Original Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Trust in principals, leaders’ 1–21
ª The Author(s) 2020

focus on instruction, teacher Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143220968170
collaboration, and teacher journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

self-efficacy: testing a multilevel

mediation model

Ömür Çoban , Nedim Özdemir

and Mehmet Şükrü Bellibaş

Abstract
A vast amount of contemporary research has been devoted to defining effective school leadership
roles and practices and measuring their influence on school processes, structures and outcomes.
This paper examines the effects of trust in principals and school leaders’ focus on instruction on
teacher collaboration and teacher self-efficacy. Using teacher survey data collected from 45 lower
secondary Turkish schools across the country in the 2018–2019 academic year, this study employs
multilevel structural equation modelling with Bayesian estimation to investigate the structural
relationships between trust in principals, alongside leaders’ focus on instruction, and teacher
collaboration and teacher self-efficacy. The study confirms previous research, indicating that trust
in principals has a crucial role in teachers’ emphasis on instruction and that these principals’
instructional leadership practices enhance teachers’ sense of efficacy both directly and indirectly
through teacher collaboration. The research concludes that, while the way these practices are
carried out might differ across contexts, the principals’ leadership practices focusing on teaching
and learning still matter for teachers’ beliefs and practices in non-western countries. Implications
for policy, practice and further research are discussed.

Keywords
Focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, teacher self-efficacy, trust in principal

Introduction
A vast amount of contemporary research on educational management and leadership (EDLM) has
been devoted to defining effective school leadership roles and practices and measuring their
influence on school processes, structures and outcomes. The scholarly interest in understanding

Corresponding author:
Ömür Çoban, Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University, Yunus Emre Campus, Karaman, 70100 Turkey.
Email: cobanomur@gmail.com
2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

effective school leadership roles and practices has resulted in the development of several substan-
tial leadership models, including, but not limited to, instructional leadership (Bellibas and Liu,
2017; Hallinger and Heck, 1996), transformational leadership (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008; Sun
and Leithwood, 2012) and distributed leadership (Heck and Hallinger, 2010; Liu et al., 2020;
Ozdemir and Demircioglu, 2015). Such research over almost the past quarter-century has now
confidently suggested that such school leadership occupies a central position to promote school
improvement and student learning (Bryk et al., 2010; Hallinger and Heck, 1996).
Drawing upon the available literature, we know that principals’ explicit focus on instruction is a
driving force for a school to achieve increased student learning outcomes (Bryk et al., 2010;
Goddard et al., 2019; Özdemir and Yalçın, 2019; Robinson et al., 2008; Sebastian et al., 2017).
This emphasis on improving teaching and learning also generates substantial potential to create a
school environment in which teachers engage in collaborative work (Blase and Blase, 1999;
Goddard et al., 2015), as well as experiencing more job satisfaction and feeling greater efficacy
(Goddard et al., 2015). The current knowledge base in EDLM research, however, lacks empirical
evidence regarding how effective leadership is defined, as well as whether, and to what extent, it
influences the processes and outcomes of schools in the context of developing nations (Walker and
Hallinger, 2015). Besides, only a little research has been conducted on the development and
validation of complex multilevel models in which different variables such as trust in principal,
teacher collaboration, focus on instruction, and teacher self-efficacy (TSE) is located. Hence, with
the present study, we intend to center our focus on the impact of school leadership on teachers’
behaviours and emotions in Turkey, by examining the relations among some critical phenomena
for school improvement, including teachers’ trust in principals, principals’ focus on instruction,
and teacher collaboration and self-efficacy (e.g. Bryk et al., 2010; Goddard et al., 2015; Hallinger
and Heck, 1996). More specifically, the current research aims to provide an understanding of the
extent to which principals’ focus on instructional issues influences teacher collaboration and self-
efficacy, as well as whether trust in principals plays a role in principals’ decisions to focus on
instructional matters in Turkey.
Turkey is one of the developing countries (United Nations, 2019), and the education system
consists of 12 years of compulsory education in the form of 4 (elementary) þ 4 (middle) þ 4
(high). Especially at the end of the second and third 4 years, students take a national exam. Their
success in this exam has significant consequences for the future. Unlike those in many Anglo-
Saxon countries, the Turkish education system has been profoundly centralized since the estab-
lishment of modern Turkey, and the Turkish Ministry of National Education (MoNE) sits at the top
of this hierarchy. MoNE has long been responsible for the decision-making involved in all critical
planning, staffing, coordination, budgeting and policy monitoring throughout the country. Despite
the intention to empower local authorities and schools over the past decades, only a few policy
changes have occurred to this end. For instance, in 2014, a policy shift took place that moved from
the idea of national inspectors observing classrooms and providing teachers with feedback to a
norm of school principals working with teachers for improving teaching and learning. Such a
change in the national policy aimed to move the focus of principals from solely out-of-classroom
managerial issues to involvement in the classroom through influencing core instructional practices.
In this research, we are interested in examining the variation in principals’ focus on teaching, to
understand better the extent to which principals influence the collaboration practices and self-
efficacy of teachers. The findings of this study could contribute considerably to the growing
knowledge base regarding the antecedents and outcomes of leadership in broader international
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 3

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

contexts. It could also contribute to societies and countries with educational policies and structures
similar to those of Turkey.

Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework of this study is derived from several decades of theoretical and empiri-
cal studies in the field of EDLM (see Figure 1). This body of knowledge is concerned predomi-
nantly with the antecedents (e.g., trust in principals) and outcomes (e.g., teacher collaboration,
TSE, teacher learning, and student achievement) of leadership (e.g. Bellibas and Liu, 2017; Gumus
et al., 2013; Klassen and Chiu, 2010; Shengnan and Hallinger, 2020; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy,
2007; Wu et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2019). This previous work is divided into two related strands.
The first line of research scrutinizes the cultural, institutional and societal contexts and their
influence on various leadership roles, behaviours and practices. The second line of research has
been interested in providing an understanding of how such roles, practices and behaviours could
influence the school processes, culture and climate, as well as people’s behaviours, practices and
outcomes. Consistent with this previous knowledge base, in the present study we centred our
attention on a prominent topic: principals’ focus on instructional improvement, incorporating both
its antecedents and outcomes. We first propose that teachers’ trust in principals is a prerequisite for
school leaders to become productively involved in instructional matters. Second, we presume that
principals’ focus on teaching would positively influence both teachers’ collaboration and their self-
efficacy perceptions.
The conceptual framework for this study involves seven hypotheses. The following section
provides a discussion of the theoretical and empirical roots of each concept in the conceptual
model and offers a basis for each hypothesis.
4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Teacher self-efficacy (TSE). The concept of self-efficacy depends on Bandura’s (1977) social cog-
nitive theory. He defines self-efficacy as individuals’ beliefs and thoughts about how well they can
demonstrate the behaviours and efforts necessary to cope with the situations they face. Self-
efficacy has garnered substantial attention in the educational sector and is often associated with
teachers and their efforts to succeed in classroom practice. TSE refers to ‘a judgment of his or her
capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among
those students who may be difficult or unmotivated’ (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001: 783). Our
definition of self-efficacy in the present study is influenced by Geijsel et al.’s (2009) work, in
which the concept is characterized as the belief of teachers to effectively perform the teaching
function.
Previous research has provided convincing evidence that the self-efficacy of teachers matters,
both for their performance and for student learning outcomes. For example, Burić and Kim (2020)
conducted research with 94 secondary school teachers and found a positive relationship between
TSE and instructional quality. The difference in teachers’ perceptions of efficacy might be the
main explanation for why a teacher may perform better than another with similar characteristics.
The impact of self-efficacy can also influence psychosocial elements such as trust, openness, job
satisfaction and professional motivation (Bümen, 2009). Moreover, the instructional methods and
techniques used by teachers with strong self-efficacy beliefs are better planned, student-centered
and based on humanist ideals (Goddard et al., 2004a). The study that was conducted in Jordan with
both elementary and secondary school teachers offers evidence that teachers’ belief in their
capability to deal with classroom problems has a significant and positive relationship with their
classroom management skills (Abu-Tineh et al., 2011) and student achievement (Shahzad and
Naureen, 2017). Zee and Koomen (2016) reviewed 40 years of research on TSE and found positive
relationships between TSE and students’ academic achievement, their attitudes and classroom
practices, their psychological well-being, job satisfaction and commitment. Some studies, con-
ducted in Turkey, emphasized that the self-efficacy levels of elementary school teachers are higher
than that of the teachers in secondary schools (Eker, 2014; Gökyer and Bakcak, 2018). In sum-
mary, strengthening teachers’ TSE perceptions would enhance their capacity to cope with prob-
lems within the school and classroom, improve the quality of their teaching, and increase their
satisfaction with their profession, which could eventually improve student learning outcomes in
schools.
In the present study, we are interested in the antecedents of TSE, examining multifaceted factors
associated with the school organization and teacher characteristics to shed light on means through
which teachers’ efficacy perceptions could be enhanced. Researchers have investigated various
teacher demographic variables and found two key variables (gender and experience, respectively)
that could account for teacher efficacy (Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Specifically, studies have found
that female teachers have stronger self-efficacy perceptions than their male colleagues (Alwaleedi,
2017; Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Moreover, teachers’ years of teaching experience have been
positively associated with their self-efficacy, suggesting increasing levels of confidence and satis-
faction over early and mid-career stages (Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Based on the available liter-
ature, we expect that both teachers’ gender and job experience affect their self-efficacy
(Hypotheses 1a and 1b).

Teacher collaboration. In organizational research, the concept of collaboration is based on social

learning and adult learning theories. Within an educational context, these theories focus on
improving the learning environment by creating opportunities for individuals to work collectively
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 5

and learn from each other (Goddard et al., 2015; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008). In education,
teacher collaboration refers to teachers’ experiences in exchanging information with their col-
leagues, as well as their opportunities for learning from each other (Geijsel et al., 2009). Moreover,
teacher collaboration is one of the most vital components of professional learning communities
that foster change in teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2017) and student achievement (Goddard et al.,
2007). In this study, we defined teacher collaboration based on Geijsel et al.’s (2009) study, which
focused on the two key elements of exchanging ideas and engaging in reflective practice about
classroom instruction. Goddard et al. (2015) emphasized that schools should have a collaborative
culture for school improvement. A learning environment that makes an impact on teaching and
learning should be cooperative and friendly, and promote collegial support within the school to
solve problems (Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008).
Nielsen et al. (2008) emphasized the importance of three factors for supporting effective teacher
collaboration: professional development embedded within school and classroom practices, clearly
defined learning goals, and structures and processes that support teaching innovations. Teacher
collaboration that focuses on classroom practices and student learning can promote professional
learning, resulting in an improvement in instructional practices in primary schools (grades 1–8) in
the Netherlands (Geijsel et al., 2009). This type of collaborative practice helps teachers transfer
theories and methods of teaching to classroom practices. Better quality teaching, influenced by
collegiality, also improves student learning outcomes and decreases student dropout rates and
absenteeism (Chen et al., 2020). Additionally, peer mentoring, coaching and professional solidar-
ity can help teachers in improving their problem-solving skills and generating better student
learning outcomes in secondary schools (Goddard et al., 2004b). Teacher collaboration creates
an opportunity for each teacher to share ideas and materials, discuss the issues they face, and
receive support from their colleagues to overcome challenging circumstances. Such collegial
support is essential for teacher professional learning that enables them to develop a greater sense
of ability to resolve problems associated with teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2017). Several
research findings support the notion that well-supported teacher collaboration can lead to increased
TSE (Duyar et al., 2013; Puchner and Taylor, 2006; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2007; Wu et al.,
2020). Therefore, we propose that teacher collaboration will have a positive impact on TSE
(Hypothesis 2).

Leaders’ focus on instruction. The idea of school principals’ focus on classroom instruction can be
traced back to school effectiveness research spanning multiple decades, through which scholars
concluded that schools that achieved higher student learning outcomes had principals who strived
for improving teachers’ instructional practices and student achievement (Hallinger, 2011). Many
studies have revealled that strong instructional leaders focus on instruction, especially by manag-
ing reading programmes and monitoring classroom processes (Blase and Blase, 1999; Bossert
et al., 1982). Although some researches show that principals’ allocation of time to managerial
leadership has a stronger impact on student achievement than their allocation of time to instruc-
tional leadership (e.g. Grissom and Loeb, 2011; Grissom, Loeb and Master, 2013; May, Huff and
Goldring, 2012), many researchers provided evidence that instructional leadership is a driving
force for student learning (Bryk et al., 2010; Hallinger, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). Recent studies
have shown that school principals frequently focus on the importance of creating high expectations
for teachers, increasing student achievement, evaluating instructional practices, coordinating cur-
riculum, emphasizing necessary skills, and monitoring students’ progress (Bellibas, 2015; Hallin-
ger, 2011; Ozdemir, 2019). In the current study, the idea of principals’ focus on instruction is based
6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

