Practitioners’ perceptions of pedagogical leadership in primary schools in the Czech Republic

ABSTRACT

The role and importance of pedagogical leadership have been recognized in a number of research findings. In order to understand how practitioners in primary schools perceive the main features of pedagogical leadership in practice, a questionnaire survey was applied in five Czech primary schools. This questionnaire addressed eight dimensions of pedagogical leadership on a 9-point Likert scale from two different aspects: the importance and the evidence. Importance refers to the value given to the dimensions, and evidence refers to achievement and existence. Fifty partitioners participated in this research. The statistical analysis of research data revealed that, in most cases, the participative dimension of pedagogical leadership is considered the most important dimension. The research confirmed that pedagogical leadership should be a process of participation, learning and supporting that enhances the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

Introduction

Pedagogical leadership involves knowledge and the ways in which content matter can be applied. It is a series of acts that motivates others, and facilitates the acquisition of new knowledge, beliefs or skills for learners. It also involves how a practitioner sets and monitors teaching goals, provides appropriate resources, supervises the teaching program and, by observing and providing feedback to each other, ensures high-quality teaching and learning. As primary schools have been granted more autonomy in a number of European countries, pedagogical leadership has gained importance.

Concept of pedagogical leadership

Many resources touching upon the issue of pedagogical leadership, a growing number of studies reveal that this type of school leadership can be one of the key factors in the creation of effective schools and effective school systems (OECD, 2016). Generally speaking, there are four main points of view regarding pedagogical leadership. The first point of view considers pedagogical leadership as learning-centered leadership and leadership of learning, for both student learning and teacher learning (Phelps, 2014), which should focus on the development of teachers, students and pedagogical practice (Johanna & Manjula, 2011; MacNeill et al., 2005; Sergiovanni, 1998). The second view emphasized the role of headteachers and their professional development (Robinson et al., 2009; Wortham, 2006). The third view not only stresses that pedagogical leadership is focused on learners, but also emphasized the dynamic process of implementing pedagogical leadership (MacNeill et al., 2005; Male & Palaiologou, 2013). The fourth group followed the notion that ‘pedagogical leadership needs to emphasize the importance of establishing clear educational goals, planning the curriculum and evaluating teachers and teaching’ (Robinson et al., 2009, p. 38), which includes not only teaching and learning but also the evaluation system of pedagogical leadership in a particular school. Male and Palaiologou (2013) suggested that the purpose of such an approach is to align these practices with external standards and expectations regarding student achievements.

Dimensions of pedagogical leadership

Pedagogical leadership provides a different pattern to practitioners to rethink the way of working and learning. Considering it necessary to strengthen pedagogical leadership in schools, researchers did a concrete analysis of dimensions of pedagogical leadership. For instance, MacNeill (2007) and his colleagues proposed 11 dimensions of pedagogical leadership based on an extensive literature review. Robinson’s study (2007) developed a similar categorization device to describe the dimensions of effective pedagogical leadership in schools. These are establishing goals and expectations; resourcing strategically; planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum; promoting and participating in teacher learning and development; ensuring an orderly and supportive environment. Ärlestig and Törnsen’s (2014, p. 858) proposed a definition and model of pedagogical leadership where it is divided into three dimensions: goal-steering; process-steering; and result-steering. In order to evaluate pedagogical leadership within an educational institution, Gento and González (2012, p. 9) stated eight dimensions of pedagogical leadership: charismatic dimension; emotional dimension; anticipatory dimension; professional dimension; participative dimension; cultural dimension; formative dimension; and administrative leadership dimension.

Practitioners in the Czech context

As foundational components of the practitioners in primary schools, teachers have been asked to respond to various educational activities and share more responsibilities. For instance, they are required ‘not only to be experts in their content area but are also expected to be fluent in child psychology, skilled in communication, execute brilliant classroom management strategies, and navigate the unrelenting gauntlet of educational politics’ (Beavers, 2009, p. 25). In the Czech context, more than half of primary schools have a high degree of autonomy, which means they can make decisions in some core area to support a more efficient educational provision. As researchers stated, ‘since 2003, schools have autonomy to make many decisions: 68% of the decisions are made at the school level while 28% are taken at the local or regional level and 4% are taken at the central level’ (Pont et al., 2013, p. 14). Teachers enjoy high levels of autonomy as well. For instance, teachers can decide which pedagogical methods and educational materials to use, and experienced teachers have certain responsibilities to distribute pedagogical leadership.

