School Leadership & Management

Formerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Classroom teacher leadership: service-learning for

teacher sense of efficacy and servant leadership
development

Trae Stewart

To cite this article: Trae Stewart (2012) Classroom teacher leadership: service-learning for
teacher sense of efficacy and servant leadership development, School Leadership & Management,
32:3, 233-259, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2012.688741

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.688741

Published online: 11 Jun 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1846

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20

Download by: [Bahria University] Date: 13 July 2017, At: 08:30

School Leadership & Management
Vol. 32, No. 3, July 2012, 233
259

Classroom teacher leadership: service-learning for teacher sense of

efficacy and servant leadership development
Trae Stewart*

Education & Community Leadership, College of Education, Texas State University-San Marcos,
San Marcos, TX, USA

Improved student achievement requires the distribution of leadership beyond one

individual. Given their daily connection to students, leadership opportunities
distributed to classroom teachers are key to school improvement. Complicating
the development of classroom teacher leaders are attrition rates and low teacher
efficacy among novice educators. Service-learning and servant leadership offer
complementary pedagogical and philosophical approaches to shift the role of
classroom teachers and address efficacy concerns. This study utilised a pre-/post-
test, quasi-experimental research design to determine to what extent changes
would occur over time in pre-service educators’ teacher sense of efficacy and sense
of servant leadership from participating in service-learning.
Keywords: service-learning; teacher efficacy; servant leadership; pre-service
teachers; teacher sense of efficacy scale; servant leadership questionnaire;
self-efficacy

Current reform mandates of improved student achievement require the distribution

of leadership beyond a single individual (Fullan 2007; Lieberman and Miller 2005;
Katzenmeyer and Moller 2001; Timperley 2005; York-Barr and Duke 2004). Given
their daily connection to students, leadership opportunities distributed to classroom
teachers are key to school improvement (Danielson 2007; Elmore 2000; Mayo 2002;
Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond 2001).
With a few exceptions (Dozier 2002; Drury 2005; Krisko 2001), most studies on
teachers’ roles as leaders have been focused at the organisational or school level. In
support of classroom teacher leadership, several have posited that individual
classrooms may parallel small social organisations, as transformational leadership
outcomes observed in larger organisations also appear in classroom contexts (Cheng
1994; Luechauer and Shulman 2002; Ojode, Walumbwa, and Kuchinke 1999;
Walumbwa and Ojode 2000). For example, the roles of both leaders and teachers
are relational with their followers (Daft 2005; Kouzes and Posner 2003; Rost 1993).
They also are influential through their vision and policies (Clawson 2003; Daft 2005;
Rost 1993). Lastly, leaders and teachers work collaboratively with followers to
achieve a shared goal of understanding, achievement or personal development/
growth (Daft 2005; Hopkins 1991; Rost 1993).
In ‘Modeling meaning in life: The teacher as servant leader’, Herman and
Marlowe (2005, 175) discuss the need of teacher leaders to shift from a ‘classroom’ to

*Email: traestewart@txstate.edu
ISSN 1363-2434 print/ISSN 1364-2626 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.688741
http://www.tandfonline.com
234 T. Stewart

a ‘community’ mindset. In the former, adults stress obedience to authority. In the

latter, leaders emphasise helping one another. While research on servant leadership in
education is available, most studies have focused on school and district adminis-
trators’ servant leadership characteristics and how their behaviour and attitudes
correlate with personal and school demographics (Girard 2000; Jennings 2002;
Livovich 1999; Thompson 2005), student achievement (Lambert 2004), school
performance (Herbst 2003) and teachers’ levels of job satisfaction (Miears 2004).
Some have, therefore, called for deepening and extending servant leadership research
in schools and to teaching, respectively (Bliss 2006; Crippen 2005; Drury 2005).
According to Robert Greenleaf (1970), servant leaders vary from other leaders
because they are servants first. They seek to ensure others’ needs are met so that
those served become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous and likely to be
servants themselves. He indicates that on every campus, there are a number of
students who have the potential to carry responsible roles in society, are committed
to the servant ethic, work hard, act responsibly, have intuitive judgement and have a
desire to grow and learn (Greenleaf 2002). Greenleaf (2002, 203), therefore, suggests
that institutions of higher learning ‘prepare students to serve and be served by the
present society’.
One pedagogical approach that has shown promise in preparing students to
become responsible civic leaders and citizens is service-learning. Bringle and Hatcher
(1995, 112) define service-learning as a:

course-based, credit-bearing educational experience that allows students to (a) participate

in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and (b) reflect on
the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a
broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility.

Complicating the development of classroom teacher leaders is that 25% of teachers

leave within the first two years of teaching, and 40% leave within five years (Grant and
Gillett 2006). Some lack a strong teacher sense of efficacy (TSE), or judgement of his
or her competence and ability to bring about meaningful and significant educational
outcomes for all students (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001). Published
studies examining teacher efficacy and service-learning are few and report mixed
results (Nelson, Tice, and Theriot 2008; Root, Callahan, and Sepanski 2002; Stewart,
Allen, and Bai 2011), or even mistakenly extrapolate generalised self-efficacy to
teacher efficacy because of the study’s sample (Wade 1995).
Training as pre-service practitioners has been connected with teachers assuming
leadership roles (Katzenmeyer and Moller 2001). By extending and inter-relating
these concepts, we may be able to identify more effective means by which to train
teachers for high TSE and leadership in their classrooms (Crippen 2005). The current
study investigates to what extent pre-service teachers’ participation in service-
learning impacts their TSE and own personal sense of servant leadership.

Review of relevant literature

Teacher leadership
Silva, Gimbert, and Nolan (2000) offered a three-wave typology of the history of
teacher leadership. In the first wave, teacher leadership roles were situated within the
 School Leadership & Management 235

formal hierarchy of schools. Individuals were still connected to teaching, but served
more as managers of the implementation tasks of other teachers (Frymier 1987),
rather than visionaries or models (e.g., department chair).
The second wave emphasised instruction more. However, the teacher leader
remained in a formal position within the organisation (e.g., curriculum developers,
team leaders). Darling-Hammond (1998) and Shulman (1987) have argued that the
second wave leaders were a means by which those removed from teaching could
control teachers remotely. They created tasks and materials that teachers were
expected to implement or utilise.
The third wave merges teaching and leadership by empowering classroom
teachers regardless of designated position (Frost and Harris 2003). In these cases,
the focus is placed on improving the educational process and learning throughout the
school by encouraging and collaborating with one another, challenging static
operations and mentoring and modelling for effective teaching and professional
development (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995; Harris and Muijs 2003;
Lieberman and Miller 2004; Silva et al. 2000; Wasley 1991).
Pounder (2006) has offered a fourth wave of teacher leadership, which he calls
‘transformational classroom leadership’. Building on the third wave’s positioning of
teachers as transformational leaders and excellent classroom performers, Pounder
argues that a fourth wave of teacher leadership could include transformational
classroom leadership as one of the defining qualities of a teacher leader.
Several researchers have investigated classroom teacher leadership. Wilson (2004)
found correlations between teacher leadership styles and teacher effectiveness.
Laissez-faire leadership style was negatively correlated with teaching effectiveness.
Transformational leadership, in contrast, was the single largest positive predictor of
teacher effectiveness. These findings were supported by Thomas’ (2007) study of
teachers in an urban school district. Findings revealed that teachers’ self-perceptions
as effective educators affected how they viewed themselves as leaders.

Servant leadership
Servant leadership has been described as a chosen mindset (Laub 2004), a
philosophy, or ‘personal orientation toward life’ (Wallace 2007, 128), that relates
to a person’s identity (Sims 1997) and encapsulates how leaders view the world,
rather than a style of leadership (Laub 2004; Millard 2001).
Robert Greenleaf’s (1970) model of servant leadership begins with the natural
feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first, then learn to lead as a servant. Servant
leadership puts primary emphasis on the needs and desires of the followers before the
needs of the leader and emphasises personal development and empowerment of
followers. Servant leadership is distinguishable by its focus on moral development,
service and the enhancement of the common good (Graham 1991). When one
describes the characteristics or attributes of a servant-leader, words such as virtue
(Patterson 2003), heart (Banutu-Gomez 2004; Blanchard 1995; Ortberg 2004),
calling (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Greenleaf 1977; McAllister-Wilson 2004) and
ethics (Griffith 2007; Kouzes and Posner 2004; Peck 1995) are used.
According to Johnson (2001), the advantages of the servant leadership model are
its altruism, simplicity and self-awareness. It emphasises the moral sense of concern
for others, reducing the complexity engendered by putting personal desires in conflict
236 T. Stewart

with those of followers (Johnson 2001). Servant leadership affects individuals and
requires caring for the individual beyond individual egoism and needs. They aim to
help followers utilise their talents and skills effectively (McMinn 1989) through a
continuous review of direction, purpose and vision (Greenleaf 1977). Sendjaya and
Sarros (2002) note that servant leaders see themselves as stewards who develop and
empower others to reach their potential. Following this logic, servant leadership may
be characterised by its use in educational institutions whose main function is to
develop people (Taylor et al. 2007).
On the basis of Greenleaf’s writings, Spears (1998) developed a list of 10
characteristics of a servant leader.