on Supovitz, Sirinides, and May’s (2010) work that highlights principals’ endeavours to observe
and evaluate classroom practices, monitor the quality of teaching, and account for school
resources.
In recent years, studies have suggested a positive relationship between principals’ leadership
behaviours and TSE (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008; Zheng et al., 2019). Research demonstrates that
principals’ focus on creating a vision and goals for student learning, mentoring teachers and
students for success, and encouraging teacher professional development can enhance teachers’
sense of self-efficacy (e.g. Çalık et al., 2012; McGuigan and Hoy, 2006; Shengnan and Hallinger,
2020). Through this strong instructional leadership, teachers find themselves in a learning envi-
ronment that nurtures their ability to deal with classroom issues and enhances their teaching
practices in a way that leads to enhanced student learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2017).
More specifically, drawing on a multi-country dataset gathered from TALIS, Bellibas and Liu
(2017) suggests that principals’ emphasis on critical instructional practices has a positive relation-
ship with the three domains of TSE: instructional methods, classroom management and student
engagement. Similarly, Duyar et al. (2013) concludes that principals’ classroom observation is
directly related to well-built TSE. Based on such scholarly work, we presume that principals’ focus
on instruction will have a positive impact on TSE (Hypothesis 3).
The literature suggests that principals influence classroom practices and student outcomes
indirectly by creating a positive learning climate (Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger, 2011). Their
leadership practices are vital to developing a productive environment that motivates teachers to
take on the responsibilities of school improvement (Ozdemir, 2019; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008).
A principal can and should establish, promote and sustain a school environment that boosts
collegial interactions among the teaching staff. Research evidence shows that when principals
emphasize school goals for teaching and student learning, work on instructional improvement, and
foster a positive learning climate, teachers demonstrate more willingness to work together (Liu et
al., 2020; Lockton, 2019). School leaders’ supervision of instruction is more likely to result in
increased collaboration among primary school teachers as well (Gumus et al., 2013). Consonant
with this literature, a growing number of scholars have recommended that principals should
purposefully establish departmental or school-wide teacher groups and encourage these groups’
collaborative work toward the betterment of teaching practices, as well as student learning (Hal-
linger et al., 2019). We, therefore, propose that, when principals emphasize teaching and learning
in their daily practices, teachers are more likely to collaborate for the purposes of professional
learning (Hypothesis 4). Based on our assumption that principals’ focus on instruction will influ-
ence teacher collaboration that is positively related to TSE, we will also propose that there will be
an indirect relationship between principals’ focus on instruction and TSE via teacher collaboration
(Hypothesis 6).

Trust in principal. Trust often refers to ‘respect, personal regard, competence in core responsibilities,
and personal integrity’ (Bryk and Schneider, 2002: 23). It is ‘a psychological state comprising the
intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of
another’ (Rousseau et al., 1998: 394). Such positive expectations are comprised of several dimen-
sions, including ’reliability, openness, competence, compassion . . . , or benevolence, integrity and
competence’ (Mishra and Mishra, 2013: 60). EDLM researchers suggest that trust between teach-
ers and their principal is a cornerstone for all endeavours to promote school effectiveness and
student achievement (e.g. Louis, 2007; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015), as trust in the prin-
cipal simplifies relations, in addition to making school actors open-hearted (Berkovich, 2018).
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 7

Bryk and Schneider (2002) note that relational trust levels between the principals and teachers are
the heart of trust. Principals build a climate of trust through openness to communication, support-
ing cooperation, and providing for the professional development of the teacher (Blase and Blase,
1999; Hallinger et al., 2019). Principals should balance their task-oriented and relationship-
oriented roles to create this climate (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). In this study, the notion
of trust in a principal is based on the conceptualization of Wahlstrom and Louis (2008), who define
it as an atmosphere of trust where principals help teachers in instructional issues, give them
individual support to enhance their teaching practices, and encourage collaborative work among
them.
Teachers’ feelings and thoughts in relation to their principal are the result of emotional
dynamics in the leader/follower relationship (Hallinger et al., 2019). School success increases
when teachers have a high level of trust in their principals. Previous research has indicated that
principals’ openness makes teachers more confident, and in the collaborative climate that such
principals create, teachers can focus more on instruction (Louis, 2007). On the other hand, an
atmosphere of distrust between principals and teachers blocks learning outcomes, and teachers and
principals in such a climate cannot focus on instruction (Bryk and Schneider, 2002). Research
indicated that trust in principals played a role of mediation in the relationship between distributed
leadership and TSE of elementary school teachers (Zheng et al., 2019). Therefore, we suggest that
trust in principals has a positive impact on principals’ focus on instruction (Hypothesis 5). Finally,
when previous assumptions are held, we will expect that trust in principals has an indirect effect on
TSE, created through principals’ focus on instruction and teacher collaboration (Hypothesis 7).

Method
In this study, we employed a cross-sectional survey design using quantitative research methods.
In this section, we describe the sample and data collection procedure, introduce variables and
measures, and explain the data analysis steps.

Sample
The study sample was comprised of teachers from lower secondary schools (5th–8th grades) in 12
regions in Turkey during the Spring semester of the 2018–2019 academic year. In this study, we used
proportionate stratified sampling (Daniel, 2012), a useful strategy when the population involves
various subgroups. Proportionate stratified sampling allowed us to determine an appropriate number
of schools in each subgroup based on their number relative to the population. As an EU member,
Turkey uses the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), a geocode standard
employed in international exams such as PISA, TIMMS and PIAAC. We used this code to determine
the school sample to obtain a sample that could represent the entire national population. Referring
sampling showed a wide range from Turkey’s most disadvantaged regions to the most privileged
areas. At the time of data collection, there were 18,745 lower secondary schools in Turkey.
Our data has a two-level hierarchical structure, consisting first of schools, and then of teachers
within schools. Given this context, we used a two-stage sampling method. In the first stage, we
selected the schools by using stratified random sampling via subgroups based on NUTS. The
number of students in these schools ranged from 450 to 1,700. The majority of students (62%)
have moderate academic success (their grade point average (GPA)is between 55 and 70). A total of
80% of students came from low- and middle-income families. We aimed to establish contact with
8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 1. The sampling of the study.

All Sampling

NUTS-1 region Schools (N) % Schools (n) % Provinces

TR1 _Istanbul 1667 8.9 4 8.9 _Istanbul

TR2 West Marmara 697 3.7 2 4.4 Balıkesir
TR3 Aegean 2269 12.1 5 11.1 _Izmir-Muğla
TR4 East Marmara 1568 8.4 4 8.9 Bursa
TR5 West Anatolia 1464 7.8 3 6.7 Ankara and Karaman
TR6 Mediterranean 2497 13.3 6 13.3 Antalya-Isparta-Mersin
TR7 Middle Anatolia 1298 6.9 3 6.7 Aksaray-Niğde
TR8 West Black Sea 1259 6.7 3 6.7 Samsun-Çankırı
TR9 East Black Sea 817 4.4 2 4.4 Rize
TRA North-east Anatolia 1046 5.6 2 4.4 Elazığ-Ağrı
TRB Middle-east Anatolia 1401 7.5 4 8.9 Bitlis
TRC South-east Anatolia 2762 14.7 7 15.6 Gaziantep
Total 18,745 100 45 100
NUTS: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics.

at least 15 teachers from each school to reveal the common perception of the variables under
investigation. In this study, we only focused on school principals and collected teachers’ opinions
to determine the level of focus on instruction and principal trust, as well as behaviours of the school
principals, collaboration practices and self-efficacy levels. We interviewed the school principals
on the phone before sending our survey form to ensure data qualification. We also shared an
official letter with the principals and teachers in the schools. During the data collection process,
one teacher from each school was selected to distribute the scales and conduct the data collection
process. They distributed scales to willing teachers to prevent principals’ bias in distributing the
forms. The selected teachers filled out the scales, and the research team checked them simultane-
ously. Table 1 shows the distribution of the sample
As seen in Table 1, we collected data from 614 teachers from 45 lower secondary schools.
Approximately 14 teachers from each school participated in this study. The participation rate of
teachers was approximately 32%. Teachers in multilevel modelling, simulation studies show that
30 or more level-2 units are necessary to accurately estimate standard errors (SEs) (Maas and Hox,
2005). More than half of the teachers were female (60%), and 54% of them had 1–10 years of job
experience. The majority of them (94%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 61% of them had worked at
least 1–2 years in the same school. The distribution of core content areas was 32% Turkish, 23%
math, 16% science, 12% social studies, 11% English language, and 6% other.

