The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership And Instructional Coaching by Cassidy Beckom Arrington A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama December 13, 2010 Keywords: transformational leadership, instructional coaching, coaching Copyright 2010 by Cassidy Beckom Arrington Approved by James Witte, Chair, Professor of Educational Foundations Leadership and Technology Ellen Reames, Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations Leadership and Technology Lisa Kensler, Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations Leadership and Technology ii Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship, if any, between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty who specifically work on building teacher capacity of knowledge and skills in teaching and learning in a west central school district in Georgia. The researcher employed two surveys to conduct the study, one on transformational leadership and the other on instructional coaching. Descriptive statistics found that teachers rated school administrations in the participating school district as more transformational than non- transformational. The mean scores for the Transformational Leadership Survey ranged from 3.31 to 4.50 (3= neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree). Descriptive statistics for the Instructional Coaching Survey found that participants rated the benefits of instructional coaching as neutral. The mean scores for the instructional coaching survey items ranged from 2.83 to 3.44. A Pearson correlation found a significant (p ? .01), yet small, positive correlation between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Additionally, significant (p ? .01), yet small, positive correlations were found between the transformational leadership domains of Offering Individualized Support, Demonstrating High Performance Expectations, Building School Vision and Goals, and Providing Instructional Support with the instructional coaching domains of Planning, Teaching, Analyzing, and Applying. iii Acknowledgements I would like to express gratitude to committee members Dr. James Witte, Dr. Ellen Reames, and Dr. Lisa Kensler. Dr. Witte is recognized for his continued guidance and calming humor during the dissertation process. Dr. Ellen Reames is recognized for her endless support, guidance, and stable presence from the beginning of my doctoral program to its closing stages. Dr. Lisa Kensler is recognized for her positive attitude, supportive feedback, and willingness to be flexible. I would also like to thank Dr. Jenny Edwards for her assistance in gathering resources for the literature review section on cognitive coaching that were otherwise unattainable under the circumstances. Additionally, thanks is given to Dr. Chih-hsuan Wang for her swift facilitation of the data analysis process using updated statistical software in which I was out of practice. I would also like to thank my outside reader Dr. David Martin. Last but not least, I would like to express sincere gratitude to my husband, children, and immediate family members who endured years of sacrifice and who provided the emotional and physical support that allowed me to reach a life long goal. iv Table of Contents Abstract?????????????????????????????????? ii Acknowledgements?????????????????????????????.. iii List of Tables???????????????????????????????.... viii Chapter One: Introduction??????????????????????????? 1 Introduction????????????????????????????.......... 1 Purpose of the study??.?????????????????????????. 1 Statement of the problem.....????????????????????????. 2 Research questions???????????????????????????? 3 Significance of the study?????????????????????????.. 3 Limitations/Delimitations?????????????????????????. 5 Assumptions????????????????????????????.......... 7 Definitions?????????????????????????????........ 8 Organization of the study?????????????????????????. 14 Summary???????????????????????????????.. 14 Chapter Two: Literature Review????????????????????????... 16 Introduction??????????????????????????????.. 17 Transformational leadership???????????????????????? 17 Introduction to transformational leadership??????????......... 17 v Definition of transformational leadership?????????????.18 Transformational leadership and charisma????????????...21 Predictors and correlates of transformational leadership???????..24 Transformational Leadership?s Relationship to Attitudes, Commitment, and Satisfaction???????????......... 27 Transformational Leadership?s Relationship to Organizational Performance??????????????????. 30 Substitutes, Enhancers, and Neutralizers for transformational leadership?????????????????????????. 34 Transformational Leadership in Education????????????.. 35 Summary of Transformational Leadership????????????...41 Coaching???????????????????????????????... 43 Coaching introduction????????????????????.. 43 Definition and types of coaching????????????????. 44 Roles and responsibilities of coaching??................................................. 51 Coaching as professional development??................................................ 55 Research on coaching?............................................................................... 60 Issues or concerns about coaching?........................................................... 69 Coaching summary?????.........................................................................70 Transformational Leadership and Coaching??????????????????.71 Summary???????????????????????????????...74 Chapter Three: Methods????????????????????????????76 Introduction?????????????????????????.?????. 76 The researcher?s role??????????????????????????? 77 vi Description of the setting?????????????????????????. 78 Participant population??????????????????????????.. 78 Research data collection instruments?????????????????????79 Data collection procedures?????????????????????????84 Data analysis??????????????????????????????.85 Summary???????????????????????????????.. 86 Chapter Four: Findings????????????????????????????. 87 Introduction??????????????????????????????.. 87 Demographic results???????????????????????????. 87 Data collection instruments??????????????????????.......... 88 Descriptive statistics??????????????????????.????? 90 Correlation data????????????????????????????? 95 Summary???????????????????????????????.. 97 Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations???????. 99 Introduction????????????????????????????........ 99 Conclusions??????????????????????????????.102 Implications????????????????????????????........ 105 Recommendations???????????????????????????.. 112 References?????????????????????????????????117 Appendices????????????????????????????????.. 140 Appendix A: Judge and Piccolo (2004) meta-analysis References???????........ 141 Appendix B: Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam (1996) meta-analysis references??. 153 Appendix C: Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio (2002) meta-analysis references?????.159 vii Appendix D: DeGroot, Kiker, and Cross (2000) meta-analysis references??????166 Appendix E: List of Practicing Teachers? Panel????????????????.170 Appendix F: Initial Contact E-mail???????????????????........ 172 Appendix G: Information Letter??????????????????????. 174 Appendix H: Transformational Leadership Survey?????????????........177 Appendix I: Instructional Coaching Survey?????????????????... 180 viii List of Tables Table 1: Most Frequently Selected Transformational Leadership Domains????????????????????????.. 81 Table 2: Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Survey Domains of Transformational Leadership???????????????????......... 82 Table 3: Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Survey Domains of Instructional Coaching???????????????????????.. 84 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership Survey Items and Domains????????????????????????? 91 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Instructional Coaching Survey Items and Domains?????????????????????? 93 Table 6: Pearson Correlation for Transformational Leadership and Instructional Coaching?????????????????????? 95 Table 7: Pearson Correlation for Transformational Leadership and Instructional Coaching Domains???????????????????? 97 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Introduction Transformational leadership and instructional coaching are two models that encourage growth and change in individuals that have emerged in the past thirty years in the field of education (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Showers, 1982). Transformational leadership focuses on elevating individual?s beliefs and efforts beyond expectations and in many ways beyond themselves. Coggins, Stoddard, and Cutler (2003) state that coaches ?serve as a bridge between a vision of improvement and its enactment through day-to-day support for teachers?they are uniquely positioned to bring focus and coherence to improvement processes that are often vulnerable to fragmentation? (p. 37). Additionally, instructional coaches facilitate capacity building (Coggins et al., 2003). Both of these models can serve a vital role in organizations. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship, if any, between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty who expressly work on building the capacity of teachers in the knowledge and skills of teaching. Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that ?transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible?they set more challenging expectations?empower followers and pay attention to their individual needs and personal development? (p. 4). Likewise, instructional 2 coaching has been generally defined as a method of capacity building through the development of knowledge and skills for individuals and organizations (Coggins et al., 2003). Literature on transformational leadership claimed that factors exist that can replace, substitute, or enhance transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio 2006). Additionally, the literature found that transformational leadership may be distributed throughout an organization (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998) or coexist with instructional leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003). Moreover, Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) indicated that transformational leadership practices may be exercised by individuals in non-administrative roles. If a relationship exists between transformational leadership and instructional coaching, then it is plausible that instructional coaching may be able to serve in one of these capacities. Statement of the Problem In school buildings, the most prevalent form of leadership comes from the school building?s administrative team. If transformational leadership arouses and motivates followers to achieve exceptional outcomes (Burns, 1978; Yammarino, Dubinsky, & Spangler, 1998), then it is reasonable to imagine that school administrative teams who are more transformational will have a greater influence on the organization. However, school administrative teams are often bombarded with managerial tasks, as well as community relations, which may reduce the amount of time spent on the types of transformational behaviors that influence teaching and learning. Nevertheless, schools deserve to receive benefits similar to those which characterize transformational leadership even though the school administrative team may not be functioning in that capacity. Leithwood and his associates found that transformational leadership had indirect effects on teacher-perceived outcomes, significant indirect effects on student participation in school as well as student identification with school (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). 3 Additionally, transformational leadership was found to improve teachers? commitment to change and have significant direct and indirect effects on teachers? personal goals (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). If transformational leadership may be replaced, enhanced, distributed, or coexist, as the literature suggests (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998; Marks & Printy, 2003), then instructional coaching, provided by individuals who specifically focus on building teacher capacity through on-going professional development and feedback, may be a likely candidate to fill the gap. Moreover, Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) asserted that additional research is needed examining the nature of transformational leadership practiced by those in non-administrative positions. As indicated, these concepts are similar, but empirical evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a relationship between the two. Research Questions The exploratory study examined the following research questions: 1. What, if any, relationship exists between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty? 2. What, if any, relationship exists among the domains of transformational leadership and the domains of instructional coaching? Significance of the Study Transformational leadership has been found to influence individual?s motivation, satisfaction, commitment, and efficacy (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Hater & Bass, 1988; House, 1977; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Koh, 1990; Koh, Steers, & Terbog, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Likewise, coaching has been found to improve teachers? attitudes toward teaching, job satisfaction, and efficacy 4 (Alseike, 1997; Demir, 2008; Edwards & Newton, 1995; Edwards et al., 1998; Hoover, et. al, 1991; Kirby, et. al, 1992; Koh, 1990; Koh, et al., 1995; Korkmaz, 2007; Krpan, 1997; Leithwood, 1994; Ross & Gray, 2006; Smith, 1997). Moreover, transformational leadership has been found to encourage greater innovation in organizations (Bass, 1985; Eyal & Kark, 2004; Geijsel et al., 1999; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Jung, 2001; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Sosik, 1997). Whereas, coaching has been found to increase teachers? willingness to try new practices (Knight, 2004; Munro & Elliott, 1987; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Furthermore, transformational leadership has been found to influence performance in organizations (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bycio et al.,1995; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Elenkov, 2002; Gellis, 2001; Harvey et al., 2003; Hater & Bass, 1988; Hoover et al., 1991; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kirby et al., 1992; Mackenzie et al., 2001; Masi & Cooke, 2000; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Singer, 1985; Wofford et al., 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994) and teachers? practices (Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006). Instructional coaching has been found to influence teacher?s instructional practices (Awakuni, 1995; Brown et al., 2006, 2007, 2008; Deussen et al., 2007; Eger, 2006; Joyce et al., 1989; Reed, 2007; Showers, 1982; Sommers & Costa, 1993; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Thus, transformational leadership and instructional coaching have similar, positive influences on individuals and organizations. However, there is no empirical evidence to show a relationship between the two. Leadership has been shown to have significant influence on school conditions and student learning (Leithwood, Aiken, & Jantzi, 2006). Moreover, the research stated above indicates that school administrations who are transformational may have the ability to influence the organization in a more meaningful way. However, school administrations often deal with situations that take them away from the more important educational issues of teaching and 5 learning to more managerial concerns. Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Myerson (2005) stated the role: has swelled to include a staggering array of professional tasks and competencies? educational visionaries, instructional and curriculum leaders, assessment experts, disciplinarians, community builders, public relations and communications experts, budget analysts, facility managers, special programs administrators, as well as guardians of various legal, contractual, and policy mandates and initiatives. In addition? serve the often conflicting needs and interests of many stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, district office officials, unions, and state and federal agencies. As a result, many scholars and practitioners argue that the job requirements far exceed the reasonable capacities of any one person (p. 10). Instructional coaching, provided by designated individuals who explicitly focus on building the capacity of teachers, on the other hand, has the ability to reach teachers at a fundamental level and exhibit transformational leadership practices without having to focus on managerial issues that often plague administrators. Transformational literature asserts that transformational leadership may be replaced, enhanced, distributed, or coexist with other types of leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998; Marks & Printy, 2003). Therefore, if a relationship exists between transformational leadership and instructional coaching, teachers and organizations may benefit from transformational practices even if their administrative team has not been able to exhibit those characteristics. Limitations/Delimitations of the Study 1. Since this study gathered data from a single school district in West Central Georgia, the findings are not generalizable. 2. Since data were obtained from the same participants, a threat of common method bias exists. 6 Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) stated that common method variance is a ?variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent? (p. 879). Podsakoff et al. (2003) identified several method effects produced by a common source or rater. These effects included consistency motif; implicit theories and illusory; social desirability; leniency; acquiescence; positive and negative affectivity; and transient mood state (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In consistency motif, participants want to appear consistent in their responses and therefore look for similarities which produce relationships that may not exist (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Implicit theories and illusory effects suggest that participants? responses are not solely based on true relationships, but also artifactual covariation based on participants inherent theories (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In social desirability, participants want to present themselves in a complimentary way despite their true feelings (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In leniency biases participants tend to rate people they know in a more favorable light (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In acquiescence, participants tend to agree with statements that are worded similarly (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In positive and negative affectivity, participants who view aspects as either highly negative or highly positive tend to view many aspects of the world in the same way (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In the transient mood state, participants respond to statements while in a specific mood (Podsakoff et al., 2003). 3. Since the measures were administered at the same time, the measures may share covariance because the situation may increase the probability that responses will co-exist in participants? short term memory. 4. The study was limited to the participant?s interpretation on all survey items. 5. The study was limited by varying degrees of leadership throughout the school district. 7 Participants responded to leadership in individual buildings; however, responses were not categorized by individual schools. Therefore, more responses could have been collected from the same school buildings where leadership was more transformational or vice versa. 6. The study was limited by varying degrees and types of instructional coaching among teachers throughout the school district. The school district?s academic coaches provided instructional coaching; however, the amount of time and focus of the instructional coaching varied in the elementary, middle, and secondary divisions, as well as in various subjects and school buildings depending on need or request for assistance. 7. The study was delimited to those teachers in the core content areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies who received some form of instructional coaching from the school district?s academic coaches. 8. The study was delimited by the researcher?s definition of instructional coaching as a method of capacity building through the development of knowledge and skills for individuals and organizations (Coggins et al., 2003). Assumptions The following assumptions were made at the beginning of this study or when data were collected: 1) The researcher assumed that all participants answered survey questions honestly. 2) The researcher assumed that all participants in the core content areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies received some form of instructional coaching from the school district?s academic coaches in order to honestly and accurately respond to the survey items. 8 Definition of Key Terms Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) ? An initiative covering K-12 landscape that has established partnerships with schools, colleges, and private organizations to change teachers? practices, students? motivation, and attitudes towards literacy. America?s Choice Schools ? An educational organization that offers a mixture of professional development, technical assistance, and high-quality materials to help schools with large groups of students not meeting standards. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University ? A national policy-research and reform support organization that encourages quality education for all children, particularly in inner-city communities. Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) ? A non-profit, grant funded organization whose mission is to change schools and take on organized and sustainable improvement processes. Challenge coaching ? Challenge coaching ?helps teams of teachers resolve persistent problems in instructional design or delivery? (Garmston, 1987, p. 21). Coaching - The fundamental objective of coaching is capacity building; the development of knowledge and skills for individuals as well as organizations (Coggins et al., 2003). 9 Co-active Coaching - Co-active coaches? believe a client-coach relationship embraces the ?whole of a person?s life? (Whitworth, Kimsey-House, and Sandahl, 2007, p. 7). In this type of relationship, the coach may tackle issues such as health, finance, spirituality, recreation, as well as professional aspirations (Whitworth et al., 2007). Cognitive Coaching ? The mission of cognitive coaching is to develop ?self-directed persons with the cognitive capacity for high performance, both independently and as members of a community? (Costa & Garmston, 2002, p. 16). Collaborative Coaching and Learning (CCL) ? A coaching model implemented in the Boston Public School System that involves teachers working in small groups with a coach over a period of time. Collegial Coaching ? The role of the collegial coach is targeted toward self-reflection (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Compass Point Non-Profit Services ? A consulting, research, and training organization offering nonprofits with administrative tools, strategies, and resources to direct change in their communities. Content Coaching - The core of content coaching is simple: to improve learning, teachers must concentrate on pertinent, essential, rich content (West, 2007). 10 Contingent Reward Leadership - Contingent reward is described as the leader informing followers on what to do in order to be rewarded for their efforts (Leithwood, 1994). Differentiated Coaching - The goal of differentiated coaching is to identify the needs of individuals in an organization during change and work with those individuals based on those needs in order to modify teachers? educational beliefs (Kise, 2006). Early Reading PD Intervention Study ? The U.S. Department of Education commissioned the study to examine the impact of two research-based professional development interventions for reading: 1) content-focused teacher institute 2) content-focused teacher institute plus in-school coaching. Effective Practice Schools (EP) ? Boston Public Schools who have demonstrated high levels of implementation of whole-school improvement (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Efficacy ? Ellison and Hayes (2009) defined efficacy as ?an internally held sense that one has the knowledge and skills to impact the learning processes in the school to attain desired results? (p. 75). Executive Coaching Project ? Compass Point Non-Profit Services partnered with Nexus and the Resource Center for Nonprofits, Sonoma County, to develop and execute the Executive Coaching Project to provide forty hours of one-on-one coaching to twenty-four executive directors. 11 Executive/Leadership Coaching - Focuses on the inner self, on obtaining clarity about what stimulates us and how we may need to mature and change to achieve the desired outer results both personally and professionally (Karla Reiss, 2007). Foundation for Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning ? Provides professional development designed to help teachers improve classroom practices with an emphasis on the teaching or reading and writing. GEAR UP Program ? A five-year federal grant used to partially fund the Pathways to Success project. Institute of Education Sciences (IES) ? The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 established the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to provide rigorous data and proof on which to base education practice and policy. The institute funds hundreds of research studies on ways to improve academic achievement, conducts large scale evaluations of federal education programs, and a sizeable collection of statistics on the state of education. Instructional Coaching ? Instructional coaching includes seven principles: equality, choice, voice, dialogue, reflection, praxis, and reciprocity (Knight, 2007). Based on the partnership approach and the seven principles, instructional coaches work with teachers to help them integrate research-based instructional strategies into their teaching (Knight, 2007). 12 International Coach Federation (ICF) ? An international organization committed to advancing the coaching profession by establishing high standards, offering independent certification, and developing a global network of credentialed professional coaches. Kansas University Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) ? A globally recognized research and development organization well-known for generating solutions that considerably improve the quality of life, learning, and performance for those who suffer obstacles to success. Literacy Coach/Reading Coach - Literacy and reading coaches perform a variety of activities in schools, sometimes working with students but more often working with teachers to increase students? literacy skills and strategies (Knight, 2007). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) ? Nationally representative and continuing assessment system of students? knowledge in a variety of subject areas; assessments are performed regularly in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history. National Staff Development Council (NSDC) ? The largest non-profit professional organization dedicated to ensuring success for all students through staff development and school improvement Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI) ? A program which uses instructional coaching to improve high school teachers? knowledge and use of literacy strategies in the classroom. 13 Pathways to Success project ? A program established by the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning that works to help students develop goals that will encourage them to stay on the path to post-secondary success. Peer coaching - Two or more professional colleagues who work together to improve their professional knowledge and skills (Poglinco et al., 2003). Principles? coaching - Focused on a reform plan in which certain principles may be enacted into the school or system by the coach (Barr et al., 2003). Reading First ? A federal project to improve reading for K-3 schools in 5,200 low-performing elementary schools across the nation. Read to Achieve Grant ? A program created to focus on problem solving reading weaknesses and to develop rigorous reading interventions for struggling readers within the Kentucky Department of Education?s primary program. Technical Coaching ? Coaching that helps teachers transfer professional training to classroom practice (Garmston 1987). The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) ? The CPRE located at the University of Pennsylvania was contracted by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) in 1998 to conduct an evaluation of America?s Choice Schools. 14 Transformational Leadership - Those ?capable of arousing followers wants, needs, and other motivations?and thus?serve as an independent force in changing the make-up of followers? motive base through gratifying their motives? (Burns, 1978, p. 20). Transactional Leadership - Those who lead through social exchange such as politicians who lead by ?exchanging one thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions? (Burns, 1978, p.4). VA Stress and Aggression Project ? A practitioner-based collaborative action inquiry project in the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) which was funded by the VA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) that involved practitioners and academic researchers who studied multiple objectives, one of which was workplace aggression. Organization of the Study Chapter I introduces the study, presenting the problem, purpose, research questions, limitations, and definition of terms. Chapter II includes a review of related literature concerning transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Chapter III reports the procedures used in this study, including the population and sample; instrumentation; the data collection; and the data analysis. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study. Chapter V includes a summary of the study, conclusions, implications and recommendations for further practice and research. Summary Transformational leadership and instructional coaching have tremendous potential for increasing teacher capacity, attitudes, beliefs, and possibly performance. The study described in the following chapters examined the relationship, if any, between transformational leadership of 15 school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals outside of the school faculty whose primary focus was increasing teacher capacity through knowledge and skills. Previous empirical research has failed to explore the link between these two concepts. While some schools may have transformational leaders at the top of their organization, it is possible those leaders are not able to focus on critical issues such as teaching and learning as often as needed. However, if a positive relationship is shown between these two models, then instructional coaching in a school may produce desirable outcomes for organizations by replacing, enhancing, or coexisting with transformational leadership even when the school?s administrative team is not able to serve within the transformational construct. 16 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction There are numerous types of both leadership and professional development initiatives; however, transformational leadership and instructional coaching encompass the essential qualities for the improvement of teaching and learning. ?Changing the nature of teaching and learning in the classroom may be the most direct way to improve student outcomes? (Wenglinsky, 2000, p. 11). Transformational leadership and instructional coaching are two distinct models which can provide a framework for academic success. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship, if any, between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty who expressly work on building the capacity of teachers in the knowledge and skills of teaching. The following research questions were used in this exploratory study: 1. What, if any, relationship exists between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty? 2. What, if any, relationship exists among the domains of transformational leadership and the domains of instructional coaching? The chapter will describe the definition of transformational leadership and its link to charisma, predictors and correlates of transformational leadership, and the relationship between transformational leadership and the attitudes, commitment, and satisfaction of followers within 17 an organization. Additionally, the chapter will describe the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance, substitutes, enhancers, and neutralizers for transformational leadership, and transformational leadership in education. Moreover, the chapter will describe the definition of coaching; types of coaching; roles and responsibilities of coaching; professional development and coaching; research on coaching; and concerns or issues with coaching. In closing, the chapter will describe a possible relationship between transformational leadership and coaching. Transformational Leadership Introduction to Transformational Leadership Hallinger and Heck (1998) found that ?principals exercise a measurable, indirect effect on school effectiveness and student achievement? (p. 157). Although the effect was somewhat small, it was statistically significant (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Therefore, school leadership can have an influence on effectiveness. Additionally, Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) suggested that school leadership also has an impact on classroom practices and concluded that the transformational style to school leadership appeared to hold a substantial possibility for this purpose. Burns (1995) defines transformational leadership as those situations or moments ?when one or more persons engage in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality?which might have started out as separate?