IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.19 No.11

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 19, No. 11 (November 2020)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 19, No. 11
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the November 2020 Issue

VOLUME 19 NUMBER 11 November 2020
Table of Contents
Cultivating Problem-Solving Scholar-Practitioners: Impact of One CPED Program on Leader Self-Efficacy ...........1
Nancy Akhavan, Nichole Walsh and Janeen Goree
Influence of the Principal’s Digital Leadership on the Reflective Practices of Vocational Teachers Mediated by
Trust, Self Efficacy, and Work Engagement...................................................................................................................... 24
Rini Agustina, Waras Kamdi, Syamsul Hadi, Muladi and Didik Nurhadi
A Review of Theories and Practices of Multiliteracies in Classroom: Issues and Trends ........................................... 41
Ang Leng Hong and Tan Kim Hua
Levels of Readiness and Preparedness of Selected South African TVET Colleges in Meeting the Requirements of
the Hospitality Industry....................................................................................................................................................... 53
Mary Motolani Olowoyo, Sam Ramaila and Lydia Mavuru
Custom Practices of English Education at the Rural Primary Schools in Bangladesh................................................. 71
Mohammad Ehsanul Islam Khan, Md. Abu Bakar Siddique and Mohammad Nazmul Haque Shikder Shiblu
Advancing the Design of Self-Explanation Prompts for Complex Problem-Solving .................................................. 88
Hyun Joo, Jinju Lee and Dongsik Kim
Comparison of Students in Teacher Education from China and the USA: An Assessment of Dispositions .......... 109
Judy R. Wilkerson, Lasonya L. Moore, W. Steve Lang and Jingshun Zhang
The Use of Local Literary Texts as Reading Materials in English Language Classrooms: An Analysis of Teachers’
Perspectives ......................................................................................................................................................................... 127
Muhammad Shahril Haja Mohaideen, Hanita Hanim Ismail and Radzuwan Ab Rashid
Use of Technology-Based Tools in Ensuring Quality of Publishable Journal Articles .............................................. 145
Gilbert C. Magulod, Leonilo B. Capulso, Cinder Dianne L. Tabiolo, Merlyn N. Luza and Mary Grace C. Ramada
Investigating the Relationship of Working Memory and Inhibitory Control: Bilingual Education and Pedagogical
Implications in Elementary School................................................................................................................................... 163
Maria Sofologi, Makrina Zafiri and Vassiliki Pliogou

The Impact of Text Messaging as an Instructional Tool to Enhance Learner Autonomy and Perception.............. 184
Behnam Behforouz and Anca Daniela Frumuselu
Learning EFL Online During a Pandemic: Insights into The Quality of Emergency Online Education ................. 203
Hussein Assalahi
Shadow Education in Indonesia: Is It Relevant to Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Chemistry Learning? ..... 223
Maria C. S. Kawedhar, Sri Mulyani, Sulistyo Saputro and Sri Yamtinah
Saudi EFL Teachers’ Attitudes towards Professional Development............................................................................ 242
Maha Alzahrani
Exploring Vertical Coherence of Content Topics in Philippine Spiral Kto10 Mathematics Curriculum ................ 259
Ryan V. Dio
English Language Teachers in Diaspora: A Heideggerian Phenomenology .............................................................. 283
Gino G. Sumalinog

1
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Vol. 19, No. 11, pp. 1-23, November 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.11.1
Cultivating Problem-Solving Scholar-
Practitioners: Impact of One CPED Program on
Leader Self-Efficacy
Nancy Akhavan and Nichole Walsh*
California State University, Fresno, California, USA
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-9793
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1426-0551
Janeen Goree
Fresno Pacific University, Fresno, California, USA
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8407-352X
Abstract. This single case study is a qualitative inquiry into the cultivation
of doctoral candidates and graduates on their efficacy as leaders in using
inquiry as to approach problems of practice in daily work. The study
examined a doctoral program in educational leadership at one large
public university in California, USA. The case study methods included
artifact analysis, an examination of field notes, and semi-structured one-
on-one phone interviews. The data analysis of all sources revealed three
themes related to participants’ leader self-efficacy in using scholarly
inquiry on problems of practice in the field. Findings indicate that the
participants grew in their leader self-efficacy, transformed, and confident
in their sense of self as an educational scholar-practitioner to enact
change. As a result of their experience in a Carnegie Project on the
Education Doctorate (CPED) program, graduate participants also
highlight the focus on inquiry processes to solve problems of practice as
vital to educational leadership. Conclusions highlight considerations for
similar programs when evaluating how they prepare graduates to impact
education beyond coursework. Further research should emphasize how
programs are addressing problems of practice for social justice to impact
educational leaders in the field upon program completion.
Keywords: education doctorate; leader self-efficacy; scholar-practitioner;
problems of practice; educational leadership
1. Introduction
In the past, researchers critiqued the education doctorate (EdD) by examining
characteristics of various programs and candidates uncovering challenges in
*
Corresponding author: Nichole Walsh; Email: nwalsh@mail.fresnostate.edu

2
developing leaders for local impact on issues within the communities they serve
(e.g., Levine, 2005; Murphy & Vriesenga, 2005). Later, researchers found that there
is hope within the scope of graduating doctoral candidates, when programs aim
to develop new leaders as scholar-practitioners who challenge the status quo (e.g.,
Zambo, 2013; Zambo, Buss & Zambo, 2015). Through the reframing of the EdD in
this way, programs can focus on a rigorous curriculum that cultivates graduates
who can take with them the critical skills of scholarly inquiry, coupled with
problem-solving of systemic issues in the communities they serve (Buss, 2018).
A body of research has focused on the reconfiguration of the EdDin this way
(Hovannesian, 2013; Peterson, 2017; Welch, 2013); however, more consideration is
needed on how candidates transfer learning problems of practice in an academic
setting to the real-world work environments as future educational leaders (Zambo
et al., 2015; Vasudeva, 2017). As Zambo et al. (2015) indicate, understanding the
candidate-to-leader identity is one of the most relevant topics to consider for
redesigning doctoral programs for graduates. Not only because of the broader
societal issues, but also because of the management challenges new school leaders
encounter daily in the field (Arrieta & Ancho, 2020).
This paper explores how one redesigned model, the Carnegie Project on the
Education Doctorate (CPED), positively impacts program graduates and the
organizations for which they serve. Inquiry as Practice is a guiding principle of
CPED programs where candidates are guided in:
“The process of posing significant questions that focus on complex
problems of practice and the ability to gather, organize, judge, aggregate,
and analyze situations, literature, and data with a critical lens.” (CPED,
2019b, Design-Concepts Upon Which to Build Programs, para. 5).
A second guiding principle relevant to this study is Scholarly Practitioner where
candidates are supported in:
Blend[ing] practical wisdom with professional skills and knowledge to
name, frame, and solve problems of practice. They use practical research
and applied theories as tools for change because they understand the
importance of equity and social justice. (CPED, 2019b, Design-Concepts
Upon Which to Build Programs, para. 3).
When working to transform EdD programs, it is pertinent to understand how
intentionally threaded experiences of scholarly inquiry alongside classroom
learning can impact graduates’ educational leader self-efficacy (Hannah, Avolio,
Luthans & Harms, 2008; Hannah, Woolfolk & Lord, 2009) in “the new and emerging
developmental conditions that prevail in early twenty-first century cities and regions”
(Gibney, 2011, p. 614).
1.1 Research Questions
Using a single post ex facto case study framed by the CIPP evaluation model for
quality education (Aziz, Mahmood, & Rehman, 2018), researchers explore to
understand the following questions:
● How does a CPED doctoral program support candidates in cultivating
their leader self-efficacy as problem-solving scholar-practitioners?
● To what extent do CPED program graduates, as scholar-practitioners,
continue to solve problems of practice in the field?

3
2. Guiding Frameworks
Two frameworks guided the research evaluation design and qualitative analyses
for this case study: The CIPP model for quality evaluation in educational settings and
Leader Self-Efficacy.
2.1 Conceptual Framework: The CIPP Model for Quality Evaluation
The CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) evaluation model was designed to help
organizational leaders make data-based decisions for program improvement.
Further, the CIPP model also considers how findings can be communicated and
applied across various stakeholder levels (Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017). Context
evaluation is based on various data collection methods such as reviewing
supporting literature, program documents, archived artifacts, and stakeholder
interviews and surveys. The aim is to understand the program’s general nature,
purpose, and goals (Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017). Input narrows the evaluation to
specific or unique aspects of the program being studied, and Process evaluation
considers how well those aspects are meeting intended goals and objectives for
the learners. These evaluation components require data from stakeholders with
intimate knowledge of the program and implementation of aspects under
evaluation (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004). Product, the last evaluation component, uses
findings and analyses across multiple data sources to conclude program
effectiveness to inform decision-makers on the most appropriate next steps to
improve teaching and learning (Sancer, Baturay & Fadde, 2013; Aziz et al., 2018).
This model’s strengths, specifically in the context of the post ex facto design
(Creswell & Poth, 2018), allow for a nonlinear and non-time bound approach
(Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017). Instead, the analyses are based on the findings from
multiple sources of data to provide a rich understanding of the program, intended
outcomes, and impact on the adult learners to draw conclusions and make
recommendations for improvement and sustainability (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004;
Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017; Wang, 2010). Furthermore, this evaluation framework
can provide considerations for practitioners with similar programs and inform
future research (Aziz et al., 2018). Additionally, unlike others, the CIPP evaluation
model is aimed at understanding the role teaching and learning play in the
program context (Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017), making it a strong fit for a case
study in education.
Aziz et al. (2018) implemented the CIPP evaluation model for a school-level case
study, validating through triangulation of mixed-methods, a conceptual
framework specific to education. Figure 1 outlines the model used to frame the
post ex facto case study analyses in this evaluation.

