Examining Relationships Among Enabling School Structures, Academic Optimism and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors by Penelope Pope Messick 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 May 6, 2012 Keywords: organizational citizenship behaviors, enabling structures, academic optimism, academic emphasis, faculty trust, collective efficacy Copyright 2012 by Penelope Pope Messick Approved by Lisa A. W. Kensler, Chair, Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology Ellen H. Reames, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology Frances K. Kochan, Distinguished Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology ii Abstract This study examined the relationships among enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Additionally, it sought to determine if academic optimism served as a mediator between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. Three existing survey instruments, previously tested for reliability and validity, measured the relationships among the constructs. A total of 589 teachers from 65 elementary schools in Alabama participated in the study. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and hierarchical regressions were used in analyzing data. Correlational analysis demonstrated a positive significant relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. Also, enabling school structures were positively correlated to academic optimism. Likewise, a positive relationship was indicated between academic optimism and organizational citizenship behaviors. Moreover, regression analysis revealed that academic optimism partially mediated the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. This study is the first to collectively examine all three constructs and how they relate in the elementary school setting. It is also the first of its kind to be administered in the Southern United States. Results from this investigation can inform educational leaders of organizational characteristics that can be nurtured in the school setting, thereby increasing opportunities for student achievement. Enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors, have all been positively linked to student achievement and school effectiveness. iii Acknowledgments First and without hesitation?I offer acknowledgment and praise to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Though undeserving, I am covered by His grace, and it is indeed sufficient. To my friend and mentor, Dr. Lisa Kensler; I owe you endless gratitude for your leadership, direction, and inspiration. To Dr. Ellen Reames and Dr. Frances Kochan, thank you for allowing me to learn and grow under your guidance. You all have helped to define the next chapter of my professional life. Thank you for allowing me to become part of the Auburn University family. To my friends and co-workers, you continued to encourage me when it appeared there was no light at the end of the tunnel. To my AU cohort, you held me accountable and made me always feel a part of your collegiality. I have made many lifelong friends among you. To my mother, Linda Outlaw, you amaze me with your strength and determination. Thank you for your example, your love, and your prayers. To my children, Andrea, Kristen, and Paul, you give me immeasurable joy and tremendous pride. You are no doubt my greatest accomplishment. Though I am far from perfect, God still gave me the honor of being your mother. Truly, I am blessed to have you. Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude and love to my husband Ken. You are my soul mate, my friend, and my anchor. Your unwavering confidence in me gives me the courage to reach beyond my hopes and dreams. You lift me up when I am down and ground me when I am way too high. Without you, I am incomplete. My accomplishments are your accomplishments. iv Dedication I was blessed in my life to grow to adulthood with two remarkable sets of grandparents. The lessons I learned while in their presence were life lessons that cannot be found in any classroom or textbook. They taught me that happiness and purpose are not determined by one?s surroundings or circumstances; and that the measure of one?s character comes from within. They did not set out to teach me those life-principles; they simply lived them. I dedicate this volume to my grandparents. Though they will never see the full impact they had upon my life, it was profound. My hope is that my life is reflective of their influence. In loving memory of Mr. & Mrs. Bud Pope & Mrs. & Mrs. Bates Petty v Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iii Dedication .................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... x List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xi Chapter I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 2 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 4 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 7 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 7 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 8 Delimitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 9 Assumptions of the Study ................................................................................................. 9 Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 10 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................... 11 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 12 vi Chapter II. Review of the Literature ........................................................................................... 14 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 14 Enabling School Structures ............................................................................................. 15 Mindfulness........................................................................................................ 25 Climate ............................................................................................................... 30 Organizational Health ........................................................................................ 33 Leadership .......................................................................................................... 36 Academic Optimism ....................................................................................................... 39 Academic Emphasis ........................................................................................... 44 Collective Efficacy ............................................................................................. 46 Faculty Trust ...................................................................................................... 49 Organizational Citizenship Behavior .............................................................................. 54 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 63 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter III. Methods ................................................................................................................... 67 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 67 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 67 Research Design .............................................................................................................. 69 Population and Sample ................................................................................................... 69 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 70 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 71 Enabling School Structures ................................................................................ 71 Academic Optimism .......................................................................................... 72 vii Organizational Citizenship Behavior ................................................................. 74 Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 75 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 77 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 78 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 79 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 79 Chapter IV. Analysis and Results ............................................................................................... 80 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 80 Demographic Descriptions.............................................................................................. 80 Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................................... 81 Correlation Results.......................................................................................................... 81 Research Question One ...................................................................................... 81 Research Question Two ..................................................................................... 82 Research Question Three ................................................................................... 83 Regression Results .......................................................................................................... 83 Research Question Four ..................................................................................... 83 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 86 Chapter V. Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion ........................................................ 88 Summary of the Study .................................................................................................... 88 Implications for School Leaders ..................................................................................... 93 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 96 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 98 References ................................................................................................................................... 99 viii Appendix 1: Initial Contact E-mail ........................................................................................... 116 Appendix 2: Information Letter for Research Study ................................................................ 117 Appendix 3: Enabling School Structures Survey ...................................................................... 119 Appendix 4: School Academic Optimism Survey .................................................................... 120 Appendix 5: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Survey ....................................................... 123 ix List of Tables Table 1 Contrasting Enabling and Hindering Centralization ................................................. 18 Table 2 Contrasting Characteristics of Enabling and Hindering Educational Structures ...... 21 Table 3 Contrasting Enabling and Coercive Contexts ........................................................... 22 Table 4 Contrasting Features of Mindfulness and Mindlessness ........................................... 27 Table 5 A Typology of School Organizations ....................................................................... 28 Table 6 Dimensions of Organizational Health ....................................................................... 35 Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables ............................................................ 81 Table 8 Pearson Product Moment Correlation between Variables ........................................ 82 Table 9 Linear Regression with ESS predicting AO ............................................................. 84 Table 10 Linear Regression with ESS predicting OCB ........................................................... 85 Table 11 Linear Regression with AO predicting OCB ............................................................ 85 Table 12 Multiple Linear Regression with ESS and AO predicting OCB............................... 85 x List of Figures Figure 1 Theoretical Framework of Study .................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 Theoretical Framework of Mediation Model ............................................................... 77 Figure 3 Total Effect Model ....................................................................................................... 86 Figure 4 Mediation Model .......................................................................................................... 86 xi List of Abbreviations ALSDE Alabama State Department of Education AO Academic Optimism ESS Enabling School Structures IRB In-Role Behavior NCLB No Child Left Behind NCTAF National Commission on Teaching and America's Future OCB Organizational Citizenship Behaviors ORB Out-of-Role Behavior SEF Southern Education Foundation SES Socio-Economic Status 1 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Schools function as organizations. As such, schools share many of the organizational qualities found in organizations from other sectors. Consequently they also face the same problems that all organizations face. Poor performance, dissatisfaction, absenteeism, attrition, and apathy account for a number of the difficulties affecting school organizations today (DiPaola, Tarter, & Hoy, 2004; Somech & Bogler, 2002). Such issues cause innumerable troubles for leaders and can eventually influence the success or failure of the entire organization (Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988). When these issues abound in the school setting, the outcomes often parallel those found in other organizations. Unfortunately, they may carry additional, more disparaging, and far-reaching consequences. When school leaders experience difficulties such as teacher apathy, lack of commitment, and poor performance; the school organization suffers. Regrettably, the students of the school organization also suffer (Hoy, Tarter, & Bliss, 1990; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). In contrast, successful organizations have structures set in place that may alleviate such problems, or negate them altogether. These organizations create environments where management is empowering, employees are thriving, and the clientele are beneficiaries of its success (Katz, 1964, 1966; Organ, 1988). Organizations achieve success when the aforementioned variables are commonplace. Schools can draw upon the knowledge and practices found in successful organizations. Positive changes can occur when school leaders successfully adapt these organizational practices in their schools (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2 2001). Schools, it seems, respond in similar fashion to their organizational counterparts (Bogler & Somech, 2005; DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). Positive changes in schools may lead to positive changes in those who work in the schools, as well as those who attend the schools (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Hoy et al., 1990; Oplatka, 2009). Statement of the Problem Unfortunately, schools face rising demands of accountability for student performance, such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002); yet suffer from continually depleted resources and severe cuts in funding (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010). Such extreme conditions can lead to teacher apathy, increased level of stress, and burn-out (Ross, Romer, & Horner, 2011). School leaders, helpless to control demands for high stakes testing amid decreasing funds, are themselves subject to high turn-over and increased attrition (Holme & Rangel, 2011). The National Commission on Teaching and America?s Future (NCTAF) reported that in the United States alone, 46% of new teachers entering the classroom leave the profession within five years. In many areas of the country, teacher drop-out rates exceed student drop-out rates (NCTAF, 2011). The consequences of oppressive school environments have not gone unnoticed. Students frequently bear the brunt of those consequences. Student drop-out rates and failure rates continue to plague school organizations. According to the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), at least four out of ten students in Alabama failed to graduate from high school in 2010 (ALSDE, 2011). In fact, the Southern Education Foundation (SEF) reported that high school drop-outs are Alabama?s number one education and economic problem (SEF, 2008). These statistics are distressing and forecast potential consequences that could be detrimental to our schools? populations. Conditions are reflected in communities across the country where 3 there is growing distrust of our school systems (Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Meier, 2002). Lack of parental support for schools carries negative implications that fuel rising tensions among parents and teachers (Miretzky, 2004). Student expectations seem to escalate while student performance declines. School administrators often feel a sense of powerlessness in finding ways to change the climate of their schools, enabling teachers and students to thrive in the classroom (Collins & Parson, 2010; Hoy et al., 1990). It is clear that ?never before in our history has education been more crucial to the collective future of our nation and to the individual futures of our young people? (Baker et al., 2010, p. 1). Yet conditions continue to deteriorate in many schools. Encouragingly, we find reassurance in a body of research that has the potential to influence school climate towards a more positive, supportive, and sustainable learning organization. Recent findings from educational research substantiate several promising possibilities. Teacher performance is greatly enhanced when school leaders facilitate a supportive and trusting work environment (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004). Increased academic emphasis reflects a teacher?s sense of self efficacy and commitment (G?rol & Kerimgil, 2010; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008). Teachers who perform above and beyond their formal job descriptions contribute to the overall success of their schools (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Students respond positively when expectations are high and when they feel safe and valued as learners (Burns & Carpenter, 2008; Hoy, 2010). School leaders that realize the critical nature of the research behind these principles, can establish best practices in their schools that will enable teachers to develop a sense of self- efficacy (Adams & Forsyth, 2006; Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, 2008; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 4 2000). Increased efficacy encourages increased teacher trust (Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008); leading to the likelihood those teachers will exhibit citizenship behaviors in the school organization (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Oplatka, 2009; Somech & Ron, 2007). Robust and increased academic emphasis (G?rol & Kerimgil, 2010; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008) is prone to follow; in turn facilitating greater student achievement (Burns & Carpenter, 2008; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2005; Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). Higher student achievement precedes and augments successful and more effective schools. Clearly, it is imperative that we continue to explore new avenues for school change. Clearer still, it is a monumental task that carries significant consequences. Research implications are important for school leaders who seek positive change. Systemic change necessitates that school leaders seek to understand and replicate those characteristics that facilitate successful school practices. Theoretical Framework The framework for this investigation is built on three constructs: enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Conceptualization of the three constructs developed through years of research, and migrated from organizational theories to the context of the school organization. Organizational citizenship behavior was first rationalized as part of the social exchange theory by Organ (1988). He theorized that employee performance consisted of two forms of behavior ? those that were within their job descriptions and those that were discretionary in nature. Discretionary behaviors were more specifically characterized as organizational citizenship behaviors. Typically these behaviors manifested themselves as actions that are above and beyond the call of duty, and help the organization to 5 grow and thrive. Katz and Kahn (1964) suggested that these behaviors were vital to the success of an organization, and that without these behaviors an organization is likely to fail. It was much later that DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) applied their understanding of this construct to the school organization. They surmised that citizenship behaviors were similarly vital to the success of schools. Their work has made considerable contributions to the conceptualization of this construct within school literature. Schools where this behavior is commonplace are likely to have positive climates, supportive leaders, committed teachers, and successful students (Collins & Parson, 2010; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). The reciprocal nature of organizational citizenship behavior inspires its continuous growth. In short, the presence of citizenship behaviors begets more citizenship behaviors. The notion of reciprocity is conceptualized as ?the obligation to reciprocate the benefits already received from another (paying you back) and the expected reciprocity that one?s actions will stimulate future benefits from another (paying me forward)? (Korsgaard et al., 2010, p. 277). According to Korsgaard et al. (2010), the compulsion to reciprocate and the expectations of reciprocity are closely aligned with perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviors. Academic optimism is a latent variable comprised of three constructs: teacher efficacy, faculty trust in parents and students, and academic emphasis. These constructs combine to shape the idea of academic optimism, a key variable in explaining student achievement (Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). This construct is conceptualized as a teacher?s belief that he or she can influence student success by emphasizing academics, believing in his or her own capacity to persevere when faced with difficulties, and by trusting parents and 6 students to cooperate in the process (Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2010; Pajares, 2001; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008). Enabling school structures developed from the work of Hoy et al. (2001) in their attempts to reconcile opposing views of the consequences of bureaucracy (Adler & Borys, 1996) in the school organization. Evidence suggested that bureaucracies operate with a hierarchy of authority that can be hindering or enabling (Adler & Borys, 1996; Hoy, 2003a; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Early investigations of bureaucracy defined two salient aspects: formalization and centralization (Gouldner, 1954; Sinden et al., 2004). This work expanded into a more contemporary construct in later years when Adler and Borys (1996) conceptualized bureaucracy along a continuum from structures that hinder to those that enable. Hoy et al. (2001) tested the construct in the school organization and found it to be a plausible theoretical entity with many strong connections between enabling structures and school success. Throughout the development of the constructs under investigation herein, many researchers have examined and drawn preliminary conclusions as to the relationships between and among them. Each construct has been individually compared and analyzed with another, resulting in convincingly favorable relationships between the constructs. However, no investigation has attempted to examine all three constructs in one study and how they relate to each other. This study was developed under the hypothesis that there is a significant positive relationship among the three. This investigation sought to confirm the relationships among the constructs and examine evidence for a mediation model. In hypothesis form, this appears remarkably simplistic. The proposed theoretical model that guided this study is shown in Figure 1. In short, it was hypothesized that academic optimism would explain a positive relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. 7 Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Study Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was first, to replicate the current research on the relationships among three constructs: enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors, then to determine whether academic optimism served as a mediating variable between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. This study proposed to test these hypotheses in a sample of elementary schools in the state of Alabama. Research Questions The following research questions guided this study: 1. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? 2. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to academic optimism? 3. To what extent is academic optimism positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? Academic Optimism Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Enabling School Structures 8 4. Does academic optimism mediate the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors? Significance of the Study Evidence is convincing that schools can be designed with supporting structures that enable teachers to positively influence the academic expectations in their schools (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Van Maele & Van Houtte; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008). Consequently, teachers may then exhibit greater tendencies to perform helping behaviors that are above and beyond their formal job descriptions (Chughtai, 2008; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). Ultimately, schools where teachers exhibit citizenship behaviors are more likely to see an increase in student achievement (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005; Louis & Marks, 1998; Oplatka, 2009). Continued research in this arena can inform future school leaders of the importance of supporting enabling school structures within their schools (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). These structures might prompt increased incidences of citizenship behaviors. Positive behavioral changes in an academically optimistic school could lead to greater chances for student success (Somech & Ron, 2007). This study could inform the educational community in Alabama and beyond of current research findings on the relationships among organizational citizenship behaviors, enabling school structures, and academic optimism. Likewise, it could broaden the conceptual understanding of these constructs and how they contribute to the school organization. Further, it could encourage school leaders to consider ways these constructs might positively relate to student achievement and facilitate school success. Additionally, it may encourage administrators to utilize research findings and contemplate new theoretical frameworks for developing and implementing best practices and procedures in school settings. 