Charlee Mappin - Instructional Leadership - May 2021

IMPROVING PROFESSIONAL GROWTH THROUGH INQUIRY
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP:
IMPROVING TEACHER PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFICACY THROUGH
INQUIRY
by
Charlee S. Mappin
A Paper
Presented to the Gordon Albright School of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Master of Education
EEA 650 Leadership Project
March, 2021
IMPROVING PROFESSIONAL GROWTH THROUGH INQUIRY
Instructional Leadership: Improving Teacher Professional Growth and Efficacy
Through Inquiry
APPROVED:
(David Quick,
Faculty Advisor)
(Heather Henderson, Canadian

Director of MEd in Leadership
Programs)
IMPROVING PROFESSIONAL GROWTH THROUGH INQUIRY 2
Acknowledgements
The journey of earning a Master of Education in Leadership degree and completing a
capstone has been a rewarding experience.
I would first like to thank my wonderful parents, Bruce and Val Mappin, for supporting
me with their encouragement and for taking care of my dog, dishes, and yard work when I was
away from home. Thank you for cheering me on.
In addition, I would like to thank my Red Deer cohort: Jody Brunner and Fawn
Coupland. Their professional knowledge and caring hearts helped me overcome many obstacles
throughout this learning journey.
Thank you also to my colleagues and friends: Erin Stauffer, Cally Strandquist, Jess
Rairdan, and Lindsay Gammie. Thank you for stepping into the “arena” with me and “daring
greatly.” To my friend, Sarah Thomas: thank you for letting me couch-surf every weekend while
I was completing my studies.
Finally, thank you to my instructors: Tom Sperling, David Quick, Gloria Antifaiff,
Dwaine Souveny, Brian Celli, and Carol-Anne Haring, and program director Heather Henderson.
I have learned so much from your advice, knowledge, and professionalism throughout this
program. Thank you for sharing your passion for life-long learning and helping me expand my
knowledge and leadership capacity.

Abstract
The purpose of this capstone is to examine the relationship between school principals’
instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and using inquiry to improve efficacy. Research
has shown that efficacious teachers have a positive outcome on student achievement. This
capstone also highlights some of the challenges faced by school leaders in a rural Alberta context
and the impact of those challenges on their ability to carry out instructional leadership.
Keywords: instructional leadership, self-efficacy, leadership effectiveness, rural
principals, teaching principal, instructional coaching, generative dialogue

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
Rural Challenges for School Leaders 6
Competing With the World 7
Statement of Problem 8
Purpose 10
Statement of Capstone Question 10
Definition of Terms 10
Significance of the Capstone Study 11
Outline of the Remainder of the Paper 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
Self-Efficacy Theory 12
Teacher Effectiveness and Efficaciousness 12
The Importance of Teacher Self-Efficacy 14
Beginning Teacher Self-Efficacy and Retention in a Rural Setting 15
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Burnout 16
Instructional Leadership and Self-Efficacy 17
Teaching Principals and Instructional Leadership in a Rural Setting 18
Teacher Supervision 21
Fostering Positive Relationships With Teachers 22
Instructional Coaching 23
Generative Dialogue 25
Summary 27
Chapter 3: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusions 28
Summary 28
Recommendations 29
Preparing Quality Teachers for a Rural Setting 29
Improving Professional Growth Through Inquiry 31
Conclusions 32
Recommendations for Further Research 33
Final Statements 33
References 34
Instructional Leadership: Teacher Professional Growth Through Inquiry
Chapter 1: Introduction
Rural Challenges for School Leaders
Living, teaching, and leading in rural Alberta comes with its own set of complexities that
are likely not experienced by colleagues located in urban and metro settings. Clarke and Wildy
(2011) agreed that it is a customary expectation for rural principals to live within the school
community where they can act as a positive role model and participate in local events. Living in
the same small community in which one works can be challenging to navigate for teachers and
school leaders. It is plausible that principals in the city have never experienced a student
knocking on their door in the evening, asking to be let into the school because they forgot their
hockey gloves in their locker.
It can also be difficult for rural leaders to navigate the line between professionalism and
friendship when it comes to colleagues and parents in a rural community. Masumoto and
Brown-Welty (2009) acknowledged that community members in rural areas are apt to scrutinize
the actions of principals and place higher expectations on them than would be the case in urban
areas. School leaders and teachers who live in or near their rural communities will often be seen
outside of school by their students and parents. A simple trip to the grocery store may lead to an
awkward confrontation in the produce aisle between school staff and parents. Anonymity in a
rural community is not an option for school staff. Teachers and school leaders may also be
friends with their students’ parents, which means they will have to choose their words and
comments carefully in the presence of those parents. Confidentiality is the paramount of
professionalism, but confidentiality must be maintained while visiting with friends and parents at
the local hockey rink.

As well as balancing professional relationships and friendships with parents, that
balancing act continues with school staff. Often, school leaders must choose between working in
isolation or forming collegial relationships with school staff. This familiarity can make it
difficult to make decisions that are unbiased and truly in the best interest of students.
Consequently, when issues with the quality and effectiveness of teaching arise, school leaders
should address, but may choose to avoid, difficult conversations with their teaching staff.
Competing With the World
Sullivan et al. (2018) found that educational disadvantages occur in rural settings all over
the world. This finding included economically advantaged countries such as Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(2013), as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment, academic
performance in all three countries is lower in rural areas than in larger cities. Socioeconomic
status and the education of the parents are factors in the academic performance of rural students
(Sullivan et al., 2018). Sullivan et al.’s findings also uncovered that “reading performance is
positively related with community size/type, with villages showing the lowest reading
performance” (2018, p. 5) and cities in all three countries showing the highest reading
performance. This low reading performance was linked with reports of teacher shortages in rural
areas (Sullivan et al., 2018, p. 6).
In rural settings, it is important for principals to understand these academic
disadvantages. More important, school leaders should recognize the impact of the controllable
variables that affect student educational outcomes. Two important factors that school leaders can
control are hiring qualified and experienced teachers, and encouraging and nurturing high quality
instructional practice. Both of these variables have shown to promote positive student outcomes
regardless of a rural or urban setting (Akiba et al., 2007; Chiu & Khoo, 2005; Haycock, 2001;
Hogrebe & Tate, 2010; Wenglinsky, 2002; Winheller et al., 2013).
Statement of Problem
In the Leadership Quality Standard (LQS), Alberta Education (2018a) has included
instructional leadership as one of the nine competencies to be followed by school leaders.
According to the definition within this mandated document, an instructional leader is defined as
a person who “ensures that every student has access to quality teaching and optimum learning
experiences” (Alberta Education, 2018a, p. 6). Principals in Alberta must focus on building a
culture of learning, not only for students but for teachers as well. School leadership has the
mandated responsibility to lead a learning community through instructional leadership while also
balancing the other managerial demands of the position. Many studies have linked the skills and
knowledge of teachers to increased student achievement (Campbell et al., 2016; Chapman et al.,
2016; Cordingley, 2015; Goddard et al., 2015; Graczewski et al., 2009; Hargreaves & Fullan,
2012; Timperley, 2005). School leaders in Alberta have an ethical obligation to ensure that the
quality of teaching and learning in the classroom is meaningful and competent.
Supporting teachers in their own learning journey can be complex and laborious,
especially for rural leaders (Wallin et al., 2019). Rural principals often have their own teaching
assignments in conjunction with their administrative responsibilities. McCormick (2001) found
that leaders with strong self-efficacy beliefs positively affected the goals of an organization as
well as follower motivation. However, Wallin et al. (2019) found that teaching principals
“carried much guilt regarding their perceived inability to enact instructional leadership” (p. 24).
Even so, instructional leadership is more involved than just classroom visits and teacher
supervision. Most descriptions of instructional leadership have focused on the work that school
leaders perform to directly influence the pedagogical practices of teaching staff (Graczewski et
al., 2009; Lockmiller, 2015; Timperley, 2005). The logistics of managing the time to carry out
instructional leadership is often overshadowed by the day-to-day needs of the school. While
instructional leaders balance their own classroom instruction and managerial tasks, their
instructional leadership can get lost in the fold. Timperley (2005) claimed that the complexity of
these multilevel challenges is often not recognized, and she questioned whether the expectations
that school administrators “take on the mantle of instructional leadership without the help of
expertise is realistic” (p. 19). The Alberta Teachers’ Association (2019) published findings
indicating that the “psychological complexity of classrooms has taken centre stage . . . [and
school leaders] articulated the unmanageability of the job and [their] inability to keep up” (p. 9).
Mombourquette and Adams’s (2017) survey of 250 Albertan administrators showed that
approximately 30% of principals and 40% of vice principals were not ready to enact
competencies such as instructional leadership identified in the LQS (Alberta Education, 2018a).
While attempting to build their own competencies, school leaders must also assist teachers in
improving their own instructional practice and building their self-efficacy.
Klocko and Justis (2019) identified a “strong statistical inverse relationship” (p. 27)
between urban and rural principals related to the stressors they identified as impactful on their
work. The authors stated that “working with ineffective teachers was identified as the highest
inverse relationship, exacerbating the limitations that the rural principal experiences associated
with overall program outcomes” (Klocko & Justis, 2019, p. 27). High teacher self-efficacy has
been linked to high student achievement. Leithwood et al. (2004) argued that, of all the factors
contributing to student achievement, leadership’s effect is second only to classroom instruction.

