Education and Science Original Article

Vol 46 (2021) No 207 465-482

How Leadership, School Culture, Collective Efficacy, Academic

Self-Efficacy, and Socioeconomic Status Affect Student Achievement

Süheyla Bozkurt 1, Ömür Çoban 2, Murat Özdemir 3, Nedim Özdemir 4

Abstract Keywords
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of Efficacy
instructional leadership and school culture in school-level, and Instructional leadership
academic self-efficacy and socioeconomic status in student-level on School culture
academic achievement. The study conducted with 194 teachers and Socioeconomic status
948 students at 30 schools in Çankırı province. The sample was
Academic achievement
composed of stratified sampling technique considering the number
of teachers and students in schools. In the 2017-2018 academic year, Article Info
teachers responded to the Organizational Culture Scale,
Received: 02.11.2020
Instructional Leadership Scale, and Collective Teacher Efficacy
Scale. Additionally, students responded to the Academic Self- Accepted: 11.30.2020

Efficacy Scale. For academic achievement, we used students' Online Published: 01.08.2021
averages scores related to six courses. We checked five hypotheses
in the study and analyzed them with two-level structural equation
modeling. The findings showed that socioeconomic status,
academic self-efficacy, and collective efficacy of teachers had a
significant effect on the students’ average academic achievement
scores. Another result indicated that perceptions of teachers about
school principals’ instructional leadership had a significant effect
on organizational culture perceptions. Moreover, perceptions of
the organizational culture of teachers had a significant effect on
their perception of collective efficacy. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2021.9338

1 Çankırı University, Faculty of Letters, Dept. of Educational Sciences, Turkey, sbozkurtmagic@[Link]

2 Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Faculty of Education, Dept. of Educational Sciences, Turkey, cobanomur@[Link]
3 Hacettepe University, Faculty of Education, Dept. of Educational Sciences, Turkey, mrtozdem@[Link]
4 Ege University, Faculty of Education, Dept. of Educational Sciences, Turkey, ozdemirnedim@[Link]

465
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Introduction
Policy makers, researchers, and practitioners focus on factors affecting student success to
provide equal educational opportunities for students. Studies on academic achievement revealed that
variables such as students' socioeconomic status -SES- (Konstantopoulos, Li, Miller, & Van der Ploeg,
2017), self-efficacy (Yabaş & Altun, 2009) leadership skills of school administrators (Hallinger, 2005;
Ozdemir, 2019; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012) school climate (Chen & Weikart, 2008) and teacher self-
efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004) had an impact on the academic success. These studies have
shown that variables at the student-level and school level affect the academic success of the student
directly or indirectly. Although there are many studies that modelled student-level and school-level
variables together to examine student achievement (e.g., Shin, Lee, & Kim, 2009; Stewart, 2008), we have
not seen any studies in which variables SED and students' academic self-efficacy perceptions at student-
level and school culture and teachers' collective efficacy and school principals’ instructional leadership
were examined and modeled together. The current study modelled the relationship between the
principal's instructional leadership behaviors and student academic achievement through school
culture and teachers' collective efficacy. Additionally, this study revealed the direct effect of SED and
students' self-efficacy perceptions on students’ academic achievement. In this respect, the current paper
is expected to provide data for the development of policies to improve academic achievement in
developing countries such as Turkey. It has emerged that students’ academic achievement is lower in
international trend researches such as PISA, TIMMS, PIRLS, especially in developing countries than
western countries. In this context, it is frequently emphasized that research results conducted in
developing countries for variables that affect student success are needed (Hallinger, 2011). Although
this study was conducted locally in Turkey, the impact is expected to be at the international level. The
study results are expected to contribute to policy makers, researchers and practitioners in the
development and implementation of national and international policies to reduce inequality among
students in the context of academic achievement.
Turkey Context
Both national and international academic achievement test results showed that the performance
of Turkish students is quite low. In Turkey, the transition from lower secondary to upper secondary
education and upper secondary education to higher education is done on a national scale and using
national level examinations. Transition to Secondary School Exam (TSSE[LGS]) has been carried out by
Ministry of National Education (MoNE), and each year, on average, over a million students attend this
exam. In LGS 2018, 72 thousand students had zero points in Math test while approximately one
thousand students had zero points in Turkish test (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2018a).
Similarly, two million and 260 thousand students attended to Higher Education Exam (HEE [YKS])
carried out by the Student Selection and Placement Centre (SSPC [OSYM]), about one-fourth of these
students failed in the Basic Proficiency Test (BPT [TYT]). Again, in this exam, 41 thousand candidates
had zero points (OSYM, 2018). According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
2015 results, Turkey was below the average of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) by ranking 50th among 72 countries (OECD, 2016a). All indicators point out that
Turkish education system is far from achieving educational objectives.
This low performance displayed by students in primary fields causes a big disappointment in
the Turkish public. MoNE employs approximately one million teachers and offers education in over
fifty thousand schools (MoNE, 2018b). Therefore, MoNE has an over-centralized-bureaucratic
organizational design. The low academic performance of a considerable portion of the students who are
the outputs of such an education system, at the same time leads more severe results to the detriment of
the disadvantaged social groups in the country (Dinçer & Kolaşin, 2009; ERG, 2008). According to the
data of Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT) (2016), income inequality in Turkey has been gradually
increasing. One of the essential reasons for that is the inefficiencies in social inclusion (Balaban, 2014).
Due to the lack of equality in opportunity in education, academic performance decreased among
students with low socioeconomic background (Gelbal, 2008).