4
Figure 1: CIPP Model for Quality Evaluation (Aziz et al., 2018, p. 195)
2.2 Theoretical Framework: Leader Self-Efficacy
Leader Self-Efficacy (LSE; Hannah et al., 2008; 2009; 2012; 2013), the theoretical
framework for this study, stems from Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy which
explains behavioral changes. Bandura’s (1977a) construct of self-efficacy defined
perceived self-efficacy as the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a
course of action required to produce an outcome. Bandura (1977b) describes that
psychological features, like thoughts and reactions, will affect a person’s self-
efficacy belief’s. Bandura’s theory suggests that a person’s belief in their ability to
have mastery over an outcome will increase their willingness even to try and
persist (Bandura, 1977a). When specifically looking at self-efficacy in a leaders
context, the more a leader accesses a wide-array of self-efficacy constructs, the
more they will perceive their ability to resiliently handle various challenges that
inevitably lie ahead (Hannah et al., 2009; 2012). These foundational theories
correspond to the construct mentioned above as a problem of practice where a
strong belief in one’s ability to apply critical inquiry to solve challenging issues is
vital.
Hannah, Avolio, Walumbwa and Chan (2012; 2013) established and validated a
multifaceted Leader Efficacy theory and measurement with two factors: leader
self- and means-efficacy. The complex constructs from Hannah et al. (2012; 2013)
can be generalized as follows: Leader Self-Efficacy regards the internal shifts on
what the leader believes they can do, while Leader Means-Efficacy regards the
external actions and transactions within the context of the organization and others
being led. For this case study to evaluate program impact on candidate learning,
the theoretical framework was delimited the single factor of Leader Self-Efficacy
(LSE) because it is within direct program influence.
Hannah et al. (2008; 2009) first formalized LSE as a layered construct built on the
interactions of leader-efficacy in:
1. thought, the perception of ability to find solutions to complex issues;
2. self-motivation, the perception of the amount of effort to be given towards
a challenging situation;
3. means, the perception of access to resources and how this may affect the
leader’s ability to address a challenge; and

5
4. action, the leader’s performance based on the subsequent construct in a
given leadership contex,t which becomes increasingly more automatic
over time and experience. These constructs provided the lens through
which this case study could examine the perspectives of CPED program
graduates to explore and evaluate how the program develops LSE to assist
new leaders in solving problems of practice in a diverse local setting after
graduation.
3. Methods and Procedure
A single post ex facto case study method (Cresswell & Poth, 2018) framed by the
CIPP Model for Quality Evaluation (Aziz et al., 2018) was most suitable to conduct
an inquiry into graduate’s perspectives from one CPED program at a large public
university in California. The case study approach integrates information sources
and allows analysis from different viewpoints (Cresswell & Poth, 2018) after
program completion. The evaluation model for the case study method used
stakeholder perspectives and experiences through interviews and reflexive
journaling alongside documents, archived data, and associated program literature
to understand the unique program aspects within the broader CPED context and
conclude their impact on graduates’ LSE. This model is supported by Denzin’s
(2017) focus on qualitative inquiry methods to shape information that is not
collected in a number-focused study, which the CIPP model does not require for
evaluation (Aziz et al., 2018). Although this method’s findings are difficult to
generalize, the understanding of one case can develop a perspective of what is
happening in the field, which can shape practitioner considerations for similar
contexts and inform further research (Cresswell & Poth, 2018).
3.1 Participant Sample
The study design for the CIPP evaluation used a representative random sample
(Cresswell & Poth, 2018) of 12 volunteer participant graduates from one CPED
inspired program. The doctoral leadership program adopted a cohort model,
with half focused on PreK-12 and the other half on higher education. This study
was conducted, with human subject research approval, using the program’s
archived database. The database included student names, contact information, job
position while the student was in the program, their current job status as
provided, and the year they graduated. There were approximately 150 graduates
across program cohorts; thus, a goal of 10% for the participant sample was set,
and 15 graduates would be contacted.
All names were entered into an Excel sheet to choose the 15 graduates as a
representative sample (Cresswell & Poth, 2018). After the sheet was printed, the
names with identifying information were cut into strips and placed into an
envelope where 15 strips were randomly selected and five additional were drawn
as alternates. The principal investigator contacted possible participants via phone
and moved to the next name on the list after three attempts, which garnished 12
total interviews. The participants’ demographics reflected that of the overall
program graduate population with the following breakdown reported: Gender (7-
female, 58.3%; 5-male, 41.7%; 0 other); Race/Ethnicity (5-Hispanic, 41.7%; 1-
African American, 8.3%; 2-Asian American, 16.7%; 4-white, 33.3%); Program

6
Focus (5-higher ed, 41.7%; 7-p-12, 58.3%); Currently in Formal Leadership Role
(12-yes, 100%; 0-no).
3.2 Data Collection
The approved case study used three post ex facto data sources for the evaluation
model: (1) interviews with volunteer graduates, (2) volunteer graduates’
dissertations as samples of problems of practice inquiry, and (3) observational
notes of teaching and learning from one aligned DPELFS leadership course.
Additionally, one researcher kept a reflexive journal during the interview process
and had access to archived program syllabi, student work samples from one
program course, and participants’ dissertations. Member-checking was used
throughout the analyses to enhance credibility (Cresswell & Poth, 2018). For
increased dependability, case study protocols were defined and followed with
adherence to transcription standards using a professional, confidential service
(Chowdhury, 2015).
3.2.1 Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were chosen because of the flexibility the researcher
has in asking questions beyond the protocol to delve deeper into issues and points
the interviewee discusses (Cresswell & Poth, 2018) necessary for the CIPP model
(Aziz et al., 2018). All interviews were conducted over the phone for the
participants convenience and confidentiality due to the study’s evaluative nature.
Any identifiers were removed at transcription, and individual participant letters
were assigned to their responses to enhance confidentiality further.
The interview protocol included 12 questions organized into three sets. The first
two questions oriented the participant and the interviewer for rapport (Denzin,
2017; Cresswell & Poth, 2018). The next three questions concentrated on using
problems of practice while in the program. While the following three questions
considered their current leadership role and how they integrate problems of
practice to enact change. The next four were evaluative to capture the CIPP
elements in developing LSE. The final question invited participants to provide
additional information concerning how the program supported their growth. The
interview protocol is located in appendix 1.
3.2.2 Program Literature, Artifact, and Document Review
The use of literature, artifacts, and documents is essential to triangulating
qualitative case study findings (Denzin, 2017; Creswell & Poth, 2018). For the CIPP
Model for Quality Evaluation, these collected data should be specific to
understanding the case study program and participant outcomes (Aziz et al.,
2018).
For this evaluation case study, as program graduates, participants had completed
their dissertations in practice and took a leadership course on implementing and
sustaining change in organizations. The course included field-based practicum,
where candidates investigated a problem of practice in authentic field-based
settings in PreK-12 organizations or institutions of higher education. The
researcher taught this class and had study approved access to archived syllabi,
four years of student work and teaching notes, and the final examination papers
written by study participants and other candidates. These papers specifically

7
outlined solutions to the complex problems identified based on action research in
the field throughout the semester. Dissertations were publicly available on
ProQuest with full access to university faculty. Other program documents and
literature were also publicly available via the case study program’s university
website, the CPED website, and through EdD and CPED aligned peer-reviewed
journal articles.
3.2.3 Reflexive Journal
One researcher, with instructional experience in the program, kept a reflexive
journal (Rettke, Pretto, Spichiger, Frei & Spirig, 2018) to record notes throughout
the data collection process. The aims were three-fold. First, to continue mitigating
potential biases using reflective self-monitoring during evaluation. Second, to
capture metacognitive connections made by the researcher between the findings
and the researcher’s professional experiences, only a principal investigator close
to the program’s work could deeply understand. Third, to increase rigor by
allowing a second and third researcher to later review for mitigation of bias within
the post ex facto CIPP evaluation (Rettke et al, 2018).
3.3 Data Analysis
Once the interview transcripts were checked through member checking by the
participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018) and the interview transcripts were stored for
a later review. The researchers used a collaborative hybrid qualitative thematic
analysis (Denzin, 2017) to support the CIPP model evaluation components.
Framed by the theory of Leader Self-Efficacy (Hannah et al., 2008; Hannah et al.,
2009), themes from response convergence on perceptions of program impact
emerged (Denzin, 2017) and were used within the evaluation model alongside the
other data.
After the interviews, the principal investigator launched upon organizing and
examining documents and files that she had from her work as an instructor of a
core course in the program. She embarked upon this examination of documents
to fully understand the participant, their background, their learning processes,
and their current leadership position responsibilities to prepare for the CIPP
evaluation with the supporting researchers (Chowdhury, 2015).
The principal investigator continued to keep notes in the reflexive journal to note
her feelings when reading the transcriptions and match the transcriptions to
assessment notes, papers written by each individual, and field notes when
teaching each participant in the class. Thoughts and feelings were noted for later
review to mitigate potential coding biases (Creswell & Poth, 2018). These notes
were referenced during the CIPP evaluation for supporting researchers to
member check potential areas of bias and as a piece of stakeholder data within the
Input and Process evaluations (Anzin, et al, 2018).
3.4 Limitations
The primary limitation is researcher bias as the principal investigator (PI) of this
study is highly involved in all aspects of the case study CPED program and the
candidates’ experiences. At the time of the study, the PI had taught one core
course for five years working with seven face to face and five online cohorts.
Candidates examined an authentic PreK-12 or higher education field-based