9 Delimitations of the Study Specific delimitations of this study include the population and sample of the study. This study included only those schools who met the following criteria determined for the study: The location of the study was limited to elementary schools in the state of Alabama Only schools with some configuration of grades Kindergarten through grade six were invited to participate The sample size is small and may limit generalizations of outcomes relative to the size of the entire population Assumptions of the Study It is assumed that all respondents in this study answered all survey questions openly and honestly, without any consideration of researcher expectations and that all responses accurately reflect the participant?s professional opinions. It is further assumed that school administrators willingly consented to the survey invitation and allowed teachers to participate in the study. Definition of Terms Academic emphasis: Describes the extent that a school is driven by a quest for academic excellence (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Academic optimism: Describes teachers who are engaged, committed, energetic, resilient, and conscientious in the pursuit of student achievement (Hoy et al., 2006). Collective efficacy: Describes perceived collective judgment of teachers as a whole that they can organize and execute the actions required to have positive effects on students (Hoy, 2010). 10 Enabling structures: A hierarchy that helps support the work of those in the organization and a system of rules and regulations that promotes problem solving over punishment or failure (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Hindering structures: A hierarchy that hinders or restrains the work of those in the organization and a system of rules and regulations that are coercive, and used to gain compliance and punish deviance (Hoy, 2003). Mindfulness: The capability to anticipate surprise by focusing on failure, avoiding simplification, and remaining sensitive to day-to-day operations (Hoy, Gage, & Tarter, 2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Discretionary behavior directed at individuals or at the organization as a whole that goes beyond existing role expectations and benefits or is intended to benefit the organization (Organ, 1988). Reciprocity: The mutual and dynamic interaction and exchange of ideas and concerns; a spirit of returning in kind to others (Lambert et al., 2002). Self-efficacy: A belief about one?s own capacity to organize and execute the actions required to produce a give level of commitment (Bandura, 1997). School climate: Members shared perceptions of the work environment (Hoy & Miskel, 2001), or the ?personality of the school? as defined by the leadership of the principal and the interactions of the teachers (Hoy, 2010). Teacher?s citizenship behavior: Teachers voluntarily going out of their way to help their students, colleagues, and others as they engage in the work of teaching and learning (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). 11 Teacher efficacy: Judgment of his or her capability to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Teacher trust: A teacher?s willingness to be vulnerable to leadership based on the confidence that leadership is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open (Tschannen- Moran, 2004). Trust: One?s vulnerability to another in terms of the belief that the other will act in ones best interest, and that the other is benevolent, open, honest, reliable, and competent (Tschannen- Moran & Hoy, 1998). Organization of the Study This study focused on the relationships among enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. It is organized into five chapters, and includes a bibliography and appendices. Chapter I introduces the nature of the study. Chapter II provides an examination of the foundational literature on enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behavior and concludes with the rationale for the study. Chapter III details the research design and methodology of the study. Included in this chapter are descriptions of the instruments used to gather the data, analyses procedures, and descriptions of the sample selected for study. Data analysis and explanations of findings are discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary of the study, further discussion of the findings, implications for school leaders, recommendations for future research, and conclusions. The study concludes with references and appendices. 12 Summary It is important for school leaders to find ways to maximize teacher effectiveness and increase student achievement. Schools continually face rising accountabilities, while experiencing decreased funding. Schools leaders are hard pressed to facilitate positive, nurturing environments that are conducive to learning. Growing apathy and burn-out have pushed teachers farther from the classroom, while their trust in students continues to decline. Students are facing their own unique challenges to fit in with peers and remain engaged in the classroom. Community distrust in the school organization has strained communication between parents and school leaders. In order for school leaders to rise to the challenges found in today?s educational arena, it is imperative for them to strengthen leadership skills, empower teachers, and bridge gaps between school and community. When leaders support a culture of trust and continued learning in their schools, teachers are free to grow as educators and a sense of self-efficacy is bred. Teachers in turn facilitate the same environment in their classrooms, building trust with their students. Teachers then willingly engage in citizenship behaviors and go above and beyond their formal role descriptions to help their students. Students, who feel safe and secure in their learning environment, tend to be more successful in the classroom; thereby become more successful learners. Productive teachers and successful students breed successful schools. When school leaders develop enabling structures in their schools, teachers are more likely to engage in academic optimism. Academic optimism manifests itself with improved teacher efficacy, greater trust in parents and students, and a strengthened academic emphasis. Both constructs?enabling structures and academic optimism?have been positively correlated with evidence of organizational citizenship behaviors in the school organization. 13 This study investigated the relationships between and among the three constructs. Findings from previous investigations that support hypothesizing these connections are discussed. Additionally, this study examined whether academic optimism acted as a mediator between enabling structures and organizational citizenship behaviors; that is, whether academic optimism explains the relationship between the two. 14 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This chapter provides a comprehensive look at the literature surrounding the constructs of enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Previous studies have compared the constructs and found that relationships exist among them. Additionally, research has sought to determine how these variables relate to student achievement and other positive school outcomes. The review of the literature herein examines multiple dimensions of these constructs, their connections to each other, and how they relate to other variables important to a successful school organization. School leaders continuously seek ways to strengthen their school organizations in attempts to increase student achievement. Research on enabling school structures provides school leaders with rationale for creating supportive learning environments (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004). Research on academic optimism examines relationships among levels of academic press, teacher trust and teacher efficacy (Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006; Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2010). Research on organizational citizenship behavior links its presence with characteristics of school success (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Somech & Ron, 2007). Examinations of these constructs provide researchers and school leaders with guidance in their attempts to create sustainable change towards student success. This study attempts to critically review important findings found in current empirical research. The more that school leaders understand organizational characteristics that support and facilitate 15 student achievement and positive school outcomes; the more apt they are to strive to replicate these characteristics in their school organizations. Enabling School Structures Educational leaders frequently explore new theories and rationales for explaining the complexities of school structure. Schools operate as organizations with a bureaucracy of authority similar to other organizations. Often the hierarchy of authority may be unsupportive, or non-empathetic to the needs of the individuals in the organization. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) introduced a construct into the field of educational leadership that explored the bureaucracies often found in school settings. Schools reflect the forces that Katz and Kahn (1966) determined were ?required for organizational functioning: environmental pressures generated by the direct, observable requirements of a given situation, shared values and expectations, and rule enforcement? (p. 15). Schools resemble organizations that are concerned with socialization and training of people for roles in society at large. Likewise, they bear characteristics of adaptive organizations that are intended to create knowledge and innovative solutions to problems (Katz & Kahn, 1966). The construct of enabling school structures was grounded in preliminary studies of bureaucratic structures. Adler and Borys (1996) described bureaucracies in two dimensions: enabling and coercive. The salient features of bureaucracy are formalization, characterized by rules and procedures, and centralization, representative of a hierarchy of authority. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) examined both the positive and negative consequences of bureaucratic school structures, and then reconciled the two contrasting views to refine enabling school bureaucracy. Schools, like other organizations, function as bureaucracies (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). They are organizational structures with rules and regulations that contain a hierarchy of 16 authority. An exercise of authority is not necessarily representative of authoritarianism, but can resemble egalitarianism structures, as organizations can have a ?democratic structure in which the source of legislative power is vested in the membership and the executive directives are an implementation of the wishes of the majority? (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 22). In theory, the process of democracy in a school organization should be ?continuous; improving toward a more perfect expression of a system that recognizes and honors the essential dignity of each individual in balance with the good of the whole? (Kensler, 2010, p. 3). Research has suggested that schools that support a democratic community of learners are places where trust and learning thrive (Kensler, Caskie, Barber, & White, 2009) and like democracies, are continually in ?constant evolution towards a more ideal state? (Kensler, 2010, p. 5). Though some have criticized and denounced bureaucracies (see Sinden et al., 2004), others claim bureaucracies are the best avenue to administrative efficiency (Hoy, 2003a). In actuality, both hierarchy and rules can be ?mechanisms to support teachers rather than vehicles to enhance principal power? (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 318). Bureaucracies dwell within two aspects of organizational structures; formalization, comprised of rules and procedures; and centralization, a hierarchy of formal authority. Formalization is defined in two ways?punishment-centered procedures, and representative rules. Punishment-centered procedures are unilateral decisions intended to control and discipline those who deviate from them; whereas representative rules are developed in collaboration among participants to guide and prevent problems in the organization (Sinden et al., 2004). In the school setting, as in most organizations, formalization can be either coercive or enabling (Sinden et al., 2004). Coercive formalization refers to rules and procedures used to punish subordinates when they do not comply. The rigidity of these rules typically hinders 17 productive practices and often alienates colleagues from each other. This often oppressive structure may lead to higher rates of absenteeism among teachers and a decrease in their overall job satisfaction (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Conversely, enabling formalization prompts individuals to increase collaborative efforts among colleagues. This can be a catalyst for greater productivity. Flexibility, cooperation, and collaborative problem solving are hallmarks of an enabling formalization, and can be critical for a successful organization. Organizations such as these have open lines of communication, and are resilient; bouncing back from unexpected surprises when problems arise (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). Centralization is the ?extent to which employees participate in decision making (Sinden et al., 2004, p. 463). High centralization, or hindering centralization, refers to organizations where the elite few at the top of the hierarchy make all the decisions for the organization without input from others. In the school setting, high or hindering centralization sometimes breeds resistance and hostility towards administrators because teachers feel coerced into following rules that may or may not suit their needs or the needs of their students. Teachers in these settings often feel alienated and become less willing to collaborate with peers or administrators in the process of decision making. Unlike high centralization, enabling centralization allows all participants to be involved in the process of problem solving. Teachers feel trusted, confident, and capable of participating in the processes of the organization, and are treated as important professional members of the organization. School administrators in such structures ?use their power and authority to help teachers by designing structures that facilitate teaching and learning; in brief, they empower their teachers? (Sinden et al., 2004, p. 464). Table 1 describes characteristics of organizations with enabling or hindering centralization. 18 Table 1 Contrasting Enabling and Hindering Centralization Characteristics of Enabling Hierarchy Characteristics of Hindering Hierarchy Facilitates problem solving Enables cooperation Collaborative Flexible Encourages innovation Protects participation Frustrates problem solving Promotes control Autocratic Rigid Discourages change Disciplines subordinates Note. Adapted from ?Designing Better Schools: The Meaning and Measure of Enabling School Structures,? by Wayne K. Hoy and Scott R. Sweetland, 2001, Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, p. 301. Copyright 2001 by the University Council for Educational Administration. Bureaucratic structures are put in place within the school setting to enable schools to accomplish their mission and to meet the needs of the individuals they serve. Problems arise when these structures break down and ultimately fail to meet their objectives and become somewhat self-serving and oppressive. Sweetland and Hoy (2000) recognized that bureaucracies can often be detrimental to their intended purpose, but can most assuredly be a vehicle to enhance their organizations as well. The common thread running through all the criticisms of bureaucracies include ?human frustration and unresponsive structures, rigid rules, and mindless policies? (Hoy, 2003a, p. 87). Notwithstanding the criticisms, organizations must have some bureaucratic structure in place to ?prevent chaos and promote efficiency? (Hoy & Sweetland, p. 296). The seemingly conflicting notion depends on how the bureaucracy is perceived by the 19 individuals in an organization. When a teacher envisions a bureaucracy as an aid to creating an academic atmosphere, where things will get done and a place where needs are met, they are more willing to cooperate with their administrators (Hoy, 2003a). Hoy and Sweetland (2001) acknowledged that research painted two conflicting pictures of how bureaucracies are perceived in organizations. One exposes the negative side of bureaucracy and the other envisions the positive side of the construct. They posited ?the dark side reveals a bureaucracy that alienates, breeds dissatisfaction, hinders creativity, and demoralizes employees. The bright side shows a bureaucracy that guides behavior, clarifies responsibility, reduces stress, and enables individuals to feel and be more effective? (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 297). The school organization can reflect either the negative or the positive characteristics of a bureaucracy. Schools can be oppressive and divisive, with administrators who support a school culture that inhibits teachers from interacting, thereby alienating individuals (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Conversely, school bureaucracies can be supportive and foster an environment of trust and collaboration among teachers. Anderson (1974), Sinden et al. (2004), and Sweetland and Hoy (2000), suggested three important reasons to study school structure and administration. First, administrative structure is a malleable variable. If understood, it can be designed to better serve teachers and students. Second, there is an increased interest in the school as an organization. Both individuals and interest groups are increasingly demanding a voice in the decision making process to improve schools. Finally, the structure of schools may be related to student achievement (Sinden et al., 2004). With this framework guiding their research, Hoy and Sweetland explored both the positive and negative consequences of bureaucratic structures in the school setting and tested the 20 theoretical and empirical roots of a new construct?enabling school structures. Their purpose was to ?examine each property with the goal of sorting out the features that capture positive outcomes of bureaucracy while preventing negative consequences? (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 297). Not surprisingly, Hoy and Sweetland (2001) found that ?enabling procedures invite interactive dialogue, view problems as opportunities, foster trust, value differences, capitalize on and learn from mistakes, and delight in the unexpected; in brief, they facilitate problem solving? (p. 298). Lambert (2002) noted that the ?essential criterion for enabling structures involves an element of high synergy? (p. 47). Carlsen (1988) explained synergy as ?the positive reaction and interaction that occur when people do things for themselves and at the same time do things for others (reciprocity)? (see Lambert, 2002, p. 47). In contrast, ?coercive procedures, frustrate two-way communication, are autocratic, see problems as obstacles, foster mistrust, demand consensus, suspect differences, punish mistakes, and fear the unexpected; in sum, they demand blind obedience to the rules? (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 298). As generated by Hoy and Sweetland (2004), the formalization of these constructs is found in Table 2, followed by their contexts in Table 3. 21 Table 2 Contrasting Characteristics of Enabling and Hindering Educational Structures Characteristics of Enabling Structures Characteristics of Hindering Structures Facilitates problem solving Enables cooperation Encourages collaboration Promotes flexibility Encourages innovation Protects participants Values differences Delights in the unexpected Learns from mistakes Views problems as opportunities Expects blind adherence to rules Promotes control Acts autocratically Displays rigidity Discourages change Disciplines subordinates Demands consensus Fears the unexpected Punishes mistakes Views problems as obstacles Note. Adapted from ?An Analysis of Enabling School Structure,? by James E. Sinden, Wayne K. Hoy and Scott R. Sweetland, 2004, Journal of Educational Administration, 42, p. 465. Copyright 2004 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 22 Table 3 Contrasting Enabling and Coercive Contexts Characteristics of Enabling Contexts Characteristics of Coercive Contexts Employment security Professional perspective Cohesive work groups Limited management-labor conflict Pressures for change Employee participation Employee skills Coordination for improvement Employee insecurity Autocratic perspective Divisive relationships Management-labor conflict Maintenance of status quo Administrative control Limited employee expertise Layers of control Note. Adapted from ?Designing Better Schools: The Meaning and Measure of Enabling School Structures,? by Wayne K. Hoy and Scott R. Sweetland, 2001, Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, p. 299. Copyright 2001 by the University Council for Educational Administration. Bureaucracies in the school setting exist as long as there are people in positions of hierarchy (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). School structures are in place to help facilitate the proper functioning of the organization. As long as schools have boards, superintendents, and administrators, they will have hierarchies of authority. Though schools have in place a specific structure of hierarchy, the majority of the school?s mission is carried out by teachers, who often fall at or near the bottom of the structural hierarchy of authority. Structures that enable teachers rather than hinder them appear to be an important consideration for school leaders. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) envisioned the hierarchy of authority along a continuum from enabling at one 23 pole to hindering at another. Administrators and school personnel can embrace an enabling bureaucracy by providing for decentralization of authority. Hoy and Sweetland further posited that enabling bureaucracy should ?promote a sense of trust between teachers, and conversely, teacher trust of colleagues should promote a climate in which enabling bureaucracy could function effectively? (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 306). Additionally, they postulated that ?inconsistency, tension, and negative conflict will be much less evident in enabling school structures because of the flexibility, openness, and problem- solving orientation found in such schools? (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 311). DiPaola and Hoy suggest ?Administrators who what to cultivate a climate of professionism and change in their schools should avoid reliance on their authority to control teachers and instead nurture a professional teacher perspective of autonomy? (2001 p. 242). Role conflict (Getzels & Guba, 1954) is diminished in schools where bureaucracies are more enabling. In contrast, a lack of enabling structures leads to a greater propensity for role conflict (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Role conflict begins when ?an individual or group feels negatively affected by another person or group? (DiPaola & Hoy, 2001 p. 238). Though role conflict is inevitable in school organizations; administrators can address conflict in ways to ease its impact, so it becomes a constructive force rather than a destructive one (DiPaola & Hoy, 2001). Enabling structures are places where conflicts are confronted in a ?cooperative, problem- solving manner and are likely to have positive outcomes because they generate solutions, promote insight, and help individuals grow and strengthen emotionally? (DiPaola & Hoy, 2001, p. 239). Researchers further theorized enabling structures correlate with the degree of collegial trust between teachers. Trust is critical for a productive environment (Tschannen-Moran, 2004; 24 Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011). Hoy and Sweetland (2000) posited that the relationship between enabling structures and trust was likely a reciprocal one. Enabling structures facilitate teacher trust in the principal, and conversely, teacher trust in principals reinforces enabling bureaucracy. Enabling bureaucracies are not unlike democratic organizations, as noted earlier, and research confirmed that democratic community also had a strong positive relationship with trust (Kensler et al., 2009). In brief, Hoy posited that ?trust, truthfulness, and limited role conflict were hallmarks of enabling organizations? (Hoy, 2003a, p. 91). When school structures are enabling, teachers trust each other, have a sense of efficacy and professionalism, and are not bound by rigid rules and feelings of helplessness. Hoy?s (2003a) research contended: Rules and regulations are flexible guides rather than restraints to problem solving. Both the authority hierarchy and the rules and procedures are mechanisms that support the work of the teachers rather than means to enhance the power of the principal ... enabling schools to develop an atmosphere of trust and teacher commitment to the school and its mission. (p. 91) In sum, enabling hierarchy is ?an amalgam of authority where members feel confident and are able to exercise power in their professional roles? (Hoy, 2003a, p. 90). Hoy further explained the notion as ?flexible, cooperative, and collaborative rather than rigid, autocratic, and controlling ... administrators use their power and authority to buffer teachers; and design structures that facilitate teaching and learning? (Hoy, 2003a, p. 90). Hoy expanded his work with his analysis of enabling and mindful school structures (Hoy, 2003a). Hoy?s intentions were 1) to describe a different kind of bureaucratic structure in schools, one that enables teachers rather than hinders or punishes them, 2) to begin to flesh out some specific examples of enabling structures, 25 3) to develop construct of organizational mindfulness in schools, 4) to compare and contrast mindful and enabling structures, 5) to consider the research and practical implications of enabling and mindful structures. (p. 88). In his examinations, Hoy found a strong connection between enabling school structures and another organizational property?mindfulness. Hoy (2003a) recognized the complementary nature of this relationship and proposed an integration of the constructs. Mindfulness Hoy et al. (2006) suggested the constructs of enabling school structures and mindfulness are conceptually very similar and highly compatible. Both enabling structures and mindfulness require trust, openness, flexibility, cooperation, and organizational learning (Hoy, 2003a). Mindful administrators ?seize the moment of opportunity? (Hoy, Gage, & Tarter, 2006 p. 236) and ?heed early warning signs of trouble? (p. 237). Langer (1989) introduced initial work on mindfulness at the individual level, and Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) examined the theory at the organizational level. Within every organization, particularly a school organization, there are mindful leaders and participants. Individuals can act in either a mindful or a mindless way. Initially, people may practice mindfulness and challenge old ways of thinking, though the outcomes may not be what were expected or intended. However, after some time mindsets often revert back to the mindless way of doing things; perhaps to the way they have always been done. Habits form and eventually people end up doing the same thing in the same way over and over again with the same less than stellar results. Conversely, teachers and administrators become mindful when they ?substitute their judgment for routine responses? (Hoy, 2003a, p. 95). Emphasis on the 26 processes rather than a single-minded pursuit of outcomes promotes mindfulness. Mindfulness requires flexibility, vigilance, and openness, and is further defined: as an ongoing scrutiny of existing expectations as a continuous refinement of those expectations based on new experiences as an appreciation of the subtleties of context as the identification of novel aspects of context that can improve foresight and functioning. (Hoy, 2003a, p. 96) In sum, mindfulness redirects our attention from the expected to the unexpected, from the simple to the complex (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007); and requires openness, not only to new information, but also to different points of view (Hoy, 2003a, p. 96). Organizational mindfulness describes the collective whole rather than the individuals that make up the organization. Weick and Sutcliffe (2006) argued that there are five processes that promote mindfulness in organizations. Mindful organizations spend more time 1) examining failure as a window on the health of a system, 2) resisting the urge to simply assumptions about the world, 3) observing operations and their effects, 4) developing resilience to manage unexpected events, and 5) locating local expertise and creating a climate of deference to those experts. (Weick & Sutcliff, 2006, p. 516) When examining mindfulness, it is useful to examine characteristics of the opposing structure as well. Hoy (2003a) elaborated on the contrasts between mindfulness and mindlessness shown in Table 4. 