466
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Theoretical framework
There are various reasons for the academic failure of the students. In the literature, previous
researchers gathered them into three groups: student, school resources, and teaching and management
processes in the school (OECD, 2005; Sarıer, 2016). Among the variables that play a role in academic
achievement of students revealed from socioeconomic status (SES) (Coleman et al., 1966; Gelbal, 2008;
Ozdemir, 2019). In addition, it is stated that variables such as students 'motivation (Doğru & Ünlü, 2012),
their academic self-efficacy perceptions (Güzel, 2017; Saunders, Davis, Williams, & Williams, 2004),
their families' support (Gonida & Cortina, 2014), peer learning (Slavin, 1988) are also determinative.
Student resources factors have an important place as well as factors within the school in
academic achievement. Leadership behaviors of school principals (Gentilucci & Muto, 2007; Ozdemir,
2019; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012), supportive and encouraging learning culture (Freiberg, 1999;
Sergiovanni, 2001), teachers' perceptions of collective efficacy (Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy,
2000), teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 2000), the technological infrastructure of the school (Lei &
Zhao, 2007) and the effectiveness of the school (Hallinger & Heck, 1998) are some of the main factors
affecting student academic success.
In this study, we classified variables affecting student achievement under two levels as (i)
student and (ii) school. A theoretical model is developed to be tested, considering that student-level
variables directly affect student achievement. While some school-level variables (instructional
leadership and school culture) affect student achievement indirectly, some variables affect it directly.
Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee (1982) modeled the role of principals on student achievement, and they
indicated that the school principals impacted student achievement via school-level variables. Figure 1
shows the initial model for this study.

Figure 1. Framework for Analysis

According to the model in Figure 1, we discussed student achievement at two levels as student-
level and between schools. In level 1, to explain the difference in achievement among students, the
variables of SES and academic self-efficacy were added to the model. At level 2, to examine the
differences in achievement among schools, instructional leadership behaviors of the principal, school
culture, and collective efficacy were included. In this part, we explained the variables related to the
model respectively.
Student Level Variables
Socio-Economic Status
SES is a concept related to the social standing or class of an individual or a group, usually
measured as a combination of education, income, and profession. This variable includes not only the
economic gains of individuals but also their access to education, social security, opportunities, and

467
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

privileges provided to people and quality of life. Thus, SES is a commonly used concept in all behavioral
and social sciences based on research and practice (American Psycological Association [APA], 2019).
Indeed, the Heyneman and Loxley effect (H / L effect) states that the impact of the SES factor on student
academic achievement is higher in developing countries than in developed countries (Heyneman &
Loxley, 1983).
Many studies have been conducted concerning the relationship between SES and education
(Brown, Wohn, & Ellison, 2016; Buckingham, Wheldall, & Beaman-Wheldall, 2013; Hanushek, 1997;
Sirin, 2005) and significant relations were found between these two variables. In a study conducted by
Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, and Maczuga (2009), the academic skills of children of families with low
SES were found to be less than the children of families with high SES. Once again, a study conducted
by Aikens and Barbarin (2008) showed that children of families with low SES had problems in terms of
cognitive development, language, memory, and emotion, and children of these families had low income
in their future lives and health-related problems. Additionally, for children of families with low socio-
economic status were malnourished, their academic development was slower and their future
education life was negatively affected (Behrman, 1996). Inadequate education, increasing of drop-out
and malnutrition of children, on the one hand, reduced the academic success of the student, on the other
hand, affected the welfare of the society negatively. (Abotsi, Yaganumah, & Obeng, 2018). For instance,
the results of the PISA 2015 displayed that students with high SES had higher points compared to their
peers with low SES (OECD, 2016b). In another research, Ozdemir (2019) found that SES of students had
a significant impact on academic achievement. In this direction, first hypothesis of the research is as
follows:
H1. As the students’ SES increases, their academic achievement score also increases.
Academic Self-Efficacy
Academic self-efficacy is the belief that students can accomplish any academic task by positively
influencing their behavior at specified levels (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1991). Academic self-efficacy is
closely related to the students’ learning speed, cognitive participation, analytical thinking skills,
susceptibility to positive or negative emotions, and academic strategies they use while studying
(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). Academic self-efficacy perception of students plays a vital role in
controlling their education process and its results and determining how individual emotions and
thoughts motivate them (Bandura, 1986). Students with high academic efficacy, believe in themselves
in understanding a lesson, solving education problems, and selecting the most difficult lessons
(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Bandura (1993) found that students with high
academic self-efficacy were more successful in performing complex tasks, problem-solving and
extracurricular activities than students with low academic self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy was a
concept about students' beliefs about their personal efficacy and how they would react to any task that
needed to be done. The perception of a student in his/her performance was related to strategies to use
in achieving the duty, how much effort to make, how to act in the face of obstacles are strong
determinants of behaviors because they affect the thinking processes that increase or prevent student
achievement (Maier & Curtin, 2005). Thus, academic self-efficacy was a significant predictor of student
achievement in various academic situations (Pajares, 1996). Studies displayed that self-efficacy belief
was useful in the academic life of students at all levels (Choi, 2005; Yılmaz, Gürçay, & Ekici, 2007). For
instance, Lent, Brown, and Larkin (1984) found that students with high academic achievement had firm
beliefs that they could get high grades in the exam. In another study, Jinks and Morgan (1999) found
that there was a significant relationship between self-efficacy perception and student scores of primary
school students and these relationships were the same in urban and rural schools. In this study, we
discussed the concept of academic self-efficacy with the dimensions of talent, environment, and effort.
The second hypothesis of the research is as follows:
H2. The higher the perceptions of academic self-efficacy of students, the higher their academic
achievement scores.