[but] became fused? (p. 101). The following sections of the literature review will provide definitions and components of transformational leadership found in the literature as well as its relationship to attitudes, commitment, satisfaction, and performance in organizations. The final section will describe transformational leadership specifically in the field of education. 18 Definition of Transformational Leadership Koh (1990) described the historical development of leadership as beginning with the trait theory in the 1930s, in which it was believed that leaders were born with specific traits that made them an effective leader. Therefore, importance was placed on finding universal traits which distinguished leaders and non-leaders (Koh, 1990). Early research examined traits such as intelligence, dominance, age, sex, height, and weight, but finally the trait theory was laid to rest when evidence could not be found that certain traits were associated with effective leaders (Koh, 1990). The next leadership theory, the behavioral approach, emerged. The behavioral approach focused not on what leaders had that made them leaders, but what they did that made them leaders (Koh, 1990). The next major leadership paradigm was the contingency approach (Koh, 1990). The contingency approach to leadership stressed the connection between the leader?s behavior, the task, and followers? characteristics (Koh, 1990). House (1977) then proposed charismatic leadership as a formidable leadership theory, which will be discussed later in the section. Branching off from these theories Burns (1978) coined the expression transforming leadership (Koh, 1990). Subsequently, in 1985, Bass took the ideas of House and Burns and developed the theory and measurement of transformational leadership as we know it today (Koh, 1990). Transformational leadership has proven to be a prevalent subject in leadership literature because more studies have been performed on transformational leadership than all other leadership theories combined (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). With such an abundance of published works on transformational leadership, the following section will summarize the theory by providing detailed definitions and characteristics of transformational leadership. 19 The father of transformational leadership, Burns (1978), identified leadership as either transactional or transformational. He described transactional leadership as those who lead through social exchange such as politicians who lead by ?exchanging one thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions? (p. 4). Conversely, transformational leaders arouse and motivate followers to achieve exceptional outcomes while developing their own leadership capacities (Burns, 1978; Yammarino, Dubinsky, & Spangler, 1998). According to Burns (1995), leadership is inseparable from followers? aspirations and needs. Furthermore, Burns (1978) described transformational leaders as those who engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality?they are capable of arousing followers wants, needs, and other motivations?and thus?serve as an independent force in changing the make-up of followers? motive base through gratifying their motives. (p. 20) Burns (1978) laid the theoretical framework for the transformational theory of leadership, and Bass (1985), who operationalized the fundamental variables, presented them in testable hypotheses, and conducted the preliminary tests of the theory (Koh, 1990). Although Bass (1985) agreed with Burns? basic concept that transformational leaders bring about significant changes in followers? source of motivation, there are still noticeable differences in their views on transformational leadership. Burns applied the humanistic views of psychologists such as Lawrence Kohlberg, Erik Erikson, and Abraham Maslow to propose that transforming leadership changes a leader into a moral agent who moves people or groups from one stage of development to higher stages of development (Couto, 1995). Burns suggested that transformational leadership always leads to an upward climb in Maslow?s hierarchy promoting 20 what is good for followers; however, Bass contended that transformational leaders can lead their followers in either a positive direction or a negative direction. Therefore, while Burns would not consider Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones as transformational leaders, Bass most likely would (Williams, 1990). Additionally, Burns considered transformational and transactional leadership as mutually exclusive strategies lying on opposite sides of a continuum, while Bass hypothesized that leaders can exhibit combinations of both transformational and transactional behaviors (Koh, 1990). Empirical evidence supports the notion that transformational and transactional leadership actions can be exhibited by the same leader to different extents and degrees while still coexisting (Bass, 1985; Yammarino et al., 1988). Avolio and Bass (1988) went further to state that transformational leaders cannot be successful without displaying transactional behaviors as well. Bass developed a model which suggests that transformational leadership fosters and enhances transactional leadership although the same is not true in reverse (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). This theory has been referred to as the augmentation process in research literature. Bass and Riggio (2006) added that ?transformational leadership should and does account for unique variance in ratings of performance (or other outcomes) over and above that accounted for by active transactional leadership.? (p. 10). The augmentation hypothesis has been tested and supported by studies in fields such as business and nursing (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Bass (1985) added that even though transformational leaders at times may be directive in nature, they frequently seek followers? participation in performing cooperative tasks and delegate authority so that followers can take necessary steps for effective performance. Although studies suggest that transactional and transformational leadership are connected, there are still unique characteristics that differentiate the two. Transactional behaviors are characterized by contingent reward and management by exception (Geijsel, et al., 1999). 21 Contingent reward is described as the leader informing followers on what to do in order to be rewarded for their efforts (Leithwood, 1994). Management by exception is described by Hater & Bass (1988) as either active or passive. The leader is either applying management by exception by actively seeking out deviations by followers from the norm or passively waiting for them to occur in order to take corrective measures (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Furthermore, Bass (1985) states that ?clarification, completion, and compliance? are core factors of transactional leadership. Geijsel et al. (1999) add that transactional leadership is enough to sustain the status quo in schools, but to attain change and innovation, transformational leadership is needed. Like transactional leadership, transformational leadership has identifying components. Bass and Avolio (1994) identified four distinctive but interrelated behavioral elements of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Gronn (1996) called these elements the four i?s of transformational leadership and defined them as: ?inspirational motivation (the heightening of subordinates? motivation through charisma), individualized consideration (treatment of subordinates according to their personal needs), intellectual stimulation (influence subordinates? thinking and imagination), and idealized influence (subordinates? identification with and emulation of the leader?s vision)? (p.15). Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter (1990) conducted a review of research and suggested that there were six dimensions of transformational leadership: identifying and articulating a vision; fostering the acceptance of group goals; providing individualized support; providing intellectual stimulation; providing an appropriate model; expecting high performance. Moreover, their research suggested that the dimensions of identifying and articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals and providing an appropriate model were core dimensions (Podsakoff, et al., 1990). Hipp and Bredeson (1995) 22 suggested that the construct of transformational leadership consisted of five dimensions: models behavior; inspires group purpose; provides contingent rewards; holds high performance expectations; and provides support. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) described transformational leadership along six leadership and four management domains. The leadership domains included: building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values; demonstrating high performance expectations; and developing structures to foster participation in school decisions (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Moreover, Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) identified managerial practices as lacking in many models of transformational leadership, but essential to organizational stability. Therefore, they added the management domains of: staffing, instructional support; monitoring school activities; and community focus (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Although these components, regardless of the number, are identified as essential to transformational leadership, Bass (1985) stated that situational and organizational factors may additionally enhance or limit transformational leadership. Environments that are more natural, challenging, or rapidly changing may facilitate transformational leadership whereas other factors such as the task itself may influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008). Burns (1978) defined transformational leaders as ?capable of arousing followers wants, needs, and other motivations?and thus?serve as an independent force in changing the make-up of followers? motive base through gratifying their motives? (p. 20). Sosik and his associates documented the similarities between transformational leadership and effective mentoring (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Sosik, Godshalk, & Yammarino, 2004). 23 [B]oth mentors and transformational leaders act as role models who encourage learning and development, and work to develop others? self-confidence, personal identity, and well-being. Thus, transformational leaders likely serve as mentors, and mentors likely exhibit various degrees of transformational leadership behavior. (Sosik, et al. 2004, p. 245) Transformational Leadership and Charisma According to Bass and Riggio (2006), transformational leadership has many similarities to charismatic leadership, but charisma is just one aspect of transformational leadership. Judge and Piccolo (2004) state that both theories describe the most effective leaders as those who cause followers to associate with the objectives the leader expresses. Gronn (1996) asserts that when charismatic leadership and transformational leadership are not seen as two distinct types of leadership, they are used interchangeably in that charisma is considered a part of transformational leadership; however, it is rarely the other way around. Many scholars conclude that the differences between the two theories are small and therefore is common practice to treat the two theories as the same (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House & Podsakoff, 1994; House & Shamir, 1993; Yukl, 1999). Even though a large number of research merges the two theories, there are distinctive characteristics of each that can be found in the literature. Sociologist Max Weber (1947) identified the concept of charisma as branching off from followers? perceptions that the leader is bequeathed with extraordinary skills or talents. Bass (1985) defined charisma as the leader?s ability to trigger immense symbolic power with which to identify. Furthermore, Bass stated that followers of charismatic leadership idealize the leader and build a strong emotional attachment (1985). In 1977, House suggested that charismatic leaders are able to generate the following 24 effects: ?followers? trust in the correctness of the leaders? beliefs, followers? imitation of the leaders? beliefs, followers? unquestioning acceptance of and affection for the leader, and followers? willing obedience to the leader? (p. 27). Bass added that charismatic leaders cultivate dependent relationships with followers relying on dedication and unwavering obedience; whereas, transformational leaders attempt to elevate individuals from worshipping the individual to directing followers? commitment and energy towards the organization and its goals (1985). While the differences seem rather clear based on the definitions described above, Bass (1985) maintains that the two theories are virtually impossible to differentiate empirically because studies have not been able to attain reliable inspirational factors that are separate from charismatic factors (Bass, 1985). Furthermore, Judge and Piccolo (2004) state that meta-analyses that concentrate specifically on charismatic leadership provide in effect the same pattern of results as the meta-analysis of transformational leadership (see Appendix A for Judge and Piccolo meta-analysis references). A crucial fear for theories of both transformational leadership and charismatic leadership concerns what is often referred to as the dark side of charisma (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The dark side of charisma refers to those charismatic leaders who use their skills to motivate and lead followers to damaging, selfish, and even malicious outcomes (Bass & Riggio, 2006). These types of leaders can be called pseudotransformational because they display many elements of transformational leadership, but have personal, manipulative, and arrogant motives (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Predictors and Correlates of Transformational Leadership Bass and Riggio (2006) concluded that life experiences play a role in the development of transformational leaders. Likewise, the authors described several studies that examined specific 25 characteristics to determine if they would predict a person?s likelihood of being transformational. Bass and Riggio (2006) examined evidence on the personality traits of extraversion, ascendancy, self-confidence, openness to experience, locus of control, and hardiness. Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that research has revealed that extraverts, people who are outgoing, unconstrained, and favor group atmospheres, are more likely to surface as leaders in groups. Therefore, extraversion and transformational leadership could be linked. Judge and Bono (2000) studied hundreds of leaders from a community leadership training program and found a significant, yet small (.28), correlation between extraversion and transformational leadership. Another study by Avolio and Bass (1994) found significant, yet small (.21 to .25), correlations between measures of sociability and the individualized consideration factors of transformational leadership. Bass and Riggio (2006) defined ascendancy as ?the tendency to assume a leadership role in social situations? (p. 169). Ascendancy and dominance have been linked to emerging leaders (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In a study by Avolio and Bass (1994), ascendancy, as measured by the Gordon Personal Profile, correlated significantly with transformational leadership qualities as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). However, the correlations were small (.19 to .23). Effective leaders in general have higher levels of self-confidence (Bass & Riggio, 2006). One would anticipate that transformational leaders also have high levels of self-esteem. A study by Ross and Offerman (1997) found a significantly strong (.53) correlation between a self- confidence scale and a combined measure of transformational leadership on the MLQ. Sosik and Megerian (1999) found a positive correlation between self-confidence and self-rated 26 transformational leadership; however, there were no significant correlations with followers? ratings on the MLQ. Charismatic leaders are risk-takers and are more likely to display unconventional methods (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). If transformational leadership and charismatic leadership are connected as mentioned earlier in the literature review, then it would appear that transformational leadership and openness to experience would be linked. Ployhart, Lim, and Chan (2001), found small but significant correlations between a measure of openness to experience and ratings of transformational leadership. Moreover, Judge and Bono (2000) found a significant correlation between an openness to experience scale and the MLQ measures of transformational leadership. An individual that has an internal locus of control feels that he or she has personal power over their own life (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This characteristic has been associated with transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass and Riggio (2006) described two studies that examined this association and found significantly strong correlations between locus of control and transformational leadership factors as well as factors of charisma. However, as in other personality traits, the correlations were still small in scope (ranging from .18 to .44). Bass and Riggio (2006) identified hardiness as being ?psychologically healthy and resilient? (p. 171). The authors described a study in which 141 military cadets who had high ratings on the MLQ for transformational leadership qualities from subordinates were tested with three hardiness measures (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership had a small correlation with all of the hardiness measures as well as a small, positive correlation with a measure of physical health (Bass and Riggio, 2006). 27 Transformational Leadership?s Relationship to Attitudes, Commitment, and Satisfaction Transformational leadership has been shown to positively relate to followers? satisfaction and commitment (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Hater & Bass, 1988; House, 1977; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Koh, 1990; Koh, Steers, & Terbog, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Moreover, Bass & Riggio (2006) concluded that transactional leadership can be a cause of dispute, burnout, and stress in small groups, large businesses, military, and educational institutions; however, transformational leadership is more likely to lessen conflict, burnout, and stress. Over the last decade, sizeable research efforts have been invested into comprehending the processes through which this positive relationship links to followers? attitudes, behaviors, and performance (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Collectively, the research found that the effects of transformational leadership are assimilated and mediated through processes such as efficacy, empowerment, trust, and identification (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Shamir, House, & Arthur (1993) concluded that transformational leaders help followers to elevate their self needs to group needs and arouse greater levels of commitment to a common mission. However, Bass and Riggio (2006) added that leaders are more apt to be transformational if they have legitimate power which fosters greater trust from followers. They describe two sources of power in which legitimacy originates; elected leaders derive their legitimacy from members of a group or organization whereas appointed leaders derive their legitimacy from a higher authority (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Furthermore, Bass and Riggio (2006) suggested that elected leaders are more transformational because they ?must retain their power as persons in the eyes of their constituents?[they] must cultivate followers. It is difficult for them to be purely transactional? According to several studies, transformational leadership was found to have a positive influence on commitment and job satisfaction. A study including 846 teachers and principals of 28 89 secondary schools found that commitment to the organization and job satisfaction were considerably larger when the principals were characterized by the teachers as more transformational (Koh, 1990; Koh et al., 1995). A doctoral study conducted by Pitman (as cited in Bass & Riggio, 2006) surveyed 245 white collar workers in six organizations to find a positive correlation between transformational leadership and commitment to stay with the organization and commitment to organizational beliefs. Additionally, Conger & Kanungo (1988) found a positive correlation with commitment to stay and commitment to values when measured with transformational qualities. In 2000, Rai & Sinha studied 261 managers in several public banks in India. Once again, transformational leadership explained the substantial amounts of variation in the workers? commitment to their organization. Similar conclusions were reported when departmental members in the college setting were found to be more committed and satisfied when department chairs were more transformational (Brown & Moshavi, 2002). In a different study, transformational leaders of teams in a metal processing plant displayed greater commitment to carrying out safe work practices and had a better safety climate in general than teams led by non-transformational leaders (Zohar, 2002). The meta-analysis by Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam (1996) investigated leader effectiveness and its connection to leadership behavior as measured by the MLQ (see Appendix B for Lowe, et al. meta-analysis references). The meta-analysis found high average correlations between characteristics of transformational leadership and follower satisfaction. Lowe, et al. reported common source bias in most of the studies included in the meta-analysis; nevertheless, positive correlations were still found when different sources were considered, although at a lower rate than previous studies (Lowe, et al. 1996). 29 Judge and Piccolo (2004) reported similar results with transformational leadership having a clear positive relationship with follower job satisfaction, satisfaction with the leader, and follower motivation. A meta-analysis by Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio (2002) found higher correlations for followers? satisfaction with the leader than for followers? satisfaction with their jobs; however, the correlations were still significant for both (see Appendix C for Dumdum, et al. meta-analysis references). As stated previously in the literature review, it is common practice in research to use transformational leadership and charisma interchangeably (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House & Podsakoff, 1994; House & Shamir, 1993; Yukl, 1999). Therefore, it is appropriate to include another meta-analysis in the discussion. In 2000, DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross examined charisma, follower commitment and satisfaction (see Appendix D for DeGroot, et al. meta-analysis references). The results found positive correlations among the measures and are therefore consistent with other transformational leadership findings. Many scholars have proposed that commitment to an organization takes many forms (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Allen & Mayer (1990) classified affective commitment, the employee?s emotional connection to the organization, from normative commitment, the employee?s sense of responsibility to stay. Penley & Gould (1988) referred to moral commitment (comparable to affective commitment) and calculated commitment (associated with both the advantages and disadvantages of leaving vs. staying). Bass & Riggio (2006) asserted that transformational leadership should have the greatest influence on affective commitment whereas the other forms of commitment (normative and calculated) should be greatly influenced by transactional leadership. In a study of nurses, Bycio et al. (1995) concluded that transformational leadership behaviors were in fact strongly correlated with affective commitment with a weaker correlation 30 to normative commitment. A study of U.S. Army leaders found that both transformational and transactional leadership were correlated with affective commitment and commitment to stay; however, transformational leadership enhanced the effects of transactional leadership on affective commitment (Kane & Tremble, 2000). Transformational Leadership?s Relationship to Organizational Performance According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership behaviors bring about higher levels of organizational effort and performance above and beyond what is probable with transactional behavior. Sparks and Schenck (2001) contend that transformational leaders are able to advance followers? belief in the higher purposes of their work, which encourages follower commitment, effort, and performance. Furthermore, as previously stated, transformational leadership essentially seeks to promote capacity development and increase degrees of personal commitment to the organization (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bycio et al., 1995; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kane & Tremble, 2000; Koh, 1990; Koh et al., 1995; Zohar, 2002). Bass (1985) asserts that increased capacities and commitment are presumed to result in additional effort and greater productivity. Since Bass? assumption that transformational leadership results in extra effort and greater productivity, there have been many studies that examined transformational leadership and performance in a broad range of settings. For example, transformational leadership has shown a positive relationship to performance in U.S. and North American companies (Seltzer & Bass, 1990), Russian companies (Elenkov, 2002), Korean companies (Jung & Sosik, 2002), New Zealand companies (Singer, 1985), military (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Masi & Cooke, 2000), private sector (Hater & Bass, 1988; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994), government (Wofford, Whittington, & Goodwin, 2001), higher education (Harvey, Royal, & Stout, 2003), 31 groups of sales people (Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001), healthcare workers (Bycio et al., 1995; Gellis, 2001), high school principals (Hoover, Petrosko, & Schulz, 1991; Kirby, Paradise, & King, 1992), and athletes (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001). The meta-analysis by Lowe, et al. (1996), described earlier in the literature review, also supports the claim that transformational leadership relates to performance. The study was conducted with a large sample of 22 published and 17 unpublished studies; however, Lowe, et al. identified a limitation to the studies. The researchers reported that most of the studies included in the meta-analysis were based on leadership and performance data gathered at the same time and from the same source (Lowe, et al., 1996). Therefore, common source bias amplified the relationship. Despite these biases, the true score correlation was nonetheless positive, just at a noticeably lower rate when data were collected from different sources (Lowe, et al. 1996) Moreover, previous research has established that transformational leadership and charismatic leadership can be considered equivalent (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House & Podsakoff, 1994; House & Shamir, 1994; Yukl, 1999). Therefore, it can also be added that studies have found a positive correlation between charismatic leadership and performance (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Another factor of transformational leadership tied to performance is the alignment of goals and values. Transformational leaders have the ability to shift the needs of the organization and a common mission above self needs (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Studies by Barling, Loughlin, and Kelloway (2002) found that transformational leaders can affect group performance by using value alignment. Their research in the fast food industry found that transformational leaders were able to increase the safety consciousness of workers, which in turn led to an elevated safety climate with a reduction in accidents. Another study in a disaster relief organization found that 32 transformational leadership was linked to the alignment of values between the leader and followers (Krishnan, 2002). In a study of chief executive officers in a Canadian hospital, LeBrasseur, Whissell, & Ojha (2002) found that the transformational leader?s ability to align the contradicting goals of quality patient care and saving measures were crucial components for successful team performance. A study by Jung and Avolio (2000) supported the positive link between transformational leadership and trust and value congruence. However, trust and value congruence were found to only partly mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and performance, indicating other mediators exist (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Empirical research has found that transformational leadership is linked to the advancement of innovation in organizations (Bass, 1985; Eyal & Kark, 2004; Geijsel et al., 1999; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Jung, 2001; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Sosik, 1997). Sosik (1997) found that computer-mediated groups with transformational leaders produced more inventive solutions, more encouraging comments, and more questions about resolutions than did groups with transactional leaders. Geijsel et al. (1999) found Dutch schools with high innovation to have more transformational leadership than low innovation schools. Jung et al. (2003) suggest that transformational leadership affected followers? creativity by increasing their intrinsic motivation which stimulates creativity (see also Shin & Zhou, 2003). Additionally, the transformational leader pushes followers to think more innovatively through intellectual stimulation (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Moreover, transformational leaders provide an organizational environment in which followers innovative ideas are supported and therefore encourage more creativity (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders boost the self-concept and feeling of self-efficacy of followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Moreover, a leader?s self-efficacy forecasts 33 followers? collective self-efficacy, which in turn predicts the group?s performance (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000; Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson & Watson, 2003; Sosik, Avolio, Kahai & Jung, 1998; Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 2001). Bandura (1997) characterizes collective self-efficacy as ?a group?s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment? (p. 51). Stajkovic & Luthan (1998) further state that self-efficacy consistently increases both individual and group performance. Another study of leaders in a teaching hospital found that transformational leadership led to increased group morale which led to better group creativity that directly helped patients (Wilson-Evered, Hartel, & Neale, 2001). The researchers believe that higher self-efficacy was the main reason for the growth (Wilson-Evered et al., 2001). Furthermore, Edwards and Newton (1995) describe research which shows that teacher efficacy positively impacts student achievement as well as teachers? attitudes, enthusiasm, and levels of stress. McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) found that the transformational leaders? potential to impact followers? collective feeling of optimism and their ability to shield the occurrence of frustration had a positive influence on group performance. Hoyt & Blascovich (2003) found that transactional leaders foster greater quantitative performance whereas transformational leaders foster greater qualitative performance. Levy, Cober, and Miller (2002) found that followers of transformational leaders were more apt than followers of transactional leaders to ask for feedback that would help in their growth. Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio (2003) found that groups of students under a transformational leader were less likely to engage in social loafing than those under a transactional leader. Kahai and his colleagues assert that transformational leadership not only amplifies performance but may also minimize the influence of counter productive work 34 habits which may reflect the transformational leaders? ability to get followers committed to a common goal as opposed to personal goals (Kahai et al., 2003). Substitutes, Enhancers, and Neutralizers for Transformational Leadership There are many teams or groups that function perfectly without a leader much less a transformational leader. Therefore, factors must exist that can replace or substitute for transformational leadership. Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that transformational teams can operate in ways to produce extra effort, performance, and satisfaction. In this case, the role of the transformational leader is shared between the group members. Furthermore, there are factors which may enhance transformational leadership rather than replace it. Bass and Riggio (2006) identified many probable substitutes or enhancers for transformational leadership?s effectiveness: 1. peer appraisals to increase acceptability of feedback 2. controls over quality by employees 3. peer support networks 4. automatic gain-sharing reward systems 5. mission statements and codes of conduct 6. redesigned jobs to have ideological importance and performance feedback from the task 7. a visible organizational champion of the leader 8. assignment of the leader to important organizational responsibilities 9. in-house publicity of the leader?s image 10. ?small? success experiences to increase the subordinates? confidence in the leader 11. superordinate goals from a higher authority to encourage high-performance norms 12. ceremony and myth to promote a transformational organizational culture (p. 220) 35 Bass and Riggio (2006) identified factors that could also neutralize transformational leadership. Neutralizers counteract the leader?s influence and diminish the leader?s impact and effectiveness (Bass & Riggio, 2006). According to Bass and Riggio (2006), the list described above as substitutes or enhancers can also work as neutralizers for transformational leadership. Additionally, the physical distance between leader and follower, systems of seniority promotion, and bypassed hierarchies of decision making are other factors that can neutralize the effectiveness of a transformational leader (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational Leadership in Education The literature review to this point has demonstrated that transformational leadership can have significant effects on organizations. However, the literature review has focused on transformational leadership in a broad spectrum. The following section will describe transformational leadership more specifically in the field of education. The names Burns and Bass are most closely associated with transformational leadership in the general context; however, Leithwood is a commonly associated name with transformational leadership in the field of education. Leithwood and his associates have been influential in linking the work of Burns and Bass into the field of education, specifically educational administration (Stewart, 2006). Leithwood and his colleagues have published numerous articles as well as several books on transformational leadership over the last two decades. Leithwood and his associates examined the work of Burns, Bass, and others on transformational leadership to develop a theoretical framework that more closely fit educational leadership. Although the framework has matured throughout the years, the transformational leadership domains can be described along six leadership and four management domains 36 (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). The leadership domains include: building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values; demonstrating high performance expectations; and developing structures to foster participation in school decisions (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Moreover, Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) identified managerial practices as lacking in many models of transformational leadership, but essential to organizational stability. Therefore, they added the management domains of: staffing; instructional support; monitoring school activities; and community focus (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Many of Leithwood?s studies also include a framework with school conditions and classroom conditions. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) defined school conditions as ?decisions and actions taken outside the classroom but within the school for the purpose of supporting teaching and learning in the classroom? (p. 454). School conditions involve purposes and goals; school planning; organizational culture; structure and organization; information collection and decision making (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Classroom conditions are defined as ?decisions and actions directly related to teaching and learning in the classroom? (p. 457). Classroom conditions include instructional services and policies and procedures. Instructional services, which involve interventions by teachers to enhance student educational growth, have a large body of research demonstrating their contributions to student achievement (Creemers & Reezigt, 1996; Reynolds, Sammons, Stoll, Barber, and Hillman, 1996). Leithwood and his colleagues have conducted numerous empirical and case studies examining transformational leadership. A majority of these studies are described in Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) where a synthesis of research in elementary and secondary schools up to 1995 are discussed. At least 20 of the studies examined specific domains of 37 transformational leadership which were used to develop the transformational leadership domains described in the previous paragraph (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Furthermore, the studies described evidence of the effects of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was described as having indirect effects on teacher-perceived outcomes (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Transformational leadership was found to have significant indirect effects on student participation in school as well as student identification with school (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). A positive relationship was found between the elements of transformational and transactional leadership (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Transformational leaders were found to continuously pursue three goals: assisting faculty in establishing and maintaining a collaborative, professional school culture; encouraging teacher growth; and helping teachers collectively problem solve (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Transformational leadership was found to improve teachers? commitment to change (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Additionally, Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) stated there is evidence?that transformational leadership influences four psychological states of those who experience such leadership, those states being: commitment; development press (changes in teachers? attitudes and/or behaviour); control press (the tendency for teachers to feel that they must adhere to central demands for orderliness and structure); and satisfaction (p. 34). Lastly, Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach (1999) described a relationship between transformational leadership and organizational improvement and effectiveness; therefore, indicating that transformational leadership inspires progress. 38 Additional findings are described in several others studies. In a 1994 study by Leithwood, transformational leadership was found to have significant direct and indirect effects on teachers? personal goals, which consequently had direct effects on teachers? situational beliefs, and faint yet significant effects on teachers? beliefs about ability. Moreover, the study identified vision building and routines that encouraged commitment to group goals as transformational leadership practices to which most outcomes were strongly related (Leithwood, 1994). Several replication studies by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000a, 2000b) found that transformational leadership had strong direct effects on organizational conditions in the form of school conditions, but weaker effects on classroom conditions. However, the Leithwood and Jantzi 1999b study found effects on school conditions of .80 and in turn effects on classroom conditions of .62. Moreover, the Leithwood and Jantzi 2000b study discovered that teacher leadership had significant impact on school conditions as well. Another study by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999a) found that principal leadership effects were significant, but weak on student engagement while teacher leadership effects were insignificant on student engagement. Further conclusions were drawn when a Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) study found that transformational leadership had effects on teachers? motivation, capabilities, and work settings in addition to teachers? classroom practices. Although Leithwood and his associates are closely linked to research on transformational leadership in the field of education, other studies support their findings. Educational research has found that increased job satisfaction, effectiveness, and commitment by teachers is influenced by transformational leadership (Hoover, et. al, 1991; Kirby, et. al, 1992; Koh, 1990; Koh, et al., 1995; Korkmaz, 2007; Ross & Gray, 2006). Moreover, educational research provided evidence that transformational leadership impacts teachers? self-efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, and 39 collaborative school culture (Demir, 2008; Ross & Gray, 2006). As defined earlier, efficacy is ?an internally held sense that one has the knowledge and skills to impact the learning processes in the school to attain desired results? (Ellison & Hayes, 2007, p. 75). The relationship between leadership and efficacy is important because of the well-established link between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, 2001; Ross, Hogaboam- Gray, & Gray, 2003). Furthermore, transformational leadership was found to promote higher innovation in Dutch schools (Geijsel, et al., 1999). Leithwood as well as many others discussed have provided important contributions to education in regards to the influences of transformational leadership. However, another aspect of transformational leadership found in education literature provides additional perspective for the current research study. Research on school leadership is predominantly focused on the principal (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). Leithwood & Jantzi (1999b) stated that power and influence related to transformational leadership is not necessarily distributed to those holding formal administrative positions. Instead, power is attributed by organization members to whomever is able to inspire their commitments to collective aspirations, and the desire for personal and collective mastery over the capacities needed to accomplish such aspirations. From this perspective, leadership is to be found in the agreement by a person, who thereby volunteers to be a ?follower?, to be influenced by a person, group, or thing (p. 453). Hallinger (2003) asserted that models of transformational leadership should visualize leadership as an organizational entity instead of the work of a single person, thereby employing multiple sources of leadership. Recent evidence indicates that practices related to transformational leadership may be broadly distributed throughout an organization (Leithwood, Jantzi, Earl, 40 Fullan, & Levin, 2004). In previous studies, Leithwood & Jantzi (1998) referred to this as an organization-wide phenomenon or total leadership. Kerr (1978) described a similar concept phrased the ?substitutes for leadership? theory. A decade after Kerr?s introduction of the ?substitutes for leadership? theory, Kerr and Jermier (1997) stated that there was not sufficient research exploring the processes through which the substitutes exercise their effects. A study by Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) provided interesting data for the idea of distributed leadership or total leadership. The study was conducted in the Canadian Province of Ontario with 94 elementary schools and 16 secondary schools (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). The study examined the effects of school leadership provided by different sources on student engagement. Leadership sources included: principal; vice principal; department heads; individual teachers offering leadership on a informal basis; teacher teams or committees created to specifically provide leadership; students; parents; and/or other members of the community (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). The study found that teacher leadership effects overshadow principal leadership effects before considering the moderating effects of family educational culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). When family educational culture was considered, the effects of teacher leadership were reduced, but the effects were still as compelling as principal leadership effects (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). The collective impact of the seven sources of leadership was used to determine a measure of total school leadership in the study (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). The results found a weak, yet significant relationship of total school leadership with school conditions (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). Leithwood & Jantzi theorized that more leadership actually detracts from clarity of purpose, sense of mission, sufficient certainty about what needs to be done to allow for productive collective action in the 41 school; However, perhaps schools benefit most from the leadership of a small number of easily identified sources (1998, p.27). Although the results for total school leadership were disappointing, Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) argued that distributed forms of leadership should still be considered as having potential in educational leadership. Moreover, Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) asserted that additional research is needed examining the nature of transformational leadership practiced by those in non- administrative positions. Leithwood and Jantzi stated that people in formal administrative positions may have greater power in their effort to sway classroom practices whereas teachers or others in non-administrative roles may have authority that comes from practical expertise about teaching and learning (1998). Leithwood (1994) reported that transformational leadership practices are contingent in that they may vary within each dimension; therefore, these practices may be expressed in different ways. Marks and Printy (2003) theorized that transformational leadership alone is not sufficient to attain high-quality teaching and learning. According to the authors, instructional leadership was needed to supplement the principles of transformational leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003). Marks and Printy (2003) argued that the when transformational leadership and instructional leadership coexist, the impact on school performance is considerable. Summary of Transformational Leadership Transformational leaders arouse and motivate followers to achieve exceptional outcomes in a variety of ways (Burns, 1978; Yammarino et al., 1998). Research has shown that transformational leadership is positively related to followers? satisfaction and commitment (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Hater & Bass, 1988; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Koh, 1990; Koh et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Additionally, transformational leadership has 42 shown a positive relationship to performance in organizations (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bycio et al.,1995; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Elenkov, 2002; Gellis, 2001; Harvey et al., 2003; Hater & Bass, 1988; Hoover et al., 1991; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kirby et al., 1992; Mackenzie et al., 2001; Masi & Cooke, 2000; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Singer, 1985; Wofford et al., 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994). Other positive relationships with transformational leadership include innovation in organizations (Bass, 1985; Eyal & Kark, 2004; Geijsel et al., 1999; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Jung, 2001; Jung et al., 2003; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Sosik, 1997) and self-efficacy (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2008). In the field of education, studies have found positive relationships between transformational leadership and teachers? job satisfaction, commitment, performance, and efficacy (Demir, 2008; Hoover, et. al, 1991; Kirby, et. al, 1992; Koh, 1990; Koh, et al., 1995; Korkmaz, 2007; Ross & Gray, 2006). Studies by Leithwood and associates have discovered many transformational leadership effects in the field of education which include: indirect effects on teacher-perceived outcomes (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999); significant indirect effects on student participation in school as well as student identification with school (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999); improvement in teachers? commitment to change (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999); significant direct and indirect effects on teachers? personal goals, situational beliefs, ability beliefs; strong direct effects on organizational conditions in the form of school conditions. With significant empirical evidence as a foundation, it can justly be held that transformational leadership can positively influence individuals and organizations. However, recent evidence indicates that practices related to transformational leadership may be broadly distributed throughout an organization (Leithwood, Jantzi, Earl, Fullan, & Levin, 2004). Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) asserted that additional research is needed examining the 43 nature of transformational leadership practiced by those in non-administrative positions. Marks and Printy (2003) theorized that transformational leadership alone is not sufficient to attain high- quality teaching and learning; instructional leadership was needed to supplement the principles of transformational leadership to considerably influence school performance (Marks & Printy, 2003). Coaching Coaching Introduction Many school districts offer or require orientation, induction, or mentoring programs for new teachers, but these are often for short periods of time. Additionally, in an era of increasing accountability and reform, educators now recognize the necessity of continuous assistance for all teachers, not just new teachers. A response to this need is instructional coaching (Barr, Simmons, & Zarrow, 2003). As of 2009, the International Coach Federation (ICF), an organization that creates standards and skills for professional coaches, reports that there are more than 11,000 certified coaches worldwide and 30,000 practicing coaches, which includes those without professional coaching credentials (Reiss, 2009). Many coaches work for large corporations while others are independent and work for several companies, but few work with schools (Reiss, 2009). In the 1997 National Staff Development Conference program, the word coach appeared 19 times, but by 2007, the word or variations of it appeared 193 times (Knight, 2009). The tide is beginning to turn. As the tide turns and the field of coaching becomes more prevalent in organizations, particularly schools, coaching could step into the role of transformational leadership practiced in non-administrative positions as discussed by Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) as well as the role of a coexisting instructional leader as discussed by Marks and Printy (2003). 44 This section of the literature review will provide definitions of coaching found in the literature as well as describe many types of coaching. Additionally, the literature review will discuss why coaching is a new alternative for education, the research that can be found about its impact on education, and some of the concerns or issues about coaching in the field of education. Definition & Types of Coaching The International Coaching Federation (ICF), an organization which has developed standards and skills for professional coaches, defines coaching as ?partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential? (ICF, 2009, p. 1). Educators define coaching in similar ways. One of the earliest definitions of coaching in education is provided by Showers (1982) who states ?coaching?may be conceived as a combination of several elements?companionship? feedback?and analysis of application? (p. 8). Showers (1982) adds that coaching provides an opportunity for evaluating goals, curriculum, and newly obtained skills or behaviors. Knight (2007) states that coaching ?is an approach that offers time and support for teachers to reflect, converse about, explore, and practice new ways of thinking about and doing this remarkably important and complex act, called teaching? (p. 2). More importantly, Knight (2007) states that coaching puts teachers? needs in the forefront of professional development by individualizing learning. Poglinco et al. (2003) state that ?coaching is a form of inquiry-based learning characterized by collaboration between individual, or groups of, teachers and more accomplished peers? (p. 1). Furthermore, coaching includes professional, continued classroom modeling, supportive feedback of practice, and explicit observations (Poglinco et al., 2003). Deussen, Coskie, Robinson, & Autio (2007) add ?coaching occurs when a more knowledgeable professional works closely with another professional to increase productivity or to meet some 45 predetermined outcome? (p. 5). Perhaps the simplest yet all encompassing definition of coaching provided is by Coggins, Stoddard, and Cutter (2003) who state that the fundamental objective of coaching is capacity building; the development of knowledge and skills for individuals as well as organizations. As illustrated in the paragraphs above, there are many definitions for the term coaching in education. Moreover, there are just as many types of coaching identified in the literature. The following paragraphs will provide a brief description of some of the most frequently used types of coaching. Arthur Costa and Robert Garmston developed the concept of cognitive coaching in 1984 as a method for principals to support teachers? thinking and ability to direct themselves (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). The intent of cognitive coaching was to shift away from the behaviorist belief that focused on infusing behaviors into a teacher?s every day practice (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). Costa and Garmston (2002) state that ?all behavior is determined by a person?s perceptions and?a change in perception and thought is prerequisite to a change in behavior?human beings construct their own meaning through reflecting on experience and through interactions with others? (p.7). Cognitive coaching is based in the notion that humans search for learning and growth as intrinsic components of their life (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). Therefore, the mission of cognitive coaching is to develop ?self-directed persons with the cognitive capacity for high performance, both independently and as members of a community? (Costa & Garmston, 2002, p. 16). The role of the cognitive coach then is to provide conversations and an environment for interceding teachers? thinking, insights, and beliefs to enhance the individual?s power for self- management (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). 46 At the core of cognitive coaching are the five states of mind: efficacy, consciousness, craftsmanship, flexibility, and interdependence (Costa & Garmston, 2002). States of mind describe and clarify the means necessary to become self-directed and holonomous (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Holonomy is the idea that each person retains a unique identity while still being part of a larger group (Costa & Garmston, 2002). The state of mind of efficacy in an educational setting is ?an internally held sense that one has the knowledge and skills to impact the learning processes in the school to attain desired results? (Ellison & Hayes, 2007, p. 75). The state of mind of consciousness points to self-awareness which allows for investigation of other states of mind (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). The state of mind of craftsmanship is an inner desire for personal and group excellence (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). The state of mind of flexibility allows one to go beyond normal predispositions of self-interest toward multiple perspectives (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). The state of mind of interdependence lets one move past a self-centered view of the world to a view of one being part of a larger system (Ellison & Hayes, 2007). Another increasingly popular form of coaching is leadership coaching or executive coaching. Forty years ago, executive coaching did not exist; twenty years ago, coaching was primarily aimed at talented, yet toxic executives who would most likely be fired if something didn?t change (Couto & Kauffman, 2009). Now, coaching is a powerful solution for ensuring high performance from an organization?s most significantly talented (Couto & Kauffman, 2009). Goldsmith, Lyons, and Frees state that an executive coach establishes and develops healthy working relationships by surfacing issues (raw data gathering), addressing issues (through feedback), solving problems (action planning), and following through (results) ? and so offers a process in which 47 people develop and through which obstacles to obtaining business results are removed. (as cited in Knight, 2007, p. 9) Reiss (2007) asserts that leadership coaching focuses on the inner self, on obtaining clarity about what stimulates us and how we may need to mature and change to achieve the desired outer results both personally and professionally. Reiss adds that while leadership coaching centers more on the individual, the goals discussed are aligned with the organization. After receiving leadership coaching, school leaders can use the skill to move from a management approach with teachers to a coaching approach by challenging and encouraging people to achieve organizational goals while recognizing individuals and their need to contribute meaningfully to the organization (Reiss, 2007). Whitworth, Kimsey-House, and Sandahl (2007) go a step further than executive coaching with co-active coaching and find a client-coach relationship embraces the ?whole of a person?s life? (p. 7). In this type of relationship, the coach may tackle issues such as health, finance, spirituality, recreation, as well as professional aspirations (Whitworth et al., 2007). Manchester, Inc. (2001), a human capital consulting firm, surveyed more than 300 companies and found that about 59 percent of the companies offered coaching or a similar program to its managers and executives in 1999. An additional 20 percent of the organizations said they would offer a program in the upcoming year (Manchester, Inc., 2001). One of the largest and probably most well-known programs using coaching is Reading First. Reading First is a federal project that seeks to improve reading skills in low-performing K- 3 schools; an essential component of Reading First has been professional development for teachers through workshops, institutes, and foremost site-based literacy coaches (Deussen et al., 2007). Reading First schools can be found in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Native 48 American Indian reservations, as well as U.S. territories (Toll, 2007). Therefore, since the Reading First program mandates that professional development be provided by a reading coach, over 5,200 schools have hired reading coaches (Deussen et al., 2007). In some schools, literacy coach and reading coach are synonymous, while in others they have very distinct roles (Knight, 2007). Knight concludes ?that literacy and reading coaches perform a wide range of valuable activities in schools, sometimes working with students and more frequently working with teachers, to increase students? literacy skills and strategies? (2007, p. 12). Depending on the type of model implemented, literacy coaching might range from implementing specific teaching strategies to altering teachers? views about grant regulations or a required curriculum of literacy instruction (Toll, 2007). According to Kise (2006), ?coaching is the art of identifying and developing a person?s strengths? (p. 139). During times of change, the strengths of individuals within an organization can be very important. Strengthening certain individuals in any organization is where another kind of coaching called differentiated coaching is necessary. The goal of differentiated coaching is to identify the needs of individuals in an organization during change (Kise, 2006). The needs of individuals will be affected by the teachers? personality, teaching style, and beliefs about education (Kise, 2006). Coaching is necessary when the changes involved require a modification in the teachers? educational beliefs (Kise, 2006). It is a way to increase the level of buy-in by teachers because the focus is on how the projected changes will be helpful in that actual teacher?s classroom (Kise, 2006). Therefore, differentiated coaching becomes a tool to help teachers who need additional information, encouragement, or training in order to implement the required changes (Kise, 2006). Differentiated coaching includes the use of frameworks such as personality type in order to better meet the needs of individuals. The intent of personality type 49 frameworks is not to brand the teacher, but rather to negate the label of resistor by identifying needs of the teacher that are not necessarily considered (Kise, 2006). Knight (2007) developed another form of coaching called instructional coaching. He based instructional coaching on a partnership approach. Moreover, he derived seven principles from the fields of adult education, cultural anthropology, leadership, organizational theory, and epistemology to form the theoretical framework for instructional coaching. Knight incorporates seven principles into instructional coaching: equality, choice, voice, dialogue, reflection, praxis, and reciprocity. The equality principle signifies that the instructional coach and the teacher are equal partners; the instructional coach listens in order to understand, not necessarily to persuade (Knight, 2007). The choice principle indicates that teachers have a choice in what and how they learn (Knight, 2007). The voice principle implies that professional development should empower and value the voices of teachers (Knight, 2007). The dialogue principle means that professional development should facilitate genuine dialogue; they listen more than they talk (Knight, 2007). The reflection principle states that by definition, reflective thinkers have the right to choose or reject ideas (Knight, 2007). The praxis principle means that teachers should apply their learning to real-world practice (Knight, 2007). The reciprocity principle signifies that instructional coaches should anticipate to receive as much as they give (Knight, 2007). Based on the partnership approach and the seven principles, instructional coaches work with teachers to help them integrate research-based instructional strategies into their teaching. Content coaching is a form of coaching that is evolving along with the standards movement (West, 2007). The core of content coaching is simple: to improve learning, teachers must concentrate on pertinent, essential, rich content (West, 2007). Unlike some types of coaching, which focus on professional collaboration, content coaching views content as a crucial 50 aspect of coaching (West, 2007). It is a process centered on thoughtful lesson planning, skillful performance of lessons, reflective examination of student learning, and use of student learning analysis to develop subsequent lessons (West, 2007). Content coaches possess knowledge and understanding of the content of their discipline, awareness of which concepts within that discipline are appropriate for students at various stages, knowledge of current learning theories, a varied repertoire of instructional strategies aligned with those theories and an understanding of organizations as living, dynamic systems. (West, 2007, p. 115) Content coaching is based on the theory of incremental intelligence (West, 2007). The theory of incremental intelligence speculates that we can in reality become more intelligent by becoming more mindful of who we are as learners and by applying the correct kinds of effort and metacognitive processes to the information we want to learn (West, 2007). In essence, effort creates intelligence (West, 2007). Other types of coaching found in the literature include: peer coaching; principles? coaching; challenge coaching; collegial coaching; and technical coaching. Peer coaching appears in literature as far back as the 1980s with Joyce and Showers, the first researchers to genuinely examine coaching (Poglinco et al., 2003). Peer coaching is defined ?as two or more professional colleagues working together to improve their professional knowledge and skills? (Poglinco et al., 2003, p. 2). Ackland (1991) identified two types of peer coaching: expert and reciprocal coaching. Expert peer coaching involves a teacher who is a recognized expert that observes others teachers and offers feedback (Ackland, 1991). Reciprocal peer coaching is defined as teachers observing and providing feedback to one another in order to improve instruction (Ackland, 1991). Principles? coaching is focused on a reform plan that the coach works towards 51 enacting in a school or system (Barr et al., 2003). Challenge coaching ?helps teams of teachers resolve persistent problems in instructional design or delivery. The term ?challenge? refers to resolving a problematic state? (Garmston, 1987, p. 21). Collegial Coaching polishes teaching practices, deepens collegiality, improves professional discourse, and helps teachers reflect more deeply (Garmston, 1987). Finally, technical coaching ?is typically used to transfer new teacher practices into teachers? regular repertoire? (Poglinco et al., 2003, p. 2). Garmston (1987) adds that technical coaching ?helps teachers transfer training to classroom practice? (p. 18). Although many definitions and types of coaching have been described in the paragraphs above, one definition provided offers an umbrella in which all others can fall. Coggins et al., (2003) defined coaching as capacity building in that it develops knowledge and skills for individuals as well as organizations. Regardless of which type of coaching is used, each works towards building teachers? capacity in some meaningful way. In these regards, all types of coaching exhibit transformational leadership practices that may be exercised in non- administrative roles. Educational literature identified the lack of research on leadership other than the principal as a missing component in the area of transformational leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). Roles & Responsibilities of Coaching Just as there are differing characteristics and types of coaches, there are also many conflicting ideas about their roles and responsibilities. If coaching has a credible chance of serving in the practice of transformational leadership, the roles and responsibilities of coaching must be examined. The following paragraphs will briefly describe some of the roles and responsibilities found in the literature. 