THE PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER TWO TEACHING AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP

 INTRODUCTION

Teaching is one of the core missions that every higher education institution strives to accomplish. Although teaching is a process that involves some basic steps and major players, the role of teachers, particularly in the conventional mode of delivery, is not substitutable. Teachers do have a primary and direct role in influencing students’ learning. If any other variable has to be mentioned as attributed to the success of students, leadership should come next. This is to mean leadership does have an influence over students’ learning via influencing teaching or the teachers’ role.
There might not be a single route to bring such an influence, and hence different leadership efforts are made in this regard. But the influence that gears towards building the confidence of the teachers, and attempts to cultivating the belief and efficacy of the teacher work group must be considered as a bottom line to the leadership efforts made by the academic leaders. Obviously, not all leadership styles and behaviours do have equal impact in terms of fostering this desired efficacy or confidence in teaching and hence values-based leadership (VBL) is proposed here as having a significant role in fostering collective teacher efficacy (CTE) in Ethiopian private universities. Henceforth, this chapter is devoted to clarification of concepts of CTE and VBL, and discussions about the systems and structures of higher education in Ethiopia.

TEACHING AND TEACHER EFFICACY AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Before directly skipping to clarification of the conceptual framework of CTE, it is relevant to provide an overview of teaching at a higher education institution. Themes like teaching excellence, quality teaching, and teaching expertise are addressed so as to make sense of the need to focus more on the collective efficacy of teachers to enhance students’ learning experiences than other aspects. Thus, the next section will be devoted to these subjects.

Overview of teaching: Teaching excellence, teaching quality, and teaching expertise

One of the parameters against which the success of an institution is measured is in terms of its teaching and teaching excellence, but there is little narrative around what is meant by ‘teaching excellence’ and countries do not have an agreed concept of excellence in teaching (Gunn, 2013). To this effect, the author suggests four broad dimensions against which teaching excellence may be viewed: educational demands on universities; evidencing individual teaching excellence; excellence in teaching practice; and approaches of different domains promoting teaching excellence. Gunn argues that how excellence is perceived depends on how an institution places itself in terms of mission, the disciplines approach to undergraduate education collectively, as well as the identification with those demands on the group of the academics teaching on the programmes. While the demand dimension is mainly related to the market oriented institutional approach, the evidencing of individual teaching excellence focuses on boosting individual teachers’ pride that are meant to excel in teaching personally. However, excellence in teaching practice and the use of different domains would consider teaching excellence as a process because teaching is a nonstop practice that needs improvement on a timely basis.
Consequently, a relevant approach that promotes such improvements must be devised and higher education institutions are required to meet the society’s high demand for such an excellence. Since the primary objective of teaching is to facilitate better learning conditions, teaching excellence should be evaluated in terms of what it really brings to students’ learning experiences. Accordingly “an assessment of teaching effectiveness should derive more from the extent of student’s engagement and positive achievement outcomes than from overt measures of teacher behaviour or performativity” (Allan, Clarke, & Jopling, 2009:363). This implies that recognition of excellence in this regard requires looking beyond the concerns of institutional politics because stakeholders do hold legitimate concern over students’ learning outcome. In connection to this, Radloff (2005) notes that universities are operating in a context where the expectations of a range of stakeholders for quality teaching and learning have been rising from time to time. As a result, they are under pressure meet such expectations to build a positive perception in the minds of those stakeholders. Students, employers, governments and the general public are all seeking assurance that universities are rendering a high standard educational service that must always gears towards improving the quality of teaching and learning.
Moreover, Skelton (2005) identifies three basic features of teaching excellence in his “performative approach”. The first is that education, and therefore teaching, contributes directly to national economic performance (to the effectiveness and competitiveness of commerce and industry) through teaching. He contends that such education aims at producing a competent and confident person, one who has mastered the knowledge and acquired the skills to act in the world with confidence. The second feature of performativity relates to a university’s capacity to attract the best students in the global marketplace for HE. The third feature is the way the state regulates teaching to ensure maximum returns on public investment.
The first feature of Skelton’s “performative approach” is directly attributable to the responsibilities mainly assumed by the teacher work group. The ultimate goal of teaching is to produce a competitive and creative labour power for the field of work. Teachers are mainly shouldering the responsibility of demonstrating excellence or quality teaching in this regard. They play the primary role in accomplishing this core mission. To contribute to the development of human capital of a given country, to equip students for success in life, and/or to maintain the reputation of a given institution, teachers are required to commit themselves to educational quality and demonstrate excellence in their teaching.
However, such excellence might not be achieved by a teacher’s individual effort alone. In connection to this, Henard and Roseveare (2012) advocate that fostering quality teaching is a multi-level endeavour that must be backed by the support of the relevant stakeholders. As a result, the need for sustained and quality teaching policies that are geared towards long-term, non-linear efforts and a permanent institutional commitment from the top leadership of the institution is suggested. Whilst the first two endeavours are implicitly attributed to the leadership that must be in place to support the teaching and learning process, the last aspect specifically refers to the teachers’ group in general and quality teaching in particular. If the desired quality teaching must be ensured, all the relevant constituents must be clearly identified. Accordingly, questions pertaining to the constituents of quality teaching and how academics develop and sustain the capacity to be good or excellent teachers are interests to many researchers.
As per the view of Tennant et al. (2010), such questions can be addressed through considering the skills, knowledge and attributes of those who are regarded as expert teachers. The authors, however, contend that an essential part of teaching expertise must be the capacity to transform and change the very conception of ‘expertise’ in response to altered teaching conditions. Thus, they suggest that expertise, like learning, needs to be conceptualised as process rather than a point of attainment because developing teaching expertise is not simply a matter of acquiring new skills and knowledge. Rather it is about taking up new identities, new ways of understanding and conducting oneself. Yet, this conception has its own limitations as it views teaching as a mere reaction to something established rather than a proactive endeavour that always creates a better learning experience for students. Moreover, it is emphasising individual teacher expertise and is silent on how such an expertise can be unified to reflect the interest of the stakeholders.
Conversely, the perspective of Radloff (2005) looks more comprehensive. According to Radloff teaching expertise can be demonstrated, among others, in terms of teachers’ capability to demonstrate some crucial professional activities. For instance, this expertise can be reflected in terms of teachers’ engagement with colleagues and the ability to foster and maintain collaborative actions; and also in terms of ability to engage with learners respectfully and openly. It is also seen in terms of teachers’ personal management, which refers to ability to develop strategies to maintain personal confidence and commitment within a challenging and rapidly changing environment. Furthermore, teaching expertise can be also be demonstrated in terms of reflective practice and professional development, which deal with the ability to critically engage with peers and learners to scrutinise one’s own performance and engage in activities to enhance the quality of teaching practice. If teachers are able to demonstrate this collectively, this would contribute to their group confidence about what they can bring to students’ learning experiences.
The above assertions demand that, for a teacher to be rated an expert in the field, he/she should be able to: collaborate with colleagues; engage with students; involve with reflective practices; and self-manage. But some essential questions can emerge out of this assertion. Can an individual teacher demonstrate all these capabilities? What are the relative values of such capabilities on students’ learning experiences? Is there any approach that may encompass all those specified attributes? What is the bottom line to teaching expertise and teaching quality/excellence? Although each of these questions can be considered as a research topic in its own right, it is worthwhile to assert here that belief is a bottom line to all these. This means that, if a person believes/perceives that he/she can develop all those capabilities to the benefits of the stakeholder, the desired quality/excellence or teaching effectiveness can be better realised. To this end, Williams-Boyd (2002:28) notes that:
“It is not the correct teaching methods or the amount of content knowledge that enable teachers to be effective, but rather their beliefs-beliefs about themselves as valued professionals, about their students as capable and talented, about their work environment as one conducive to growth…Those people who have the most direct impact on students are teachers, people driven by their commitments to quality and performance, to compassion and caring, to a belief in the integrity of each individual student.”

CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION 
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.5 DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY
1.6 ETHICAL ISSUES
1.7 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
1.8 CHAPTER DIVISION
CHAPTER TWO  TEACHING AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS  AND THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP 
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 TEACHING AND TEACHER EFFICACY AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
2.3 VALUES BASED LEADERSHIP: THEORIES AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
2.4 HIGHER EDUCATION IN ETHIOPIA: SYSTEMS, FORMATIONS, MISSIONS, OBJECTIVES AND VALUES
CHAPTER THREE  THE PATH-GOAL THEORY: A FRAMEWORK FOR VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP
3.3 THE PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP AND VALUES-BASED LEADERSHIP
3.4 THE PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY .
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.3 POPULATION AND SAMPLING
4.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SELECTION OF THESE FOUR UNIVERSITIES AND THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
4.5 INSTRUMENTATION, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY.
4.6 THE PROCESS OF DATA COLLECTION
4.7 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE  PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA..
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF TEACHERS’ SENSE OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
5.3 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR LEARNING EXPERIENCES AND THEIR TEACHERS’ EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES
5.4 SETS OF BEHAVIOURS DESIRED TO INSTITUTIONALISE VBL SO AS TO FOSTER CTE AT EPrUs
5.5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FROM QUANTITATIVE DATA SET
CHAPTER SIX  ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE AND MIXED DATA SETS 
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA
6.3 ANALYSIS OF THE MIXED DATA (TRIANGULATION)
6.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER SEVEN  MODEL FOR FOSTERING COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 INSTITUTIONALISING DESIRED SETS OF VALUES (BEHAVIOURS)
7.3 INSTITUTIONALISING CONTEXTS REQUIRED TO FOSTER COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY
7.4 EXPLAINING THE FEASIBILITY OF THE MODEL IN THE LIGHT OF THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.
7.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER EIGHT  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES
8.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT