See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240448190

The relationship between teachers’ perceptions towards instructional

leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards
change

Article in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · December 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.046

CITATIONS READS

60 649

2 authors:

Aydan Ordu Abdurrahman Tanriogen

Pamukkale University Pamukkale University
23 PUBLICATIONS 299 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 144 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aydan Ordu on 21 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 252–258

World Conference on Educational Sciences 2009

The relationship between teachers’ perceptions towards instructional

leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes
towards change
Aydan Kursunoglu1a*, Abdurrahman Tanrıogenb.
a,b
Pamukkale Univesity,Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Denizli 20070, Turkey
Received October 8, 2008; revised December 22, 2008; accepted January 5, 2009

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between primary school teachers’ perceptions towards instructional
leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change. The sample of the study consists of 326 teachers
working for primary schools during 2006-2007 academic year in Denizli. To examine relationship, “The inventory of attitudes
toward change” developed by Dunham et al. and “Instructional Leadership Inventory” developed by Tanrıogen and Polat was
used as the data instrument of the research. In this study, statistical techniqes such as frequencies, standard deviation, correlation
and regression analysis was used. As a result of the analysis of the data collected, teachers’ perceptions towards instructional
leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards organizational change have been found as “moderate”
level. According to teachers’ perceptions, there was a pozitive relationship between instructional leadership behaviors of their
principals and teachers’ attitudes towards organizational change.

© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: Change; attitudes towards change; instructional leadership; primary school teacher.

1. Introduction

Organizations are open social systems influenced by environments and dependent on them. Organizations take
inputs from environment, transform them and produce outputs. They are coplex , dynamic and not static. To survive,
the organization must adopt and, to adopt it must change (Hoy and Miskel, 1996: 30,31). The effectiveness of school
organization which is an open system depends on adoptiveness to changes in internal and external environment.
Schools must change and develop in order to survive and to be effective because of increasingly rapid innovations.
In short, change is inevitable process for individuals and organizations.
According to Daft (1982), organizational change is defined as the adoption of a new idea or behavior by an
organization (Daft, 1997: 382). Employees are inevitably influenced by changes in organization. Organization

E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428/$–see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.046
 Aydan Kursunoglu et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 252–258 253

members notice and react to changes. Their reactions can range from quite positive and supportive to quite negative
and very resistant. (Dunham ve Pierce,1989:723). For this reason, the teachers’ attitudes towards change has an
important impact on the successful change process in schools.
Principals play an important role in teacher’s attitudes toward change as well. Fullan (2001) pointed out that
pincipal is “the gatekeeper of change” and noted that principals have been identified critical components in
succesful educational innovation. Many findings corfirmed that principal’s leadership plays an important role in
teacher attitudes. Dixon (1991) concluded that principals have vital and complementary roles in the change process.
The behavior of the principal greatly influences that of the teacher. Effective change in the school setting can only
occur by concerted effort on the part of the principal and the teacher. According to Chauvin (1992), principal is a
useful variable for understanding teacher’s attitudes toward change. Principals as instructional leaders can be
effective in their practice provided they attend to the various needs of the policy and their constituents. Bovalino
(2007) found that successful inclusionary environments are created by school systems where the principal practices
distributed leadership, participates in professional development and continually shares his vision. To implement
succesful change process, the principal must have the necessary skills and model for staff. Teachers need the support
of their principals in terms of the communicator, counselor and facilitator roles (Havlik, 2007: 181 -183).
Principals are instructional leaders in initiating, developing and faciliating positive attitudes toward change in
schools. As an instructional leader, principals can promote and support change process. Bredeson ve Johansson
(2000) concluded that principals as instuctional leaders and learner are critical resources for implementing changes
in teachers’ classroom practices.
There is no single definition of instructional leadership as what an instructional leader does. Hallinger and
Murphy (1985: 217) commented that instructional leadership “has meant anything and everything; an administrator
trying to be an instructional leader has had little direction in determining just what it means to do so”. Krug (1992)
defined instructional leadership as “involving the the strategic application of knowledge to solve content specific
problems and to achive the purposes of schooling through others. Leithwood described instructional leadership as a
series of behaviors that was designed to affect classroom instruction (Leithwood, 1994: 3).
Hallinger and Murphy (1987) defines instructional leadership using three dimensions: Defining the school
mission, managing the instructional program and promoting the school learning climate. Each dimension is defined
by two or more of following 10 job functions:
1. Frame the school goals, 2. Communicate the school goals, 3. Supervise and evaluate instruction, 4. Coordinate
the curriculum, 5. Monitor student progress, 6. Protect instructional time, 7. Maintain high visibility, 8. Provide
incentives for teachers, 9. Promote Professional development, 10.Provide incentives for learning.
Instructional leaders must be involved in change process. It is assumed in this research that principals who
exhibited more instructional leadership traits implemented change effort more effectively and promoted to develop
positive attitudes of teachers toward change. Although there are a lot of studies in which leadership and
organizational change were handled together in literature (Dixon, 1991; Chauvin, 1992; Fullan, 2001; Yukl, 2002 in
Chao, 2005; Bovalino, 2007; Hyland, 2007), very few studies conducted to determine the relationship between
instructional leadership behaviors of the principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change.