Purpose
The first section of this paper discusses the purpose of continually building self-efficacy
in teachers. Then, it outlines how leaders can use inquiry methods to improve the professional
growth and efficacy of their teachers.
Statement of Capstone Question
The need for continuous professional growth in teachers is well supported by research.
This capstone addresses challenges for professional development in rural areas with the
following question: How can rural leaders build the self-efficacy of teachers in a rural setting
through the use of inquiry to develop professional growth plans?
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of understanding the meaning of the terminology used throughout this
capstone study, definitions are as follows:
Generative dialogue: Presents a framework and process in which school leaders use
inquiry to draw individual teacher and leader reflection into collective professional learning.
Instructional leadership: Ensuring that every student has access to quality teaching and
optimal learning environments.
Self-efficacy: Confidence in one’s ability to select and use appropriate teaching
behaviours effectively to influence student learning.
Teaching principal: A school leader (principal) who also is responsible for teaching in a
classroom setting at their school. Teaching duties may range from 0.1 to 1.0 full-time equivalent
hours, depending on the needs of the school. In Alberta, the teaching principal is also responsible
for all administrative duties as outlined by their school division and the LQS (Alberta Education,
2018a).
Significance of the Capstone Study
This capstone study discusses the factors affecting teacher self-efficacy in a rural setting
and how principals’ instructional leadership can impact teachers’ self-efficacy. Educational
research in a rural setting, specifically in rural Alberta, is limited. It is critical for rural school
leaders to recognize the significance of their decisions on student learning and achievement. Orr
(2004) explained how thinking in a systematic way about the ripple effect of one’s decisions
force a person to see how those decisions affect others. School leaders must consider the
complex web that connects all educational stakeholders. One decision at the far edge of the web
can still impact other parts of the web. Because rural schools are often at a disadvantage when it
comes to resource allocation, the socioeconomic status of families, and teacher recruitment
(Klocko & Justis, 2019), it is important that school and district leaders carefully consider the
impact of their decisions on the long-term success of their communities.
Outline of the Remainder of the Paper
Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature on leadership practices that improve
teacher self-efficacy and the complexities of instructional leadership in a rural setting. Chapter 3
includes recommendations for principals to increase teacher self-efficacy through the use of
generative dialogue and increased support to beginning teachers.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Self-Efficacy Theory
Bandura (1997) presented the construct of self-efficacy to explain how people’s beliefs
about their capabilities influence their actions. Bandura (2009) suggested that a person’s
self-efficacy beliefs influence their cognitive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes.
Bandura (1997) stated:
Self-efficacy beliefs affect: whether people think productively, pessimistically, or
optimistically and in self—enacting or self—debilitating ways; how well they motivate
themselves and persevere in the face of difficulties; the quality of their emotional
well—being they achieve and their vulnerability to stress and depression; and the life
choices they make, which set the course of their life paths. (p. 185)
Bandura (2009) suggested that self-efficacy beliefs derive from four sources: enactive
mastery experiences, vicarious/social modelling experiences, social persuasion, and arousal
states. People can control or regulate their behaviour by creating standards for evaluating their
actions. As people regulate their own behaviours, they also reflect on their thoughts and actions.
Through self-reflection, people analyze past events and determine future actions (Bandura,
2009).
Teacher Effectiveness and Efficaciousness
Teacher effectiveness or a school’s effectiveness is often measured in Alberta by
provincial achievement exams in Grades 6 and 9, followed by diploma exams for Grade 12
courses. These standardized exams are, traditionally, multiple choice and written exams that rank
a school’s and students’ achievement against other Alberta students and schools. School
divisions in Alberta often use their provincial achievement and diploma exam results as a source
of data to drive the focus of their strategic planning and three-year education plans (Northern
Lights School Division, 2012). Consequently, principals must analyze their own school’s
performance in these exams and strategize ways to improve their results.
Worldwide, studies reveal a marked discrepancy between the educational outcomes of
urban and rural students. Although not always the case (Jordan et al., 2012), urban students tend
to outperform rural students (Alberta Education, 2012; Hnatkovska & Lahiri, 2013; Lamb et al.,
2014). Rural school leaders must investigate why there is such a variance between rural and
urban results so that this performance gap can be closed.
Hattie (2003) proposed that educators and leaders should look closely at where the major
variances of student achievement lie. Furthermore, he proposed that leaders and teachers should
concentrate on mitigating these sources of variance to truly make an impact on student
achievement. Hattie identified the six major sources of variance as follows:
● Students—account for about 50% of the variance of achievement. The correlation
between ability and achievement was high. Who students are as learners predicts
achievement more than any other variable.
● Home—accounts for about 5%–10% of the variance. The home effects are more
related to levels of expectation and encouragement, and are not a function of the
involvement of the parents or caregivers.
● Schools—account for about 5%–10% of the variance. The attributes of the school
(e.g., finances, class sizes, building conditions) mostly accounted for the variance.
● Principals—already accounted for in the schools’ variance due to school climate.
Schools with a primary atmosphere of psychological safety, and a focus of discussion
on student learning, had the most influence indirectly on student achievement.