However, the development of pedagogical leadership is still in its preliminary stages within the Czech Republic (with probably the only extensive summary published in 2011 in the special edition of Orbis Scholae nb. 3). As researchers proposed in the most recent OECD reviews of school resources: Czech Republic: ‘School principals can delegate responsibilities within their school, but legislation does not promote pedagogical leadership’ (Shewbridge et al., 2016, p. 12). Besides, a large number of administrative tasks and heavy workload for teachers, which leaves little time to focus on the development of pedagogical leadership. ‘Pedagogical leadership appears limited to occasional classroom visits, with little involvement in developing a collaborative school culture and teacher professional development’. (Shewbridge et al., 2016, p. 13). Thus, a research of pedagogical leadership from practitioners’ perceptions seems at least significant, if not crucial.

Research questions

To support the further development of pedagogical leadership, the purpose of this research was to reveal the dimensions of pedagogical leadership from two different perspectives: the importance (the ideal state) and the existing (the experience). To describe how practitioners in pedagogical leadership perceive those two perspectives, a research was carried out and in frame of practitioners’ opinions to this issue were collected. The main research question was how the teachers as the practitioners perceive pedagogical leadership in primary schools. From the main research question, two questions emerged:

1. Which dimension of pedagogical leadership is considered as the most important one in the practitioners’ daily work?

2. Whether the importance and the existing situation of pedagogical leadership is consistent?

Methodology

General background

The research was conducted in the Olomouc region of Czech Republic. The present research adopted quantitative paradigm to explore pedagogical leadership, there were mainly two reasons to choose a quantitative paradigm: firstly, the research was aimed at exploring how pedagogical leadership was perceived by practitioners. The quantitative approach enabled the researchers to use large number of questions and provided powerful descriptive and organized data entry and analysis for the research; secondly, Anderson and Arsenault indicate that (2005, p. 179) If well constructed, a questionnaire permits the collection of reliable and reasonably valid data in a simple, cheap and timely manner. As mentioned, more than half of the primary schools in the Czech Republic are small and have a high degree of autonomy. A large number of daily tasks and heavy workload leave little time for participating any research. The quantitative paradigm was appropriate in this manner.

The research was conducted at five primary schools in Olomouc region. And all those schools are faculty schools (cooperating with Palacky University, have responsibility for supporting research and teaching practice) and located close to Olomouc city. Therefore, those schools were considered representative in this area.

Research sample

Convenience sampling was used to selected participates. The advantage of this approach is that the researchers are able to conduct the research and gain valuable, albeit limited, information about teachers’ perception of pedagogical leadership. All the participants had a good knowledge of their school (novice teachers were excluded due to their limited experience). Their work experience in school education showed that about two thirds of respondents (69%) can be regarded as experts in the field of education since they have been working in schools for more than 15 years. The questionnaire was filled in by 50 respondents in total, 28 males and 22 females.

Instrument and procedures

The questionnaire on pedagogical leadership used in the research was elaborated under the inspiration of Gento’s tool (Gento & González, 2012). This questionnaire was developed within a European project (Leadership and quality of education) focused on leadership and the quality of educational institutions in 2012 and later it was translated into several national languages (including the Czech language). In the research, the validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by two independent interpreters and mutual back-forward translations and later by a school headteacher. It addresses all eight original dimensions of pedagogical leadership and contains 80 questions. The reliability analysis showed high reliability of this questionnaire; Cronbach’s α for the questionnaire used in this research was .982.

Each question was evaluated on a 9-point Likert scale from two different perspectives. First, the importance refers to the value given to the suggested dimensions and descriptors; and second, the evidence refers to the achievement, existence or reality in schools. Comparing these two aspects allowed grasping the difference between the participants’ expectations and the reality they perceived.

Data analysis

The methods used for data analysis were reliability analysis (Cronbach’s α), mean, standard deviation, cross-table analysis and paired sample t-test.

Results

Ranking of the dimensions

The results (Table 1), gained on the level of the entire dimensions of pedagogical leadership, indicated that the participative dimension has the highest rank in importance (M = 8.20, SD = .26); for its evidence (M = 7.63, SD = .26) it is placed in the third place. The emotional dimension ranked second (M = 8.07, SD = .29) in importance, and again, it has a lower evidence rank, 5^th out of 8 (M = 7.6 SD = 0.31). The charismatic dimension ranked third in importance (M = 8.01, SD = .39); but it has the highest rank in evidence (M = 7.92, SD = .22). The administrative dimension ranked fourth in importance (M = 7.82, SD = .31); but it is placed the second in evidence rank (M = 7.87, SD = .22). The anticipatory, cultural, professional and formative dimensions were low both in the importance and evidence ranks. The formative dimension has the lowest rank in both rankings.