2. Method

The purpose of this quantitative survey was to examine the relationship between primary school teachers’
perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change. For
this purpose three basic research questions have been asked:
1. What is the level of teachers’ attitudes towards change, and what is the level of teachers’ perceptions about
instructional leadership behaviors of their principals?
2. What is the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards change and principals’ instructional leadership
behaviors as perceived by teachers?
3. What is the predictiveness of teachers’ attitudes towards change related to teachers’ perceptions towards
instructional leadership behaviors of their principals?
254 Aydan Kursunoglu et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 252–258

2.1. Participants

The population of this study consists of 1821 teachers working for primary schools during 2006-2007 academic
year in Denizli. The instrument was administered to 360 primary school teachers selected by random sampling
technique. But 326 teachers’ responses were involved to the study. Accordingly, the representation of this sample
for the population is %17,90.

2.2. Instruments

This study required the collection and analysis of data regarding two variables: (1.) instructional leadership
behaviors and (2.) attitudes towards change. In this study, “The inventory of attitudes toward change” developed by
Dunham, Grube, Gardner, Cummings and Pierce (1989) was used to determine teachers’ attitudes towards change.
This instrument contains 18 items and 3 dimensions towards change. The reliability coefficient of original
instrument was 0.80 (Cronbach Alpha). Tanriogen translated this instrument into turkish and performed factor
analysis. The reliability coefficient of translated instrument was calculated as 0,96. As in the original version the
Turkish instrument includes 3 dimensions of change: Cognitional, affective and behavioral attitudes. There were six
items composed of positive and negative sentences in each dimension. Each item enables the respondent to assess
the frequency which he or she agree that particular item. Items are rated on a Likert type scale ranging from 5
(strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Total scores on this inventory could range from 18 to 90.
The instrument used to collect instructional leadership behaviors data was the “Instructional Leadership
Inventory” which was developed by Tanriogen and Polat (1996). We constituted a new inventory by removing
some items and adding new items to the instrument. To find the validity and reliability of this inventory, it was
directed a pilot group of 200 teachers. The results were tested for internal consistency by calculating Cronbach alpha
coefficient. The alpha coefficient was .984. When the item total correlations of items checked, the results of these
analyses indicated there was no item under the minimum acceptable standart of .20. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was
.962 according to Principal Component Analysis. The result was 10516,384 for Bartlett's Test. The instrument has a
six factors with egigenvalues greater than 1.00. First factor explained %55.26 of the variance in the construct
measuring instructional leadership behaviors. But items could not load onto particular subscale. Because of this, ıt
was assumed that “Instructional Leadership Inventory” has a single factor to measure instructional leadership
behavior. Factor loading values of items could range from .595 to .844. The difference between the highest two
factor loads must not be lower than .10 (Buyukozturk, 2004: 119). The scoring equated to: 5 strongly agree, 4
agree, 3 no opinion, 2 disagree, 1 strongly disagree. Total scores on the 53 item “Instructional Leadership
Inventory” could range from 53 to 265.

2.3. Data collection and analysis

The data gathered was analyzed by the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software. This study used
statistical techniques such as standard deviation, mean, correlation, lineer regression analysis to investigate the
relationship between teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals and
teachers’ attitudes towards change. Signifiance level was .05.