● Teachers—account for about 30% of the variance. What teachers know, do, and care
about is powerful in this learning equation.
Because of his findings, Hattie (2003) stressed that attention needed to be directed at
higher quality teaching and higher, but appropriate, expectations for students. His findings also
show that a principal makes a small impact on student achievement and therefore, it is the
students themselves and the classroom teacher who have the most influence on learning. The
school principal is, however, responsible for creating and maintaining an environment where
teachers can deliver quality learning experiences for their students (Hattie, 2003).
The Importance of Teacher Self-Efficacy
Marzano (2007) identified the most influential component of an effective school as the
teacher within the classroom. This factor is especially important for school leaders to note as
their influence on student learning must be enacted through the students’ classroom teacher.
Goddard et al. (2015) also supported Marzano in that teacher self-efficacy and the collective
efficacy of teachers are linked to student achievement. Wilcox and Lawson (2018) stated that
“self-efficacy is especially salient when teachers persist in the face of short-term adversity,
disappointing results, and the formidable challenges of adapting personal and team performances
in response to innovation requirements and demands” (p. 188).
Teachers who demonstrate high self-efficacy also appear to be the most willing to
implement new instructional practices. Mahler et al.’s (2018) findings support the belief that
successful teaching “requires more than professional knowledge, by revealing a positive
relationship between teacher enthusiasm and students’ performance” (p. 13). However, other
educational researchers have suggested that self-efficacy is more than just teacher enthusiasm.
Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs about their capabilities to carry out a particular course
of action successfully (Bandura, 1997). Research also supports the claim that self-efficacy is an
important factor in human achievement in a variety of settings, including education, health,
sports, and business (Bandura, 1997). Increased teacher self-efficacy is related to higher job
satisfaction and lower rates of burnout (Jurado et al., 2019; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010).
Teachers in a highly efficacious school analyze how they can make their school
successful. They determine the challenges they must overcome and identify the resources they
will need to persevere. Hoy and Miskel (2008) suggested that student achievement increases
when teachers accept the challenges and create goals to address those challenges with persistence
and a strong organizational effort. In essence, the school’s culture of efficacy beliefs creates a
distinctive blueprint for success.
The actions of a school leader can also influence teacher self-efficacy. A strong, positive
relationship exists between instructional leadership practice and instructional delivery and
student engagement (Bellibas & Liu, 2017).
Beginning Teacher Self-Efficacy and Retention in a Rural Setting
Silverman and Davis (2009) recognized teacher self-efficacy as a major factor in a
teacher’s competence and commitment to teaching. In a rural setting, it is especially important
that leaders hire and retain a competent and committed teaching staff. Rural divisions often have
difficulty recruiting and retaining new graduates despite the high demand for specialist teachers
in second languages, mathematics, and science (Alberta Education, 2013; Goodpaster et al.,
2012). Further, Moffa and McHenry-Sorber (2018) found that “teacher preparation programs
may struggle to manage remote student teaching sites due to traveling distance for supervisors,
forcing programs to establish practicums in schools that are closer in proximity to the university”
(p. 37).
There is also evidence that a high number of teachers (25%) leave the teaching profession
in Alberta during the first four years of their career (Alberta Education, 2013). In a meta-analysis
of literature on rural teachers in the United States from 1970 to 2010, Burton et al. (2013) found
that rural teachers are often portrayed as (a) professionally isolated, (b) different from urban
and/or suburban teachers, (c) lacking in professional knowledge and teaching credentials, and (d)
particularly resistant to change. Although these portrayals are alarming, especially when it comes
to teacher recruitment in rural areas, it is especially concerning that rural teachers are seen to be
lacking in professional knowledge. This lack could affect student achievement, which has been
found to be associated with the skills and knowledge of teachers (Campbell et al., 2016;
Chapman et al., 2016; Cordingley, 2015; Goddard et al., 2015; Graczewski et al., 2009;
Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Timperley, 2005). Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy feel
confident about their teaching abilities and are highly effective in the classroom (Marzano,
2007).
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Burnout
Current research on the self-efficacy of teachers in a rural setting is, unfortunately,
lacking. However, a ministerial annual report from Alberta Education (2017) showed that
teachers’ agreement that their teacher education program prepared them adequately to
meet the teaching quality standards for initial certification; recent Bachelor of Education
graduates are well prepared to meet their responsibilities as teachers; and professional
development opportunities effectively addressed teachers’ professional development
needs, have decreased over time. The results are lowest regarding recent Bachelor of
Education graduates being well prepared to meet their responsibilities as teachers. (p.
126)
According to the report, only 77% of Alberta teachers who took the survey felt that they
were adequately prepared to meet the demands of the teaching profession (Alberta Education,
2017). Although not stated directly, a relationship between the 23% of Alberta teachers who feel
unprepared to teach (Alberta Education, 2017), and the 25% of Alberta teachers who leave the
profession after only four years (Alberta Education, 2013), begins to emerge.
Kim and Burić (2020) found that contrary to expectation, teacher self-efficacy did not
predict future teacher burnout levels. They instead found that teacher burnout is usually the
precursor to lowered teacher self-efficacy. Over time, if teachers continue to find their work
more and more exhausting or disengaging, their self-efficacy can also decrease. Lambersky
(2016) also pointed out the relationship between teacher morale, self-efficacy, and school
leadership. The findings showed that principals can influence teachers’ emotions through their
actions or inactions. This factor is important to note because although student learning is not
directly impacted by principals, teachers are directly impacted by the decisions and actions of the
principal. Therefore, the chain of impact on student learning and teacher self-efficacy can be
linked to the actions of the school leader. If teachers are not well and are not confident in their
abilities, student achievement will be impacted negatively.
Instructional Leadership and Self-Efficacy
Kazak and Polat (2018) pointed out that one of the most significant roles of a school
administrator is to “create an appropriate learning culture that supports a strong and open
atmosphere that allows for communication, sharing, and cooperation among teachers to support
the success of a school” (p. 442). According to Sahin (2011), there is a positive correlation
between school culture and the instructional leadership behaviours of school administrators.
Ramazan and Hanifi (2018) found a positive and significant relationship between school
leadership behaviours and teacher self-efficacy. They found that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
increased as school principals’ effective leadership behaviours increased. They suggested that
school principals can implement practices that make individual teachers feel more competent and
effective; in turn, the collective group of teachers within a school will increase their collective
efficacy (Ramazan & Hanifi, 2018).
Ma and Marion (2021) also studied the effect of instructional leadership of teacher
efficacy. They measured instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and trust using
questionnaires from 50 principals and 714 teachers in western China. The data they collected
solidified that “instructional leadership, in terms of developing a positive learning climate,
significantly predicts teacher efficacy” (Ma & Marion, 2021, p. 200). Furthermore, their findings
showed that a trustworthy instructional leader indirectly promotes a sense of self-efficacy in
teachers.
Teaching Principals and Instructional Leadership in a Rural Setting
Wallin et al. (2019) explored the ways in which teaching principals in the Canadian
prairie provinces enacted instructional leadership to improve student learning in their schools.
Principals in their study felt that their inability to perform classroom visits meant that they were
not successfully fulfilling the requirements of instructional leadership. Although the teaching
principals were expressing their dissatisfaction with their own abilities to fulfill their perceived
requirements, the researchers found that they were, in fact, meeting the requirements of
instructional leadership as defined by Robinson et al. (2008).
Robinson et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies that examined the effects
of instructional leadership on student outcomes. The authors found five dimensions that were
commonly associated with instructional leadership practice: establishing goals and expectations;
planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum; promoting and participating
in teacher learning and development; resourcing strategically; and ensuring an orderly and
supportive environment. However, the LQS (Alberta Education, 2018a), which guides Alberta
principals, goes further in its definition of the indicators of competency in instructional
leadership. According to the LQS:
A leader ensures that every student has access to quality teaching and optimum learning
experiences. Achievement of this competency is demonstrated by indicators such as:
(a) building the capacity of teachers to respond to the learning needs of all students;
(b) implementing professional growth, supervision and evaluation processes to ensure
that all teachers meet the Teaching Quality Standard;
(c) ensuring that student instruction addresses learning outcomes outlined in programs
of study;
(d) facilitating mentorship and induction supports for teachers and principals, as
required;
(e) demonstrating a strong understanding of effective pedagogy and curriculum;
(f) facilitating the use of a variety of technologies to support learning for all students;
(g) ensuring that student assessment and evaluation practices are fair, appropriate, and
evidence informed;
(h) interpreting a wide range of data to inform school practice and enable success for
all students; and

