Asia Pacific Education Review

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09726-5

The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self‑efficacy:

a meta‑analytic review
Muslim Alanoglu1

Received: 7 April 2021 / Revised: 7 October 2021 / Accepted: 12 October 2021

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2021

Abstract
The study aims to disclose the relationship between principal’s instructional leadership (PIL) and teacher self-efficacy (TSE)
through a meta-analytical synthesis. The meta-analysis covers 24 studies, which represent 9178 teachers, and examines the
relationship between PIL and TSE. It was established that publication bias was not a significant problem in the study. The
random-effects model was used to measure the average effect size. The result demonstrated that a moderate relationship exists
between PIL and TSE. Additionally, subgroup analysis was performed according to the location of the studies and publication
types. Analysis revealed that the country where the research was conducted and publication type did not cause differentiation.
Moreover, the relationship between PIL behaviors and TSE beliefs illustrate that school principals can improve TSE beliefs
by exhibiting instructional leadership behaviors. In turn, student achievement can be improved by enhancing the classroom
behaviors of teachers through instructional leadership. Policymakers should be aware that school principals can increase the
professional development of teachers and the academic success of students through instructional leadership practices and
organize managerial training for school principals to improve their instructional leadership practices.

Keywords Instructional leadership · Self-efficacy · Teacher self-efficacy · Meta-analysis

Introduction psychological wellbeing, increased levels of job satisfaction

The skills that today’s students should acquire are continu-
ally changing. Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy
are increasingly needed to enable students to acquire the
required 21st century skills. In parallel, scholarly attention
to teacher self-efficacy (TSE) has recently increased (Zee
& Koomen, 2016). Previous studies noted the significant
effects of TSE on the effectiveness and practices of educa-
tion (Klassen & Tze, 2014). For example, it influences stu-
dent outcomes, such as academic self-efficacy (Ross et al.,
2001). It is correlated with student academic achievement
(Caprara et al., 2006; Mahasneh & Alwan, 2018; Shahzad
& Naureen, 2017; Zee & Koomen, 2016) and significantly
influences learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000). In addition,
it is a significant determinant of teaching quality and student
support (Holzberger et al., 2013). Moreover, several empiri-
cal studies proposed that TSE beliefs are correlated with
* Muslim Alanoglu
muslimalanoglu@gmail.com
1
Turkish National Police, Mersin, Turkey
and commitment, and low levels of stress and burnout (Aloe
et al., 2014; Caprara et al., 2006; Klassen & Chiu, 2011).
The main reason for the interest in TSE is that it influences
the potential of an educational organization to achieve its
outcomes, because teacher competence points to a robust
structure that affects student achievement (Fraser, 2014). In
addition, improving TSE can enhance the spiritual health,
job satisfaction, and performance of teachers (Bandura,
1977). Therefore, the significance of identifying school vari-
ables that can enhance TSE is undeniably important.
Studies that investigate the relationship between TSE and
educational leadership practices have recently increased,
and the results indicate that teaching leadership is a vitally
important indicator of TSE (Lentz, 2019; Sumiati &
Niemted, 2020). Hallinger (2011) stated that school prin-
cipals should demonstrate a powerful ability in the use of
instructional practices to improve schools in the current
century. In other words, instructional leaders can influ-
ence teachers to determine the school's direction, improve
the learning–teaching process, and coordinate classroom-
based strategies (Hallinger & Murphy, 2012). Previous
studies demonstrated that principals exert indirect effects on