3. Results

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between primary school teachers’ perceptions
towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change. In order to
achive this purpose, this study addressed three researh questions. The first researh question addressed by this study
was: What is the level of teachers’ attitudes towards change and what is the level of teachers’ perceptions towards
instructional leadership behaviors of their principals. The dependent variable was the teachers’ attitudes towards
change. The independent variable was teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their
principals. The results obtained from analysis concerned with this question are show in Table 1, 2 and 3.
 Aydan Kursunoglu et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 252–258 255

Table 1. The Attitudes towards change and perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of principals

_
n X Sd

Attitudes towards change 326 70.28 7.53

Perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of principals 326 198.92 31.52

The mean scores to the responses of the teachers were measured and the attitudes and perceptions of the teachers
were examined using a special method. According to the findings given in Table 1; one standard deviation were
added and substracted to the attitude and perception scores of the teachers and a new level was performed by this
way. The levels to the scores of the teachers’ attitudes and perceptions were administrated as: high, moderate and
low. The frequencies are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. The levels of attitudes towards change

Mean Score of the Attitudes The frequency % The level

77.81 and over 37 11.3 high

62.75 – 77.81 243 74.5 moderate

62.75 and below 46 14.1 low

Total 326 100.0

According to Table 2, the levels of the teachers’attitudes towards change are %74.5 moderate, %14.1 low and
%11.3 high.
As shown in Table 3, the levels of the teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their
principals are %77.9 moderate, %10.4 low and %11.7 high. When teachers’ attitudes towards change compared with
their perceptions towards instructional leadership behavior; it is easy to say that teachers’ attitudes and perceptions
are in “moderate” level.

Table 3. The levels of perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of principals

The frequency % The level

230.44 and over 38 11.7 high

167.40 – 230.44 254 77.9 moderate

167.40 and below 34 10.4 low

Total 326 100.0

In order to determine the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards change, its dimensions and principals’
instructional leadership behaviors as perceived by teachers, the pearson correlation coefficiants are calculated. The
findings obtained data are shown in Table 4.
256 Aydan Kursunoglu et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 252–258

Table 4. The correlations between teachers’ attitudes towards change, its dimesions and principals’ instructional leadership behaviors as
perceived by teachers

Attitude towards Cognitional attitude Affective attitude towards Behavioral attitude towards
change towards change change change
Instructional
.245** .330** .134* .115*
leadership
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

According to Table 4, there was a significant positive relationship (r = .245, p< .01) between teachers’ attitudes
towards change and principals’ instructional leadership behaviors as perceived by teachers. A significant positive
relationship was found (r = .33, p< .01) between teachers’ cognitional attitudes towards change and principals’
instructional leadership behaviors. There was also a significant positive relationship (r = .134, p< .05) between
teachers’ affective attitudes towards change and principals’ instructional leadership behaviors. Furthermore, there
was a significant positive relationship (r= .115, p< .05) between teachers’ behavioural attitudes towards change and
principals’ instructional leadership behaviors.
In this study, the dependent variable was the teachers’ attitudes towards change and the independent variable was
teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals. In order to determine the
predictiveness of teachers’ attitudes towards change, the linear regression analysis was used. Findings are shown in
Table 5.

Table 5. The predictiveness of teachers’ attitudes

Variables B Standart Error ȕ T p

Constant 58.645 2.60 22.64 .000
Instructional leadership .059 .013 .24 4.55 .000
R= .245 R2 = .060 P = .000

As shown in Table 5, the results found that principals’ instructional leadership behaviours as perceived by
teachers was a significiant predictor (R = .245, R2 = .060, p<.01) of teachers’ attitudes towards change. In other
words, the results indicated that principals’ instructional leadership behaviours as perceived by teachers explained
about % 6 of total variance in the teachers’ attitudes towards change.

4. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between primary school teachers’ perceptions towards instructional
leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change. The first question was “What is the
level of teachers’ attitudes towards change, and what is the level of teachers’ perceptions towards instructional
leadership behaviors of their principals?” The findings about this research question support that teachers’ attitudes
toward change are in modereate level. It can be seen that the teachers working for primary schools in Denizli do not
pay enough attention to organizational change which is an important factor at school development and their self
improvement. This situation can prove that the concept of change is not well established in the climate and culture
of the schools in which the teachers work. At this point, school principals have important responsibilities. Therefore
principals should inform and train their teachers about the changes at schools and they also should discuss the
importance of the organizational change for the school system with them. Thus, teachers can have more positive
 Aydan Kursunoglu et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 252–258 257