1. Listening
Listening skills and their relationship to leadership effectiveness are well documented
(e.g., Bechler and Johnson 1995). Effective leaders must listen to major stakeholders
to know their ideas, perceptions, motivations and needs (Barbuto and Wheeler
2006; Wolvin 2005) so that they can then create environments to facilitate the
implementation of proposed ideas (Brownell 2008). Complementarily, servant
leaders also must listen to their own internal voices. Reflection is key to better
self-understanding so that the leader may first grow individually before as a leader
(Spears 1995).

2. Empathy
Empathy concerns one’s ability to appreciate reality or circumstances from another’s
perspective. For emergent servant leaders, empathy is a key trait as people need to
feel like they are accepted and recognised for their unique qualities and contributions
(Spears 1995). Empathy allows leaders to identify and factor in employees’ feelings
when making decisions while still expressing their own emotions (Greer and Plunkett
2007; Kellett, Humphrey, and Sleeth 2006).

3. Healing
Servant leaders are able to heal spirits, hurt emotions and relationships within
themselves and between others, resulting in a potential force of transformation and
integration (Spears 1995). At the simplest level, healing encompasses the recognition
of the power of our interactions with others in terms of coaching, support provision
and ultimately change and impact during times of stress and difficulty (Greer and
Plunkett 2007). For servant leaders, healing includes one’s ability to recognise when
and how to foster the healing process (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006).

4. Awareness
Servant leaders tend to have general and self-awareness. Awareness allows the leader
to reflect on and understand how his/her behaviour, values, identity,
goals, capabilities and personality are affected by external factors (Gardner
et al. 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, and Nahrgang 2005). Awareness enables the leader to
 School Leadership & Management 237

take a more holistic perspective of a situation by picking up environmental cues

(Barbuto and Wheeler 2006).

5. Persuasion
Servant leaders persuade rather than coerce. They are effective consensus builders
without relying on their positional authority (Barbuto and Wheerler 2006; Spears
1995). By doing so, leaders redirect followers’ trust, admiration and respect from the
individual to the organisation (Bass 1996). Charisma and influence are complemen-
tary characteristics used to describe servant leaders’ persuasiveness (Sendjaya,
Sarros, and Santora 2008).

6. Conceptualisation
Servant leaders think beyond the immediate realities. They have the vision to
conceptualise and foster the future environment of the organisation, which in turn
will influence its performance and success (Mumford and Strange 2002). For many,
discipline and practice are required to effectively construct mental models that will
allow followers to think and develop as professionals (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006).

7. Foresight
Servant leaders are intuitive. They can make meaning of the past and present
realities, while being mindful of potential consequences in the future (Barbuto and
Wheeler 2006; Spears 1995). Foresight carries an arguably mystical quality
(e.g., foresee the unforeseeable), a characteristic that the servant leader is supposedly
born with; however, research on this topic is minimal. Regardless, Fry (2003) has
argued that foresight is paramount to developing follower buy-in.

8. Stewardship
Servant leaders serve the needs of others. As stewards, they believe that their
organisations should contribute positively to followers, both within and outside of
their organisation (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Sendjaya et al. 2008). This means that
all major stakeholders, including community members, must benefit. At times, their
needs must take precedence over organisation goals and objectives (Graham 1991).

9. Commitment to the growth of people

Servant leaders see the value in workers beyond the products or services that they
contribute. They are committed to the professional, spiritual and emotional growth
of employees. By identifying employee needs and providing opportunities to address
these needs beyond routine job responsibilities (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Howell
and Avolio 1993), servant leaders can strengthen the leader
follower relationship
and affect employee motivation positively (Barbuto and Scholl 1999; Leonard,
Beauvais, and Scholl 1999).
238 T. Stewart

10. Building community

Servant leaders recognise the disappearance of community in a shift to larger
institutions. They seek the means to rebuild community among workers by
highlighting their individual contributions to the larger organisation:

All that is needed to rebuild community as a viable life form for large numbers of people
is for enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass movements, but by each
servant-leader demonstrating his own unlimited liability for a quite specific community-
related group. (Spears 1995, 7)

Research on servant leadership in education have focused on K-12 school and

district administrators’ servant leadership characteristics and how their behaviour
and attitudes correlate with personal and school demographics (Girard 2000;
Jennings 2002; Livovich 1999; Thompson 2005), student achievement (Lambert
2004), school performance (Herbst 2003) and teachers’ levels of job satisfaction
(Miears 2004). In contrast, and while not K-12 focused, Drury (2005) investigated
university instructors as servant leaders as labelled by their students. The most
effective professors were also seen as servant leaders; the least effective instructors
had fewer characteristics attributed to servant leaders. Bliss (2006) completed a
similar study among K-12 teachers. He found that educators who had received
commendations for their teaching also acted as servant leaders.
Although limited, it is unsurprising that excellent teachers tend to become
teacher leaders (Crowther 1996, 1997; Sherrill 1999; Snell and Swanson 2000).
Teacher leaders ‘lead within and beyond the classroom’ (Katzenmeyer and Moller
2001, 5, emphasis added). Van Brummelen (2005) contends that we should expect
effective classroom teachers to exhibit servant leadership characteristics. Like servant
leaders, effective teachers authentically value students, create a vibrant community of
togetherness and common purpose and support students in shaping their own
learning experiences to achieve individual goals.

Criticisms/limitations of servant leadership

At present, the conceptualisation of servant leadership is arguably a normative one.
Implied therein is that successful leaders need to be saintly, conceptual thinkers and
possess unusually complete altruism. As a result, there have been several criticisms of
servant leadership. As mentioned earlier, part of this criticism is based on the
expectation of the empirical study of organisational behaviour and subsequent
translation of findings into functional models. Although much has been written on
servant leadership and anecdotes of its impacts are abundant, empirical investiga-
tions with broad, substantive and generalisable applications remain scant (Sendjaya
and Sarros 2002; Stone, Russell, and Patterson 2003). Greenleaf (1977, 49) himself
acknowledged the difficulty in applying servant leadership: ‘What I have to say
comes from experience, my own and that of others, which bears on institutional
reconstruction. It is a personal statement, and it is meant to be neither a scholarly
treatise nor a how-to-do-it manual’.
Specific to western cultures, and organisations based in the USA in particular,
several question if the collectivism of servant leadership is tenable within the current
culture of accountability, competition, short-term results, shareholder oversight,
 School Leadership & Management 239

individual performance and varying levels of competence of individuals (Lee

and Zemke 1993; Lloyd 1996). The model has been called idealistic (Berry and
Cartwright 2000), unrealistic (Neuschel 2005), very unorthodox (Quay 1997) and
untenable for those trained as authoritative leaders (Tatum 1995).
Servant leadership has even been framed as antithetical to human nature.
Arguing against Greenleaf’s existential approach of self-determination and self-
direction, Wells (2004) posits that sin has transformed humans into egocentric,
selfish beings. And still others, in contrast, warn that ‘some authors have attempted
to couch servant leadership in spiritual and moral terms’ (Smith, Montagno, and
Kuzmenko 2004, 82), which impresses upon readers that being a servant leader is
‘next to godliness’ (Bridges 1996, 17).

Teacher sense of self-efficacy

Social cognitive theory posits that learners regulate their own actions and behaviours
as influenced by the comparison between a performance and the personal standard
against which it is measured. These self-evaluative reactions result in learners’ self-
efficacy, or beliefs about their capabilities and, at times, the expected outcomes of
their actions (Bandura 1986).
Regardless of source, self-efficacy is future-oriented (Pajares 1997) and is thus a
strong predictor of initiation and persistence of behaviour (Bandura 1997). Research
has found that self-efficacy affects an individual’s choice of, effort towards, and
persistence in tasks/activities (Bandura 1982, 2000; Bandura and Cervone 1983,
1986; Schunk 1991, 1995, 2001; Schunk and Pajares 2002, 2004).
Teacher efficacy, or TSE, refers to a teacher’s judgement of his or her competence
and ability to bring about meaningful and significant educational outcomes for all
students (Amor et al. 1976; Bandura 1977; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy
2001; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy 1998). Findings suggest that
teachers with a high sense of efficacy are more enthusiastic about teaching (Guskey
1984; Woolfolk 2001), are less likely to interact negatively with students (Soodak and
Podell 1993), less likely to experience burn-out (Burley et al. 1991) and, therefore,
more likely to remain in the teacher profession (Coladarci 1992; Ebmeier 2003;
Evans and Tribble 1986). Openness to instructional innovations and greater levels of
planning and organisation have also been found to be related to a high TSE (Allinder
1994; Ghaith and Yaghi 1997; Guskey 1984; Stein and Wang 1988). Ashton and
Webb (1986) found that teachers with higher levels of efficacy are less critical of
errors and mistakes made by students. Teachers with a high TSE have reported a
stronger commitment to the profession of teaching and to their schools (Coladarci
1992; Ebmeier 2003; Evans and Tribble 1986). In fact, the collective efficacy of a
faculty can be a stronger predictor of student achievement than the socioeconomic
level of the students (Bandura 1993; Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk-Hoy 2000).
Because teachers with a high sense of teacher efficacy tend to believe in both
themselves and their students, they tend to be more enthusiastic about and persistent
in efforts to bring about positive student outcomes (Ashton 1984; Woolfolk 2008).
Evidence is mounting that teacher efficacy has an impact on numerous desirable
educational outcomes including student achievement (Anderson, Greene, and
Loewen 1998; Ashton and Webb 1986; Ross 1992; Shahid and Thompson 2001;
Woolfolk-Hoy and Davis 2006), student motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles
240 T. Stewart

1989; Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998) and the students’ own sense of efficacy
(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001).