468
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

School Level Variables

Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership includes the emotional, mental, physical and social development of
students, the professional progress of teachers and all of the actions carried out to be more effective in
the school's relations among school actors and with the environment (Elmore, 2005; Mulford & Silins,
2003). The focus of instructional leadership was that school administrators should coordinate, control,
supervise, and improve curriculum and teaching in the school (Hallinger, 2003). School principals had
roles in line with the objectives of the school academically and socially, such as creating a favorable
environment for teaching and learning (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008), improving academic
achievement of students (Hallinger, 2003) and creating a high academic environment by setting high
academic expectations and standards between students and teachers (Mortimore, 1993). Hallinger
(2005) described an active school principal as the person who could balance political, managerial and
educational roles. In this term, school principals as an instructional leader should focus on coordinating
and developing the curriculum in their schools and should create an appropriate teaching environment.
We put two basic models in the study, examining the school leadership behaviors of principals
effective on students’ academic achievement at the school level. In the direct impact model based on the
assumption that school principals directly affect the academic performance of students, we focused on
measuring the impact of school principals on school outcomes by holding other variables affecting
academic achievement of students fixed (Edmonds, 1979). On the other hand, school principals did not
have direct impact on the academic achievement of students, but they created learning and teaching
culture in the school by exhibiting instructional leadership behaviors and mediated the improvement
of academic achievement of students (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Likewise, in most of the studies on
leadership in educational organizations, it was revealed that school principals were responsible for
creating common teaching and learning culture in every school and if there was no learning culture
within the organization, academic achievement of students might decrease (Fink & Resnick, 2001).
Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003) also emphasized that school principals did not have a direct impact
on learning outcomes, and since school principals affected the organizational structure and school
culture, they had an indirect effect on learning outcomes. There is evidence that school administrators'
leadership styles also have an impact on the collective efficacy of teachers, which is the another variable
contributing to student success (Goddard, 2001).
One of the essential responsibilities of the school principal was to increase the motivation of the
teachers and build the school culture as a learning environment to enhance the academic achievement
of the students. Reavis, Vinson, and Fox (1999) found that the changes made in the school culture by a
new school principal in a poorly performing high school had a positive effect on the achievement of
students. On the other hand, Boyer (1983) emphasized that the school principal always made a
difference in the schools where achievement was high, communication was open, and there was a sense
of community. As a result, we found that the leadership style strongly influenced the relationships that
shape the culture of the school. In this respect, the third hypothesis of the research is as follows:
H3. According to teacher perceptions, instructional leadership behaviors of school principal have
an impact on school culture.
School Culture
The concept of “organizational culture” in the literature of management that focused on
organizational performance, productivity, managerial effectiveness, and organizational behavior
changed into the term of “school culture” in the literature of educational administration. Hopkins,
Ainscow, and West (1994) defined corporate culture as observable patterns of behavior, norms, values,
philosophy, unwritten policies, and procedures. Deal and Peterson (1990) described the school culture
as a pattern of values, beliefs, and traditions produced throughout the history of the school. Heckman
(1993) emphasized that school culture expressed a sequence of shared values that directed the actions
of teachers, students, and administrators. Stolp and Smith (1995), on the other hand, defined school
culture as a set of meanings that included historically transferred norms, values, beliefs, traditions and
myths, although they were perceived differently by school members. Although previous researchers

469
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

gave different definitions, it was possible to state that the concept of school culture formulated by
various researchers included components such as norms, values, beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, symbols,
and stories. In other words, previous researchers defined school culture as the total of traditions, values,
and beliefs that shaped the behavior of school actors such as principals, teachers, and students (Deal &
Peterson, 1999; Gaziel, 1997; Heckman, 1993).
Goddard et al. (2000) stated that the beliefs and attitudes of teachers interacted with the social
environment of the school. Apart from the teachers' efficacy, the factors such as the culture of the school
where they worked and the skills of other teachers shaped their ideas and opinions. According to the
social cognitive theory, the culture of the school where a teacher worked affected their abilities as
individuals and their combined strengths in educating students (Goddard, 2001). If the school culture
offered supportive and collaborative environments, collaboration among teachers, reflective dialogue
and sharing responsibility would increase, in this case it would reflect positively on the collective
efficacy of teachers. The results of the studies also provided strong evidence that there was a relationship
between school culture and collective efficacy perception (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Gray, 2004;
MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). In this direction, the fourth hypothesis of the research is as follows:
H4. According to teacher perceptions, school culture affects collective teacher efficacy.
Collective Teacher Efficacy
The concept of collective teacher’s efficacy emerged as a result of widening Bandura's (1997)
self-efficacy perception defined as "beliefs about what an individual can do in certain situations,”
discussed within the framework of Social Cognitive Theory, at the group level.
Bandura (1997) defines collective efficacy as shared beliefs of a group on having success,
considering how will organize the actions and efforts to achieve a job and manage it. Seeing that the
school is an open social system, teachers are expected to work with their colleagues instead of working
alone in this system. For this reason, when we mention about collective teacher efficacy, we mean the
common beliefs that teachers can effectively manage their actions and efforts in order to increase
students' performance, achieve learning goals, and carry out educational processes more effectively
(Goddard et al., 2000). As stated at the beginning, collective teacher efficacy emphasizes the
performance and capacity of a group, unlike teacher self-efficacy, and indicates a common belief for
success (Goddard, et al., 2000; Ross & Gray, 2006).
When we examine collective teacher efficacy studies, we see that the focus is on relationships
with variables such as school climate (Lim & Eo, 2014), and teacher in-group communication (Ross et
al., 2004). In Ross and Gray’s (2006) study, collective teacher efficacy was the mediator variable in the
relationship between the leadership behaviors of the school administrator and teachers' commitment.
Many studies have been conducted on the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student
achievement, and they expressed that there are positive significant relationships between collective
teacher efficacy and student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk
Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Another result of the studies is that one of the important variables affecting the
differences in student achievement between schools is collective teacher efficacy (Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, &Hoy, 2004; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002;
Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) went one step further in their
research and reached the conclusion that the effect of collective teacher efficacy on student academic
achievement is more than that of student's socioeconomic level variable. In the study conducted by
Bandura (1993), if researchers take under control the factors: the physical characteristics of the students,
the individual characteristics of the teachers, and the previous achievement of the school, they found
that schools with high perceived collective efficacy have higher points in national examinations.
Armstrong-Coppins (2003) showed that school administrators affect collective efficacy in two ways.
While school administrators directly affected leadership behaviors and collective efficacy, they also
indirectly affected the school culture with intentional or unintentional interventions. In this respect, the
fifth hypothesis of the research is as follows:
H5. As teachers’ collective efficacy increases, student achievement also increases.