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

students as a result of their effects on structures, processes,
and teachers (Hallinger et al., 1996). Other studies indicated
that principals’ instructional leadership (PIL) exert direct
and indirect effects on teaching practices (Bellibas et al.,
2020). Hallinger and Heck (1996) synthesized data that
correlated the leadership of school principals with student
achievement and presented empirical results that support
the relationship between PIL and student learning. For this
reason, the study infers that PIL practices will increase TSE
and will display an underlying ability to indirectly improve
student achievement.
Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework of the current research is based
on the relationship between PIL, which is associated with
the research on school improvement in recent years and aims
to improve teaching and learning in schools (Bellibas, 2014),
and TSE, which is positively related to student achievement
(Hallinger, 2011; Lentz, 2019; Liu et al., 2020). Instruc-
tional leadership can influence TSE perception by focus-
ing on the responsibility of principals to facilitate the tasks
and practices of teachers (Hallinger, 2005) and to engage
in activities that improve teaching and learning (Bellibas &
Liu, 2017). Liu et al. (2020) proposed that instructional lead-
ership practices are directly and indirectly related to TSE
and job satisfaction. Moreover, instructional leadership is
more critical than distributed leadership in increasing TSE.
In this context, the current research focuses on the relation-
ship between instructional leadership and TSE and draws
attention to how school principals can improve TSE through
instructional leadership practices.
TSE is an issue that has attracted considerable scholarly
attention; thus, several meta-analysis studies have been con-
ducted on this subject (e.g., Eells, 2011; Kasalak & Dağyar,
2020; Klassen & Tze, 2014). For example, Kasalak and
Dağyar (2020) concluded that a positive relationship exists
between TSE and job satisfaction, whereas Klassen and Tze
(2014) revealed a weak relationship between TSE and per-
sonality but a strong relationship between TSE and teaching
effectiveness. Eells (2011) mentioned that collective teacher
efficacy is strongly and positively related to student achieve-
ment. The results of these meta-analyses provide clues that
TSE is positively related to teacher performance and student
achievement. In contrast to the aforementioned studies, the
current study aims to reveal the relationship between school
PIL practices and TSE. Therefore, this study is based on the
argument that an indirect relationship exists between PIL
practices and student achievement. Kirk (2016) examined
the relationships between different types of leadership and
TSE. Four papers on PIL and TSE were included in this
research. However, the scope of the current study is more
13
M. Alanoglu
comprehensive due to the increase in the number of studies
conducted in recent years. In this manner, the current study
will make a significant contribution to the literature.
Establishing an empirical relationship between PIL and
TSE can improve the understanding of how these struc-
tures can enhance teaching and increase student achieve-
ment. Thus, it can provide practitioners with clues about
implementing PIL practices in schools. It can serve as a
reference for the professional development of teachers and
present unique results about the implications of the instruc-
tional behaviors of principals on education. In this sense, the
main objective of the study is to investigate the magnitude
of the relationship between PIL and TSE. For this reason,
this meta-analysis analyzed articles that focus on PIL and
TSE. Fackler and Malmberg (2016) and Rew (2013) pro-
posed that TSE may differ according to country, personal,
and class characteristics. Heck (1996) also concluded that
PIL practices could differ across cultures. Therefore, this
study verified whether the countries in which the studies
were conducted and the study types influenced the general
relationship between school PIL and TSE. We intend to
seeks answers to the following questions.
RQ1 What is the power of the relationship between PIL and
TSE?
RQ2 How do the countries studied and study type moderated
the relationship between PIL and TSE?
Literature review
Teacher self‑efficacy
Self-efficacy denotes personal faith in planning and perform-
ing actions required to accomplish determined goals (Ban-
dura, 1997). This faith is based on social cognitive theory
necessary to shape cognition through activities and emotions
(Bandura, 1982). Moreover, the theory suggests a second
type of expectation, that is, outcome expectation, which
differs from activity expectation (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998). Activity expectation is the faith that an individual
will organize the necessary actions to fulfill a particular task.
This result expectancy estimates the likely outcomes of an
individual performing a duty at a certain level of competence
(Bandura, 1986). Alternatively, self-efficacy beliefs increase
the effort to achieve goals, reinforce the strength required to
face difficulties, and influence thinking patterns and senti-
ments, which empower people to control their actions (Ban-
dura, 1997). A strong sense of effectiveness can improve
human success in many ways (Bandura, 1995). However,
self-efficacy may not always entirely echo a person's skills
and abilities, because perceived self-efficacy is related to
The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self‑efficacy: a meta‑analytic…
the belief that achievement is related to skills required under
different conditions instead of actual skills (Bandura, 1997).
In other words, holding a belief about a skill is as important
as having this skill for self-efficacy.
TSE is a psychological variable that can be described as
teachers’ judgments about their self-abilities toward their
jobs (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998); it is the belief or opin-
ion that one can influence an unmotivated student’s desire to
learn and to participate in learning (Bandura, 1977; Guskey
& Passaro, 1994). Moreover, self-efficacy belief is a deter-
mining factor in the use of knowledge and skills. Teachers
are expected to create high expectations for student learn-
ing. When teachers display an influential self-efficacy, they
encourage participation, use data to guide education, main-
tain a positive vision, and create and sustain high expecta-
tions, which are potent elements of high levels of achieve-
ment among students (Lentz, 2019). Tschannen-Moran
and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) stated that TSE influences the
educational strategies, perceptions, and class management
of teachers, which, in turn, influences student participation.
Teachers with high levels of competence also display high
levels of planning and organizational tendencies (Allinder,
1994).
TSE expresses the belief of teachers that they can suc-
cessfully cope with the responsibilities, liabilities, and
challenges linked to their vocational position (Caprara
et al., 2006). Many factors influence this belief. Teachers
who are more open to experience and conscience exhibit
a powerful sense of competence (Djigic et al., 2014). In
addition, self-improvement values are positively associated
with self-efficacy (Barni et al., 2019). Alternatively, many
studies provide evidence that school principals may play a
significant role in improving TSE perception (Rew, 2013;
Ross & Gray, 2006). Instructional leadership that centers on
the development of learning–teaching activities in schools
(Hallinger, 2012) is considered capable of improving the
teaching practices of teachers (Sebastian & Allensworth,
2012). Additionally, school principals can enhance teacher
competence through direct supervision and participation in
activities (Duyar et al., 2013). Thus, the study infers that
the influence of school principals on student achievement
is derived by supervising teaching and improving teacher
competence. The reason underlying this notion is that one
of the most potent areas in which school leaders can indi-
rectly contribute to student achievement is their impact on
TSE (Ross & Gray, 2006). School leaders come right after
teachers in influencing student achievement (Louis et al.,
2010). School principals can increase TSE by supporting
collaboration among teachers (Brieve, 1972). Furthermore,
instructional leaders can increase TSE by taking responsibil-
ity for the improvement in the educational abilities of teach-
ers (Bridges, 1967) and by holding them accountable for
student achievement (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
Instructional leadership
Path–goal theory by House (1996) forms the basis of the
instructional leadership approach. It is grounded on the
idea that managers set goals for subordinates and guides
and support them (House, 1996). Instructional leadership
is a form of directive leadership that centers on educa-
tional activities and transforms schools (Hallinger & Mur-
phy, 1985). Given the increase expectations for schools,
the main objective for the scholarly interest in educational
leadership is to create an accountable school system (Hal-
linger, 2005) and to set expectations to increase student
success (Gray, 2009). Instructional leaders are a coales-
cence of expertise and charisma that is culture-building
and goal-oriented. They set clear directions for the school,
encourages the involvement of stakeholders in school
development, and determines the strategies and activities
of the school according to its academic mission. Moreover,
instructional leadership focuses on the school principals'
concentration on the learning–teaching process and the
avoidance of time-consuming administrative and mana-
gerial duties (Brewster & Klump, 2005). Instructional
leaders encourage teachers to make decisions according
to student achievement or develop data instead of only
imprinting (Stronge et al., 2008). Furthermore, instruc-
tional leaders expect teachers to possess strong classroom
management skills and encourage them to use intelligent
educational technologies to improve the quality of learn-
ing. Therefore, successful principals intend to create a sup-
portive environment that facilitates learning for all staff
members (Hallinger & Hosseingholizadeh, 2020).
Conversely, instructional leadership aims to develop
the teaching profession and teachers, advance influential
teachers, and genuinely improve deep learning in schools
(Brauckmann et al., 2016). The actions of instructional
leaders include explaining the school's mission, guiding
the curriculum, and fostering a positive environment for
learning (Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;
Hallinger et al., 1983). As instructional leaders, principals
work directly with teachers and provide feedback on class-
room performance using various methods. In particular,
they focus on how teachers develop the learning–teaching
process (Stewart, 2006). A widely accepted notion is that
the success of PIL lies in its influence on student learning
through teacher practices (Hallinger & Hosseingholizadeh,
2020). This focus on learning and teaching activities is the
main element that distinguishes instructional leadership
from other models of leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Managing the curriculum and instruction, monitoring and
evaluating teachers and students, identifying learning and
teaching deficiencies, and developing corrective strategies
are among the requirements of instructional leadership.
This feature renders PIL extremely important for schools
13

