Academic Success through Engagement and Trust Fostered by Professor Leadership Style
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Professor Leadership Styles
2.1.1. Transformational Leadership
2.1.2. Emotional Leadership
2.1.3. Pygmalion Leadership
2.1.4. Transactional Leadership
2.1.5. Charismatic Leadership
2.2. Class Engagement, Trust toward Professor, and Academic Performance
2.3. Hypotheses Development
3. Research Design
3.1. Sampling and Data Collection
3.2. Measures
4. Methods and Results
4.1. Measurement Model
4.2. Testing of the Research Hypotheses
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Farrington, R. Is college even worth it? Here’s how to decide. Forbes 2022, 17, e10255. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2022/01/11/is-college-even-worth-it-heres-how-to-decide/?sh=76956353461f (accessed on 13 March 2023).
- National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 2022. Available online: https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/ (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Kovacs, K. The Pandemic’s Impact on College Enrollment. 2022. Available online: https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/covid19-impact-on-college-enrollment/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20National%20Student,fell%204.4%25%20in%20the%20fall (accessed on 13 March 2023).
- Conley, B.; Massa, R. The Great Interruption. 2022. Available online: https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2022/02/28/enrollment-changes-colleges-are-feeling-are-much-more-covid-19 (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Dickler, J. Universities Are Going to Continue to Suffer. Some Colleges Struggle with Enrollment Declines, Underfunding. CNBC. 2022. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/05/colleges-struggle-with-enrollment-declines-underfunding-post-covid.html (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Staff Writers. The 12 Biggest Reasons for Transferring Colleges. Best Colleges. 2022. Available online: https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/top-reasons-students-transfer-colleges/#:~:text=Over%20one%2Dthird%20of%20students,%2D19%2C%20and%20school%20fit (accessed on 22 March 2023).
- Moldoff, D.K. 10 Reasons Why Students Transfer. Academy One. 2022. Available online: https://www.collegetransfer.net/Articles/I-Am-Looking-to-Transfer-Colleges/10-Reasons-Why-Students-Transfer (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 2016. Available online: https://nscresearchcenter.org/category/2016/ (accessed on 16 March 2023).
- Balwant, P.T.; Birdi, K.; Stephan, U.; Topakas, A. Transformational instructor- leadership and academic performance: A moderated mediation model of student engagement and structural distance. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2018, 43, 884–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Fraihat, D.; Joy, M.; Sinclair, J. Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 102, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandmiller, C.; Dumont, H.; Becker, M. Teacher Perceptions of Learning Motivation and Classroom Behavior: The Role of Student Characteristics. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 63, 101893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saarivirta, T.; Kumpulainen, K. School autonomy, leadership and student achievement: Reflections from Finland. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2016, 30, 1268–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yough, M.; Merzdorf, H.E.; Fedesco, H.N.; Cho, H.J. Flipping the classroom in teacher education: Implications for motivation and learning. J. Teach. Educ. 2019, 70, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noell, G.H.; Burns, J.M.; Gansle, K.A. Linking student achievement to teacher preparation: Emergent challenges in implementing value added assessment. J. Teach. Educ. 2019, 70, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, R. Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. Am. Psychol. 2002, 57, 839–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.S.; Kim, S.H.; Koo, D.W.; Cannon, D.F. Pygmalion leadership: Theory and application to the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2019, 20, 301–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasad, B.; Junni, P. CEO transformational and transactional leadership and organizational innovation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 1542–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avci, A. Investigation of transformational and transactional leadership styles of school principals, and evaluation of them in terms of educational administration. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015, 10, 2758–2767. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, Y. Emotional leadership as a key dimension of public relations leadership: A national survey of public relations leaders. J. Public Relat. Res. 2010, 22, 159–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bass, B.M. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 1999, 8, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolkan, S.; Goodboy, A.K. Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. J. Instr. Psychol. 2009, 36, 296–306. [Google Scholar]
- Pounder, J.S. Transformational classroom leadership: A basis for academic staff development. J. Manag. Dev. 2009, 28, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, J.R.; Barsade, S.G. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2001, 86, 99–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bezuijen, X.M.; van den Berg, P.T.; van Dam, K.; Thierry, H. Pygmalion and employee learning: The role of leader behaviors. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 1248–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avolio, B.J.; Bass, B.M.; Jung, D.I. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1999, 72, 441–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banks, G.C.; Engemann, K.N.; Williams, C.E.; Gooty, J.; McCauley, K.D.; Medaugh, M.R. A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2017, 28, 508–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolkan, S.; Goodboy, A.K. Transformational leadership in the classroom: The development and validation of the Student Intellectual Stimulation Scale. Commun. Rep. 2010, 23, 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolkan, S.; Goodboy, A.K. Leadership in the college classroom: The use of charismatic leadership as a deterrent to student resistance strategies. J. Classr. Interact. 2011, 46, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
- Buil, I.; Martínez, E.; Matute, J. Transformational leadership and employee performance: The role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojode, L.A.; Walumbwa, O.; Kuchinke, P. Developing human capital for the evolving work environment: Transactional and transformational leadership within instructional setting. In Proceedings of the Midwest Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA, 6–11 August 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Pounder, J.S. Transformational classroom leadership: The fourth wave of teacher leadership? Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2006, 34, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pounder, J.S. Transformational leadership: Practicing what we teach in the management classroom. J. Educ. Bus. 2008, 84, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tse, H.H.M.; Huang, X.; Lam, W. Why does transformational leadership matter for employee turnover? A multi-foci social exchange perspective. Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 763–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyong, D.N.; Rathee, N.K. Exploring emotional intelligence and authentic leadership in relation to academic achievement among nursing students. Int. J. Arts Sci. 2017, 10, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
- Humphrey, R.H. The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2002, 13, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, C.S.; Law, K.S. The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadersh. Q. 2002, 13, 243–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chirayath, S.; Lalgem, E.M.; George, S.B. Expectations come true: A study of Pygmalion effect on the performance of employees. Manag. Labour Stud. 2009, 34, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; Mind Garden: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J.; Jung, D.I.; Berson, Y. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conger, J.A.; Kanungo, R.N.; Menon, S.T. Charismatic leadership and follower effects. J. Organ. Behav. 2000, 21, 747–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, W.L.; Steers, R.M.; Terborg, J.R. The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. J. Organ. Behav. 1995, 16, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartlett, L. Teacher development through reflective teaching. In Second Language Teacher Education; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 202–214. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, J.M. Leadership; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Van Knippenberg, D.; Sitkin, S.B. A critical assessment of charismatic—Transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Acad. Manag. Ann. 2013, 7, 1–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1947. [Google Scholar]
- Jovanovica, D.; Ciricb, M. Benefits of transformational leadership in the context of education. Eur. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. EpSBS 2016, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, J.L. Instructor transformational leadership and student outcomes. Emerg. Leadersh. Journeys 2011, 4, 91–119. [Google Scholar]
- Pounder, J.S.; Stoffell, P.; Choi, E. Transformational classroom leadership and workplace engagement: Is there a relationship? Qual. Assur. Educ. Int. Perspect. 2018, 26, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simola, S.; Barling, J.; Turner, N. Transformational leadership and leaders’ mode of care reasoning. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 108, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leithwood, K.; Jantzi, D. A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 2005, 4, 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salovey, P.; Mayer, J.D. Emotional intelligence. Imagin. Cogn. Personal. 1990, 9, 185–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eden, D. Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadersh. Q. 1992, 3, 271–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N.; Sharma, K. Self-fulfilling prophecy: A literature review. Int. J. Interdiscip. Multidiscip. Stud. 2015, 2, 41–42. [Google Scholar]