470
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Method

Sample
The population of the research consisted of 40 secondary schools in 8 districts of Çankırı
(Central, Çerkeş, Eldivan, Kızılırmak, Ilgaz, Kurşunlu, Orta ve Şabanözü) and 622 teachers working in
the fields of six courses: Turkish; Mathematics; Science; Revolution History and Kemalism; English and
Religious Culture and Moral Knowledge, and a total of 1924 students in 8th grade. In selecting the
sample of the study, we used stratified sampling considering the number of teachers and students in
schools. We selected schools with the highest number of students and teachers in the sample. Since this
study examines the academic success of 8th grade students, teachers who entered these classes were
taken into consideration in the sample selection of teachers. In this case, the sample of the research was
of 30 schools, 194 teachers, and 948 students in Çankırı province. Table 1 presents the number of sample.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Sample

Central Çerkeş Eldivan Ilgaz Kızılırmak Kurşunlu Orta Şabanözü Total
Number of schools
All (N) 18 (45%) 5 (13%) 1 (3%) 4 (10%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 40 (100%)
Sample (n) 13 (43%) 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 3 (10%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 30 (100%)
Number of teachers
All (N) 395 48 11 53 23 39 15 38 622
(64%) (8%) (2%) (9%) (4%) (6%) (2%) (6%) (100%)
Sample (n) 99 19 5 23 7 18 13 10 194
(51%) (10%) (3%) (12%) (4%) (9%) (7%) (5%) (100%)
Number of students
All (N) 1293 150 35 116 63 76 75 116 1924
(67%) (8%) (2%) (6%) (3%) (4%) (4%) (6%) (100%)
Sample (n) 535 100 29 69 40 59 53 63 948
(56%) (11%) (3%) (7%) (4%) (6%) (6%) (7%) (100%)
Students’ gender
Female (n) 291 43 16 30 19 24 30 39 492
Male (n) 244 57 13 39 21 35 23 24 456
Students’ scores
Mean 76.7 80.0 66.7 80.6 71.4 72.4 75.1 75.3 76.4
Min-Max 21.6- 33.6- 41.2- 46.7- 43.0- 38.6- 43.8- 43.8- 21.6-
99.7 99.4 94.4 100 100 95.8 99.0 98.6 100
SD 14.8 15.6 15.0 15.5 17.7 16.8 13.9 14.8 15.4

Instruments
To collect the data, we applied the Organizational Culture Scale (OCS), Instructional Leadership
Scale (ELS), and Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale (CTS) to teachers and Academic Self-Efficacy Scale
(ASES) to the students. We also used students' academic scores of six courses as data. The scores for
these courses were asked from the students in their personal information form.

The socio-economic status (SES)

We calculated the monthly income, educational background of the mother, and the educational
background of father variables to get SES data. Therefore, first of all, exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

471
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

was used to determine how three of the variables, such as monthly income of students, educational
background of mother, and educational background of father explains SES. As a result of the factor
analysis, we found that all three variables explain 62% (total variance explained) of SES. The coefficients
obtained from all three variables were multiplied by the variables and divided by the Eigenvalue. The
equation used in the calculation of SES was as followed.

SES = .807* educational background of mother + .827* educational background of father+

.728*income/1.864

Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES)

ASES, developed by Jinks ve Morgan (1999) and adapted into Turkish by Öncü (2012), was used
to measure perceptions of academic self-efficacy of students. Confirmatory factor analysis was used in
the adaptation to Turkish study conducted by Öncü (2012). Öncü (2012) was used confirmatory and
exploratory factor analysis in the adaptation to Turkish. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis,
KMO coefficient was found to be significant at .83, Barlett Test result at x2 = 927.03, sd = 186 and p <.000.
In the adaptation of the scale to Turkish, it was observed that the reliability level of the scale was ".80"
and the reliability coefficients of the dimensions varied between .81 and .51. ASES consisted of three
dimensions -skills, learning environment, quality of teaching, and 19 items, such as ability, environment,
and quality of education. It was a five-point Likert scale and valued among ‘I strongly disagree’ and ‘I
strongly agree.’ Among the scale items, there were expressions such as ‘I work hard at school’ and ‘I
could get better grades if my teacher liked me more.’ In the reliability analysis, we found Cronbach
Alpha as .71. We also did the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and found to be equal and close to
the cut points (x2 = 376.64, df = 149, p > .05, RMSEA = .07, NNFI = .92, and CFI = .93). The fit model
indicated that the scale had good fit indices.

Instructional Leadership Scale (ILS)

To measure the instructional leadership levels of school principals according to teacher
perceptions, we used ILS developed by Alig-Mielcarek (2003) and adapted into Turkish by Şahin
(2011b). EFA was performed by Şahin (2011b) during the adaptation of the scale to Turkish. As a result
of the exploratory factor analysis, KMO coefficient was found to be 916, Barlett Test result was found to
be significant at x2 = 2219.34, sd = 253 and p <.000. In the adaptation of the scale to Turkish, it was
observed that the reliability level of the scale was ".94", and the reliability coefficients of the dimensions
ranged from .81 to .[Link] scale consisted of three dimensions -providing professional development in a
school, introducing shared goals, giving feedback during learning, teaching process, and 23 items as providing
professional development throughout the school, identifying, shared goals, and providing and
controlling feedback to the teaching and learning process. The scale was five-point Likert type and rated
among ‘I strongly disagree’ and ‘I fully agree’ The scale items include expressions such as ‘Our school
principal provides useful professional tools and resources for teachers’ and ‘Our school principal
informs teachers about the academic goals of the school.’ In the reliability analysis, we calculated
Cronbach Alpha as .95. In the confirmatory factor analysis of the scale, the values were found equal and
close to the cut points (x2 = 581.06, df = 227, p > .05, SRMR = .04, NFI = .96, NNFI = .98, and CFI = .98). The
fit model indicated that the scale had good fit indices.