whose primary objective is to effectively maintain learn-
ing–teaching activities.
Research demonstrates that PIL practices, school cli-
mate, and principal and teacher competence significantly
influence student achievement (Jalapang & Raman, 2020).
In other words, school leaders positively contribute to the
professional development of teachers, school effectiveness,
and student success through the effect of PIL behaviors on
TSE (Caprara et al., 2012; Kurt et al., 2012), which leads
to an important differentiation in teacher effectiveness
(Teddlie et al., 1989). Hallinger et al. (2020) presented
the effects of leadership on teacher behaviors and practices
in a compilation study that spanned nearly 60 year. The
authors disclosed that the connection between PIL and
TSE significantly increased in recent years. These results
suggest the importance of PIL in terms of TSE and in the
improvement of teaching. Thus, principals as instructional
leaders also define the mission of the school and manage
the curriculum.
Relationship between principal’s instructional
leadership and teachers’ self‑efficacy
The increasing interest in instructional leadership and TSE
has led to an increase in the number of studies that investi-
gate the relationship between these two variables (e.g., Bel-
libas & Liu, 2017; Dale et al., 2011; Fackler & Malmberg,
2016; Gallante, 2015; Hallinger et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020;
Musa et al., 2020; Rew, 2013). Such studies have provided
comprehensive results on the relationship of instructional
leadership with self-efficacy and teacher performance (Her-
awati & Tjahjono, 2020).
These studies pointed to the positive relationship between
instructional leadership and TSE with regard to instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student participation.
Furthermore, many scholars proposed that the leadership of
school administrators and instructional leadership are associ-
ated with classroom activities, teaching practices, and TSE,
and that PIL improves teacher practices (Bellibas & Liu,
2017; Bellibas et al., 2020; Fackler & Malmberg, 2016).
Duyar et al. (2013) concluded that PIL practices can change
the perceptions of teachers about their ability to achieve. In
addition, scholars cited that instructional leadership encour-
ages teachers' participation in mentoring, peer observation,
and coaching (Kim & Lee, 2019). Contributions to teacher
development demonstrate that PIL can develop TSE. Addi-
tionally, perceptions of self-efficacy may increase when
school principals exhibit appreciation of teachers and note
their achievements. Lastly, TSE influences the quality of
knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that students acquire.
For this reason, increasing teacher efficacy and self-efficacy
perception may further the success of education.
13
M. Alanoglu
Method
This study was guided by the American Psychological Asso-
ciation (2018) Meta-Analysis Reporting Standard. The steps
followed are those presented in their order.
Search strategies
Multiple search methods were used to determine the studies
that investigated the relationship between PIL characteristics
and TSE. Initially, articles and dissertations were searched
through online databases, such as Google Scholar, Web of
Science, Educational Resources Information Center, and
ProQuest. After exploring the databases, the reference lists
of the selected studies were reviewed to identify additional
studies. A wide variety of peer-reviewed and unreviewed
studies were examined to reduce the effects of potential
biases that support key findings. Therefore, unpublished dis-
sertations were also examined and included. In this manner,
publication bias can be minimized by providing broadcast
diversity (Rothstein et al., 2005). In the online databases,
the terms instruction, leadership, instructional leadership,
teacher, efficacy, and self-efficacy were used as key words.
To obtain the most number of studies, these databases
were searched without a date limit. The review was focused
on studies conducted in the last 20 years (between 2000 and
2020), because studies on TSE were generally based on the
TSE Scale developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk
Hoy (2001). The search procedures yielded 67 potential
studies. Out of these studies, 49 were articles and 18 were
dissertations. Some selection criteria were used to determine
whether these identified studies were suitable for further
analysis.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
First, we determined whether the identified studies were
written in English. At this stage, five studies were elimi-
nated as only their abstracts were in English. The remain-
ing 62 studies were then examined in terms of whether
they evaluation TSE with PIL. A study had to include
(a) the use of quantitative questionnaires for data collec-
tion, (b) information on the size of the sample group, (c)
a correlation coefficient or standardized linear regression
coefficient to establish the relationship between PIL and
TSE, and d) the calculation of the coefficients for the over-
all scale of PIL and TSE. Although eight studies met the
exclusion and inclusion criteria, they employed multiple
regression or path coefficients as the effect coefficient and
did not report the correlation coefficients. E-mails were
sent to the corresponding authors to share this information.
The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self‑efficacy: a meta‑analytic…
However, no responses were received despite reminder
e-mails sent 2 weeks later. Thus, these studies were
excluded because converting multiple regression coeffi-
cients and path coefficients into Pearson’s correlation coef-
ficients and using them in a meta-analysis constitute an
incorrect approach (Aloe, 2015). After screening, a total
of 24 studies, including 16 articles and eight dissertations,
contained the information required for inclusion.
Coding procedures
Each study was coded in a table with the publication year,
author(s), sample size, country in which the study was
conducted, publication type, scales used, and correlation
coefficient. During the coding, an academician from the
field of measurement and evaluation in education and a
doctoral student from education administration separately
coded and compared the selected studies. Differences in
coding form were identified, and a meeting was held with
the coders to review these differences until a consensus
was reached and the final version of the form was deter-
mined (Online Appendix A). In this manner, this study
ensured coding reliability.
Fig. 1  Forest plot for the meta-analysis using the random-effects model
Statistical methods
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA) was used
for analysis. Initially, Pearson's coefficient between variables
was transformed into Fisher's z, and analysis was performed
with this value. Afterward, the obtained effect sizes were
converted to Pearson's coefficient (r), which was inter-
preted as the effect size. This transformation of correlation
coefficients is commonly advised for comparison during a
meta-analysis (Borenstein et al., 2011). In interpreting the
effect size converted to Pearson's r, this study employed the
classification proposed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) (r val-
ues < 0.1, medium to 0.4, and > 0.4). To calculate the overall
effect size, the effect size per study was calculated to meet
the independence assumption (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
Figure 1 depicts a forest plot that demonstrates the effect
sizes, sample sizes, z values, and 95% confidence intervals
(CIs). After computing for the overall effect size, it was
decomposed to investigate the potential moderator effects
of the selected studies. Moderator analysis was performed
for the country and publication type (dissertation or article)
subgroups.
Q statistics and I2 (%) values were calculated for the
heterogeneity test. The random-effects model was utilized
13
 M. Alanoglu

