from voluntarily disclosing certain
information about research participants, such as evidence of child
abuse or a participant’s threatened violence to self or others.
However, if a researcher intends to make such disclosures, it
should be clearly indicated in the consent form.
Compensation:
There is no compensation for participation in this study..
Contacts: Please feel free to contact the researcher and/or her faculty advisor if you have questions or concerns about this research project.
Terri Edwards, M.Ed., Northeastern State University, 3100 E New Orleans
St, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, 918-449-6596, [email protected]
Faculty advisor: Dr. Diane Montgomery, Applied Health a& Educational Psychology, Oklahoma State University, 424 Willard, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 405-744-9441, [email protected]
For information on subjects’ rights, contact Dr. Sue Jacobs, Oklahoma
State University, IRB Chair, 415 Whitehurst Hall, 405-744-1676
Participant Rights: Participation in the current research activity is entirely voluntary. You
are free to decline to participate and may stop or withdraw from the activity at any time. There is no penalty for withdrawing your participation.
113
Signatures:
I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntarily. A copy of this form has been given to me.
________________________ _______________
Signature of Participant Date
I certify that I have personally explained this document before
requesting that the participant sign it.
________________________ _______________
Signature of Researcher Date
115
Gender: ___ Female ___ Male Age: ___ years Ethnicity (check one): ___ Caucasian ___ Native American ___ African American ___ Asian American
___ Hispanic ___ Other Number of years you have taught school, include this year: _____ Number of years you have taught at your current school: _____ Subject area & grade you currently teach: ________________________ Subject area in which you have spent the most time: ___________________ Highest degree held: ___________________________________ Degree Major: _______________________ National Board Certification (check one): ___ Nationally Certified ___ currently attempting for the first time ___ banked scores, reattempting ___ applying for scholarship this year ___ never attempted About what percentage of your job involves school leadership activities? (0 to 100%) _______ What educational leadership opportunities are you participating in that fulfills your need for professionalism? What else would you like to say about your completed Q sorts?
117
SORT 1: What are your thoughts about your leadership?
Most Unlike Me
Most Like Me
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SORT 2: What is your IDEAL situation for leadership?
Most Unlike
Me
Most Like Me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
120
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 1_ Classroom Oriented Teachers No. Statement _____________________ Z-SCORES 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my… 1.709 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate… 1.602 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate… 1.554 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative… 1.472 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum… 1.416 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp… 1.331 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class… 1.274 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district… 0.957 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily… 0.835 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage… 0.827 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used … 0.824 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni… 0.818 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely… 0.753 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learning… 0.683 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it is… 0.557 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community… 0.529 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning… 0.347 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved… 0.152 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and… 0.097 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school… 0.064 42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to… -0.057 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from the... -0.083
121
27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the... -0.095 40 I encourage system wide change. -0.098 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... -0.120 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my... -0.136 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... -0.155 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. -0.299 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community... -0.300 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through... -0.320 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... -0.363 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from... -0.386 3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -0.521 25 I am known as a leader in our school. -0.540 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend confer... -0.608 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. -0.660 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... -0.909 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with... -1.003 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside... -1.082 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators... -1.191 39 I conduct action research and share my results with educators... -1.320 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the... -1.453 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -1.511 33 I hold an office in an educational organization. -2.259 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... -2.331
122
Factor One – Classroom Oriented Teachers
42 24 37 18
Most Unlike
Me 44 17 23 41 28
Most Like Me
32 22 19 29 8 45 3 5 26 38 12 11
43 34 16 31 40 13 2 15 1 7 33 35 25 30 27 10 9 6 14 4 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distinguishing Statements Array Position Factor 1 Classroom Oriented Teachers Leader__________________________________________________
(P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01) Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are Shown.