8
problem of practice in this course. Furthermore, the PI has chaired numerous
dissertations, guiding candidates through inquiry into the problem of practice
they have identified for their research agenda. This bias was essential in
developing rapport with the graduate candidates as they had great comfort in
sharing personal narratives in the field with the researcher. The researcher also
understood the program nuances and concepts presented in the interview
narratives that one from the outside would require further exploration before
analysis. On the other hand, intentional mitigation of bias that could affect
validity was addressed by including two research colleagues. At the time, one was
not involved as faculty in the CPED, and the other was a non-CPED instructor at
a different university. These additional researchers worked to member check each
step of the findings and analytic processes ensuring higher objectivity
(Chowdhury, 2015; Denzin, 2017).
4. Findings and Discussion
Using the CIPP model for quality evaluation framework, this single post ex facto
case study aimed to explore the following:
● How does a CPED doctoral program support candidates in cultivating
their leader self-efficacy as problem-solving scholar-practitioners?
● To what extent do these CPED program graduates, as scholar-
practitioners, continue to solve problems of practice in the field?
Findings and emergent themes are presented in conjunction with the analyses
appropriate to each component of the CIPP evaluation and the literature review:
Context, Input, Process, Product.
4.1 Context Evaluation
Pertinent to the Context evaluation is to understand the educational goals and
objectives of the program and the larger mission for social impact (Aziz et al.,
2018). Through document and aligned literature review, findings highlighted that
graduates from CPED aligned programs, as is the one under evaluation, are
provided progressive leadership goals for practice and application in the field at
the PreK-12 and higher education levels.
The program under review is part of the Carnegie Project on the Education
Doctorate (CPED), a consortium of over 100 colleges and schools of education in
the United States and Canada focused on reconfiguring EdD programs through a
critical focus on rigor and change in curriculum development (CPED, 2019a). The
CPED framework (CPED, 2019b) guides the redesign of programs around
progressive questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions
to complex problems of practice and prepare leaders who can make a positive
difference in the communities they serve. Students in CPED programs are
expected to develop collaboration and communication skills for working with
diverse communities with embedded field-based opportunities to apply to learn
to find solutions for real-world problems. With these frames, CPED programs
should link theory and systematic inquiry to emphasize the generation and
transformation of professional knowledge and practice to enact social justice
change in local settings (CPED, 2019a).

9
Three CPED framework (2019b) guiding principles – one, four, and five – were
highlighted across the documents and artifacts collected for this program
evaluation as insight into these progressive notions of school leadership. Principle
one frames the purpose of the education doctorate to address questions on equity,
ethics, and social justice for solutions to complex problems of practice. Principle
four indicates that programs use field-based opportunities with candidates to
analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful
solutions. Principle five states the program should be grounded in and develops
a professional leadership base that integrates practical and research knowledge,
linking theory with critical inquiry. Students within CPED programs are expected
to also learn through inquiry (CPED, 2019a). The program under evaluation for
this case study, as designated a CPED affiliate, is to intentionally thread inquiry-
based learning through to the capstone experience (CPED, 2019b).
As such, CPED candidates should begin to integrate the take-aways from case
study analyses in the classroom into authentic action research in the field,
increasing the likelihood that effective leadership practices will become part of
their repertoire, thereby increasing collective organization success (e.g., Hamann
& Trainin, 2018; Peurach, 2016; CPED, 2019a). The larger goal is that graduates
apply these experiential leadership lessons in inquiry to their job contexts, no
matter where they are positioned within an organization. When a steady focus
on improving educational contexts is implemented, there is a greater impetus for
improving student learning outcomes, an emphasis on scalable actions, and also
a movement away from the diffusion of innovations toward sustained,
coordinated efforts that result in widespread change (Peurach, 2016) that the
redesigned CPED program, like the one under evaluation, is aiming to achieve
(CPED, 2019a). Additionally, CPED programs utilizing a cohort model to cultivate
scholar-practitioners to solve complex problems of practice have made the most
impact on developing efficacious and effective change leaders in local contexts
(e.g., Hamann & Trainin, 2018; Kennedy, Bondy, Dana, Vescio & Ma, 2020;
Cunningham, VanGronigen, Tucker & Young, 2019). Evidence of these CPED
affiliate expectations and research-based best-practice – developing cohorts of
educational leaders in PreK-12 and Higher Education as problem-solving scholar-
practitioners for social justice and organizational change – were found within the
program website and handbook, course syllabi as signature assignments and field
experiences as well as the principal investigator’s reflexive journals and teaching
notes.
To appreciate this CPED program’s goal – developing educational leaders for
social justice and change – understanding the region for which graduates practice
as educational leaders were essential to explore within the Context evaluation.
The university is situated in an area of California that is considered to be high in
poverty and low in educational attainment, ranked 15th in the nation for people
living in poverty (28.1%), and nearly 80 percent of those living in the Fresno area
have not earned a bachelor's degree (Ramsey, 2019). Along with high poverty
rates, the region has large numbers of immigrants and non-citizens with a variety
of cultures and languages (Sierra Health Foundation, 2016). The diverse backdrop
is the community in which the doctoral graduates from this CPED program serve.
Reviews of student assignments, instructor discussion notes, dissertation topics,

10
and interview responses highlighted the challenges presented across this
geographical region with systemic societal oppression that PreK-12 and higher
education institutions are working to ameliorate by educating the populace. For
example, various submitted assignments over the four years noted ways
candidates were grappling with challenges related to the level of poverty and
education of most residents within their districts and institutions of employment.
The website highlighted several candidate quotes appreciating the “real-world
experience of [program] faculty” because they understood the challenges and
needs of the community they will lead. For triangulation, evaluation findings
showed many of the core graduate faculty, as noted on the program’s website
links to Curriculum Vitas during document analysis, had current connections to
local PreK-16 institutions, also noted as a vital CPED program practice (Auerbach,
2011; Peterson et al., 2016). Thus, as a CPED affiliate, the Context evaluation
findings illustrated how the program focused on scholarly inquiry to support
finding solutions to problems of practice in the regional demographic contexts
with community-engaged faculty with some reference to issues of social justice.
4.2 Input Evaluation
For Input evaluation, the conceptual framework outlines the focus on resources,
infrastructure, curriculum, and content to address the program’s needs within the
established context (Aziz et al., 2018). For this case study, and based on the Context
evaluation findings, the Input evaluation was delimited to curriculum and
content.
In alignment with these CPED program graduates’ contexts, the syllabi and
signature assignment content illuminated the program’s understanding that these
educational leaders will face complex issues. Further congruence of document,
artifact, and reflexive journal review findings highlighted this specific CPED
program focused curriculum and content on scholarly inquiry to find solutions to
new problems of practice in the field to support LSE in a changing landscape.
Based on document review, this program recognized a problem of practice to
frame leader inquiry as action research into a situation currently puzzling an
organization without a static or straightforward answer (Pollack & Ryan, 2013).
Further analyses of field notes and documents also revealed this inquiry into
problems of practice as a significant point of the program. Nine core courses listed
some type of problem-solving through a scholarly inquiry approach as a student
outcome. The terms seeing problems, problem-solving, or seeing problems of practice
were used 22 times across participant responses and was the most repeated point
made. Likewise, a review of assignments revealed prompts that pushed
candidates to framework-based situations as problems of practice and consider
how they might approach complex real-world issues to develop LSE beyond
program completion expectations (Hamann & Trainin, 2018).
It was also discovered that most program instructors identified the cycle for
continuous improvement as the method for problem analysis and solution
planning. One core course syllabus, for example, noted a candidate learning
outcome as, “Graduates will be able to lead collaborative team building and create
solutions to problems that demonstrate ethical and sound instructional leadership through
the cycle of continuous improvement.” Through circumlocution, 19 participant

11
responses also referenced learning the continuous improvement model to
approach problems in the field. Making a statement about the course content
regarding the continuous improvement model, for example, one participant
explained:
“[The program] gave me different lenses to look at the issues. We looked
at different learning experiences, perspectives, problem-solving, and their
impact. The content in the classroom shaped our practice solving problems
in the field.”
Another participant explained more on learning the concept of systems analysis
for organizations, such as the cycle of improvement, was a focus in one core
course, and this understanding appeared to be one that participants understood
and carried with them into field-based practice. For example:
“The program offered...the practitioners’ a framework, so to speak, across
the board. We were charged with doing something in what you’re doing
right now, learning from other people what they have applied currently,
or found successful. So, I guess the program is designed specifically to
work from the problem-solving model in the field for improvement.”
Gibney’s (2011) description for reframing and Cunningham, VanGronigen,
Tucker & Young’s (2019) focus of using powerful learning experiences in
leadership development also aligns with concepts around organizational
responsibility and sustainability this CPED program infused into course learning
outcomes as referenced across syllabi and signature assignments. With the
overarching CPED Principle One illustrated social justice topics within each core
and elective syllabi and central to the change leadership course instructed by the
principal investigator, the program values education’s social responsibility for
equity and access across contexts. Participant’s responses triangulated the
teaching of social justice concepts through referenced terms such as leading for
equity, advocating for change, and amplifying voices. For example, one participant
who identified as “a minority who feels marginalized, especially in leadership roles,”
eloquently described this in terms of becoming an advocate for candidates and
others she serves:
“The program has given me the knowledge, as well as the wisdom
and...the courage to really be the voice for the candidates and maybe even
amplify voices of people we mentor when they may not have one.”
Another participant who recognized his “privilege as a white male in leadership
positions” explained considerations he learned in the program:
“[The courses] challenged me to consider my biases and identities coming
to problems of practice as a leader. The way I come to the problem is not
how others have experienced it, so understanding the cycle of
improvement from an equity perspective means I must ensure all voices
are at the table and part of the collaborative processes for finding solutions.
Otherwise, what have we really changed?”
4.3 Process Evaluation
The Process evaluation focuses on understanding the program’s teaching and
learning strategies and co-curricular activities that support the program’s goals
and expected student outcomes (Aziz et al., 2018). While the review of syllabi,

12
signature assignments, student assignments, teaching notes, and reflexive
journaling revealed many approaches to teaching and learning across
instructional experiences, there was convergence across data regarding the use of
case studies and literature reviews for scholarly inquiry into real-world problems
of practice from the frame of the respective course content all with the intent of
shaping student leadership skills as a general construct. Many courses also
incorporated field-based experiences as an applied application of learning to
practice new leadership skills in context. These types of contextual experiences,
within the LSE framework, can shape perceptions of ability and access to
resources for solving complex issues, which impact the effort given and
automaticity to act in challenging situations (e.g., Hannah et al., 2013).
Focusing on a problem of practice requires decision-making processes to examine
a real-time case to effectively move forward with a leadership action across
organizational contexts for various purposes, even outside of teaching and
learning (Chitpin, 2014). Hamann and Trainin (2018) note that establishing a
system of inquiry into a problem of practice is essential to developing scholar-
practitioners; also, factors found to impact LSE (Hannah et al., 2008; Hannah et
al., 2009). Without the skills needed to first engage in deep inquiry for continuous
improvement, leaders will fall back on status quo approaches to making decisions
rather than draw on the visionary and collaborative processes needed for real
change in schools (Morrison, 2018). Field notes revealed that the principal
investigator, as the change leader instructor, regularly incorporated peer-
reviewed case studies to teach inquiry into problems of practice using the cycle of
continuous improvement model with small groups of candidates.
Furthermore, critical discourse and inquiry, becoming increasingly popular ways
to frame teaching and learning in higher education (Rogers et al., 2016) with a
focus on collaborative discussion and problem-solving across leadership
preparation instruction (Jenkins, 2020), were also emphasized strategies for the
CPED instructors as noted across seven syllabi course overviews. Students from
this CPED program are also expected to become skilled in a type of critical
discourse – the two-way change process of leadership (Fairholm, 2014) – within
the principal investigator's change leadership course. The two-way change
process of leadership (Fairholm, 2014) requires candidates to take the individual
and personal notions of leadership and adapt them to organizations’ issues within
which they work, essential to field-based assignments. Participant interview
responses illustrated that, as PreK-12 and higher education leaders who work in
professional educational communities, they were involved in the two-way
leadership change process by examining problems of practice regularly
throughout the program. Triangulation of data found convergence on the use of
real-world case studies to teach scholarly inquiry into problems of practice to
discover how leaders who have gone before them have approached difficult
problems. Furthermore, the intent was to use the new understandings to shape
leadership skills vicariously, somewhat like an apprenticeship model, as noted in
the reflexive journal and the student assignment responses, to impact overall LSE
(Hannah et al., 2013) in the field-based experiences.

13
The program also highlights the use of Gibbs’ (1988) model of reflection in many
of the core course syllabi to assist candidates in this two way leadership exchange.
Much like Thanaraj (2016) delineates with her autoethnography on using
reflection to impact leadership skills, Gibb’s (1988) reflective structure has
candidates consider learning experiences, including the interactions with
stakeholders, to understand what they would do differently for more robust
outcomes. The model also adds an introspection, drawing on emotional
intelligence through awareness of feelings and internal thought patterns
(University of Cumbria, 2020).
Furthermore, while the term inquiry was not always explicitly used, case studies
informed what and how strategies were applied in the improvement cycle noted
across 10-course syllabi. Course outcomes also aimed to cultivate leadership skills
to think and deal with field-based complexities through engagement in dynamic,
collaborative organizational processes with high levels of emotional intelligence
and cultural awareness (Cunningham et al., 2019; Sudirman & Gemilang, 2020).
These skills can be taught effectively through powerful learning experiences using
collective inquiry at the intersection of theory, research, and practice for the
critical examination of authentic problems of practice (Cunningham et al., 2019)
and in work-based settings (Sudirman & Gemilang, 2020). These skills, as a
component of LSE (Hannah et al., 2013), are also developed with the incorporation
of field-based action research as a model of scholarly inquiry (Lenihan et al., 2015),
for which the triangulation of findings revealed was central to this CPED program
instructors pedagogy.
4.4 Product Evaluation
The Product evaluation allows for data review through the lens of actual outcomes,
positive or negative, as aligned to the established program goals (Aziz et al., 2018).
As a CPED aligned program working to develop educational leaders, this case
evaluation presented the unique ways the CPED principles were being presented
in the curriculum and taught in and out of the classroom. The evaluation up to
this point illuminated that the program desires new leaders understand their
social responsibility to the field of education and hone the skills to think through
complex situations, engage groups in organizational change and focus on
sustainability with high emotional intelligence for social change (Cunningham et
al., 2019; Sudirman & Gemilang, 2020). The program considered how leadership
has to be reframed and aligned for organizational change needs (Gibney, 2011;
Morrison, 2018) and transitioned to the real-world (Zambo, Ross & Zambo, 2015;
Vasudeva, 2017), which is an overarching tenet of CPED aligned programs (2019)
and threaded throughout this case study evidence. The first three evaluations
illustrated that this CPED program’s goal is to develop change leaders for the
future, explicitly drawing upon and cultivating student inquiry into problems of
practice in the field during the program and continuing after graduation. Leader
Self-Efficacy (Hannah et al., 2013) provided a framework for exploring how these
program graduates have developed as leaders and how they face leadership
situations in the field to evaluate the program’s effectiveness in meeting the
intended goals and learning objectives.

14
The participant interview responses on applying program learning objectives and
experiences were analyzed for emergent themes and evaluated for growth in LSE
(Hannah et al., 2013) as the ultimate program outcome goal. Next, the themes
guided the researchers' understanding of the evaluation questions (1) How does a
CPED doctoral program support candidates’ in cultivating their leader self-efficacy as
problem-solving scholar-practitioners? (2) To what extent do CPED program graduates,
as scholar-practitioners, continue to solve problems of practice in the field?
Trends from interview participant response emergent thematic analysis (Denzin,
2017) triangulated with the archived document review through the previous
evaluation findings illuminated the program impacted LSE and inquiry is a
learned skill developed through the program’s focus on problems of practice. The
most emphasized points, aligned with the framework of LSE in thought, self-
motivation, means, and action, were as follows:
1. personal transformation as a leader;
2. increased confidence as a leader to enact change; and,
3. seeing inquiry as a program learned skill to solve problems of practice as
leaders in the field.
The participants discussed growth in approaching problems of practice as leaders
in their work contexts because of the program. They also perceived that learning
to inquire into a problem of practice based on research was a program-developed
skill important in strengthening their ability to lead in the field after the program.
4.4.1 Theme one: Personal transformation in LSE of thought, self-motivation,
and action
As outlined from the previous evaluation components, an overarching goal of this
CPED program is that candidates become leaders who can lead organizations to
address complex problems of practice. As foundational to Leader Self-Efficacy
(Hannah et al., 2013), the leader must believe they have the thought, self-
motivation, and means to act, in this case, to find solutions for challenging
situations in the field. Across responses, program graduates emphasized how
their leadership ability was strengthened by cultivating personal characteristics,
skills, and ideas that motivated them to act as leaders with more efficacy and
confidence. This finding aligned with aspects of effective change-leader
development noted throughout the previous evaluation findings (e.g.,
Cunningham et al., 2019; Gibney, 2011; Morrison, 2018; Sudirman & Gemilang,
2020; Vasudeva, 2017; Zambo, Ross & Zambo, 2015).
The term change related to personal transformation as a leader was mentioned 17
times in the interview transcripts. Participants described being transformed from
their learning and interactions in this doctoral program, and that they perceived
themselves differently as leaders because of the program. For example, two
participants mentioned a change in self as “stepping out of the comfort zone.” Another
participant described their experience as follows: “I am much more understanding,
more patient,… I am a much more holistic leader now…miles and miles more patient,…
it was literally transformational.” A further participant shared, “…on the good side, it
has completely transformed me in a way that I see things differently.”