Variables and measures

We obtained data through four scales, including (i) TSE, (ii) teacher collaboration, (iii) focus on
instruction, and (iv) teacher-principal trust. Before conducting the research, the team adapted these
four measurement tools to the Turkish language and culture by using Hambleton and Patsula’s
(1999) adaptation process. First, we asked three scholars who had experience in developing tests
about educational administration and were familiar with both languages and cultures to translate
each scale from English into Turkish. Then, the research team checked the translations and
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 9

Table 2. Fit indices and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) based on multilevel confirmatory factor
analysis (MCFA) results.

Fit indices ICCs

Measure x2 df x2/df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMRW SRMRB ICC (1) ICC (2)

TSE 3.918 3 1.306 .022 .999 .997 .008 .056 .13 .66
TC 54.306 13 4.177 .080 .956 .932 .034 .090 .06 .46
LFI 29.642 9 3.294 .061 .988 .973 .014 .016 .28 .80
TP 22.510 8 2.814 .054 .992 .980 .012 .014 .26 .83

Note: TSE: teacher self-efficacy; TC: teacher collaboration; LFI: leaders’ focus on instruction; TP: trust in principal;
x2: chi-square; df: degrees of freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; CFI: comparative fit index;
TLI: Tucker Lewis index; SRMRW: standardized root mean square residual value for within; SRMRB: standardized root mean
square residual value for between; ICC: intra-class correlation coefficient.

compiled them into a single form. Next, the other three scholars translated these modified instru-
ments back into English. Finally, the research team made corrections on translation errors and the
clarity of sentences that could lead to differences in meaning between the two languages.
After the translation process, we carried out a pilot study with 292 teachers from lower sec-
ondary schools. A multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) was performed to validate each
measure and examine aggregation for variables at the school level by using the intra-class correla-
tion coefficient (ICC). Table 2 presents the fit indices and ICC results based on MCFA.
The measures had acceptable fit indices if the x2/df ratio was below 5; if the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual value for within
(SRMRW) and standardized root mean square residual value for between (SRMRB) were below
.08; and if the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis index (TLI) were above .90 (Hu and
Bentler, 1999). The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (1) for each measure was above .05,
indicating the suitability of aggregating teachers’ scores into the school level. For assessing the
reliability of group-level means, the ICC (2) for each measure had to be between .46 and .83,
demonstrating good indices (Fleiss, 1986).
The first of the four scales used for this project, the TSE scale, was created by van Woerkom
(2003) in Dutch, and adapted into English by Geijsel et al. (2009). This scale measures the extent
to which teachers perceive a sense of self-efficacy about their professional learning environment
and development opportunities. Sample items from the scale include, ‘Do you feel that you are
able to work effectively?’ ‘Are you satisfied with the quality of your work?’ and ‘Do you feel
that you are being successful in your work?’ The scale was presented for this project as a 5-point
Likert type (ranging from 1 ¼ never to 5 ¼ always), to measure the response frequency for the
items.
The teacher collaboration scale was developed by Geijsel et al. (2009) to measure teachers’
experiences of professional collaboration that extend their levels of exchanging information and
offer opportunities to learn from each other. Sample items from the scale include, ‘My colleagues
give me positive feedback about my teaching,’ ‘My colleagues pass on to me things they have
learned from further training’ and ‘My colleagues let me observe their lessons.’ The scale was
prepared as a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree), to
measure the response frequency of the items.
10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

The focus on instruction scale, developed by Supovitz et al. (2010), includes five items for
gauging teachers’ perceptions of principals’ expertise and focus on instruction. Sample items from
the scale include ‘Knows what is going on in classrooms,’ ‘Monitors quality of instruction’ and
‘Encourages sharing of ideas.’ The scale was prepared as a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 ¼
never to 5 ¼ always) to measure the response frequency.
The final scale used for the project, the teacher–principal trust scale, was developed by Wahlstrom
and Louis (2008) to measure the trust relationship between principals and teachers. The scale consists
of five items, including ‘I discuss instructional issues with my principal(s),’ ‘School’s principal(s)
gives you individual support to help you improve your teaching practices,’ ‘School’s principal(s)
develops an atmosphere of caring and trust’ and ‘School’s principal(s) encourages collaborative
work among staff’. The scale was prepared for this project as a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from
1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree) to measure the response frequency for the items.

Data analysis
We analyzed the data according to the research hypotheses by using Mplus 8 software. There were
no missing data since we collected the data using Google form. The data showed normal distri-
bution based on the examination of the skewness and kurtosis coefficients and histogram, box-line
and Q-Q graphs. The skewness and kurtosis coefficients of the groups were between –2 and þ2
(George and Mallery, 2010), and the points were close to the 45-degree reference line on the Q-Q
plots. In light of this information, the scores did not show a significant deviation from the normal
distribution. We calculated descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation (SD), skew-
ness and kurtosis. We also checked the Cronbach Alpha (a) reliability co-efficient. Pearson
correlations were calculated to examine whether there was a relationship among variables.
We performed multilevel structural equation modelling (MSEM) by using Bayesian estimation
with latent variables (Muthén and Muthén, 2010). The primary assumption of this analysis was that
teachers’ perceptions in the same school are more homogeneous than those in different schools
(Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). MSEM is used for unbiased estimates for the relationship among
variables. This method decreases bias in the estimation of direct and indirect effects and ensures
accuracy in confidence interval (CI) coverage (Preacher et al., 2011). We employed the Bayesian
estimation method (in Mplus) to strengthen the test of significance of effects because we selected 45
schools from 18,745 schools. Ten thousand iterations were used for this estimation, using items as
observed and main constructs as latent variables. This model included TSE, gender and job expe-
rience at the individual level (Level 1). At the school level, the variables used were TSE, teacher
collaboration, principals’ focus on instruction, and trust in principal. The fit indices used included
chi-square, degree of freedom (df), RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, and TLI values (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Results
Firstly, we conducted a Pearson correlation analysis. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and
correlations among variables from this analysis
The results showed that the skewness and kurtosis coefficients were between –2 and þ2,
indicating normal distribution of the variables. In terms of the internal consistency reliability of
the scales, the Cronbach alphas were relatively high, ranging from .84 to .94 (Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2013). Table 3 also presents a moderate and positive relationship between TSE and other
school-level variables, including teacher collaboration (r ¼ .38; p < .01), leaders’ focus on
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 11

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations among variables.