472
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Organizational Culture Scale (OCS)

To measure the perceptions of the organizational culture of teachers in the United States and
Turkey, the Organizational Culture Scale (OCS) was developed by Şahin (2011a). The scale was first
developed in English by Şahin then adapted into Turkish. After the scale was adapted to Turkish, EFA
was performed by Şahin (2011a) to test the suitability of the factor structure. As a result of the analysis,
KMO coefficient was found to be 916, Barlett test result was found to be significant at x2 = 3448.51, sd =
666 and p <.000. In the scale development study, it was observed that the reliability level of the scale
was ".93", and the reliability coefficients of the dimensions varied between .91 and .72. The OCS consists
of totally 37 items and five dimensions as school leadership, collegiality (personal support), teacher
cooperation, development culture, and teaching culture. OCS is a five-point Likert type and has values
between ‘I strongly disagree’ and ‘I strongly agree.’ The items of the scale included statements such as
‘Teachers learn from each other in our school’ and ‘All stakeholders share the common vision about the
future of the school.’ We also did the validity and reliability study of the OCS. In the reliability analysis,
we analyzed Cronbach Alpha value as .97. In addition, the scale results were calculated as equal and
close to the cut points (x2 = 1502.67, df = 619, x2/sd value 2.42, p > .05, NFI = .95, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97). We
found out that the fit indices of the scale were good.
Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale (CTS)
To measure perceptions of collective efficacy of teachers, the Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale,
which was originally developed by Goddard et al. (2000) and adapted into Turkish by Kurt (2012), was
used. EFA was used in the adaptation of the scale. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the
scale was calculated as .80. The CTS is one-dimensional and consists of 21 items. Among the items of
the scale, expressions such as ‘Teachers in this school are sure that they can motivate students,’ and
‘Teachers in this school think that there are students in the school that no one else can reach’ were taken
place. We also calculated CFA and the values were found equal and close to the cut points (x2 = 578.62,
df = 312, p > .05, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .99, NFI = .97, and NNFI = .97). There was a good harmony between
the data and the structure of the model suggested for the CTS scale.
Procedures and Data Analysis
We applied the scales to teachers attending Turkish, Mathematics, Science and Technology,
English, Religion and Moral Knowledge and History of Revolution and Kemalism subject and to their
students in Çankırı Province in the 2017-2018 academic year. Students and teachers voluntarily
participated in the study. The scales distributed to teachers and students were collected by the Research
and Development Unit of Çankırı Provincial Directorate of National Education. Filling out of the scales
took approximately 10 minutes for a student and 20 minutes for a teacher. In this context, 948 out of
1000 scales for students and 194 out of 200 scales for teachers came back. We analysed the data via SPSS
23, Mplus 8 and Lisrel 9.30 software programs. We looked through the normality of the scales with
scatter diagrams and descriptive statistics. To the results, the coefficients of kurtosis and skewness were
less than ± 3, and the mean and median were close to each other (Kline, 1998).
In the study, the correlation coefficient was calculated to examine the relationships between
student and school-level variables. The five hypotheses discussed in the study, and we gave them via
two-level structural equation modeling. Due to the nature of social sciences, it is assumed that the
student and school level variables of each school show a more homogeneous structure compared to
other schools (Muthén & Muthén, 2017; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Because as people interact within
the group, they begin to act in a similar attitude and behavior pattern. For this reason, two-level analyzes
make use of the group average. This situation is considered to be more advantageous than single-level
regression results since it reduces the error rates in the regression coefficients. In addition, the fact that
the students that constitute the output of the research can be grouped in the classroom and within the
school shows that the data structure has a hierarchical character. Based on this information, two-level
structural equation modeling was used.

473
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Results
Firstly, to examine relationships among variables, the correlation coefficient was calculated.
Table 2 indicates the results of the correlational analysis.

Table 2. Correlations among Variables Included in the Two-Level Structural Equation Model
n M SD 1 2 3 4
Within Schools (Level 1)
1. SES 948 3.68 1.03 -
2. Academic self-efficacy 948 3.26 .45 .21** -
3. Academic achievement 948 76.40 15.40 .39** .34** -
n M SD 1 2 3 4
Between schools (Level 2)
1. Instructional leadership 30 3.95 .32 -
2. School culture 30 4.04 .25 .65** -
3. Collective efficacy 30 3.68 .33 .43* .69** -
4. Academic achievement 30 74.57 7.99 .44* .41* .44* -
**p < .01, *p < .05.

As shown in Table 2, there was a moderate, positive, and significant relationship between the
academic achievement of students and their SES within schools (r = .39, p < .01). There was a moderate
positive and significant relationship between academic achievement and self-efficacy of students (r =
.34, p < .01). Additionally, we found a low, positive, and significant relationship between SES and
academic self-efficacy of students (r = .21, p < .01). When we examined the relationship among variables
between schools, we found that there was a high level of positive and significant relationship between
instructional leadership behaviors of principals and school culture (r = .65, p < .01). Again, high positive
and significant relationship between school culture and collective teacher efficacy (r = .69, p < .01). Along
with this, we found out that a moderate, positive and significant relationship between collective teacher
efficacy and academic achievement (r = .44, p < .05).
The two-level SEM was conducted to examine the five hypotheses given above. According to
the results, the model acceptable fit was: x2 = 136.72, df =58, RMSEA = .05, CFI =.98, and TLI= .93. Figure
2 presents the standardized path coefficients obtained from the analysis.