for the relationships based on the heterogeneity tests to
measure the weighted average effect size. The random-
effects statistical model prefers heterogeneity in effects. It
is also more fitting than the fixed-effect statistical model,
which presumes homogeneity of group impacts (Klassen
& Tze, 2014). The results of a funnel plot, the Begg’s and
Mazumdar rank correlations test, Rosenthal's safe N-test
and Egger’s linear regression test were evaluated to deter-
mine whether publication bias influenced the results of the
selected studies. To evaluate potential outliers, an exclu-
sion sensitivity analysis was performed (Knaup et al.,
2009). After omitting studies according to the results of
the tests, the overall effect size for all studies remained
statistically meaningful. Thus, the 24 studies were retained
and included in further analysis.
Results
Overview
The selected studies were published between 2002 and
2020 with a total sample size of 9178 teachers. In terms of
the type of study, 16 and 8 were articles and dissertations,
respectively. According to location, eight, six, four, three,
and three studies were conducted in the United States,
China, Turkey, Malaysia, and other countries (i.e., Paki-
stan, Indonesia, and the Philippines), respectively. Online
Appendix A presents the features of the selected studies,
such as the sample, correlation coefficients, and scales
used to measure PIL and TSE.
Analysis of effect sizes
The forest plot in Fig. 1 indicates the weighted point estima-
tion of the effect sizes and 95% CIs of the selected studies.
It also displays the overall effect size (Klassen & Tze, 2014)
at 0.414 (0.364 ≦ Cls ≦ 0.465; z value = 16.213, p < 0.001)
in terms of Fisher's z. When converting Fisher's z to Pear-
son’s moment correlation coefficient, a moderate effect was
observed (r = 0.392). Table 1 presents the heterogeneity val-
ues of the effects of the selected studies.
Table 1 indicates that Cochran's Q heterogeneity was cal-
culated to investigate whether the selected studies measured
the same effect. Meaningful test results (Q23 = 117.595,
p < 0.001) rejected the null hypothesis of a common effect
size. Another heterogeneity test, namely, I2, which is not
influenced by the number of studies, was calculated. Results
indicated I2 as 80.441%, which implies that a large propor-
tion of variability exists among studies. The results of the Q
and I2 tests supported the investigation of potential variables
that could cause the heterogeneity of the effect sizes.
Analysis of moderator variables
Table 2 presents the relationships of the subgroups taken as
moderator variables.
In Table 2, the study number of subgroups (k), vari-
ance (v), effect size (Fisher's z) and lower and upper limits
for 95% CIs are shown. The effect size for each study was
decomposed. Moreover, whether the overall effect size dif-
fered according to countries and publication type was tested.
A moderator analysis performed by country revealed that the
weakest effect size was found for studies conducted in the

Table 1  Heterogeneity of the Model Effect size and 95% CI Heterogeneity

effects of the selected studies
k Point Lower limit Upper limit z p Q df (Q) p I2

Fixed 24 0.420 0.399 0.440 40.071 0.000 117.595 23 0.000 80.441

Random 24 0.414 0.364 0.465 16.213 0.000

Table 2  Relationships between Subgroup k Fisher’s z %95 CI v Z p Test of Heterogeneity

PIL and TSE by subgroup
Lower limit Upper limit Q df(Q) p

Country of origin of studies 7.280 4 0.122

United States 8 0.357 0.267 0.447 0.001 7.756 0.000
China 6 0.401 0.318 0.483 0.000 9.528 0.000
Turkey 4 0.409 0.305 0.513 0.001 7.705 0.000
Malaysia 3 0.420 0.273 0.567 0.002 5.608 0.000
Others 3 0.569 0.441 0.696 0.001 8.731 0.000
Type of study 0.243 1 0.622
Article 16 0.422 0.362 0.482 0.001 13.849 0.000
Dissertation 8 0.393 0.296 0.491 0.002 7.882 0.000

13
The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self‑efficacy: a meta‑analytic…
United States at a medium level (k = 8, Fisher's z = 0.357,
r = 0.343), whereas the strongest effect size was observed
for studies conducted in other countries (i.e., Pakistan, Indo-
nesia, and the Philippines) at a high level (k = 3, Fisher's
z = 0.569, r = 0.515). Among the selected studies, the effect
sizes of six studies in China, four studies in Turkey, and
three studies in Malaysia were 0.401 (r = 0.381), 0.409
(r = 0.388), and 0.420 (r = 0.397), which were at a medium
level. Conversely, a Q value of 7.280 indicated that the dif-
ference between the effect sizes according to country of ori-
gin was not meaningful (p = 0.122). Furthermore, modera-
tor analysis was performed according to study type, which
revealed that the 16 articles and eight dissertations displayed
effect sizes at a medium level (0.422, r = 0.399 and 0.393,
r = 0.374, respectively). A Q value of 0.243 indicated that
the differentiation between effect sizes according to study
type was not meaningful (p = 0.622). Furthermore, the sub-
group analysis revealed that the results that could be inter-
preted as an indicator of the structural homogeneity of the
group. Given the available empirical evidence and despite
the small differences between these structures, they all sug-
gest the basic idea that the relationship between PIL and
TSE is medium and positive.
Assessment of publication bias
The publication bias of a selected study was assessed using
several methods. First, the funnel plot was verified, which
provides a visual indicator of publication bias. Figure 2 pre-
sents the funnel plot for the selected studies.
A scatter plot should be symmetrical in the absence of
publication bias, whereas asymmetry may be an indicator
Fig. 2  Funnel plot for meta-analysis
of potential bias. However, an apparent bias can be clarified
using other elements, such as genuine heterogeneity and luck
(Egger et al., 1997). The funnel plot in Fig. 2 indicated sym-
metrical symptoms. However, the fact that several studies lie
outside the funnel suggested that publication bias should be
examined in detail. Toward this end, this study employed
Egger's regression test. The result of Egger’s test produced
a coefficient of − 0.37 (− 2.80 ≦ CIs ≦1.17; t = 0.32; t = 22;
p = 0.75; p > 0.05) with non-significant values, which indi-
cates that publication bias is not an issue. Rosenthal's fail-
safe N-test was performed to estimate the number of studies
with non-significant results, which are required to reduce
significance to p = 0.05 (Rosenthal, 1979). This test demon-
strated that 8,258 studies are required to reduce the signifi-
cance of the results of the meta-analysis to p = 0.05. Finally,
the tau coefficient acquired using Begg’s and the Mazumdar
rank correlation tests is non-significant (τ = 0.01; p > 0.05).
Once again, this result is an indicator that publication bias
is not an issue (Dincer, 2014; Sen & Yıldırım, 2020). When
evaluated together, these results clearly indicate that publica-
tion bias is not a vitally important element that may influ-
ence the results of the current study.
Discussion
The main objective of the current study is to reveal the
relationship between PIL and TSE through a meta-analytic
synthesis. By examining a total of 24 studies that met the
exclusion and inclusion criteria, the study concluded that
the overall effect size of the relationship between PIL and
TSE was medium (r = 0.392). This result indicates that a
13

