Gender and instructional outcomes

Abstract

This article examines how perceived instructor leadership style mediates the students' gender‐instruction effectiveness relationship. We administered the multifactor leadership questionnaire to a convenient sample of 360 undergraduate and graduate students drawn from a mid‐west research university (USA) over two consecutive semesters. Partial mediation was indicated as students' gender discriminated perception of certain instructor leadership styles that were positively associated with instructional outcomes. However, gender itself did not discriminate instructional outcomes. Further our results showed that both female and male students converged on unfavorable assessment of instructors who exhibit passive management‐by‐exception. These instructors were perceived as ineffective, unable to draw extra effort, and unsatisfactory. Overall, the results indicated a favorable assessment of active management‐by‐exemption, contingent reward, and transformational leadership behaviors by both genders. This research therefore indicates the importance of these three leadership skills for instruction and learning effectiveness.

EFL Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence, Emotional Support, and Their Classroom Leadership: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

“…Examining the effect of transformational leadership theories in the university classrooms, several studies have found a positive and significant relationship between different dimensions of these theories and student willingness to put in extra effort, classroom leadership effectiveness, and student satisfaction with classroom leadership (Ojode, Walumbwa, & Kuchinke, 1999;Pounder, 2008;Walumbwa, Wu, & Ojode, 2004). The same results were found in Walumbwa and Ojode's (2000) study in which female students rated their classroom teachers higher on transformational leadership dimensions than did male students.…”

“…Pounder (2006) argues that transformational leadership theory could be considered as one of the defining qualities of a teacher leader and could include both school and university contexts. Classroom leadership has been examined in relation to students in educational setting such as classroom (Baba & Ace, 1989;Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009Cheng, 1994;Harvey, Royal, & Stout, 2003;Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006;Khany & Ghoreyshi, 2013;Ojode, Walumbwa, & Kuchinke, 1999;Pounder, 2003Pounder, , 2006Pounder, , 2008Walumbwa & Ojode, 2000;Walumbwa, Wu, & Ojode, 2004).…”

Transformational instructor-leadership and academic performance: a moderated mediation model of student engagement and structural distance

“…There is empirical support for the relationship between transformational instructorleadership and student engagement. For behavioural engagement, studies found a positive relationship between transformational instructor-leadership and facets of behavioural engagement, e.g., extra effort (Harvey, Royal, and Stout 2003;Ojode, Walumbwa, and Kuchinke 1999;Pounder 2008;Walumbwa, Wu, and Ojode 2004) and participation (Bolkan and Goodboy 2009;Harvey, Royal, and Stout 2003). For cognitive engagement, two studies showed that transformational instructor-leadership is positively related to students' retention and synthesis of module material, i.e., cognitive learning (see Bolkan and Goodboy 2009;Harrison 2011).…”

“…Second, the measure includes an item that can be indicative of behaviour, i.e., involved/uninvolved. Other studies examined the relationship between transformational instructor-leadership and students' satisfaction, but these studies operationalise satisfaction as satiation instead of high activation (e.g., Gill et al 2010;Ojode, Walumbwa, and Kuchinke 1999;Pounder 2008;Walumbwa, Wu, and Ojode 2004).…”

“…Of these, the most commonly studied instructor-student relationship is that of instructors teaching students for a module 1 . The application of leadership theories to instructor-student interactions in higher education modules is a concept that was explored primarily by organisational behaviour (e.g., Baba and Ace 1989;Dawson, Messe, and Phillips 1972;Harvey, Royal, and Stout 2003;Ojode, Walumbwa, and Kuchinke 1999;Pounder 2008;Walumbwa, Wu, and Ojode 2004) and educational researchers (e.g., Bolkan and Goodboy 2009;Gill et al 2010).…”