Table 1. Ranking of the eight dimensions of pedagogical leadership in the selected school.

Dimensions	Importance		Dimensions	Evidence
	Mean	Std. Deviation		Mean	Std. Deviation
Participative	8.21	.26	Charismatic	7.92	.22
Emotional	8.07	.29	Administrative	7.87	.23
Charismatic	8.01	.39	Participative	7.63	.27
Administrative	7.86	.31	Cultural	7.59	.45
Anticipatory	7.82	.39	Emotional	7.56	.31
Cultural	7.81	.43	Professional	7.43	.37
Professional	7.78	.40	Anticipatory	7.39	.41
Formative	7.67	.32	Formative	7.37	.34

Charismatic dimension

The charismatic dimension which tackled the personality and competencies of the school leaders is placed first in evidence ranking, and third in importance ranking. In the questionnaire, this dimension contains 10 indicators. In importance, the 1.3 Representativeness (M = 8.46, SD = .76) and 1.2 Expertise (M = 8.41, SD = .99) were considered the major issues. In evidence, the 1.1 Professional profile (M = 8.26, SD = 1.14) and 1.2 Expertise (M = 8.26, SD = 1.23) were considered as the two most important aspects. Primary school leaders’ responsibility tends to be high in most domains in the Czech Republic, they have almost full responsibility for both hiring and dismissing teachers. A professional and with specific expertise school leader is highly desirable for primary schools; therefore, it is not surprising that indicators 1.1 and 1.2 have high scores in both rankings.

The paired samples t-test of 10 indicators of the charismatic dimension showed for most of the indicators that there was no significant difference between importance and evidence. There were two exceptions: 1.3 Representativeness Sig. (2-tailed) = .002 < .05 and 1.5 Chosen by selecting process Sig. (2-tailed) = .037 < .05: In these two aspects the significant difference between expectation and reality was identified (Tables 2 and Tables 3).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of charismatic dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
1.1 Professional profile	8.28	.89	8.26	1.14
1.2 Expertise	8.41	.99	8.26	1.23
1.3 Representativeness	8.46	.76	7.79	1.30
1.4 Personal preparation	8.13	1.28	8.05	1.10
1.5 Chosen by selecting process	7.28	1.97	7.64	2.03
1.6 Legitimacy (by designation)	7.85	1.57	7.67	1.24
1.7 Hygiene and personal care	7.92	1.35	7.95	1.30
1.8 Enthusiasm	8.05	1.12	7.74	1.48
1.9 Sense of humor	7.49	1.80	7.79	1.63
1.10 Coherence and commitment	8.23	1.11	8.00	1.19

Table 3. Paired samples test: charismatic dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	1.1a – 1.1b	.026	1.20	.10	−.36	.42	.13	.895
Pair 2	1.2a – 1.2b	.153	.87	.14	−.13	.44	1.10	.279
Pair 3	1.3a – 1.3b	.67	1.26	.20	.26	1.08	3.30	.002
Pair 4	1.4a – 1.4b	.077	1.04	.17	−.26	.413	.46	.645
Pair 5	1.5a – 1.5b	−.36	1.04	.17	−.70	−.02	−2.16	.037
Pair 6	1.6a – 1.6b	.18	1.39	.22	−.27	.63	.81	.426
Pair 7	1.7a – 1.7b	−.03	1.29	.21	−.44	.39	−.12	.902
Pair 8	1.8a – 1.8b	.31	1.40	.22	−.15	.76	1.37	.177
Pair 9	1.9a – 1.9b	−.31	2.15	.34	−1.01	.39	−.89	.378
Pair 10	1.10a – 1.10b	.23	1.25	.20	−.17	.63	1.16	.254

Emotional dimension

The emotional dimension relates to the school leader’s traits of being aware of each person’s dignity and show respect and appreciation to all the practitioners. Date offered in Table 4 shows 2.1 Acknowledgment of people’s dignity was considered as the most important aspect in importance (M = 8.56, SD = 0.88), and its performance in evidence (M = 8.08, SD = 1.35) is the highest as well. Nevertheless, there are still significant differences between its importance and evidence Sig. (2-tailed) = .020 < .05. And in this dimension, there were significant differences in six indicators, it was one of the many aspects with a statistically significant difference, which means there was a significant difference between expectation and reality.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of emotional dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
2.1 Acknowledgment of people’s dignity	8.56	.88	8.08	1.36
2.2 Id. of collaborators’ merit	8.26	.91	7.74	1.33
2.3 Consideration to everybody	7.97	1.06	7.28	1.85
2.4 Promotion of collaborators’ social esteem	7.92	1.22	7.38	1.62
2.5 Expanding collaborators’ success	7.56	1.73	7.31	1.85
2.6 Being polite and sensitive to all	8.05	1.12	7.23	1.71
2.7 Manifestation of esteem to collaborators	7.95	1.69	7.46	1.89
2.8 Protection to collaborators’ from critic	8.46	1.21	8.00	1.61
2.9 Attention to collaborators’ needs	7.95	1.57	7.38	1.90
2.10 Impulse to collaborators’ self-reliance	8.00	1.03	7.72	1.62