52 Coaches must be knowledgeable about not only their content area, but also district reform goals, achievement standards, and adult learning. Meeting such a range of goals requires that coaches possess strong communication and interpersonal skills, consistently follow through with support for teachers, and demonstrate a willingness to listen and learn. (King et al. 2009, p. 3) Additionally, Guiney (2001) asserts that coaches should have the ability to ?know when to push and when to stand back in the long term?to galvanize a school to function differently? (p. 741). Knight (2009) adds that coaches should also be familiar and comfortable with interventions and strategies in classroom management. Coaches can be evaluative or non-evaluative (Knight, 2009). Administrators as coaches tend to be evaluative because their job by nature is one of authority (Knight, 2009). The non- evaluative coach?s role is to simply help support teachers (Knight, 2009). Costa and Garmston (2002) describe this role conflict as directive or collegial. In the directive model, the coach has the role of the expert determining specific areas of weakness; whereas, the collegial role is targeted toward self-reflection (Costa & Garmston, 2002). In 1982, Showers found that teachers had varying responses about coaching, but general guidelines surfaced about its implementation. First, there was identification of instructional objectives; second, lesson planning; third, observations; and finally, conferencing (Showers, 1982). The Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI) implemented a similar structure in which instructional coaches worked one-on-one with teachers to solve problems, model lessons, and conduct classroom visitations that included pre-visit planning, classroom observation, and post-conference after the classroom visit (Brown et al., 2006). Interviews with coaches and teachers in five Reading First schools found five role categories for coaches 53 (Deussen et al., 2007). The five categories of coaches were: data-oriented, student-oriented, managerial, and two teacher-oriented categories (one with individual and one with groups) (Deussen et al., 2007). Killion and Harrison (2006) identified ten roles of a coach. These roles included: resource provider; data coach; instructional specialist; curriculum specialist; school leader; catalyst for change; and learner (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a resource provider, a coach provides materials to teachers that are not readily available to them; however, a challenge to this role is that it takes up a great deal of time (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a data coach, a coach assists teachers or teams of teachers in examining student data and then using the data to design lessons that address student needs (Killion & Harrison, 2006). A problem with the role of data coach is that it requires coaches to create a safe environment in which difficult topics can be discussed without placing blame (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As an instructional specialist, the coach assists teachers in selecting appropriate instructional strategies that meet the needs of all students (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a curriculum specialist, the coach focuses on what teachers teach instead of how they teach (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a school leader, the coach facilitates school-wide or system-wide reform initiatives (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a catalyst for change, the coach exhibits discontent with the status quo and questions everyday practices (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a learner, the coach is involved in his or her own continuous development (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a classroom supporter, the coach works side by side with the teacher in the classroom while student learning is occurring (Killion & Harrison, 2006). As a learning facilitator, the coach plans, supports, coordinates, and facilitates learning amongst adults in the school or system (Killion & Harrison, 2006). 54 Knight (2009) stated that a coach new to a school or new to coaching has to first establish a trusting relationship with colleagues. This first stage often involves the role of resource provider more than any other role because coaches need to prove their resourcefulness and their commitment and ability to meet the needs of teachers (Knight, 2009). In this role, there is little interference in teaching practices or expectations; however, once a relationship is established, conversations begin about using resources and strategies in the classroom and their influence on teaching and learning (Knight, 2009). There are several external factors which impact the roles and responsibilities of coaches. Time is mentioned as one of the biggest challenges for coaches (Knight, 2006; Schwartz & McCarthy, 2003). Moreover, the sequence of the school year can have a huge impact on the coaches? allocation of time. Additionally, principals? views of coaching can have an influence on the roles of coaches (Knight, 2009). If the principal is considered the instructional leader then the coaches? role is secondary; however, it could also be the other way around (Knight, 2009). Furthermore, a coach has a greater ability to influence improvements in teaching and learning when a school has a healthy culture; some coaching roles work better in one school than in another and often the culprit is the culture of the school and not the coach (Knight, 2009). Structure is another factor which can impact the role of a coach. Without a clear structure to the day, coaches? time can be fragmented (Knight, 2009). When their work becomes too extensive, the possibility exists for coaches to take on too many roles which can then weaken the effect of their work (Knight, 2009). Not only do coaches have varying responsibilities, the term coach can be used to describe a variety of configurations (Deussen et al., 2007). There are full-time coaches designated to a single building, full-time coaches designated to multiple buildings, part-time coaches, and 55 teachers who provide part-time coaching (Deussen et al., 2007). Although these configurations have many common characteristics, their differences are often ignored in the literature, causing more difficulty in interpreting findings about the success or impact of the implementation of coaching (Deussen et al., 2007). Coaching as Professional Development Teaching has long been called ?a lonely profession?, always in pejorative terms. The professional isolation of teachers limits access to new ideas and better solutions, drives stress inward to fester and accumulate, fail to recognize and praise success, and permits incompetence to exist and persist to the detriment of students, colleagues, and the teachers themselves. Isolation allows, even if it does not always produce conservatism and resistance to innovation in teaching. (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996, p. 5) The characterization above that teaching is a lonely profession disheartens many involved in education because research suggests that teacher effects are the dominant factors for student achievement (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). In a study conducted by Sanders and Rivers (1996) through the Tennessee Value Added Research and Assessment Center (TVAAS), researchers studied the cumulative effects of teachers on student achievement over grade levels. The researchers found that regardless of a students? beginning achievement level, teachers identified in the top group facilitated needed progress for all students; whereas teachers identified in the bottom group did not make desirable gains for students regardless of the students? beginning achievement level (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). A study conducted by Wenglinsky (2000) analyzed data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for more than 15,000 eighth-grade math and science students to determine if 56 professional development, classroom practices, and teacher inputs (e.g. experience, academic degrees, parallel between college major and subject taught) shaped student achievement. Wenglinsky found that professional development was a significant factor in forecasting higher student achievement (2000). Therefore, preparing, maintaining and sustaining effective teachers must be a priority in education. As implied, professional development must be given significant attention in education to better ensure teacher effectiveness. However, professional development in isolation will not be enough. Organizations must strive to provide professional development that is effective for all teachers in a variety of situations. Bush (1984) found that not all teachers are equal when it comes to professional development. In addition, he developed five categories to describe teachers? relationship to professional development (Bush, 1984). At the top of the chain are the omnivores who devour everything; next there are the active consumers who will not request anything, but will eat when it is provided; third, there are passive consumers who do not want to eat, but eventually will; fourth, are the withdrawn group who won?t respond one way or the other; finally, there are the entrenched group who are firmly planted in their spot and will not move (Bush, 1984). Furthermore, Bush found that faculties are generally made up of 5 percent omnivores, 20 percent active consumers, 50 percent passive consumers, 10 percent withdrawn, and 15 percent entrenched; therefore, at least 75 percent of teachers are not receptive to traditional staff development (1984). Additionally, a five-year longitudinal study on staff development in nearly 80 schools in California found that only 10 percent of teachers would use information from training if only the theoretical and conceptual base were presented; only 2-3 percent more if it were demonstrated or modeled; 2-3 percent more if teachers were allowed to practice it in a controlled situation; and if 57 teachers received feedback on how well they had done it, then another 2-3 percent of teachers would use the information (Bush, 1984). However, if someone helped teachers in the classroom and in the school to adapt it, then it would go up to 95 percent (Bush, 1984). Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) described traditional staff development as ?something that is done to teachers rather than with them; still less by them? (p. 17). Knight (2000) added that traditional professional development sessions ?involve complex interactions that can actually decrease teachers? interest in growth and development and increase a culture in schools that is hostile to professional learning? (p.1). Furthermore, Showers (1982) argued that the attainment of skill alone is not an adequate state to bring about transfer of that skill into the place of work because situations in the classroom are enormously different from training conditions. Staff development may fail for a variety of reasons. Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) stated that teachers face pressing immediacy because ?there are always things to be done, decisions to be made, children?s needs to be met, not just everyday, but every minute, every second? (p. 65). Another problem of staff development is the number of initiatives implemented in a district. Abrahamson (2004) called this occurrence initiative overload and went on to say that when faced with initiative overload, people shut down and take cover. Therefore, it may not be that teachers do not want to try new programs; they just may not have the energy for it. Garet et al. (2001) conducted a study using a national probability sample of 1,027 math and science teachers to empirically compare the effects of different characteristics of professional development on teachers? learning. The researchers found three core elements of professional development that had significant impact on teachers? self-reported improvement in knowledge and skills as well as change in classroom practice: 1) concentration on content knowledge; 2) chances for active learning; 3) consistency with other learning activities (Garet et 58 al., 2001). Furthermore, these core elements influenced teachers? learning based on three structural models: 1) type of activity (workshop vs. study group); 2) group participation of teachers from the same school, grade, or subject; 3) the duration of the activity (Garet et al., 2001). Wenglinsky?s study also found that the extent of professional development encouraged more effective teacher practices (2000). Poglinco et al. (2003, p. 1) described a framework of effective professional development which included: 1) showing teachers how to connect their work to specific standards for student performance; 2) immersing participants in questioning and experimentation; 3) providing intensive and sustained experiences; 4) engaging teachers in concrete teaching tasks based on their experiences with students; 5) focusing on subject matter knowledge and deepening teachers? content skills; 6) connecting to other aspects of school change. Additionally, Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) identified similar characteristics of effective professional development that stated it must: 1) be engaging for teachers in the concrete tasks of teaching, assessing, observing, and reflecting 2) be grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that are participant- driven 3) be collaborative 4) be connected to and derived from teachers? work with their students 59 5) be sustained, on-going, intensive, and supported by modeling, coaching, and the collective solving of specific problems 6) be connected to other aspects of school change. (p. 597) Showers, Joyce, and Bennett (1997) examined nearly 180 studies on staff development and found that only a small portion of programs offered included the necessary elements to maintain skills. In 2007, the problem still seemed evident when Knight discovered through interviews with more than 150 teachers that it was not the change teachers were resisting so much but the ill-designed change initiatives. Regardless of the necessity to improve teaching and learning, the reality is that it will take many years for teachers to master innovative and distinctive instructional strategies even when they are enthusiastic to implement what they have learned (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Coaching has been identified as a plausible solution to the problems of traditional staff development (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). There is evidence to suggest that coaching is well-liked by teachers (Schwartz & McCarthy, 2003) and that teachers feel it improves their instruction as well as their eagerness to try new practices (Knight, 2004; Munro & Elliott, 1987; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Moreover, proponents of coaching argue that if implemented correctly, coaching will alter and deepen teacher practices (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Coggins et al. (2003), assert that ?given the complex demands of reform, leadership that comes from outside of the narrow boundaries of traditional ?administrator? positions is needed for support across multiple levels of the school system? (p. 2). Most reform innovations follow the top-down model, which has failed to show long-term change in schools (Brunner & Davidson, 1998). Furthermore, traditional educational advisors know little about the specific content and suggest one-size-fits-all solutions (Barr et al., 2003). 60 Additionally, programs, consultants, and leaders often focus on a vision, improvement strategies and allocating resources. These efforts can sometime be isolated from what teachers actually need to improve their work (Coggins et al., 2003). Reform initiated by coaches springs from the bottom up, which can change the culture of organizations. The Annenberg Institute at Brown University states that coaching provides an investment in human capital because it builds capacity by using the methodology of adult learning and change theory (King et al., n.d.). Moreover, coaching provides sustainability and communication between schools and districts (King et al., n.d.) Rock and Schwartz (2006) state ?the mental act of focusing attention stabilizes the associated brain circuits?Over time, paying enough attention to any specific brain connection keeps the relevant circuitry open and dynamically alive?The power is in the focus? (p. 7). Hence, the information you think about, you more often generate (Reiss, 2009). Coaching, as a ?results-and-action? centered practice, guides people away from the problem and focuses them on solutions (Reiss, 2009). Coaches ask questions to urge people to think differently; therefore, new connections are developed inside the brain (Reiss, 2009). As stated, professional development should be on-going, job-embedded, collaborative, reflective, and relevant to the content. Coaching, if implemented correctly, has the ability to meet all of these staff development requirements. Research on Coaching Research, for the most part, has supported coaching in general education (Joyce et al., 1989; Showers, 1982), adult learning (Yorks, 2005), teacher professional development (National Staff Development Council, 2001), teacher reflection and inquiry (Garmston, Linder, & Whitaker, 1993; Hatch, White, & Faigenbaum, 2005), specific teaching practices (Brown et al., 61 2006, 2007, 2008), and increased teacher collaboration (Alseike, 1997; Eger, 2006; Edwards et al., 1998). The following paragraphs will describe the research found in the literature about coaching and its link to changing teachers? practices; improving teachers? reflective practices; influencing teachers? attitudes toward teaching and learning; increasing levels of collaboration and communication among teachers; and influencing student achievement. Several studies have found that coaching is linked to changing teachers? practices (Awakuni, 1995; Brown et al., 2006; Deussen et al., 2007; Eger, 2006; Joyce et al., 1989; Reed, 2007; Showers, 1982; Sommers & Costa, 1993; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). In 1982, Showers conducted a study which found that coaching shaped teachers? transfer of training. The coached participants stated that without coaching they would have stopped using the new strategies (Showers, 1982). Another study by Joyce et al. (1989) in Richmond County, Georgia found that when teachers were arranged into study groups to learn new instructional strategies, their students improved in both achievement and behavior, especially in peer groups with strong leaders. Teachers who participated in the Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI) were more likely to apply instructional strategies when coaching was provided (Brown et al., 2006). Participants who worked with coaches were more prone to state they knew how to apply their learning in the classroom (79 percent) than those participants who had not received coaching (Brown et al., 2006). The second and third year study of the program found that coaching was a factor linked to continued instructional change (Brown et al., 2007, 2008). In 1985, the Ann Arbor Public Schools in Michigan implemented a peer coaching initiative in two schools (Sparks & Bruder, 1987). The teachers completed a questionnaire before and after the peer coaching program (Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Before the peer coaching project, only 54 percent of the teachers said they regularly ?tried something new?; however, after peer 62 coaching, 70 percent of the teachers responded favorably to trying something new (Sparks & Bruder, 1987). A small study in Wayzata Senior High School in Plymouth, Minnesota in the early 1990s found that as a result of being coached, teachers varied the strategies they used in their classroom (Sommers & Costa, 1993). Additionally, a small qualitative study at a school in Hawaii reported that teachers who received cognitive coaching over a year?s time made changes in their teaching (Awakuni, 1995). Interviews and observations discovered that teachers in the cognitive coaching program increased in their use of questioning techniques in the classroom as well as augmented the types of strategies they used to teach (Awakuni, 1995). Knight (2004) found that 85 percent of teachers who worked with a coach had already applied at least one instructional strategy they had learned during a summer workshop in comparison to 10 percent of teachers who had not worked with a coach (Knight, 2004). Eger (2006) reported that teachers who received cognitive coaching learned new strategies that helped them develop a more relaxed classroom with more sincere conversations with other teachers and students, as well as an increased feeling of ownership in solving problems. Moreover, a small case study by Reed (2007) concluded ?when teachers engaged in coaching conversations with the instructional coach and other teachers, they had opportunities to create new mental models and attempt new strategies and techniques they might not have otherwise attempted without support? (p. 230). Coaching has also been linked to the improvement of teachers? reflective practices (Alseike, 1997; Awakuni, 1995; Eger, 2006; Garmston, et al., 1993; Geltner, 1993; Lipton, 1993; Slinger, 2004). Teachers who received cognitive coaching ranked higher than teachers who did not receive cognitive coaching on degrees of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying (Alseike, 1997). Slinger (2004) stated that first grade teachers described coaching as a positive 63 influence on their instruction because their practices became more focused, planning became more thoughtful, instruction became more skillful, and thinking became more complex. In a similar finding by Eger (2006), teachers asserted that cognitive coaching ?resulted in higher levels of thinking and more critical analysis of goals, lesson plans, and teaching behaviors, as well as evaluation of their own teaching and student performance? (p. 67). In 1998, the Veterans Administration Stress and Aggression Project, which worked to reduce stress and aggression in organizations, added learning coaches to their model (York, 2005). The role of the learning coach differed from a traditional group facilitator because the function of the learning coach was to help participants reflect on their difficulties and learn from their experiences (York, 2005). York (2005) discovered that coaches ?helped facilitate resolution of difficult points in meetings, surfacing issues and allowing the participants to challenge their various interpretations of what was going on? (Yorks, 2005, p. 1230). A small study of teachers in a Jewish Day School who received three cycles of cognitive coaching matured more significantly on a measure of reflective thinking than teachers in a control group (Moche, 1999). Another small study in Canada examined teachers in grades 3 and 6 to determine the influence of peer coaching on teachers? practices (Bruce & Ross, 2008). The researchers discerned through interviews and classroom observations that participants reflected more clearly due to peer coaching (Bruce & Ross, 2008). Lipton (1993) explored reflective practices for administrative problem solving using a cognitive coaching framework. Lipton suggested that reflective practices are immensely augmented when found on a rich and specific framework. Cognitive coaching has been found to have a significant influence on teachers? attitudes toward teaching and efficacy (Alseike, 1997; Edwards & Newton, 1995; Edwards et al., 1998; Krpan, 1997; Smith, 1997). Edwards and Newton (1995) found that teachers who received 64 cognitive coaching were more satisfied with teaching as a career than teachers who had not received cognitive coaching. Another study by Edwards et al. (1998) examined a cognitive coaching project that was implemented over a three year period and found that teachers who received cognitive coaching were more content with their profession than teachers who did not receive coaching in a matched control group. Additionally, teachers? efficacy was found to increase with the addition of cognitive coaching (Alseike, 1997; Edwards & Newton, 1995; Edwards et al., 1998; Krpan, 1997; Smith, 1997). Ellison and Hayes defined efficacy as ?an internally held sense that one has the knowledge and skills to impact the learning process in the school to attain desired results (2009, p. 75). Moreover, cognitive coaching has been shown to increase levels of collaboration and communication (Alseike, 1997; Awakuni, 1995; Dougherty, 2000; Edwards et al., 1998; Eger, 2006; Guiney, 2001; Schwartz & McCarthy, 2003; Sommers & Costa, 1993). Alseike (1997) conducted a study comparing teachers who received cognitive coaching and a matched control group of teachers who did not receive cognitive coaching. Alseike found that teachers who received cognitive coaching ranked higher on the States of Mind of Interdependence (1997). Edwards et al. (1998) found teachers who received cognitive coaching matured considerably on the Collaboration subscale of the School Culture Survey more than a matched control group which allowed them to build better rapport with others and participate in more coaching sessions. Sommers and Costa (1993) stated that senior high teachers who had received coaching for a year said they talked with their colleagues more about their teaching. Likewise, teachers at a high school in Hawaii affirmed they were more content with their positions because of the encouragement they gave to each other (Awakuni, 1995). Furthermore, teachers who had received cognitive coaching training in a rural elementary school reported that the training 65 diminished their feeling of isolation and helped them to develop trust (Dougherty, 2000). Eger (2006) found that ?there was a strong conviction that cognitive coaching was responsible for developing deeper and stronger relationships with their peers, as well as their students? (p. 57). Although rigorous large-scale scientific evidence does not demonstrate a link between coaching and student achievement (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006; Brown et al., 2006; Garet et al., 2008; Neufeld & Roper, 2002, 2003; Poglinco et al., 2003), there are smaller studies that show a positive relationship. A study of third grade students showed improvement in test scores over a three-year period for teachers who received cognitive coaching through the Read to Achieve Grant (Reed, 2007). The test scores of kindergarten students whose teachers received cognitive coaching for a year after attending a two-week lecture course were compared to students of teachers who only received the two-week course (Rennick, 2002). The researcher found that scores for students of cognitively coached teachers were significantly higher than students whose teachers were not coached (Rennick, 2002). Guiney (2001) asserted that coaching was a factor responsible for several schools showing impressive increases on sections of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. The Kansas University Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) established The Pathways to Success project which places full-time instructional coaches in middle and high schools in Topeka, Kansas (Knight, 2004). The instructional coaches were university employees who were funded by a five year GEAR UP program as well as other grants (Knight, 2004). Teachers and The Pathways to Success staff developed curriculum-based pretest and posttests to measure student growth (Knight, 2004). Through the partnership approach, instructional coaches worked with teachers to implement new strategies; these strategies substantially improved students? posttest scores in comparison to students whose teachers did not implement the 66 strategies (Knight, 2004). A 7 th grade team learned a new classroom management strategy through the program and reduced the number of referrals from 203 in the first semester to 78 in the same semester of the following school year (Knight, 2004). In another middle school, a self- questioning strategy was implemented in three 7 th grade science classes while the other three science classes used the teacher?s traditional method of teaching (Knight, 2004). Students took a pretest and a posttest of the material covered during the implementation of the self-questioning strategy; students that learned the new strategy improved their posttest scores by 60 percent while students that did not learn the new strategy improved their posttest scores by only 40 percent (Knight, 2004). A third middle school found that classes in which a new strategy of sentence writing was implemented with commitment by the teacher displayed significant improvement in the number of complete sentences in writing in comparison to the classes in which the writing strategy was implemented with less commitment (Knight, 2004). In each of these cases, an instructional coach assisted the classroom teacher through feedback and guidance during the implementation process (Knight, 2004). A summary of the Alabama Reading Initiative by Bacevich and Salinger (2006) found that teachers and administrators detailed that students were more engaged in reading and that students had higher levels of confidence in their reading. Additionally, an evaluation of the Alabama Reading Initiative organized for the State Department of Education in 2004 reported ?there are examples where [ARI] schools raise the scores of both their black students and their white students, but nonetheless, see a drop in overall scores as racial composition changes? (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006, p. x). Furthermore, interviewers depicted more qualitative measures of increased achievement, such as student worry about academic success, greater ambitions for post-secondary education, and consciousness of their own learning (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006). 67 Students described personal success in areas of comprehension skills, vocabulary, and oral presentation of ideas (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006). In a three-year program employing cognitive coaching, monthly discussion groups, and nonverbal classroom management assistance to help with the implementation of standards-based education, differences were found between the treatment and control schools on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (Edwards, 2008). Although control schools improved over time, the improvements by the treatment schools surpassed the control schools (Edwards, 2008). The Foundation for Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning provided professional development in public schools in California to improve classroom practices with a specific focus on the teaching of reading and writing (Swartz, 2003). The professional development program included a coordinator which took the role of a coach and provided training (Swartz, 2003). Swartz (2003) found that schools with full implementation of the professional development program, which included training and a literacy coordinator, had a higher rate of goal achievement than other schools that had not implemented the full professional development program. Coaching has also been shown to be an effective practice in the leadership of business organizations. A study conducted by Compass Point Non-Profit Services (2003) with directors who received executive coaching found that coaching had a positive relationship to: (a) leadership, management, and practical skills; (b) organization structure and competence; (c) attitude and belief about coaching; (d) personal lives; (e) job satisfaction; (f) tenure. Based on the study, coaching was identified as a reasonably inexpensive, high impact method to cultivate the leadership of executives (Compass Point, 2003). Additionally, a study conducted by Manchester, Inc. (2001) of 100 Fortune business executives who received executive coaching found the following results: 68 (1) enhanced organizational strength; (2) enhanced executive retention; (3) enhanced productivity; (4) increased job satisfaction; (5) fuller learning environments; (6) enhanced decision-making; (7) enhanced working relationships; (8) enhanced team performance; (9) enhanced employee satisfaction; (10) enhanced benefits for the organization. Moreover, the report claimed that coaching produced a 529 percent return on investment because it improved the overall performance of executives and prevented the losses from inadequate executives (Manchester, Inc., 2001). In addition, 77 percent of the executives studied reported that coaching had a considerable influence on their results and success as a leader (Manchester, Inc., 2001). Although the previous paragraphs have discussed studies which mostly support the use of instructional coaching, there are others which are not so affirmative. A study in the Netherlands determined that teachers who had received coaching conveyed increased levels of confidence in their teaching, but school administrators scored these teachers as no more effective than teachers who had not been coached (Veenman et al., 2001). A study by Gutierrez, Crosland, and Berlin (2001) argued that coaching did not help teachers change their practices in the classroom because it did not help them understand when or how to select one strategy over another. 