moderate and positive correlation exists between PIL and
TSE. The literature frequently present similar results regard-
ing the positive and direct relationships between PIL and
TSE (Bellibas & Liu, 2017; Duyar et al., 2013; Gallante,
2015; Hallinger et al., 2018; Lentz, 2019). PIL practices
influence teachers' trust in teaching (Sumiati & Niemted,
2020). Gallante (2015) proposed that teachers who perceive
their principals' instructional practices in a positive man-
ner improve self-efficacy with respect to teaching strategies
and student management. However, contrary to the common
results in the literature, obtaining results that indicate the
absence of real evidence of the notion that the instructional
management practices of a principal influences the sense of
efficacy of a teacher is possible (Dale et al., 2011; Lentz,
2019).
PIL practices can increase teacher productivity by devel-
oping teachers and building TSE in terms of pedagogy,
classroom management, and student participation (Bel-
libas & Liu, 2017). In other words, a principal's behavior
significantly influences classroom participation, pedagogy,
and classroom management (Gallante, 2015). Evidence con-
firms that PIL practices can lead to changes in TSE through
the development of teaching strategies (Duyar et al., 2013).
PIL, in which the principal focuses on learning–teaching
processes, supports the forces and attitudes that influence
the school-related situations of teachers. Thus, this study
infers that TSE is enhanced and influences the development
of the learning–teaching process. High levels of self-efficacy
perception and competency are vital to the improvement of
instruction, as teachers are not only implementers of the cur-
riculum and education programs but also the dominant fac-
tor in classroom processes. Instructional leaders who take
the responsibility of teaching along with the teachers fun-
damentally strive to improve learning–teaching processes.
As an instructor, the principal directly intervenes in learn-
ing–teaching activities and prioritizes this process. In addi-
tion, the principals' instructional practices foster increased
commitment and satisfaction among teachers (Alig-Miel-
carek, 2003).
Instructional leaders can make their presence felt in the
teaching process and evaluate students by following the
teaching process and supervising classes (Sahin, 2011).
Principals who supervise and evaluate the teaching process
can provide teachers with concrete feedback about classroom
practices (Gumuseli, 2001), which, thus, contributes to the
professional development of teachers and positively influ-
encing their self-efficacy. Alig-Mielcarek (2003) concluded
that teachers become increasingly confident in their teach-
ing abilities when the principal identifies and communicates
shared goals, encourages collaboration, and provides feed-
back on the learning–teaching process. Ware and Kitsantas
(2007) revealed that feedback from the school principal is
significant for TSE. Moreover, Hallinger (2011) stated that
13
M. Alanoglu
principals can increase the capacity of teachers to improve
learning through cooperation. Evidence demonstrates that
instructional leadership exerts influence on several aspects
of teacher efficacy and should be included in the training and
development programs for principals (Gallante, 2015). Thus,
policymakers should adhere to the instructional leadership
exhibited in schools and conduct evaluations on whether
instructional leadership improves teaching practices. As
such, policymakers should be aware of the instructional role
of principals for the successful implementation of the cur-
riculum and teaching and to ensure the quality of educational
reforms.
Active cooperation with teachers in educational pro-
grams, teaching processes, and assessment–evaluation
processes through PIL roles forms part of the collaboration
between instructional school leaders and teachers (Marks
& Printy, 2003). As a result, principals and teachers share
responsibility for the evaluation of instructional tasks,
program development, and teacher development. Alig-
Mielcarek (2003) proposed that PIL abilities influence the
school's climate, which shapes the behaviors of teachers and
learning experiences that foster learning among students.
However, Dale et al. (2011) argued that TSE does not play a
mediating role in the effect of PIL on student achievement.
Moderator analysis conducted with the country subgroup
revealed that studies with the highest effect sizes between
PIL and TSE were conducted in Pakistan, Indonesia, and
the Philippines, which belong under the other countries cat-
egory, followed by Malaysia, Turkey, China, and the United
States. For studies conducted in the other countries sub-
group, the effect size between PIL and TSE is high. In all
other subgroups, it is at a medium level. However, this study
observed no significant difference among the subgroups.
In other words, the results were homogeneous according
to country and indicate that the relationship between PIL
and TSE yields similar results across cultures and educa-
tional systems. Liu et al. (2020) conducted a study using
data collected from various countries and noted that PIL
was associated with TSE. Moreover, Rew (2013) used data
collected from 21 countries and revealed that PIL practices
were related to TSE beliefs. Simply put, the literature sup-
ports the results of the current meta-analysis. The results of
the Programme for International Student Assessment (2012)
demonstrated that the levels of educational leadership prac-
tices in Canada are higher than the average of the Organiza-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development (2015).
In addition, educational policy or cultural differences can
be used to elucidate a significant part of TSE variance. For
instance, Bellibas and Liu (2017) reported that the relation-
ship between PIL and TSE dramatically decreased according
to country.
According to the publication type of the selected stud-
ies, the effect size did not significantly differ. The effect
The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self‑efficacy: a meta‑analytic…
size of the dissertations was smaller than that of the arti-
cles. The main reason for this finding is that seven of the
dissertations were conducted in the United States, which
was found to be the country with the lowest effect size in
terms of the relationship between PIL and TSE. Alter-
native, several fundamental differences were observed
between the articles and dissertations, which may influ-
ence the results of the studies. Dissertations pertain to
work at the undergraduate level and are not peer-reviewed
publications. However, they require approval from a jury.
Therefore, the results are more likely biased. For the
articles, we can infer that the results are more impartial,
because they underwent a peer review process. Therefore,
dissertation results may be more biased, such that using
them as scientific resources for research may lead to cer-
tain drawbacks.
Conclusion
The positive relationship between PIL behaviors and TSE
beliefs indicates that principals may develop TSE beliefs
through PIL behaviors. Principals who aim to improve their
schools and student learning should observe such instruc-
tional leadership practices. Moreover, particular attention
should be given to PIL practices, because teachers highlight
the importance of PIL in improving the academic achieve-
ment of students (Hallinger, 2011). Guidance from instruc-
tional leaders can enhance the professional development
of teachers and, thus, increase their self-efficacy beliefs. In
this regard, policymakers should encourage school princi-
pals to be instructional leaders, enter classrooms, observe
instruction, and provide teachers with feedback. In addition,
the development of TSE should be considered for prac-
tices targeted toward increasing professional competence.
Many researchers have concentrated on TSE beliefs and
their effects on student achievement and revealed that TSE
positively influences student achievement and attitude. In
addition, TSE is directly related to the teacher's classroom
behavior, openness to new opinions, and the development
of positive approaches toward education (Tschannen-Moran
et al., 1998). Hence, PIL practices can significantly influ-
ence the school's learning climate and student achievement
through TSE. In other words, principals can influence TSE
beliefs and student achievement through instructional behav-
iors and promote the development of teachers' ideas related
to their potential to influence student learning (Liu et al.,
2020). As a result, teachers believe that instructional lead-
ership behaviors are directly related to their efficacy beliefs
about the teaching profession. Finally, the development of
TSE should be considered for practices related to increasing
professional competence.
Limitations and Suggestions
One limitation of this study is that only studies published
in English were included and only specific databases were
searched. This limitation should be taken into account
when evaluating the current results. Moreover, tests con-
ducted to verify publication bias provided significant sup-
port for the validity of the study. However, the authors who
were sent e-mails regarding the lack of access to their full
texts or correlation coefficients, did not return information,
which led to their exclusion. This scenario is another limi-
tation of the study. In addition, a significant sample size
was achieved with studies from seven countries. However,
studies conducted in countries with different educational
systems and policies were excluded, which is considered
another limitation. Studies were mainly included based on
the cross-sectional method. For this reason, the results do
not confirm a causal effect, although they point to a posi-
tive relationship between PIL and TSE beliefs. In other
words, a conclusion that states that one variable is the
cause of the other cannot be drawn. However, these limi-
tations do not detract from the value and consequences of
the study. In contrast, this meta-analysis is a significant
study that provides a synthesized evidence of the rela-
tionship between PIL and TSE. In this sense, this study is
novel in that it is the first conducted in this area.
The fact that PIL is positively related to TSE may serve
as reference for policymakers and practitioners in devel-
oping educational policies that will enable principals to
gain the skills necessary to put their instructional leader-
ship practices to work. Thus, priority may be given to the
improvement of instructional leadership behaviors during
pre-service and in-service training. Moreover, principals
should be aware of the effects of instructional leadership
practices on the professional development of teachers and
the academic achievement of students and implement such
practices in their schools. Lastly, comprehensive studies
should be conducted on the understanding and implemen-
tation of PIL in the school setting and the effects of PIL
behaviors and strategies on student achievement through
TSE.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 12564-0​ 21-0​ 9726-5.
References
*References marked with an asterisk indicate
studies included in the meta‑analysis
*Ali, N. (2017). Teachers’perceptions of the relationship between
principals’instructional leadership, school culture and school
13