27 Table 4 Contrasting Features of Mindfulness and Mindlessness Characteristics of Mindfulness Characteristics of Mindlessness Individual Individual Continuous creation of new categories to interpret information Open to new information Use of multiple perspectives Routine use of standard categories to interpret information Closed to new information Use of a single perspective Organizational Organizational Preoccupied with failure Reluctance to simplify Sensitive to the unexpected Commitment to resilience Deference to expertise Complacency Propensity to oversimplify Insensitivity to change Commitment to rigidity Deference to the hierarchy Note. Adapted from ?An Analysis of Enabling and Mindful School Structures,? by Wayne K. Hoy, 2003, Journal of Educational Administration, 41, p. 99. Copyright 2003 by MCB UP Limited. It is easy to see how an organization that is mindful can also be an enabling one. However, it seems likely that one could have an enabling organization that is not necessarily mindful. If the enabling structure facilitates a misdirected sense of supportiveness or perhaps is insensitive to the organizations changing conditions, they might be enabling but not mindful. As Hoy postulated, ?structures can enable the wrong thing, but mindful structures have a continuous 28 process of scanning and checking built into their functioning that should provide a self- correction for errant ways? (2003a, p. 100). Hoy further suggested, ?The road to mindful structures may first pass through hierarchies and rules that enable, that is, enabling structure may be an antecedent to collective mindfulness? (2003a, p. 106). Hoy typified enabling and mindful structures of school organizations as seen in Table 5. Table 5 A Typology of School Organizations Enabling Structure Enabling Hindering Mi ndful Org aniz ati on Mindful Learning Organization (Likely) Mindful, but Hindering Organization (Least Likely) Mindless Mindless Organization (Less Likely) Coercive Organization (Likely) Note. Adapted from ?An Analysis of Enabling and Mindful School Structures? by Wayne K. Hoy, 2003, Journal of Educational Administration, 41, p. 101. Copyright 2003 by MCB UP Limited. Because organizational structures are an integral part of any organizations success, Hoy (2003a) highlighted 10 guidelines thought to enable and promote mindfulness. The guidelines were designed to question the rules put in place to guide an organization. In fact, some of these rules hinder rather than enable the organization. The 10 guidelines follow. 29 1. There are exceptions to the most rules; find them 2. There are times when the rules do not work; suspend them 3. Some rules encourage mindlessness; avoid them 4. Some rules support mindfulness; seize on them 5. Some rules become unnecessary; eliminate them 6. Routine rules lead to mindlessness; question them 7. Some rules create dependence; beware of them 8. Some rules encourage a playful approach; invent them 9. Rules set precedents; if the precedents are bad, change the rules 10. Rules are best to guide but not to dictate (2003a p. 105) Additionally, Weick and Sutcliffe (2006) offered practical suggestions for mindful leadership: Cultivate humility. Be aware of the traps of short-term success. School administrators need a healthy skepticism about their own accomplishments and concern about their potential for failure. Welcome the bad day. When things go bad, administrators can uncover more details and learn more about how things really work. Speak up. Just because the administrator sees something clearly, do not assume that teachers see the same thing. Be wary of good news. There is always enough bad news to go around. If school administrators are not getting bad news, then teachers and subordinates are hiding it. Develop skepticism in your teachers. When information is met with skepticism, teachers make an independent effort to confirm the information. Skepticism is a countervailing force for complacency; it is positive redundancy. 30 Embrace a soft vigilance. Soft vigilance is a mindful state as contrasted with hyper- vigilance, which lock in attention. Soft vigilance keeps the administrator?s mind open to novelty and new information (see Langer, 1997; see Hoy, 2003a, p. 105). Hoy completed this line of thinking by addressing a school?s intended outcome. He posited ?mindful organizations need mindful leadership, mindful administrators, mindful teachers, and mindful students...such organizations are likely to have positive consequences for most of the important outcomes of schooling, including student learning and achievement? (2003a, p. 106). As such, mindful schools should produce ?a more creative and interesting perspective for learning, increasing motivation, enhancing perseverance, and promoting critical thought and inquiry? (Hoy, 2003a, p. 103). Hoy further hypothesized that collective mindfulness in a school was associated with a more open and trusting organizational climate. Climate Researchers have explored and attempted to define the elusive construct of climate in the school organization (Denison, 1996; Schoen & Teddlie, 2008). Hoy and Miskel (1990, 2001) acknowledged that organizational climate is a broad term that is conceptually complex and refers to perceptions of the work environment shared. Based on the work of Hoy, et al. (1998), school climate was operationalized through four dimensions (see DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). The dimensions and their definitions are below: Collegial leadership ? characterized by behavior of the principal that is supportive, egalitarian, considerate, helpful, and genuinely concerned about the welfare of teachers 31 Teacher professionalism ? describes teacher behavior that is characterized by commitment to students, engagement in the teaching task, cooperative with colleagues, and supportive of one another Academic press ? the extent to which the school is driven by a positive quest for excellence and focused on high, but achievable goals for student achievement Community pressure ? describes strong efforts from parents and community to influence school policy and functioning in order to encourage student achievement There is some disparity in the research as to the similarities or differences in the climate and the culture of an organization. Most, however, agree that the constructs, similar or not, have an influence on organizational effectiveness. Denison (1996) critically examined a decade?s worth of previous research that defined, contrasted, and compared organizational culture and organizational climate. His analyses determined that perhaps the most striking difference between the two lies in one?s theoretical perspectives. Culture typically connotes a qualitative element that describes one?s assumptions regarding social systems of an organization. Conversely, the concept of climate implies a quantitative component describing perceptions of certain organizational practices and procedures and their impact on persons within the organization. Denison (1996) postulated on the differences between the two: Climate refers to a situation and its link to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of organizational members. Thus, it is temporal, subjective, and often subject to direct manipulation by people with power and influence. Culture, in contrast, refers to an evolved context (within which a situation may be embedded). Thus, it is rooted in history, collectively held, and sufficiently complex to resist many attempts at direct 32 manipulation. The two perspectives have generated distinct theories, methods, and epistemologies as well as a distinct set of findings, failings, and future agendas. (p. 644) Schoen and Teddlie (2008), in attempts to further reconcile culture and climate in the school organization, sought to determine factors comprising culture and climate that may lead to an awareness of their impact on the school organization, and ultimately student achievement. They questioned whether culture might be a component of climate, or whether the reverse might be true. Schoen (2008) determined Halpin?s (1966) measures of school climate were based on four areas of teacher behavior (disengagement, hindrance, esprit, and intimacy) and four areas of principal behavior (aloofness, production emphasis, trust, and consideration). Through the work initially introduced by Halpin (1966), researchers conceptualized organizational climate as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of eight dimensions: four describing teacher characteristics and four describing teacher-principal interaction. Halpin revised the instrumentation and reduced these eight dimensions to five; two describe principal behavior and the other three describe behaviors of the teacher. School climates aligned on a continuum from open to closed (Hoy et al., 1990). Open climates are those where the principal is reality centered, the faculty is committed, and there is an absence of ?burdensome paperwork, close supervision, or a plethora or rules and regulations? (Hoy et al., 1990, p. 261). The direct opposite would be considered to have a closed climate. Hoy (1990) described Halpin?s revisions of the five dimensions: Principal behavior: Supportive: characterized by a genuine concern for the personal and professional welfare of teachers Directive: where principal behavior is rigid and domineering management 33 Teacher behavior: Engaged: reflects a faculty committed to their students and their school Frustrated: describes a general pattern of interference that distracts from the basic task of teaching Intimate: depicts a close network of social relations among faculty (Hoy et al., 1990, p. 262). Hoy, Tarter and Bliss (1990) described organizational climate with derivations from literature on organizational health. Hoy et al. (1990) surmised a positive school climate was assessed in much the same manner as the organizational health of a school. Though distinct, the constructs were operationalized in similar fashion; such that important relationships could be overlooked if one measure were used at the expense of another. Both emerge in school organizations as ?good working environments, places where people feel comfortable with the purposes of the organization and their capacity to function as professionals? (Hoy, et al, 1990, p. 276). Further, these places ?promote good mental health?cooperative and supportive relations, low levels of frustration, high levels of morale, and the expression of real engagement in the task at hand? (p. 276). Clearly the climate of a school relates to its organizational health. Organizational Health The expansive literature on organizational health examined many organizational characteristics as part of its overall construct. Organizational health refers to the state of an organization and its ability to survive and sustain itself over an extended period of time. The health of a school organization is recognized by its ability to adapt, grow, and continue to sustain its mission for increased student achievement. According to Hoy (1990), the distinctive attributes of a healthy school include: 34 A school that is protected from unreasonable parental and community pressures A board that resists efforts of vested interest groups to influence policy A principal who is a dynamic leader, supportive of teachers, emphasizes high performance standards, and who has influence with his or her superiors Teachers who are committed to teaching and learning, set high but achievable student goals, maintain high standards of performance, and promote a serious and orderly learning environment Students who work hard, are highly motivated, and respect their academically oriented classmates A commitment to providing necessary resources and materials as the need arises An atmosphere surrounded by high morale, enthusiasm and pride in the school Healthy school organizations and positive school climates are important to consider when examining student achievement and may have positive outcomes in the school setting. Evidence is strong that schools with healthy climates tend to have better performing students. Healthy schools are ?good working environments, places where people feel comfortable with the purposes of the organization and their capacity to function as professionals? and are places that ?promote good mental health because of the cooperative and supportive relations, the low levels of frustration, high levels of morale, and the expression of real engagement in the task at hand? (Hoy et al., 1990, p. 276). Hoy et al. (1990) outlined six dimensions of organizational health? institutional integrity, principal influence, consideration, resource support, morale, and academic emphasis (p. 265). The dimensions describe the organizational health of a school, and are defined in Table 6. 35 Table 6 Dimensions of Organizational Health Institutional integrity Describes a school?s ability to cope with its environment in a way that maintains the educational integrity of its programs. Teachers are protected from unreasonable community and parental demands. Principal influence Describes the principal?s ability to influence the actions of superiors. Being able to persuade superiors, get additional consideration, and be unimpeded by the administrative hierarchy are necessary skills to be effective as a principal. Consideration Describes principal behavior that is friendly, supportive, open, and collegial; it represents a genuine concern of a principal for the welfare of teachers. Resource support Refers to a school where adequate classroom supplies and instructional materials area available and extra resources are readily supplied if requested. Morale Describes a collective sense of friendliness, openness, enthusiasm, and trust among faculty members. Teachers like each other, like their jobs, and help each other; and they are proud of their school and feel a sense of accomplishment in their jobs. Academic emphasis Describes the extent to which a school is driven by a quest for academic excellence. High but achievable academic goals are set for students; the learning environment is orderly and serious; teachers believe in their students? ability to achieve; and students work hard and respect those who do well academically. Note. Adapted from ?Teachers? Sense of Efficacy and the Organizational Health of Schools,? by Wayne K. Hoy and Anita E. Woolfolk, 1993, The Elementary School Journal, 93, p. 358. Copyright 1993 by the University of Chicago. Researchers examining the enabling structures of a school have attempted to determine connecting themes evident in each facet. As stated previously, enabling structures relate to organizational characteristics such as mindfulness, climate, and organizational health. A recurring dynamic present in each of these constructs is the leadership of an organization. Bohn 36 (2002) perceived leadership as essential and influential in an organization. Katz and Kahn (1978) considered its importance stating ?In the description of organizations, no word is more often used than leadership, and perhaps no word is used with such varied meanings? (p. 574). Thus leadership represents an organizational condition worthy of consideration. Leadership Researchers have examined whether there a particular type of leadership that encourages enabling school structures. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) posit that transformational leadership lends itself to the constructs of enabling structures very efficiently. Likewise, enabling structures facilitated by school leaders tends to precede academic optimism in a school. A high level of optimism within a school organization is a factor in how effectively the system works as a whole. Bohn (2002) connected leadership behaviors and organizational efficacy. He found that ?how leaders behave influences an overall perception of how the organization will perform? (Bohn, 2002, p. 76). He further postulated that leaders influence the development of organizational capacity and ultimately help the organization succeed. A leader?s effectiveness has a strong bearing on the effectiveness of the teacher and is helpful in enhancing the effectiveness of the entire school organization (Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Lambert et al. (2002), in their extensive examination of the constructivist leader, conceptualized leadership and school achievement with several key ideas. Among those ideas is the notion that ?leadership is about transformation of self, others, organizations, and society. Such changes are embedded in reciprocal, equitable relationships that enable participants in community to find purpose together? (Lambert et al., 2002, p. xvi). 37 Hoy and Sweetland?s (2001) investigation supported arguments that enabling structures are ?characterized by principals who help teachers solve problems, encourage openness, and support teachers to do their jobs without undue concern for conflict and punishment? (p. 314). Enabling organizations foster trust and help teachers learn from their mistakes, as ?such behaviors should promote truthful and authentic interactions and limit concealment, deception, and delusion ... and supports the pivotal importance of organizational trust in facilitating student achievement? (2001, p. 315). Findings suggested the relationship between trust and student achievement is likely positive in schools (Goddard, Salloum, & Berebitsky, 2009; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001); especially where enabling structures are in place (Hoy, 2003a; Hoy et al., 2006). Teachers tend to behave in the same way their administrators behave; and teachers treat their students the same way they are treated by their administrators. Conversely, when principals are autocratic, forcing teachers to comply, and heavy-handed in their criticism; teachers often respond by turning their frustrations toward their students. This response potentially leads to adverse effects on student achievement (Hoy, 2003; Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). When teachers feel their principal has an authentic and genuine desire to create and maintain a trusting and enabling atmosphere; teachers are inclined to reciprocate and show an authentic desire to trust their principals and work harder to earn a principal?s trust (Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Principals who are supportive and empathetic to the needs of their teachers tend to be more enabling. Enabled principals look for ways to help teachers do their jobs, support them when they make mistakes, and encourage them to find new ways to reach their students. Enabled principals find ways to help teachers succeed rather than monitor their behavior to ensure compliance. 38 In sum, there is convincing evidence that enabling school structures are of pivotal importance in designing and leading better schools. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) postulated that: Better schools are possible, and one key ingredient to more effective schools is a school structure that enables participants to do their jobs more creatively, cooperatively, and professionally. Designing better schools seems inextricably bound to creating enabling school structures. (p. 319) Sinden, Hoy, and Sweetland (2004) summarized findings describing the school organization and behaviors of principals and teachers: 1. Rules and procedures: flexible, representative, and informal: rules have flexibility built it; few rules; representative rules (jointly determined); and informal procedures dominate. 2. Structure and size: flat, small, open, and representative: smaller and flatter structures; authorities are accessible; decision making migrates to expertise; informality and open two-way communication; and decision making is shared. 3. Principal behaviors: open, professional, and supportive: professional and open with teachers; respectful of teacher professionalism and of teacher expertise; supports teachers; 39 use of multiple perspectives in decision making; process oriented using conditional thinking; and flexible in interpretation and application of rules. 