69 The Early Reading Professional Development Interventions Study by Garet et al. (2008) for the Institute of Education Sciences studied the impact of coaching on teacher practice and student learning in early reading. The study used rigorous scientific methodologies to determine a causal relationship between coaching and student achievement (Garet et al., 2008). Two professional development programs were implemented in 90 schools in six districts with an equal number of schools being randomly assigned to professional development treatment A, B, or the control group (Garet et al., 2008). Treatment A included only professional development; treatment B included professional development and coaching (Garet et al., 2008). Even though the teacher?s expertise on scientifically based reading instruction was influenced in a positive way, neither professional development intervention produced higher student test scores by the end of year one (Garet et al., 2008). Furthermore, the intervention of coaching on teacher practices was not statistically significant (Garet et al., 2008). Some studies have suggested a lack of empirically sound evidence for the effects of coaching (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006; Brown et al., 2006; Garet et al., 2008; Neufeld & Roper, 2002, 2003; Poglinco et al., 2003;) while others have indicated that the possibilities of coaching are noteworthy. Therefore, more rigorous research should be conducted to determine the effects, if any, of coaching on teaching, learning, and organizations. Issues or Concerns about Coaching Evidence to support coaching in education is growing; however, literature has identified a few issues that should be considered when examining coaching. Coaching does not have the institutionalized expectation that is linked with traditional educational roles (Coggins et al., 2003). Bixler describes this concern in a personal communication as ?bringing together successful coaches from varied sports, basketball, gymnastics, football, tennis, and swimming, to 70 develop a winning team when we haven?t even determined the sport or the playing field? (Knight, 2009, p. 2). Deussen et al. (2007) added that having a coach in an organization does not indicate how those individuals are spending their time because there is a big difference between being a coach and doing coaching. If a coaching position is not handled or monitored correctly, it could become a glorified substitute or administrative position (Coggins et al., 2003). Another argument is that coaches might coach on what they know and feel comfortable with instead of what the school or system needs (Coggins et al., 2003). A significant obstacle is ?that in order for coaches to be effective, teachers and administrators must accept the creation of the role, the person who takes it on, and the activities that person engages in as legitimate? (Coggins et al., 2003, p. 34). A coach will not be considered legitimate if he/she has not taught the content or has not had enough experience teaching the content. In addition, since coaching does not require certification, much of a coach?s training is on the job (Coggins et al., 2003). Knight (2009) explains that too many coaching programs have been implemented with an inadequate program structure that includes a job description and performance standards which would take full advantage of the influence of coaching on teaching and learning. Coaching Summary Quick fixes never last, and teachers resent them. They resent going to in-services where someone is going to tell them what to do but not help them follow-up. Teachers want someone who?s going to be there, who?s going to help them for the duration, not a fly-by-night program that?s here today, gone tomorrow. (Knight, 2004, p. 32) Coaching, as it has been generally described in the literature review, is a method of professional development that works to build the capacity of teachers in both knowledge and skills. Coaching 71 directly challenges the type of quick fix described in the excerpt above. Moreover, the roles and responsibilities of a coach as well as the weaknesses of traditional professional development described in the literature review demonstrate that coaching is a new method of reaching teachers at a deeper level. It is not enough to provide attention to the preparation and recruitment aspects of teaching; even if these factors were enormously successful, students do not have the luxury of pausing for a new generation of highly qualified teachers to staff our schools (Wenglinsky, 2000). Therefore, it is crucial that today?s classroom teachers are as effective as possible. Coaching shows a glimmer of promise for exhibiting transformational practices which can influence individuals and organizations, although research on its effectiveness is still small in scope. Transformational Leadership and Coaching The literature review has provided extensive descriptions and research on transformational leadership and coaching; however, the possible relationship between the two must be examined to provide a foundation for the current research study. The following section will review these two concepts and explore the connection between the two. Transformational leaders have been generally defined in the research study as ?leaders [who] motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible?they set more challenging expectations?empower followers and pay attention to their individual needs and personal development? (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 4). Instructional coaching has been generally defined as a method of capacity building through the development of knowledge and skills for individuals and organizations (Coggins et al., 2003). Although the definitions read differently, the goal of both concepts is the same, enriching individuals and organizations. Therefore, instructional coaching exhibits transformational 72 practices as well. Furthermore, the literature identified coaching as a method for providing on- going, job-embedded, collaborative, and reflective professional development for individuals and organizations. The professional development aspect of coaching directly aligns with transformational leaders ability to listen and respond to individual needs and the personal development of individuals within the organization. In addition, research shows that transformational leadership and instructional coaching have similar influences on individuals and in turn organizations. Transformational leadership has been found to influence individual?s motivation, satisfaction, commitment, and efficacy (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Hater & Bass, 1988; House, 1977; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Koh, 1990; Koh, Steers, & Terbog, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Likewise, coaching has been found to improve teachers? attitudes toward teaching, job satisfaction, and efficacy (Alseike, 1997; Demir, 2008; Edwards & Newton, 1995; Edwards et al., 1998; Hoover, et. al, 1991; Kirby, et. al, 1992; Koh, 1990; Koh, et al., 1995; Korkmaz, 2007; Krpan, 1997; Leithwood, 1994; Ross & Gray, 2006; Smith, 1997). Moreover, transformational leadership has been found to encourage greater innovation in organizations (Bass, 1985; Eyal & Kark, 2004; Geijsel et al., 1999; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Jung, 2001; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Sosik, 1997). Whereas, coaching has been found to increase teachers? willingness to try new practices (Knight, 2004; Munro & Elliott, 1987; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Furthermore, transformational leadership has been found to influence performance in organizations (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bycio et al.,1995; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Elenkov, 2002; Gellis, 2001; Harvey et al., 2003; Hater & Bass, 1988; Hoover et al., 1991; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kirby et al., 1992; Mackenzie et al., 2001; Masi & Cooke, 2000; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Singer, 73 1985; Wofford et al., 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994) and teachers? practices (Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006). Teachers? instructional practices can be considered a type of performance in terms of instructional coaching. Therefore, instructional coaching has been found to influence teacher?s instructional practices (Awakuni, 1995; Brown et al., 2006, 2007, 2008; Deussen et al., 2007; Eger, 2006; Joyce et al., 1989; Reed, 2007; Showers, 1982; Sommers & Costa, 1993; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Thus, transformational leadership and instructional coaching have similar, positive influences on individuals and organizations. If transformational leadership and instructional coaching have similar characteristics and impacts, then it is possible to argue that one might replace or supplement the other in various situations. Earlier in the literature review, substitutes and enhancers for transformational leadership were discussed. Bass and Riggio (2006) claimed that many teams or groups operate seamlessly without a leader, much less a transformational leader; for that reason, factors must exist that can substitute for transformational leadership. In the case mentioned, the role of the transformational leader may be shared between group members (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Additionally, there are factors which may enhance transformational leadership rather than replace it (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) described a similar notion with their concept of distributed leadership or total leadership. Leithwood & Jantzi (1999b) stated that power and influence related to transformational leadership is not necessarily distributed to those holding formal administrative positions. Furthermore, new evidence indicated that practices related to transformational leadership may be broadly distributed throughout an organization (Leithwood, Jantzi, Earl, Fullan, & Levin, 2004). Moreover, Leithwood and Jantzi (1998) asserted that additional research is needed examining the nature of transformational leadership practiced by those in non-administrative positions. Marks and Printy (2003) theorized that 74 transformational leadership alone is not sufficient to attain high-quality teaching and learning. According to the authors, instructional leadership was needed to supplement the principles of transformational leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003). Marks and Printy (2003) argued that the when transformational leadership and instructional leadership coexist, the impact on school performance is considerable. Based on research demonstrating the similar influences of transformational leadership and coaching on individuals and organizations, as well as the substitute, enhancer, distributed leadership, and coexistence of leadership theories, it is plausible that instructional coaching could serve in one of these capacities. As a substitute, instructional coaching could replace the formal administrative role of the transformational leader in regards to instruction and classroom practices. Likewise, instructional coaching could enhance, coexist, or thrive through distributed leadership with existing transformational leaders in an organization. In any case, instructional coaching could exhibit transformational leadership practices which could influence individuals and organizations. Summary The literature review has provided extensive research to demonstrate that transformational leadership and instructional coaching can be effective tools for rousing individuals and organizations. Transformational leadership provides an atmosphere that nurtures growth, reflection, independence, as well as interdependence. Likewise, instructional coaching nurtures capacity development through the growth of knowledge and skills that are directly applied and observed in classroom practices. Both approaches are similar in that they strive for and encourage the development and evolution of teachers? commitment, performance, reflection, and efficacy. Research supports the interrelated nature of transformational leadership and 75 instructional coaching on individuals and organizations. Furthermore, the indication that transformational leadership can be distributed, replaced, enhanced, or coexist with other forms of leadership opens up the possibilities for instructional coaching and its position in transformational leadership and organizations. 76 CHAPTER THREE METHODS Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship, if any, between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty who expressly work on building the capacity of teachers in the knowledge and skills of teaching. Transformational leaders arouse and motivate followers to achieve exceptional outcomes (Burns, 1978; Yammarino et al., 1998). Equally, instructional coaching develops the capacity of others by fostering improved knowledge and skills (Coggins et al., 2003). Schools rely heavily on administrative teams to provide the essential leadership behaviors necessary to effectively maintain and improve the organization. Based on the research, transformational administrative teams may have the ability to influence the organization in a more meaningful way. However, these teams often deal with situations that take them away from more important educational issues such as teaching and learning to more managerial concerns. Instructional coaching, provided by designated individuals who explicitly focus on building the capacity of teachers, on the other hand, has the ability to reach teachers at a fundamental level and exhibit transformational leadership practices without having to focus on managerial issues that often plague administrators. Transformational literature asserts that transformational leadership may be replaced, enhanced, distributed, or coexist (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998; Marks & Printy, 2003). Therefore, if a relationship exists between 77 transformational leadership and instructional coaching, teachers and organizations may benefit from transformational behaviors even if their administrative team has not been able to exhibit those characteristics. However, empirical research investigating the relationship between transformational leadership and instructional coaching is non-existent; hence, the need for the current research study. To carry out the purpose of this study, the following research questions were examined: 1) What, if any, relationship exists between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty? 2) What, if any, relationship exists among the domains of transformational leadership and the domains of instructional coaching? The remaining sections of this chapter will describe the researcher?s role, the setting for the research study, the participant population of the research study, the research data collection instruments and their validity, the data collection procedures, and the techniques used for data analysis of the research questions. The Researcher?s Role The role of the researcher for this study was to examine the relationship between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. During the period of the research study, the researcher held the role of an academic coach, which can be characterized as an instructional coach, within the participating school district. Due to the researcher?s job position in the school district, steps were taken during the data collection process to avoid bias and/or an obligation from participants to respond to the survey items in a way which did not indicate their genuine feelings. These steps are described in the data collection section. 78 Description of the Setting The research study was conducted in a west central school district in Georgia. The school system has approximately 12,600 students and 1,060 professional staff. Of the 1,060 professional staff, 99% are identified as highly qualified with roughly 70% holding advanced degrees. The Georgia Professional Standards Commission states ?to be considered ?highly qualified? to teach in the State of Georgia, teachers must be professionally certified to teach by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and be teaching in their field(s) of certification? (2009, p. 9). The school system has 22 schools: 14 elementary schools, three middle schools, two magnet schools (one elementary, one serving grades three through eight), three high schools, and one alternative education facility. Additionally, the school system employs 11 academic coaches. Five of the academic coaches serve the elementary schools. One focuses on science and social studies, two focus on mathematics, and two focus on reading and writing. Three academic coaches serve the middle schools and the one magnet school that serves middle school students. One coach focuses on mathematics, one coach focuses on science and social studies, and another coach focuses on language arts. The language arts coach also serves as the high school language arts coach. Four academic coaches serve the high schools. One coach focuses on science, one coach focuses on social studies, one coach focuses on mathematics, and another coach focuses on language arts (same as the middle school language arts coach). Participant Population Although the school system employs roughly 1,060 professional staff, not all professional staff were asked to participate in the research study. As described above, the school system?s academic coaches work primarily with the core academic subjects of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Therefore, the academic coaches have had more significant contact 79 with the core academic subject area teachers rather than all professional staff in the school system. The researcher visited each school?s public website to ascertain the core academic teachers who would be asked to participate in the research study. Of the approximate 1,060 professional staff in the school system, 589 teachers were identified as core academic teachers. Research Data Collection Instruments Two data collection instruments were used in the research study. One instrument examined transformational leadership of school administrations while the other instrument examined instructional coaching of teachers. The following section will describe each of the data collection instruments and their levels of validity. The transformational leadership component of the research study was examined using the Transformational Leadership Survey by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b). As described in the literature review, Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) described transformational leadership along six leadership and four management domains. The leadership domains included: building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values; demonstrating high performance expectations; and developing structures to foster participation in school decisions (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999b). Moreover, Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) identified managerial practices as lacking in many models of transformational leadership, but essential to organizational stability. Therefore, they added the management domains of staffing, instructional support, monitoring school activities, and community focus (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999b). The Transformational Leadership Survey by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) was comprised of 53 statements separated into the domains described above. 80 The Cronbach?s Alpha test is used to indicate the internal reliability in the rating scale scores of a testing instrument. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) found that a Cronbach?s Alpha of .60 or greater is sufficient for indicating the internal reliability of a testing instrument. The Cronbach?s Alpha for the Transformational Leadership Survey conducted by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) was .94, which signifies acceptable internal reliability. In the 1999b study, Leithwood and Jantzi only reported the aggregate Cronbach?s Alpha score; however, in a previous study (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998) reliability coefficients were reported for each of the transformational leadership domains. The reliability coefficients were reported as: symbolizing professional practice .93; developing collaborative structure .93; providing individualized support .90; providing intellectual stimulation .94; holding high expectations .87; fostering development of vision and goals .93; establishing effective staffing .76; providing instructional support .85; monitoring school activities .92; and providing community focus .90 (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). In view of the fact that the research study was examining two areas in which teachers would be asked to complete a survey, the researcher modified the Transformational Leadership Survey by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) to decrease the number of survey items in order to reduce the amount of time needed to complete the survey. The reduction of time needed to complete the survey should lessen the emotional stress on teachers and create a more positive experience which could influence participation. A panel of practicing teachers (see Appendix E for a list of the practicing teachers) was used to limit the transformational leadership domains of the research study. Aiken and Groth- Marnat (2005) and Messick (1994) identified a panel of experts as a sufficient method of establishing validity in the design of a research instrument. Six teachers from varying subjects 81 and grade levels were asked to identify the top five transformational leadership domains and rank them from one to five, one being the most significant domain and five being the least significant domain. The panel identified the following transformational leadership domains as the most significant: offering individualized support; demonstrating high performance expectations; building school vision and goals; establishing effective staff practices; and providing instructional support. Table 1 below presents the panel?s responses. Table 1 Most Frequently Selected Transformational Leadership Domains Number of Times Selected Transformational Leadership Domain 1 Symbolizing Professional Practices and Values 1 Developing Structures to Foster Participation in School Decisions 5 Offering Individualized Support 1 Providing Intellectual Stimulation 6 Demonstrating High Performance Expectations 4 Building School Vision and Goals 5 Establishing Effective Staff Practices 5 Providing Instructional Support 1 Monitoring School Activities 1 Providing a Community Focus Using only the transformational leadership domains selected by the panel of practicing teachers, the Transformational Leadership Survey was reduced from 53 items to 23 items. In addition, a second modification was made to the transformational leadership survey by the researcher. The Transformational Leadership Survey modified for the research study was originally administered in Canada where Ministries are a form of government. Under the domain Building School Vision and Goals a survey item stated: Helps us understand the relationship 82 between our school?s mission and board or Ministry initiatives. Since Ministries do not apply to the participating school district, the word Ministry was taken out of the statement. A Cronbach?s Alpha was conducted on each domain of the modified Transformational Leadership Survey to determine if the internal reliability of the testing instrument was still acceptable. The reliability coefficients for the five domains were adequate (ranging from .76 to .92). Table 2 presents the coefficient alpha for each of the five domains. Table 2 Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Survey Domains of Transformational Leadership Domain Coefficient Alpha Offering Individualized Support .85 Establishing Effective Staff Practices .76 Demonstrating High Performance Expectations .79 Building School Vision and Goals .92 Providing Instructional Support .84 N = 214 The testing instrument used to examine instructional coaching was modified from a dissertation survey by Alseike (1997) on cognitive coaching. Although the original survey items examined cognitive coaching, the researcher?s literature review demonstrated that all types of coaching can be characterized as a method of capacity building through the facilitation of knowledge and skills. Therefore, the survey items used in the original cognitive coaching survey by Alseike (1997) describe and fall under the researcher?s definition of instructional coaching. The survey used by Alseike (1997) was modified from a survey conducted by Foster (1989) on teacher thought processes. Both surveys contained five domains: planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. In Foster?s (1989) study, the Cronbach?s Alpha coefficient for the 83 planning and teaching phases was .96 with a coefficient of .97 for the analyzing and applying phases (Alseike, 1997). Alseike shortened the survey from nine statements per domain to five statements per domain. In Alseike?s (1997) study, the reliability coefficients were .88 for planning, .85 for teaching, .87 for analyzing, and .88 for applying. Therefore, the internal reliability of the survey items was not jeopardized by the researcher shortening the survey. For the current research study, survey items in the five domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying were examined for suitability to the framework of the study. Eight questions from the Alseike (1997) survey were replaced by questions from the Foster (1989) survey. Two survey items were further modified. In the Teaching domain, instead of teach lessons, the survey item was changed to present content. In addition, the survey item which stated think more during teaching in the Teaching domain was changed to reflect more during teaching. Moreover, the word cognitive coaching was replaced by instructional coaching in the survey. However, each domain still contained just five survey items. A Cronbach?s Alpha indicating reliability of scores was used to assess the instrument modifications. This technique produced alpha levels ranging from .94 to .96 which is deemed sufficiently strong for research according to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). Table 3 presents the coefficient alpha for each of the four domains. 84 Table 3 Alpha Reliability Coefficients for Survey Domains of Instructional Coaching Domain Coefficient Alpha Planning .94 Teaching .94 Analyzing .95 Applying .97 N = 214 The Transformational Leadership Survey and the Instructional Coaching Survey both used a five-point Likert-type scale. The participants were asked to mark 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, or 5 = Strongly Agree. According to Gay and Arisain (1999), Likert-type scales can be reliable and valid instruments for measuring attitude and perceptions. Data Collection Procedures Upon approval from the participating school district and the Internal Review Board, the researcher sent an initial contact email (see Appendix F) to potential participants introducing the researcher and the research study. The researcher obtained the potential participants contact information from each school?s public website. Only core academic teachers of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies were contacted. During the following week, the researcher placed the research information letter (see Appendix G), the Transformational Leadership Survey (see Appendix H), the Instructional Coaching Survey (see Appendix I), and a self-addressed, stamped envelope in each participant?s school mailbox. Participants were instructed to complete the surveys and mail them anonymously to the researcher if they wished 85 to participate or to disregard the information if they did not wish to participate. A total of 589 packets were delivered to potential participants. The researcher waited two weeks and then sent a reminder email to participants. The researcher received 229 survey sets out of 589 for a 39% return rate. Data Analysis Data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet where they were stored until statistical tests were performed. Although 229 teachers returned surveys, some participants did not complete all of the survey items. Incomplete participant data were taken out of the data spreadsheets before statistical tests were performed. Two hundred twenty-nine survey packets were returned, but only 214 sets of data were used for data analysis (36%). Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 17.0, survey items were first analyzed for internal reliability as described in the previous section. Once internal reliability was confirmed, descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The mean and standard deviations were computed for the transformational leadership survey items, the instructional coaching survey items, as well as the domains from each. The Pearson correlation was used to measure the degree, if any, of the relationship between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. In addition, the Pearson correlation was used to measure the degree, if any, of the relationship between the five transformational leadership domains and the four instructional coaching domains. Only bivariate correlations were used for data analysis in the research study. The Pearson correlation provided sufficient data analysis to answer the study?s research questions. 86 Summary The methodology of this study was intended to determine what, if any, relationship exists between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. The researcher modified and administered two survey instruments, previously found to have internal reliability. Participants completed and anonymously returned the surveys via mail. The data were recorded in a spreadsheet, tested once more for internal reliability, and finally analyzed for correlations. Both survey instruments retained internal reliability regardless of modifications. Chapter IV of this study will describe a comprehensive analysis of the data collected. 87 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship, if any, between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty who expressly work on building the capacity of teachers in the knowledge and skills of teaching. The following research questions were used in this study: 1. What, if any, relationship exists between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty? 2. What, if any, relationship exists among the domains of transformational leadership and the domains of instructional coaching? This chapter will present demographic results of the research study, reliability evidence for the data collection instruments used in the research study, descriptive statistics of the research study, correlation data between transformational leadership, instructional coaching, and the subsequent domains, and a summary of the research findings. Demographic Results The research study was conducted in a west central school district in Georgia. The school system has approximately 12,600 students and 1,060 professional staff. Of the 1,060 professional staff, 99% are identified as highly qualified with roughly 70% holding advanced degrees. The school system has 22 schools: 14 elementary schools, three middle schools, two magnet schools (one elementary, one serving grades three through eight), three high schools, and one alternative 88 education facility. Additionally, the school system employs 11 academic coaches. Although the school system employs roughly 1,060 professional staff, not all professional staff were asked to participate in the research study. Since the school system?s academic coaches work primarily with the core academic subjects of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, only the core academic teachers were asked to participate in the research study. Of the approximate 1,060 professional staff in the school system, 589 teachers were identified as core academic teachers. Packets containing an Information Letter, the Transformational Leadership Survey, the Instructional Coaching Survey, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope were delivered to all 589 teachers. Of the 589 packets sent out, 229 survey sets were returned for a 39% return rate. However, only 214 sets (36%) of data were complete and therefore used during the data analysis process. Data Collection Instruments Two data collection instruments were used in the research study. One instrument examined transformational leadership while the other instrument examined instructional coaching. The researcher modified the Transformational Leadership Survey by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) to decrease the number of survey items in order to reduce the amount of time needed to complete the survey. A panel of practicing teachers was used to limit the transformational leadership domains of the research study. A panel of experts has been identified as a sufficient method of establishing validity in the design of a research instrument (Aiken & Groth-Marnat, 2005, Messick 1994). The panel identified the following transformational leadership domains as the most significant: offering individualized support; demonstrating high performance expectations; building school vision and goals; establishing effective staff practices; and providing instructional support. Using only the transformational leadership domains selected 89 by the panel, the Transformational Leadership Survey was reduced from 53 items to 23 items. In addition, a second modification was made to the transformational leadership survey by the researcher. The Transformational Leadership Survey modified for the research study was originally administered in Canada where Ministries are a form of government. Under the domain Building School Vision and Goals a survey item stated: Helps us understand the relationship between our school?s mission and board or Ministry initiatives. Since Ministries do not apply to the participating school district, the word Ministry was taken out. A Cronbach?s Alpha was conducted on each domain of the modified Transformational Leadership Survey to determine if the internal reliability of the testing instrument was still acceptable. The reliability coefficients for the five domains were adequate (ranging from .76 to .92) according to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). The testing instrument used to examine instructional coaching was modified from a dissertation survey by Alseike (1997) on cognitive coaching. . The survey contained five domains: planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. For the research study, survey items in the five domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying were examined for suitability to the framework of the study. Those items deemed inappropriate were taken out and replaced by appropriate questions. Only eight questions were replaced in the survey instrument. Additionally, the word cognitive coaching was replaced by instructional coaching in the survey. A Cronbach?s Alpha indicating reliability of scores was used to assess the instrument modifications. This technique produced alpha levels ranging from .94 to .96 which is deemed sufficiently strong for research according to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). 90 Descriptive Statistics The Transformational Leadership Survey consisted of 23 Likert-scaled survey items. The following coding method was used for each survey item: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. Therefore, higher scores represented school administrations that were perceived as more transformational. The mean and standard deviation for each transformational leadership survey item was calculated. All transformational leadership survey items had a mean score of 3 or higher. The mean score for each transformational leadership survey item ranged from 3.31 to 4.50. The lowest mean score (M=3.31) was associated with survey item: Is inclusive, does not show favoritism toward individuals or groups. The highest mean score (M=4.50) was associated with the survey item: Has high expectations of us as professionals. Additionally, data based on the transformational leadership domains were analyzed. However, each domain contained a different number of questions. Therefore, raw mean and standard deviation scores could not be compared equally. To analyze data based on the transformational leadership domains, the mean of each domain?s mean was calculated. According to this data, the transformational leadership domain with the lowest mean (M=3.65) was Offering Individualized Support. The transformational leadership domain with the highest mean (M=4.33) was Demonstrating High Performance Expectations. Descriptive statistics for each transformational leadership survey item and each domain are listed in Table 4. 