Teacher efficacy and service-learning

Several studies have shown that pre-service teachers increase in their commitment to
teaching, community participation, self-esteem and self-efficacy and feelings of
compassion and concern (Flippo et al. 1993; Green, Dalton, and Wilson 1994; Wade
1995). In contrast, Root, Callahan, and Sepanski (2002) did not find significant
effects for service-learning on teaching efficacy and commitment to teaching in 442
pre-service teacher participants in nine teacher education programmes that were
members of the National Service-learning in Teacher Education Partnership
(NSLTP). The authors hypothesised that the high scores with which the sample
entered the study might have created ceiling effects for these variables. Regardless,
pre-service teachers’ perception of the level of instructor support available to them
during service-learning was linked to increases in general teaching efficacy.
Nelson, Tice, and Theriot (2008) examined if pre-service teachers’ participation in
class-based service-learning increased their personal and teacher efficacy more than
another group of pre-service teachers enrolled in a non-service-learning course. Using
a repeated measures design, they found that there was no significant change within
groups over time, but that there was a difference between the service-learning and
control group. The authors prematurely report that, ‘there is a significant impact on
novice teachers’ efficacy when involved in a well-designed service-learning pedagogy’
(106). It is clear that the populations sampled come from two different courses taught
by the same instructor, but information about how distinct these courses are from one
another is not provided. The content of the courses alone could affect the efficacy levels
of the students. Lastly, and as has been critiqued consistently in the service-learning
literature, the study does not situate the discussion of the findings in social cognitive
theory and literature on efficacy, thus limiting our interpretation of the findings.
However, through an analysis of oral and written reflections, the above authors
do extrapolate various themes with which teacher efficacy may be connected. These
themes include and hint at the four sources of self-efficacy: (1) authenticity of
learning; (2) requirements of planning and preparation; (3) collaboration and
networking; and (4) witnessing the rewards from the teaching experience.
In a more recent study, Stewart et al. (2011) aimed to determine if pre-internship
teacher education students’ participation in service-learning activities in K-12
classrooms would significantly affect their sense of teacher efficacy. A secondary
focus sought to determine if one type of service-learning activity (e.g., whole class
instruction) would impact teacher efficacy more than another (e.g., small group
tutoring). Using MANOVA, findings revealed that pre-internship service-learners in
both types of service-learning activities increased significantly in their sense of
teacher efficacy. However, neither type of service-learning activity was superior to the
other as measured by the minimally accepted 0.05 level. The authors concluded that
pre-internship service-learning opportunities in K-12 settings allow for participants
to begin their professional development from student to student/teacher well before
their internship. As students move in their teacher identity formation, from student to
student/teacher to teacher/student and eventually to teacher, the mastery experiences
along the way would facilitate an incremental increase in overall teacher efficacy.
 School Leadership & Management 241

Research question
To what extent are pre-service educators’ TSE and sense of servant leadership
affected by participating in a service-learning project?

Methods
Design and sample
This study utilised a pre-test
post-test, quasi-experimental research design to
determine to what extent changes would occur over time in pre-service educators’
TSE and sense of servant leadership from participating in a service-learning project.
The 160 participants in this study were junior level undergraduate Education
majors at a large, research-intensive, metropolitan university in the southeast United
States. The sample was drawn from 182 students enrolled in an introductory course
on working with students with disabilities in the mainstream classroom during the
summer of 2011. Sixteen students chose not to complete the pre- and/or post-survey.
Six other respondents’ surveys were missing both independent and dependent
variable data and were removed from the sample set. Their removal comprised less
than 5% of the total number of participants. In the final sample, students’ average
age was 22 years old (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographics (n 160).

Frequency Per cent

Gender
Male 22 13.8
Female 138 86.2
Ethnicity
Black/African-American 7 4.4
Latino/Hispanic/Chicano 12 7.5
Caucasian/White (not Hispanic) 129 80.6
Asian 6 3.8
Biracial/multiracial 3 1.9
Other 3 1.9
Previous service-learning experience
Yes 139 86.9
No 21 13.1
Previous teaching experience
Yes 44 27.5
No 116 72.5
Previous experience with persons with disabilities
Yes 41 25.6
No 119 74.4
Documented disability
Yes 3 1.9
No 157 98.1
242 T. Stewart

Context
Service-learners were elementary or secondary education majors enrolled in
‘Teaching Students with Disabilities in the General Education Classroom’. This is
the only course that non-special education majors take that is devoted to working
with students with disabilities. The aim of the course is to develop and practise
effective instructional and management strategies for general education teachers to
use in working with students with disabilities.
To complement the course content and support local non-profits working with
persons with disabilities, students were required to complete 15 hours of service-
learning through direct and personal experience with persons with disabilities. In
addition to the course content, service-learners were required to complete online
modules comprising video-based tutorials before engaging in their service-learning
project. The modules that comprise the ‘Service-Learning with Special Populations’
content included: (1) Introduction, (2) What is Service-Learning? (3) Understanding
Differences, (4) Importance of Reflection, (5) Getting Started and (6) Reporting
Results.
Students chose their project based on geographic location and personal interest.
To assist students in their choosing a volunteer site, a list of non-profits that had
previously requested assistance was posted online by geographic area. A few
sentences explaining the primary need of the organisation and/or their clientele
were usually offered. The same information could have been located on local
volunteer websites or through the university’s student volunteer organisation.
Regardless, all students were to contact the organisation and complete a needs
assessment that was able to be addressed during the semester. Students used a
project-planning template to conduct a community needs assessment that guided
their design of an appropriate service project with persons with disabilities. The
project plan of action had to be approved prior to students beginning their service
project.
Service-learners were prepared as part of their college course prior to beginning
their projects. Purposive attention was placed on having the pre-internship students
understand that they would be helping to meet an actual need and that these volunteer
activities are, in fact, supporting their achievement of course goals. The seriousness
and professionalism of the service-learning activities were further evidenced in the
structure provided to the students by their college instructor. Service-learners were
provided with time lines, clear expectations on focused assignments, forms and
logistical support, and were advised to meet with the host teacher prior to engaging in
their documented service hours. As highlighted earlier, the K-12 teacher would always
be available to assist, provide direction as needed and step in if there was a problem.
She/he is seen as a co-instructor to the college course instructor.
The college instructor and student peers were also available for the student to
discuss the experience as the student reflected on the process through synchronous
and asynchronous communications. Students had the opportunity to participate in
synchronous virtual reflective discussions with project personnel, instructors and
facilitators. Students interacted with facilitators and other students via webcam and
sidebar chats. Students simply clicked a designated time on an interactive calendar to
join a ‘real time’ discussion with project facilitators conducted using Adobe Connect.
The Blackboard course format also allowed students to engage in asynchronous
 School Leadership & Management 243

discussions and plan with persons in their geographic region. Students used these
spaces to establish service teams or announce volunteer opportunities. Young adults
with disabilities from the community concurrently participated in and led online
discussions and community service activities.
After completing their projects, students created narrated PowerPoint presenta-
tions summarising their service activities, critical reflections on service-learning as a
pedagogical tool and working with people with disabilities, and their sense of civic
responsibility and their intent to remain engaged in the community. Projects included
dance classes for children with disabilities, afterschool programming for adolescents
with disabilities at a community centre, a walking club that includes persons with
disabilities, mentoring and instruction for college-age students with disabilities, and
increasing disability awareness by screening movies such as Shooting Beauty, a
documentary about persons with severe disabilities, at their faith-based organisations
or in community centres.