- Tierney, P.; Farmer, S.M. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. J. Manag. 2004, 30, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonakis, J.; Bastardoz, N.; Jacquart, P.; Shamir, B. Charisma: An ill-defined and ill- measured gift. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016, 3, 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grabo, A.; Van Vugt, M. Charismatic leadership and the evolution of cooperation. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2016, 37, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kezar, A.J.; Kinzie, J. Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: The role of mission. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2006, 47, 149–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahu, E.R. Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 2013, 38, 758–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burch, G.F.; Burch, J.J.; Womble, J. Student engagement: An empirical analysis of the effects of implementing mandatory web-based learning systems. Organ. Manag. J. 2017, 14, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gounaris, S.P. Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: Insights from business-to-business services. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 126–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Narus, J.A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 20–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganesan, S. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Chen, W.; Duanmu, J.L. Determinants of international students’ academic performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international students. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2010, 14, 389–405. [Google Scholar]
- Abbott-Chapman, J.; Hughes, P.; Wyld, C. Monitoring Student Progress: A Framework for Improving Student Performance and Reducing Attrition in Higher Education; National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies: Hobart, Tasmania, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Biggs, J.B. Student Approaches to Learning and Studying: Research Monograph; Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd., Radford House, Frederick St.: Hawthorn, Australia, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Duff, A.; Boyle, E.; Dunleavy, K.; Ferguson, J. The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2004, 36, 1907–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1960, 25, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walumbwa, F.O.; Cropanzano, R.; Hartnell, C.A. Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 1103–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baek, T.H.; Yoo, C.Y. Branded app usability: Conceptualization, measurement, and prediction of consumer loyalty. J. Advert. 2018, 47, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Assumption and comparative strengths of the two- step approach: Comment on Fornell and Yi. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 20, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Rust, R.T.; Moorman, C.; Dickson, P.R. Getting return on quality: Revenue expansion, cost reduction, or both? J. Mark. 2002, 66, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Koo, D.W.; Han, H.S. Innovative behavior motivations among frontline employees: The mediating role of knowledge management. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 99, 103062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Kim, J. How does a celebrity make fans happy? Interaction between celebrities and fans in the social media context. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 111, 106419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balwant, P.T. Transformational instructor-leadership in higher education teaching: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2016, 9, 20–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.C.C.; Idris, M.A.; Tuckey, M. Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as mediators of the relationships between leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover intention. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2019, 22, 257–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Homans, G.C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms; Harcourt Brace Javanovich: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.S.; Koo, D.W. Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance in hotel employees. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 3044–3062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, L.; Mahmood, M.; Uddin, M.A. Supportive Chinese supervisor, innovative international students: A social exchange theory perspective. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2019, 20, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Toole, P.; Prince, N. The psychological contract of science students: Social exchange with universities and university staff from the students’ perspective. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2015, 34, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Lytras, M.; Ordonez de Pablos, P.; He, W. Exploring the effect of transformational leadership on individual creativity in e-learning: A perspective of social exchange theory. Stud. High. Educ. 2018, 43, 1964–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, N.; Zhang, M.; Qi, D. Effects of different interactions on students’ sense of community in e-learning environment. Comput. Educ. 2017, 115, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, M.; Boucher, A.R. Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy to foster motivation and engagement in learning. Mind Brain Educ. 2015, 9, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makhija, A.; Richards, D.; de Haan, J.; Dignum, F.; Jacobson, M.J. The influence of gender, personality, cognitive and affective student engagement on academic engagement in educational virtual worlds. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference, AIED 2018, London, UK, 27–30 June 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 297–310. [Google Scholar]