(i) facilitating access to resources, agencies and experts within and outside the school
community to enhance student learning and development. (Alberta Education,
2018a, p. 4)
Robinson et al. (2008), in a broad sense, covered these instructional leadership competencies as
outlined by Alberta Education (2018a).
Teaching principals in Alberta have the unique and challenging task of meeting the
competencies of the LQS (Alberta Education, 2018a) while also fulfilling the competencies of
the Teaching Quality Standard (Alberta Education, 2018b). Wallin et al. (2019) found that
principals were interpreting their division messaging around instructional leadership as being
solely focused on classroom visits and teacher supervision. However, as illustrated by the LQS
and Robinson et al. (2008), a disconnect exists between division expectations and true
instructional leadership. As Wallin et al. (2019) pointed out, “Unless this discourse [from the
division leader] changes, it is unlikely that teaching principals’ self-efficacy for providing
instructional leadership in small rural schools will improve” (p. 29). They stated that despite
teaching principals’ perceptions, teaching principals are “highly engaged in the work of
instructional leadership, and they should be applauded for their efforts to support teaching and
learning” (Wallin et al., 2019, p. 29).
Although there are drawbacks to having a teaching assignment on top of an
administrative role, many advantages come from being a teaching principal. Being a teaching
principal allows for creating a shared vision of learning with staff. This collaboration provides
“the opportunity to gain credibility in instruction and assessment, and helps teaching principals
discern where strategic resourcing may have the most impact” (Wallin et al., 2019, p. 30).
Studies have continually found that an effective rural principal is a strong instructional
leader (Chance & Segura, 2009; Preston & Barnes, 2017; Renihan & Noonan, 2013). These
studies have also showcased successful rural leaders who promote a professional school culture
in which all teachers can feel empowered to take risks, try new ideas, and expand their creativity.
Rural teaching principals are in the best position to provide firsthand instructional and
professional guidance because they can lead through learning. They are in the perfect position to
practice what they preach by leading and modelling the knowledge gained in division-led and
principal-led professional development sessions. Klar and Brewer (2017) also pointed out that
acts of instructional leadership are also exemplified by rural principals who consistently
recognize teacher achievements through formal and informal awards and positive
communications. Rural teaching principals are arguably in the best position to show competency
in instructional leadership characteristics outlined in the LQS and build “the capacity of teachers
to respond to the learning needs of all students” (Alberta Education, 2018a, p. 4).
Teacher Supervision
Participants in a study by Aspenes and Adams (2019) agreed that teacher supervision was
a “key element” (para. 8) to their instructional leadership. As outlined in the LQS (Alberta
Education, 2018a), and as Robinson et al. (2008) and Wallin et al. (2019) have echoed,
instructional leadership goes far deeper than just teacher supervision. However, teacher
supervision plays a key role in teacher evaluation, supervision, and growth, especially for rural
schools where teachers may be difficult to retain. All principals in Alberta, regardless of location,
are required to evaluate new and temporary teachers regularly. As outlined in Alberta
Education’s (2015) Teacher Growth, Supervision, and Evaluation Policy, “Principals and
teachers are responsible for facilitating quality improvement through each teacher’s career-long
professional growth” (p. 1).
Teacher supervision is often seen as an evaluative practice, but supervision encompasses
so much more than evaluation. Increasing the frequency and quality of instructional supervision
can be challenging for a rural teaching principal. Rural school leaders are often pulled in many
different directions that distract from quality supervision and evaluation (Wallin & Newton,
2013; Wallin et al., 2019). More important, instructional supervision can be effective only when
paired with a strong foundation of trust and collaboration (Adams & Townsend, 2014). Although
regular teacher supervision is desirable, rural principal participants in Aspenes and Adams’s
(2019) study “reported significant challenges to maintaining a consistent supervision schedule”
(para. 16).
Fostering Positive Relationships With Teachers
Preston and Barnes (2017) stated that “strong leadership is about nurturing interpersonal
relationships with/among staff members, parents, students, and community stakeholders” (p. 8).
Their document analysis of 40 studies reviewed the qualities, actions, and behaviours of
successful rural principals. They found that for 12 teaching principals in rural Manitoba and
Alberta, cooperative leadership was exemplified by a principal who asked a team of teachers to
develop school goals and to perfect these goals at staff meetings and professional development
sessions. Preston and Barnes also highlighted two case studies, in the United States (Klar &
Brewer, 2014) and Cyprus (Pashiardis et al., 2011), where researchers found that “successful
rural school leadership was about encouraging teachers to collaborate and share pedagogical
knowledge and experiences via peer-teacher observation and oral communication during staff
meetings” (Preston & Barnes, 2017, p. 8). Other studies have similarly found that an effective
rural principal promotes staff collaboration and capacity-building (Anderson et al., 2010; Ashton
& Duncan, 2012; Wallin & Newton, 2013) and that these leaders inspired self-pride and job
satisfaction for teachers, which enhanced those teachers’ personal well-being (Haar, 2007).
Aspenes and Adams (2019) found that rural Albertan principals “unanimously stressed
that building relationships was ‘the first step’ to becoming effective instructional leaders” (para.
13). Their research also found that participants agreed that the willingness for principals to be
vulnerable with their staff created a culture of “increased mutual trust to the point where staff
members ‘feel safe’ to honestly share their ideas and concerns with the principal” (Aspenes &
Adams, 2019, para. 14). Eldor and Shoshani (2016) also concluded that “expressions of
compassion from school principals seem to significantly affect important teacher work
outcomes” (p. 133). Sustaining a collective culture of trust was also marked as one of the highest
priorities for rural leaders to strive for. Preston and Barnes (2017) echoed that a successful rural
principal “nurtures strong professional connections with individual staff members” (p. 9).
In conclusion, principals can have a measured effect on teacher self-efficacy through their
continued efforts to collaborate and cooperate with their teaching staff through their relationship
building. The culture of trust and compassion built by rural teaching principals will positively
influence student learning because, as researchers have shown, teachers will invest further in
their own professional development and learning if the leader does so as well.
Instructional Coaching
Research has indicated that the most effective professional development for teachers
meets the following criteria: active engagement, high relevance to current instructional content
and/or student challenges, ongoing over time, collaborative, collegial, and reflective
(Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). According to Bearwald (2011), effective coaches