15
Another participant was straight forward in how they changed as a leader
through the program, stating, “I’ve changed as a leader because I look at problems and
I know that I can do something to address them. The skills that I have learned in analysis
and in using data to make generalizations about an issue have been invaluable and I see
myself as a problem solver.” Similarly, a different participant described their
transformation after sharing a moment that happened in a meeting early on in the
program, when the comments of another person made them cry:
“I’m a very different person now because of [the program], regardless of
what people thought of me at the beginning. I think it’s made me a better
employee. It makes me a servant leader. It’s made me the type of person
that I never was before, someone stronger, which gave me the ability to
view myself as someone who had something to offer.”
Six other participants elaborated on developing a voice, also indicating LSE
transformation.
Similarly, another participant highlighted how the CPED program aided their
leadership transformation and observed peers’ transformation through finding
and using voice. They described how communicating needs became the
motivation to make leadership moves that might have otherwise been avoided,
which is an increase in LSE, specifically in means for action:
“[The program] has given us leaders the courage to say, ‘you know, if you
want something, voice it.’ If you want something you need to seek it. It
gave us that push, you know, the push to actually do something as a leader
rather than hope or wish for it.”
4.4.2 Theme two: Increased confidence as LSE in thought and means impacts
self-motivation and action to lead
Increased LSE in thought and means was the core of the second theme that
emerged. The artifact and field note analyses revealed the phrase confidence to lead
over 35 times, and the same phrase, along with the ability to lead, was stated 15
times across interview transcripts. When candidates start the doctoral program,
some are already in leadership positions, some transitions to leadership positions
while in the program, and others either move into positions after graduation. The
changes that candidates went through to become leaders during the program
were reflected in comments from other faculty members. In particular, faculty
observed candidates develop LSE by applying scholarly inquiry through
authentic problems of practice as noted in leadership actions and reflective
dialogue. Similar to what Thompson et al. (2015) discuss, the faculty serve as
mentors while candidates practice inquiry in their coursework. In the change
leadership course, candidates examine cases of leadership addressing problems
of practice with instructor guidance. Candidates reflected on their learning as
leaders (Thanaraj, 2016) and confidence in collaboratively analyzing systems
within organizations (Jenkins, 2020; Sudirman & Gemilang, 2020), which, in turn,
increased their perceptions of seeing themselves as capable leaders through
challenging situations as the LSE framework (Hannah et al., 2013) theorizes.
The participants described this LSE as becoming more self-confident and knowing
what to do in a leadership situation; thus, increasing both thought and means for
enacting leadership moves. For example, one participant stated, “I feel like now

16
I’ve learned new ways of thinking as a leader, and I’ve learned this through the doctorate
program. I feel like after I graduated I now feel more confident in my ability to lead.” After
explaining how they gleaned new resources and ways of thinking about situations
encountered as a leader, another participant added, “I’m more than ever, confident.”
After reflecting on their learning from program faculty, a different participant also
noted that “I am much more confident in my ability to lead change and manage change,
and much more confident in assessing problems of practice and looking for collaborative
solutions. It’s just been fabulous – hard of course, but fabulous.”
After reflecting on the newly learned skills, another participant shared that their
confidence (LSE in thought and means) grew incrementally throughout the
phases of the CPED program, which in turn, highlights an impact on LSE in self-
motivation and action to lead:
“There’s a tremendous level of confidence about leading that I heard talked
about before I started the program and then began to actually experience
it towards the latter end of the program especially once it was ending.
That was really unexpected. I used to consider myself in the lowest way
confident. Now, after learning new skills and ways of tackling issues over
the program and the network we established...and the resources, I am
confident to lead and I know I have what I need to make things happen.
Now I am a change leader doing the work, not watching others and hoping
to be one.”
A different participant reflected on how their newfound confidence in leading
increased their ability to lead. This alluded to the growth of LSE in thought,
means, and action:
“[I developed] a broader perspective of education…and in doing that it
gave me confidence to know that things I’ve done in the past or have not
done or heard about I can now do…it’s just that the process of educational
leadership itself is a system and is one that is as critical as I thought, and
it is as urgent as I believed it was. And now I have what it takes to be a
leader with the tools and processes I have learned through the program.”
Some participants did not directly use the term confidence but described it
through a reflection on new awareness, which highlighted, once again, the impact
of the program on LSE in thought and means. For example, one participant
shared:
“[The program] made me more aware of myself. I have become more aware
of my weaknesses and my strengths and I tried to figure out how to use
them in my everyday role as a leader in my organization. I believe I am a
better leader overall because of being able to do this.”
Another participant highlighted:
I think my ability to lead has grown. It’s fascinating. It isn’t tangible. You
have to think about how to do the leading before you actually do it... and
you have to know you have all the resources you need -- the people, the
ideas, the plan, the theory of action -- before you say, ‘Ok, let’s make
change.”

17
4.4.3 Theme three: Inquiry is a learned skill developed through a focus on
problems of practice
Overall, participants explained how, as leaders, they focus on problems of practice
in the field. The participants all noted, in various ways, that thinking about and
working on problems of practice continued beyond the program. One participant,
from the context of their current leadership position, shared their views of the job
as revolving around facilitating teams to find solutions for problems of practice:
Well, the very nature of our work is a problem of practice because of
course, what we’re doing is taking a look at the statistics that are gathered
on the problem that we’re involved in so that we can then make plans to
improve the program…well, really, first to find aligned scholarly research
to apply to the issue or the plan and then we jump in and...keep progress
notes… so we can track the progress of each plan and then from that make
modifications for the overall program that we have.
A different participant named problems of practice and the cycle of improvement
using different terms, but highlighted similar overtones of scholarly inquiry to
address issues as a leader because of the CPED program:
“Because of the doctoral program I am now more adept at leading teams
and addressing various situations, or problems of practice. Whether or not
I call them that is kind of inconsequential. I do just see things differently,
and I do handle them differently and process them differently, with
research and systems for thinking to back up what we are doing. Not just
trying something new just because it is new, but developing a plan for
improvement based on what has already been reported to actually work in
a given context. That is all different for me as a leader now.”
Further, participants discussed viewing problems of practice indicated another
way these participants had embodied working on complex situations beyond the
program (e.g., Hamann & Trainin, 2018). For example, one of these participants
described their way of viewing problems using a metaphor:
“I feel that it’s more of a definition or refining of who I am as a leader. I
had some qualities coming in. It’s given me an opportunity to view things
and expand on the skills I had. To view things slightly differently, to
expand on who I am. If you think of a person with two eyes that puts on
a pair of glasses, there are four ways to vision, theoretically. I think of that
kind of development within myself. A lot of clarity, a lot of paying
attention to the smaller details, versus just the bigger picture of
leadership. The details help lead you to the right research for the specific
need and then, in turn, that gives you lenses for a plan in the bigger
picture. Zooming in and zooming out all at once with the research and
planning process helping to focus the view…”
These applied analysis skills are a goal of the CPED framework (2019b), noted in
one guiding principle of CPED influenced programs: To provide field-based
opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop
meaningful solutions. If candidates are working on analyzing authentic problems
of practice through course content, they become more likely to understand how
to address difficult problems that occur within the diverse organizations they
serve. In this way, the terms analysis or analyzing were mentioned six times in

18
conjunction with problem-solving. For example, one participant specifically noted,
“The problem of practice really exists within the analysis and strategic problem-solving.”
Another detailed how they led a team of colleagues through data analysis to begin
problem-solving after developing and conducting an organizational climate
survey:
“We got together to analyze why we thought that we got the negative
responses, what exactly our practices were, and how we could improve
them...The skills that I learned in analysis and in using data to make
generalizations about an issue have been invaluable to me and I see myself
as a problem solver. But a scholarly one now. I mean I would have never
thought to develop or had the skills to develop and execute, a reliable
survey to help make leadership decisions. Not before this program.”
Likewise, a separate participant discussed skills in analysis as part of their work
as a problem-solving type of educational leader:
“You realize the critical nature of analyzing and involving all the
stakeholders in your initial assessment of what the root causes actually
are and whether or not your plan will ultimately have an impact on the
perceived problem of practice.”
So in terms of helping me with the problem of practice I would say that
the continuous process really helped me in that area...it really is
something I rely on in my current job.”
Furthermore, participant responses regarding their work with problems alluded
they were inquiring deeply into contexts, applying research-based methods, well
and drawing upon literature to support both problem analysis and next steps for
addressing the problem in the short and long terms – all components of the cycle
of continuous improvement taught and used across the nine core courses of this
CPED program. For example, a participant directly described the continuous
improvement cycle:
“Our team that I work on, my current role, is made up of essentially five
people: one team leader and four team members so to speak. Our process
in designing this team and our charge to support school districts and
maintaining...the systems leadership through the continuous
improvement model.”
5. Evaluation Summary by Research Question
How does a CPED doctoral program support candidates in cultivating their leader self-
efficacy as problem-solving scholar-practitioners? In terms of cultivating LSE, the case
study evaluation findings demonstrate that the CPED program supports
candidates in specific ways. Response trends highlighted the ways the program,
with an emphasis on scholarly inquiry (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2019; Rogers et
al., 2016) of field-based problems of practice (e.g., Hamann & Trainin, 2018;
Lenihan et al., 2015) as was transformational for graduates as educational leaders.
As viewed through LSE (Hannah et al., 2013), the findings illuminated how
leaders are self-motivated to take action when they perceive they have critical
thinking processes. As shown through Theme One, the participants noted they
had changed, in thought by having new ways to consider how to address problems
of practice, and in motivation by finding a previously untapped voice that shifted