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01; standard error in parentheses.

Figure 2. Standardized Model Results

474
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

The first hypothesis was to investigate whether there was a significant relationship between the
SES and academic achievement of students. As was seen in Figure 2, SES had a significant effect on
average academic achievement scores. A one-unit increase in SES caused an increase of β = .24 (sh=.04,
p < .01) units in the average academic achievement score of the student. The second hypothesis
addressed the relationship between students’ perceptions of academic self-efficacy and their academic
achievement scores. To results, students’ perceptions of academic self-efficacy significantly increase
their achievement scores. It meant a one-unit increase in perceptions of academic self-efficacy of
students increases β = .29 (sh = .04, p <. 01) units in average academic achievement point of students. The
socio-economic levels and academic self-efficacy perceptions of students explained the total, 15% of
academic achievement.
Concerning school-level variables, the third hypothesis investigated the impact of school
principals’ instructional leadership behaviors on school culture. Teachers’ perceptions of instructional
leadership on school principals had a statistically significant effect on their organizational culture
perceptions β = .55 (sh = .13, p < .01). The fourth hypothesis examined the school culture that affected
collective teacher efficacy. We observed a statistically significant effect of teachers’ perceptions of
instructional culture on collective teacher efficacy β = .65 (sh = .09, p < .01). Finally, we examined the fifth
hypothesis of the research built on collective teacher efficacy and average student achievement. To the
results, collective teacher efficacy had a significant effect on the average student achievement β = .46 (sh
= .18, p < .01). In total, 54% of students’ academic achievement scores were explained by the variables
that were teachers’ school culture perceptions, their perceptions on instructional leadership of
principals and their collective efficacy. Both student level and school level models explained 17% of
academic achievement of students.

Discussion, Conclusion and Suggestions

This study aimed to detect the relationship between academic achievement and student and
school-level variables. A total of 194 teachers and 948 students in 30 schools in the province of Çankırı,
Turkey took part in this study. For the data of the study gave a hierarchical structure, we analyzed this
structure with Two-Level SEM. We also examined five hypotheses within the scope of the research.
After testing the first hypothesis, we found that the SES had a significant effect on the average academic
achievement point of the students. National and international studies (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Morgan
et al., 2009) also revealed that SES was one of the most important variables affecting student
achievement in education. For instance, in OECD’s PISA 2015 report, it was found out that there was a
direct relationship between SES and academic achievement (OECD, 2016b). In various researches
conducted on the academic achievement of students in Turkey, SES was one of the most important
variables that affected students’ academic achievement (Gelbal, 2008; Usta & Demirtaşlı, 2018; Ozdemir,
2019; White, 1982). There were several possible explanations why SES impacted on academic
achievement. For example, parents who understood the importance of education and made an effort for
their children's access to education were generally from the group of parents with high level of SES. At
the same time, these parents could make contact with teachers better in the school and expressed their
students’ needs, demands and necessities in a more quickly than the group of parents with a lower level
of SES (Lightfoot, 1981). As a matter of fact, in theory, known as Heyneman and Loxley effect (H / L
effect), SES was a vital factor in academic achievement in developing countries (Heyneman & Loxley,
1983). However, considering the issue in the social capital theory, the fact that parents support students
'school life both financially and psychosocially affects students' academic achievement positively.
Families with high SES support their children socially, culturally and economically, facilitate their
school life and help them be more successful in school life than children with lower family support
(Erselcan, 2009).
As a result of the second hypothesis tested in the study, there was a significant relationship
between the academic self-efficacy and academic achievement points of the students. This result
corresponded to the study of Ayotola and Adedeji (2009) and Liu and Koirala (2009). In these studies,
there was a significant relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their academic achievement.

475
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Besides this, Çağıran Gülten and Soytürk (2013) researched sixth-grade students, and they found out a
significant relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their Mathematics, Science and Technology,
Turkish, Social Studies, Music and English scores. One of the main reasons why students’ academic self-
efficacy affected their academic achievement was that their high level of self-efficacy beliefs reflected on
their motivation and behavior. As a matter of fact, in Bandura's social learning theory (1997), it was
emphasized that their high self-efficacy increased their academic achievement. As discussed in this
theory, it is seen that students who are aware of their abilities and believe that they will be successful
can achieve their goals more easily in their school and social lives. It was also observed that students
with similar beliefs who had high beliefs in achieving success were more successful than those with
lower beliefs in this direction (Ormrod, 2017). Moreover, students with high self-efficacy perceptions
experience less fear and anxiety. Students who overcome fear and anxiety, which is an obstacle to
success, can be more successful than other students with similar skills (Hoy & Miskel, 2010).
According to another result obtained from the study based on the third hypothesis, perceptions
of teachers about the instructional leadership of school principals had a significant effect on
organizational culture perceptions. Bossert et al. (1982), theoretically modeling the relationship between
instructional leadership and student achievement, defended that leadership had no direct effect on
learning outcomes. However, they expressed that instructional leadership had an impact on students’
academic achievement in an indirect way. The variable affected students’ academic achievement via
organizational culture, and planning and designing the teaching. In researches, recent researchers
emphasized that the main issue that the school principals took into consideration while creating the
school culture was that they had to know the dominant values of the organization and create a healthy
learning climate (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Saphier & King, 1985). As was seen from these studies, the
instructional leader might influence school culture by knowing the dominant values in the school and
built a productive learning climate in the school on these dominant values.
According to the fourth hypothesis examined within the scope of the study, perceptions of the
organizational culture of teachers had a significant effect on their perception of collective efficacy. As
mentioned above, organizational culture shaped dominant values that create an organizational climate,
and these values could help to create a productive learning environment. In this learning environment,
teachers' self-confidence and their trust in their schools could increase. In other words, their self-efficacy
and collective teacher efficacy levels could increase in a productive learning environment. This situation
was put forward by Bandura (1997) and Kurt (2012), and they stated that positive and supportive
organizational culture increased self-efficacy and collective efficacy levels of teachers. This study
showed that school culture strengthened collective teacher efficacy beliefs.
Finally, when we examined the fifth hypothesis, we found that teachers’ perception of collective
efficacy had a significant effect on school academic achievement. This result was consistent with the
past research findings (Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000). This study showed that teachers’ collective
efficacy belief was a vital variable to reduce the academic achievement deficits of students. Reducing
the academic achievement deficits of students might be achieved due to the cooperation of teachers and
their support to each other in their professional development. For example, in the study of Bandura
(1993), when researcher(s) controlled the factors such as the physical characteristics of the students, the
individual characteristics of the teachers, and the previous achievement of the schools, researcher(s)
found that the schools with high perceived collective efficacy had higher scores in national exams. These
results showed that academic achievement was high in schools with high levels of collective teacher
efficacy.
This study had some limitations in some aspects. The first of these was that we used cross-
sectional data in the study. It was a limitation that we did not add the previous achievements of students
to the model. Further studies were suggested to be longitudinal. Secondly, next researchers might
conduct qualitative approaches in the study. Therefore, they might demonstrate in-depth findings by
carrying out a qualitative study with the variables affecting student achievement. Within the scope of
the study, education administrators, decision-makers, education experts and teachers should take into