Variable (within) Mean SD a S K TSE JE G

TSE 4.14 .61 .84 –1.05 1.86 1 –.025 –.090

JE 1.61 .73 – .78 –.75 1 –.097*
G – – – –.35 –1.77 1

Variable (between) Mean SD a S K TSE TC LFI TP

TSE 4.12 .26 .89 –.46 1.40 1 .381** .315* .421**

TC 3.81 .25 .88 .04 –.38 1 .371* .349*
LFI 3.92 .54 .93 –1.10 1.60 1 .945**
TP 3.92 .56 .94 –1.11 1.51 1
Note: TSE: teachers’ self-efficacy; JE: job experience; G: gender (female is the reference group); TC: teacher collaboration; LFI:
leaders’ focus on instruction; TP: trust in principal; SD: standard deviation; S: skewness; K: kurtosis; a: Cronbach alpha.
*p <.05; **p <.01.

Figure 2. Model results.

instruction (r ¼ .32; p < .05), and trust in principal (r ¼ .42; p < .01). This means that these
variables are positively related.
Second, we performed MSEM by using Bayesian estimation to examine the direct and indirect
relationship between these variables with 95% CI. First, we checked the model result, which
indicated a good fit: x2 (df ¼ 144) ¼ 310.99; RMSEA ¼ .043; CFI ¼ .919; TLI ¼ 902; SRMRW
¼ .008; SRMRB ¼ .096. Figure 2 shows the MSEM results with SEs. Table 4 presents the MSEM
estimates, SEs, and CIs for the model.
12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 4. Multilevel structural equation modelling (MSEM) estimates, standard errors (SEs) and confidence
intervals (CIs) for the model.

Coefficient 95% confidence interval

Construct Estimate SE Lower bound Upper bound P

Direct effects (within)

G ! TSE –.089 .045 –.179 –.005 .022
JE ! TSE –.007 .032 –.070 .057 .408
Direct effects (between)
TC ! TSE .382 .205 .063 .896 .010
PFI ! TSE .151 .088 .020 .328 .039
PFI ! TC .215 .091 .057 .416 .004
TP ! LFI .855 .078 .718 1.023 .000
Indirect effects
PFI ! TC ! TSE .078 .051 .006 .201 .014
TP ! LFI ! TSE .128 .076 .017 .283 .039
TP ! LFI ! TC .184 .079 .048 .359 .004
TP ! LFI ! TC ! TSE .067 .044 .006 .174 .014
Total indirect effect
TP ! TSE .201 .075 .060 .357 .003
Note: This analysis is based on 10,000 iterations by using Bayesian estimation.
TSE: teacher self-efficacy; TC: teacher collaboration; LFI: leaders’ focus on instruction; TP: trust in principal.

At the individual teacher level, female TSE was lower than male teachers (b ¼ –.09, p < .05,
95% CI [–.18, –.01]), confirming Hypothesis 1a. This means that, on average, male teachers have
higher perceptions of their ability to deal with the problem and improve student learning. On the
other hand, job experience (Hypothesis 1b) had no statistically significant effect on TSE (b ¼ –.01,
p > .05, 95% CI [–.07, .06]), implying that teachers’ sense of efficacy does not change with an
increase in years of teaching experience.
Between schools, teacher collaboration has a moderate and statistically significant positive
effect on TSE (b ¼ .38, p < .01, 95% CI [.06, .90]), confirming Hypothesis 2. This finding suggests
that the teacher community established through collaboration and cooperation enhances TSE.
Additionally, principals’ focus on instruction (Hypothesis 3) has a small and statistically signif-
icant positive direct impact on TSE (b ¼ .15, p < .05, 95% CI [.02, .33]), presumably because
principals’ supporting instruction and providing useful feedback increases teachers’ confidence in
overcoming problems in their classroom. This finding illustrates that principals’ focus on instruc-
tion has a small and statistically significant positive direct effect on teacher collaboration (b ¼ .22,
p < .01, 95% CI [.06, .42]), confirming Hypothesis 4. This suggests that principals encourage
teachers to take responsibility out of the classroom to share experimental and reflective practices
with their colleagues. Moreover, trust in principals (Hypothesis 5) has a large and statistically
significant positive impact on principals’ focus on instruction (b ¼ .86, p < .01, 95% CI [.72,
1.02]). This means that a successful and supportive trust atmosphere between principals and
teachers encourages sharing instructional practices openly and interacting with each other
honestly.
Finally, we also examined the indirect relationship between principals’ focus on instruction and
TSE (Hypothesis 6). Principals’ focus on instruction had a small and indirect impact on the study
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 13

sample TSE through the encouragement of teacher collaboration (b ¼ .08, p < .05, 95% CI [.01,
.20]). This means that the increase in principals’ focus on instruction leads to small improvements
in teacher collaboration; such a small increase in teacher collaboration was associated with a slight
improvement in teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Additionally, we tested the indirect effect of trust
on TSE. Teacher–principal trust had an indirect impact on TSE in this study, influenced through
principals’ focus on instruction and teacher collaboration (Hypothesis 7). The total indirect effect
is .20 (p < .01, 95% CI [.06, .36]). It suggests that the increase in teacher–principal trust contributes
to substantial improvements in principal focus on instruction and teacher collaboration; such a
considerable increase in principal focus on instruction together with collaboration was associated
with a slight improvement in teachers’ sense of self-efficacy.

Discussion
In this section of the paper, we begin with a discussion of the limitations regarding variables and
analysis for this study, followed by the interpretation of the main findings, and concluding with
recommendations for policy, practice and future research.

