MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913600929 · doi:10.1177/105268461702700205

Transformational Leadership and its Impact on School Climate and Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Indonesian High Schools

2017· article· en· W2913600929 on OpenAlexaff
Enceria Damanik, Jill M. Aldridge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of School Leadership · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollegialityTransformational leadershipLeadership stylePsychologyEducational leadershipIndonesianPedagogyInstructional leadershipStructural equation modelingTeacher leadershipSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the relationships between principals’ leadership, school climate, and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Drawing on existing scales, this study examined six aspects of principal leadership (professional interaction, participatory decision-making, individual support, intellectual stimulation and moral perspective) and four school climate factors (staff collegiality, goal consensus, work pressure, resource adequacy, and staff freedom). The participants included 604 Indonesian teachers drawn from 27 high schools. The data were analysed using Structural Equation Modeling. The results indicated statistically significant and positive relationships between leadership style, school climate, and teacher self-efficacy. With the exception of individual support, the relationships between principal leadership and teacher self-efficacy were largely indirect, mediated through staff collegiality and goal consensus.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of School LeadershipSame topicEducation and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207