effectiveness in secondary schools in Pakistan. PhD Disserta-
tions, University of Malaya.
Alig-Mielcarek, J. M. (2003). A model of school success: Instructional
leadership, academic press, and student achievement. PhD Dis-
sertations, The Ohio State University.
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the
instructional practices of special education teachers and con-
sultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95.
Aloe, A. M. (2015). Inaccuracy of regression results in replacing
bivariate correlations. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(1), 21–27.
Aloe, A. M., Amo, L. C., & Shanahan, M. E. (2014). Classroom man-
agement selfefficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 26, 101–126. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1007/​s10648-​013-​9244-0
American Psychological Association (2018). American Psychologi-
cal Association Meta‐Analysis Reporting Standards. Modified
from Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta‐analysis:
A step‐by‐step approach (4th ed., Applied Social Research Meth-
ods Series, Vol. 2). Sage.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav-
ior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/​0146-​6402(78)​90002-4
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. PrenticeHall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in
changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self efficacy in changing
societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. Free-
man Press.
Barni, D., Danioni, F., & Benevene, P. (2019). Teachers’ self-efficacy:
The role of personal values and motivations for teaching. Fron-
tiers in Psychology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2019.​01645
Bellibas, M. S. (2014). A mixed-method approach to the exploration of
principals' instructional leadership in lower secondary schools
in Turkey: The principal and teacher perspectives. PhD Disserta-
tion, Michigan State University.
Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2017). Multilevel analysis of the rela-
tionship between principals’ perceived practices of instruc-
tional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Jour-
nal of Educational Administration. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
JEA-​12-​2015-​0116
Bellibas, M. S., Polatcan, M., & Kilinc, A. C. (2020). Linking instruc-
tional leadership to teacher practices: The mediating effect of
shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​17411​43220​945706
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R.
(2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
Brauckmann, S., Feldhoff, T., & Pashiardis, P. (2016). Instructional
leadership in Germany: An evolutionary perspective. Interna-
tional Studies in Educational Administration, 44(2), 5–20.
Bridges, E. (1967). Instructional leadership: A concept re-examined.
Journal of Educational Administration, 5(2), 136–147.
Brieve, F. J. (1972). Secondary principals as instructional leaders.
NASSP Bulletin, 56(368), 11–15.
Brewster, C. & Klump, J. (2005). Leadership practices of successful
principals. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
*Cadungog, M. C. (2015). The mediating effect of professional
development on the relationship between instructional leader-
ship and teacher self-efficacy. International Journal of Novel
Research in Education and Learning, 2(4), 90–101.
*Calik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H., & Cagatay Kilinc, A. (2012).
Examination of relationships between instructional leadership
of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective
13
M. Alanoglu
teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,
12(4), 2498–2504.
*Cansoy, R., & Parlar, H. (2018). Examining the relationship
between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors,
teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550–567.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJEM-​04-​2017-​0089
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosocial-
ity: The contribution of traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs.
Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 102(6), 289–303.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006).
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfac-
tion and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school
level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473–490. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jsp.​2006.​09.​001c
*Coban, O., Ozdemir, N., & Bellibas, M. S. (2020). Trust in princi-
pals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, and
teacher self-efficacy: Testing a multilevel mediation model.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​17411​43220​968170
Dale, A., Phillips, R., & Sianjina, R. R. (2011, April). Influences
of instructional leadership, transformational leadership and
the mediating effects of self-efficacy on student achievement.
In American Institute of Higher Education 6 th International
Conference Proceedings, 4, (pp. 91–100), 6–8 April.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achieve-
ment. Education Policy Analysis Archives. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
14507/​epaa.​v8n1.​2000
Dincer, S. (2014). Applied meta-analysis in educational sciences (In
Turkish). Pegem Academy.
Djigic, G., Stojiljkovic, S., & Doskovic, M. (2014). Basic personality
dimensions and teachers’ self-efficacy. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 112, 593–602. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
sbspro.​2014.​01.​1206
*Dou, D., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2016). The effects of autonomy
gap in personnel policy, principal leadership and teachers’
self-efficacy on their organizational commitment. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 17(2), 339–353.
Duyar, I., Gumus, S., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). Multilevel analysis
of teacher work attitudes. International Journal of Educational
Management, 27(7), 700–719.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias
in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ,
315(7109), 629–634.
Eells, R. J. (2011). Meta-analysis of the relationship between collec-
tive teacher efficacy and student achievement. PhD Disserta-
tions, Loyola University Chicago.
Fackler, S., & Malmberg, L. E. (2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy in 14
OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leader-
ship effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 185–195.
*Flimban, R. A. (2019). A Study of the impact of instructional lead-
ership on elementary teacher efficacy. PhD Dissertation, Mis-
sissippi College.
Fraser, L. E. (2014). Teacher efficacy beliefs: How general teachers feel
towards English language learners. Master’s Thesis, Marshall
University.
Gallante, P. E. (2015). Principal leadership behaviors and teacher effi-
cacy. PhD Dissertations, Walden University.
Gray, D. (2009). A new look at instructional leadership. International
Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(1), 1–4.
Gumuseli, A. I. (2001). Leadership characteristics of contemporary
school principals. Educational Administration: Theory and Prac-
tice, 28, 531–548.
Guskey, T., & Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of con-