No. Statement_______________________________________Factor_1__ 2___ 3___
1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate 4 2 1 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative 4 -1 -1 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum 3 2 2 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp 3 -2 0 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class 3 1 -1 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district 3 0 -2 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily 2 3 1 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used 2 -3 -3 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni 2 -4 0
123
13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learn 1 0 0 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it 1 -1 5 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community 1 5 -1 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning 1 2 -1 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and 1 3 -2 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the 0 -3 5 40 I encourage system wide change. 0 -3 -3 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner 0 -1 3 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs -1 1 3 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational comm. -1 1 3 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal -1 -2 0 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from -1 2 2 25 I am known as a leader in our school. -2 2 2 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with -3 3 3 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted o -3 -4 -1 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or admini -3 -5 0 39 I conduct action research and share my results with education -3 -1 -2 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the -4 4 -5
125
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 2_ Collaborative Teachers____ No. Statement _____________________ Z-SCORES 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community... 1.785 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my .... 1.709 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the... 1.672 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate... 1.634 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily... 1.509 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with... 1.148 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and... 1.137 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely... 1.010 25 I am known as a leader in our school. 0.965 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from... 0.896 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum... 0.772 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning... 0.741 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate... 0.738 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend con... 0.577 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community.... 0.555 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... 0.517 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class ... 0.513 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... 0.392 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved... 0.335 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district... 0.141
126
42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to learn... 0.137 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from the... -0.027 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage... -0.046 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learn... -0.085 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school... -0.120 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. -0.425 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it... -0.460 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in m -0.475 3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -0.484 39 I conduct action research and share my results with education... -0.552 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative... -0.632 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... -0.643 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -0.660 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... -0.757 33 I hold an office in an educational organization. -0.783 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... -0.812 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomplish.... -0.820 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used... -0.833 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through.... -1.041 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the... -1.049 40 I encourage system wide change. -1.127 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside... -1.523 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching technique... -1.748
127
16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. -1.848 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administr.... -1.933 Factor Two- Community Minded Teacher Leader
42 39 23 18
Most Unlike Me
32 3 19 43 25
Most Like Me
40 11 37 17 6 22 28 2 33 26 13 30 15 36
21 12 27 5 14 8 31 1 41 4 7 16 20 24 34 10 45 44 29 9 35 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distinguishing Statements Array Position Factor 2 Collaborative Teachers __________________________________________________ (P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01) Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are shown. No. Statement_______________________________________Factor__1__ 2___3___ 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community 1 5 -1 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the -4 4 -5 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily 2 3 1 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and 1 3 -2 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning 1 2 -1 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate 4 2 1 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend con -2 1 -2 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational comm -1 1 3 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs -1 1 3
128
6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class 3 1 -1 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last -5 1 -5 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district 3 0 -2 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage 2 0 1 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it 1 -1 5 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiate 4 -1 -1 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner 0 -1 3 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -4 -2 -4 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal -1 -2 0 33 I hold an office in an educational organization -5 -2 -4 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp 3 -2 0 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through -1 -3 -2 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the 0 -3 5 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted o -3 -4 -1 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching tech 2 -4 0 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or admin -3 -5 0
130
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 3_ Collegial Teachers No. Statement _____________________ Z-SCORES 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the.... 1.972 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it... 1.462 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school... 1.409 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my... 1.408 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... 1.320 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with ... 1.158 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... 1.156 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community. 1.024 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely... 0.956 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from... 0.811 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from their... 0.692 25 I am known as a leader in our school. 0.656 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum... 0.519 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage... 0.487 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my... 0.475 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate... 0.445 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved... 0.432 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate... 0.274 9 My students celebrate each others 'accomplishments on a daily 0.217 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... 0.118
131
21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administr... 0.098 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learn... 0.064 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni... 0.052 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp... 0.036 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... 0.022 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. 0.015 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative... -0.042 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning... -0.053 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community... -0.166 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class... -0.337 42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to learn.... -0.361 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted other... -0.385 39 I conduct action research and share my results with educators... -0.440 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through... -0.457 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend confer... -0.632 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district... -0.880 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and... -0.998 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used... -0.998 40 I encourage system wide change. -1.008 3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -1.119 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -1.133 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -1.788 33 I hold an office in an educational organization. -2.006 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... -2.209