4. Teacher behaviors: informal, supportive, and trusting: prefers informal approaches; trusts principal and principal?s professionalism; respects principal and principal?s knowledge and expertise; and supports principal (Hoy & Sweetland, 2004, p. 473). Clearly, schools that facilitate enabling structures are places where teachers are treated with professionalism and courtesy and a place where teachers can be professional and collegial. Teachers in these enabling organizations tend to have a higher sense of self-efficacy and trust in principals and colleagues than teachers who work in organizations without enabling characteristics (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Teachers demonstrate efficacy and trust by setting high expectations for their students. Schools that consistently set higher expectations for students tend to have an increased level of academic optimism (Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008; Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006). Academic Optimism Academic optimism (AO) first appeared in the literature simply as optimism (Hoy, Tarter & Hoy, 2006). Optimism is defined as ?holding a view of life events and situations that is characterized by positive thinking and maintaining a positive attitude toward the future? (Pajares, 2001, p. 28). Optimism is a state of feeling that one can accomplish what one sets out to accomplish. Peterson noted the optimism is conceptualized in multiple ways and has been linked to ?positive mood and good morale; to perseverance and effective problem solving; to academic, 40 athletic, military, occupational, and political success; to popularity; to good health; and even to long life and freedom from trauma? (2000, p. 44). Optimism grew from attempts to move the study of psychology from the pessimistic, treatment oriented nature, towards a new perspective of a more positive, preventative nature. Thus, the field of positive psychology centered on discovering human strengths that might act as buffers to prevent mental illness (Peterson, 2000). Early in the 1950s, researchers with humanistic views proposed a ?dynamic theory of motivation in which internal and intrinsic motivating forces and affective processes lead to personal, social, and academic well-being? (Pajares, 2001, p. 27). Subjective experiences and positive attitudes played a large part in the educational functioning of the day. A resurfacing of this construct returned in early 2000 with a methodology grounded in systematic and scientific inquiry. Peterson emphasized that the mission of positive psychology would move toward fostering virtues in children such as ?courage, future mindedness, optimism, interpersonal skills, faith, work ethic, hope, honesty, perseverance, and the capacity for flow and insight? (2000, p. 7). These early perspectives of positive psychology held important implications for educational researchers as they investigated ways to bring about sustainable changes in student achievement. Researchers attempting to connect optimism with the field of academics examined students? achievement goals. Students who have task oriented goals and hold optimistic beliefs in their ability to reach those goals met with greater success than students unmotivated or pessimistic about their school work. Pajares (2001) noted that positive dispositions such as motivation, optimism, and self-efficacy are positively related to academic achievement. He further concluded ?possessing an optimistic explanatory style is related to adaptive academic 41 benefits, including academic achievement, positive goal orientation, and use of learning strategies, whereas a pessimistic explanatory style is associated with negative outcomes and with learned helplessness? (Pajares, 2001, p. 28). In regards to optimism, research has provided us with a look at this construct in a short span of time. Optimism in schools developed into a more unified construct when Hoy and colleagues began investigating the connections between three common themes: efficacy, trust, and an emphasis in academics (Hoy et al., 2006; Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008). Each of these school-level characteristics includes properties that significantly predicted some measure of student achievement. Hoy et al. (2006) identified the new triadic construct as academic optimism. He and his colleagues explained that a school with high academic optimism is a place where teachers believe they can make a difference in the lives of their students and that their students can learn (Hoy, Tarter, et al., 2006). In sum, academic optimism is defined as: ?a teacher?s positive belief that he or she can make a difference in the academic performance of students by emphasizing academics and learning, by trusting parents and students to cooperate in the process, by believing in his or her own capacity to overcome difficulties and react to failure with resilience and perseverance? (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008, p. 822) Academic optimism encompasses three beliefs that teachers hold?beliefs about themselves, beliefs about their students, and beliefs about their instruction. Hoy et al. summarized their hypotheses: ?teachers who believe in the potential of all students, make management and instructional decisions aligned with these expectations, and are committed to the success of their students will be more academically optimistic? (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008, 42 p. 826). Hoy, Tarter, and Hoy (2006) referred to academic optimism as a force for student achievement. The authors claimed that academic optimism was an important variable in increasing student achievement, even after controlling for certain variables such as socioeconomic status and previous achievement. In short, optimism matters in the school setting. Certain characteristics are recognized as leading to a climate of academic optimism. Beard noted that a ?personal disposition to be optimistic should provide a propensity toward academic optimism? (Beard et al., 2010, p. 1138). When a school has a clear sense of optimism about its academics, teachers and students are compelled to work harder to achieve success. Woolfolk Hoy identified four teacher variables that are ?associated with the development of teachers? academic optimism: 1) dispositional optimism, 2) humanistic classroom management, 3) student centered teaching, and 4) teacher citizenship behavior? (2008, p. 496). Edmonds labeled certain characteristics of effective schools ??strong principal leadership, high expectations for student achievement, emphasis on basic skills, an orderly environment and frequent and systematic evaluation of students? (Edmonds, 1982, p. 4). This represented a drastic change from previous thought that school characteristics mattered little in regards to student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966). Notably the evidence suggested that perhaps academic optimism is the link between principal leadership and student achievement (Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). However, researchers have found few direct links between principal leadership and student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2010; Silva, White, & Yoshida, 2011). However, principals? actions do appear to influence academic optimism (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006); a construct that is believed to affect student achievement (Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). 43 The vast gap between Coleman?s (1966) findings that the characteristics of a school mattered little in explaining student?s achievement and Edmond?s (1982) claims of effective school characteristics left the question open for much controversy and invited further scrutiny. Early in his work on enabling schools structures, Hoy identified a construct that was a constant in the relationship between schools, leaders, and student achievement (2003a). Hoy et al. (2006) postulated that academic optimism was the variable that explained the relationship between effective school characteristics and student achievement. Findings concluded that academic optimism was a ?key variable in explaining student achievement, even after controlling for SES, previous achievement, and other demographic variables? (Hoy et al., 2006, p. 427). McGuigan and Hoy (2006), sought to identify aspects of school leadership that affected academic optimism, thus affecting student achievement. They hypothesized that enabling structures predicted academic optimism, in turn predicting student achievement. Forty elementary schools in Ohio participated in the study. Students? math and reading proficiency showed strong correlations with academic emphasis (r = .67, p < .01), collective efficacy (r = .70, p < .01), faculty trust (r = .68, p < .01), and academic optimism (r = .70, p < .01), when controlling for socio-economic status (SES). Regressions demonstrated that enabling structures predicted academic optimism (? = .37, p < .01). Consequently, academic optimism predicted math (? = .54, p < .01) and reading (? = .50, p < .01) achievement, when controlling for SES. The study concluded that academic optimism was a significant and strong factor in explaining school achievement in math and reading achievement. Hallinger and Heck (1996) previously established an indirect relationship between principal leadership and student achievement. However, there were a number of school characteristics that positively related to student achievement. Those characteristics fell within 44 the boundaries of what Hoy et al. termed academic optimism (Hoy et al., 2006). Specifically, three organizational properties tended to make the most difference in regards to student achievement. Again, they are (1) the academic emphasis of the school, (2) the collective efficacy of the faculty, and (3) the faculty?s trust in parents and students. These three dynamics exemplified the force that is academic optimism (Hoy et al., 2006). Academic Emphasis Academic emphasis is conceptualized as the force whereby a school is driven for success. Academic emphasis describes a ?general perspective of the importance of academics in a school held by administrators, teachers, and students themselves? (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000, p. 684). Researchers theorized that ?academic emphasis, or the extent to which a drive for academic excellence contributes to the behavioral and environmental press of the school, is important to school success? (Goddard, Sweetland, et al., 2000, p. 684). When principals hold teachers to the highest standards, it is likely that teachers will do the same for their students. Schools that emphasize a strong academic program are apt to go well beyond the status quo in helping its students to succeed. Edmonds (1982) first brought attention to the notion that factors other than socio- economic status were related to student achievement. He cited five school properties that were predictive of student achievement: principal leadership, strong instructional focus, high student expectations, an orderly school environment, and frequent evaluation of students. Three of these properties?high student expectations, and orderly school environment, and a strong instructional focus?are captured in a single health variable. Hoy et al. (1990) later compiled these properties into the construct of academic emphasis. He determined it to be an element of school climate. Hoy equated a positive school climate with indications of school health and 45 effectiveness. Licata and Harper (1999) substantiated academic emphasis as an organizational theme whenever schools are healthy and robust. Researchers found academic emphasis to have a positive relationship with student achievement in elementary (Smith & Hoy, 2007), middle (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000), and high schools (Hoy et al., 2006). Academic emphasis appears to be a critical variable explaining student achievement. Other variables work indirectly through academic emphasis to influence student achievement (Kythreotis, Pashiardis, & Kyriakides, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2010; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Smith and Hoy (2007) hypothesized that academic optimism would correlate with student achievement in mathematics. They tested their theoretical model in 99 urban elementary schools in Texas. This study was the first to focus on poor urban schools. Regression analysis supported the hypothesis that academic optimism predicted student achievement when controlling for SES and school size (? = .34, p < .01). Correlations determined that academic optimism was positively correlated with mathematics achievement (r = .60, p < .01) and school size (r = .36, p < .01), but negatively correlated with SES (r = -.74, p < .01). Interestingly, SES also showed negative relationships to math achievement (r = -.61, p < .01) and school size (r = -.54, p < .01). However, school size did have a bearing on math achievement (r = .34, p < .01). The reciprocal nature of academic optimism fosters its continuous growth (Goddard, Sweetland, et al., 2000). Academic emphasis predicts student achievement. Likewise, student achievement is a catalyst for greater academic emphasis. The two concepts appear to be ?not only compatible, but also complementary? (Smith & Hoy, 2007 p. 565). In fact, the three concepts within academic optimism, collective efficacy, faculty trust, and academic emphasis, are ?dynamically and reciprocally related ... improving any element has positive consequences 46 on the others and boosts optimism? (p. 566). Thus, it is in the school leader?s best interest to continually cultivate a strong climate of academic emphasis. A positive climate of high academic emphasis is associated with student performance as well as teacher performance. Teachers, in schools with robust climates, will likely strive to improve instructional practices within the classroom environment (Goddard, Sweetland, et al., 2000); ultimately building a sense of collective efficacy among teachers within the school. Collective Efficacy Collective efficacy serves as the second variable within academic optimism. Self- efficacy can be described as a persons? belief in ones? capacity to effect change or make a difference. Bandura?s work on behavioral change hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy were important first steps to achieving significant behavioral change (Bandura, 1977). In the educational realm, self-efficacy has substantial implications for school success. Teachers who believe in themselves and their abilities to make a difference in the life of a child, have far greater success in the classroom that those who doubt their abilities (Hoy et al., 1993; Tschannen-Moran et al., 2003). As an organizational variable, collective efficacy is described as a group-level attribute (Goddard, Hoy, et al., 2000), and is a significant dynamic in schools. Collective efficacy is a group?s ?shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment? (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Ashton (1985) added that a teachers? personal sense of efficacy could be described as a belief in their ability to have a positive effect on student learning. Studies have linked collective efficacy with variables such as teacher?s level of organizational commitment (Chan et al., 2008), a positive school climate (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993), increased student achievement (Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, et al., 2000), 47 organizational citizenship behaviors (Jimmieson, Hannam, & Yeo, 2010), and the organizational health of a school (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Hoy et al. (2006) recognized the relationship between student achievement and a sense of efficacy when they posited ?the strength of efficacy beliefs affects the choices individuals and schools make about future plans and actions? (p. 428). Teachers who are supported by a strong leadership team, given opportunity to participate in decision making, and are trusted to do their best, are said to have a greater collective efficacy than schools without these characteristics. School leaders are more likely to ?promote teacher efficacy when they a) set high but achievable goals, b) create an orderly and serious environment, and c) respect academic excellence? (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993, p. 365). Jimmieson et al. (2010) concluded that a teacher?s job efficacy indirectly predicted four student outcomes ?general satisfaction, student-teacher relations, achievement, and opportunity?; and reduced the effect of students? psychological distress (p. 470). Collective efficacy within schools represents judgments about the school social system as a whole and their performance capabilities (Bandura, 1993). Bandura suggested a relationship between collective efficacy and academic school performance. The importance of a sense of collective efficacy in a school and its connection to student achievement has been supported in academia (Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, et al., 2000; Hoy et al., 2002; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Jimmieson et al., 2010). Goddard et al. (2000) operationalized a measure of collective teacher efficacy to examine participants in 47 urban elementary schools in a Midwestern school district. Validity and reliability of the measure was established. Results confirmed predictions of the study. As predicted, researchers found a positive correlation between personal teacher efficacy and 48 collective teacher efficacy (r = .54, p < .01). Similarly, trust in colleagues was positively related to collective teacher efficacy (r = .62, p < .01). However, as expected, collective teacher efficacy and environmental press was not statistically significant (r = .05, n.s.). In explanation, a ?demanding task and external pressures do not necessarily make people feel more or less capable? (Goddard et al., 2000, p. 494). When these findings were compared with student achievement in both mathematics and reading achievement, it appears the ?effect of collective teacher efficacy is greater in magnitude than that of any one of the demographic control for both achievement variables? (p. 500). The multilevel analysis demonstrated that when collective efficacy increased, math and reading achievement also significantly increased. Collective efficacy explained over 53% of the between-school variance in mathematics achievement and over 69% of the between-school variance in reading achievement. These results are consistent with other studies (Bandura, 1993), indicating that ?collective teacher efficacy perceptions are predictive of student achievement? (Goddard et al., 2000, p. 501). Goddard (2001) again examined the correlations between collective efficacy and student achievement in a separate study of 91 elementary schools. These schools comprised one large urban Midwestern school district. This study attempted to address questions not answered in his previous study (Goddard et al., 2000). Results indicated that constructs positively correlated with collective efficacy were previous student achievement in math (r = .74, p < .01) and reading (r = .77, p < .01), between-school variances (r = .62, p < .01). Additionally, collective efficacy was ?significantly related to differences between schools in student achievement in student achievement, even when school means were adjusted for students? prior achievement and demographic characteristics? (Goddard, 2001, p. 474). 49 Teacher efficacy is conceptually understood in a number of ways. Hoy and Woolfolk (1993), building on the work of others, considered efficacy a two-dimensional framework. Their work set out to examine the relationships between two dimensions of teacher efficacy (general and personal) and aspects of social organization often called school climate (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). General teaching efficacy reflects a general belief about the power of teaching to reach difficult children (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993), whereas personal teaching efficacy appears to be reflective of self-efficacious expectations in relation to one?s teaching. Tschannen-Moran et al. (2011), linked teachers? collective efficacy with the presence of faculty trust and found there was a significant positive relationship. Faculty Trust Faculty trust in parents and students is the third variable within the construct of academic optimism. Research is replete with indications that trust is a critical component of the school organization. As with other school characteristics, research on trust began in the industrial realm and migrated to the field of education. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (1998, 1999) have worked extensively to develop conceptual understandings of trust and are preeminent researchers of trust in the school organization. In the analyses of trust at the school level, researchers found teachers? trust in colleagues and principals to be positively linked to school effectiveness and a positive school climate (Hoy et al., 1990; Tarter, Bliss, & Hoy, 1989). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (1998) likened the study of trust to ?studying a moving target because it changes over the course of a relationship and the nature of a trusting relationship can be altered instantaneously? (p. 335). Their work sought first to define trust and its components; second, to examine the relationship between climate and authenticity in developing trust; and third, to develop a research agenda for the study of this 50 construct in schools. Trust, in its simplest form, describes ?believing in others in the absence of compelling reasons to disbelieve? (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998, p. 342). Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999) later defined trust as ?an individual?s or group?s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest and open? (p. 189). This definition seems to be held by other researchers as the working definition of trust in the school organization (Bogler & Somech, 2004; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008). Initially, two aspects of trust emerged from research?trust in principals and trust in colleagues. Trust in parents and trust in students were also examined as dimensions of trust, and were later confirmed to be indistinguishable and combined to form a single factor; trust in clients (Hoy & Tschannen- Moran, 1999). Trust in schools is positively linked to other constructs such as healthy school climates (Hoy et al., 2002; Tarter et al., 1989), increased teacher efficacy (Hoy et al., 2006), teacher commitment (Park & Henkin, 2005), and academic optimism (Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011). Principals? trust in teachers and their belief in teachers? abilities are also linked to successful schools (Cosner, 2009; Joseph & Winston, 2005; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). When principals trust that their teachers will perform their job to satisfaction, teachers reciprocate by trusting that their principals will afford them the space and resources to do just that. When teachers feel a sense of the principals? vote of confidence in them, they are much more likely to perform to a higher level of satisfaction (Joseph & Winston, 2005; Tschannen- Moran, 2004, 2009). Conversely, teachers faced with mistrust and negativity are likely impeded from doing what they feel is their best. A lack of trust within the school appears to be 51 detrimental to the success of the school organization (Leithwood et al., 2010; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). Teachers, who are trusted, typically extend that trust toward other stakeholders in the organization. Parents and students are the beneficiaries of such teacher trust. Students can sense when teachers trust them to do their work and often they respond by performing at greater levels. The success in the work of schools is largely dependent upon the relationship between stakeholders in the organization. Researchers acknowledge that trust plays a significant role in building and sustaining these relationships among stakeholders (Adams & Forsyth, 2009; Goddard et al., 2001; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Tschannen-Moran (2001) concluded that principals are a critical component in building trust among faculty and students in the school organization. She highlighted five things leaders can utilize to build trust in their schools ? visioning, modeling, coaching, managing, and mediating. As principals become more trustworthy, they encourage reciprocal behavior in teachers, who then pass this tendency on to students. Trust in administrators is built when teachers have a sense that they are respected and supported as professionals. Likewise, trust in teachers is built when students feel respected and supported as individuals. When a climate of trust is evident, teachers are more likely to trust each other and therefore, more likely to collaborate with colleagues (Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011). It is noted that teacher trust is necessary to cultivate a positive school climate. A climate built on trust is likely to be a critical component in engaging students who are at risk for school failure (Goddard et al., 2009). Additionally, teacher trust in students and students trust in teachers seem to be essential traits of a quality social system in a school (Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011), and may also indicate the quality of school life for students and teachers (Karakus & Aslan, 2009). 52 Szabo and Lambert (2002) identify trust as a result of shared experiences over time. They further theorized that a central task for building trusting environments is to ?engage participants in learning communities that: Meet people where they currently live in their head and their hearts Challenge, and support self-disclosure, risk-taking, and reflection Sustain trusting relationships throughout the development and learning process? (2002, p. 212). Additionally, teachers respond favorably when they have trust in their leaders (Tschannen- Moran, 2001). When principals enable teachers to do their jobs effectively, without fear of critical judgment, teachers are more disposed to open communication, creative problem solving, and collaborative interactions with colleagues. Kensler et al. (2009) concluded that teachers perceived higher levels of their own and team learning when trust was a prevailing factor in the school. Tschannen-Moran (2004) identified and defined five facets of trust that are key ingredients in determining a trustworthy leader: Benevolence: Caring, extending good will, having positive intentions, supporting teachers, expressing appreciation for staff efforts, being fair, guarding confidential information Honesty: Having integrity, telling the truth, keeping promises, honoring agreements, having authenticity, accepting responsibility, avoiding manipulation, being real, being true to oneself Openness: Engaging in open communication, sharing important information, delegating, sharing decision making, sharing power 53 Reliability: Having consistency, being dependable, demonstrating commitment, having dedication, being diligent Competence: Setting an example, engaging in problem solving, fostering conflict resolution (rather than avoidance), working hard, pressing for results, setting standards, buffering teachers, handling difficult situations, being flexible (p. 34) Faculty trust, collective efficacy, and academic emphasis are organizational elements that collectively form the construct of academic optimism. The broad body of research behind each construct supports their connections to student achievement (G?rol & Kerimgil, 2010; Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). With such convincing findings, academic optimism is indeed a formidable organizational characteristic worth cultivating in school organizations. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is a construct describing behavior an employee may exhibit that is considered outside the requirements of one?s job. This phenomenon may is also considered going beyond the call of duty. The notion of citizenship behavior is rooted in behavioral science at the organizational level and was first studied in industrial organizations (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Katz, 1964, 1966; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Katz and Kahn (1966) alluded to this behavior while examining levels of organizational effectiveness. They noted that an employee?s high internalization of organizational goals prompted them to engage in cooperative and innovative behaviors in service to their organization. These behaviors go beyond prescribed job requirements. The term ?organizational citizenship behavior? (OCB) was first widely used by Dennis Organ (1988) who noted it was influenced by the phrasing used by Katz in his 1964 article (Behavior Science) on organizational 54 behavior. Katz used the metaphor of citizenship in organizations. Organ (1988) defined the term in this way: OCB represents individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the personal employment contract with the organization. (p. 4) The theoretical model of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988) defined discretionary behavioral tendencies. Five factors describe the benefits included in the construct. 1. Altruism (e.g., helping new colleagues and freely giving time to others) is typically directed toward other individuals, but contributes to group efficiency by enhancing individuals? performance. 2. Conscientiousness (e.g., efficient use of time and going beyond minimum expectations) enhances the efficiency of both an individual and the group. 3. Sportsmanship (e.g., avoids complaining and whining) improves the amount of time spent on constructive endeavors in the organization. 