guide the conversation by asking critical questions, rather than offering solutions or making
recommendations. Feedback is most effective when it is focused on increasing a teacher’s own
powers of observation, promotes reflection and self-evaluation skills, promotes intentionality
around behaviours and patterns of interaction with students, helps teacher see the impact of their
behaviours more clearly, and assists teachers in improving their implementation of lessons and
activities (Pianta, 2012).
Kraft et al. (2018) concluded that coaching, as a development tool, positively affects
instructional practice and student achievement despite variations in the ways coaches (as
instructional experts) work with teachers to improve classroom practices and student learning
outcomes. Their meta-analysis of 60 studies, mainly literacy coaching programs, noted that
small-scale coaching programs were more effective than scaled-up programs. They found a
“clear negative relationship between program size and program effects, consistent with a theory
of diminishing effects as programs are taken to scale” (Kraft et al., 2018, p. 570). This finding is
significant, especially as it pertains to rural schools and divisions in Alberta that identify as rural.
On a small scale, instructional coaching can be effective. In larger schools or divisions, the
number of resources needed for coaching and to maintain the program increases significantly.
In a small division, it is also difficult and expensive to hire quality coaches to work with
teachers in a rural setting. A division may choose to fill this demand for coaches with expert,
local teachers. This “strategy comes with the trade-off of potentially removing highly effective
teachers from the classroom but could be partially addressed with teachers taking on coaching
responsibilities only part-time” (Kraft et al., 2018, p. 573). At times, school divisions may adopt
a coaching strategy that utilizes existing school leadership to coach their teachers. This method
may be effective in theory, but Kraft et al., (2018) found that “simply adding coaching to
administrators’ existing responsibilities with little training or support is unlikely to result in
high-quality or sustained coaching” (p. 573; see also Herman & Baker, 2009; Kraft & Gilmour,
2016). There is a risk to having school leadership play the role of coach and evaluator, especially
in the first few years of a teacher’s placement in a school. If the school leaders are serving as
both teacher-coach and teacher-evaluator, this duality “can undercut the trusting relationships
needed between coaches and teachers and may result in superficial and infrequent feedback”
(Kraft et al., 2018, p. 573).
Generative Dialogue
For more than two decades, Canadian researchers Adams et al. (2019) have developed
and implemented a collaborative inquiry approach in more than 400 schools in Alberta and New
South Wales in Australia (Petta et al., 2019). Generative dialogue is used as a “gentle
interrogation” of teaching practice in which “leaders-as-provocateurs model curiosity and open
conversational space for teachers to contemplate their practice” (Stelmach, 2020, p. 143).
Through leader-led inquiry, teachers reflect and grow their personal pedagogical practice. During
the generative dialogue process, teachers, using the Teaching Quality Standard (Alberta
Education, 2018b), reflect on their confidence or abilities in each of the competency areas.
Adams et al. (2019) suggested that “sustained and purposeful growth starts with provocation: an
emotional incitement that causes reflection, a shift in thinking, and a variation in the course of
action” (p. xvi). The elements of generative dialogue are designed to enhance teacher growth and
efficacy through reflection. This model can be used to enact change within an organization by
empowering individuals to lead their own personal or group change. During this process, the
school leader “acts as steward of the conditions under which that growth can happen” (Adams et
al., 2019, p. xvi).

After teachers have assessed their own competency using the Teaching Quality Standard
(Alberta Education, 2018b), they create an inquiry question on which to base their professional
development (Stelmach, 2020). A leader will then use Socratic questions to generate reflection
and solution-based action on the part of the teacher. The inquiry question is further enhanced,
and teachers then feel empowered by their own curiosity, vision for change, and confidence
(Stelmach, 2020).
The generative dialogue techniques discussed in this model for growth and change
require careful practice and consideration. It is important for school leaders to set aside
judgement, criticism, and praise in favour of letting teachers talk through their own solutions
(Stelmach, 2020). The point of generative dialogue is not for leaders to provide solutions and
suggestions, but for teachers to realize that the answers they seek are within them (Petta et al.,
2019). They have the ability to grow and change without being told to grow and change. Woods
and Roberts (2019) supported this model, stating, “intentionalities that were authored by teachers
. . . promoted awareness and self-determination and teachers’ intentions drove teacher
leadership” (p. 673).
Petta et al. (2019) summarized generative dialogue into the following characteristics,
where all participants
● respect one another and develop an internal ownership of both the process and its
results; mutual respect and trust allow participants to enter into such kinds of
collaborations that are most likely to enhance their professional practice;
● are encouraged to be engaged and stay committed; their competence and
responsibility is taken for granted;
● are encouraged to provide their opinions and share their ideas;

● are committed to active and effective listening by suspending any kind of judgment
and criticism, but also no gratuitous praise or blame is used;
● are focused on reflection through asking questions. Reflective questioning can help
participants to refine aspects of their own practice and become aware of false
assumptions, contradictions, origins and consequences of their thinking. (p. 54)
In Stelmach’s (2020) review of the work of Adams et al. (2019), Stelmach (2020) noted
that “the heart of generative dialogue is growth” (p. 143). In their concept analysis of generative
dialogue, Petta et al. (2019) stated that the generative dialogue process “empowers educators and
school leaders to be committed to work with each other, regardless of positional authority, and to
do so in a spirit of mutual respect and trust” (p. 54).
Summary
In summary, a review of current and relevant literature has demonstrated that teacher
self-efficacy is linked to student achievement. Therefore, it is important for school leaders to
work with teachers to build their self and collective efficacy. It has been found that creating
positive relationships with teachers and establishing trust are keys to teacher growth. In a rural
context, it is vital for school leaders to work closely and collaboratively with teachers to build
their efficacy if they hope to retain those teachers and improve student achievement.
A focus must be maintained on the school leader’s instructional leadership in order to
awaken the best practice from teachers. Through instructional coaching and generative dialogue,
school leaders can engage meaningfully with their staff to grow and improve their instructional
practice. Teacher pedagogical growth will lead to greater self-efficacy.

Chapter 3: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusions
Summary
The problem identified in this capstone project was how rural leaders could build the
self-efficacy of teachers in a rural setting through the use of inquiry to develop professional
growth plans. Rural school leaders in Alberta have the colossal responsibility of weighing and
predicting the effects that their decisions will have on students, staff, and the community. School
principals have the responsibility to hire the best possible candidates for teaching positions at
their school. As leaders, they must understand that hiring a teacher with excellent teaching
practices will have a positive impact on the achievement of their students (Campbell et al., 2016;
Chapman et al., 2016; Cordingley, 2015; Goddard et al., 2015; Graczewski et al., 2009;
Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Timperley, 2005). However, as discussed in this capstone study,
hiring in rural areas can prove to be difficult due to distance and desirability to work in the area.
Furthermore, rural principals must battle the guilt associated with leading in a rural community
and their perceived inability to carry out all their responsibilities as instructional leaders (Wallin
et al., 2019).
The literature review in Chapter 2 offered significant evidence that teacher self-efficacy
can be influenced by the school principal. Lambersky (2016) noted that student learning may not
be directly affected by principals, but teachers are directly affected by the decisions and actions
of the principal. Therefore, school leaders must work to build trusting and effective relationships
with teachers in order to positively impact the students within their school.
Chapter 2 also discussed the complexities that rural teaching principals face while also
offering a positive view on the effect these principals can have on their teaching staff. Rural
principals are in a unique position to practice and model the professional expectations they have
for teachers within the classroom. They have the opportunity to work side by side and
collaborate with their teachers in a more direct way than their urban counterparts. Studies from
Renihan and Noonan (2013) and Preston and Barnes (2017) agreed that an effective rural
principal is a strong instructional leader. Additionally, relationships have been found to be at the
heart of instructional leadership (Aspenes & Adams, 2019).
Finally, Chapter 2 discussed generative dialogue and instructional coaching. Kraft et al.
(2018) concluded in their study that coaching, used to develop and enhance teaching practice,
positively impacts student achievement and instructional practice. The professional practice of
generative dialogue uses a reflective coaching process to guide teacher professional
development. The success of generative dialogue relies on a trusting relationship between the
teacher and principal. Rural principals are also in a unique and fortunate position to enact
instructional coaching strategies on a small scale which, overall, has been found to be more
successful (Kraft et al., 2018).
Recommendations
The following recommendations will guide teaching principals and rural school divisions
to ensure that they effectively enhance teacher self-efficacy to support student achievement in
rural schools.
Preparing Quality Teachers for a Rural Setting
The first recommendation for rural principals and school divisions is to concentrate their
efforts on improving beginning teacher self-efficacy to better retain teachers in rural schools and
divisions. In Alberta, some universities may struggle to manage remote student-teaching
practicum sites due to travelling distance for supervisors, limited accommodations for
student-teachers, or a lack of willingness for student-teachers to expand their proximity to the