476
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

account the variables that affected student achievement in their studies. Notably, the disadvantaged
students needed to be supported in academic terms because their SES was generally low and this
variable was a vital predictor in their academic achievement in developing countries such as Turkey.
Therefore, in order to develop the school culture, educational administrators should create a supportive
and democratic learning climate and demonstrate leadership styles to increase the performance and
skills of teachers and students. In order for training managers to develop these leadership capacities,
leadership trainings can be given to them before and during their duties. However, policy makers can
create real and virtual platforms that will show school administrators who demonstrate effective
instructional leadership behavior to other school administrators as good examples. In this way, they can
increase the knowledge and skills capacity of other school administrators about instructional leadership
behaviors. In addition, policy makers can take into account school principals’ capacities and skills in the
selection, appointment and training processes of school administrators. Collective efficacy and teachers'
self-efficacy are key variables for the student's academic achievement. In this context, education
administrators should create a learning organizational culture in schools and create environments
where teachers can collaborate with their colleagues by supporting their self-efficacy and collective
efficacy perceptions. For example, the school administrator, who wants to achieve the high academic
achievement goal set in strategic plans, can increase the self-efficacy perception of teachers while at the
same time providing a culture of cooperation within the school. In addition, parents, school
administrators, and teachers should support students together to improve their self-efficacy and
motivation. The cooperation of these actors in collaboration can also increase student self-efficacy to a
higher level.

Acknowledgements
This study is supported by Çankırı Karatekin University Research Fund Project Number:
EF200217B20.

477
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

References
Abotsi, A. K., Yaganumah, N., & Obeng, H. E. (2018). Dropout issues and its economic implications:
Evidence from rural communities in Ghana. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research,
19(1), 1-13.
Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution
of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 235-251.
Alig-Mielcarek, J. M. (2003). A model of school success: Instructional leadership, academic press, and student
achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Ohio State, Columbus, Ohio.
American Psycological Association. (2019). Education and socioeconomic status. Retrieved from
[Link]
Armstrong-Coppins, D. R. (2003). What principals do to increase collective teacher efficacy in urban schools
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cardinal Stritch University College of Education. Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database (UMI No. 3119769).
Ayotola, A., & Adedeji, T. (2009). The relationship between mathematics self-efficacy and achievement
in mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 953-957.
Balaban, U. (2014). Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği'nde sosyal içerme uygulamaları: 2000'li yıllara ilişkin
karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirme. Mülkiye Dergisi, 38(1), 103-149.
Bandura, A. (1982). The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. Journal Of
Behavior Therapy And Experimental Psychiatry, 13(3), 195-199.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Behrman, J. R. (1996). The impact of health and nutrition on education. The World Bank Research Observer,
11(1), 23-37.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional role of the principal. Educational
Administrative Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.
Boyer, E. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper and Row.
Brown, M. G., Wohn, D. Y., & Ellison, N. (2016). Without a map: College access and the online practices
of youth from low-income communities. Computers & Education, 92, 104-116.
Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Why poor children are more likely to
become poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 190-213.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of
teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821-832.
Chen, G., & Weikart, L. A. (2008). Student background, school climate, school disorder and student
achievement: An empirical study of New York city's middle schools. Journal of School Violence, 7(4),
3-20.
Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance.
Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 197-205.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., … & York,
R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

478
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Çağıran Gülten, D., & Soytürk, İ. (2013). İlköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin geometri öz-yeterliklerinin
akademik başarı not ortalamaları ile ilişkisi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
1(25), 55-70.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 8(1), 1-44. doi:10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture. Washington, DC:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, D. K. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Dinçer, A., & Kolaşin, G. (2009). Türkiye’de öğrenci başarısında eşitsizliğin belirleyicileri. Retrieved from
[Link]
Doğru, M., & Ünlü, S. (2012). Jigsaw IV tekniği kullanımının fen öğretiminde öğrencilerin motivasyon,
fen kaygısı ve akademik başarılarına etkisi. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 2(2), 57-66.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
ERG. (2008). Eğitim izleme raporu 2008. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi.
Erselcan, F. (2009). Disiplinlerarası ortak bir çalışma alanı olarak sosyal sermaye. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi
Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 33(2), 248-256.
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8),
598-606.
Freiberg, H. J. (1999). School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments.
Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Gaziel, H. H. (1997). Impact of school culture on effectiveness of secondary schools with disadvantaged
students. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 310-318.
Gelbal, S. (2008). The effect of socio-economic status of eighth-grade students on their achievement in
Turkish. Egitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 1-13.
Gentilucci, J. L., & Muto, C. C. (2007). Principals' influence on academic achievement: The student
perspective. NASSP Bulletin, 91(3), 219-236.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467-476.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Goddard, R. G., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, W. A. (2004). Collective efficacy: Theoretical development, empirical
evidence, and future directions. Educational Researchers, 33(3), 3-13.
Gonida, E. N., & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: Relations with parent and
student achievement‐related motivational beliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 376-396.
Güzel, H. (2017). Lise öğrencilerinin akademik öz-yeterlik inanç düzeylerinin internet kullanımı ve bazı
değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(11), 225-245.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change : reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.
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.