Instruments
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale
The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSE-long form; Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk-Hoy 2001) was used to measure TSE. The TSE-long form is a 24-item
scale that considers both personal competence and the task with certain resources
and constraints in particular teaching contexts. Principal-axis factoring and varimax
rotation have previously found three factors with eigenvalues greater than one. These
factors include teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies and
classroom management.
The instructional strategies efficacy factor includes questions such as ‘To what
extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are
confused?’ Factor 2, efficacy for classroom management, includes questions such as
‘How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom?’ The last
factor included questions related to the efficacy of student engagement. Sample
questions include ‘How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well
in schoolwork?’ Responses are measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale with the
notations 1 (Nothing), 3 (Very little), 5 (Some influence), 7 (Quite a bit) and 9 (A
great deal). High scores are indicative of a high self-perception of teaching
competence.
Various studies (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001; Tsigilis, Gramma-
tikopoulos, and Koustelios 2007) have found that the TSE has sound psychometric
properties which can be applied to different education settings to assess teachers’ self-
efficacy. The reported internal consistency of the scale is 0.94 (Tschannen-Moran
and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001) and 0.97 (Tsigilis et al. 2007). The validity of the instrument
has been cross-validated through different studies using independent samples
(e.g. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001; Tsigilis et al. 2007). Stewart, Allen,
and Bai (2010) confirmed the instrument’s validity for studies on similar samples. For
research studies examining teacher efficacy of pre-internship teachers, the TSE-long
form is recommended. Coefficients for this study by sub-scale evince excellent
internal reliability: Student Engagement (0.92), Instructional Strategies (0.95) and
Classroom Management (0.93).
244 T. Stewart

Servant Leader Questionnaire

The Servant Leader Questionnaire (SLQ; Barbuto and Wheeler 2006) is designed to
measure the frequency with which an individual believes she/he exhibits servant-
leader qualities. The SLQ is a 23-item scale that measures the following five factors:
altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping and organisational
stewardship. Individuals rate themselves on a 5-point Likert scale with zero being the
lowest score (not at all) and four being the highest score (frequently, if not always).
Each of the factors is described briefly below:

(1) Altruistic Calling refers to one’s choice or desire to make a positive difference
in the lives of others by putting others’ development ahead of their own self-
interest (Bass 2000; Graham 1991). Altruism in leadership has been
recognised by many scholars (Avolio and Locke 2002; Block 1996). In
servant leadership, the desire to positively influence others through selfless
service is central to its ideology (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Greenleaf 1977).
(2) Emotional Healing represents a leader’s commitment to and skill in
facilitating the healing process, which may include dealing with lost hope,
broken dreams or shattered relationships (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006;
Dacher 1999; Sturnick 1998). These leaders are characterised as empathetic,
good listeners, sensitive and willing to hear others’ personal and professional
concerns. This transfers into a servant leader’s capacity to recognise each
person individually and their unique needs (DeGraff, Tilley, and Neal 2001).
‘Servant leaders must listen to followers, learn about their needs and
aspirations, and be willing to share in their pain and frustration’ (Yukl
2006, 420).
(3) Wisdom reflects how aware an individual is about what is happening in his/
her surroundings. The individual’s ability to utilise environmental clues to
anticipate consequences and to inform their decisions is also an element to
wisdom (Barbuto and Wheeler 2002, 2006).
(4) Persuasive Mapping reflects an individual’s ability to influence or persuade
others
a cornerstone of leadership (Yukl 2006). This ability extends beyond
simple persuasion to include a leader’s ability to conceptualise possibilities
for others through reasoning (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006). In contrast to
authority-based approaches which tend to be linked less with positive
outcomes (Druskat and Pescosolido 2002), influential leaders often share
their own thought processes in order to encourage others.
(5) Organisational Stewardship refers to a person’s ethic of taking responsibility
for the well-being of the organisation so that it makes a positive contribution
to the community (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006). This element implies that the
leader’s work is part of something bigger than that of the organisation
(Block 1996).

Two separate forms of the questionnaire exist. One form is to be completed by the
individual or ‘leader’, and the other form may be completed by those who report to
the ‘leader’. While the self-version is valid on its own, some limitations may arise due
to a single-variable analysis. For this reason, the SLQ has been paired with the TSE
for more robust analyses.
 School Leadership & Management 245

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) found excellent alpha coefficients for the five
dimensions: altruistic calling (a0.93), emotional healing (a 0.91), wisdom
(a0.93), persuasive mapping (a 0.90) and organisational stewardship (a 0.89).
Reliability coefficients for this study were above the minimally acceptable level of 0.70
(Streiner 2003): altruistic calling (a0.87), emotional healing (a 0.87), wisdom
(a0.82), persuasive mapping (a0.87) and organisational stewardship (a 0.86).

Procedure
Data were collected during summer 2011. During the second class meeting before
participants engaged in any service-learning activities designed for this research,
students were asked to complete an informed consent form that had been approved by
the university’s Institutional Review Board. Those willing to participate were provided
with a link to a password-protected web survey to be completed by the third week of
class. At the end of the course, students completed the web survey a second time. Post-
surveys were not available to students until the penultimate week of the course to
ensure that required service-learning hours and accompanying assignments had been
completed. Pre- and post-responses were matched by the last four digits of a student
personal identification number (i.e., not a social security number). Incomplete surveys
and surveys without a pre- or post-match were removed from the sample.

Data analyses
Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine general information about the
data. The descriptive statistics were means and standard deviations of the pre- and
post-test scores of the dependent variables (DVs). In addition, descriptives and
frequencies of the demographic data were also run in order to describe the sample
and determine possible covariates. To answer the research question, multivariate
repeated measures were used to test whether there were any statistically significant
within-group differences over time on the dependent variables.
Repeated-measures MANCOVA was conducted with gender, ethnicity, previous
experiences with service-learning, teaching and interacting with persons with
disabilities, and students’ documented disability status as covariates. Box’s M value
of F(272, 8739.59) 1.193 (p 0.017 B0.05) revealed unequal variances among
groups. In this situation, more robust MANOVA test statistics (i.e., Pillai’s Trace)
was utilised when interpreting the MANOVA. Because no significant interactions
between the covariates and the DVs were found, repeated-measures MANOVA was
conducted to determine any significance in the over-time changes among the groups
on the TSE- and SLQ-dependent variables. Post hoc univariate tests were also
conducted to explore the within-group over-time changes as warranted.

Results
Descriptives
Participants’ scores on each sub-scale-dependent variable for both TSE and servant
leadership increased over the two measure points (i.e., pre- and post-test). Table 2
includes these scores and the over-time changes.
246 T. Stewart

Table 2. Pre-/post-means and differences by dependent variable (n 160).

Measure Pre-mean SD Post-mean SD Mean difference SD

Teacher sense of efficacy

Student engagement 60.956 8.903 64.006 6.596 3.050 7.424
Instructional strategies 61.176 9.398 64.182 6.755 3.006 8.050
Classroom management 60.239 9.214 63.755 6.547 3.516 7.672
Servant leadership
Altruistic calling 11.994 2.939 12.855 2.577 0.862 3.761
Emotional healing 12.258 2.536 12.981 2.520 0.723 3.820
Wisdom 15.239 3.177 15.742 2.957 0.503 4.380
Persuasive mapping 14.176 3.391 15.296 3.481 1.119 4.758
Organisational stewardship 16.597 3.046 17.157 2.850 0.560 4.368

Participants’ scores on the Student Engagement subscale increased by 3.05 points

from pre-test (M60.96) to post-test (M 64.01). Instructional Strategies scores
also increased by 3.01, from a mean of 61.18 on the pre-test to 64.18 on the post-test.
Classroom Management scores increased by 3.52 from pre-test (M 60.24) to post-
test (M63.76).
Servant Leadership sub-scale scores also increased. Altruistic Calling increased
by 0.87 points from pre-test (M 11.99) to post-test (M12.86). Emotional Healing
scores increased by 0.72 to a post-test mean of 12.98. Wisdom pre-test scores
(M15.24) increased by 0.50 points to 15.74 on the post-test. Persuasive Mapping
increased by 1.12 points from pre-test (M 14.18) to post-test (15.30). Organisa-
tional Stewardship pre-test scores (M16.60) increased by 0.56 points to 17.16 on
the post-test.

Multivariate analysis with repeated measures

A repeated measures MANOVA was used to analyse the multiple dependent
variables, over two measuring points to study the changes in the multiple outcome
measures over-time.
The analysis results confirmed an overall significant difference in between the
measures and measuring points (time DV) with Pillai’s Trace  0.214, multivariate
F(8, 151)  5.135 (p B0.0005) and h2 0.214. Estimated multivariate h2 which
indicates about 21% of the multivariable variance of the DVs is accounted for by
changes over time. Univariate within-group tests indicated that there are significant
over-time changes on six of the eight DV (Table 3).
Participants’ increased teacher sense of efficacy scores were extremely significant
at the 0.0005 level: student engagement, F(1, 159) 26.782, p B 0.0005 and
h2 0.145; instructional strategies, F(1, 159) 22.037, p B0.0005 and h2 0.122;
classroom management, F(1, 159) 33.375, p  B0.0005 and h2 .174.
While each dependent variable on the SLQ did increase over the two measuring
points, these changes were not all significant at the minimally acceptable 0.05 level.
Participants’ altruistic calling and persuasive mapping changes in scores were most
significant: altruistic calling, F(1, 159) 8.345, p0.004 and h2 0.050 and
 School Leadership & Management 247

Table 3. Within-group univariate tests for dependent variables (n160).

Measure Sum of Squares df Mean square F Significance h2

Teacher sense of efficacy

Student engagement 739.701 1 739.701 26.782 0.0005*** 0.145
Instructional strategies 718.503 1 718.503 22.037 0.0005*** 0.122
Classroom management 982.645 1 982.645 33.375 0.0005*** 0.174
Servant leadership
Altruistic calling 59.022 1 59.022 8.345 0.004** 0.050
Emotional healing 41.588 1 41.588 5.699 0.018* 0.035
Wisdom 20.126 1 20.126 2.098 0.150 0.013
Persuasive mapping 99.635 1 99.635 8.803 0.003** 0.053
Organisational 24.909 1 24.909 2.611 0.108 0.016
stewardship
*p B0.05; **pB0.005; ***pB0.0005.

persuasive mapping, F(1, 159) 8.803, p .003 and h2 0.053. Emotional healing
changes were also moderately significant F(1, 159) 5.699, p0.018 and h2 0.035.
In contrast, wisdom and organisational stewardship over-time increases were not
significant: wisdom, F(1, 159)  2.098, p 0.150 and h2 0.013 and organisational
stewardship, F(1, 159) 2.611, p .108 and h2 0.016.

Discussion
The current study sought to determine how undergraduate teacher education
students’ participation in service-learning activities would affect their TSE and sense
of servant leadership. Findings revealed that service-learners increased significantly
in each sub-scale of the TSE (e.g., student engagement, instructional strategies,
classroom management) and in three of the five SLQ servant leadership sub-scales
(e.g., altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping).
While significant results are promising, the low effect sizes, coupled with the lack
of a control group, caution us about drawing conclusions. The effect sizes are from
small to medium, which tells us that there are more than likely other variables/factors
at play, which may mediate the level of significance in future samples. Replication of
this study would provide further insight into the variables/factors.
Because teacher efficacy, servant leadership and service-learning have yet to be
investigated together, the following discussion will attempt to draw out key points
that are both unique and shared among these variables. First, an increase in altruistic
calling and emotional healing is not very surprising and echoes previous research
showing that service-learning participation has led to an increase in civic engagement
knowledge and awareness of societal issues (Melchior and Bailis 2002), respectful
attitudes and caring towards diverse groups (Hoover and Webster 2004; Terry and
Bohnenberger 2003; Yates and Youniss 1996), civic engagement and political efficacy
(Billig 2000; Billig, Root, and Jesse 2005; Hildreth 2000), sense of civic efficacy
(Kahne and Westheimer 2006; Morgan and Streb 2001) and longitudinal civic
participation (Youniss, McLellan, and Yates 1997).
248 T. Stewart

This increase can be attributed in part to the simple fact that volunteer service
was used as the means by which to engage students with persons with disabilities in
K-12 environments. They learn to see that each student is his/her own person. Their
learning style, speed and means of demonstration might be unique, but are still valid.
Personal interactions and even potentially feeling frustration on how they also had to
alter their own comfortable approaches to work with these students may help to
dissolve stereotypes. Also, course reflections and modules covered civic responsi-
bility, asking students to think specifically of their personal development as an
engaged citizen.
Second, persuasive mapping increases may be linked to participants’ engagement
in authentic settings and teacher tasks. They had to engage students with disabilities
in activities that either they or their host teacher designed. This involved having to
consider each individual’s needs, necessary accommodations and possible outcomes.
Service-learners also predominantly served in teams. Therefore, the influence that
each played within his/her group (i.e., leader vs. follower) may affect this variable as
well.
Through the lenses of social cognitive theory and teacher efficacy, experiencing
less stress from the demands of academic tasks can be associated with feeling more
efficacious and more likely to master a task (Schunk 2008). The preparation that
service-learners received may have, therefore, created a more positive, comfortable
and motivating effect on their physiological and emotional states. Students may have
been excited for their possible impact, approached the tasks with greater confidence
and earnestness, and taken greater pride than in their typical course assignments.
Service-learners who were challenged to develop their own projects or to take
responsible roles in and control over meaningful activities have reported an increased
sense of efficacy (Billig et al. 2005; Furco 2002).
Service-learners also experienced the on-going support of the college instructor,
the availability of the K-12 teacher to address questions and concerns and the
interactions of their fellow students who were engaged in a similar service-learning
activity. In essence, the service-learning designs created a triple safety net which
would lessen the stress factors which might hinder efficacy development. Arguably,
the more comfortable one is in a situation, the more likely efficacy is to increase.
While these sources were probable social persuasion influences, it should also be
noted that the encouragement received from the college instructor and peers was
likely perceived as an emotionally positive influence for the pre-internship students.
Knowing that they were not alone in their experiences and hearing supportive
comments by an educator they may have respected could have reinforced their beliefs
in their ability to perform teaching tasks in their host K-12 classrooms and in the
future independently.
Similarly, service-learners were afforded the opportunity to learn vicariously from
the experiences of their classmates and future colleagues. Modelled behaviour is a
fundamental part of observational learning. Completing authentic teacher activities
in the K-12 classrooms alongside a K-12 teacher potentially provided opportunities
for pre-service teachers to experience first-hand and watch experienced practitioners
throughout their visits. As a mentor and model of who the service-learners can
become, the host teacher was most likely accepted as a credible model and a plausible
source of persuasion. Service-learners were able to glean effective practices,
approaches and techniques used by experienced teachers. By seeing these approaches
 School Leadership & Management 249

in action, and the resulting outcomes, pre-internship students may feel more
confident in utilising the same approach later, even if they simply replicate what
the host teacher has modelled.
On the other hand, service-learners may also have noticed their host teacher
using an instructional strategy, classroom management approach or student
engagement technique that failed, or was in contrast to the best practices they had
learned in their college coursework. In the latter case, these future educators might
feel more confident in their abilities by knowing they should avoid certain
approaches that could negatively impact student learning or classroom ambiance.
In reflective discussions, the course instructor and students were able to share
experiences, react to situations and provide information or ideas to other students in
the class. Although each student might not have had a certain experience or
opportunity to practice a strategy themselves, hearing the steps, successes/failures
and lessons learned from their classmates and advice from the instructor could have
served as a vicarious learning experience and could have even been practised during
the service-learning experience. These possibilities parallel previous research which
demonstrated an increase in teacher efficacy when participants collaborated with
colleagues, including observing one another and offering feedback and guidance
(Henson 2001). Progress monitoring has similarly been linked to student efficacy
(Billig et al. 2005).
While the structure and processes of the service-learning project appear to
support the noted increase in TSE, the same elements may serve as a double-edged
sword vis-à-vis the wisdom and organisational stewardship variables of servant
leadership development. While service-learners’ scores on wisdom and organisational
stewardship did increase over time, these changes were not statistically significant.
Paired sample t-tests on individual items on these two sub-scales revealed that
students’ scores increased on each, and that no over-time changes in means were
significant. Therefore, we are unable to more clearly explain whether responses to
specific items cause a non-significant change over time.
At first glance, an insignificant change in wisdom, or one’s awareness of one’s
surroundings and ability to anticipate consequences, seems potentially negative.
After all, teachers are expected to have ‘withitness’ (Kounin 1970), or foresee
potential events before they happen so that they may proactively address them.
However, there are numerous variables that could affect one’s wisdom.
Echoing positive youth development literature and research on youth voice
(Fletcher 2004; Fredricks, Kaplan, and Zeisler 2001; Garvey, McIntyre-Craig, and
Myers 2000; Points of Light Foundation 2001), Stewart (2012) has criticised overly
structured service-learning programmes for removing too much control from
students so that they may develop a more external locus of control.
Wisdom, awareness and understanding of potential consequences are dependent
on one’s life experiences. Service-learners in this study were junior-level under-
graduates, who had declared education as their major the previous semester. Though
some students were non-traditional students, students were still relatively young.
While we cannot discount the quantity or quality of an individual’s life experiences
by lumping all students together, the issue of maturity and stage of development does
give us reason to pause when trying to interpret the wisdom findings.
Complementary to developmental stage is the social climate in which students
live and are raised. Millennial, or GenerationMe, learners have been characterised as
250 T. Stewart