university. Moffa and Mchenry-Sorber (2018) suggested that these issues limit “the diversity of
teaching experiences to which pre-service teachers are exposed” (p. 37). Further, the focus on
place and context in pre-service teaching programs may also limit the self-efficacy of new
teachers in a rural setting. Barley (2009) assessed 120 mid-continent American teacher
preparation programs and found that only 17 had a rural emphasis and even fewer offered
rural-focused courses or rural student-teaching placements. First-year teachers may leave
university programs unprepared for rural placements and therefore, they are likely to seek
employment in nonrural locations, worsening the problem of rural teacher recruitment and
retention (White & Kline, 2012).
Retaining youth in a rural setting has also proven to be difficult as rural students are
learning to leave their rural communities for perceived better opportunities elsewhere (Corbett,
2007; Stelmach, 2011; Stilaste, 2005). Teachers in rural communities, unfortunately, perpetuate
the “hegemonic assumption that students who do not leave their rural lives are
failures—educationally and socially” (Stelmach, 2011, p. 34. These educators emphasize and
promote post-secondary education and professional careers in ways that discourage students
from returning to their rural hometowns for professional work. Parental attitudes also factor into
a young adult’s decision to leave their rural community. Parents in both the United States
(Arnold et al., 2005) and Australia (Gray, 1991) reported that they had mixed feelings about their
children leaving their rural community, but “they know that city education and careers offer
potential for a relatively high income, which appears increasingly unlikely on the farm” (Gray,
1991, p. 125). Part of the issue of recruitment to areas of rural Alberta may be the common habit
of communities in industrialized countries to push their own potential teachers out of their rural
regions.
Boylan (2004) pointed out key areas of focus for universities, school divisions, and
school leadership to retain beginning teachers in a rural setting. These suggestions included
offering reciprocity scholarships to rural students to pursue teacher education, creating courses in
teacher preparation programs that focus on the conditions of living and teaching in rural places,
setting up rural internships, and establishing mentorship programs to help teachers cope with the
social and personal adjustments associated with living in a rural location. These areas of focus
help to establish how school leaders could concentrate their efforts on improving or expanding
beginning teachers’ self-efficacy.
Improving Professional Growth Through Inquiry
The second recommendation for rural school principals and rural school divisions is to
use generative dialogue to increase teacher self-efficacy through inquiry. Generative dialogue
allows for principals to take on the role of an instructional coach and lead teachers through a
reflective questioning to improve their teaching practice. Petta et al. (2019) stated that reflective
questioning can “help participants to refine aspects of their own practice and become aware of
false assumptions, contradictions, origins and consequences of their thinking” (p. 54). Therefore,
principals should leverage the process of generative dialogue to assist teachers in refining their
teaching practice and reflecting on their current practices and assumptions. The use of inquiry
allows for principals to act as an active listener rather than a problem-solver or evaluator when
teachers talk through their thinking. Generative dialogue also allows bridges of trust to be built
between the inquirer and the reflective speaker (Adams et al., 2018; Adams & Townsend, 2014;
Petta et al. 2019).
However, as Kraft et al. (2018) assessed in their study, there are risks to having the coach
and evaluator roles overlap, especially for beginning teachers. Therefore, the principal must
either ensure that a high level of trust is established with the beginning teacher before generative
dialogue is used, or the generative dialogue process should be spearheaded by someone other
than the principal. It may be a great opportunity for a mentor teacher or aspiring leader to take on
the role of instructional coach in the generative dialogue process. This way, the role of principal
as evaluator and principal as instructional coach can be kept separate.
Finally, it would be important for rural school division leaders to also use generative
dialogue to build rural principals’ professional growth and increase self-efficacy. As stated
previously, rural school principals are in the unique position to practice what they preach in
regard to instructional leadership. School division leaders in smaller, rural divisions are also
uniquely situated to build trusting relationships with their school principals through generative
dialogue. Division leaders modelling the practice of generative dialogue with school principals
will help normalize and solidify the practice as part of their division culture. It would be
important for school divisions to review and revise the practice of generative dialogue regularly
over a number of years so principals can feel more confident in their ability to enact the practice
in their schools.
Conclusions
As stated by Aspenes and Adams (2019), “Today’s school leaders are compelled by
educational research, changing policies, and their own professional experience to provide
instructional leadership that will enhance teachers’ practices and optimize learning experiences
for all students” (para. 28). Even as leaders face the challenges of living and working in rural
communities, they are uniquely poised to have a meaningful impact on the efficacy of their
teaching staff. Student achievement can be improved as teacher confidence increases. Students in
rural Alberta should not be academically disadvantaged by their location. By having school and
division leaders focus on retaining quality teachers and building efficacy through generative
dialogue, students should reap the academic benefits. It can be concluded that rural principals
can have a measured effect on teacher self-efficacy with a maintained effort to collaborate and
cooperate with their teaching staff through instructional leadership and relationship building
Recommendations for Further Research
Further research studies should be launched to investigate which characteristics of school
leadership or which leadership styles lead to increased teacher efficacy. Research on how student
success in rural Alberta schools can be increased through the instructional leadership of the
principal should also be conducted. Furthermore, the family–school connections in a rural
context should be examined to determine if that connection has an influence on student
achievement.
Final Statements
A review of the research has indicated that student achievement is impacted by teacher
self-efficacy. Although research has shown that principals do not have a direct effect on student
learning, their efforts to increase teacher self-efficacy through building positive, trusting
relationships and executing effective instructional leadership have been shown to positively
impact teachers. Therefore, students are positively affected by principals in a more indirect way.
In Chapter 2 of this capstone study, the literature review illustrated how school leaders can build
teacher self-efficacy through effective leadership and instructional coaching, which is needed to
improve student learning. In rural Alberta, principals can leverage their close relationships with
teaching staff to build a trusting professional environment where teachers can reflect on, adjust,
and improve their teaching practice. As rural teachers become more confident and competent,
rural students are better situated to compete academically with their urban counterparts.
References
Adams, P. (2016). A noticeable impact: Perceptions of how system leaders can affect leading and
learning. Journal of Educational Leadership and Foundations, 25(3), 3–15.
Adams, P., Mombourquette, C., & Townsend, D. (2019). Leadership in education: The power of
generative dialogue. Canadian Scholars Press.
Adams, P., & Townsend, D. (2014). From action research to collaborative inquiry: A framework
for researchers and practitioners. Education Canada, 54(5), 12–15.
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and
national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36, 369–387.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07308739r
Alberta Education. (2012). Promising practices in rural elementary education. Government of
Alberta.
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/57945f28-5f47-447f-9ada-0bf45539a94a/resource/3a8b627
1-d4e2-4b4e-bc26-b4fc9ea61380/download/6153740-2012-promising-practices-in-rural-
elementary-education-final-report.pdf
Alberta Education. (2013). A transformation in progress: Alberta’s K–12 education workforce.
Government of Alberta.
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/b9f67a91-e513-4c9b-92ed-835f8b699485/resource/084226
26-c422-4855-b7b5-359724e51eba/download/6084401-2013-02-transformation-in-progr
ess-february-2013-final.pdf
Alberta Education. (2015). Teacher growth, supervision, and evaluation policy. Government of
Alberta.
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/92318229-5d7e-400c-95c4-f2fba9a9a5ec/resource/ed0497
95-c235-4436-8d9c-56e8a5a6aa57/download/2015-teacher-growth-supervision-and-eval
uation-policy.pdf
Alberta Education. (2018a). Leadership quality standard. Government of Alberta.
https://education.alberta.ca/media/3739621/standardsdoc-lqs-_fa-web-2018-01-17.pdf
Alberta Education. (2018b). Teaching quality standard. Government of Alberta.
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/4596e0e5-bcad-4e93-a1fb-dad8e2b800d6/resource/75e96a
f5-8fad-4807-b99a-f12e26d15d9f/download/edc-alberta-education-teaching-quality-stand
ard-2018-01-17.pdf
Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2019). Seismic shifts and fault lines: Experiencing the highs,
lows, and shadows: Alberta school leadership within the teaching profession 2019.
https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Research/COOR-
101-26%20School%20Leadership%20in%20the%20Teaching%20Profession.pdf
Anderson, M., Davis, M., Douglas, P., Lloyd, D., Niven, B., & Thiele, H. (2010). A collective
act: Leading a small school. ACER Press.
Arnold, M. L, Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of
rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in
Rural Education, 20(6), 1–25.
Ashton, B., & Duncan, H. E. (2012). A beginning rural principal’s toolkit: A guide for success.
The Rural Educator, 34(1), 19–30.
Aspenes, W., & Adams, P. (2019). Questions, not answers: Principals’ path to instructional
leadership. Canadian Association of Principals.
https://cdnprincipals.com/questions-not-answers-principals-path-to-instructional-leadersh
ip/
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2009). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A.
Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organization behavior (2nd ed., pp. 179–200).
Barley, Z. A. (2009). Preparing teachers for rural appointments: Lessons from the mid-continent.
Rural Educator, 30(3), 10–15.
http://epubs.library.msstate.edu/index.php/ruraleducator/issue/view/24
Bearwald, R. (2011). It’s about the questions. Educational Leadership, 69, 74–77.
Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2017). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’
perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions.
Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 49–69.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2015-0116
Boylan, C. R. (2004). The state of rural education in preservice teacher education courses. In C
Boylan & B. Hemmings (Eds.), WA District High School Administrators’ Association
and Society for the Provision in Rural Australia (pp. 85–93). Society for the Provision of
Education in Rural Australia.
Burton, M., Brown, K., & Johnson, A. (2013). Storylines about rural teachers in the United
States: A narrative analysis of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education,
28(12), 1–18. http://sites.psu.edu/jrre/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6347/2014/02/28-12.pdf
Campbell, C., Lieberman, A., & Yashkina, A. (2016). Developing professional capital in policy
and practice: Ontario’s teacher learning and leadership program. Journal of Professional
Capital and Community, 1(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-03-2016-0004
Chance, P. L., & Segura, S. N. (2009). A rural high school’s collaboration approach to school
improvement. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(5), 1–11.