479
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-
1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164.
Heckman, P. E. (1993). School restructuring in practice: Reckoning with the culture of school.
International Journal of Educational Reform, 2(3), 263-271.
Heyneman, S. P., & Loxely, W. A. (1983). The distribution of primary school quality within high- and
low-income countries. Comparative Education Review, 27(1), 108-118.
Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama (S. Turan, Trans.).
Ankara: Nobel.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in
high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77-
93.
Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children's perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. The
Clearing House, 72(4), 224-230.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Methodology in the social science. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling.
New York: The Guilford.
Konstantopoulos, S., Li, W., Miller, S. R., & van der Ploeg, A. (2017). Do interim assessments reduce the
race and SES achievement gaps?. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(4), 319-330.
Kurt, T. (2012). Öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlik ve kolektif yeterlik algıları. Journal of Turkish Educational
Sciences, 10(2), 195-227.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers &
Education, 49(2), 284-296.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic
achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356-362.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1981). Toward conflict and resolution: Relationships between families and schools.
Theory Into Practice, 20(2), 97-103.
Lim, S., & Eo, S. (2014). The mediating roles of collective teacher efficacy in the relations of teachers'
perceptions of school organizational climate to their burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44,
138-147.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and
learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.
Liu, X., & Koirala, H. (2009). The effect of mathematics self-efficacy on mathematics achievement of high school
students. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Northeastern Educational Research
Association, University of Connecticut, Connecticut.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student
achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84.
Maier, S. R., & Curtin. P. A. (2005). Self-efficacy theory: A prescriptive model for teaching research
methods. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 59(4), 352-364.

480
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Ministry of National Education. (2018a). 2018 liselere geçiş sistemi (LGS): Merkezi sınavla yerleşen
öğrencilerin performansı. Ankara: MEB.
Ministry of National Education. (2018b). Millî Eğitim istatistikleri örgün eğitim 2017-2018. Ankara: MEB.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2009). Risk factors for learning-related
behavior problems at 24 months of age: Population-based estimates. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 37(3), 401-413.
Mortimore, P. (1993). School effectiveness and the management of effective learning and teaching. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(4), 290-310.
Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes-
What do we know?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 157-183.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students’ well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ormrod, J. E. (2017). How we think and learn: Theoretical perspectives and practical implications. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
OSYM. (2018). 2018-YKS sınav sonuçlarına ilişkin sayısal bilgiler. Retrieved from [Link]
Ozdemir, N. (2019). Principal leadership and students’ achievement: Mediated pathways of
professional community and teachers’ instructional practices. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy,
16(1), 81-104.
Öncü, H. (2012). Akademik Özyeterlik Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Journal of Kirsehir Education
Faculty, 13(1), 183-206.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reavis, C. A., Vinson, D., & Fox, R. (1999). Importing a culture of success via a strong principal. The
Clearing House, 72(4), 199-202.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An
analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5),
635-674.
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., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior student achievement, collaborative school
processes, and collective teacher efficacy?. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 163-188.
Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational Leadership, 42(6), 67-74.
Sarıer, Y. (2016). Türkiye’de öğrencilerin akademik başarısını etkileyen faktörler: bir meta-analiz
çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(3), 609-627.
Saunders, J., Davis, L., Williams, T., & Williams, J. H. (2004). Gender differences in self-perception and
academic outcomes: A study of African American high school students. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 33(1), 81-90.

481
Education and Science 2021, Vol 46, No 207, 465-482 S. Bozkurt, Ö. Çoban, M. Özdemir, & N. Özdemir

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.
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.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Needham Heights, MD: Allyn
and Bacon.
Shin, J., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2009). Student and school factors affecting mathematics achievement:
International comparisons between Korea, Japan and the USA. School Psychology International, 30(5),
520-537.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 31-33.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research.
Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
Stewart, E. B. (2008). School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental
involvement: The influence of school- and individual-level factors on academic achievement.
Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 179-204.
Stolp, S., & Smith, S. C. (1995). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols, values & the leader's role.
Retrieved from [Link]
Şahin, S. (2011a). An aspect on the school culture in Turkey and the United States. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 12(4), 593-607.
Şahin. S. (2011b). Öğretimsel liderlik ve okul kültürü arasındaki ilişki (İzmir ili örneği). Kuram ve
Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(4), 1909-1927.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective
teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189-209.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016). İstatistikler. Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
Usta, H. G., & Demirtaşlı, R. N. (2018). PISA 2012 matematik okuryazarlığı üzerine uluslararası bir
karşılaştırma: Türkiye ve Finlandiya. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(11), 1389-1420.
White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological
Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The
elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-423.
Yabaş, D., & Altun, S. (2009). Farklılaştırılmış öğretim tasarımının öğrencilerin öz-yeterlik algıları,
bilişüstü becerileri ve akademik başarılarına etkisinin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(37), 201-214.
Yılmaz, M., Gürçay, D., & Ekici, G. (2007). Akademik öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 253-259.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment:
The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29,
663-676.

482