self-concerned and goal oriented. They are products of ‘helicopter parents’, who may
have conditioned their children for dependence by buying them whatever the child
wanted and protecting them from social ills. Children in these cases were handed
everything and were not necessarily taught to rely on their own abilities. They missed
opportunities to develop self-direction, self-regulation and self-reliance at an early
age. Such learners, exacerbated by participation in a well-structured programme, may
look at experiential opportunities as items on a checklist that need to be completed,
rather than a particular role that they should assume or develop.
Another issue to consider is the application of the SLQ to non-industry settings,
and education specifically. Service-learners in this study were volunteering with
students with varying disabilities. Part of their learning was to acknowledge the
individuality and spectrum of disabilities that they might see in a general education
classroom. Compartmentalising students with disabilities is, therefore, unrealistic.
Hence, service-learners answering that they are unable to foresee future events might
be evidence of greater learning in these settings. Their eyes could be opened to more
differences, or variation, whereas they might have assumed greater homogeneity
before with general education students. This contrasts with industry leaders who
follow stocks and market trends. Service-learners’ ability to predict/foresee might be
dampened simply by the fact that the environmental cues are reliant on individual
human behaviours, which for persons with disabilities, can be mediated and further
complicated by medicine and involuntary muscle and brain activity.
Furthermore, service-learning practitioners and researchers might question how
we expect individuals to learn how to read an environment and make sense of its
clues, when they are most often introduced to a new setting and for a short period of
time. And they do not have a future setting on which to apply these experiences yet,
which limits the application of any noted variables or issues in a classroom to an
abstract future or space. It may be more likely that wisdom is more likely to correlate
with time spent in a specific environment.
The same can be said for organisation stewardship, or a person’s ethic of taking
responsibility for the well-being of the organisation so that it makes a positive
contribution to the community (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006). Organisational
stewardship assumes a leader’s connection
both philosophical and personal
to
the organisation. For the majority of service-learners, this may be improbable. For
example, service-learners are told up front that they are visitors to the community
organisation or school. Their hosts are gracious to host them and to work
collaboratively for the mutual benefit of all parties. Students are reminded to check
in to the organisation, dress appropriately and learn and respect the culture and
processes of the organisation. In short, they are visitors, not members of the
organisation at which they are serving. This is even symbolically represented in
various settings, particularly in schools, by their wearing of a ‘visitor’ name badge/
pass.
Furthermore, service-learners were to spend a minimum of 15 hours in service. It
would be surprising to ask new employees after three days of full-time work at a
business, for example, if they had ownership in their employer. Time becomes a
variable that is necessary to develop this connection. Depree (1995) reminds us that
servant leadership is not a simple concept to be learned or implemented with a small
amount of training. Rather, its development is contingent on how much it is ‘felt,
understood, believed, and practiced’ (Depree 1995, 9). So the development of ‘the
 School Leadership & Management 251

willingness to be accountable for the well-being of the larger organization by

operating in service’ (Block 1996, 6) might be naive. It would be interesting,
therefore, to look at teacher interns’ levels of organisational stewardship since they
spend upwards of 300 hours in a single location.
The wording of the SLQ potentially problematises measuring this outcome for
service-learners as well. For example, question number 23 asks students to what level
they feel that they are preparing the organisation to make a positive difference in the
future, and question number 15 uses the possessive adjective ‘our’ even though
service-learners are not members of that organisation. Finally, the use of the term
‘community’, which is a contentious, ambiguous term itself, does not apply to pre-
service teacher volunteers because they are just visitors.
With the above in mind, it may be argued that significant over-time changes are
not necessary or even expected on each sub-scale of the SLQ. Most notable here is
that service-learners increased on each measure, and significantly on all but two sub-
scales. Page and Wong (2000, 14), however, suggest that an ‘awakening or
conversion-like transformation’ may be necessary for an individual to learn to be
a servant leader. What is promising is that service-learning, when conceptualised like
the treatment in this study, may serve as the transformative experience necessary to
address different aspects of servant leadership and teacher efficacy individually or
simultaneously. Service-learning’s role as a transformative experience has been
documented in the literature broadly (Kiely 2004, 2005). These findings carry
additional importance given that the development of servant leadership character-
istics is a weak area in servant-leadership literature.
In line with previous commentary on servant leadership, we might look at these
experiences as establishing new frames of reference (Banutu-Gomez 2004) or a new
mental model, or scaffolding on to an existing schema on which future experiences
and identities may be built. Knicker (1998) has offered that servant leadership is a
journey that one never completes. Personal characteristics of a servant-leader are
intrinsic in nature, but able to be learned (Gardner 1990; Kouzes and Posner 1995;
Laub 2004; Ndoria 2004; Page and Wong 2000). We should be realistic that not
everyone is a servant leader as it relies on a commensurate value system (Kidder
1995; Polleys 2002). Therefore, we should not expect significant outcomes across the
board.

Notes on contributor
Trae Stewart, PhD, is an associate professor in the Education & Community Leadership
Program at Texas State University. Dr. Stewart can be contacted at traestewart@txstate.edu or
via www.traestewart.com.

References
Allinder, R.M. 1994. The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of
special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education 17, no.
2: 86
95.
Anderson, R., M. Greene, and P. Loewen. 1998. Relationships among teachers’ and students’
thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research 34, no. 2: 148
56.
252 T. Stewart

Armor, D., P. Conroy-Oseguera, M. Cox, N. King, L. McDonnell, A. Pascal, E. Pauly, and G.

Zellman. 1976. Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles
minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED130243) (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD).
Ashton, P. 1984. Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education 35, no. 5: 28
32.
Ashton, P.T., and R.B. Webb. 1986. Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student
achievement. New York: Longman.
Avolio, B.J., and E.E. Locke. 2002. Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation:
Altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly 13, no. 2: 169
91.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37, no. 2:
122
47.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist 28, no. 2: 117
48.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. 2000. Self-efficacy: The foundation of agency. In Control of human behaviour,
mental processes and consciousness, ed. W.J. Perrig and A. Grob, 17
33. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A., and D. Cervone. 1983. Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing
the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, no.
5: 1017
28.
Bandura, A., and D. Cervone. 1986. Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in
cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38, no. 1:
92
113.
Banutu-Gomez, M.B. 2004. Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant
leaders. Journal of American Academy of Business 4, nos. 1/2: 143
50.
Barbuto, J.E., and R.W. Scholl. 1999. Leader’s sources of motivation and perceptions of
follower’s motivation as predictors of leader’s influence tactics used. Psychological Reports
84, no. 3c: 1087
98.
Barbuto, J.E., and D.W. Wheeler. 2002. Becoming a servant leader: Do you have what it takes?
Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Nebraska Cooperative Extension. NebGuide
G02-1481-A.
Barbuto, J., and D. Wheeler. 2006. Scale development and construct clarification of servant
leadership. Group and Organization Management 31, no. 3: 300
26.
Bass, B. 1996. A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership.
Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute.
Bass, B.M. 2000. The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership
Studies 7, no. 3: 18
40.
Bechler, C., and S.D. Johnson. 1995. Leadership and listening: A study of member perceptions.
Small Group Research 26, no. 1: 77
85.
Berry, A., and S. Cartwright. 2000. Leadership: A critical construction. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 21, no. 7: 342
9.
Billig, S. 2000. The impacts of service-learning on youth, schools and communities: Research on
K-12 school-based service-learning, 1990
1999. Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation.
Billig, S.H., S. Root, and D. Jesse. 2005. The relationship between quality indicators of service-
learning and student outcomes: Testing professional wisdom. In Advances in service-learning
research: Improving service-learning practice: Research on models to enhance impacts, ed.
S. Root, J. Callahan, and S.H. Billig, 97
115. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Blanchard, K. 1995. Servant leadership. Executive Excellence 12, no. 10: 12.
Bliss, T.W. 2006. Servant leadership in k-12 distinguished teacher’s professional practice.
Dissertation Abstracts International 67, no. 9. (UMI No. ATT 3234486.)
Block, P. 1996. Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler.
 School Leadership & Management 253

Bridges, W. 1996. Leading the de-jobbed organization. In The leader of the future, ed.
F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, and R. Beckhard, 11
8. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bringle, R., and J. Hatcher. 1995. A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal
of Community Service-learning 2: 112
22.
Brownell, J. 2008. Exploring the strategic ground for listening and organizational effectiveness.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism 8, no. 3: 211
29.
Burley, W.W., B.W. Hall, M.G. Villeme, and L.L. Brockmeier. 1991. A path analysis of the
mediating role of efficacy in first-year teachers’ experiences, reactions, and plans. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April,
in Chicago, IL.
Cheng, Y.C. 1994. Teacher leadership style: A classroom-level study. Journal of Educational
Administration 32, no. 3: 54
71.
Clawson, J.G. 2003. Level three leadership. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Coladarci, T. 1992. Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
Experimental Education 60, no. 4: 323
37.
Crippen, C. 2005. The democratic school: First to serve, then to lead. Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy no. 47. http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/
articles/crippen.html (accessed August 9, 2008).
Crowther, F. 1996. Teacher leadership: Exploration in theory and practice. Leading and
Managing 2, no. 4: 304
21.
Crowther, F. 1997. The William Walker Oration 1996, Unsung heroes: The leaders in our
classrooms. Journal of Educational Administration 35, no. 1: 5
17.
Dacher, E.S. 1999. Loving openness and the healing relationship. Advances in Mind-Body
Medicine 15, no. 1: 32
43.
Daft, R.L. 2005. The leadership experience. 3rd ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
Danielson, C. 2007. The many faces of leadership. Educational Leadership 65, no. 1: 14
9.
Darling-Hammond, L. 1998. Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a
National Commission Report. Educational Researcher 27, no. 1: 5
15.
Darling-Hammond, L., and M. McLaughlin. 1995. Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 8: 597
604.
DeGraaf, D.G., C. Tilley, and L.L. Neal. 2001. Servant-leadership characteristics in
organizational life. Voices of servant-leadership series; booklet 6. Indianapolis, IN:
Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.
DePree, M. 1995. Forward. In Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory
of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers, ed. L.C. Spears, ix
x.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Dozier, T. 2002. Teachers must be leaders to improve student learning. The Education Digest
67, no. 6: 12
8.
Drury, S. 2005. Teacher as servant leader: A faculty model for effectiveness with students.
Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University. http://www.
regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/
2005/pdf/drury_teacher_servant.pdf (accessed November 20, 2005).
Druskat, V.U., and A.T. Pescosolido. 2002. The content of effective teamwork mental models
in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning, and heedful interrelating. Human Relations
55, no. 3: 283
314.
Ebmeier, H. 2003. How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An
investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision 18, no. 2: 110
41.
Elmore, R.F. 2000. Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Evans, E.D., and M. Tribble. 1986. Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment
to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research 80, no. 2: 81
5.
Fletcher, A. 2004. The youth voice movement: A new vision for the future, or a lost dream of
the past? The Generator 2, no. 3: 17
8.
Flippo, R.F., C. Hetzel, D. Gribonski, and L.A. Armstrong. 1993. Literacy, multicultural, and
sociocultural considerations: Student literacy corps and the community. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, April, in San Antonio, Texas.
254 T. Stewart