91 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership Survey Items and Domains Domain and Survey Item M SD N Offering Individualized Support 3.65 .24 4 1. Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work. 3.67 .99 214 2. Is aware of my unique needs and expertise. 3.79 .92 214 3. Is inclusive, does not show favoritism toward individuals or groups. 3.31 1.21 214 4. Provides moral support by making me feel appreciated for my contribution. 3.85 .94 214 Establishing Effective Staff Practices 3.80 .27 5 5. The teacher?s expertise is of paramount importance in staffing. 3.99 .84 214 6. The process of staffing is fair and equitable. 3.72 .94 214 7. Present staff welcome and value new staff members. 4.15 .79 214 8. The contributions of all staff members, new and established, are valued equally. 3.64 1.01 214 9. Our school administrators involve present staff members in hiring new staff. 3.49 1.33 214 Demonstrating High Performance Expectations 4.33 .18 3 10. Has high expectations for us as professionals. 4.50 .67 214 11. Holds high expectations for students. 4.14 1.15 214 12. Expects us to be effective innovators. 4.36 7.17 214 Building School Vision and Goals 3.95 .17 6 13. Give us a sense of overall purpose. 4.14 .82 214 14. Helps clarify the practical implications of the school?s mission. 4.02 .86 214 15. Communicates school mission to staff and students. 4.12 .84 214 16. Encourages the development of school norms supporting openness to change. 3.86 .91 214 17. Helps us understand the relationship between our school?s mission and board initiatives. 3.78 .95 214 18. Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals. 3.76 1.09 214 92 Table 4 (continued) Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership Survey Items and Domains Domain and Survey Item M SD N Providing Instructional Support 3.84 .14 5 19. Our school administrators provide organizational support for teacher interaction. 3.96 .92 214 20. Resources and technical assistance are available to help staff improve effectiveness. 4.00 .85 214 21. The school administrators regularly observe classroom activities. 3.75 1.05 214 22. After classroom observations, our administrators work with teachers to improve effectiveness. 3.66 1.04 214 23. The school administrators frequently participate in discussions of educational issues. 3.79 .95 214 The Instructional Coaching Survey consisted of 20 Likert-scaled survey items. The coding method was identical to the coding method for the Transformational Leadership Survey (1 being the lowest; 5 being the highest). Survey items were prefaced by: To what extent has instructional coaching... The mean score of the survey items ranged from 2.83 to 3.44. The lowest mean score (M=2.83) was associated to the survey item: evaluate your instruction by observing student behaviors. The highest mean score (M=3.44) was associated to the survey item: clarify goals and objectives when planning. Sixteen out of 20 survey items had a mean score between 3.0 and 3.3. Additionally, the mean and standard deviation for each instructional coaching domain was calculated. As in the transformational leadership descriptive data analysis, the mean of each domain?s mean was calculated. The mean scores for each instructional coaching domain ranged from 3.01 to 3.27. The lowest instructional coaching domain was 93 Analyzing (M=3.01). The highest instructional coaching domain was Planning (M=3.27). Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the Instructional Coaching Survey items and domains. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Instructional Coaching Survey Items and Domains Domain and Survey Item M SD N Planning 3.27 .12 5 1. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to plan lessons? 3.19 1.16 214 2. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to envision the student learnings that are to result from your instruction? 3.26 1.14 214 3. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to clarify goals and objectives when planning? 3.44 1.16 214 4. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to plan how to determine evidence of achievement that will result from your instruction? 3.31 1.15 214 5. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to plan the sequence of your lesson? 3.13 1.17 214 Teaching 3.07 .06 5 6. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to present content? 3.15 1.17 214 7. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to reflect more during teaching? 2.99 1.09 214 8. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to make decisions during teaching? 3.08 1.14 214 9. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to monitor your own progress as far as implementing your lesson plan is concerned? 3.09 1.15 214 10. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to alter your teaching plan as needed based on the behavior of your students? 3.04 1.21 214 94 Table 5 (continued) Descriptive Statistics for Instructional Coaching Survey Items and Domains Domain and Survey Item M SD N Analyzing 3.01 .18 5 11. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to analyze and evaluate instruction? 3.26 1.15 214 12. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to analyze why objectives were or were not achieved during the lesson? 3.06 1.13 214 13. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to evaluate your instruction by observing student behaviors? 2.84 1.12 214 14. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to self- evaluate your own actions during planning and teaching? 3.06 1.11 214 15. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to compare intended to actual student behavior? 2.85 1.10 214 Applying 3.13 .12 5 16. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to judge the worth of decisions made during teaching? 2.94 1.12 214 17. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to decide what you need to do to have future teaching success? 3.19 1.19 214 18. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to decide which teaching acts and methods are effective for you in certain teaching situations? 3.15 1.18 214 19. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to think more about using what you learned during the lesson in future lessons? 3.15 1.16 214 20. To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to plan future lesson strategies based on your analysis of previous lessons taught? 3.21 1.21 214 Although the Transformational Leadership Survey and the Instructional Coaching Survey were modified for the research study, both maintained internal reliability. Moreover, descriptive statistics based on district means for transformational leadership, instructional coaching, and each of their individual items and domains found that participants rated their school 95 administrations as more transformational than non-transformational; whereas, participants rated the benefits of instructional coaching as neutral. Correlation Data After internal reliability was confirmed and descriptive statistics were analyzed, the researcher calculated Pearson correlations to answer research question 1: What, if any, relationship exists between transformational leadership and instructional coaching? A positive correlation (.247) was found between transformational leadership and instructional coaching that was significant (p ? .01). However, according to Cohen (1988), a correlation .5 or more is large, .5 to .3 is moderate, and .3 to .1 is small. Therefore, even though the p-value was smaller than .01, indicating that the relationship was not due to chance, the correlation is weak. Thus, a change in transformational leadership will not correspond to any predictable change in instructional coaching and vice versa. Table 6 presents the correlation data for transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Table 6 Pearson Correlation for Transformational Leadership and Instructional Coaching Instructional Coaching Pearson Correlation .247** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Transformational Leadership N 214 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 96 Pearson correlations were also used to answer research question 2: What, if any, relationship exists between the domains of transformational leadership and instructional coaching? The four instructional coaching domains had a significant (p ? .01) positive correlation with the transformational leadership domains of: Offering Individualized Support; Demonstrating High Performance Expectations; Building School Vision and Goals; and Providing Instructional Support. A correlation was not found between the transformational leadership domain of Establishing Effective Staff Practices and any of the instructional coaching domains. Although a significant (p ? .01) positive correlation was found between four of the transformational leadership domains and the four instructional coaching domains, the correlations ranged from .159 to .302 which according to Cohen (1988) are small correlations. Additionally, the transformational leadership domain of Providing Instructional Support had larger correlations with the four instructional coaching domains than any other transformational leadership domain. A small to moderate positive correlation (.302) that was significant (p ? .01) was found between these domains. Therefore, a stronger correlation exists between the transformational leadership domain of Providing Instructional Support and instructional coaching than any other transformational leadership domain. Table 7 presents the correlation data for the transformational leadership domains and the instructional coaching domains. 97 Table 7 Pearson Correlation for Transformational Leadership and Instructional Coaching Domains Planning Teaching Analyzing Applying Offering Individualized Support Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .191** .005 214 .196** .004 214 .212** .002 214 .224** .001 214 Establishing Effective Staff Practices Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .052 .445 214 .040 .557 214 .080 .245 214 .081 .237 214 Demonstrating High Performance Expectations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .206** .002 214 .162** .018 214 .159** .020 214 .167** .014 214 Building School Vision and Goals Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .238** .000 214 .218** .000 214 .253** .000 214 .239** .000 214 Providing Instructional Support Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N .258** .000 214 .302** .000 214 .286** .000 214 .276** .000 214 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Summary Chapter IV described data analysis performed in the research study. Descriptive statistics from the Transformational Leadership Survey found that respondents rated school administrations in the participating school district as more transformational than non- transformational. Moreover, respondents agreed (4) that school administrations demonstrate high performance expectations and that the contributions of all staff members are valued equally. Descriptive statistics from the Instructional Coaching Survey found that respondents rated the 98 benefits of instructional coaching as neutral (3). However, the domain of Planning had the largest mean score. Pearson correlations found a positive yet small correlation that was significant (p ? .01) between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Additionally, a significant (p ? .01) positive correlation was found between the four instructional coaching domains of Planning, Teaching, Analyzing, and Applying with the transformational leadership domains of: Offering Individualized Support; Demonstrating High Performance Expectations; Building School Vision and Goals; and Providing Instructional Support. The transformational leadership domain of Providing Instructional Support had the largest correlations with the four instructional coaching domains. Once again, these correlations were small. Chapter V will provide a summary of the research findings, conclusions to the research study based on the findings, implications for further research and practice, and recommendations for future studies. 99 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship, if any, between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty who expressly work on building the capacity of teachers in the knowledge and skills of teaching. Chapter I presented a brief overview of transformational leadership and instructional coaching as well as the statement of the problem, significance of the study, limitations, delimitations, assumptions, and definitions of key terms used in the research study. Chapter II provided a review of the relevant literature on transformational leadership and instructional coaching. The review included: definitions of transformational leadership and instructional coaching; predictors and correlates of transformational leadership; transformational leadership?s relationships to attitudes, commitment, and satisfaction of followers; transformational leadership?s relationship to organizational performance; substitutes, enhancers, and neutralizers for transformational leadership; transformational leadership in education; types of coaching; roles and responsibilities of coaching; coaching as professional development; research on coaching; issues or concerns about coaching; and transformational leadership and coaching. Chapter III described the methods used in the research study. The methods discussed were the researcher?s role, the data collection instruments, the data collection procedures, and the process used for data analysis. Chapter IV presented the findings of the research study. The findings examined descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations to support the research study. 100 Chapter V will restate the research questions, summarize the research study, draw conclusions based on the research findings, provide implications for further research, and suggest recommendations for further studies. Research Questions The research for this study was guided by the following questions: 1. What, if any, relationships exists between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than school faculty? 2. What, if any, relationship exists among the domains of transformational leadership and the domains of instructional coaching? The researcher employed two surveys previously deemed reliable to conduct the study. Both surveys were modified to reduce completion time for participants. Five hundred eighty-nine survey packets were sent to K-12 core academic teachers in a school district in west central Georgia. Of the 589 survey packets sent out, 229 survey sets were returned (39% return rate). Due to incomplete surveys, only 214 data sets were used for data analysis. Cronbach?s Alpha tests revealed that internal consistency was maintained in both surveys regardless of modifications. The reliability coefficient for the transformational leadership domains ranged from .76 to .92. The reliability coefficient for the instructional coaching domains ranged from .94 to .96. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) stated a .60 to .70 reliability coefficient is considered the lower boundary of acceptability. The researcher examined descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations to answer the research questions. Descriptive statistics found that teachers perceived school administrations in the participating school district to be more transformational than non-transformational. The mean 101 scores for the Transformational Leadership Survey ranged from 3.31 to 4.50 (3= neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree). The lowest transformational leadership domain was Offering Individualized Support with a domain mean scale score of 3.65, which included the lowest mean score survey item of: Is inclusive, does not show favoritism toward individuals or groups (M=3.31). Moreover, participants agreed that school administrations in the participating school district demonstrate high performance expectations based on the domain?s mean scale score of 4.33, the highest of any other transformational leadership domain, which included the highest mean score survey item of: Has high expectations for us as professionals (M=4.50). Descriptive statistics for the Instructional Coaching Survey found that participants rated the benefits of instructional coaching as neutral. The mean scores for the instructional coaching survey items ranged from 2.83 to 3.44. The instructional coaching domain with the lowest mean score was Analyzing (M=3.01), which included the lowest mean score survey item of: To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to evaluate your instruction by observing student behaviors. The instructional coaching domain with the highest mean score was Planning (M=3.27), which included the highest mean score survey item of: To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to clarify goals and objectives when planning. A Pearson correlation found a significant (p ? .01), yet small, positive correlation between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Cohen (1988) identified the range of a correlation as .5 or more as a large correlation, .3 to .5 as a moderate correlation, and .1 to .3 as a small correlation. Additionally, significant (p ? .01), yet small, positive correlations were found between the transformational leadership domains of Offering Individualized Support, Demonstrating High Performance Expectations, Building School Vision and Goals, and Providing Instructional Support with the instructional coaching domains of Planning, Teaching, 102 Analyzing, and Applying. The largest correlations, although still small, were found between the transformational domain of Providing Instructional Support and the four instructional coaching domains. Conclusions Transformational leadership arouses and motivates followers to achieve exceptional outcomes (Burns, 1978; Yammarino, Dubinsky, and Spanger, 1998). The research findings show that school administrations in the participating school district were rated as more transformational than non-transformational. In addition, the research finding that the school administrations in the study demonstrate and hold high performance expectations more than any other domain supports transformational leadership theories of arousing followers to higher outcomes. Instructional coaching, as defined earlier in the study, is a method of capacity building through the development of knowledge and skills for individuals and organizations (Coggins et al., 2003). Although data indicated that teachers in the participating school district rate the benefits of instructional coaching as neutral, there are several factors to consider that might have an influence on the data. First, the researcher did not identify responses as coming from participants from the elementary, middle, or high school division in the participating school district. This distinction could have provided further data analysis due to the fact that each division?s schedule varies which influences the amount of contact time coaches have with teachers. Therefore, an elementary school teacher probably had less contact with an instructional coach, other than their school administrator, because of the larger number of elementary schools. Furthermore, the implementation of instructional coaching could vary tremendously from one division to another because a standard model of instructional coaching has not been adopted by 103 the participating school district. Consequently, the type of instructional coaching taking place across the school district could vary. However, the largest mean score domain of Planning (M=3.27), which included the largest mean score survey item of: To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to clarify goals and objectives when planning (M=3.44) aligns with the district?s system wide implementation of Georgia Performance Standards and a system- wide model for unit instruction. Therefore, instructional coaching in the school district has been more focused on implementing these system-wide initiatives which heavily involve planning. Other alternative explanations for the research findings will be discussed in the implications section of Chapter Five. Differences between transformational leadership and instructional coaching were not tested statistically, but descriptive statistics based on mean scale scores found that teachers in the participating school district rated school administrations higher than instructional coaching. The literature review described how transformational leadership and instructional coaching had similar characteristics and similar influence on individuals and organizations. The current research study does not support those claims. However, variations in instructional coaching, as described in the previous paragraph, could explain some of the difference. Since surveys were not identified by school divisions or the amount of instructional coaching that was received, these differences cannot be explored. Although a strong correlation was not found between transformational leadership and instructional coaching, several elements can still be taken from the research findings. A change in transformational leadership will not predict a change in instructional coaching and vice versa. This conclusion does not support the claim that instructional coaching can replace or even enhance transformational leadership; however, examining the relationship between the two 104 concepts is only the first step in exploring the link between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Even though data from the research study does not support instructional coaching as a substitute for transformational leadership, it does not refute the possibility that instructional coaching can enhance or coexist with transformational leadership. Moreover, the study does not disprove the notion that instructional coaching exhibits transformational leadership practices. The literature review has identified transformational leadership and instructional coaching as methods which can benefit individuals and organizations. Therefore, since a strong correlation does not exist between the two, one does not need the other to impact individuals and the organization in a positive way. However, the combination of the two provides added promise for teachers on multiple levels. Transformational leaders can inspire and empower teachers to grow within the organization while instructional coaches can motivate and enhance teachers? capacities within the classroom. In these regards, instructional coaching could coexist with transformational leadership in the form of instructional leadership as Marks and Printy (2003) suggested or the two could enhance (Bass & Riggio, 2006) the other through distributed leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). The stronger correlations found between the transformational leadership domain of Providing Instructional Support and the four instructional coaching domains of Planning (.258), Teaching (.302), Analyzing (.286), and Applying (.276) support the idea of instructional coaching exercising transformational practices through instructional leadership. Therefore, instructional coaching could possibly fill the transformational leadership gap for providing instructional support when transformational leaders are not able to meet these needs. 105 Implications Conclusions from the research study have been presented; however, there are continually inadvertent factors in research which can influence the outcome of a study. The following section will provide alternative explanations for the current research study?s findings. These alternative explanations can not be substantiated from the research study?s data. Nor, can these alternative explanations be negated by the research study?s data. Additionally, the section will revisit research from the literature review to explain possible correlations or lack of correlations among the domains of transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Data for research question one found that a small, yet significant, correlation exists between transformational leadership of school administrations and instructional coaching provided by individuals other than the school faculty. Although this finding provides important information for the current research study, there are several reasons the data may have produced a small correlation instead of a larger correlation. First, identifying information was not collected from the research participants. Therefore, the researcher could not distinguish among the survey sets those participants who were in the elementary, middle, or high school division. As stated earlier, the divisions in the participating school district have varying degrees of instructional coaching. There are 14 elementary schools in the district, but only five academic coaches providing instructional coaching. However, there are three academic coaches serving the four middle schools and four academic coaches serving the three high schools. Consequently, teachers in the elementary schools for all intensive purposes received fewer contact hours with the district?s academic coaches than teachers in the middle or high school division. If more surveys were collected from participants in the elementary division, then it would stand to reason that these participants received less instructional coaching. Therefore, the data could reflect this 106 discrepancy producing lower ratings on the instructional coaching survey. Since the researcher did not distinguish between participants who were elementary, middle, or high school, there is no way to determine if these factors were evident in the research study. Additionally, the absence of identifying information on the participant?s surveys could have produced other unintended results. Since participant surveys were not distinguishable by individual schools in the participating school district, it is possible that a larger number of surveys were collected from one particular school or a few schools instead of being representative of the entire school district. As a result, more surveys could have been collected from one or more schools that had transformational school administrations rather than all schools which could have had fewer overall transformational school administrations. Furthermore, those teachers who were willing to complete the surveys and send them back to the researcher are more than likely the same teachers who are active in their individual schools and possibly the school district. Teachers who are more active in the organization generally have a more positive attitude toward their job and initiatives within the organization. Podsakoff et al. (2003) identified this type of method effect as positive and negative affectivity. In positive and negative affectivity, participants who view aspects as either highly negative or highly positive tend to view many aspects of the world in the same way (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This factor might account for the high transformational leadership survey results because the group of willing participants were more likely to see their school administrations in a more positive light. However, if this factor had an influence on the transformational leadership survey results, it would stand to reason that this same factor would influence the instructional coaching survey results. Another possible method effect described by Podsakoff et al. (2003) related to this issue is social desirability. In social desirability, participants want to present themselves in a 107 complimentary way despite their true feelings (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This factor could be present more in participants who are willing to participate in school functions and initiatives. Additionally, since the researcher maintained a position as an academic coach in the participating school district and worked on a regular basis with a large group of possible participants, it is likely that some teachers were more willing to complete the surveys, and complete the surveys with a more positive outlook due to their relationship with the researcher. Although individual data were not collected which would indicate those participants who had regular contact with the researcher, these possible participants might have been more likely to participate in the research study and provide more favorable survey ratings to give the researcher more positive results. Podsakoff et al. (2003) identified this type of bias as leniency. In leniency biases participants tend to rate people they know in a more favorable light (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Podsakoff et al. (2003) identified transient mood as another type of method effect that could influence research findings. In the transient mood state, participants respond to statements while in a specific mood (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This method effect is important to the current research study because of the recent economic situation in which most school districts have found themselves. Due to state and local budget cuts in education, many school districts have scrambled to reduce their budgets and cut programs which were costly and ineffective. One strategy used in the state of Georgia was furlough days. Furlough days are essentially leave without pay. In the participating school district, teachers were required to take seven furlough days during the school year in which the research study was conducted. Local school systems were allowed to opt out of the furlough days if they were willing or able to make up the funding difference on their own; however, this was not the case in the contributing school district. 