Transformational Instructor-Leadership Concept

In chapter two, I explained that certain transformational leadership dimensions are likely to be applicable to the HEI module context (see Section 2.4.2). While intellectual stimulation is likely to be relevant in both corporate and HEI module settings, the other transformational leadership dimensions cannot be directly translated to the module context. Specifically, because of the distance in HEI module instructor-student relationships, leadership dimensions such as attributed charisma and consideration are likely to be more relevant than behavioural charisma

and individualized consideration respectively. Additionally, because of the temporary nature of module groups, leader behaviours that direct students towards module objectives are likely to be more relevant than vision. Therefore, the uniqueness of the HEI module context means that transformational leadership may only be applicable to this context in limited ways.

To tap into these context-specific transformational leadership dimensions, I use a secondary dataset in order to begin unpicking the leadership processes in educational settings. The secondary dataset comprises of students’ responses to The Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ). The ETLQ was specifically developed as part of the

‘Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses’ (ETL) project, and was created by a research team comprising of staff from three universities, including Edinburgh, Coventry, and Durham. To create the questionnaire, the team triangulated information from literature reviews on general components of teaching and learning environments with interview feedback from both staff and small groups of students (Entwistle, 2005).

The ETLQ includes students’ experiences of teaching and learning including, aims and congruence, autonomy, teaching for understanding, set work and feedback, assessing

understanding, and sharing enthusiasm and support. Because these items measure students’ ‘experiences’, they are mostly phrased to tap into students’ perspective of the overall HEI module rather than their perceptions of their instructor’s individual actions, e.g., “It was clear to me what…” or “The feedback given on my work helped me…”. Evidently, there is no reference to personal leadership, e.g., who made it clear to the student or who provided the feedback to the student. Nonetheless, the course units or modules evaluated in the dataset included those for which the instructors were teaching towards both the beginning and end of a degree module (Entwistle, 2003). Therefore, in evaluating the general module, students would have likely

evaluated the instructors’ actions with regards to the module components identified above, i.e., aims and congruence, teaching, feedback, etc. While this approach is far from ideal, the large and readily available dataset offered a good foundation for bridging the gap between leadership in organizational settings and module/classroom leadership. Given that the items in the dataset implicitly measure teaching behaviours, I did not expect any of the items to tap into attributed charisma. However, the items were likely to tap into other potential transformational instructor- leadership behaviours. I first examined the individual items from the ETLQ to determine the degree to which they map onto potentially relevant transformational instructor-leadership dimensions. The conceptual mapping exercise showed that the items may capture intellectual stimulation, consideration, and direction and congruence (see Table 6).

For intellectual stimulation, some of the items from the ETLQ seem to tap into this transformational leadership dimension. For instance, the ETLQ measures the degree to which students’ thoughts and approaches to problem solving are stimulated in a module, e.g.,

encouraging students to rethink their understanding of aspects of the subject. This ‘rethinking’ is similar to two items in another popular measure of transformational leadership proposed by Rafferty and Griffin (2004). In Rafferty and Griffin’s measure of intellectual stimulation, the items emphasize the leader encouraging their follower/s to rethink things or assumptions. The ETLQ also includes items which tap into student-followers being assisted in their

conceptualization, comprehension, and analysis of problems and issues, e.g., encouraging students to relate the theory to practice, and helping students to think about the evidence

underpinning different views. Teaching in a manner to help students to think about the evidence underpinning different views is similar to helping followers see problems in new or different ways; the latter being an item in both Rafferty and Griffin’s measure and the MLQ.

Table 6

Item Comparison Between ETLQ and Transformational Leadership Measures (Study 1)

Construct Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Pounder’s module/classroom

adaptation)

Rafferty and Griffin’s Measure of Transformational Leadership

Intellectual stimulation

The teaching encouraged me to rethink my understanding of some aspects of the subject

Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some things that I have never questioned before

Has challenged me to rethink some of my basic assumptions about my work The teaching in this unit helped me to

think about the evidence underpinning different views

He/She makes me see a problem from different angles

Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways

Consideration

Staff were patient in explaining things which seemed difficult to grasp

He/She is willing to provide help outside of class (individualized consideration). The feedback given on my work helped

me to improve my ways of learning and studying

The feedback given on my set work helped to clarify things I hadn’t fully understood

He/She assists me in actualising my strengths (individualized consideration).