- Nepal, R.; Rogerson, A.M. From theory to practice of promoting student engagement in business and law-related disciplines: The case of undergraduate economics education. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Constructs and Variables | Standardized Loading | Critical Ratio |
---|---|---|
Transformational leadership (α = 0.892) from [23] | ||
My favorite professor communicates a clear and positive vision of the future. | 0.624 | Fixed |
My favorite professor treats students as individuals and supports and encourages their development. | 0.809 | 9.374 |
My favorite professor gives encouragement and recognition to students. | 0.843 | 9.651 |
My favorite professor fosters trust, involvement, and cooperation among students. | 0.768 | 9.035 |
My favorite professor encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions. | 0.918 | 9.455 |
My favorite professor is clear about the values and practices being taught. | 0.738 | 8.771 |
Emotional leadership (α = 0.870) from [30] | ||
My favorite professor can identify students’ emotions from our behaviors. | 0.753 | Fixed |
My favorite professor is a good observer of students’ emotions. | 0.868 | 12.488 |
My favorite professor is sensitive to the feelings and emotions of students. | 0.780 | 11.165 |
My favorite professor has good understanding of the emotions of students. | 0.774 | 11.072 |
Pygmalion leadership (α = 0.792) from [15] | ||
My favorite professor appears to create a warm socioemotional climate for students, partially communicated by nonverbal cues. | 0.607 | Fixed |
My favorite professor appears to teach more material and progressively more difficult material to students. | 0.630 | 7.483 |
My favorite professor appears to give students greater opportunities for responding both verbally and nonverbally. | 0.745 | 8.460 |
My favorite professor appears to give students more differentiated feedback, both verbal and nonverbal, as to how students have been performing. | 0.792 | 8.815 |
Transactional leadership (α = 0.808) from [32] | ||
My favorite professor offers rewards to students for academic performance. | 0.606 | Fixed |
My favorite professor specifically acknowledges class content innovation. | 0.672 | 7.611 |
My favorite professor rewards efforts and accomplishments related to academic performance. | 0.779 | 8.403 |
My favorite professor rewards the development of ideas related to class content. | 0.798 | 8.525 |
Charismatic leadership (α = 0.798) from [22] | ||
My favorite professor provides inspiring strategic and classroom goals. | 0.718 | Fixed |
My favorite professor motivates students by articulating the importance of what they are doing. | 0.742 | 9.905 |
My favorite professor recognizes the limitations of students in the class. | 0.732 | 9.781 |
My favorite professor often expresses personal concern for the needs and feelings of students. | 0.685 | 9.158 |
My favorite professor often incurs high personal cost for the good of the class. | 0.472 | 6.330 |
Class engagement (α = 0.887) from [9] | ||
In my favorite professor’s class, I feel like I am bursting with energy. | 0.506 | Fixed |
When I get up in the morning, I am excited to go to my favorite professor’s class. | 0.661 | 6.664 |
In my favorite professor’s class, I feel strong and vigorous. | 0.638 | 6.537 |
I am proud of my study in my favorite professor’s class. | 0.780 | 7.236 |
I am enthusiastic about my favorite professor’s class. | 0.794 | 7.294 |
My favorite professor’s class inspires me. | 0.749 | 7.103 |
I get carried away by enthusiasm in my favorite professor’s class. | 0.603 | 6.326 |
I feel happy when I am studying intensely for my favorite professor’s class. | 0.657 | 6.644 |
I am immersed in my favorite professor’s class. | 0.735 | 7.036 |
Trust toward professor (α = 0.869) from [16] | ||
I feel quite confident that my favorite professor will always try to treat me fairly. | 0.643 | Fixed |
My favorite professor would never try to gain an advantage by deceiving students. | 0.650 | 8.061 |
I have complete faith in the integrity of my favorite professor. | 0.801 | 9.510 |
I feel a strong loyalty to my favorite professor (e.g., retake, recommendation, positive word-of-mouth). | 0.733 | 8.883 |
I would support my favorite professor in almost any emergency. | 0.757 | 9.109 |
My favorite professor is trustworthy. | 0.793 | 9.443 |
Academic performance | ||
Please indicate your academic performance in your favorite professor’s class within the range of your grade percentage. | Fixed | Fixed |
Constrained | Unconstrained | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
χ2 | df | χ2 | df | △χ2 | Significance level | |
Transformational leadership vs. emotional leadership | 95.500 | 35 | 69.466 | 34 | 26.034 | 0.000 |
Transformational leadership vs. Pygmalion leadership | 84.305 | 35 | 39.843 | 34 | 44.462 | 0.000 |
Transformational leadership vs. transactional leadership | 108.586 | 35 | 73.226 | 34 | 35.360 | 0.000 |