19
the perception of being able to lead so they could enact change. Theme Two
emphasized how graduate LSE was positively impacted by the program, noting
an increase in confidence and self-awareness. Participants described this impact
in ways that illustrated how the program aided in strengthening their self-
perceptions as leaders because they were afforded opportunities to develop
critical thinking strategies and resources in which to draw on as leaders in the
field. It is clear that graduates of a CPED program, with a focus on cultivating
problem-solving scholar-practitioners, do benefit from an increase in overall LSE
by tapping into the sub-constructs through field-based coursework on authentic
problems of practice (Cunningham et al., 2019; Lenihan et al., 2015) by committed
faculty mentors (Thompson et. al, 2015).
To what extent do these CPED program graduates, as scholar-practitioners, continue to
solve problems of practice in the field? These CPED graduates seemed to focus on
problems of practice to a great extent in their current work environments. As
educational leaders in the field, participants perceived their work to revolve
around solving problems of practice noting how this way of thinking was central
to being a leader. This aligns with Morison (2018) findings of where leaders will
continue to access the status quo unless they are empowered to use deep
collaborative inquiry to solve problems for continuous improvement, which
participants alluded to in their responses. Also, by fostering specific leadership
practices for critical thinking throughout the CPED program, the new practices
became part of their leadership repertoire after graduation, which aligns with the
findings of Cunningham et al. (2019) and Jenkins (2020). Emphasizing the work
of Chiptin (2014) and Hamann & Trainin (2018), these CPED graduates also
highlighted how they addressed problems of practice in the organization beyond
teaching and learning to enact change. The CPED (2019) goals for a redesigned
program for true widespread impactful change in the field were demonstrated
with this set of graduate participants.
6. Conclusion
Graduates from this CPED program believe they can adapt as leaders, a critical
program outcome because of their increased LSE in thought, means, self-
motivation, and practice in action. Constant change is a real factor within the
increasingly complex PreK-12 and higher education settings. The skill sets
required within redesigned CPED doctoral programs support critical inquiry
processes that help graduates recognize and adapt to leadership challenges in the
field. By incorporating scholarly practices of collaborative critical inquiry into the
problem landscape and self-reflection on the processes, practitioners can more
efficaciously enact meaningful change.. While the program Context and Input
evaluations highlighted aspects of social justice, limited to no evidence was found
in the Process and Product evaluations, illuminating an area of growth for this
doctoral program to meet CPED goals and truly prepare leaders for the diverse
context of the region they will serve.
Thus, based on the evaluation findings, to cultivate LSE and support the
continued use of problem-solving after graduation, programs should consider:
● The use of critical collaborative scholarly inquiry into authentic problems
of practice.

20
● The application of field-based experiences in local contexts where future
leaders will serve.
● The incorporation of critical thinking and reflective practice of ongoing
leadership development through these experiences.
● The intentional integration of social justice as a foundation for change
leaders.
These are essential considerations for current educational leadership EdD
programs when evaluating how they prepare graduates who will impact
education beyond coursework. Further research on the long-term impact of other
CPED guiding principles, specifically to include areas of problems of practice on
access, ethics, and social justice, are critical to understanding the broader social
impact graduates have in the field upon program completion.
7. References
Arrieta, G. S., & Ancho, I. V. (2020). Ready or Not: The Experiences of Novice Academic
Heads in School Leadership. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research, 19(5), 78–98. doi:10.26803/ijlter.19.5.5
Auerbach, S. (2011). “It’s not just going to collect dust on a shelf:” Faculty Perceptions of
the Applied Dissertation in the New California State University (CSU) EdD
Programs Leadership Education from within a Feminist Ethos. Journal of Research
on Leadership Education, 6(3), 59–82. doi:10.1177/194277511100600301
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Buss, R. R. (2018). How CPED guiding principles and design concepts influenced the
development and implementation of an EdD program. Impacting Education:
Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3(2), 40-47. doi:10.5195/ie.2018.57
Chitpin, S. (2014). Principals and the professional learning community: Learning to
mobilize knowledge. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(2), 215-
229. doi:10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0044
Chowdhury, I. A. (2015). Issue of quality in a qualitative research: An overview. Innovative
Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, 8(1), 142-162. doi:10.12959/issn.1855-
0541.iiass-2015-no1-art09
CPED. (2019a). Carnegie project on the education doctorate. Retrieved Nov. 25, 2020 from
https://www.cpedinitiative.org/
CPED. (2019b). The framework: Guiding principles on the program design. Retrieved
Nov. 24, 2020 from https://www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework
Cresswell, J. A., & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches, fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cunningham, K. M. W., VanGronigen, B. A., Tucker, P. D., & Young, M. D. (2019). Using
powerful learning experiences to prepare school leaders. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education, 14(1), 74–97. doi:10.1177/1942775118819672
Denzin, N. K. (2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1) 8-16.
doi:10.1177/1077800416681864
Fairholm, M. R. (2014). Trans-leadership linking influential theory and contemporary
research. In R. S., Morse, T. F., Buss & C. M, Kinghorn, (eds.), Transforming public
leadership for the 21st century, 105-124. New York: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315698588
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and leading reform. Oxford, UK:
Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes Institute.

21
Gibney, J. (2011). Knowledge in a “shared and interdependent world”: Implications for a
progressive leadership of cities and regions. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 613-
627. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.548474
Hamann, E. T., & Trainin, G. (2018). Problems of practice as stance. Impacting Education:
Journal on Transforming Educational Practice, 3(2), 48-50. Retrieved Nov 28, 2020
from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/346/
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.007
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader self and means
efficacy: A multi-component approach. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 118(2), 143–161. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.007
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2013). Leader self and means
efficacy measure. PsycTESTS Dataset. doi:10.1037/t24459-000
Hannah, S. T., Woolfolk, R. L., & Lord, R. G. (2009). Leader self‐structure: a framework for
positive leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(2), 269-290.
doi:10.1002/job.586
Hovannesian, A. (2013). CPED: Reshaping perceptions of the scholarly practitioner.
Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 308-316. Retrieved Nov 28, 2020 from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1145947
Jenkins, D. (2020). What the best leadership educators do: A sequential explanatory mixed
methods study of instructional and assessment strategy use in leadership
education. Journal of Leadership Education, 19(4). doi:10.12806/v19/i4/r4
Kennedy, B. L., Bondy, E., Dana, N. F., Vescio, V., & Ma, V. W. (2019). The development
and enactment of practitioner scholarship among graduates from one online
Ed.D. programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(5), 653–669.
doi:10.1080/0309877x.2019.1576858
Lenihan, P., Welter, C., Brandt-Rauf, P., Neuberger, B., Pinsker, E., Petros, M., &Risely, K.
(2015). The University of Illinois at a Chicago school of public health doctor of
public health program: An innovative approach to doctoral-level practice
leadership development. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), S55-S57.
doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302331
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Princeton, NJ: The Woodrow Wilson National
Fellowship Foundation.
Morrison, A. R. (2018). Beyond the status quo – setting the agenda for effective change.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 511–529.
doi:10.1177/1741143216682500
Murphy, J. & Vriesenga, M. (2007). Research on school leadership preparation in the
United States: An analysis. School Leadership and Management, 26(2), 183-195.
doi:10.1080/13634230600589758
Peterson, D. S. (2017). Preparing scholarly practitioners: Redesigning the EdD to reflect
CPED principles. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice,
2(1). doi:10.5195/ie.2017.30
Peterson, D. S., Perry, J. A., Dostilio, L. D., & Zambo, D. (2016). Community engaged
faculty: A must for preparing impactful EdD graduates. Metropolitan Universities
Journal, 27(2): 59-73. doi:10.18060/21127
Peurach, D. J. (2016). Innovating at the nexus of impact and improvement: Leading
educational improvement networks. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 421-429.
doi:10.3102/0013189X16670898