4. Courtesy (e.g., advance notices, reminders, and communicating appropriate information) helps prevent problems and facilitates constructive use of time. 5. Civic Virtue (e.g., serving on committees and voluntarily attending functions) promotes the interest of the organization (see DiPaola & Hoy, 2005, p. 389). Organ?s (1988) summary of the anatomy of a helping hand lends additional clarity to the concept of citizenship behaviors exhibited by employees: 55 1. The assistance was not one of his job duties or formal job description. 2. The assistance was spontaneous; not by request or command 3. The actions could have met with any response from the organization?s formal reward system. (no bonus pay, brownie points or citations) 4. He contributed in a small way to the functioning of the group, and by extension, to the organization as a whole Employees who engage in OCBs act on a voluntary basis, without thought for recompense or reward. Citizenship behaviors are solely dependent upon a doer?s good-will and cannot be formally compensated by the organization?s reward system (Organ, 1988). One might equate this concept with good-citizenship, organizational commitment, or going beyond the call of duty. The idea is that an employee would engage in activity or work that was outside the boundaries of their job description. This activity might be acted toward the organization as a whole or toward individuals in the organization. This, in effect, benefits the individual and the organization. Employees arriving early or staying late for work without being asked could be exhibiting OCB. Other examples may be individuals offering to help another employee finish a task, or volunteering to serve on a committee. Even simple efforts like cleaning up ones? work-space or emptying the trash might be consider displaying OCB. In actuality most OCB actions, when considered individually, amount to little, and would do little to enhance the performance of an organization. However, collectively, organizational citizenship behaviors can make a difference in improving the functioning of the entire organization (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Organ, 1988). An important clarification and determining factor in OCB is the consideration of ones? job description. An employee who adequately or even exceptionally fulfills his duties within the 56 boundaries of his job description is not displaying behavior considered to be OCB. He or she is simply doing the job as they were hired to do. Only when the behavior is outside the normal confines of the job description and altruistic; that is, unselfish and non-opportunistic; is it considered to be OCB. In practice OCB should be a normal and healthy response of individuals in a healthy organization with a strong sense of community (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). Empirical research in the organizational field attempted to identify certain antecedents to citizenship behaviors (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983). Four major categories of characteristics emerged from the early investigations. They are 1) individual characteristics, 2) task characteristics, 3) organizational characteristics, and 4) leadership characteristics. These four categories show the greatest relationships to organizational citizenship behaviors. Efforts also focused on determining the consequences of citizenship behaviors in an organization (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983). Specifically, two main outcomes were the focus of these investigations: 1) the effects of OCBs on employee evaluations, and 2) the effects of OCBs on organizational performance and success. Both variables surfaced as significant outcomes of citizenship behaviors in organizations, although results were far from conclusive. It was much later that researchers introduced the construct of organizational citizenship behavior to the educational arena (Hoy et al., 1990; Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990). Though the construct was well represented in organizational literature, no researcher had examined the phenomenon in the school environment. Within a decade of the earliest study, many researchers began to examine schools as an organizational entity. The first step in the process was to create a way to capture evidence of organizational citizenship behavior in the school setting. 57 Researchers first explored how the construct was conceptualized in the K?12 setting (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). It was not a simple task. They encountered challenges in trying to define the specific job requirements of teachers. A teacher?s responsibilities are quite enormous and not easily defined. Teaching is primarily a service occupation and as such, teachers are accustomed to performing duties that are helping in nature, and may be more committed to doing what is best for their students (Somech & Ron, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Due to the nature of their jobs, it is plausible that teachers may engage in helping-behaviors on a daily basis (Bogler & Somech, 2005; Oplatka, 2009). Furthermore, it is difficult to specifically identify what constitutes a teacher?s duties. A teacher?s job cannot adequately be summed up in a simple job description (Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Therefore, characterizing the term OCB in consideration of teachers became a widely speculative endeavor. A teacher?s behavior considered above and beyond the call of duty was solely dependent upon each individual?s personal interpretation. Additionally, teachers are often expected or feel compelled to go beyond what their job requires of them in order to accomplish the objectives of the organization. Many teachers find themselves working incessantly simply to get the job done. Tschannen-Moran (2003) noted ?to meet the demanding new standards that have been set for schools, school personnel must go well beyond minimum performance of their duties ? they must be inspired to give their very best? (p. 158). DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) posited that this construct demonstrates how crucial it is that teachers work above and beyond their minimum job descriptions. In fact, it is critical to the smooth functioning and efficiency of the school organization. Their initial study hypothesized that there was a positive relationship between citizenship behaviors and school 58 climate; that is, ?the more positive the school climate, the greater the incidents of organizational citizenship behaviors? (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001, p. 434). To test their hypothesis, DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) developed a successful measure of OCB specific to the school setting. This instrument was determined to be reasonably valid and reliable. They established indicators of OCB in teachers, but readily admitted the construct was not easily captured. Their study developed under the assumption of a two- dimensional definition of OCB conceptualized by Williams (1991), as opposed to the five- dimensional model developed by Organ (1988). Those dimensions are (1) it benefits the organization in general, such as volunteering to serve on committees, displayed as generalized compliance or conscientiousness and (2) it benefits the individuals within the organization, such as altruism and interpersonal helping, displayed as altruism. Displays of organizational citizenship behavior towards the school might suggest that a teacher is conscientious in respect to the organization. On the other hand, displays of organizational citizenship behavior towards students as individuals might be considered acts of altruism. Though teachers can display both acts of conscientiousness and altruism in their course of duty or in-role behaviors; most researchers consider conscientious or altruistic acts to be extra- role behaviors or citizenship behaviors. Organ provided some clarification between the two, with the most obvious difference being that altruism refers to behavior that helps a specific person. Conscientiousness, in contrast, refers to actions that are broader and more impersonal (Organ, 1988). DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran?s (2001) work surmised that when schools enjoyed open, healthy climates, teachers can be expected to show greater citizenship in their work with colleagues as well as in serving their students. They assessed four dimensions of school climate: 59 1) collegial leadership, 2) teacher professionalism, 3) academic press, and 4) community pressure (Hoy et al., 1998). Previous research clearly suggested that school climate was positively related to other school variables, such as faculty trust (Tarter et al., 1989), school effectiveness (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000), and student achievement (Hoy et al., 1990, 1998). Findings from this first study (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001) confirmed that organizational citizenship was related to the school climate in two initial samples. Results from the first sample confirmed OCB relations to school climate on all four dimensions: collegial leadership, teacher professionalism, academic press, and community pressure. However, the second sample revealed a discrepancy from the expected outcome. Although OCBs related to school climate on three of the four dimensions; no such relation was found with community pressure. It is worthy of noting that the second sample was drawn from teachers at the high school level. This may explain the discrepancy in findings. An interesting element surfaced in this premier examination. Though results did show that the climate of a school is strongly related to citizenship behaviors in the school; it also revealed ?only one dimension of OCB in the public school context? (DiPaola & Tschannen- Moran, 2001, p. 440). It appeared that, although teachers regularly focused on helping others, in the process they were ?clearly working toward the achievement of overall organizational goals? (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001, p. 440). DiPaola, et al. (2009) speculated the reason could be that ?schools are service organizations ? the distinction between helping individuals and furthering the organizational mission is blurred, because the mission is synonymous with helping people? (p. 442). DiPaola et al. (2009) later extended the study to measure OCBs across cultures. Results remained reliable and stable; despite cultural differences. The construct had favorable results in 60 both high schools and middle schools in Portuguese and the USA. Other researchers confirmed these findings remain plausible with other nationalities as well (Bogler & Somech, 2005; Chen & Carey, 2009; Dick, Hirst, Grojean, & Wieseke, 2007; Ert?rk, 2007; Honingh & Oort, 2009; Oplatka, 2009). Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2000) examined a three-dimensional model of extra-role behavior?towards the student, towards the team, and towards the organization. They felt this would give them a more comprehensive understanding of the OCB phenomenon. They posited that teachers who showed overall satisfaction for their jobs would be more self-efficacious. The result of improved teacher efficacy would be greater collective efficacy, resulting in increased extra-role behavior. Results indicated that job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy, were positively related to teachers? extra-role behavior. Somech and Bogler (2002) discovered a positive connection between teacher professional commitment and organizational commitment to increased citizenship behaviors. Teachers who were more committed to their profession were more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors. Organizational citizenship behavior in the school setting has shown positive relationships with other school characteristics. Teacher empowerment (Bogler & Somech, 2004; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000), participative decision making (Bogler & Somech, 2005), professional identity (Christ, Van Dick, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003), organizational learning (Somech & Drach- Zahavy, 2004), and student achievement (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000) have all been positively linked with organizational citizenship behaviors. Trust, at the individual and organizational level, has been positively linked to organizational citizenship behaviors. Ert?rk (2007) proposed to explore the role of organizational justice (perceptions of fairness) and trust in supervisor with increasing citizenship 61 behaviors. Previously, Organ (1990) suggested that perceptions of fairness played a pivotal role in OCBs among employees. Organ offered that employees reciprocated fair treatment by displaying more OCBs, claiming that fairness in the workplace created a change in the mindsets of employees. Trust in supervisor has also been linked to the increase in OCBs (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Results from Ert?rk?s study (2007) concluded that trust in supervisor partially mediated the relationship between organizational justice and OCBs. Teacher trust in the school organization is likely to have a positive relationship with teacher commitment. Teacher commitment can be directed toward three different focal points. Teachers can show a commitment to the teaching profession, to their work group, or to the school where they work (Park & Henkin, 2005). Teacher commitment is maximized when a teacher shows commitment to all three facets of the school organization. A teacher?s commitment to the school organization has been shown to be positively related to job performance and organizational effectiveness (Firestone & Pennell, 1993). Teachers committed to their schools may show strong ties to their schools and their students. These links further extend to the organization as a whole. Teachers committed to their school organizations are more likely to exhibit behaviors that are outside their formal job descriptions. The behaviors can be considered organizational citizenship behaviors. Conversely, low teacher commitment can be associated with high rates of teacher absenteeism (Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990) and teacher turnover (Chang, 2009; Ronfeldt, Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2011). Researchers have identified possible antecedents to citizenship behaviors including individual, task, and organizational characteristics. Individual characteristics, such as job 62 attitudes, especially job satisfaction (Bateman & Organ, 1983) and commitment (Somech & Bogler, 2002) can have a bearing on displays of OCB. There is considerable support for a positive relationship between job satisfaction and displays of OCB (Organ, 1990). Teachers who are highly satisfied with their jobs are more likely to extend consideration towards others in their organizations. However, it is important to note that the perception of fairness explained an inclination towards organizational citizenship behavior, more so than job satisfaction (Zeinabadi, 2010). Additionally, those who have a large level of commitment to their organizations (Smith et al., 1983) are more inclined to participate in a helping behavior toward others. What is not clear is whether these conditions are representative of antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior or demonstrative evidence of the outcomes of OCB (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Therefore, it is important to consider the aforementioned variables as possible consequences of such behavior. Undoubtedly there could be added benefits to the school as a whole when teachers regularly display organizational citizenship behaviors (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). When every member of an organization is on board with its mission, and every member consistently gives their best, it is almost certain the organization will thrive. Beyond the many organizational variables linked to organizational citizenship behaviors, the construct has emerged as a considerable and positive variable in multiple school settings. It is a strong predictor for school success at the elementary (Oplatka, 2009; Somech & Ron, 2007), middle school (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001), high school (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005), and university level (Et?rk, 2007; Salehi & Gholtash, 2011). It has shown favorable promise in the United States (DiPaola & Neves, 2009), Portugal (DiPaola & Neves, 2009), Israel (Oplatka, 2009; Somech & Ron, 2007), India (Garg & Rastogi, 2006), Turkey (Et?rk, 2007), and the 63 Netherlands (Honingh & Oort, 2009). Its reciprocal nature is such that its presence inspires its continued growth (Korsgaard, Meglino, Lester, & Jeong, 2010). Clearly it is a strong and dominant force in the field of educational research. Even though one single incident of OCB or random act of kindness may not have any large effect; many in summation and over time, will have a noticeable influence. The collective influence of organizational citizenship behaviors on the school organization can be dramatic (DiPaola et al., 2004). Conversely, Katz and Kahn (1964) argued that in the absence of OCBs, when individuals only performed prescribed duties and nothing more, an organization was doomed to failure. Schools find it difficult to be wholly successful without teachers who are willing to voluntarily go beyond their role expectations (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Oplatka, 2009; Somech & Ron, 2007). Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Enabling school structures are related to organizational citizenship behaviors; the greater the enabling structures of a school, the greater the presence of organizational citizenship behaviors. Hypothesis 2: Enabling school structures are related to academic optimism; the greater the enabling structures of a school, the greater the degree of academic optimism. Hypothesis 3: Academic optimism is related to organizational citizenship behaviors; the greater the academic optimism of a school, the greater the presence of organizational citizenship behaviors. Hypothesis 4: The academic optimism of a school will mediate the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. 64 Summary School success is largely dependent upon the organizational characteristics that are found in schools. It is critical that researchers continue to explore these characteristics in order to further define their relationships and their connections to student achievement. At present, three comprehensive constructs?enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors, are at the forefront of educational research. Understanding their relationships and determining how best to replicate and nurture their conditions in the school organization is vital to facilitating a successful school organization. Enabling structures (Hoy et al., 2006) and its relationship to academic optimism (Beard et al., 2010) is clear. Academic optimism (Beard et al., 2010) encompasses the theories of collective efficacy of the faculty (G?rol & Kerimgil, 2010), academic emphasis (Tschannen- Moran, 2001) of the school, and the faculty?s trust in parents and students (Hoy et al., 2002). Trust has been linked to positive school culture and school climate (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). Teacher perceptions of efficacy (Zeinabadi, 2010), commitment (Korsgaard, Meglino, Lester, & Jeong, 2010), and reciprocity (Somech & Bogler, 2002) have influenced how teachers engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). A strong school climate has been found to correlate with organizational citizenship behaviors (Vigoda-Gadot, Beeri, Birman-Shemesh, & Somech, 2007; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). School climate has also been found to have the multi-dimensional characteristics of collegial leadership, teacher professionalism, academic press, and community pressure. In addition, organizational citizenship behavior was related to collegial leadership, teacher professionalism and academic press (Zeinabadi, 2010). 65 Variables of organizational citizenship behavior include job satisfaction (Pajares, 2001), attitudes towards a job, performance, motivation (Yilmaz & Tasdan, 2009), hierarchical position, personality, organizational commitment, leadership behavior, trust, and organizational justice (Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011). The multi-dimensional nature of organizational citizenship behaviors has also been linked to a student?s quality of school life (Beard & Hoy, 2010; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). The three variables comprising academic optimism were found to have positive relationships with student achievement (Pajares, 2001). Some predictors of academic optimism are (1) teachers? belief about instruction and management, (2) commitment by way of individual citizenship, and (3) socioeconomic status of students. Academic optimism is also closely linked with academic press. Notably, academic optimism was found to have cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects, so in a sense, it encompasses the three dimensions of mind, body, and soul (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008). Positive and significant predictors of academic optimism are (1) student-centered teaching, (2) humanistic classroom management and teaching, (3) teachers? citizenship behavior and (4) dispositional optimism (Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). Clearly teachers? beliefs influence their thoughts and actions (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008, p. 831). Hoy et al. (2010) speculated about the nature of the reciprocal relationships, and found the presence of optimism seems to beget more optimism. Additionally, school success positively correlates with many of these constructs and some have been linked to an increase in student achievement (Hoy et al., 2006). Academic optimism was found to be a key variable in explaining student achievement, even after controlling for other variables such as prior achievement and socioeconomic status (Goddard, 2001). A sense of 66 teacher efficacy has been positively related to student achievement as well (Leithwood et al., 2010). Faculty trust, encompassing benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness have been linked to higher student achievement. The link between leadership and student achievement (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Sinden et al., 2004), though indirect (Leithwood et al., 2010) was mediated through other variables such as enabling structures and academic emphasis. In this case leadership facilitated enabling school structures (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006); nurtured increased academic optimism (Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007), and positively influenced student achievement (Dimmock & Walker, 2004). It is becoming increasingly clear how each of the aforementioned constructs relates to the organizational effectiveness of schools. Each has been individually examined and determined to have a positive relationship with certain characteristics of school success. Moreover, there is little doubt they all inspire reciprocal tendencies, a natural and unexpected dimension. What remains unclear is how the prevailing constructs?enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors?collectively interact. The study herein proposes to measure the correlational relationships that exist among the three variables and then to determine if academic optimism serves as a mediating variable between the others. 67 CHAPTER III. METHODS Introduction Administrators of school organizations continuously pursue practical ways to develop and enrich organizational factors such as teacher commitment, academic emphasis, and student achievement. Likewise, researchers continue to investigate the relationships between these and other school properties in attempts to better understand how to facilitate their development. It is vital that researchers persist in conceptualizing these constructs and discovering ways to bridge the significant span between the enabling structures of a school and the citizenship behaviors of its teachers. Research affirms that this path positively correlates with teacher trust and commitment, as well as student achievement (Hoy et al., 2006). This chapter highlights the purpose and significance of this study, and examines the methodology and research design utilized herein. Research questions and methods of data collection and analysis are outlined and discussed. This chapter also includes descriptions of the population, samples, and instrumentation, as well as the analysis procedures that were followed. Purpose of the Study The purposes of this study were, first, to replicate the current research on the relationships between and among enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors, and then, to explore whether academic optimism is a mediating factor between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. 