132
35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the.... -2.268
Factor 3 – Administration Friendly Teacher Leader
17 42 13 18
Most Unlike Me
24 20 5 8 28
Most Like Me
40 39 6 11 9 25 36 2 44 38 12 1 15 31
43 33 16 41 29 21 4 22 26 7 10 35 34 3 45 14 32 37 23 30 19 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distinguishing Statements Array Position Factor 3 Administration Trusting Teacher Leader___________________________________ (P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01) Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are Shown. No. Statement_______________________________________Factor_1 2 3___ 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the 0 -3 5 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it 1 -1 5 19 1 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school 0 0 4 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs -1 1 3 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner 0 -1 3 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community -1 1 3 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from their 0 0 2 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my 0 -1 1 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate 5 4 1 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate 4 2 1 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily 2 3 1
133
32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective -2 -2 0 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or admini -3 -5 0 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni 2 -4 0 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp 3 -2 0 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal -1 -2 0 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative 4 -1 -1 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning 1 2 -1 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community 1 5 -1 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class 3 1 -1 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside -3 -4 -1 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district 3 0 -2 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and 1 3 -2 3 .I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year -2 -1 -3 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the -4 4 -5 Factor Q-Sort Values for Statements sorted by Consensus vs. Disagreement___________ (Variance across normalized Factor Scores) No. Statement Factor 1 2 3 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely... 2 3 2 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved... 1 1 1 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my... 5 5 4 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. -1 0 0 42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to... 0 0 -1
134
3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -2 -1 -3 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through... -1 -3 -2 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... -1 -2 0 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning... 1 2 -1 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learning... 1 0 0 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from the... 0 0 2 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage... 2 0 1 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum... 3 2 2 39 I conduct action research and share my results with educators... -3 -1 -2 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my... 0 -1 1 40 I encourage system wide change. 0 -3 -3 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... -2 -2 0 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside... -3 -4 -1 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -4 -2 -4 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily... 2 3 1 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate... 4 2 1 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community... -1 1 3 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate... 5 4 1 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend conf... -2 1 -2 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from.... -1 2 2 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... -1 1 3 33 I hold an office in an educational organization... -5 -2 -4
135
25 I am known as a leader in our school. -2 2 2 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class... 3 1 -1 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school... 0 0 4 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district... 3 0 -2 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... 0 -1 3 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it... 1 -1 5 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community... 1 5 -1 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used... 2 -3 -3 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators... -3 -5 0 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and... 1 3 -2 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomplish... 3 -2 0 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiate... 4 -1 -1 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with... -3 3 3 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techniques... 2 -4 0 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... -5 1 -5 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the... 0 -3 5 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the... -4 4 -5 Note: Consensus and disagreement based on variance across normalized factors scores; organized from greatest consensus at top of table to greatest disagreement at bottom.
VITA
Terri Lyn Edwards
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation: CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM, SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY
Major Field: School Psychology
Bibliographical:
Education: Received Associates of Arts in Arts and Sciences from Roger’s State College, Claremore, OK, in 1987 and Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education from Langston University, Langston, OK, in 1989. Received Master of Science degree in Teaching from Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK, in 1997. Completed the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, in July 2007.
Experience: 1989-2000: Fifth/Sixth Grade Teacher, Coweta Public Schools, Self-
contained, Science, Social Studies, Reading; 1999: Instructor, Conner’s State College, Muskogee, OK, General Physical Science; 1999-present: Assistant Professor, University of Phoenix, Tulsa, general education courses, psychology; 2000-2002: Methodology Instructor, Great Expectations, Elementary Classroom Instruction during Summer Institute in Tahlequah, OK; 2000-2002: Methodology Instructor, Great Expectations, Elementary Classroom Instruction during Summer Institute in Tahlequah, OK; 2000-2004: Assistant Professor and Elementary Education Coordinator, Bacone College, Muskogee, OK, Professional Education, Elementary Education; 2004-Present: Instructor, Curriculum and Instruction and Professional Studies, Northeastern State University (NSU), Broken Arrow, OK
Professional memberships: Association of Professional Oklahoma Educators, Phi Delta Kappa, International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, Northeastern Oklahoma Math and Science Educators, Delta Kappa Gamma International, American Association of University Professors, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Association of Childhood Education International, 2002-2005, National Association for Gifted Children, 2001-2003, National Science Teacher’s Association, 1990-1993, National Education Association, 1988-1989.
Name: Terri Lyn Edwards Date of Degree: July, 2007 Institution: Oklahoma State University Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma Title of Study: CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN THE
CLASSROOM, SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY
Pages in Study: 135 Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Major Field: Educational Psychology
Scope and Method of Study: The purpose of this study was to describe the opinions that
35 elementary and secondary teachers have about their leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational community. Q methodology was used to create an instrument for participants to utilize in expressing their opinions framed using the Formative Leadership Theory. The teachers sorted a sample of statements representing the theory in the three contexts of classroom, school, and educational community twice; once using opinions of their actual leadership and once considering their ideal teacher leadership potential. Each participant then completed a demographic survey.
Findings and Conclusions: The results indicate three types of opinions expressed by the
teachers named Classroom Oriented Teachers, Collaborative Teachers, and Collegial Teachers. The largest number of teachers identified with working with students and leading within their classroom as Classroom Oriented Teachers. They spent the least amount of effort and time in other leadership activities. Collaborative teachers welcomed colleagues and the community into their schools to assist with decision making. Collegial teachers interacted well with administration and welcomed them into their classrooms. Two thirds of the teachers involved in the study viewed their ideal leadership as their current situation. The others viewed Collegial leadership as their ideal leadership. How teachers engage in teacher leadership will affect their future actions for improved student learning and necessary school change.
Advisor’s Approval: Dr. Diane Montgomery