22
Ramsey, A. (2019, January 25). The poverty line in Fresno. Fox 26 News. Retrieved Nov
28, 2020 from https://kmph.com/news/local/the-poverty-line-in-fresno
Rettke, H., Pretto, M., Spichiger, E., Frei, I. A., & Spirig, R. (2018). Using reflexive thinking
to establish rigor in qualitative research. Nursing Research, 67(6), 490–497.
doi:10.1097/nnr.0000000000000307
Rogers, R., Schaenen, I., Schott, C., O’Brien, K., Trigos-Carrillo, L., Starkey, K., & Chasteen,
C. C. (2016). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature,
2004-2012. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1192-1226.
doi:10.3102/0034654316628993
Sierra Health Foundation. (2016). California’s San Joaquin Valley: A region and its children
under stress. UC Davis Center for Regional Change: Hartzog, C., Abrams, C.,
Erbstein, N., London, J. K. & Watterson, S. Retrieved Nov 28, 2020 from
https://www.sierrahealth.org/assets/pubs/A_Region_and_Its_Children_Unde
r_Stress-Web.pdf
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for
improvement and accountability. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Sudirman, A., & Gemilang, A. V. (2020). Promoting work-based learning as a praxis of
educational leadership in higher education. International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research, 19(3), 149-173. doi:10.26803/ijlter.19.3.9
Thanaraj, A. (2016). Improving leadership practice through the power of reflection: an
epistemological study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 15(9), 28-43. Retrieved Nov 28, 2020 from
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/757/pdf
Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Lowhwasser, K., & Laxton, K. (2015). Problems without
ceilings: How mentors and novices frame and work on problems-of-practice.
Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 363-381. doi:10.1177/0022487115592462
University of Cumbria. (2020). Gibb’s Reflective Cycle. Retrieved Nov 28, 2020 from
https://my.cumbria.ac.uk/media/MyCumbria/Documents/ReflectiveCycleGi
bbs.pdf
Vasudeva, A. (2017). Adapted from the 2017 CPED convening presentation: Reflections
and new directions on CPED’s 10th anniversary. Impacting Education: Journal on
Transforming Professional Practice, 2(1), 1-5. doi:10.5195/ie.2017.47
Welch, O. M. (2013). Interrogating our practice: Enacting a “yes and” CPED agenda at
Duquesne university. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 149. Retrieved Nov 28, 2020
from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1145892
Zambo, D. (2013). Elbow learning about change, leadership and research in an CPED-
influenced program. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 237. Retrieved Nov 28, 2020
from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1145923
Zambo, D., Buss, R. R., & Zambo, R. (2015). Uncovering the identities of candidates and
graduates in a CPED-influenced EdD program. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2),
233-252. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.823932

23
Appendix 1
Interview Questions
Rapport Building
1. How are you feeling after finally graduating from the program?
2. Tell me about your current role in education?
Problems of Practice in the Program
3. Tell me about the problem of practice you focused on in your dissertation?
4. Did the program help you think about your problems of practice as you
moved towards and through the dissertation phase?
5. In what ways did the program help you, or not helped you, define and
address your problem of practice?
Problems of Practice Beyond the Program in Current Leadership Role
6. What leadership work are you involved in now?
7. How do you address issues to enact change in your current context as
problems of practice?
Program Evaluation
8. What did the program offer that has helped you define your current work
through the lense of a problem of practice?
9. What can be strengthened in the program to help you continue?
10. How do you feel you grew your abilities to lead because of the program?
11. How do you feel about your ability in approaching problems of practice
in your current role through scholarly inquiry rather than merely solving
problems or putting out fires?
Additional Information
12. Do you have anything else to share about your growth as a leader because
of the program that I have not yet asked you about?

24
Vol. 19, No. 11, pp. 24-40, November 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.11.2
Influence of the Principal’s Digital Leadership on the
Reflective Practices of Vocational Teachers Mediated
by Trust, Self Efficacy, and Work Engagement
Rini Agustina1 and Waras Kamdi
State University of Malang, Malang, East Java, Indonesia
1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1650-4994
Syamsul Hadi, Muladi and Didik Nurhadi
State University of Malang, Malang, East Java, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1220-2729
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2904-5398
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6365-535X
Abstract. This study aims to determine the effect of the principal's
digital leadership on vocational teachers' reflection practice, mediated
by the variables of trust, self-efficacy, and work involvement. This
study uses path analysis with modeling using SEM (AMOS). The
sample of this research is 637 (N=340 females and N=297 males)
vocational high school teachers in Malang Raya, East Java, Indonesia.
The researchers have used a purposive random sampling technique to
meet the objectives of this research. The investigators have used a 86
item questionnaire to collect data on the studied variables. Based on
the fit model's estimation, there is a direct and indirect relationship
between the five variables used. The variables of trust, self-efficacy,
and job involvement contributed significantly to intervening variables.
It can be concluded that the moderating variable strengthens the
framework for the relationship between digital leadership and teacher
reflective practices. The new relationship formed is a direct
contribution of digital leadership to work engagement with a
magnitude of 0.120 and a direct relationship made between digital
leadership and the reflective practice of teachers of 0.168. This
relationship has a positive impact on teacher actions. These results
indicate that the teacher appreciates the Principal's leadership, who
both supports facilitates the learning process in using technology in the
learning process. Moreover, teachers feel motivated and excited to
reflect on their learning because of the leaders who have digital
characters. The teacher considered leaders with digital personalities
more open and tended to free them to manage the class.
Keywords: digital leadership; trust; self-efficacy; work engagement;
teacher eflective practice

25
1. Introduction
Professional teachers always reflect on their work practices by thinking slowly
about the problems they face in their professional life (Beetham & Sharpe, 2013).
In other words, experienced teachers must be reflective practitioners (Zhong,
2017). The reflective practitioner is a very complex ability that includes the
potential to reflect on actions as part of the learning process on an ongoing basis (
Zhong, 2016). Having reflective abilities is not easy because teachers are always
required to pay attention to their students, starting from learning, methods used,
effective teaching methods, and how to assess their students. Taking into
consideration students’ living environment and their parents are another
fundamental resources instructors need to call for. Such a notion reflects how
worthiness reflective teaching is and the unseen realities it covers.
In this respect, teachers’ reflective practices is successful when administrators of
prospective teacher education programs work as a reflective practitioner to focus
on education performance (Nie, 2015; Zhong, 2017). The need for self-
development skills as reflective practitioners will be more significant for
vocational teachers who are tasked with developing student potential related to
companies and industry (Minghui, Lei, Xiaomeng & Potmešilc, 2018; Nie, Lau &
Liau, 2012).
With regard to the above mentioned, teachers cannot fend for themselves but
need the principal's support, which is one of the driving forces in shaping teacher
character and is an essential factor determining school effectiveness (Minghui et
al., 2018). In other terms, leaders act as role models for the school community
they lead and are a factor in strategies for increasing learning effectiveness(Reza
& Sarab, 2016). Factors that are thought to influence teachers in the knowledge
reflection process are teacher self-efficacy (Want et al., 2019), trust (Osifo, 2016),
and work engagement (Drewniak & Karaszewski, 2016; Engelbrecht, Heine &
Mahembe, 2017; Men, 2015). Leadership factors and internal teachers’ factors are
the focus of this study because they are closely related in fostering and forming
teacher reflection practices in their learning.
Although there is a lot of research on leadership and its influence on teachers and
the learning process, its basic principles are still needed so that schools can be
called successful. researchers still try to reveal the other side of leadership
regarding their understanding of digital technology since the latter offers new
opportunities and challenges for organizations and society (Niekerk, 2015;
Niekerk & Wyk, 2014). More than that, digital leaders must keep up with the
global revolution that is taking place (Richardson, Bathon, Flora, & Lewis, 2012)
since it takes a dynamic combination of mindset, behaviour, and skills to change
and/or enhance the school culture. Always, changing times and people's
dependence on technology demands an evolution of leadership practices to
create schools that can adapt to technological developments(Mok & Moore, 2019).
Therefore, leadership is an important factor in the success of the educational
process and goals. As highlighted in the above paragraph, leadership is a
combination of skills and character to influence and encourage others to work

26
effectively and below expectations (Kalkan, Aksal, Gazi, Atasoy & Dağlı, 2020;
Ünal, Uzun & Karataş, 2015). Kamdi (2014) states that to become a vocational
school teacher today is not easy because of the high workload compared to non-
vocational teachers. The competence of vocational teachers must keep abreast of
the job market dynamics because they are related to industrial developments.
Increasing the competence of vocational teachers has a faster expiry rate than
non-vocational teachers' skills. Accordingly, vocational teachers are always
required to learn and, at the same time, keep up with technology transfer.
For this reason, vocational teachers must have the ability to continue to reflect on
their learning for the success of education and renew their professional
competencies. A strong commitment to the teacher formed from the work
engagement variable is expected to increase teacher motivation to continue to
reflect on their learning. Students will later catch the teacher's commitment to
dynamic change in the learning system, technological changes, and the changing
times that are increasingly fast. Another hope is that teachers will be able to foster
the same reflective practice for their students so that they are ready to enter into
the wider community.
The lack of studies on the topic of technology integration in schools and more
significantly the lack of research on the role of digital leadership in creating
digital cultures came to the attention of Richardson, Bathon, Flora, and Lewis,
who published a NETS-A review of all literature published between 1997 and
2012 on the topic of school digital leadership. In the same context, Richardson
(2012) came out with the conclusion that nearly 68% of digital leadership articles
are descriptive only. That is,more scientific studies are needed on issues related
to technological standards for school leaders, as well as the skills of leaders who
will become change leaders. Based on Richardson’s suggestion and some other
references and the lack of in-depth research on this topic, this study is a review of
a new type of leadership, namely digital leadership, that has never correlated
with other variables related to teacher reflective practices. The gap taken in this
study is the development of a research model related to digital leadership with
the variables of trust, self-efficacy, and work engagement. The use of these
variables is thought to foster the practice of teacher reflection. Therefore, this
study aims to answer the following research questions:
1. Are there any relationships between Digital Leadership, teacher trust,
efficacy, work engagement, and reflective teacher practice?
2. Do trust, self-efficacy, and work engagement become moderators of
variables between digital leadership and teacher reflective practice?
2. literature Review
2.1. Teacher's Reflective Practice
Schön (Schön, 1983) is said to be the first who introduced the idea of a reflective
practitioner, in which he claimed that reflective practice is at the core of
professional knowledge and learning, in response to the limitations inherent in
technical rationality models. Reflective is defined as a spontaneous and
automatic response, which adopts a new thought process (Bassot, 2016).
Reflective is at the core of the experiential learning model, which offers a holistic