68 This study proposed to test this mediation model in a sample of elementary schools in the state of Alabama. Academic optimism (Hoy et al., 2006; Hoy, Tarter, et al., 2006) evolved from researchers? work on positive psychology (Pajares, 2001; Peterson, 2000; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and is found to be triadic in nature. This construct includes three components that coalesce into one, producing a positive force for student-learning (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008). The three variables include collective efficacy (Goddard, 2001), faculty trust (Tarter et al., 1989), and academic emphasis (Hoy et al., 1990). Interestingly, academic optimism is also three-dimensional in nature as it has cognitive, affective, and behavioral characteristics. Academic optimism has been positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior in schools (Adler & Borys, 1996; Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Sinden et al., 2004). Enabling school structures (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001) are described as supportive structures that facilitate teacher effectiveness, and are conceptualized as an administrative hierarchy that can be enabling or hindering. Researchers have found that hindering structures can impede teacher effectiveness whereas enabling structures can enhance it (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Sinden et al., 2004). Enabling structures have been positively associated with academic optimism (Tschannen-Moran, 2009) and with organizational citizenship behaviors in schools (Ert?rk, 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Somech & Ron, 2007). The operational definition of organizational citizenship behavior has its roots in the industrial world and describes behaviors employees may exhibit that are outside of their job descriptions (Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983). In the school setting, this construct delineates teachers who go above and beyond the call of duty to help individuals in their school, or their 69 school as a whole (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Organizational citizenship behaviors in schools may manifest itself in many ways including increases in teacher satisfaction (Somech & Bogler, 2002; Zeinabadi, 2010), commitment (Belogolovsky & Somech, 2010; Firestone & Pennell, 1993), performance (Chughtai, 2008; Oplatka, 2009), trust (Adams & Forsyth, 2009; Park & Henkin, 2005; Tarter et al., 1989; Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011), volunteerism (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Garg & Rastogi, 2006), a more positive school climate (Burns & Carpenter, 2008; DiPaola & Hoy, 2005), and an improvement in student achievement (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005; A. Somech & Ron, 2007). The school organization as a whole is more successful when organizational citizenship behaviors are common place (Hoy, 2003b; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Research Design This study was descriptive in design and represented a cross-sectional, non-experimental study. The elementary school represents the unit of analysis. This quantitative study examined the relationships among enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors in the school organization. Academic optimism is a latent variable containing three factors: collective efficacy, faculty trust in students and parents, and finally, the academic emphasis of the school. The three survey instruments included the Enabling School Structures survey (ESS) (Hoy, 2003b), the School Academic Optimism Scale (SAOS) (Hoy, 2005), and the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCB) (DiPaola & Hoy, 2004). Population and Sample The population for this study included the faculty members of the elementary schools in the state of Alabama. Teachers from a total of 538 elementary schools received invitations to 70 voluntarily participate in the study. Of that number, 65 schools responded with at least 5 teachers participating in the survey. Therefore, the sample constituted a set of 65 elementary schools and represented 759 teachers from 43 different school districts. Incomplete responses, eliminated from analysis, totaled 170, resulting in 589 usable responses. Due to the limited responses, generalizability of findings cannot be assumed. Approximately 1100 elementary schools exist in the state of Alabama, and comprise the 132 school districts found therein. School systems vary in size from fewer than 1000 students to more than 50,000 students. These include schools from rural, suburban, and urban settings. The Alabama State Department of Education provides a public listing of all the schools in the state. A random sample, generated from the listing, yielded the sample for the study. Participants included teachers in grades Kindergarten through Grade 6 only. The survey invitation promised anonymity for all participants. Respondents had the option to skip any question in the survey or discontinue participation at any point in the process. Research Questions The following research questions guided this study: 1. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? 2. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to academic optimism? 3. To what extent is academic optimism positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? 4. Does academic optimism mediate the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors? 71 Instrumentation Three survey instruments, each designed to measure a particular construct, were combined into one instrument for use in this study. All surveys have been utilized extensively in previous studies as outlined below. The three primary constructs measured in this study were enabling school structures (Hoy, 2005), academic optimism (DiPaola & Hoy, 2004), and organizational citizenship behavior (Hoy, 2003a). Enabling School Structures Enabling school structures is measured with the Enabling School Structures (ESS) form. The ESS form, developed by Hoy, is a 12-item Likert-type scale that measures to what degree school structures enable teachers (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Higher scores signify more enabling school structures. Enabling school structures are conceptualized along a continuum, with enabling structures at one end and hindering structures at the other. Upon examining the variables within the construct (enabling formalization and enabling centralization) with exploratory factor analysis, the two-factor solution revealed many items loaded strongly on both factors rather than two distinct factors. Researchers then settled on a one-factor solution determined to be better both conceptually and empirically; with each item's factor loadings ranging from .40 to .81. Thus, enabling formalization and enabling centralization are not independent but rather form a unitary bipolar factor that measured reliably and validly (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Items previously used to measure enabling formalization and enabling centralization combined into a single scale of enabling school structures with strong internal consistency (alpha = .94). Factor analysis on new data was consistent with previous results and loaded strongly on the factor with a range of .53 to .81, and the alpha coefficient of reliability was .96. Finally, a 72 third measure replicated the earlier results with even stronger loadings (range .69 to .86) and strong alpha coefficients (.95). The reliability of the ESS scale is consistently high ? usually .90 or higher and the construct and predictive validity have been strongly supported (Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Six of the ESS survey items are scored on a range of 1(never) to 5 (always) dependent upon the occurrence of each item. Examples of the survey items: The administrative hierarchy of this school enables teachers to do their job. Administrative rules in this school help rather than hinder. Administrative rules in this school are guides to solutions rather than rigid procedures. Additionally, six items are reverse scored. Examples: In this school, red tape is a problem. The administrative hierarchy obstructs student achievement. In this school the authority of the principal is used to undermine teachers. Academic Optimism The academic optimism of a school is measured with the School Academic Optimism Scale (SAOS). Academic optimism, conceptualized as a triadic framework, consists of the following dimensions: collective efficacy (cognitive), faculty trust in students and parents (affective), and academic emphasis of the school (behavioral) (Hoy et al., 2006). The index of school academic optimism measures all three dimensions of this construct. The three variables?academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust in parents and students?form the general latent construct of academic optimism (Hoy et al., 1990). 73 Collective efficacy began with Bandura's work in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1993, 1997). Trust emerged through the analysis of social interaction (Coleman, 1990), and academic emphasis evolved from research by Hoy, et al. on the organizational health of schools (Hoy et al., 1990; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Beard et al. (2010) further established academic optimism in a confirmatory factor analysis. Standardized beta weights were statistically significant (p < .01) as indicated by the following correlations?teacher?s sense of self-efficacy (.72), teacher academic emphasis (.71), and teacher trust in parents and students (.73). The SAOS survey instrument has 30 items with a Likert-type scale. Twenty-two items are scored on a range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Eight items are scored on a range of 1 (rarely) to 4 (very often). Twelve of the SAOS items specifically addressed the collective sense of self-efficacy among teachers. The survey includes six items scored on a range of 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Examples: Teachers in this school are able to get through to the most difficult students. Teachers in this school are confident they will be able to motivate their students. Teachers in this school believe that every child can learn. The reverse scored items included six items. The following are examples of reverse scored items: If a child does not want to learn teachers in this school give up. Teachers in this school do not have the skills needed to produce meaningful results. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems. 74 The SAOS includes ten items that measure the faculty trust in students and parents. Nine items are scored on a range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). One item in the faculty trust component of the SAOS is reverse scored. Examples: Parents in this school are reliable in their commitments. Students in this school can be counted upon to do their work. Teachers in this school believe that students are competent learners. Finally, eight survey items on the SAOS scale are designed to measure the academic emphasis in the school. All items in this portion of the survey are measured with a score ranging from 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), to 4 (very often). Examples: This school sets high standards for performance. Academic achievement is recognized and acknowledged by the school. Teachers in this school believe that their students have the ability to achieve academically. Organizational Citizenship Behavior The citizenship behavior of a school is measured using the Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale (OCB) (DiPaola & Hoy, 2004). This instrument is adapted and modified from its original form and was first developed for schools by DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001). This instrument is comprised of 12 Likert-type items and measures to what extent teachers in a school go out of their way to voluntarily engage in behaviors considered to be above and beyond their job descriptions (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). Sample items include? Teachers in this school help students on their own time. Teachers volunteer to serve on new committees. Teachers in this school begin class promptly and use class time effectively. 75 Ten of the twelve survey items are scored on a range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The survey included two items to be reverse scored. These items are 1) Teachers waste a lot of class time, and 2) Teachers give an excessive amount of busy work. Good construct validity emerged from a factor analysis with factor loadings ranging from .41 to .66 and reliability of the measure was .87. The reliability of the scale is consistently high, with a range of .86 to .93 and the construct validity has been supported in additional factor analyses (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Procedures The elementary school constitutes the unit of analyses for this study. The three variables under investigation?enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors?are all properties of the elementary school environment. Bivariate correlations provided answers to the following research questions: 1. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? 2. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to academic optimism? 3. To what extent is academic optimism positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? The final research question explored the predictive relationship between the three constructs and whether a mediating factor existed in the relationship. Hierarchical regressions assisted in answering this question: Does academic optimism mediate the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors? 76 Organizational citizenship behavior served as the dependent variable in the study. Enabling school structures represented the independent variable and academic optimism denoted the mediating variable. Examinations of these variables provided evidence in determining whether any unique relationships existed between the variables and whether one variable served as a mediator between the other variables. Researchers postulate that mediation occurs when the influence of one variable (enabling school structures) on an outcome variable (organizational citizenship behavior) is explained by an intervening variable (academic optimism) (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, 2006). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), ?a given variable may be said to function as a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the relation between the predictor and the criterion? (p. 1176). The mediation model continues to gain attention in the research arena as a feasible and useful method of ?theory development and testing as well as for the identification of possible points of intervention in applied work? (Shrout & Bolger, 2002, p. 422). Mediation is conceptualized as predictive pathways where ?the influence of an antecedent is transmitted to a consequence through an intervening mediator? (James & Brett, 1984, p. 307). This model assumes a three-variable structure where correlations exist between a) the independent variable (ESS) and the dependent variable (OCB); b) the independent variable (ESS) and the mediating variable (AO); and c) the mediating variable (AO) and the dependent variable (OCB) (Baron & Kenny, 1986). If these conditions hold true, mediation would occur if the effect of the independent variable (ESS) on the dependent variable (OCB) is lessened when regressed with the mediating variable (AO). Perfect mediation occurs if the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable when the mediator is controlled. However, Baron and Kenny (1986) contend that a realistic goal for mediation may be to ?seek mediators that 77 significantly decrease?rather than eliminat ing the relation between the independent and dependent variables altogether? (p. 1176). Judd and Kenny (1981) added ?it is often unrealistic to expect that a single mediator would be explained completely by an independent variable to dependent variable relation? (see MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007, p. 602). Figure 2 illustrates the theoretical framework of the mediation model conceptualized in this study. Figure 2. Theoretical Framework of the Mediation Model Data Collection A request was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) requesting permission to conduct the study. Upon gaining permission of the IRB, a randomized listing of all elementary schools in the state of Alabama was obtained from the Alabama State Department of Education. The schools consisted primarily of Kindergarten through 6th grade, in varying grade level configurations. School principals were contacted and invited to participate in the study via email. This method of recruiting proved less costly, therefore more feasible, than other methods and is considered to be a reliable alternative. Additionally, electronic invitations allowed a broader sample of the school population to be invited to participate in the study. Academic Optimism Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Enabling School Structures 78 Principals agreeing to participate in the survey forwarded the survey links to Kindergarten through 6th grade teachers in their schools. Teachers voluntarily participated in the survey and completed the survey instruments electronically. Anonymity for individuals and confidentiality for schools were guaranteed for participants. Additionally, teachers had the option to refuse participation in the survey without consequences from their employer or Auburn University. The schools that agreed to participate in the survey received the survey link by email. Administrators forwarded directions for participation, a confidentiality statement, and the survey link to the teachers by email. Teachers indicated their consent to participate by completing the survey and submitting it for consideration. Teachers clicked out of the survey link if they wished to decline from participating or if they wished to stop participating at any point during the survey. The initial invitation netted 65 schools that agreed to participate in the survey. Though broader participation was expected, many schools declined to participate in the survey due to time constraints, end of school obligations, and increased teacher work-loads during the last months of the school year. Additionally, during the spring storm season, tornadoes destroyed several small towns in the northern part of the state and many elementary schools were affected as a result. These extenuating circumstances explained why a large percentage of schools in the northern region of the state declined to participate. Data Analysis Qualtrics Survey Software aided in administering the survey instruments and collecting the data therein. Data were downloaded and compiled into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, then imported directly into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analyses. 79 Statistical methods utilized for data analysis included descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and multiple linear regression analyses. Descriptive statistics provided information regarding the relationships among the constructs. Examinations of the overall means of each construct provided the average score for the set of data points. The range of responses indicated the limits of the data points from lowest to highest. The standard deviation provided the variation of the scores from the mean. Regression analysis tested the assumptions in a linear order to confirm the predictive relationships among the constructs. Standard linear regression addressed the question of mediation between the variables. Limitations Limitations of this study included This study represented a cross sectional design; therefore data were collected only once, during a limited time-frame thus no causal relationships were tested. Sample size is dependent upon administrators consenting to participate in the study. The sample size was small in comparison to the state?s population of elementary schools. The sample is not representative of the state population. Summary This chapter described the research design and detailed the methodology used to answer the research questions posed in this study. Data were collected and analyzed by Qualtrics Survey Software. Data results were examined to determine the relationships between the constructs tested in this study. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and hierarchical regressions provided the answers to the research questions and tested the strength of the relationships. 80 CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to test the relationships between three constructs: enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behavior. I first sought to replicate previous research on the relationships among the constructs; then, to determine whether academic optimism acted as a mediator between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behavior. Correlational analyses were used to assess the strength of relationship among the variables and linear regressions were used to test for predictability and mediation. Organizational citizenship behaviors served as the dependent variable, enabling school structures served as the independent variable, and academic optimism represents the mediating variable. Demographic Descriptions The school served as the unit of analysis for this study. Data were collected and analyzed from 589 teachers representing 65 schools across the state of Alabama. The sample was comprised of schools from urban, suburban, and rural settings. Data were collected by use of three survey instruments: the Enabling School Structures (ESS) survey, the School Academic Optimism Scale (SAOS), and the Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale (OCB). Data were then analyzed to determine whether there were correlations between and among the variables. Specifically, correlational analyses were used to determine the relationship between (a) enabling school structures and academic optimism, (b) enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors, and (c) academic optimism and 81 organizational citizenship behaviors. Linear regression was used to determine whether academic optimism served as a mediator, or explained the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. Descriptive statistics provide the range, mean, and standards deviation for each variable. Descriptive Statistics Results for the descriptive statistics of the research variables are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables N Min Max Mean Std. Dev Enabling School Structures 65 2.61 4.93 4.2226 .38889 Academic Optimism 65 2.76 4.90 3.9139 .47678 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors 65 3.58 5.64 4.6979 .41655 Correlation Results Research Question 1 To examine research question 1, ?To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors??, a Pearson product moment correlation was conducted to assess if enabling school structures was significantly related to organizational citizenship behaviors. The assumption of normality was assessed by examining a normality P-P plot. The data did not vary from normality and the assumption was met. The results for the correlation were significant, r = .56, p < .001, suggesting there was a positive correlation between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. When 82 enabling school structures increased, organizational citizenship behaviors also tended to increase. The null hypothesis can be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis; enabling school structures was significantly and positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors. Results for the correlation are presented in Table 8. Table 8 Pearson Product Moment Correlations between Variables 1 2 3 1 ESS 1.00 2 AO .56* 1.00 3 OCB .56* .65* 1.00 * p < .001 Research Question 2 To examine research question 2, ?To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to academic optimism??, a Pearson product moment correlation was conducted to assess if enabling school structures was significantly related to academic optimism. The assumption of normality was assessed by examining a normality P-P plot. The data did not vary from normality and the assumption was met. The results for the correlation were significant, r = .56, p < .001, suggesting there was a positive correlation between enabling school structures and academic optimism. When enabling school structures increased, academic optimism also tended to increase. The null hypothesis can be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis; enabling 83 school structures was significantly positively related to academic optimism. Table 8 contains the correlation results. Research Question 3 To examine research question 3, ?To what extent is academic optimism positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors??, a Pearson product moment correlation was conducted to assess if academic optimism was significantly related to organizational citizenship behaviors. The assumption of normality was assessed by examining a normality P-P plot. The data did not vary from normality and the assumption was met. The results for the correlation were significant, r = .65, p < .001, suggesting there was a positive correlation between academic optimism and organizational citizenship behaviors. When academic optimism increased organizational citizenship behaviors also tended to increase. The null hypothesis can be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis; academic optimism was significantly positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors. See correlation results in Table 8. Regression Results Research Question 4 To examine research question 4, a Baron and Kenny (1986) mediation analysis was conducted to assess if academic optimism mediated the relationship between enabling school structure and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Baron and Kenny method uses four linear regressions. The first linear regression assessed if enabling school structure predicted organizational citizenship behaviors. The second linear regression assessed if enabling school structure predicted academic optimism. The third linear regression assessed if academic optimism predicted organizational citizenship behaviors. The final linear regression has both 84 enabling school structure and academic optimism predicting organizational citizenship behaviors. The results of the first regression were significant, F (1, 63) = 28.79, p < .001, suggesting that enabling school structure predicted organizational citizenship behaviors. The second regression was significant, F (1, 63) = 29.18, p < .001, suggesting that enabling school structure predicted academic optimism. The third regression was significant as well, F (1, 63) = 45.91, p < .001, suggesting that academic optimism predicted organizational citizenship behaviors. The results for the final regression were significant, F (2, 62) = 28.78, p < .001, suggesting both enabling school structure and academic optimism predicted organizational citizenship behaviors. Full mediation is not supported as enabling school structures was still a significant predictor of organizational citizenship behaviors, B = 0.31, p = .013. However, the beta weight of enabling school structure from the first regression (B = 0.60, p < .001) decreased in the fourth regression (B = 0.31, p = .013). Therefore, partial mediation is supported. The null hypothesis can be partially rejected; academic optimism only partially mediated the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. Results of all four regressions are presented in Tables 9?12. Table 9 Linear Regression with ESS predicting AO Source B SE ? t p R2 Enabling School Structures 0.60 0.11 0.56 5.37 <.001 .31 85 Table 10 Linear Regression with ESS predicting OCB Source B SE ? t p R2 Enabling School Structures 0.69 0.13 0.56 5.40 <.001 .32 Table 11 Linear Regression with AO predicting OCB Source B SE ? t p R2 Academic Optimism 0.57 0.08 0.65 6.78 <.001 .42 Table 12 Multiple Linear Regression with ESS and AO predicting OCB Source B SE ? t p R2 Enabling School Structures 0.31 0.12 0.29 2.57 <.013 .48 Academic Optimism 0.43 0.10 0.49 4.40 <.001 Earlier, in the proposal phase of this investigation, a theoretical model introduced the framework that guided this study. The model represented the possibility of a mediating variable among the constructs. Drawing upon this framework once more; the theoretical model is used to show correlation and regression findings. Figure 3 shows the total effect of enabling school structures on organizational citizenship behaviors. Figure 4 shows the regression correlations, and the direct effect of enabling structures on organizational citizenship behaviors accounting for academic optimism. 