Fredricks, L., E. Kaplan, and J. Zeisler. 2001. Integrating youth voice in service-learning.
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/23/67/2367.htm.
Frost, D., and A. Harris. 2003. Teacher leadership: Towards a research agenda. Cambridge
Journal of Education 33, no. 3: 479
98.
Fry, L.W. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly 14, no. 6:
693
727.
Frymier, J. 1987. Bureaucracy and the neutering of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan 69, no. 1: 9
16.
Fullan, M.G. 2007. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Furco, A. 2002. Institutionalizing service-learning in higher education. The Journal of Public
Affairs VI, no. Suppl. 1: 39
63.
Gardner, J.W. 1990. On leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Gardner, W.L., B.J. Avolio, F. Luthans, D.R. May, and F.O. Walumbwa. 2005. Can you see the
real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership
Quarterly 16, no. 3: 343
72.
Garvey, J., C. McIntyre-Craig, and C. Myers. 2000. Youth voice: The essential element of
service-learning. In Embedding service-learning into teacher education: Issue briefs, ed.
C. Myers and M. Bellener. Indianapolis, IN: The Center for Youth as Resources.
Ghaith, G., and H. Yaghi. 1997. Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and
attitudes toward the implication of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher
Education 13, no. 4: 451
8.
Girard, S.H. 2000. Servant leadership qualities exhibited by Illinois public school district
superintendents. Dissertation Abstracts International 61, no. 5. (UMI No. AAT 9973347.)
Goddard, R.D., W.K. Hoy, and A. Woolfolk-Hoy. 2000. Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal 37, no. 2: 479
507.
Graham, J.W. 1991. Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership
Quarterly 2, no. 2: 105
19.
Grant, C., and M. Gillett. 2006. A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively preparing
teachers who teach everyone’s children. Journal of Teacher Education 57, no. 3: 292
9.
Green, J., R. Dalton, and B. Wilson. 1994. Implementation and evaluation of TEACH: A
service-learning program for teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association of Teacher Educators, February 12
16, in Atlanta, GA.
Greenleaf, R.K. 1970. Essentials of servant leadership. In Focus on leadership: Servant-
leadership for the 21st century, ed. L.C. Spears and M. Lawrence, 19
26. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Greenleaf, R.K. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R.K. 2002. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. 25th anniversary ed. New York: Paulist Press.
Greer, R.C., and W.R. Plunkett. 2007. Supervisory management. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Griffith, S.D. 2007. Servant leadership, ethics, and the domains of leadership. Presented at
Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, July, at Regent University. http://www.regent.
edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/griffith.pdf.
Guskey, T.R. 1984. The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective
characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 21, no. 2: 245
59.
Harris, A., and D. Muijs. 2003. Teacher leadership: A review of research. London: General
Teaching Council.
Henson, R.K. 2001. Effect of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching
and Teacher Education 17, no. 7: 819
36.
Herbst, J.D. 2003. Organizational servant leadership and its relationship to secondary school
effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International 64, no. 11. (UMI No. AAT 3110574.)
Herman, D.V., and M. Marlowe. 2005. Modeling meaning in life: The teacher as servant
leader. Reclaiming Children and Youth 14, no. 3: 175
8.
Hildreth, R. 2000. Theorizing citizenship and evaluating public achievement. Political Science
and Politics 33, no. 3: 627
32.
 School Leadership & Management 255

Hoover, T., and N. Webster. 2004. Modeling service learning for future leaders of youth
organizations. Journal of Leadership Education 3, no. 3: 58
62.
Hopkins, D. 1991. Changing school culture through development planning. In School
effectiveness research: Its messages for school improvement, ed. S. Riddell and S. Brown,
249
80. Edinburgh: HMSO.
Howell, J.M., and B.J. Avolio. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78, no. 6: 891
902.
Ilies, R., F.P. Morgeson, and J.D. Nahrgang. 2005. Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-
being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly 16, no. 3: 373
94.
Jennings, D.B. 2002. Those who would lead must first serve: The praxis of servant leadership
by public school principals. Dissertation Abstracts International 63, no. 4. (UMI No. AAT
3049171.)
Johnson, C. 2001. Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kahne, J., and J. Westheimer. 2006. The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a
democratic society. Political Science and Politics 39, no. 2: 289
96.
Katzenmeyer, M., and G. Moller. 2001. Awakening the sleeping giant. Helping teachers develop
as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kellett, J.B., R.H. Humphrey, and R.G. Sleeth. 2006. Empathy and the emergence of task and
relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 17, no. 2: 146
62.
Kidder, R.M. 1995. Universal human values: Finding an ethical common ground. In The
leader’s companion, ed. J.T. Wren, 500
8. New York: The Free Press.
Kiely, R. 2004. A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in international
service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 10, no. 2: 5
20.
Kiely, R. 2005. A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case
study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 12, no. 1: 5
22.
Knicker, C.M. 1998. The elementary school principal as servant leader. Dissertation Abstracts
International 59, no. 11. (UMI No. AAT 9913907.)
Kounin, J. 1970. Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Kouzes, J., and B. Posner. 1995. The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done
in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J.M., and B.Z. Posner. 2003. Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people
demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J.M., and B.Z. Posner. 2004. Christian reflections on the leadership challenge. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Krisko, M.E. 2001. Teacher leadership: A profile to identify the potential. Paper presented at the
Biennial Convocation of Kappa Delta Pi. (ERIC). Document Reproduction Services No.
ED459147.
Lambert, W.E. 2004. Servant leadership qualities of principals, organizational climate, and
student achievement: A correlational study. Dissertation Abstracts International 66, no. 2.
(UMI No. AAT 3165799.)
Laub, J. 2004. Defining servant leadership: A recommended typology for servant leadership
studies. In Proceedings of the servant leadership research roundtable. http://www.regent.edu/
acad/global/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2004/pdf/
laub_defining_servant.pdf (accessed September 12, 2006).
Lee, C., and R. Zemke. 1993. The search for spirit in the workplace. Training 30, no. 6: 21
8.
Leonard, N.H., L.L. Beauvais, and R.W. Scholl. 1999. Work motivation: The incorporation of
self-concept-based processes. Human Relations 52, no. 8: 969
98.
Lieberman, A., and A. Miller. 2004. Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lieberman, A., and L. Miller. 2005. Teachers as leaders. The Educational Forum 69, no. 2:
151
62.
Livovich, M.P. 1999. An investigation of servant-leadership in public school superintendents
in the state of Indiana. Dissertation Abstracts International 60, no. 6. (UMI No. AAT
9933559.)
Lloyd, B. 1996. A new approach to leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal
17, no. 7: 29
32.
256 T. Stewart