Study limitations
Before interpreting the study’s findings, it is vital to acknowledge the limitations of the current
research. First, data for this study was collected from a total of 45 schools. Although the number of
schools was large enough to perform a multilevel model, it is still small considering the total
number of schools in the country. Additionally, while proportionate sampling was used to ensure a
sample that represented the entire national population, we believe that the generalization of these
findings should still be made with caution. We conducted a mediation model using cross-sectional
data, which could lead to biased estimates of the coefficients (Maxwell and Cole, 2007). To
minimize these limitations, we used the Bayesian estimation method to strengthen the calculation
of direct and indirect effects.
Second, this research is based on a cross-sectional survey design, meaning that we collected
survey data at one point in time. Therefore, the relationships between variables should not be
interpreted as causal effects. We recommend that future studies collect longitudinal data (i.e.
administer surveys during at least two-time points), which enables to use the data collected during
the first survey administration to control for unobserved differences among study participants at
time one. Moreover, we find that both (a) teacher collaboration and (b) principals’ focus on
instruction are associated with TSE. But note that it could be that TSE seems to contribute to
(a) and (b) instead. Due to the cross-sectional nature of this design, the direction of these associa-
tions is unclear.
Third, we relied on teachers’ self-reported perceptions. When self-reporting, participants may
provide answers to each survey item based on what their colleagues or principals want to hear,
instead of what they believe themselves. It is this potential for social desirability bias that may
weaken the validity of the assessment (Bandura, 1997). To avoid this bias, we distributed online
surveys so that teachers could ensure confidentiality and provide more objective responses. We
used MSEM to block biased estimates for the relationship among variables as well. It would be
helpful in the future to collect data not only from teachers but also from principals on their
perceptions of their leadership practices and trust relations with teachers (Ham, Duyar and Gumus,
2015).
14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Interpretation of findings
Our first hypothesis predicted a significant relationship between teachers’ gender and their self-
efficacy. The research findings illustrate that, on average, female teachers have a sense of self-
efficacy that is lower than that of their male colleagues. This means that male teachers possess a
stronger belief in their capability to overcome classroom problems and perform well in their
teaching practices. This research finding, however, contradicts the results of previous studies
(Alwaleedi, 2017; Klassen and Chiu, 2010), which provided evidence that female teachers have
higher self-efficacy beliefs than male teachers. The reason for this could be explained by the
differences in the cultural contexts of the countries under study. Turkey is an eastern country,
where a patriarchal approach is a predominant feature of society. In such societies, the primary
duties of female teachers are described as a mother, housewife and spouse, while career develop-
_
ment activities are perceived as male work (Inandı et al., 2009). Female teachers may have lower
perceptions of self-efficacy because of these more rigid gender roles. Additionally, female teachers
could have additional obstacles to developing themselves professionally when compared with their
male counterparts. Male teachers might find more time and support for professional growth and
practice, both within the school and outside of it in their home lives.
The second part of the first hypothesis predicted that job experience would have a statistically
significant effect on TSE. The research results, however, suggest that years of teaching experience
have no significant impact on TSE. The hypothesis concerning the relationship between teachers’
job experience and TSE was supported by previous research finding that teachers’ job experience
has a significant effect on TSE (e.g. Klassen and Chiu, 2010; Penrose et al., 2007). However, our
findings indicated that teachers’ length of experience did not have a significant impact on TSE in
Turkey. This could be because there is no effective, well-organized professional development
programme or monitoring system to observe teaching practices at the school level due to the
centralized nature of the education system in the country (Bümen, 2009). Research indicates that
when principals enact instructional leadership such as developing vision, monitoring teaching and
providing professional learning opportunities, teachers are likely to develop increased self-efficacy
perceptions (Bellibas and Liu, 2017). Whereas teachers in Turkey are not adequately supported
with professional learning opportunities, resulting in only a slight variation in TSE levels across
individuals with varying job experience. More individualized and school-based professional devel-
opment is needed to focus on diversifying teachers’ classroom practices and improving student
learning outcomes (Bümen et al., 2012). Another possible explanation for the lack of influence of
experience on self-efficacy could be attributed to the particular methods of analysis employed in
this study. Our analysis assumes a linear relationship between years of teaching experience and
teachers’ TSE perceptions – whereas previous research, such as Klassen and Chiu’s (2010) study,
has suggested a non-linear relationship between the two, providing evidence that self-efficacy
increases until the late mid-career and then demonstrates a trend of decline. We believe that future
studies based on non-linear assumptions could provide more reliable and valid results regarding the
relationship between experience and self-efficacy for members of the teaching profession.
Our second assumption was that a positive relationship would exist between teacher collabora-
tion and self-efficacy. The results of the analysis supported this assumption, indicating that the
more teachers collaborate, the higher perceptions of self-efficacy they develop. Schools with
strong supportive relationships among colleagues provide opportunities for teachers to increase
their sense of self-efficacy. Our finding is supported by the previous literature (Duyar et al., 2013;
Puchner and Taylor, 2006; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2007). These studies claim that teachers in
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 15

a supportive climate feel confident and that this climate increases their belief that they can
accomplish educational tasks in the best way possible. However, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
(2007) revealed the relationship between these two variables at the individual level based on the
opinions of the teachers in their studies. Examining teacher cooperation at an individual level
means that their personal perception of collaboration influences their self-efficacy. By treating
collaboration as a school-level variable, this research implies that collaboration arising from the
collective opinion of all teachers within schools is related to individual TSE, which is a more
accurate way of measuring collaboration.
The results also provide evidence to support our third hypothesis, suggesting that principals’
focus on instruction has a statistically significant positive direct impact on TSE. This indicates that
school leaders can directly bolster teachers’ belief regarding their capabilities by observing their
classroom and focusing on student achievement. Consistently, the literature demonstrates that
teachers develop a stronger sense of efficacy when their principals emphasize, encourage and
work on the improvement of teaching and learning (Bellibas and Liu, 2017; Shengnan and Hal-
linger, 2020). However, Wu et al. (2020) found a non-significant relationship between principal
leadership and TSE in the United States by using PISA 2015 data. Within Turkey’s centralized
school culture, principals have traditionally played the role of ‘great man/woman’ or ‘solo’ leader
in their schools (Ozdemir and Demircioglu, 2015), like in China (Shengnan and Hallinger, 2020).
Therefore, principals have the potential to use legal power on teachers’ behaviour (Sezgin and
Koşar, 2010). Instructional leadership practices, emphasizing ‘solo’ leadership (Gumus et al.,
2018) that facilitate the development of teacher beliefs, increase TSE, while leaders who fail to
exhibit these behaviours decrease their self-efficacy (Bellibas and Liu, 2017).
Our fourth finding expresses that principals’ focus on instruction has a positive and significant
direct effect on teacher collaboration. This demonstrates that principals’ focus on instruction
encourages teachers to be more productive in their classes, emboldening them to take responsi-
bility outside the classroom. This finding is parallel to those of several previous studies (Liu et al.,
2020; Lockton, 2019; Ozdemir, 2019; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008). These studies claim that
principals who observed classrooms and created a supportive learning atmosphere encouraged
teachers to share their reflective ideas and to set up a supportive culture and a community based on
solidarity. Another possible reason to explain the positive relationship between the principal focus
on instruction and teacher collaboration could be that lower secondary school principals feel
pressure on rising 8th-grade students’ national exam results in Turkey (Sezgin and Koşar,
2010). Principals who are interested in increasing student achievement in high stake tests empha-
size not only good quality teaching but also school-level collaboration among teachers.
The fifth hypothesis suggests that trust in principals has a significant and positive impact on
principals’ focus on instruction. This means that teachers’ trust in principals is vital for principals’
focus on instruction. This finding overlaps with Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) and Louis’ (2007)
studies, which provided evidence that creating a culture of trust within the school enables princi-
pals to deal with teachers’ resistance to classroom observation and feedback. However, an atmo-
sphere of distrust between principals and teachers prevents principals from supporting teaching
and learning activities in classrooms. This means that principals who are open to communication,
open-hearted, supportive, cooperative and dynamic in facilitating teachers’ professional develop-
ment can quickly build relational trust with teachers; thus, they can easily observe classrooms and
teachers will openly accept their feedback and recommendations about classroom practices
(Darling-Hammond, 2017). Prior studies have emphasized the importance of ‘relational leader-
ship’, which refers to creating learning-oriented norms of trust, mutual respect and open discussion
16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