struct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal,
31(3), 627–643.
The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self‑efficacy: a meta‑analytic…
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal:
A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 4(3), 221–239.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years
of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration,
49(2), 125–142.
Hallinger, P. (2012). A data-driven approach to assess and develop
instructional leadership with the PIMRS. In J. Shen (Ed.),
Tools for improving principals’ work (pp. 47–69). Peter Lang
Publishing.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, princi-
pal leadership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary
School Journal, 96(5), 527–549.
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. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​020-​03360-5
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in
school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
Hallinger, P., & Hosseingholizadeh, R. (2020). Exploring instructional
leadership in Iran: A mixed methods study of high-and low-per-
forming principals. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 48(4), 595–616.
Hallinger, P., Hosseingholizadeh, R., Hashemi, N., & Kouhsari, M.
(2018). Do beliefs make a difference? Exploring how principal
self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy
and commitment in Iran. Educational Management Administra-
tion & Leadership, 46(5), 800–819.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional manage-
ment behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2),
217–247.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the
time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin, 97(1), 5–21.
Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., Weil, M., Mesa, R., & Mitmran, A. (1983).
Effective schools: The specific policies and practices of the prin-
cipal. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bul-
letin, 67, 83–91.
Heck, R. H. (1996). Leadership and culture: Conceptual and meth-
odological issues in comparing models across cultural settings.
Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 74–97.
Herawati, R., & Tjahjono, H. K. (2020). The influence of instructional
leadership on professional competence mediated by self-efficacy
and social capital. Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis, 11(2), 202–213.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-
efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analy-
sis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774.
*Horton, T. (2013). The relationship between teachers' sense of efficacy
and perceptions of principal instructional leadership behaviors
in high poverty schools. PhD Dissertations, The University of
Texas at Arlington.
House, R. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and
a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352.
*Isa, N. I. M. M., Mansor, A. N., Wahab, J. L. A., & Alias, B. S.
(2018). Principals’ instructional leadership towards teachers’
self-efficacy. International Journal of Engineering & Technol-
ogy, 7(3.30), 449–452.
Jalapang, I., & Raman, A. (2020). Effect of instructional leader-
ship, principal efficacy, teacher efficacy and school climate on
students’ academic achievements. Academic Journal of Inter-
disciplinary Studies, 9(3), 82–82.
*Johnson, L. Y. K. (2002). The effects of supportive interventions
on first-year teacher efficacy. PhD Dissertation, Indiana State
University.
Kasalak, G., & Dagyar, M. (2020). The relationship between teacher
self-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of
the teaching and learning ınternational survey (TALIS). Edu-
cational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 16–33. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​12738/​jestp.​2020.3.​002
*Khun-inkeeree, H., Ahmad, A. A., Omar-Fauzee, M. S., Kasa, M.
D., & MohdSofian, F. N. R. (2018). The relationship between
principals’ instructional leadership and teachers’ self efficacy
in religious private school in Alor Setar District. Rangsit Jour-
nal of Educational Studies, 5(2), 52–63. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
14456/​r jes.​2018.​10
Kim, T., & Lee, Y. (2019). Principal instructional leadership for
teacher participation in professional development: Evi-
dence from Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 21, 1–18. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
s12564-​019-​09616-x
Kirk, J. M. (2016). Principal leadership and teachers' sense of self-
efficacy: A meta-analysis. PhD Dissertation, The George Wash-
ington University.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment
and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influ-
ence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 36, 114–129. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1016/j.​cedps​ych.​2011.​01.​002
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, person-
ality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​edurev.​
2014.​06.​001
Knaup, C., Koesters, M., Schoefer, D., Becker, T., & Puschner, B.
(2009). Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist
mental healthcare: Meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 195(1), 15–22.
Kurt, T., Duyar, I., & Calik, T. (2012). Are we legitimate yet? A closer
look at the casual relationship mechanisms among principal lead-
ership, teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy. Journal of
Management Development, 31(1), 71–86.
Lentz, L. (2019). The impact of instructional leadership practices on
teacher self-efficacy for student achievement. Master’s Thesis,
California State University San Marcos.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
*Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Principal instructional leadership,
teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China:
Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 54(4), 501–528.
Liu, Y., Bellibas, M. S., & Gumus, S. (2020). The effect of instructional
leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and
job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and
teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​17411​43220​910438
Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership
affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336.
*Ma, X., & Marion, R. (2021). Exploring how instructional leadership
affects teacher efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Educational Man-
agement Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 188–207.
Mahasneh, A. M., & Alwan, A. F. (2018). The effect of project-based
learning on student teacher self-efficacy and achievement. Inter-
national Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 511–524.
*Ma’mun, M., & Suryana, A. (2019). Instructional leadership: The
effect of teaching self-efficacy. Educational Administration
Research and Review, 3(1), 35–43.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school
performance: An integration of transformational and instruc-
tional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3),
370–397.
*Mathews, T. A. (2017). The relationship between elementary teachers'
perceived self-efficacy and principals' facilitation of professional
learning communities. PhD Dissertation, College of Saint Mary.
13