Behaves in a manner which is thoughtful of my personal needs (supportive leadership)

Students’ views were valued in this course unit

Sees that the interests of employees are given due consideration (supportive leadership)

Direction and congruence

It was clear to me what I was supposed to learn in this course unit

Has a clear understanding of where we are going (vision)

What we were taught seemed to match what we were supposed to learn How this unit was taught fitted in well with what we were supposed to learn

Has a clear sense of where he/she wants our unit to be in 5 years (vision)

For consideration, certain items from the ETLQ appear to tap into this concept. First, the ETLQ measures the extent to which students are given support, e.g., an item from the ETLQ which reads, “Staff were patient in explaining things which seemed difficult to grasp” is similar to the MLQ individualized consideration item which examined the degree to which the instructor is willing to provide help outside of class. Here, the ETLQ measures assistance in general rather than solely outside of class. Second, the ETLQ measures the extent to which support can help students realize their potential, e.g., two ETLQ items measure the degree to which feedback helps the student to improve their understanding, learning, and studying. These two items are similar to the MLQ’s individualized consideration item that measures the degree to which the teacher assists the student in developing their strengths. The only difference here is that the ETLQ specifies how the teacher assists (i.e., feedback) and what the students’ strengths entail (i.e., helping to improve their understanding, learning, studying). Feedback on set work may be one of the few channels that instructors can use to deliver individualized/personalized support in large distant classes. Finally, the ETLQ includes items which taps into relationship building, e.g., staff sharing enthusiasm with students and valuing students’ views. Valuing students’ views is similar to interests of employees being given due consideration; the latter item forming part of Rafferty and Griffin’s supportive leadership construct.

For direction and congruence, the ETLQ contains items which measure the extent to which teaching matches what students are supposed to learn. The terms ‘goal’ or ‘objective’ are not explicitly stated in any of the ETLQ’s items. However, a learning objective describes what students are expected to learn, and such phrasing is apparent in some of the ETLQ’s items, i.e., “… what we were supposed to learn” or “… what I was supposed to learn…”. Therefore, the ETLQ appears to tap into objectives, which is something that is not distinctly represented in

traditional models of transformational leadership. Still, objectives are similar to goals, and the latter is a component of transformational leadership theory. Robbins and Judge (2009) explain that “goals are another key mechanism that explains how transformational leadership works”. As described by Robbins in their quoting of Verisign’s CEO, Stratton Sclavos sentiment, “It comes down to charting a course – having the ability to articulate … where you’re headed and how you’re going to get there” (p. 454). For the HEI module context, Treslan (2006b) compares transformational leadership values with effective teaching domains, and explains that

components of transformational leadership that focus on goal clarification, goal consensus, and goal commitment are similar to components of effective teaching that focus on selecting instructional targets and designing coherent instruction. The key difference is that, for higher education modules, instructors may have to focus more on specific and measurable short-term objectives rather than less tangible and longer-term goals (see Table 6, which illustrates that direction and congruence appears to be a short-term translation of vision for the module context).

Overall, the ETLQ may tap into intellectual stimulation, consideration, and direction and congruence. These three dimensions are not fully representative of transformational leadership, but they are indicative of a limited application of the theory to the HEI module context, i.e., charisma or individualized consideration are omitted. Therefore, the ETLQ seems to partially capture transformational leadership behaviours. Based on the conceptual mapping exercise, I then later explore the dimensions empirically to determine whether or not the three proposed dimensions emerge from the data. These three dimensions may also emerge as distinct dimensions because they appear to be conceptually distinct. The dimensional nature of transformational leadership is a contentious topic (see van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).

of transformational leadership should be examined as a single construct, or as individual dimensions. In my earlier explanations of transformational leadership, each dimension is

described by some distinguishable characteristic that establishes conceptual boundaries between the dimensions. Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) argue that there is no theoretical basis for combining the dimensions of transformational leadership into a single construct because the dimensions are conceptually distinct. Therefore, I predict that

H1: The ETLQ measures consideration, intellectual stimulation, and direction and congruence as distinct constructs.

4.3 Transformational Instructor-Leadership, Engagement, and Student Achievement