about difficult issues (Hallinger et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2019). Principals can further develop
their trust relationship with their teachers using these principles of accountability and transparency.
Finally, our findings provide evidence to suggest that there is an indirect relationship between
principals’ focus on instruction and TSE established through teacher collaboration, as well as an
indirect relationship between trust in principal and TSE established through teacher collaboration
and principals’ focus on instruction. This finding supports the available literature, which indicates
that principals who focused on teaching and gained the trust of their teachers would ensure teacher
collaboration and TSE (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). The relationship between teachers
and principals based on trust seems to be supportive and productive both for teachers and princi-
pals. This type of partnership supports principals’ endeavors to work closely with teachers to
improve teaching and learning. Supported by principals’ instructional leadership, a trust-based
school environment builds a collaborative school culture that enhances teachers’ beliefs in their
skills to tackle educational issues and promote student learning.

Conclusion
EDLM researchers have focused on understanding the effects of instructional leadership on school
processes, structures, culture, teaching and learning for the last decades, concluding that it has an
indirect effect on teaching and student learning through multifaceted means including collabora-
tion, self-efficacy and commitment. In the present study, we examined the direct and indirect
relationships between the variables of trust and instruction-focused leadership and the resulting
practices of teacher collaboration and TSE. Our study supported previous research findings, high-
lighting that school principals who focused on teaching and gained the trust of their teachers would
ensure teacher collaboration and TSE – elements that are key to teachers’ instructional practices
and student learning.
Our research extends such findings beyond western countries and suggests that principals’
emphasis on building trust and improving teaching could make a difference in developing non-
western countries. Research involving more countries is needed to claim an established relation-
ship among such variables. Additionally, further research could examine whether the critical
concepts investigated in this research might influence student learning outcomes to verify the
relationship between leadership and student learning in a global context.
The finding of this study also supports the recent policy moves by the Turkish MoNE that
emphasize and encourage more involvement by principals in teaching and learning activities. Our
research indicates that more effective principals build trust and emphasize teaching to create a
school climate conducive to increased collaboration, which in turn promotes the quality of teach-
ing practices and student learning. The interaction among increased trust, emphasis on instruction,
and collaboration in a school could enhance teachers’ beliefs regarding what they can do in the
classroom. Principals’ instructional leadership seems critical in these processes. However, empha-
sizing principals’ roles as instructional leaders in policy documents alone may not provide suffi-
cient impetus to encourage principals to focus on teaching and learning. If principals are not
prepared and trained for such roles, the frequency of such supportive practices would still be rare,
and their quality and basis in established theory and research could be in question. Policymakers
should consider principals’ instruction-related functions in recruitment, preparation, induction and
professional development as a substantial policy step to improve teacher professional capacity that
is key to effective teaching and enhanced student learning.
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 17

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
This research received no specific funding from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.

ORCID iDs
Ömür Çoban https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4702-4152
Nedim Özdemir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3054-926X
Mehmet Şükrü Bellibaş https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1281-4493

References
Abu-Tineh AM, Khasawneh SA and Khalaileh HA (2011) Teacher self-efficacy and classroom management
styles in Jordanian schools. Management in Education 25(4): 175–181.
Alwaleedi MA (2017) Impact of demographic variables in the development of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
in the context of Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science 13(1): 1–10.
Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review 84(2):
191–215.
Bandura A (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bellibas MS (2015) Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of efforts by principals to improve teaching and
learning in Turkish middle schools. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 15(6): 1471–1485.
Bellibas MS and 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.
Berkovich I (2018) Typology of trust relationships: profiles of teachers’ trust in principal and their implica-
tions. Teachers and Teaching 24(7): 749–767.
Blase J and Blase J (1999) Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: teachers’ perspec-
tives. Educational Administration Quarterly 35(3): 349–378.
Bossert ST, Dwyer DC, Rowan B, et al. (1982) The instructional management role of the principal. Educa-
tional Administration Quarterly 18(3): 34–64.
Bryk AS and Schneider B (2002) Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Bryk AS, Sebring PB, Allensworth E, et al. (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from
Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burić I and Kim LE (2020) Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: an
analysis using multilevel structural equation modeling. Learning and Instruction 66(2020): 1–12. DOI: 10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101302.
Bümen NT (2009) Possible effects of professional development on Turkish teachers’ self-efficacy and class-
room practice. Professional Development in Education 35(2): 261–278.
Bümen NT, Ateş A, Çakar E, Ural G and Acar V (2012) Türkiye bağlamında öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimi:
Sorunlar ve öneriler. Milli Eg˘itim 194: 31–50.
18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Chen WL, Elchert D and Asikin-Garmager A (2020) Comparing the effects of teacher collaboration on
student performance in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. A Journal of Comparative and International
Education 50(4): 515–532.
Çalık T, Sezgin F, Kavgacı H, et al. (2012) Examination of relationships between instructional leadership of
school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice 12(4): 2487–2504.
Daniel J (2012) Choosing the type of probability sampling. In: Daniel J (ed) Sampling Essentials: Practical
Guidelines for Making Sampling Choices. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Darling-Hammond L (2017) Teacher education around the world: what can we learn from international
practice? European Journal of Teacher Education 40(3): 291–309.
Duyar I, Gumus S and Bellibas MŞ (2013) Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The influence of
principal leadership and teacher collaboration. International Journal of Educational Management 27(7):
700–719.
Eker C (2014) Sınıf öğretmenlerinin öz-yeterlilik inanç düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırm.a. Uşak Uüniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 7(1): 162–178.
Fleiss JL (1986) Reliability of measurement. In: Fleiss JL (ed) The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experi-
ments. New York: Wiley, pp.1–12.
Geijsel F, Sleegers P, Stoel R, et al. (2009) The effect of teacher psychological, school organizational and
leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal
109(4): 406–427.
George D and Mallery P (2010) SPSS for Windows Step by Step. A Simple Study Guide and Reference. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Goddard YL, Goddard RD, Bailes LP and Nichols R (2019) From school leadership to differentiated instruc-
tion: a pathway to student learning in schools. The Elementary School Journal 120(2): 197–219.
Goddard R, Goddard Y, Sook Kim E, et al. (2015) A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of
instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learn-
ing. American Journal of Education 121(4): 501–530.
Goddard YL, Goddard RD and Tschannen-Moran M (2007) A theoretical and empirical investigation of
teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools.
Teachers College Record 109(4): 877–896.
Goddard RD, Hoy WK and Hoy AW (2004a) Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical
evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher 33(3): 3–13.
Goddard RD, LoGerfo L and Hoy WK (2004b) High school accountability: the role of perceived collective
efficacy. Educational Policy 18(3): 403–425.
Gökyer N and Bakcak S (2018) Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin özyeterlik düzeyleri: elaziğ ili örneği. Turkish
Journal of Educational Studies 5(3): 82–98.
Grissom JA and Loeb S (2011) Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers,
and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational
Research Journal 48(5): 1091–1123.
Grissom JA, Loeb S and Master B (2013) Effective instructional time use for school leaders: longitudinal
evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher 42(8): 433–444.
Gumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M, et al. (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in
educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1):
25–48.
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 19