attitudes towards organizational change. Teachers’ resistance towards change can be lessened by informing them
about the organizational change which has vital importance for healthy schools.
The level of the teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals are in
moderate level as well. This finding can show that the school principals do not display enough instructional
leadership behaviors which is very important for school effectiveness. Effective schools have principals who are
viewed by their teachers as the primary instructional leader in the school (Bamburg and Andrews, 1990). It is
impossible for the principals who do not display instructional leadership behaviors to improve the teachers and
students in their schools. Such an important problem needs solving by the system managers immediately. So, it
would be beneficial for the system managers to support school principals by giving courses, seminars and in-service
trainings on instructional leadership. Otherwise, schools can face with the problem of negative entropy.
The second research question was “What is the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards change, its
dimensions and principals’ instructional leadership behaviors as perceived by teachers?” Correlational analysis was
used in order to answer this research question. Results showed that there is a positive relationship between the
instructional leadership behaviors of principals and the attitudes towards change (R = .245, p< .01). Also, there was
a significant positive relationship between teachers’ cognitional, behavioural and affective attitudes towards change
and principals’ instructional leadership behaviors as perceived by teachers. The dimensions of organizational change
were correlated significantly with principals’ instructional leadership behaviors as perceived by teachers. Yukl
(2002) indicated that relationships exist among leaders, followers and organizational change. And perception of
leadership is a very important area to focus on during quickly developing organizational change because in order to
be effective, leader need to improve the organization, adapt to a changing environment and change the
organization’s way of doing business (Chao, 2005). Leaders can help employees cope with organizatonal change by
displaying a broad range of leadership behaviors (Hyland, 2007). Accoring to Bredeson ve Johansson (2000),
principals as instuctional leaders have a vital role for implementing changes in teachers’ classroom practices.
The third research question was “What is the predictiveness of teachers’ attitudes towards change related to
teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals?” The linear regression analysis
was used in order to determine the impact of principals’ instructional leadership behaviours as perceived by teachers
on teachers’ attitudes towards change. According to the results, principals’ instructional leadership behaviours as
perceived by teachers was a significiant predictor (R = .245, R2 = .060, p<.01) of teachers’ attitudes towards change.
In other words we can assert that when teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their
principals increase, the levels of their attitudes towards change are expected to increase as well. This finding can
support that the principals’ instructional leadership behaviors have a considerable role in organizational change
process. . According to Smith and Andrews (1989), the instructional leader; “creates a positive climate for change
and nurtures creative approaches to change; uses skills needed to manage; and evaluates the effectiveness of
change.” In order to implement effective and successful educational change, principals must have required
instructional leadership skills

References

Bamburg, J. D., Andrews, R. L. (1990). Instructional leadership, school goals, and student achievement: Exploring the relationship between
means and ends. Boston, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (.ED 319783)
Bovalino, J. W. (2007). The role of the principal in the change process: The road to inclusion. Ed.D., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. (AAT
3270099).
Bredeson, P.A. & Johansson, O. (2000). The School Principal’s Role in Teacher Professional Development. Journal of In Service Education,
26(2), 385 -401.
Buyukozturk, ù. (2004). Sosyal Bilimler øçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Chao, S. (2005). Relationship between followers’ perception of organizational change and followers’ desired leadership behaviors. Doctoral
Dissertation, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio (UMI no 3185111).
Chauvin, S. W. (1992). An exploration of principal change facilitator style, teacher bureaucratic and professional orientations, and teacher
receptivity to change. Doctoral dissertation, The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Col.(UMI number 3278962).

Daft R.L. (1997). Management. Fort Worth: The Dryden Pres.

Dixon, V. D. (1991). Astudy of change: Principals as facilitators and teachers as implementors during year one of an innovation. Ed.D., Columbia
University Teachers College (AAT 9210531).
Dunham, R.B., Pierce, J.L. (1989). Management. Glenview : Scott, Foresman and Company.
258 Aydan Kursunoglu et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 252–258

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hallinger , P., Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal. 86:2. 217 –
247.
Hallinger, P., Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 45 (1), 54 -61.
Havlik, K. M. (2007). Leadership, learning and school change: the elementary principal’s role in teacher professional development. Dissertation,
the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Hyland, P. K. (2007). Resistance to organizational change: the impact of followers’ disposition toward change & supervisors’ leadership style.
Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, Columbia (UMI no 3266602).
Hoy, W. K., Miskel, C. J. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Krug, S.E. (1992). Instructional Leadership. School instructional climate and student learning outcomes. Project Report. National Center for
School Leadership. Urbana, II. (ED 359 668).
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 498 – 518.
Smıth, W. F., Andrews, R. L (1989). Instructional leadership : How principals make a difference, Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development. (ISBN: 087120164x) Soft Cover.
Tanrıogen, A., Polat, E. (1996). The expectations of basic education teachers towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals.
Unpublished Research Report, Dokuz Eylul University, øzmir.

View publication stats