86 Figure 3. Total Effect Model Figure 4. Mediation Model Summary The results of the analysis supported the hypothesis posed in the study. Enabling school structures and organizational citizenship are positively related. Likewise, enabling school structures was positively linked to academic optimism. Additionally, academic optimism indicated a favorable relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors. Assumptions of normality were assessed by examining a normality P-P plot. These assumptions were met given that the data did not vary from normality. These findings supported the hypotheses posed to answer research questions 1?3. The findings of the linear regression partially supported the hypothesis for research question 4. Four linear regressions assessed the predictability between the variables. The first Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Enabling School Structures Academic Optimism ? = .56 ? = .65 ? = .29 ? = .56 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Enabling School Structures 87 regression showed favorable results suggesting that enabling school structures predicted academic optimism. The second regression indicated that enabling school structures predicted organizational citizenship behaviors. A third regression was also significant, suggesting that academic optimism predicted organizational citizenship behaviors. The final regression analysis tested for mediation. Although results suggested that both enabling school structures and academic optimism predicted organizational citizenship behaviors; academic optimism was found to only partially mediate the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. That is, academic optimism in part explains the relationship between the two. Full mediation is not supported, as stated in Hypothesis 4, although partial mediation does provide answers to research question 4. 88 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION This study investigated the relationships between enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. This chapter summarizes the scope of the study and reviews the findings. The chapter concludes with implications for school leaders, recommendations for future research, and concluding remarks. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine three school characteristics and determine the relationships among them. The multi-dimensional characteristics examined in this study are enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Further, the study proposed to determine if the variable academic optimism, might mediate the relationship between the other two variables: enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. This investigation utilized three quantitative surveys to measure these relationships. Descriptive statistics indicated the means, range, and standard deviation of each construct. Bivariate correlation analysis provided answers to the following research questions: 1. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? 2. To what extent are enabling school structures positively related to academic optimism? 89 3. To what extent is academic optimism positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors? The fourth and final question sought to determine if there was a mediating variable among the constructs. Simple regression assisted in determining the predictive nature between the variables and hierarchical regressions assisted in answering the following question: 4. Does academic optimism mediate the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors? Results from the data analyses support the hypotheses in the following manner: Research Question 1: Enabling school structures is positively correlated with organizational citizenship behaviors (r = .56, p < .001). It is clear that when enabling school structures are present, there is a greater likelihood that organizational citizenship behaviors will also be present. When Hoy and Sweetland (2001), examined the properties of bureaucratic structures within school organizations, their goal was to sort out ways to enhance the positive outcomes while diminishing the effects of the negative consequences. They theorized that schools could benefit from structures designed to enable rather than hinder teachers? success. Such structures promoted mindful, positive, optimistic and healthy schools environments. Likewise, in schools with enabling structures, teachers often exhibited behaviors that went above and beyond their normal job descriptions. These behaviors were considered organizational citizenship behaviors, and were determined to be an important element in a successful school (DiPaola & Tschannen- Moran, 2001). Results from this study confirm that organizational citizenship behaviors tend to be more prevalent in schools where administrators facilitate structures that enable rather than hinder 90 teachers. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) concluded that ?designing better schools seems inextricably bound to creating enabling school structures? (p. 319). Sinden, Hoy and Sweetland (2004) noted there were common themes present in schools where enabling structures were in place. Common sense rules, flexibility of administration and staff, participative decision making, and two-way communication characterize enabling structures. These themes correlate highly with schools where organizational citizenship behaviors abound. Teachers in trusting environments often extend that trust to others and exhibit citizenship behaviors which benefit the organization as a whole. Research Question 2: Enabling school structures is positively correlated with academic optimism (r = .56, p < .001). The presence of enabling structures within the school organization is predictive of an increase in academic optimism within the school. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) found evidence of positive correlations between enabling school structures and the three variables found within academic optimism. When schools were more enabling, the extent of faculty trust in the principal increased. In fact, faculty trust appeared to be an important predictor of enabling structures in a school organization. Hoy (2003) found that enabling school structures helped develop organizational mindfulness, leading to an increase in collective efficacy and greater academic emphasis. Trust, efficacy, and academic emphasis exemplify academic optimism. The study herein confirmed that when enabling structures are present in a school organization, academic optimism is likely to be present as well. Administrators who cultivate structures that are enabling rather than hindering, send a strong message of trust and support to teachers. Teachers reciprocate by trusting administrators and likewise extend that trust to 91 students and parents. Trust is a necessary component in encouraging a sense of collective efficacy and in supporting an increased emphasis in academics. The relationship between enabling structures and academic optimism appears to be a strong indicator of school success. Research Question 3: Academic optimism is positively correlated with organizational citizenship behaviors (r = .65, p < .001). When a school organization is academically optimistic, we tend to see greater evidence of citizenship behaviors within the organization. This study found that relationships between academic optimism and organizational citizenship behaviors remain strong. Characteristics of successful schools include the factors found within academically optimistic schools ? faculty trust, collective efficacy, and academic emphasis. Those characteristics are also present in schools where teachers exhibit behaviors considered to be above and beyond their job descriptions. These findings are supported by the work of DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) and DiPaola and Hoy (2005). Citizenship behaviors describe acts that teachers may exhibit which go beyond what is required of them, and benefit both individuals and the organization as a whole. Those behaviors often are necessary for the organization to thrive. Teachers who are inclined to exhibit citizenship behaviors are also more academically optimistic, more trusting of administrators, and have a greater sense of self-efficacy. When teachers exhibit citizenship behaviors, it is likely that others in the organization will reciprocate with citizenship behaviors as well, further reinforcing and encouraging those behaviors (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). 92 Research Question 4: Academic optimism partially mediates the relationship between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. The presence of academic optimism in a school partially explains how enabling school structures predict organizational citizenship behaviors. Though previous research supported evidence of relationships among the constructs examined in this study, this is the first to examine all three variables collectively and how they relate. Strong correlations emerged among the three as was hypothesized. In seeking to better understand these relationships, this research further sought to determine whether academic optimism might mediate the relationships between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. However, through the use of hierarchical regressions, findings determined that full mediation was not supported. Regression analyses determined that enabling school structures predicted organizational citizenship behaviors F (1, 63) = 28.79, p < .001. Enabling school structures were also found to predict academic optimism F (1, 63) = 29.18, p < .001. Likewise, academic optimism predicted organizational citizenship behaviors F (1, 63) = 45.91, p < .001. However, when both enabling school structures (independent variable) and academic optimism (mediating variable) were regressed with organizational citizenship behavior (dependent variable), results did not support full mediation. The beta weight of enabling school structure in the first regression (B = 0.60, p = < .001) decreased in the fourth regression (B = 0.31, p = < .013) when academic optimism was controlled, suggesting partial mediation. As previous research has acknowledged, these three school variables are highly correlated and appear to be important characteristics of successful schools. Enabling school structures predicts academic optimism (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001); an important force for student 93 achievement (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006). Academic optimism was previously found to contain three factors, faculty trust (Hoy & Tarter, 2004, collective efficacy (Goddard, 2001), and academic emphasis (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000). Those factors have shown strong connections to student achievement (Beard, Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 2010; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). Likewise, in their presence, organizational citizenship behaviors abound (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005; Oplatka, 2009; Somech, 2007). Clearly, these variables and their relationships are critical to the school organization, and this research confirms that strong connections exist among them. Advancing this research agenda holds promising implications which could potentially benefit all stakeholders in today?s school organizations. Implications for School Leaders This study?s results, in conjunction with the current body of literature on school characteristics, convey valuable implications for school leaders particularly at the elementary level. Today?s administrators face unprecedented pressures of accountability (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), teacher burn-out (Ross, Romer, & Horner, 2011; NCTAF, 2011), student drop-out (ALSDE, 2001; SEF, 2008), and community distrust in the public school organization (Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy. 2001; Meier, 2002). Declining economic conditions continue to reduce public funding for educational resources (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010), depleting schools of funds necessary for effective operation. School leaders are forced to become more resourceful in school operations, while sustaining their goals for student achievement. It is important for school leaders to glean from research findings and previous successful practices in order to inform future practices. Results from this investigation help inform school leaders of the importance of cultivating characteristics within a school that encourage positive 94 school conditions. School leaders, in attempts to affect school change, might consider findings from this work and the broader body of research, as a resource for developing positive school characteristics. This study confirmed the positive relationships between and among three critical school variables: enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Each of these constructs has optimistic and positive associations with student achievement and school success. These findings are encouraging and can be utilized by researchers and school leaders to inform future educational practices. Educational leaders may infer from these findings that if enabling school structures are in place in the school setting, then there is a greater likelihood that academic optimism will also be present (Beard, 2011; Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004). Further, if academic optimism is present; then the possibility exists that there will be a greater occurrence of organizational citizenship behaviors (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008). Enabling school structures have been positively linked to such constructs as mindfulness (Hoy, Gage & Tarter, 2006), school climate (Collins & Parson, 2010), and improved student achievement (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Research on academic optimism has suggested it has significant positive relationships with teacher efficacy (Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2010), teacher trust (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006), and student achievement (Smith & Hoy, 2007). Likewise, each of the three variables that embody academic optimism (academic emphasis, faculty trust, and efficacy) has shown significant relationships with increased student achievement and school success (Goddard, 2001; G?rol & Kerimgil, 2010; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Organizational citizenship behavior describes a complex construct extensively examined in organizational settings. Its relationship with enabling school structures (Hoy & Sweetland, 95 2001) and academic optimism (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006) encourages school leaders to consider it an important organizational characteristic to be cultivated in the school setting. Findings support the strong influence organizational citizenship behaviors have on school success (Oplatka, 2009). Strong positive relationships with trust, climate, teacher commitment, teacher efficacy, and student achievement are hallmarks of its significance in the school organization (DiPaola & Tschannen, Moran, 2001; Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011). The reciprocal nature of organizational citizenship behavior further confirms the importance of its facilitation by school leaders. Reciprocity explains the mutual feelings of those within the organization who may show kindness toward others because they themselves have been shown kindness. When principals trust teachers, teachers often respond by showing trust towards their principals. Likewise, when teachers extend citizenship behaviors in the organization, others are likely to reciprocate with more citizenship behaviors. The act of reciprocity is a common thread found within the constructs examined in this study. Implications strongly suggest that reciprocity is a concept worth cultivating in school organizations (Korsgaard, Meglino, Lester, Jeong, 2010). School leaders understand the critical nature of improving student achievement. Certainly student achievement remains a primary goal of every school organization. With attention to organizational characteristics such as enabling structures, academic optimism, and citizenship behaviors, school leaders can confidently make well-informed decisions concerning development and implementation of best practices in their schools. Replicating these characteristics in the school organization can assist school leaders in maximizing their efforts to enhance school effectiveness. Administrators facilitating the development of effective school characteristics can expect that an increase in student achievement is likely to follow. 96 Recommendations for Future Research This research was designed to explore the relationships among enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Additionally, it sought to determine if academic optimism served as a mediator between enabling school structures and organizational citizenship behaviors. Research surrounding these constructs can expand our thinking about how school organizations function. Characteristics of successful schools include the constructs examined in this study. No research prior to this study has explored all three constructs in a single study. Additionally, this is the first study of its kind to examine the constructs at the elementary school level in the southern United States. Though research on each individual construct is expanding; research on the relationships among the three is still in its infancy. Clearly, more work needs to be done in this area. It is critical that educational researchers continue to investigate these variables and how they relate to each other. Researchers might take a deeper, more comprehensive look at identifying antecedents, consequences, and outcomes of each individual construct examined within this study. Their relationships are clearly an important variable in school success, and the more researchers know about their interactions, antecedents, and consequences; the better. Because this study was cross-sectional in nature, results cannot provide evidence as to the cause or the effect of the observed relationships. Longitudinal studies would provide considerable evidence to establish the direction of relationships among the variables. This is an important consideration in path analysis and causality studies. Moreover, it would be valuable to include a qualitative element in this study. Including teachers? perceptions of relationships among these variables would provide greater insight into defining antecedents and outcomes. Having teachers elaborate on their understandings of these 97 constructs would help researchers further examine possible causality. Student and administrator voices could further support research findings. Parent and community perceptions may add additional perspectives. Additional responses may be gathered from those schools considered to have a negative climate, or from teachers who left the school setting and students who dropped out of school. Data from these factions would be invaluable in extending the scope of this study and better understanding relationships among the constructs. Research should continue to consider predictive variables for enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Identifying predictive variables would serve useful in attempts to foster the development of these constructs in school organizations. Additionally, more evidence is needed to understand the direction of the predictability between these constructs and their antecedents and consequences. Further, another important consideration for researchers is student achievement. If these variables consistently predict student achievement, then we must attempt to determine what consistently predicts them. Additionally, this study could be expanded to cover a wider population of schools. The study herein examined a small sample of teachers from one southern state. Only teachers in grades Kindergarten through Grade 6 were invited to participate. Future researchers might replicate this study in other states within the United States, and expand the range to include teachers at the middle school and high school levels. Though the constructs have been examined individually at the middle school and high school level, no study to date has sought to determine how the combined constructs relate at these levels. This information might provide researchers with a better picture of the nature of the constructs at each school level. Comparing findings from different school levels would also be beneficial in understanding the relationships as they 98 apply to different populations. Additionally, researchers might investigate whether school level might serve to moderate the relationship among the constructs. Further investigating causality might also provide insights for leader preparation courses intent upon building capacity in the next generation of school leaders. Arming school leaders with the skills necessary to cultivate an enabling school structure could foster a positive school climate. A healthy climate might inspire a sense of collective efficacy among teachers in the school. Teachers who are more efficacious tend to increase emphasis placed on academics. An academically optimistic school is one where teachers are motivating and supportive of each other, and their students. Schools replete with these components typically produce high- achieving, successful students. In sum, the more that is understood about these constructs, the better is the school leader?s ability to replicate them within the school setting. Conclusion An increasing number of educators and researchers alike are convinced that characteristics of the school environment are important to its success. Increased school success is likely to typify itself in increased academic achievement of its students. Researchers have attempted to identify characteristics that may be indicative of effective schools with hopes of replicating these characteristics in other school organizations. Much of the current research posits that effective schools share certain essential characteristics, though causality remains largely indefinable. Admittedly, the correlates of organizational effectiveness are not necessarily causative. Rather, it is more likely that the actual cause of the success lies in the cumulative interaction between them and the reciprocal relationships among them. The better understanding we have of these organizational characteristics, and how they relate; the better we can predict, encourage, and benefit from their presence in our schools. 99 REFERENCES Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2006). Proximate sources of collective teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 625-642. doi: 1143408991 Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2009). Conceptualizing and validating a measure of student trust. In W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Studies in social improvement (pp. 263?279). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61?89. Alabama State Department of Education. (2011). Alabama graduation rate report. Montgomery, AL: ALSDE. Anderson, B. D. (1974). An application of the bureaucratic model to the study of school administration. Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2010). Is school funding fair? A national report card. Newark, NJ. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191?215. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117?148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. 100 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator?mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173?1182. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173 Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee ?citizenship?. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587?595. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142?163. Beard, K. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2010). The nature, meaning, and measure of teacher flow in elementary schools: A test of rival hypotheses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 426?458. doi: 10.1177/0013161x10375294 Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1136? 1144. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.003 Belogolovsky, E., & Somech, A. (2010). Teachers? organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the boundary between in-role behavior and extra-role behavior from the perspective of teachers, principals and parents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 914?923. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.032 Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers' organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in 101 schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277?289. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003 Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in school: How does it relate to participation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 420?438. Bohn, J. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived leadership behaviors to organizational efficacy. The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 66?79. Burns, T., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Organizational citizenship and student achievement. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 51?58. Carlsen, M. B. (1988). Meaning-making: Therapeutic processes in adult development. New York: W W Norton & Co. Chan, W. Y., Lau, S., Nie, Y., Lim, S., & Hogan, D. (2008). Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597?630. doi: 10.3102/0002831208318259 Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193?218. Chen, S. X., & Carey, T. P. (2009). Assessing citizenship behavior in educational contexts. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(2), 125?137. doi: 10.1177/0734282908325146 Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of organisational identification as determinants of different forms of organisational 102 citizenship behavior among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 329?341. Chughtai, A. A. (2008). Impact of job involvement on in-role job performance and organizational citizenship behaviour. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED012275 Collins, T. N., & Parson, K. A. (2010). School climate and student outcomes. Journal of Cross- Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 3(1), 34?39. Cosner, S. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 248?291. Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. The Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619?654. Dick, R. V., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2007(80), 133?150. doi: 10.1348/096317905X71831 Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2004). A new approach to strategic leadership: learning- centredness, connectivity and cultural context in school design. [Article]. School Leadership & Management, 24(1), 39?56. doi: 10.1080/1363243042000172813 103 DiPaola, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). Organizational Citizenship Behavior Survey Instrument. DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Formalization, conflict, and change: constructive and destructive consequences in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(5), 238?244. DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 88(3), 35?44. DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). School characteristics that foster organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of School Leadership, 15, 387?406. DiPaola, M. F., & Neves, P. M. M. d. C. (2009). Organizational citizenship behaviors in American and Portuguese public schools: Measuring the construct across cultures. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(4), 490?507. doi: 10.1108/09578230910967464 DiPaola, M. F., Tarter, J. C., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). Measuring organizational citizenship in schools: The OCB scale. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424?447. DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2005). Bridging or buffering? The impact of schools? adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 60?71. Edmonds, R. R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Educational Leadership, 40(62), 4?11. Ert?rk, A. (2007). Increasing organizational citizenship behaviors of Turkish academicians: Mediating role of trust in supervisor on the relationship between organizational justice 104 and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 257?270. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733089 Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489?525. doi: 10.3102/00346543063004489 Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2006). Climate profile and OCBs of teachers in public and private schools of India. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(7), 529?541. doi: 10.1108/09513540610704636 Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1954). Role, role conflict, and effectiveness: an empirical study. American Sociological Review, 19(2), 164?175. 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. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.467 Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479?507. doi: 10.3102/00028312037002479 Goddard, R. D., Salloum, S. J., & Berebitsky, D. (2009). Trust as a mediator of the relationships between poverty, racial composition, and academic achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 292?311. doi: 10.1177/0013161x08330503 Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683?702. doi: 10.1177/00131610021969164 105 Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. [Article]. Elementary School Journal, 102(1). Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York: Free Press. G?rol, M., & Kerimgil, S. (2010). Academic optimism. Procedia?Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 929?932. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.261 Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5?44. doi: 10.1177/0013161x96032001002 Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. Oxford: Macmillan. Holme, J. J., & Rangel, V. S. (2011). Putting school reform in its place: Social geography, organizational social capital, and school performance. American Educational Research Journal. doi: 10.3102/0002831211423316 Honingh, M. E., & Oort, F. J. (2009). Teachers? organisational behaviour in public and private funded schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(2), 172?184. doi: 10.1108/09513540910933521 Hoy, W. K. (2003a). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 87?107. Hoy, W. K. (2003b). Enabling Structure Survey Instrument. Hoy, W. K. (2005). Academic Optimism Survey Instrument. Hoy, W. K. (2010). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Los Angeles: SAGE. 106 Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust: necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 236?255. doi: 10.1177/0013161x04273844 Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational climate and student achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8(4), 336?359. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory research, and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, 86(2), 38?49. doi: 10.1353/hsj.2002.0023 Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296?321. doi: 10.1177/00131610121969334 Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Bliss, J. R. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 260?279. doi: 10.1177/0013161x90026003004 Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425?446. doi: 10.3102/00028312043003425 Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Wolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 135?156). Greenwich, CT: Infomation Age. 107 Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184?208. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers? sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355?372. James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 307?321. Jimmieson, N. L., Hannam, R. L., & Yeo, G. B. (2010). Teacher organizational citizenship behaviours and job efficacy: Implications for student quality of school life. British Journal of Psychology, 101(3), 453?479. doi: 10.1348/000712609x470572 Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26(1), 6?22. Judd, C. M., & Kenny D. A. (1981). Estimating the effects of social interventions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Karakus, M., & Aslan, B. (2009). Teachers? commitment focuses: a three-dimensioned view. Journal of Management Development, 28(5), 425?438. doi: 10.1108/02621710910955967 Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavior Science, 9(2), 131- 146. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830090206 Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). Organizations and the system concept. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 1, 14?29. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 108 Kensler, L. A. W. (2010). Designing democratic community. International Journal of Urban Educational Leadership, 4(1), 1?21. Kensler, L. A. W., Caskie, G. I. L., Barber, M. E., & White, G. P. (2009). The ecology of democratic learning communities: Faculty trust and continuous learning in public middle schools. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 697?735. 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(4), 319?333. Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., Lester, S. W., & Jeong, S. S. (2010). Paying you back or paying me forward: Understanding rewarded and unrewarded organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 277?290. doi: 10.1037/a0018137 Kythreotis, A., Pashiardis, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). The influence of school leadership sytles and culture on students? achievement in Cyprus primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 218?240. Lambert, L. (2002). Toward a deepened theory of constructivist leadership. In L. Lambert et al. (Eds.), The constructivist leader (pp. 34?62). New York: Teachers College Press. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M. E., & Szabo, M. (2002). The constructivist leader (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. 109 Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496?528. doi: 10.1177/0013161x08321501 Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671?706. doi: 10.1177/0013161x10377347 Licata, J. W., & Harper, G. W. (1999). Healthy schools, robust schools and academic emphasis as an organizational theme. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 463?475. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers? work and student experiences in restructuring schools. [Article]. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593?614. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73?84. doi: 10.1080/13603120701576241 McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203?229. doi: 10.1080/15700760600805816 Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 814?851. 110 National Commission on Teaching and America?s Future. (2011). Teacher turnover cost study: NCTAF. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Oplatka, I. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior in teaching: The consequences for teachers, pupils, and the school. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(5), 375?389. doi: 10.1108/09513540910970476 Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43?72. Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 27?35. Park, S., & Henkin, A. B. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork, and trust: Exploring associations. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 462?479. Peterson, C. (1991). The meaning and measurement of explanatory style. [Article]. Psychological Inquiry, 2(1), 1. Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44?55. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.44 Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122?141. doi: 10.1037/a0013079 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and 111 suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513?563. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600307 Ronfeldt, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research. Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers? commitment. Sociology of Education, 241?257. Ross, S. W., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2011). Teacher well-being and the implementation of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. doi: 10.1177/1098300711413820 Salehi, M., & Gholtash, A. (2011). The relationship between job satisfaction, job burnout, and organizational commitment with the organizational citizenship behavior among members of faculty in the Islamic Azad University-first district branches, in order to provide the appropriate model. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 306?310. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.091 Schoen, L. T., & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: a response to a call for conceptual clarity. [Article]. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 19(2), 129? 153. doi: 10.1080/09243450802095278 Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S., Michlin, M., Mascall, B., ... Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. University of Minnesota, University of Toronto. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5?14. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5 112 Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422?445. Silva, J. P., White, G. P., & Yoshida, R. K. (2011). The direct effects of principal?student discussions on eighth grade students? gains in reading achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 772?793. doi: 10.1177/0013161x11404219 Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school structure: Theoretical, empirical, and research considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 462?478. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653?663. Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 556?568. doi: 10.1108/09578230710778196 Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 555?577. doi: 10.1177/001316102237672 Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: the relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers? extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 649?659. doi: 10.1016/s0742- 051x(00)00012-3 Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior from an organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and 113 organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 281?298. Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 38?66. doi: 10.1177/0013161x06291254 Southern Education Foundation. (2008). High school dropouts: Alabama?s number one education and economic problem. Atlanta, GA: Author. Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703?729. doi: 10.1177/00131610021969173 Szabo, M., & Lambert, L. (2002). The preparation of new constructivist leaders. In L. Lambert et al. (Eds.), The constructivist leader (2nd ed., pp. 204?238). New York: Teachers College Press. Tarter, C. J., Bliss, J. R., & Hoy, W. K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(3), 294?308. doi: 10.1177/0013161x89025003005 Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308?331. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). Fostering organizational citizenship in schools: Transformational leadership and trust. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 157?179). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 114 Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217?247. doi: 10.1177/0013161x08330501 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334?352. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers? self-efficacy beliefs: Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 751?761. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.005 Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). The quality of school life: Teacher-student trust relationships and the organizational school context. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 85?100. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9605-8 Vigoda-Gadot, E., Beeri, I., Birman-Shemesh, T., & Somech, A. (2007). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior in the education system: A scale reconstruction and validation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 462?492. doi: 10.1177/0013161X07299435 Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458?495. doi: 10.1177/0013161x08321502 Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517?529. doi: 10.1037/a0018867 Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 115 Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601?617. Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question. Learning and Instruction, 18, 492?498. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.007 Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W., & Kurz, N. (2008). Teacher?s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 821? 835. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.08.004 Yilmaz, K., & Tasdan, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in Turkish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 108?126. doi: 10.1108/09578230910928106 Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 998?1003. 116 Appendix 1 Initial Contact E-Mail Dear Educator, We are graduate students in the Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology at Auburn University. You are invited to participate in a research study to determine the relationship between enabling structures, academic optimism, organizational citizenship behaviors and student achievement in high poverty schools. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to complete an online survey. Qualtrics is the online data collection program used; it is set so as not to collect email or IP addresses for the researcher file. Your total time commitment will be approximately fifteen minutes. The researcher expects no risks and discomforts associated with this study. The instrument is an anonymous survey. No personal benefits are provided to participants in this evaluation, and there will be no compensation provided to participants. If you would like to know more information about this study, an information letter can be obtained by clicking on this link. If you decide to participate after reading the letter, you can access the survey from a link in the letter. If you have any questions, or would like a copy of the results when they are ready, please contact either Karen Anderson (by phone at (334) 332-0272 or by email at ksa0003@auburn.edu), her advisor, Dr. Fran Kochan (by phone at (334) 844-4446 or by email at kochafr@auburn.edu), Penny Messick (by phone at (334) 670-1844 or by email at pjm0011@auburn.edu) or her advisor, Dr. Lisa Kensler (by phone at (334) 844-3072 or by email at lak0008@auburn.edu). We would very much appreciate your help in completing this research, as it is our hope that this work will assist us in learning more about how to foster student achievement in our schools. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Anderson Penny Messick Doctoral Students Auburn University College of Education Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology 117 Appendix 2 Information Letter for Research Study INFORMATION LETTER for a Research Study entitled: ?Examining relationships between enabling structures, academic optimism, organizational citizenship behavior and student achievement in high poverty schools? You are invited to participate in a research study to determine the relationship between enabling structures, academic optimism, organizational citizenship behavior, and student achievement in high poverty schools. The study is being conducted by Karen Anderson and Penny Messick, Doctoral Students at Auburn University, under the direction of their advisors, Dr. Fran Kochan and Dr. Lisa Kensler in the Auburn University Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to complete an online survey. Your total time commitment will be approximately fifteen minutes. If you change your mind about participating, you can withdraw at any time by closing your browser window. Once you have submitted anonymous data, it cannot be withdrawn since it will be unidentifiable. Your decision about whether or not to participate or to stop participating will not jeopardize your future relations with Auburn University or the Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology. The researcher expects no risks and discomforts associated with this study. The instrument is an anonymous survey. No personal benefits are provided to participants in this evaluation. There will be no compensation provided to participants. Any data obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous. We will protect your privacy and the data you provide by assigning no identifying information to your survey that would identify you. Qualtrics is the online data collection program used; it is set so as not to collect email or IP addresses for the researcher file. In order to aggregate responses to the school level, a unique link was sent to each school. In this way, it will possible to identify the school from which the survey came without identifying individual teachers. Information collected through your participation may be published in a professional journal and/or presented at a professional meeting. 118 If you have any questions, or would like a copy of the results when they are ready, please contact either Karen Anderson (by phone at (334) 332-0272 or by email at ksa0003@auburn.edu), her advisor, Dr. Fran Kochan (by phone at (334) 844-4446 or by email at kochafr@auburn.edu), Penny Messick (by phone at (334) 670-1844 or by email at pjm0011@auburn.edu) or her advisor, Dr. Lisa Kensler (by phone at (334) 844-3072 or by email at lak0008@auburn.edu). We would very much appreciate your help in completing this research, as it is our hope that this work will assist us in learning more about how to foster student achievement in our schools. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334) 844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. The Auburn University Institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from March 19, 2011 to March 18, 2012. Protocol #11-090 EX 1103. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION ABOVE, YOU MUST DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLICK NEXT TO CONTINUE. We thank you for taking this survey. YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP. Best regards, Karen Anderson, Investigator March 19, 2011 Penny Messick, Investigator March 19, 2011 Dr. Frances Kochan, Co-Investigator March 19, 2011 Dr. Lisa Kensler, Co-Investigator March 19, 2011 119 Appendix 3 Enabling School Structures Survey The following statements are descriptions of the way your school is structured. Please indicate the extent to which each statement characterizes behavior in your school from Never to Always. Your answers are anonymous. Never (1) Once in a while (2) Sometimes (3) Fairly Often (4) Always (5) (1) Administrative rules in this school enable authentic communication between teachers and administrators. ? ? ? ? ? (2) In this school red tape is a problem. ? ? ? ? ? (3) The administrative hierarchy of this school enables teachers to do their job. ? ? ? ? ? (4) The administrative hierarchy of this school obstructs student achievement. ? ? ? ? ? (5) Administrative rules in this school help rather than hinder. ? ? ? ? ? (6) The administrative hierarchy of this school facilitates the mission of this school. ? ? ? ? ? (7) Administrative rules in this school are used to punish teachers. ? ? ? ? ? (8) The administrative hierarchy of this school obstructs innovation. ? ? ? ? ? (9) Administrative rules in this school are substitutes for professional judgment. ? ? ? ? ? (10) Administrative rules in this school are guides to solutions rather than rigid procedures. ? ? ? ? ? (11) In this school the authority of the principal is used to undermine teachers. ? ? ? ? ? (12) The administrators in this school use their authority to enable teachers to do their job. ? ? ? ? ? 120 Appendix 4 School Academic Optimism Survey Please indicate your degree of level of agreement with each of the statements about your school from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Your answers are anonymous. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6) (1) Teachers in this school are able to get through to the most difficult students. ? ? ? ? ? ? (2) Teachers in this school are confident they will be able to motivate their students. ? ? ? ? ? ? (3) If a child doesn't want to learn teachers in this school give up. ? ? ? ? ? ? (4) Teachers here don't have the skills needed to produce meaningful results. ? ? ? ? ? ? (5) Teachers in this school believe that every child can learn. ? ? ? ? ? ? (6) These students come to school ready to learn. ? ? ? ? ? ? (7) Home life in this community provides so many advantages that students are bound to learn. ? ? ? ? ? ? (8) Students here just aren't motivated to learn. ? ? ? ? ? ? (9) Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems. ? ? ? ? ? ? (10) The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will learn. ? ? ? ? ? ? (11) Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried about their safety. ? ? ? ? ? ? (12) Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for students here. ? ? ? ? ? ? 121 Please indicate your degree of level of agreement with each of the statements about your school from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Your answers are anonymous. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6) (1) Teachers in this school trust their students. ? ? ? ? ? ? (2) Teachers in this school trust the parents. ? ? ? ? ? ? (3) Students in this school care about each other. ? ? ? ? ? ? (4) Parents in this school are reliable in their commitments. ? ? ? ? ? ? (5) Students in this school can be counted upon to do their work. ? ? ? ? ? ? (6) Teachers in this school can count upon parental support. ? ? ? ? ? ? (7) Teachers here believe that students are competent learners. ? ? ? ? ? ? (8) Teachers in this school think that most of the parents do a good job. ? ? ? ? ? ? (9) Teachers in this school can believe what parents tell them. ? ? ? ? ? ? (10) Students in this school are secretive. ? ? ? ? ? ? 122 Please indicate the degree to which the following statements characterize your school from Rarely Occurs to Very Often Occurs. Your answers are anonymous. Rarely (1) Sometimes (2) Often (3) Very Often (4) (1) This school sets high standards for performance. ? ? ? ? (2) Students in this school respect others who get good grades. ? ? ? ? (3) Students in this school seek extra work so they can get good grades. ? ? ? ? (4) Academic achievement in this school is recognized and acknowledged by the school. ? ? ? ? (5) Students in this school try hard to improve on previous work. ? ? ? ? (6) The learning environment in this school is orderly and serious. ? ? ? ? (7) The students in this school can achieve the goals that have been set for them. ? ? ? ? (8) Teachers in this school believe that their students have the ability to achieve academically. ? ? ? ? 123 Appendix 5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your school from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Your answers are anonymous. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6) (1) Teachers in this school help students on their own time. ? ? ? ? ? ? (2) Teachers in this school waste a lot of class time. ? ? ? ? ? ? (3) Teachers in this school voluntarily help new teachers. ? ? ? ? ? ? (4) Teachers in this school volunteer to serve on new committees. ? ? ? ? ? ? (5) Teachers in this school volunteer to sponsor extracurricular activities. ? ? ? ? ? ? (6) Teachers in this school arrive to work and meetings on time. ? ? ? ? ? ? (7) Teachers in this school take the initiative to introduce themselves to substitutes and assist them. ? ? ? ? ? ? (8) Teachers in this school begin class promptly and use class time effectively. ? ? ? ? ? ? (9) Teachers in this school give colleagues advanced notice of changes in schedule or routine. ? ? ? ? ? ? (10) Teachers in this school give an excessive amount of busy work. ? ? ? ? ? ? (11) Teacher committees in this school work productively. ? ? ? ? ? ? (12) Teachers in this school make innovative suggestions to improve the overall quality of our school. ? ? ? ? ? ?