Leadership Style on Faculty’s Change Response to Competency-Based Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between the leadership styles of community college leaders and faculty change responses to adopting competency-based education (CBE) employing a quantitative non-experimental design. Further examining transformational and transactional leadership theories, the study investigated how leadership impacts faculty members’ acceptance of change, proactivity, disengagement, and resistance. As community colleges play a vital role in addressing local workforce demands, innovative approaches like CBE are essential. Effective leadership is critical for the successful implementation of CBE. The study employed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire – Adapted Version and the Change Response Circumplex Scale to assess faculty members’ perceptions. These data were analyzed using Spearman’s Rank correlation, independent samples t-test, and MANOVA to evaluate the responses. The results indicated that transformational and transactional leadership styles were positively correlated with faculty change acceptance, meaning that when leaders exhibit these qualities, faculty members tend to embrace CBE-related changes. Further results validated that leadership relationships on faculty's change response were nuanced and context dependent. While transformational and transactional leadership each had distinct relationships, their combined influence remains relatively stable, suggesting that a balanced approach, leveraging both styles, might yield optimal results. Lastly, the findings indicated that transformational leaders had a positive influence on change acceptance and proactivity, whereas transactional leaders might encounter more disengagement and resistance. Community college leaders should recognize the importance of their leadership style in shaping faculty responses to change. Effective leadership strategies are essential for implementing competency-based education, underscoring the importance of flexible leadership styles that foster faculty engagement and active involvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".