Transformational leadership vs. charismatic leadership | 105.348 | 44 | 67.366 | 43 | 37.982 | 0.000 |
Transformational leadership vs. class engagement | 286.993 | 90 | 237.499 | 89 | 49.494 | 0.000 |
Transformational leadership vs. trust toward professor | 160.008 | 54 | 116.525 | 53 | 43.483 | 0.000 |
Transformational leadership vs. academic performance | 84.948 | 15 | 18.341 | 14 | 66.607 | 0.000 |
Emotional leadership vs. Pygmalion leadership | 52.451 | 20 | 42.551 | 19 | 9.900 | 0.002 |
Emotional leadership vs. transactional leadership | 75.483 | 20 | 70.653 | 19 | 4.830 | 0.028 |
Emotional leadership vs. charismatic leadership | 89.149 | 27 | 79.820 | 26 | 9.329 | 0.002 |
Emotional leadership vs. class engagement | 206.464 | 65 | 188.584 | 64 | 17.880 | 0.000 |
Emotional leadership vs. trust toward professor | 120.495 | 35 | 102.193 | 34 | 18.302 | 0.000 |
Emotional leadership vs. academic performance | 50.763 | 6 | 22.992 | 5 | 27.771 | 0.000 |
Pygmalion leadership vs. transactional leadership | 65.850 | 20 | 52.273 | 19 | 13.577 | 0.000 |
Pygmalion leadership vs. charismatic leadership | 42.252 | 27 | 27.822 | 26 | 14.430 | 0.000 |
Pygmalion leadership vs. class engagement | 194.328 | 65 | 165.360 | 64 | 28.968 | 0.000 |
Pygmalion leadership vs. trust toward professor | 91.373 | 35 | 62.218 | 34 | 29.155 | 0.000 |
Pygmalion leadership vs. academic performance | 30.477 | 6 | 1.571 | 5 | 28.906 | 0.000 |
Transactional leadership vs. charismatic leadership | 92.658 | 27 | 84.501 | 26 | 8.157 | 0.004 |
Transactional leadership vs. class engagement | 208.151 | 65 | 187.484 | 64 | 20.667 | 0.000 |
Transactional leadership vs. trust toward professor | 118.547 | 35 | 93.322 | 34 | 25.225 | 0.000 |
Transactional leadership vs. academic performance | 39.455 | 6 | 22.409 | 5 | 17.046 | 0.000 |
Charismatic leadership vs. class engagement | 217.378 | 77 | 202.296 | 76 | 15.082 | 0.000 |
Charismatic leadership vs. trust toward professor | 127.004 | 44 | 112.399 | 43 | 14.605 | 0.000 |
Charismatic leadership vs. academic performance | 31.302 | 10 | 14.989 | 9 | 16.313 | 0.000 |
Class engagement vs. trust toward professor | 276.810 | 90 | 253.268 | 89 | 23.542 | 0.000 |
Class engagement vs. academic performance | 171.164 | 36 | 139.981 | 35 | 31.183 | 0.000 |
Trust toward professor vs. academic performance | 62.981 | 15 | 33.021 | 14 | 29.960 | 0.000 |
Path | Standardized Estimates | Critical Ratio |
---|---|---|
Transformational leadership → Class engagement | 0.101 | 1.580 |
Transformational leadership → Trust toward professor | 0.268 | 3.815 ** |
Emotional leadership → Class engagement | 0.135 | 1.972 * |
Emotional leadership → Trust toward professor | 0.069 | 0.932 |
Pygmalion leadership → Class engagement | 0.215 | 2.877 ** |
Pygmalion leadership → Trust toward professor | 0.216 | 2.645 ** |
Transactional leadership → Class engagement | 0.000 | −0.002 |
Transactional leadership → Trust toward professor | −0.103 | −1.466 |
Charismatic leadership → Class engagement | 0.439 | 6.708 ** |
Charismatic leadership → Trust toward professor | 0.365 | 5.103 ** |
Class engagement → Academic performance | 0.270 | 3.484 ** |
Trust toward professor → Academic performance | 0.043 | 0.552 |
Indirect effects | Standardized estimates | p-value |
Transformational leadership → Academic performance | 0.039 | 0.198 |
Emotional leadership → Academic performance | 0.039 | 0.067 |
Pygmalion leadership → Academic performance | 0.067 | 0.012 * |
Transactional leadership → Academic performance | −0.005 | 0.873 |
Charismatic leadership → Academic performance | 0.134 | 0.002 ** |
Endogenous variables | Squared multiple correlations (R2) | |
Class engagement | 0.594 (59.4%) | |
Trust toward professor | 0.516 (51.6%) | |
Academic performance | 0.102 (10.2%) |
Hypotheses | Supported | p-Value |
---|---|---|
H1: Transformational leadership is positively associated with class engagement (H1a) and trust toward professor (H1b). | H1a H1b | n.s. 0.05 |
H2: Emotional leadership is positively associated with class engagement (H2a) and trust toward professor (H2b). | H2a H2b | 0.05 n.s. |
H3: Pygmalion leadership is positively associated with class engagement (H3a) and trust toward professor (H3b). | H3a H3b | 0.01 0.01 |
H4: Transactional leadership is positively associated with class engagement (H4a) and trust toward professor (H4b). | H4a H4b | n.s. n.s. |
H5: Charismatic leadership is positively associated with class engagement (H5a) and trust toward professor (H5b). | H5a H5b | 0.01 0.01 |
H6: Class engagement is positively associated with academic performance. | H6 | 0.01 |
H7: Trust toward professor is positively associated with academic performance. | H7 | n.s |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, M.; Albers, N.D.; Knotts, T.L. Academic Success through Engagement and Trust Fostered by Professor Leadership Style. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060537
Kim M, Albers ND, Knotts TL. Academic Success through Engagement and Trust Fostered by Professor Leadership Style. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(6):537. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060537
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Minseong, Nancy D. Albers, and Tami L. Knotts. 2023. "Academic Success through Engagement and Trust Fostered by Professor Leadership Style" Education Sciences 13, no. 6: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060537