Gumus S, Bulut O and Bellibas MS (2013) The relationship between principal leadership and teacher
collaboration in Turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis. Education Research and Perspectives
40(1): 1–29.
Hallinger P (2011) Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educa-
tional Administration 49(2): 125–142.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of
empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5–44.
Hallinger P, Liu S and Piyaman P (2019) Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional
learning? A comparative study China and Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and Interna-
tional Education 49(3): 341–357.
Ham SH, Duyar I and Gumus S (2015) Agreement of self-other perceptions matters: analyzing the effectiveness
of principal leadership through multi-source assessment. Australian Journal of Education 59(3): 225–246.
Hambleton RK and Patsula L (1999) Increasing the validity of adapted tests: myths to be avoided and
guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology 1(1): 1–13.
Heck RH and Hallinger P (2010) Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school
improvement. The Leadership Quarterly 21(5): 867–885.
Hu L and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.
_
Inandı Y, Özkan S, Peker S, et al. (2009) Kadın öğretmenlerin kariyer geliştirme engelleri [Career develop-
ment barriers of women teachers]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eg˘itim Fakültesi Dergisi 5(1): 77–96.
Klassen RM and Chiu MM (2010) Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender,
years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology 102(3): 741–756.
Leithwood KA and Jantzi D (2008) Linking leadership to student learning: the contributions of leader
efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 496–528.
Liu Y, Bellibas MŞ and Gumus S (2020) The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on
teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher colla-
boration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. DOI: 10.1177/1741143220910438.
Lockton M (2019) Chasing joint work: administrators’ efforts to structure teacher collaboration. School
Leadership & Management 39(5): 496–518.
Louis KS (2007) Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change 8(1): 1–24.
Maas CJ and Hox JJ (2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology 1(3): 86–92.
Maxwell SE and Cole DA (2007) Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological
Methods 12(1): 23–44.
May H, Huff J and Goldring E (2012) A longitudinal study of principals’ activities and student performance.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23(4): 417–439.
McGuigan L and Hoy WK (2006) Principal leadership: creating a culture of academic optimism to improve
achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools 5(3): 203–229.
Mishra AK and Mishra KE (2013) The research on trust in leadership: The need for context. Journal of Trust
Research 3(1): 59–69.
Muthén LK and Muthén BO (2010) Mplus user’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nielsen K, Randall R, Yarker J, et al. (2008) The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived
work characteristics and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. Work & Stress 22(1): 16–32.
Ozdemir M and Demircioglu E (2015) Distributed leadership and contract relations: evidence from Turkish
high schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(6): 918–938.
Ozdemir N (2019) Principal leadership and students’ achievement: Mediated pathways of professional com-
munity and teachers’ instructional practices. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy 16(1): 81–104.
20 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Özdemir N and Yalçın MT (2019) Examination of the relationships between academic achievement and the
variables at the levels of school and students in secondary schools: two-level path analysis. Education and
Science 44(200): 93–116.
Penrose A, Perry C and Ball I (2007) Emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy: the contribution of
teacher status and length of experience. Issues in Educational Research 17(1): 107–126.
Preacher KJ, Zhang Z and Zyphur MJ (2011) Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data:
the advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling 18(2): 161–182.
Puchner LD and Taylor AR (2006) Lesson study, collaboration and teacher efficacy: stories from two school-
based math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher Education 22(7): 922–934.
Raudenbush SW and Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data analysis Methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Robinson VMJ, Lloyd C and Rowe K (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the
differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.
Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, et al. (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust.
Academy of Management Review 23(3): 393–404.
Sebastian J, Huang H and Allensworth E (2017) Examining integrated leadership systems in high schools:
connecting principal and teacher leadership to organizational processes and student outcomes. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement 28(3): 463–488.
_
Sezgin F and Koşar S (2010) Ilköğretim okulu müdürlerinin güç stilleri ile öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığı
arasındaki ilişki. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 8(2): 273–296.
Shahzad K and Naureen S (2017) Impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school students’ academic
achievement. Journal of Education and Educational Development 4(1): 48–72.
Shengnan L and Hallinger P (2020) Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning
in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership Epub ahead of print 21 January 2020.
DOI: 10.1177/1741143219896042. 174114321989604.
Sun J and Leithwood KA (2012) Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Lead-
ership and Policy in Schools 11(4): 418–451.
Supovitz J, Sirinides P and May H (2010) How principals and peers influence teaching and learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly 46(1): 31–56.
Tabachnick BC and Fidell LS (2013) Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson.
Tschannen-Moran M and Gareis CR (2015) Principals, trust, and cultivating vibrant schools. Societies 5: 256–276.
Tschannen-Moran M and Hoy AW (2001) Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Teacher Education 17(7): 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran M and Hoy AW (2007) The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and
experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 23(6): 944–956.
United Nations (2019) World Economic Situation and Prospects 2019. New York: United Nations.
van Woerkom M (2003) Critical Reflection at Work: Bridging Individual and Organisational Learning.
Enschede, the Netherlands: Twente University.
Wahlstrom KL and Louis KS (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458–495.
Walker A and Hallinger P (2015) A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia.
Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 554–570.
Wu H, Shen JP, Zhang Y, et al. (2020) Examining the effect of principal leadership on student science
achievement. International Journal of Science Education 42(6): 1017–1039.
Çoban et al.: Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration 21

Zee M and Koomen HMY (2016) Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student
academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational
Research 86(4): 981–1015.
Zheng X, Yin H and Li Z (2019) Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional
learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership 47(6): 843–859.
Zheng X, Yin H and Liu Y (2019) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in
china: the mediation of satisfaction and trust. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 28(6): 509–518.

Author biographies
Ömür Çoban is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Administration, Faculty
of Education in Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey. His research interests
include leadership, organizational change management, organizational behaviour, and teacher
professional learning.

Nedim Özdemir is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Administration,

_
Faculty of Education in Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. His research interests include school
leadership effects, student achievement, school improvement, and teacher professional learning.

Mehmet Şükrü Bellibaş is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at

Adiyaman University, Turkey. He received his PhD in K-12 Educational Administration from
College of Education, Michigan State University, USA in 2014. His research interests include
comparative and international education, educational leadership, school improvement and teacher
professional learning.