Chapman, C., Chesnutt, H., Friel, N., Hall, S., & Lowden, K. (2016). Professional capital and
collaborative inquiry networks for educational equity and improvement. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, 1(3), 178–197.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-03-2016-0007
Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). Effects of resources, inequality, and privilege bias on
achievement: Country, school, and student level analyses. American Educational
Research Journal, 42, 575–603. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042004575
Clark, S., & Wildy, H. (2011). Improving the small rural or remote school: The role of the
district. Australian Journal of Education, 33(1), 24–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500104
Corbett, M. (2007). Learning to leave: The irony of schooling in a coastal community. Fernwood.
Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and
development. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 234–252.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-03-2016-0007
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational
Leadership, 66, 46–53.
Eldor, L., & Shoshani, A. (2016). Caring relationships in school staff: Exploring the link between
compassion and teacher work engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59,
126–136. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X16301135
Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E. S., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis
of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy
beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530.
https://doi.org/10.1086/681925
Goodpaster, K. P. S., Adedokun, O. A., & Weaver, G. C. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of rural
STEM teaching: Implications for rural teacher retention. The Rural Educator, 33(3), 9.
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i3.408
Graczewski, C., Knudson, J., & Holtzman, D. J. (2009). Instructional leadership in practice:
What does it look like, and what influence does it have? Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802715460
Gray, I. (1991). Politics in place: Social power relations in an Australian country town.
Cambridge University Press.
Haar, J. M. (2007). Retaining experienced, qualified teachers: The principal’s role. The Rural
Educator, 28(2), 28–34.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? [Paper
presentation]. ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_confere
nce_2003
Haycock, K. (2001). Helping all students achieve: Closing the achievement gap. Educational
Leadership, 58(6), 6–11.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar01/vol58/num06/Closing-the
-Achievement-Gap.aspx
Herman, J. L., & Baker, E. L. (2009). Assessment policy: Making sense of the Babel. In G.
Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of educational policy research (pp.
176–190). Routledge.
Hnatkovska, V., & Lahiri, A. (2013). The rural-urban divide in India. International Growth
Center.
https://www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Hnatkovska-Lahiri-2012-Working-P
aper-March.pdf
Hogrebe, M. C.& Tate, W. F. (2010). School composition and context factors that moderate and
predict 10th-grade science proficiency. Teachers College Record, 112, 1096–1136.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice
(8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Jordan, J. L., Kostandini, G., & Mykerezi, E. (2012). Rural and urban high school dropout rates:
Are they different? Journal of Research in Rural Education, 27(12), 1–21.
Jurado, M., Pérez-Fuentes, M., Atria, L., Ruiz, N., & Linares, J. (2019). Burnout, perceived
efficacy, and job satisfaction: Perception of the educational context in high school
teachers. BioMed Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1021408
Kazak, E., & Polat, S. (2018) School administrators’ instructional leadership behaviors,
intergenerational atmosphere, and intergenerational learning in schools, Journal of
Intergenerational Relationships, 16(4), 441–462.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2018.1489330
Kim, L. E., & Burić, I. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy and burnout: Determining the directions of
prediction through an autoregressive cross-lagged panel model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 112(8), 1661–1676. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000424
Klar, H. W., & Brewer, C. A. (2014). Successful leadership in a rural, high-poverty school: The
case of County Line Middle School. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4),
422–445.
Klocko, B., & Justis, R. J. (2019). Leadership challenges of the rural school principal. The Rural
Educator, 40(3), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v40i3.571
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and
achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research,
88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators?
A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 52, 711–753.
Lamb, S., Glover, S., & Walstab, A. (2014, August). Educational disadvantage and regional
rural schools [Paper presentation]. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER)
Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Lambersky, J. (2016). Understanding the human side of school leadership: Principals’ impact on
teachers’ morale, self-efficacy, stress, and commitment. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 15(4), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1181188
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. Wallace Foundation.
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/documents/how-leadership-influen
ces-student-learning.pdf
Lockmiller, C. A. (2015). Administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math and science
teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 75–109.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616660
Ma, X., & Marion, R. (2021). Exploring how instructional leadership affects teacher efficacy: A
multilevel analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1),
188–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219888742
Mahler, D., Grobschedl, J., & Harms, U. (2018). Does motivation matter? The relationship
between teachers’ self-efficacy and enthusiasm and students’ performance. PLoS One,
13(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207252
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Masumoto, M., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case study of leadership practices and school
community interrelationships in high performing, high-poverty, rural California high
schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(1), 1–18.
McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive
theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8, 22–33.
Moffa, E. D., & Mchenry-Sorber, E. (2018). Learning to be rural: Lessons about being rural in
teacher education programs. The Rural Educator, 39(1), 26–40.
Mombourquette, C., & Adams, P. (2017, December 8). Using generative leadership to empower
vice principals to be instruction leaders. Presentation at CSSE, Regina, SK.
Northern Lights School Division. (2012). AP103-Analysis of achievement test and diploma exam
results. https://www.nlpsab.ca/download/137224
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). What makes urban schools
different? (PISA in Focus No. 28). https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46l8w342jc-en

Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Island
Press.
Pashiardis, P., Savvides, V., Lytra, E., & Angelidou, K. (2011). Successful school leadership in
rural contexts: The case of Cyprus. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 39(5), 536–553.
Petta, K., Smith, R., Chaseling, M., & Markopoulos, C. (2019). Generative dialogue: A concept
analysis. Management in Education, 33(2), 53–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618780978
Pianta, R. C. (2012). Implementing observation protocols: Lessons for K–12 education from the
field of early childhood (ERIC Report ED535604).
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/05/pdf/
observation_protocols.pdf
Preston, J. P., & Barnes, K. E. R. (2017). Successful leadership in rural schools: Cultivating
collaboration. The Rural Educator, 38(1), 6–15.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1225156.pdf
Ramazan, C., & Hanifi, P. (2018). Examining the relationship between school principals’
instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy.
The International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550–567.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0089
Renihan, P., & Noonan, B. (2012). Principals as assessment leaders in rural schools. The Rural
Educator, 33(3), 1–8.

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., &, Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An
analysis of differential effects of leadership type. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
Şahin, S. (2011). The relationship between instructional leadership style and school culture
(Izmir case). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 1920–1927.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ962681
Silverman, S. K., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Teacher efficacy. In E. Anderman & L. Anderman
(Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 915–920).
Macmillan Reference.
Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069.
https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
Stelmach, B. L. (2011). A synthesis of international rural education issues and responses. The
Rural Educator, 32(2), 32–42. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ987606.pdf
Stelmach, B. L. (2020). Adams, P., Mombourquette, C., & Townsend, D. (2019): Leadership in
education: The power of generative dialogue. [Review of the book The power of
generative dialogue, by P. Adams, C. Mombourquette, & D. Townsend]. Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 193, 143–146.
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/issue/view/5213
Stilaste, G. G. (2005). The influence of the mass media on the life plans of rural students.
Russian Education & Society, 47(12), 46–60.

Sullivan, K., McConney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2018). A comparison of rural educational
disadvantage in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand using OECD’s PISA. SAGE Open.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018805791
Timperley, H. (2005). Instructional leadership challenges: The case of using student achievement
information for instructional improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 3–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760590924591
Wallin, D., & Newton, P. (2013). Instructional leadership of the rural teaching principal: Double
the trouble or twice the fun? International Studies in Educational Administration, 41(2),
19–31.
Wallin, D., Newton, P., Jutras, M., & Adilman, J. (2019). “I’m not where I want to be”: Teaching
principals’ instructional leadership practices. The Rural Educator, 40(2), 23–32.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic
performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).
https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/291
White, S., & Kline, J. (2012). Developing a rural teacher education curriculum package. The
Rural Educator, 33(2), 36–43.
http://epubs.library.msstate.edu/index.php/ruraleducator/issue/view/16
Wilcox, K. C., & Lawson, H. A. (2018). Teachers’ agency, efficacy, engagement, and emotional
resilience during policy innovation implementation. Journal of Educational Change,
19(2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9313-0

Winheller, S., Hattie, J., & Brown, G. L. (2013). Factors influencing early adolescents’
mathematics achievement: High-quality teaching rather than relationships. Learning
Environments Research, 16, 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9106-6
Woods, P. A., & Roberts, A. (2019). Collaborative school leadership in a global society: A
critical perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5),
663–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218759088

Charlee Mappin - Instructional Leadership - May 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charlee Mappin - Instructional Leadership - May 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPROVING PROFESSIONAL GROWTH THROUGH INQUIRY

IMPROVING TEACHER PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND EFFICACY THROUGH

Presented to the Gordon Albright School of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Master of Education

EEA 650 Leadership Project

Instructional Leadership: Improving Teacher Professional Growth and Efficacy

(Heather Henderson, Canadian

The journey of earning a Master of Education in Leadership degree and completing a

capstone has been a rewarding experience.

away from home. Thank you for cheering me on.

throughout this learning journey.

I was completing my studies.

knowledge and leadership capacity.

Keywords: instructional leadership, self-efficacy, leadership effectiveness, rural

principals, teaching principal, instructional coaching, generative dialogue

Rural Challenges for School Leaders 6

Competing With the World 7

Statement of Capstone Question 10

Significance of the Capstone Study 11

Outline of the Remainder of the Paper 11

Chapter 2: Literature Review 12

Teacher Effectiveness and Efficaciousness 12

The Importance of Teacher Self-Efficacy 14

Beginning Teacher Self-Efficacy and Retention in a Rural Setting 15

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Burnout 16

Instructional Leadership and Self-Efficacy 17

Teaching Principals and Instructional Leadership in a Rural Setting 18

Fostering Positive Relationships With Teachers 22

Chapter 3: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusions 28

Preparing Quality Teachers for a Rural Setting 29

Improving Professional Growth Through Inquiry 31

Recommendations for Further Research 33

Instructional Leadership: Teacher Professional Growth Through Inquiry

Rural Challenges for School Leaders

hockey gloves in their locker.

comments carefully in the presence of those parents. Confidentiality is the paramount of

the local hockey rink.

As well as balancing professional relationships and friendships with parents, that

Competing With the World

(2013), as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment, academic

areas (Sullivan et al., 2018, p. 6).

In rural settings, it is important for principals to understand these academic

Hogrebe & Tate, 2010; Wenglinsky, 2002; Winheller et al., 2013).

instructional leadership as one of the nine competencies to be followed by school leaders.

quality of teaching and learning in the classroom is meaningful and competent.

assignments in conjunction with their administrative responsibilities. McCormick (2001) found

improving their own instructional practice and building their self-efficacy.

contributing to student achievement, leadership’s effect is second only to classroom instruction.

growth and efficacy of their teachers.

Statement of Capstone Question

through the use of inquiry to develop professional growth plans?

capstone study, definitions are as follows:

optimal learning environments.

Self-efficacy: Confidence in one’s ability to select and use appropriate teaching

behaviours effectively to influence student learning.

Significance of the Capstone Study

impact of their decisions on the long-term success of their communities.

Outline of the Remainder of the Paper

Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature on leadership practices that improve

generative dialogue and increased support to beginning teachers.

Chapter 2: Literature Review