Luechauer, D., and G. Shulman. 2002. Creating empowered learners: A decade trying to
practice what we teach. Organization Development Journal 20, no. 3: 42
51.
Mayo, K.E. 2002. Teacher leadership: The master teacher model. Management in Education
16, no. 3: 29
33.
McAllister-Wilson, D. 2004. Reflections on inspire a shared vision. In Christian reflections
on the leadership challenge, ed. J.M. Kouzes and B.Z. Posner, 55
88. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
McMinn, D.L. 1989. The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in
the southern Baptist convention. Digital Dissertations, 3007038.
Melchior, A., and L. Bailis. 2002. Impact of service-learning on civic attitudes and behaviors
of middle and high school youth: Findings from three national evaluations. In Advances in
service-learning research, Vol. 1, Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy, ed. A. Furco
and S. Billig, 201
22. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Midgley, C., H. Feldlaufer, and J. Eccles. 1989. Changes in teacher efficacy and student self-
and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal
of Educational Psychology 81, no. 2: 247
58.
Miears, L.D. 2004. Servant-leadership and job satisfaction: A correlational study in Texas
education agency region x public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International 65, no. 9.
(UMI No. AAT 3148083.)
Millard, B. 2001. Servant-leadership*A needed Z-axis for two-dimensional leadership thinking.
Marion, IN: Life Discovery.
Morgan, W., and M. Streb. 2001. Building citizenship: How student voice in service-learning
develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly 82, no. 1: 154
69.
Mumford, D.M., and M.J. Strange. 2002. The origins of vision charismatic versus ideological
leadership. Leadership Quarterly 13, no. 4: 343
77.
Ndoria, J.L. 2004. Servant leadership: A natural inclination or a taught behavior. In
Proceedings of the servant leadership research roundtable. http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/
2004SLRoundtable/ndoria-joyce-2004SL.pdf (accessed October 5, 2004).
Nelson, L.P., K. Tice, and S. Theriot. 2008. Impact of service-learning on teachers’ efficacy.
Academic Exchange Quarterly 12, no. 3: 102
6.
Neuschel, R.P. 2005. The servant leader: Unleashing the power of your people. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Ojode, L.A., O. Walumbwa, and P. Kuchinke. 1999. Developing human capital for the
evolving work environment: Transactional and transformational leadership within an
instructional setting. Paper presented at the Midwest Academy of Management Annual
Meeting, August, in Chicago, IL.
Ortberg, N. 2004. Reflections on enable others to act. In Christian reflections on the leadership
challenge, ed. J.M. Kouzes and B.Z. Posner, 85
98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Page, D., and P.T.P. Wong. 2000. A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In
The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, ed. S. Adjibolosoo, 1
28.
Boston, MA: University Press of America.
Pajares, F. 1997. Current directions in self-efficacy research. In Advances in motivation and
achievement, ed. M. Maehr and P.R. Pintrich, Vol. 10, 1
49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Patterson, K. 2003. Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Paper presented at the Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable, August, at Regent University, School of Leadership
Studies.
Peck, M.S. 1995. Servant-leadership training and discipline in authentic community. In
Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced
today’s top management thinkers, ed. L. Spears, 87
98. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Points of Light Foundation. 2001. Youth voice in service-learning. http://www.servicelearning.
org/filemanager/download/two-page_fs/Youth_Voice_in_SL_FS_Short_Feb08.pdf.
Polleys, M.S. 2002. One university’s response to the anti-leadership vaccine: Developing
servant leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies 8, no. 3: 117
30.
Pounder, J.S. 2006. Transformational classroom leadership: The fourth wave of teacher
leadership? Educational Management Administration and Leadership 34, no. 4: 533
45.
Quay, J. 1997. On becoming a servant leader. Journal of Management Consulting 9, no. 3: 83
4.
 School Leadership & Management 257

Root, S., J. Callahan, and J. Sepanski. 2002. Building teaching dispositions and service-
learning practice: A multi-site study. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning 8,
no. 2: 50
60.
Ross, J.A. 1992. Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian
Journal of Education 17, no. 1: 51
65.
Rost, J.C. 1993. Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schunk, D. 1991. Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist 26, nos.
3
4: 207
31.
Schunk, D.H. 1995. Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In Self-efficacy, adaptation,
and adjustment: Theory, research, and application, ed. J.E. Maddux, 281
303. New York:
Plenum Press.
Schunk, D.H. 2001. Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, 2nd ed., ed. B.J. Zimmerman
and D.H. Schunk, 125
51. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D.H. 2008. Learning theories: An educational perspective. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Schunk, D.H., and F. Pajares. 2002. The development of academic self-efficacy. In
Development of achievement motivation, ed. A. Wigfield and J.S. Eccles, 15
31. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Schunk, D.H., and F. Pajares. 2004. Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied
evidence. In Big theories revisited, ed. D.M. Mcinerney and S. Van Etten, 115
38.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Sendjaya, S., and J.C. Sarros. 2002. Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and
application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies 9, no. 2: 57
64.
Sendjaya, S., J.C. Sarros, and J.C. Santora. 2008. Defining and measuring servant leadership
behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies 45, no. 2: 402
24.
Shahid, J., and D. Thompson. 2001. Teacher efficacy: A research synthesis. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 10
14, in
Seattle, WA.
Sherrill, J.A. 1999. Preparing teachers for leadership roles in the 21st century. Theory Into
Practice 38, no. 1: 56
61.
Shulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review 57, no. 1: 1
22.
Silva, D.Y., B. Gimbert, and J. Nolan. 2000. Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking
possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record 102, no. 4: 779
804.
Sims, B.J. 1997. Servanthood: Leadership for the third millennium. Cambridge, MA: Cowley.
Smith, B.N., R.V. Montagno, and T.N. Kuzmenko. 2004. Transformational and servant
leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies 10, no. 4: 80
91.
Snell, J., and J. Swanson. 2000. The essential knowledge and skills of teacher leaders: A search
for a conceptual framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, April, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Soodak, L., and D. Podell. 1993. Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special
education referral. Journal of Special Education 27, no. 1: 66
81.
Spears, L.C. 1995. Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-
leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Spears, L.C. 1998. Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and servant-leadership.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Spillane, J.P., R. Halverson, and J.B. Diamond. 2001. Investigating school leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher 30, no. 3: 23
8.
Stein, M.K., and M.C. Wang. 1988. Teacher development and school improvement: The
process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education 4, no. 2: 171
87.
Stewart, T. 2012. Postsecondary honors service-learning and effects on locus of control.
Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education 1: 70
86.
Stewart, T., K. Allen, and H. Bai. 2010. Service-learning and pre-internship teacher efficacy: A
comparison of two designs. In Research for what?: Advances in service-learning, ed.
J. Keshen, B. Moely, and B. Holland, 121
45. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
258 T. Stewart

Stewart, T., K. Allen, and H. Bai. 2011. The effects of service-learning participation on pre-
internship educators’ teacher sense of efficacy. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 57,
no. 3: 297
315.
Stone, A.G., R.F. Russell, and K. Patterson. 2003. Transformational versus servant leadership:
A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25, no. 4:
349
61.
Streiner, D.L. 2003. Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and
doesn’t matter. Journal of Personality Assessment 80, no. 3: 217
22.
Sturnick, J. 1998. And never the twain shall meet: Administrator-faculty conflict. In Mending
the cracks in the ivory tower: Strategies for conflict management in higher education, ed.
S.A. Holton, 97
112. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Tatum, J.B. 1995. Meditations on servant-leadership. In Reflections on leadership: How Robert
K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers, ed.
L.C. Spears, 308
12. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, T., B.N. Martin, S. Hutchinson, and M. Jinks. 2007. Examination of leadership
practices of principals identified as servant leaders. International Journal of Leadership in
Education 10, no. 4: 401
19.
Terry, A., and J. Bohnenberger. 2003. Fostering a cycle of caring in our gifted youth. Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education 15, no. 1: 23
32.
Thomas, D.J. 2007. A new lense: The relationship between teacher leadership style and
performance evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International 68, no. 3. (UMI No. AAT
3258026.)
Thompson, C.H. 2005. The public school superintendent and servant leadership. Dissertation
Abstracts International 66, no. 9. (UMI No. AAT3190501.)
Timperley, H.S. 2005. Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of
Curriculum Studies 37, no. 4: 395
420.
Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. Woolfolk-Hoy. 2001. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, no. 7: 783
805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., A. Woolfolk-Hoy, and W.K. Hoy. 1998. Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research 68, no. 2: 202
28.
Tsigilis, N., V. Grammatikopoulos, and A. Koustelios. 2007. Applicability of the teachers’
sense of efficacy scale to educators teaching innovative programs. International Journal of
Educational Management 21, no. 7: 634
42.
Van Brummelen, H.W. 2005. Teachers as servant leaders. Christian School Education 8, no. 3:
20
2.
Wade, R.C. 1995. Community service-learning in the University of Iowa’s elementary teacher
education program. In Integrating service-learning into teacher education: Why and how?, ed.
B. Gomez, 41
54. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Wallace, J.R. 2007. Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. International Journal of
Leadership Studies 2, no. 2: 114
32.
Walumbwa, F.O., and L.A. Ojode. 2000. Gender stereotype and instructors’ leadership
behavior: Transformational and transactional leadership. Paper presented at the Midwest
Academy of Management Annual Conference, March 30
April 1, in Chicago, IL.
Wasley, P. 1991. Teachers who lead. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wells, M.A. 2004. Servant leadership: A theological analysis of Robert K. Greenleaf’s concept
of human transformation. ProQuest Digital Dissertations 65, no. 2: 575. (UMI No. AAT
3124330).
Wilson, P.W. 2004. Transformational leadership theory and the effectiveness of the secondary
classroom teacher: Correlations of the multifactor leadership questionnaire and the
students’ evaluation of educational quality questionnaire. Dissertation Abstracts
International 65, no. 8. (UMI No. AAT3142995.)
Wolvin, A.D. 2005. Listening leadership: Hillary Clinton’s listening tour. The International
Journal of Listening 19: 29
38.
Woolfolk, A. 2001. Educational psychology. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Woolfolk, A. 2008. Educational psychology. Active learning edition. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
 School Leadership & Management 259

Woolfolk-Hoy, A., and H. Davis. 2006. Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the
achievement of adolescents. In Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, ed. F. Pajares and
T. Urdan, 117
38. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Yates, M., and J. Youniss. 1996. Community service and political-moral identity in
adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence 6, no. 3: 271
84.
York-Barr, J., and K. Duke. 2004. What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from
two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research 74, no. 3: 255
316.
Youniss, J., J. McLellan, and M. Yates. 1997. What we know about engendering civic identity.
American Behavioral Scientist 40, no. 5: 620
31.
Yukl, G. 2006. Leadership in organizations. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.