27
and integrated learning perspective combining experience, perception,
cognition, and behaviour. Teachers' engagement in reflective practice is mainly
influenced by the expectations obtained from previous experience, knowledge,
education, age, gender, economic background, and culture(Bolton, 2015).
Reflective teaching is the development of teacher professionalism with a cyclic
process. According to Bassot (2016) and McCarty (2013), reflective teaching is
the opportunity for teacher to explore, question, and reframe their teaching
practice holistically to be interpreted based on conditions in the field.
In doing so, teachers will be informed in determining the appropriate process to
improve performance. Reflective teaching will give birth to an attitude of
openness (open-mindedness), full involvement (wholeheartedness), and
responsibility (Bassot, 2016; Slade, Burnham, Catalana, & Waters, 2019).
Reflective teaching should not be seen as a teaching method or teaching model
,but a method that has a broader and holistic perspective. According to Reza and
Sarab (2016), reflective learning include: practical; cognitive; participants; and
metacognitive indicators.
2.2. Work Engagement
Job engagement is by definition a high level of energy and reliable identification
with one's work in a positive, satisfying, and work-related state of mind
characterized by enthusiasm, dedication, and absorption (Men, 2015). According
to Salicru (2015), work engagement is a form of positive job fulfilment from the
mind's character centre. Put differently, work engagement is a centre of
motivation and positive thinking related to work, enthusiasm, dedication, and
absorption. A teacher with a high work engagement to his/her job will show that
s/he cares about the job. Work engagement is determined by persons who are
physically and psychologically devoted to their work. Minghui et al. (2018)
concluded that work engagement is a suggestion to work without coercion, both
physically and psychologically, with enthusiasm and inner satisfaction during
work. Vigor (Spirit); dedication; and absorption are claimed to be the indicators
of work engagement, Men (2015).
2.3. Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy is the extent to which teachers believe that they can
influence student engagement and learning outcomes. This relationship becomes
more robust when the teacher feels no external pressure and feels determined to
teach. Teachers' self-efficacy affects their persistence, the effort they invest in
education, and the goals they set (Barni, Danioni & Benevene, 2019). Self-efficacy
is relevant to professional identity and teacher-student relationships
(Bellingham, 2013; Farris-Berg & Dirkswager, 2012). This research's self-efficacy
is related to three teaching components: classroom management, student
involvement, and teaching strategies (Miovska-Spaseva, 2016). That is to say,
self-efficacy in classroom management refers to teachers' belief in developing
and maintaining classroom order. Successful student engagement refers to the
teacher's belief in motivating students and engaging them in their learning
process. Teaching strategies' effectiveness relates to teachers' beliefs in using
various pedagogical-didactic techniques in the classroom (Zee & Koomen, 2016).

28
2.4.Teacher Trust
Trust is the glue that binds leaders to followers and provides organizational
success and leadership (Mineo, 2014). It is not a momentary event but a series of
investments over time that will make success possible. Prince (2018) approaches
trust as a complex, dynamic, and multidimensional phenomenon related to
several essential variables regarding school organizations effectiveness, human
relations, and behaviour. School leaders must take deliberate actions to ensure
that relationships are built through open and active communication. In hope to
achieve the aforesaid, there must be transparency in decision-making so that
everything is seen as fair and in the common interest. As a result, teachers who
feel trusted will try to meet the needs of their students.
Despite the fact that they are sometimes subject to feel uncomfortable in
communicating with the principal, trust in teachers exists to create good
interpersonal relationships in the school system. Research conducted by Osifo
(2016) states that trust is a strong personal relationship between the principal
and the teacher to become a school principal. Research shows that influential
school leaders support their teaching staff and trust their professional judgment
(Jachowicz, 2016). Developing trust is not an easy task since some challenges
must be overcome, and there are always differences in opinion about the school
system in terms of curriculum, teaching practice, and/or school policy
(Drewniak & Karaszewski, 2016).
2.5. Digital Leadership
Digitalization is essential for any organization and society. The way
organizations communicate with clients, do marketing, deliver products, and
run business processes is heavily influenced by digital technology. New
developments in digital technology offer new opportunities and challenges for
organizations and society (Loebbecke & Schepers, 2020). When an organization
fails to keep up with its competitors’ use of digital technology or its clients'
expectations, it may be forced to close (McKeown, 2015). If society fails to absorb
new communication opportunities, information sharing, and cooperation, the
community is vulnerable to chaos and dysfunctional social structures. Leaders
must point the way forward, but if they don’t understand how to use digital
technology and the instrumentation that comes with it, and if they don’t
understand the strengths it has in their relationships with their stakeholders,
they will fall behind(Domeny, 2017).
In this concern, Toomey (2016) states that digital transformation is a long-term,
sustainable process of rapid and sometimes disruptive evolution in society,
markets, businesses, and governments. Digital transformation provides new
nuances for innovative, creative, and change-loving digital technology users.
Hence, digital transformation, though the inexpected challenges it brings,
remains significant but needs a certain frame to its success mainly when used for
educational purposes. Accordingly, digital leadership is defined as leadership
that can determine the direction, influence others, initiate sustainable change
through access to information, and build relationships to anticipate changes that
are important for schools' success in the future. These fundamental elements will
never change but changing times and people's dependence on technology

29
require the evolution of practices to create decent and good schools (Prince,
2018; Sheninger, 2014).Digital leadership indicators, according to Doğan (2018),
Zhong (2017), Zhong and Zhong (2016) consist of visionary leadership; digital
age learning culture; professional development; systemic improvement, and
digital citizenship).
3. Theoretical Framework
This research framework is adopted from Engelbrecht and Mahembe’s research
in 2015, which links integrity and ethical leadership with trust. The trust
relationship emerged as an important concept in improving employees’ welfare
and organizational effectiveness. Engelbrecht et al. (2017) developed how the
integrity of leaders and ethical leadership can affect trust in leaders and their job
members' involvement. Meanwhile, Juracka’s research in 2018 tries to test
instructional leadership/learning leadership designed to increase teacher work
engagement in the curriculum development process (Farris-Berg & Dirkswager,
2012). Job involvement also shows the need for a more significant leadership role
for teachers in increasing their ability to support more substantial learning in the
classroom.
Gallante (2015) provides other factors regarding the relationship between
instructional leadership and self-efficacy and findings demonstrate a significant
relationship between instructional leadership and teacher work engagement.
Consequently, educational leadership becomes attractive after being associated
with work engagement and being modified by self-efficacy as done by
Noormohammadi (2014) who tries to examine the relationship between self-
efficacy and teacher reflection, which is thought to improve student learning.
Based on some of these studies, the researchers then tried to develop a new type
of leadership that is different from the previous type of leadership, namely digital
leadership. The investigators add several supporting variables which will later
build a more comprehensive framework for teacher reflective practice. Therefore,
the research framework used for the purpose of the present research is reflected
in Figure 1.
Figure 1.The Conceptual Framework
4. Methodology
This research used path analysis with modeling using SEM (AMOS)
interpretation. The variables used in this study are: digital leadership, teacher

30
trust, efficacy, work engagement, and teacher's practical reflection. The
researchers have used a purposive random sampling technique to meet the
objectives of this study. 637 (N=340 females and N=297 males) vocational
teachers from a total number of 3727 from Malang Raya (City and District) are
selected to participate in this research. Respondents’ age ranges from 36 to 45
years with 11-15 years teaching experience. In hope to meet the research
objectives, the investigators have used a questionnaire which covers 86 items
significantly distributed in response to each variable. The following table
displays the studied variables in respect to the endicators used with their
corresponding items.
Table 1. Sources of Research Instruments
No Variable Indicator No. Question
1 Teacher's Practical
Reflection
Practical 1-6
Cognitive 7-12
Learner 13-15
Metacognitive 16-22
Critical 23-29
2 Digital Leadership Visionary Leadership 1-2
Digital Age Learning Culture 3-5
Professional Development 6-7
Systemic Improvement 8-10
Digital Citizenship 11
3 Work Engagement Vigor 1-6
Dedication 7-11
Absorption 12-14
4 Self Efficacy Teacher
Bandura's Instrument
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Scale
EMS = efficacy for
motivational strategies
1-4
ECM = efficacy for classroom
management
5-8
EIS = efficacy for
instructional strategies
9-12
5 Trust
Variable
Teacher's Practical
Reflection
Benevolence 1-5
Integrity 6-10
Predictability 11-15
Competence 16-20
The instrument validity test is carried out with 154 respondents with 86 item
problems using Pearson Analysis. The results show that the r count for all the
designed items are valid with r=0.133 . The reliability test of the questionnaire is
also carried out with the Cronbach Alpha technique. Based on the results of the
reliability testing, it shows that the Cronbach alpha number is 0.975 which
indicates that the research instruments used to measure the study variables are
to a great extent reliable. After testing the validity and reliability of the
questionnaire, the prerequisite test or data assumption test is conducted, namely
the normality test. The latter is carried out using AMOS, and the Normalization
test assessment produces the output as shown in Table 2.

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020

Similar a IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020(20)

Más de ijlterorg

Más de ijlterorg(10)

Último

Último(20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 11 November 2020