108 Additionally, funds received by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009 created further instability in the school system?s transient mood. Teachers were forced to take furlough days while observing the school district use ARRA funds to create more district level positions. Although these positions were needed and federal funds through ARRA were required for specific usage, many individuals, including teachers, within the school district did not view the decisions as rational. Therefore, programs which did not immediately impact students in the classroom were questioned, including academic coaches. Teachers, other faculty, and community members were involved in the public scrutiny. It was with this transient mood that teachers were asked to complete a survey on the helpfulness of instructional coaching. Thus, the overall negative mood in the participating school district due to economic concerns could have negatively impacted the research study. Moreover, the research study did not address the roles, responsibilities, or the daily schedule of instructional coaches within the participating school district. These factors can have a significant influence on perceptions of instructional coaching that may not have anything to do with the actual elements of instructional coaching but rather external forces that cannot be avoided. Until clear roles and responsibilities of instructional coaching are developed and adhered to, any research study involving instructional coaching must be explored cautiously with these factors continually in mind. Yet, instructional coaching is valuable to the field of education and needs more empirical research to support or provide evidence of its impact on individuals, organizations, teaching, learning, and leadership. Data for the second research question found a small, positive correlation among the instructional coaching domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying and four of the transformational leadership domains. The transformational leadership domains correlated with 109 instructional coaching domains were: Offering Individualized Support, Demonstrating High Performance Expectations, Building School Vision and Goals, and Providing Instructional Support. Based on the literature review, a correlation was likely between the transformational leadership domain of offering individualized support and the instructional coaching domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. Research found that transformational leadership influences individual?s motivation, satisfaction, commitment, and efficacy (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Hater & Bass, 1988; House, 1977; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Koh, 1990; Koh, Steers, & Terbog, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Likewise, coaching has been found to improve teachers? attitudes toward teaching, job satisfaction, and efficacy (Alseike, 1997; Demir, 2008; Edwards & Newton, 1995; Edwards et al., 1998; Hoover, et. al, 1991; Kirby, et. al, 1992; Koh, 1990; Koh, et al., 1995; Korkmaz, 2007; Krpan, 1997; Leithwood, 1994; Ross & Gray, 2006; Smith, 1997). Moreover, the review of literature indicated a correlation might exist between the transformational leadership domain of demonstrating high performance expectations and the instructional coaching domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. Research found that transformational leadership influences performance in organizations (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bycio et al.,1995; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Elenkov, 2002; Gellis, 2001; Harvey et al., 2003; Hater & Bass, 1988; Hoover et al., 1991; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kirby et al., 1992; Mackenzie et al., 2001; Masi & Cooke, 2000; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Singer, 1985; Wofford et al., 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994) and teachers? practices (Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006). Similarly, instructional coaching has been found to influence teacher?s instructional practices (Awakuni, 1995; Brown et al., 2006, 2007, 2008; Deussen et al., 2007; Eger, 2006; Joyce et al., 110 1989; Reed, 2007; Showers, 1982; Sommers & Costa, 1993; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Therefore, instructional coaching could possibly exhibit the transformational practice of demonstrating high performance expectations with teachers during the planning, teaching, analyzing and applying stages of instructional coaching. A small positive correlation was found between the transformational leadership domain of building school vision and goals and the instructional coaching domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. Research found that one of the ways performance was linked to transformational leadership in organizations was through the alignment of goals and values. Transformational leaders have the ability to shift the needs of the organization and a common mission above self needs (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Studies by Barling, Loughlin, and Kelloway (2002) found that transformational leaders can affect group performance by using value alignment. In regards to instructional coaching, previous research has not identified a link between instructional coaching and building school vision and goals. Therefore, this positive correlation was somewhat surprising. However, this may be an area to explore. Instructional coaching may enhance transformational leadership through its support of school vision and goals in the areas of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. A small positive correlation was found between the transformational leadership domain of providing instructional support and the instructional coaching domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. Although the correlations were small, each, if rounded to two decimal places would fall within the moderate level of correlation based on Cohen?s (1988) scale. These domain correlations were larger than any other domain correlations. Based on the literature review, a correlation was expected among the transformational leadership domain of providing instructional support and the instructional coaching domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, 111 and applying. As stated above, research found that transformational leadership influences performance in organizations (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bycio et al.,1995; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Elenkov, 2002; Gellis, 2001; Harvey et al., 2003; Hater & Bass, 1988; Hoover et al., 1991; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kirby et al., 1992; Mackenzie et al., 2001; Masi & Cooke, 2000; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Singer, 1985; Wofford et al., 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994) and teachers? practices (Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006). Equally, instructional coaching has been found to influence teacher?s instructional practices (Awakuni, 1995; Brown et al., 2006, 2007, 2008; Deussen et al., 2007; Eger, 2006; Joyce et al., 1989; Reed, 2007; Showers, 1982; Sommers & Costa, 1993; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Therefore, it was reasonable that a higher correlation exists among these domains because instructional coaching has been defined as the building of capacity through knowledge and skills (Coggins et al., 2003). Knowledge and skills are the foundations of instructional practices which are supported through instructional coaching. A correlation was not found among the transformational leadership domain of establishing effective staff practices and any of the instructional coaching domains of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. This finding was not a surprise to the researcher. The literature review did not identify aspects of instructional coaching that would align with staffing practices, at least those included in the current research study. Survey statements in the transformational leadership domain of establishing effective staff practices included: the teacher?s expertise is of paramount importance in staffing; the process of staffing is fair and equitable; present staff welcome and value new staff members; the contributions of all staff members, new and established, are valued equally; and our school administrators involve present staff members in hiring new staff. Staffing is an issue that is predominately handled by school 112 administrations within a school building. Instructional coaching is not involved in hiring practices, but rather working with individuals who have been hired to increase capacity through the growth of knowledge and skills. Moreover, in the participating school district, academic coaches were content specific not building specific, even though each maintained an office within a school building. Therefore, the academic coaches were removed from the individual staffing decisions made within schools. The research study found that transformational leadership and instructional coaching have a small positive correlation, as well as, small correlations among the domains of instructional coaching and four of the transformational leadership domains. The previous paragraphs identified several alternative explanations for these findings as well as reasons why or why not, based on the review of literature, a relationship should exist among the transformational leadership and instructional coaching domains. In these regards, the results of this research study will contribute to the body of research on transformational leadership and instructional coaching. Recommendations Based on the study?s data analysis, the researcher has identified recommendations for further research. A limitation of the research study was that data were gathered from a single school district in West Central Georgia, so the findings are not generalizable. Therefore, it is recommended that additional research be conducted using a larger sample size and to include other school districts. Gravetter & Wallnau (2004) stated that a larger sample size will better represent a population and that sample size impacts the power of a test. Additionally, it is recommended that further research on this topic have participants indicate the amount of instructional coaching received to draw more in-depth conclusions. As 113 stated earlier in the study, the participating school district has noticeable variations in the schedules of academic coaches, who provide instructional coaching. There are 14 elementary schools in the district, but only five academic coaches that serve these schools. However, there are two academic coaches that serve the four middle schools full time and one academic coach that serves the middle schools part time. The high school division has similar characteristics to the middle school division. Therefore, an unequal amount of instructional coaching based on the number of schools alone could have occurred. Further research controlling this single factor could impact data results. It is recommended that additional research be conducted examining the relationship between other transformational leadership domains and instructional coaching that were not included in the research study. The method?s section described how a group of practicing teachers reduced the number of domains on the transformational leadership survey from ten to five. The five transformational leadership domains not included in the current research study were: symbolizing professional practices and values; developing structures to foster participation in school decisions; providing intellectual stimulation; monitoring school activities; providing a community focus. Further research might find a relationship between instructional coaching and one of these additional transformational leadership domains. It is recommended that additional research examine the influences school administration may have on instructional coaching. A significant obstacle is ?that in order for coaches to be effective, teachers and administrators must accept the creation of the role, the person who takes it on, and the activities that person engages in as legitimate? (Coggins et al., 2003, p. 34). Additionally, principals? views of coaching can have an influence on the roles of coaches (Knight, 2009). If the principal is considered the instructional leader then the coaches? role is 114 secondary; however, it could also be the other way around (Knight, 2009). Further research about the influences school administrations have on instructional coaching could provide added information to possibly strengthen or modify the role of instructional coaching and its impact on schools. It is recommended that additional research examine whether instructional coaching displays transformational leadership practices. The literature review described how transformational leadership and instructional coaching have similar positive influences on individuals and organizations. Transformational leadership has been found to influence individual?s motivation, satisfaction, commitment, and efficacy (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Hater & Bass, 1988; House, 1977; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Koh, 1990; Koh, Steers, & Terbog, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Likewise, coaching has been found to improve teachers? attitudes toward teaching, job satisfaction, and efficacy (Alseike, 1997; Demir, 2008; Edwards & Newton, 1995; Edwards et al., 1998; Hoover, et. al, 1991; Kirby, et. al, 1992; Koh, 1990; Koh, et al., 1995; Korkmaz, 2007; Krpan, 1997; Leithwood, 1994; Ross & Gray, 2006; Smith, 1997). Moreover, transformational leadership has been found to encourage greater innovation in organizations (Bass, 1985; Eyal & Kark, 2004; Geijsel et al., 1999; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Jung, 2001; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Sosik, 1997). Whereas, coaching has been found to increase teachers? willingness to try new practices (Knight, 2004; Munro & Elliott, 1987; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). Furthermore, transformational leadership has been found to influence performance in organizations (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bycio et al.,1995; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Elenkov, 2002; Gellis, 2001; Harvey et al., 2003; Hater & Bass, 1988; Hoover et al., 1991; Jung & Sosik, 2002; 115 Kirby et al., 1992; Mackenzie et al., 2001; Masi & Cooke, 2000; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Singer, 1985; Wofford et al., 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994) and teachers? practices (Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006). Teachers? instructional practices can be considered a type of performance in terms of instructional coaching. Therefore, instructional coaching has been found to influence teacher?s instructional practices (Awakuni, 1995; Brown et al., 2006, 2007, 2008; Deussen et al., 2007; Eger, 2006; Joyce et al., 1989; Reed, 2007; Showers, 1982; Sommers & Costa, 1993; Sparks & Bruder, 1987). A significant amount of research has been conducted on transformational leadership and instructional coaching individually; however, no research to date, other than the current research study, has examined the relationship between the two. Research examining whether instructional coaching exhibits transformational practices could possibly lead to other research indicating whether instructional coaching could replace, enhance, or coexist with transformational leadership. Finally, it is recommended that additional research examine whether instructional coaching enhances or can coexist with transformational leadership. Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that transformational teams can operate in ways to produce extra effort, performance, and satisfaction without a single individual identified as the transformational leader. In this case, the role of the transformational leader is shared between the group members. Moreover, Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that there are factors which may enhance transformational leadership. Marks and Printy (2003) theorized that transformational leadership alone is not sufficient to attain high-quality teaching and learning. According to the authors, instructional leadership was needed to supplement the principles of transformational leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003). Marks and Printy (2003) argued that the when transformational leadership and instructional leadership coexist, the impact on school performance is considerable. Further research in the 116 areas of instructional coaching enhancing or coexisting with transformational leadership could provide added information to improve the impact of instructional coaching in schools. 117 REFERENCES Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change without pain: How managers can overcome initiative overload, organizational chaos, and employee burnout. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Ackland, R. (1991). A review of the peer coaching literature. Journal of Staff Development, 12(1), 22-27. Aiken, L., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2005). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Alseike, B. U. (1997). Cognitive coaching: Its influence on teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (08), 2911A. (UMI No. AAT 9804083). Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership: Charisma and beyond. In J.G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, and C.A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1994). Evaluate the impact of transformational leadership training at individual, group, organizational, and community levels (Final report to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation). Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University. 118 Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Berson, Y. (2000). Leadership and its impact on platoon readiness at Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). Unpublished manuscript. Avoilio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 219-227. Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance. Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 3, pp. 173-209). Oxford: JAI Press. Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., & Jung, D. I. (1996). Assessing team leadership and predicting group performance. Unpublished manuscript. Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17 (3), 571-587. Awakuni, G.H. (1995). The impact of cognitive coaching as perceived by the Kalani High School core team. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (01), 38A. (UMI No. AAT 9613169). Bacevich, A., & Salinger, T. (2006). Lessons and recommendations from the Alabama Reading Initiative: Sustaining focus on secondary reading. Washington, DC: American Institute for Research. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117-148. 119 Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12 (3), 689-697. Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 488-496. Barr, K., Simmons, B., & Zarrow, J. (2003). School coaching in context: A case study in capacity building. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480122) Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 207-218. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organizational Studies, 12 (1), 73-87. Brown, F.W., & Moshavi, D. (2002). Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8 (3), 79-93. 120 Brown, D., Reumann-Moore, R., Hugh, R., du Plessis, P., & Christman, J. (2006). Promising inroads: Year one report of the Pennsylvania High School coaching initiative. Philadelphia: Research for Action. Brown, D., Reumann-Moore, R., Hugh, R., Christman, J., Riffer, M., du Plessis, P., & Maluk, H. (2007). Making a difference: Year two report of the Pennsylvania High School coaching initiative. Philadelphia: Research for Action. Brown, D., Reumann-Moore, R., Hugh, R., Christman, J., Riffer, M. (2008). Links to learning and sustainability: Year three report of the Pennsylvania High School coaching initiative. Philadelphia: Research for Action. Bruce, C.D., & Ross, J.A. (2008). A model for increasing reform implementation and teacher efficacy: Teacher peer coaching in grades 3 and 6 mathematics. Canadian Journal of Education, 31 (2), 346-370. Brunner, I., & Davidson, B. M. (1998). The dissemination of educational innovations: New insights into the coaching model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED029488) Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, J. M. (1995). Transactional and transforming leadership. In J.T. Wren (Ed.), The leader?s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 100-101). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bush, R. N. (1984). Effective staff development. In making our schools more effective: Proceedings of three state conferences. San Francisco: Far West Laboratories. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED249591) 121 Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass?s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 468-478. Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (7), 1521-1534. Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect on leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267-277. Coggins, C. T., Stoddard, P., & Cutler, E. (2003). Improving instructional capacity through school-based reform coaches. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED032650) Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.) New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Compass Point Non-Profit Services (2003). Executive coaching project, executive summary. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.compasspoint.org/assets/2_cpcoachingexecsumm.pdf Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. 122 Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. L. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Couto, R. A. (1995). The transformation of transforming leadership. In J. T. Wren (Eds.), The leaders companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 102-107). New York: The Free Press. Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (Ed.) (2009). What can coaches do for you? Harvard Business Review, HBR Research Report. Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G. J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 197-228. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1), Retrieved January 8, 2010, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 597-604. Davis, S.; Darling-Hammond, L.; LaPointe, M.; & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17 (4), 356-371. Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers? self-efficacy. Egitim Arastirmalari ? Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 93-112. 123 Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). ?Coach? can mean many things: Five categories in Reading First (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007, No. 005). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences and Regional Assistance, regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Dougherty, P. A. (2000). The effects of cognitive coaching training as it pertains to: Trust, building, and the development of a learning community for veteran teachers in a rural elementary school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (05), 1686A. (UMI No. AAT 3054864) Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35-66). Oxford, UK: JAI/Elsevier Edwards, J. L. (2008). Cognitive coaching: A synthesis of the research. Highlands Ranch Co: Center for Cognitive Coaching. Edwards, J. L., & Newton, R. R. (1995). The effect of cognitive coaching on teacher efficacy and empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED388654) Edwards, J. L., Green, K., Lyons, C. A., Rogers, M. A., & Swords, M. (1998). The effects of cognitive coaching and nonverbal classroom management on teacher efficacy and perceptions of school culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. 124 Eger, K. A. (2006). Teachers? perceptions of the impact of cognitive coaching on their teacher thinking and behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (07), 175A. (UMI No. AAT 3223584) Elenkov, D. S. (2002). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55, 467-480. Ellison, J., & Hayes, C. (2009). Cognitive coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 70-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organizations? A study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3 (3), 211-235. Foster, N. J., (1989). The impact of cognitive coaching on teachers? thought processes as perceived by cognitively coached teachers in the Plymouth-Canton Community School District (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What?s worth fighting for in your school. New York: Teachers College Press. Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271-287. Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., ?Sztejnberg, L. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading, instruction and achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 125 Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective: Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 915-945. Garmston, R. J. (1987). How administrators support peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 44 (5), 18-26. Garmston, R. J., Linder, C., & Whitaker, T. (1993). Reflections on cognitive coaching. Educational Leadership, 51 (2), 57-61. Gay, L. & Airasain, P. (1999). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., & van den Berg, R. (1999). Transformational leadership and the implementation of large-scale innovation programs. Journal of Educational Administration, 37 (4), 309-328. Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. Social Work Research, 25 (1), 17-25. Geltner, B. (1993). Integrating formative portfolio assessment, reflective practice, and cognitive coaching into preservice preparation. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Houston, TX. (ERIC Documentation Service No. ERIC ED365702) Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2009). The Georgia Implementation Guidelines: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title II, Part A: Criteria for ?Highly Qualified? Teachers. Retrieved http://www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/NoChildLeftBehind/ Admin/Files/ImpPolicy.pdf 126 Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (3), 467-476. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. (6 th Ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Gronn, P. (1996). From transactions to transformations: A new world order in the study of leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 24 (1), 7-30. Guiney, E. (2001). Coaching isn?t just for athletes: The role of teacher leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (10), 740-743. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (3), 229-351. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal?s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. , Anderson, R.E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis. (7 th Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harvey, S., Royal, M., & Stout, D. (2003). Instructor?s transformational leadership: University student attitudes and ratings. Psychological Reports, 92, 395-402. Hatch, T., White, M., & Faigenbaum, D. (2005). Expertise, credibility, and influence: How teachers can influence policy, advance research, and improve performance. Teachers College Record, 107 (5), 1004-1035. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior?s evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (4), 695-702. 127 Hipp, K. A., & Bredeson, P. V. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and principals? leadership behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5 (2), 136-150. Hoover, N. R., Petrosko, J. M., & Schulz, R. R. (1991). Transformational and transactional leadership: An empirical test of a theory. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 45-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Towards the integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341. Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34 (6), 678-715. Hoyt, C. L., Murphy, S. E., Halverson, S. K., & Watson, C. B. (2003). Group leadership: Efficacy & effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7 (4), 259- 274. International Coach Federaton. (2009). The ICF code of ethics. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.coachfederation.org/ethics/ 128 Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B., & Murphy, J. (1989). School renewal as cultural change. Educational Leadership, 46 (3), 70-77. Joyce, B., Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40, 4-10. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (5), 755-768. Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (2), 185-195. Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964. Jung, D. I., Chow, C., Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544. Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33 (3), 313-336. Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 499-524. Kane, T. D., & Tremble, Jr., T. R. (2000). Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the army. Military Psychology, 12 (2), 137-160. 129 Kerr, S. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Some implications for organizational design. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 8, 135-146. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1997). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403. Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2006). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. King, D., Neuman, M., Pelchat, J., Potochnik, T., Rao, S., & Thompson, J. (n.d.) Instructional coaching: Professional development strategies that improve instruction. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/InstructionalCoaching.pdf Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 36-51. Kise, J. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Knight, J. (2000). Another damn thing we?ve got to do: Teacher perceptions of professional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Knight, J. (2004). Instructional coaching. StrateNotes 13 (3): 1-5. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://www.instructionalcoach.org/nov_stratenotes.pdf Knight, J. (2004). Instructional coaches make progress through partnership: Intensive support can improve teaching. Journal of Staff Development, 25 (2), 32-37. 130 Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching. School Administrator, 63 (4), 36-40. Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Knight, J. (Ed.) (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Koh, W. I. (1990). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. A dissertation presented to the Department of Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333. Kohler, F. W., Crilley, K. M., & Shearer, D. D. (1997). Effects of peer coaching on teacher and student outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 90 (4), 240-250. Korkmaz, M. (2007). The effects of leadership styles on organizational health. Educational Research Quarterly, 30(3), 22-54. Krishnan, V. R. (2002). Transformational leadership and value system congruence. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 15, 19-33. Krpan, M. M. (1997). Cognitive coaching and efficacy, growth, and change for second-, third-, and fourth-year elementary school educators. Masters Abstracts International, 35 (04), 934. (UMI No. AAT 1384152) LeBrasseur, R., Whissell, R., & Ojha, A. (2002). Organisational learning, transformational leadership and implementation of continuous quality improvement in Canadian hospitals. Australian Journal of Management, 27 (2), 141-162. 131 Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Education Administration Quarterly, 30 (4), 498-578. Leithwood, K., Aitken, R., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Making schools smarter: Leading with evidence. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1998). Distributed leadership and student engagement in school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 679-706. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10 (4), 451-479. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000a). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 112-129. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000b). Principal and teacher leadership effects: a replication. School leadership & Management, 20 (4), 415-434. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (2), 201-227. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Fullan, M., Levin, B. (2004). Leadership for large-scale reform. School Leadership and Management, 24 (1), 57-80. 132 Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., and Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Levy, P. E., Cober, R. T., Miller, T. (2002). The effect of transformational and transactional leadership perceptions on feedback-seeking intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (8), 1703-1720. Lipton, L. (1993). Transforming information into knowledge: Structured reflection in administrative practice. Research Report. (ERIC Documentation Service No. ED361903) Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7 (3), 385-425. Marks, M., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (3), 370-397. McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L., Warrenfeltz, M. A., Warrenfeltz, R. (2001). Maximizing the impact of executive coaching. The Manchester Review, 6 (1), 1-9. Mackenzie, S. B., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (2), 115-134. Masi, R. J., & Cooke, R. A. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms, and organizational productivity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8 (1), 16-47. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545-559. 133 Messick, S. (1994). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons? responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Moche, R. (1999). Cognitive coaching and reflective thinking of Jewish Day School teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (2), 300A. (UMI No. AAT 9919383) Munro, P., & Elliott, T. (1987). Instructional growth through peer coaching. Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 25-28. National Staff Development Council (2001). NSDC?s standards for staff development. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm National Staff Development Council (2004). Learning NSCD standards. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/learning.cfm Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2002). Off to a good start: Year I of collaborative coaching and learning in the effective practice schools. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Program on Education, and Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform (ERIC Documentation Service No. ED480875) Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Off to a good start: Year I of collaborative coaching and learning in the effective practice schools. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Program on Education, and Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform (ERIC Documentation Service No. ED480874) Penley, L. E., & Gould, S. (1988). Etzioni?s model of organizational involvement: A perspective for understanding commitment to organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 43-59. 134 Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54, 809-843. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879-903. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leaders? behavior and their effects on followers? trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1 (2), 107-142. Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34 (1), 21-63. Poglinco, S. M., Bach, A. J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. A. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America?s Choice Schools. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications Rai, S., & Sinha, A. K. (2000). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment and facilitating climate. Psychological Studies, 45, 33-42. Reed, L. A. (2007). Case study of the implementation of cognitive coaching by an instructional coach in a Title I elementary school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (06), A. (UMI No. AAT 3270804) Reiss, K. (2007). Leadership coaching for educators: Bringing out the best in school administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press 135 Reiss, K. (2009). Leadership coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 166-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Barber, M., & Hillman, J. (1996). School effectiveness and school improvement in the United Kingdom. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 133-158. Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. M. (2006). The neuroscience of leadership. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.strategy-business.com/press/freearticle/06207?pg=8 Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (2), 179-199. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., Gray, P. (2003). The contribution of prior student achievement and school processes to collective teacher efficacy in elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Ross, S. M., & Offerman, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, University of Tennessee. Schwartz, S., & McCarthy, M. (with Gould, T., Politiziners, S., & Enyeart, C.) (2003). Where the rubber hits the road: An in-depth look at collaborative coaching and learning and workshop instruction in a sample of effective practice schools. Boston, MA: Boston Plan for Excellence 136 Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16 (4), 693-703. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6), 703-714. Showers, B. (1982). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching. Eugene, OR: Centre for Educational Policy and Management (ERIC Documentation Service No. ED231035) Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45, 77-87. Slinger, J. L. (2004). Cognitive coaching: Impact on students and influence on teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (07), 2567A. (UMI No. AAT 3138974) Smith, M. C. (1997). Self-reflection as a means of increasing teacher efficacy through cognitive coaching. Masters Abstracts International, 35 (04), 935. (UMI No. AAT 1384304) Sommers, W., & Costa, A. (1993). Bo Peep was wrong. NASSP Bulletin, 77 (557), 110-113. Sparks, G. M., & Bruder, S. (1987). Before and after peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 45 (3), 54-57. Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. (2001). Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: An investigation of the effects of higher-order motives in multilevel marketing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 849-869. Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Group & Organization Management, 22 (4), 460-487. 137 Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (3), 491-511. Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job- related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365-390. Sosik, J. J., Godshalk, V. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). Transformational leadership, learning goal orientation, and expectation for career success in mentor-prot?g? relationships: A multiple level of analysis perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 241-261. Sosik, J. J., and Megerian, L., E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 24, 367-390. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2), 240-261. Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54, 1-29. Swartz, S. L. (2003). The Foundation for Comprehension Early Literacy Learning Research Report. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from http://www.stanswartz.com/foundationresearchreport1.htm Toll, C. (2007). Literacy coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives, (pp. 56-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press 138 U.S. Department of Education (2002). Guidance for the Reading First program. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.doc Veenman, S., Denessen, E., Gerrits, J., & Kenter, J. (2001). Evaluation of a coaching programme for cooperating teachers. Educational Studies, 27 (3), 317-340. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793-825. Watson, C. B., Chemers, M. M., & Preiser, N. (2001). Collective efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1057-1068. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Free Press Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into the discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center West, L. (2007). Content coaching: Transforming the teaching profession. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 113-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Whitworth, L., House-Kimsey, K., House-Kimsey, H., & Sandahl, P. (2007). Co-active coaching: New skills in work and life. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Wilson-Evered, E., Hartel, C. E. J., & Neale, M. (2001). A longitudinal study of work group innovation: The importance of transformational leadership and morale. Advances in Health Care Management, 2, 315-340. Wofford, J. C., Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13 (2), 196-212. 139 Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67. Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811. Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., & Spangler, W. D. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group level of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 9 (1), 27-54. Yorks, L. (2005). Adult learning and the generation of new knowledge and meaning: Creating liberating spaces for fostering adult learning through practitioner-based collaborative action inquiry. Teachers College Record, 107 (6), 1217-1244. Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305. Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety, climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 75-92. 140 APPENDICES 141 Appendix A Judge and Piccolo (2004) meta-analysis References 142 Adcock, B. P. (2000). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in the linkage of employee and customer satisfaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida. Albritton, R. L. (1993). Transformational vs. transactional leadership in university libraries: A test of the model and its relationship to perceived library organizational effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. Atwater, L. E., Camobreco, J. F., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., & Lau, A. N. (1997). Effects of rewards and punishments on leader charisma, leader effectiveness and follower reactions. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 133-152. Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 59-80. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a levels- of-analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 193-208. Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17, 571-587. Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345?373. 143 Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827?832. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 49, 509? 527. Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others? leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 437?454. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43?54. Bramwell, A. T. (1992). The effect of charismatically given task instructions on receivers? physiological and emotional responses to a task and their subsequent performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington. Brossoit, K. B. (2001). Understanding employee empowerment in the workplace: Exploring the relationships between transformational leadership, employee perceptions of empowerment, and key work outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Claremont Graduate University. Butler, J. K., Cantrell, R. S., & Flick, R. J. (1999). Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Organization Development Journal, 17, 13?28. 144 Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass?s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468?478. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747?767. Cowen, S. S. (1992). A study of relationships between perceived leadership behaviors of presidents at public four-year institutions of higher education in the U. S. and the changes in FTE enrollment, perceptions of effectiveness, subordinate satisfaction, and other factors of the presidency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(78). Curphy, G. J. (1991). An empirical evaluation of Bass? (1985) theory of transformational and transactional leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus. Deluga, R. J. (1991). The relationship of leader and subordinate influencing activity in naval environments. Military Psychology, 3, 25?39. Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15, 17?31. Ehrlich, S. B., Meindl, J. R., & Viellieu, B. (1990). The charismatic appeal of a transformational leader: An empirical case study of a small, high-technology contractor. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 229?247. Fullagar, C., McCoy, D., & Shull, C. (1992). The socialization of union loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 13?26. 145 Gerstner, C. R. (1998). Leadership relationships and work group effectiveness: A multi-level empirical examination (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University. Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 397?420. Hackman, M. Z., Furniss, A. H., Hills, M. J., & Paterson, T. J. (1992). Perceptions of gender-role characteristics and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 75, 311?319. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors? evaluations and subordinates? perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695? 702. Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 165?189. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U. S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364?396. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891?902. Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 43, 243?269. 146 Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader?member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680?694. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317?341. Judge, T. A. (2002). [Leadership among students in MAN 5245, Organizational Behavior, Spring, 2002]. Unpublished raw data. Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185? 195. Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Examination of transformational leadership and group process among Caucasian- and Asian-Americans: Are they different? Research in International Business and International Relations, 7, 29?66. Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949?964. Kane, T. D., & Tremble, T. R. (2000). Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the Army. Military Psychology, 12, 137?160. Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489?501. Kim, J. (2001). A study of relationships among work motivation, problem solving style, leadership style, and team climate on creative behavior in the South Korean workplace. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri?Columbia. 147 Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & King, M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 303? 311. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36?51. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformation leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319?333. Kramer, T. R. (1996). An empirical assessment of the behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama. Kudisch, J. D., Poteet, M. L., Dobbins, G. H., & Rush, M. C. (1995). Expert power, referent power, and charisma: Toward the resolution of a theoretical debate. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10, 177?195. Larmore, A. M. (2000). The relationship between leader match, direct report team perceptions of transformational leadership, and CEO effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois Institute of Technology. Liang, T. (1991). Relationships among leader attributes, behaviors, and effectiveness of vocational education administrators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115?134. 148 McConnell, L. L. (1992). Visionary leadership and managerial leadership in secondary school principals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of La Verne. McDaniel, C., & Wolf, G. A. (1992). Transformational leadership in nursing service. Journal of Nursing Administration, 22, 60?65. Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., & Grover, R. A. (1990). The impact of top-management actions on employee attitudes and perceptions. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 337?352. Paul, J. R. (1999). The effects of charismatic leadership on followers? self-cognitions and cognitive processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New Mexico State University. Percy, P. M. (1997). Relationships between interpersonal power and followers? satisfaction: A leadership perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kentucky. Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A ?meso? level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643?671. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897?933. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259?298. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers? trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107?142. 149 Pollock, K. S. (1998). The relationship between leadership style and subordinate satisfaction and performance in public accounting firms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kentucky. Rogers, T. A. (2001). The role of transformational leadership in salespersons? motivation and performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois Institute of Technology. Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078?1086. Roush, P. E., & Atwater, L. E. (1992). Using the MBTI to understand transformational leadership and self-perception accuracy. Military Psychology, 4, 17?34. Rush, C. H., Jr. (1959). Group dimensions of aircrews. Dissertation Abstracts, 19, 1847?1850. Russ, F. A., McNeilly, K. M., & Comer, J. M. (1996). Leadership, decision making and performance of sales managers: A multi-level approach. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16, 1?15. Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693?703. Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 386?407. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates? attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors? appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387?409. 150 Shea, C. M., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 375?396. Shivers, S. L. (2000). A role theory approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership behaviors: The role of interpretations of organizational context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University. Silins, H. C. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38, 317?334. Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational vs transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers. Psychological Reports, 57, 143?146. Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Group & Organization Management, 22, 460?487. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89?103. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Computer supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 491?511. Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self?other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367?390. Spangler, W. D., & Braiotta, L. (1990). Leadership and corporate audit committee effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 134?157. 151 Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. (2001). Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: An investigation of the effects of higher-order motives in multilevel marketing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 849?869. Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group & Organization Management, 23, 220?236. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 177?186. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 381?394. Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. (1998). A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 55?84. Wofford, J. C., Whittington, J. L., & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 196?211. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990a). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151?169). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990b). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975?995. 152 Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787?811. Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205?222. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81?102. Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 428?436. Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 211?226. 153 Appendix B Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam (1996) meta-analysis references 154 Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. J. (1989). Transformational leadership among midshipmen leaders at the United States Naval Academy. Technical report #ONR-TR6, Office of Naval Research Avolio, B. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). The effects of leadership behavior and leader-follower personality congruence on predicting follower satisfaction and consolidated business unit performance. Center for Creative Leaderships? Second Research Conference on Leadership, Colorado Springs, CO. Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 59-80. Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17 (3), 571-587. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, lenience, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49 (3), 509-527. Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others? leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40 (4), 437-454. 155 Bryant, M. A. (1990). Relationship between nurse managers perceived transformational versus transactional leadership styles and staff nurse turnover (Unpublished master?s thesis). University of Akron, Akron, OH Bryce, N. Y. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business executive and managers: Transformational and transactional. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5006B. Cowen, S. S. (1990). A study of relationships between perceived leader behaviors of presidents at public four-year institutions of higher education in the United States and the changes in FTE enrollment, perceptions of effectiveness, subordinate satisfaction, and other factors of the presidency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5301A. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior?s evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (4), 695-702. Hoover, N. R., Petrosko, J. M., & Schulz, R. R. (1991). Transformational and transactional leadership: An empirical test of a theory. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Howell, J. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902. Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-501. King, M. I. (1989). Extraordinary leadership in education: Transformational and transactional leadership as predictors of effectiveness, satisfaction, and organizational climate in K-12 and higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5008A. 156 Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & King, M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (5), 303-311. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333. Komives, S. R. (1991). The relationship of same- and cross- gender work pairs to staff performance and supervisor leadership in residence hall units. Sex Roles, 24 (5/6), 355- 363. Liang, T. (1990). Relationships among leader attributes, behaviors, and effectiveness of vocational administration administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 11A. McDaniel, C., & Wolf, G. A. (1992). Transformational leadership in nursing service. Journal of Nursing Administration, 22 (2), 60-65. Pereira, D. F. (1986). Factors associated with transformational leadership in an Indian engineering firm. Paper presented at the 21 st International Congress of Applied Psychology, Jerusalem, Israel Pillai, R., & Meindel, J. R. (1991). The effect of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic leadership: A laboratory study. Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management. Ross, S. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Measurement of personality attributes and performance effects on work groups. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5203B. Salter, D. J. (1989). Leadership styles in the United States marine corps transport helicopter squadrons. Naval Postgraduate School working paper. 157 Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1987). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York. Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16 (4), 693-703. Seltzer, J., Numeroff, M., & Bass, B. M. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more burnout and stress? Journal of Health and Human Research, Fall, 175-185. Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational vs. transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers. Psychological Reports, 57, 143-146. Spangler, W. D. & Braiotta, L. Jr. (1990). Leadership and corporate audit committee effectiveness. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 134-157. Tucker, M. L., Bass, B. M., & Daniel, Jr., L. G. (1992). Transformational leadership?s impact on higher education satisfaction, effectiveness, and extra effort. Paper presented at the Center of Creative Leadership?s Second Annual Conference on Leadership, Colorado Springs, CO. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 177-186. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effects of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15 (4), 381-394. Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1990a). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975-995. 158 Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1990b). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151-169). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of American, Inc. Yammarino, F. J. & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811. Young, M. N. (1990). Transformational leadership behaviors of male and female academic deans. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 0821A. 159 Appendix C Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio (2002) meta-analysis references 160 Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Berson, Y. (2000). Leadership and its impact on platoon readiness at Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). Unpublished manuscript. Avoilio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 219-227. Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance. Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 3, pp. 173-209). Oxford: JAI Press. Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., & Jung, D. I. (1996). Assessing team leadership and predicting group performance. Unpublished manuscript. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 207-218. Bayless, R. R. (1996). The identification of leadership styles of large group music ensemble leaders and their use as predictors of teacher effectiveness. Unpublished dissertation. Kent State University, USA. Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (1999). Rally the troops or make the trains run on time: The relative importance and interaction of contingent reward and transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20, 291-299. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass?s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 468-478. 161 Commer, L. B., Jolson, M. A., Dubinsky, A. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1995). Further assessments of Bass?s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478. Daughtry, L. H. (1995). Vocational administrator leadership effectiveness as a function of gender and leadership style. Unpublished Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA. Doherty, A. J., & Danylchuk, K. E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 292-309. Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15, 17-31. Elliot, R., & Albert, K. (2000a). An investigation of the Australian MLQ norms database [Draft Document for Internal Research Review]. MLQ Pty Ltd., Australia. Elliot, R., & Albert, K. (2000b). Predicting performance outcomes from transformational behaviors and rater congruence. Unpublished manuscript. Garcia, J. L. (1995). Transformational leadership processes and salesperson performance effectiveness: A theoretical model and partial examination. Unpublished Dissertation. The Fielding Institute, USA. Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 397-420. Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (undated). Transformational leadership, classical leadership dimensions and performance indicators in savings-banks. Unpublished manuscript. 162 Gunigundo, M. S. T. (1998). An exploration of the relationship between principal leadership style and student academic achievement in the Philippines. Unpublished Dissertation. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, USA. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694. Hult, G. T. M., Ferrell, O. C., & Schul, P. L. (1998). The effect of global leadership on purchasing process outcomes. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 1029-1050. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000a). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000b). Personality and transformational leadership: Unpublished manuscript. Jung, D. (1997). Effects of different leadership styles and followers? cultural orientations on performance under various task structure and reward allocation conditions (Unpublished Dissertation). State University of New York at Binghamton, USA. Jung, D., & Avolio, B. J. (1998a). An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership: A multicultural perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Jung, D, & Avolio, B. J. (1998b). Transformational leadership and its effects on group performance among Caucasian-and-Asian-Americans. Unpublished manuscript. Jung, D., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964. 163 Kane, T. D., & Tremble, Jr., T. R. (2000). Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the army. Military Psychology, 12 (2), 137-160. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333. Medley, F., & Larochelle, D. R. (1995). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Nursing Management, 26, 9. Muenjohn, N. (2000). The effect of culture on the leadership behavior of Australian expatriate managers in Thailand (Unpublished Dissertation). Victorial University of Technology, Australia. Nischan, T. P. (1997). Transformational leadership as a predictor of effectiveness, extra effort, and satisfaction in a community college classroom environment. Unpublished Dissertation , Nova Southeastern University, USA. Peters, T. J. (1997). Transactional and transformational leadership: Predictors of employee satisfaction, commitment, and productivity. Unpublished Dissertation. Marquette University, USA. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897-933. Russell, R. G. (1996). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and employee turnover intentions. Unpublished Dissertation. Nova Southeastern University, USA. 164 Sosik, J. J. (1995) The impact of leadership style and anonymity on performance, creative output, and satisfaction in GDSS-supported groups. Unpublished Dissertation. State University of New York, USA. Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Group & Organization Management, 22 (4), 460-487. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998). Inspiring group creativity: Comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 3-31. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (3), 491-511. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111-121. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1999). Leadership style, anonymity, and creativity in group decision support systems: The mediating role of optimal flow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 227-256. Srisilpsophon, P. (1999). Transformational leadership and performance outcomes of multi- national corporations in Thailand. Unpublished Dissertation. Nova Southeastern University, USA. Steeves, R. (1997). Why leaders are effective: An examination into leader developmental level and leader-follower developmental fit as predictors of effective leadership (Unpublished Dissertation). The Fielding Institute, USA. 165 Stepp, P. L., Cho, H., & Chung, S. (1998). Perceived differences in leadership style of people of color: Transformational or transactional? Unpublished manuscript. Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group & Organizational Management, 23, 220-236. Tucker, M. L., McCarthy, A. M., & Jones, M. C. (1999). Women and men politicians: Are some of the best leaders dissatisfied? Leadership & Organization Development, 20, 285-290. VanDoren, E. (1998). The relationship between leader/followership in staff nurses and employment setting (Unpublished Dissertation). Western Michigan University, USA. Weierter, S. (1995). Transformational leadership and transactional substitutes: An exploratory analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. (1998). A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 1. 166 Appendix D DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross (2000) meta-analysis references 167 Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 59-80. Avolio, B. J. & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a levels-of-analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 193-208. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, lenience, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49 (3), 509-527. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass?s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 468-478. Den Hartog, D. (1997). Inspirational leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior?s evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (4), 695-702. Holladay, S. J. & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 165-189. 168 Hoover, N. R., Petrosko, J. M., & Schulz, R. R. (1991). Transformational and transactional leadership: An empirical test of a theory. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. House, R. J., Spanger, W. D., & Woyke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 36, 363-396. Howell, J. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902. Howell, J. M. & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269. Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-501. Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & King, M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (5), 303-311. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 36-51. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leaders? behavior and their effects on followers? trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1 (2), 107-142. 169 Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16 (4), 693-703. Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational vs. transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers. Psychological Reports, 57, 143-146. Spangler, W. D. & Braiotta, L. Jr. (1990). Leadership and corporate audit committee effectiveness. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 134-157. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 177-186. Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1990a). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975-995. Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1990b). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151-169). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of American, Inc. Yammarino, F. J. & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811. 170 Appendix E List of Practicing Teachers? Panel 171 Name Division Teresa Dennis High School Tessica Garrett Middle School Carol Hughes Elementary School Deborah Thompson High School Laurie Webb Elementary School LaToya Woodyard Middle School 172 Appendix F Initial Contact E-mail 173 Initial Contact E-mail Dear _________________________ My name is Cassidy Arrington. I am a doctoral student at Auburn University. I am also currently the middle school science and social studies academic coach for Troup County Schools. I am contacting you because I am in the dissertation phase of my doctoral program. I am doing a research study on transformational leadership and instructional coaching. The purpose of the study is to determine what, if any, relationship exists between transformational leadership and instructional coaching. I have received approval from the school system to conduct the research study. Your participation in the study will be greatly appreciated; however, your participation is strictly voluntary. Additionally, the survey will be anonymous. In the next week, an information letter, two surveys, and a self-addressed stamped envelope will be placed in your school mailbox by Cassidy Arrington, the principal investigator. If you wish to participate, please complete the surveys and return them in the provided envelope. If you choose not to participate, please disregard the information If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at arrincb@auburn.edu , arringtoncb@troup.org , or 706-594-9489. Thank you in advance for your consideration, Cassidy Arrington 174 Appendix G Information Letter 175 176 177 Appendix H Transformational Leadership Survey Transformational Leadership Survey 178 Directions: Please circle the response that best reflects your school?s leadership in regards to transformational characteristics. Respond using the following rating scale with the corresponding response choices: Key: 1 = SD - Strongly Disagree 4 = A - Agree 2 = D - Disagree 5= SA - Strongly Agree 3 = N - Neutral Offering Individualized Support 1. Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work. 2. Is aware of my unique needs and expertise. 3. Is inclusive, does not show favoritism toward individuals or groups. 4. Provides moral support by making me feel appreciated for my contribution. Establishing Effective Staff Practices 5. The teacher?s expertise is of paramount importance in staffing. 6. The process of staffing is fair and equitable. 7. Present staff welcome and value new staff members. 8. The contributions of all staff members, new and established, are valued equally. 9. Our school administrators involve present staff members in hiring new staff. Demonstrating High Performance Expectations 10. Has high expectations for us as professionals. 11. Holds high expectations for students. 12. Expects us to be effective innovators. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 OVER ? Transformational Leadership Survey 179 Building School Vision and Goals 13. Gives us a sense of overall purpose. 14. Helps clarify the practical implications of the school?s mission. 15. Communicates school mission to staff and students. 16. Encourages the development of school norms supporting openness to change. 17. Helps us understand the relationship between our school?s mission and board initiatives. 18. Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals. Providing Instructional Support 19. Our school administrators provide organizational support for teacher interaction. 20. Resources and technical assistance are available to help staff improve effectiveness. 21. The school administrators regularly observe classroom activities. 22. After classroom observations, our administrators work with teachers to improve effectiveness. 23. The school administrators frequently participate in discussions of educational issues. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 180 Appendix I Instructional Coaching Survey Instructional Coaching Survey 181 Directions: Please circle the response that best reflects to what extent an instructional coach has helped you in regards to the statements listed under the categories of planning, teaching, analyzing, and applying. Respond using the following rating scale with the corresponding response choices: Key: 1 = SD - Strongly Disagree 4 = A - Agree 2 = D - Disagree 5= SA - Strongly Agree 3 = N - Neutral Planning To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to: 1. plan lessons? 2. envision the student learnings that are to result from your instruction? 3. clarify goals and objectives when planning? 4. plan how to determine evidence of achievement that will result from your instruction? 5. plan the sequence of your lesson? Teaching To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to 6. present content? 7. reflect more during teaching? 8. make decisions during teaching? 9. monitor your own progress as far as implementing your lesson plan is concerned? 10. alter your teaching plan as needed based on the behavior of your students? OVER ? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Instructional Coaching Survey 182 Analyzing To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to 11. analyze and evaluate? 12. analyze why objectives were or were not achieved during the lesson? 13. evaluate your instruction by observing student behaviors? 14. self-evaluate your own actions during planning and teaching? 15. compare intended to actual student behavior? Applying To what extent has instructional coaching helped you to 16. judge the worth of decisions made during your teaching? 17. decide what you need to do to have future teaching success? 18. decide which teaching acts and methods are effective for you in certain teaching situations? 19. think more about using what you learned during the lesson in future lessons? 20. plan future lesson strategies based on your analysis of previous lessons taught? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5