Musa, J. B., Nazarudin, M. N. B., Noordin, Z. B., & Juati, N. A.
(2020). Investigating instructional leadership, transformational
leadership, self-efficacy and trust among primary school teacher.
International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counselling,
5(35), 237–248.
*O’Conner, F. T. (2016). Relationships among leadership, curriculum,
mapping, and teacher self-efficacy: Practitioners’ perceptions.
PhD Dissertation, Fordham University.
OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook 2015: Making Reforms Hap-
pen. OECD Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​97892​64225​
442-​en
*Ozdemir, G., Sahin, S., & Ozturk, N. (2020). Teachers’ self-efficacy
perceptions in terms of school principal’s instructional leader-
ship behaviours. International Journal of Progressive Education,
16(1), 25–40.
*Pearce, M. L. (2017). The effects of instructional leadership on
teacher efficacy. PhD Dissertations, Kennesaw State University.
Rew, W. (2013). Instructional leadership practices and teacher efficacy
beliefs: Cross-national evidence from Talis. PhD Dissertations,
Florida State University.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null
results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1037/​0033-​2909.​86.3.​638
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher
commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of
collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 17(2), 179–199.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of
teacher efficacy on computer skills and computer cognitions of
Canadian students in grades K-3. The Elementary School Jour-
nal, 102(2), 141–156.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication
bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M.
Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention,
assessment and adjustments (pp. 1–7). Wiley.
*Ryan, H. D. (2007). An examination of the relationship between
teacher efficacy and teachers' perceptions of their principals'
leadership behaviors. PhD Dissertations, University of North
Texas.
Sahin, S. (2011). The Relationship between instructional leadership
and school culture (Izmir province example). Educational Sci-
ences: Theory & Practice, 11, 1909–1928.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal
leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study
of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.
Sen, S., & Yildirim, I. (2020). Meta-analysis applications with CMA
(In Turkish). Ani Publishing
Shahzad, K., & Naureen, S. (2017). Impact of teacher self-efficacy on
secondary school students’ academic achievement. Journal of
Education and Educational Development, 4(1), 48–72.
*Shengnan, L., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Unpacking the effects of culture
on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational
13
M. Alanoglu
Management Administration & Leadership. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​17411​43219​896042
Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving con-
cept examined through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and
Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration
and Policy, 54(26), 1–29.
Stronge, J. H., Richard, H. B., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effec-
tive principals. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Sumiati, & Niemted, W. (2020). The impact of instructional leadership
on Indonesian elementary teacher efficacy. Elementary Educa-
tion Online, 19(4), 2335–2346.
Teddlie, C., Kirby, P. C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Effective versus
ineffective schools: Observable differences in the classroom.
American Journal of Education, 97(3), 221–236.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17(7), 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998).
Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 68(2), 202–248.
*Walker, J., & Slear, S. (2011). The impact of principal leadership
behaviors on the efficacy of new and experienced middle school
teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 46–64.
Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy
beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal
of Educational Research, 100, 303–310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3200/​
JOER.​100.5.​303-​310
*Yusof, M. M., & Alias, M. K. (2015). The relationship between
instructional leadership and self-efficacy in environmental educa-
tion among Malaysian secondary school teachers. International
Academic Research Journal of Social Science, 1(1), 41–50.
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects
on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and
teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review
of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3102/​00346​54315​626801
*Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Li, Z. (2019). Exploring the relationships
among instructional leadership, professional learning communi-
ties and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 843–859. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1177/​17411​43218​764176
*Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Wang, M. (2018). Leading with teachers’
emotional labour: Relationships between leadership practices,
emotional labour strategies and efficacy in China. Teachers and
Teaching Theory and Practice, 24(8), 965–979. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​13540​602.​2018.​15084​32
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.