Kepimpinan Transformasional Pengetua dan Efikasi Kendiri Guru: Satu Kajian Empirikal di Sekolah Menengah Persendirian Cina di Pulau Pinang, Malaysia (Principal Transformational Leadership and Teacher Self-Efficiency: an Empirical Study in Chinese Independ
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the relationships between transformational leadership dimensions and the dimensions of teacher self-efficacy in Malaysian Chinese Independent High Schools (CIHS) in Malaysia. This study employed a cross-sectional quantitative survey research design. Data were collected from five CIHS in Pulau Pinang. A total of 384 respondents from CIHS were participated in this study. This study used partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approaches for data analysis. Findings showed that the charisma dimension has significant relationship with each dimensions of teacher self-efficacy: instructional strategies (? = 0.244, p < 0.05), classroom management (? = 0.264, p < 0.05), and student engagement (? = 0.192, p < 0.05). However, dimension of motivation inspiration has no significant relationships with each dimension of teacher self-efficacy: instructional strategies (? = ?0.159, p = 0.061), classroom management (? = ?0.185, p = 0.066), and student engagement (? = ?0.195, p = 0.068). The dimension of individualised consideration has no significant positive relationship with instructional strategic (? = 0.109, p = 0.130). However, individualised consideration has significant positive relationship with classroom management (? = 0.309, p = 0.001) and student engagement (? = 0.336, p < 0.001). The dimension of intellectual motivation has significant positive relationship with instructional strategic (? = 0.225, p = 0.016). In contrast, no significant relationships were found between intellectual motivation and classroom management (? = 0.100, p = 0.162) as well as intellectual motivation and student engagement (? = 0.336, p < 0.001). Transformational leadership contributed 16.1% variance explained on instructional strategies, 15.8% variance explained on classroom management, and 18.1% variance explained on student engagement dimension. Implications and direction for future studies were discussed.
Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengenal pasti hubungan antara dimensi kepimpinan transformasional dengan dimensi efikasi kendiri guru di Sekolah Menengah Persendirian Cina (SMPC) di Malaysia. Kajian ini menggunakan kaedah kuantitatif tinjauan keratan rentas. Data dikumpul daripada lima buah SMPC di Pulau Pinang. Seramai 384 orang guru terlibat dalam kajian ini. Kajian ini menggunakan statistik deskriptif dan pendekatan partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) untuk penganalisisan data. Hasil kajian menunjukkan dimensi karisma mempunyai hubungan signifikan dengan setiap dimensi efikasi kendiri guru: strategi pengajaran (? = 0.244, p < 0.05), pengurusan bilik darjah (? = 0.264, p < 0.05), dan penglibatan pelajar (? = 0.192, p < 0.05). Manakala dimensi motivasi berinspirasi tidak mempunyai hubungan yang signifikan dengan setiap dimensi efikasi kendiri guru: strategi pengajaran (? = ?0.159, p = 0.061), pengurusan bilik darjah (? = ?0.185, p = 0.066), dan penglibatan pelajar (? = ?0.195, p = 0.068). Dimensi pertimbangan individu tidak mempunyai hubungan positif yang signifikan dengan perancangan strategi (? = 0.109, p = 0.130). Walau bagaimanapun, pertimbangan individu mempunyai hubungan positif yang signifikan dengan pengurusan bilik darjah (? = 0.309, p = 0.001) dan penglibatan pelajar (? = 0.336, p < 0.001). Dimensi rangsangan intelektual menunjukkan hubungan positif yang signifikan dengan perancangan strategi (? = 0.225, p = 0.016). Sebaliknya, hubungan yang tidak signifikan didapati antara rangsangan intelektual dan pengurusan bilik darjah (? = 0.100, p = 0.162) serta rangsangan intelektual dan penglibatan pelajar (? = 0.336, p < 0.001). Dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan bahawa kepimpinan transformasional menyumbang 16.1% varians terhadap dimensi strategi pengajaran, 15.8% varians kepada dimensi pengurusan bilik darjah dan 18.1% varians kepada dimensi penglibatan pelajar. Implikasi kajian dan cadangan kajian lanjutan turut dibincangkan.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ab Samad, R. S., Abd Wahad, H., Rahmad Sukor, M. S., & Lau, Y. W. (2016). Contribution of headmaster transformational leadership towards teachers’ sense of efficacy in under-enrolled primary schools in Port Dickson. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 1(4), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.22452/mojem.vol4no4.5
Abu Bakar, N., Ramli, B., & Fooi, F. S. (2015). Hubungan kepimpinan guru dengan pencapaian akademik pelajar. International Journal of Education and Training, 1(2), 1–11. Asarulah Khan, S. (2018, 27 July). Guru paling stress. Utusan Online. Retrieved from https://www.utusan.com.my/berita/nasional/guru-paling-stres-1.717093
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barbuto, J. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100403
Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in Schools—panacea, placebo, or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230110366892
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. E. (1991). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Introduction. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organisational effectiveness: Through transformational leadership (pp. 1–9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire, leader form, rater form, and scoring. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03624-000
Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2019). School leaders’ emotional support of teachers through emotional transformation: qualitative insights into the maintenance of teachers’ occupational identity. Leadership and Policy in Schools [Online]. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1638421
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. Chin, J. Hensler, & H. Wold (Eds.), Handbook of partial least square (pp. 655–690). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29
Dubrin, A. J. (2005). Leadership. Jakarta: Prenada Media.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Hallinger, P., Gumus, S., & Bellibas, M. S. (2020). Are principals instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics, 122, 1629–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03360-5
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.15358/9783800653614
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hu, B. Y., Li, Y., Wang, C., & Reynolds, B. L. (2019). The relation between school climate and preschool teacher stress: The mediating role of teachers’ self-efficacy. Journal of Education Administration, 57(6), 748–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2018-0146
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: Meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kirby, M. D. (2002). Human rights and industrial relations. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/1472-9296.00065
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B., (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Florida: Harcourt College Publishers.
Linda, H., & Zamira, H. D. (2017). The relationship between educational leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy. The European Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences. 20, 2301–2218. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.221
Liu, P. (2015). Motivating teachers’ commitment to change through transformational school leadership in Chinese urban upper secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(6), 735–754.
Liu, P. (2018). Transformational leadership research in China (2005–2015). Chinese Education & Society, 51(5), 372–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2018.1510690
Ma, X., & Marion, R. (2019). Exploring how instructional leadership affects teacher efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 20(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219888742
Nguyen, D. T., Ng, D., & Yap, P. S. (2017). Instructional leadership structure in Singapore: A co-existence of hierarchy and heterarchy. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2016-0060
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248–292.
Nursuhaila, G. (2007). Tahap kepimpinan transformational dalam kalangan pengetua Sekolah Menengah Bandar Tangkak. Unpublished Master thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD). (2013). The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/talis/
Sarros, J. C., Gray, J. H., Densten, I. L., & Cooper, B. (2005). The organizational culture profile revisited and revised: An Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Management, 30(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289620503000109
Sharma, R., & Singh, S. (2017). Transformational leadership style and self-efficacy among teaching professionals. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 4(2), 86–90.
Simic, I. (1998). Transformational leadership: The key to successful management of transformational organizational changes. The Scientific Journal Facta Universitatis Series, 1(6), 49–55.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1988). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.
United Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong). (2017). The report of 2016 national survey of independent Chinese Secondary School. Retrieved from https://uec.dongzong.my/index.php/about-uec/accquaint-uec
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Xu, K. (2011). An empirical study of Confucianism: Measuring Chinese academic leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 644–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911405621
Zaidatol Akmaliah, L. P., Teng, L. K., Foo, S. F., Zakaria, K., & Jegak, U. (2011). Hubungan kepimpinan transformasional pengetua dengan efikasi kendiri guru. Malaysian Education Deans Council Journal, 2(3), 1–11.
Zhu, C., Devos, G., & Li, Y. (2011). Teacher perceptions of school culture and their organizational commitment and well-being in a Chinese school. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9146-0