As reported by OECD (2020), primary school teachers in the Czech Republic must generally hold a master’s degree, which twice the OECD average share. However, the teaching conditions, such as teaching hours and salaries, lead only 16% of teachers felt their profession was valued in society (OECD, 2020). Practitioners in selected schools require more appreciations of their works and are encouraged to evolve into more collaboration based on mutual respect (Tables 4 and Tables 5).

Table 5. Paired samples test: emotional dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	2.1a – 2.1b	.49	1.25	.20	.08	.89	2.43	.020
Pair 2	2.2a – 2.2b	.51	1.47	.23	.04	.99	2.18	.035
Pair 3	2.3a – 2.3b	.69	1.76	.28	.12	1.26	2.45	.019
Pair 4	2.4a – 2.4b	.54	1.62	.26	.01	1.06	2.08	.045
Pair 5	2.5a – 2.5b	.26	1.35	.22	−.18	.69	1.19	.244
Pair 6	2.6a – 2.6b	.82	1.86	.30	.22	1.42	2.75	.009
Pair 7	2.7a – 2.8b	.49	1.17	.19	.11	.87	2.61	.013
Pair 8	2.8a – 2.8b	.46	1.59	.25	−.05	.98	1.82	.077
Pair 9	2.9a – 2.9b	.56	1.76	.28	−.01	1.13	2.00	.052
Pair 10	2.10a – 2.10b	.28	1.28	.20	−.13	.70	1.38	.176

Anticipatory dimension

The anticipatory dimension refers to the school leader’s ability to predict or foresee the most suitable strategies or decisions to face future challenges. In this dimension, 3.4 Vision of institution’s structure (M = 8.47, SD = 1.02) has the highest scores in both importance and evidence (M = 8.05, SD = 1.41). 6 out of 10 indicators have statistically significant difference in this dimension. Specifically, indicators 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.8 have significant difference between expectation and reality.

School leaders with clear vision and anticipations create an image of the school in the future that provides directions for setting goals and developing strategic plans. As mentioned, the Czech education system is highly decentralized, 6 000 municipalities in 14 administrative regions organize basic education differently based on the school size and locations, which makes the education system highly differentiated and fragmented (OECD, 2020). A clearer and longer-term strategic plan for the development of primary education needs the attention of relevant departments (Tables 6 and Tables 7).

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of anticipatory dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
3.1 Impulse to institution’s mission	7.33	1.77	6.82	2.10
3.2 Foresight of needs	7.62	1.35	7.15	1.44
3.3 Vision of ultimate goal	8.41	.82	7.95	1.17
3.4 Vision of institution’s structure	8.49	1.02	8.05	1.41
3.5 Creativity to propose solutions	7.79	1.13	7.38	1.43
3.6 Proposals of targets	7.54	1.33	7.18	1.68
3.7 Contribution to initiatives	7.51	1.55	7.18	1.80
3.8 Stimulus to collaborators’ effort	7.69	1.75	7.10	2.05
3.9 Planning and management of changes	8.15	1.39	7.79	1.51
3.10 Impulse to overcome resistance to change	7.69	1.51	7.26	1.74

Table 7. Paired samples test: anticipatory dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	3.1a – 3.1b	.52	1.52	.24	.02	1.01	2.11	.042
Pair 2	3.2a – 3.2b	.46	1.23	.20	.06	.86	2.34	.025
Pair 3	3.3a – 3.3b	.46	1.02	.16	.13	.79	2.82	.008
Pair 4	3.4a – 3.4b	.44	1.10	.18	.08	.79	2.49	.017
Pair 5	3.5a – 3.5b	.41	1.07	.17	.06	.76	2.40	.022
Pair 6	3.6a – 3.6b	.36	1.20	.19	−.03	.75	1.86	.070
Pair 7	3.7a – 3.7b	.33	1.30	.21	−.09	.76	1.60	.119
Pair 8	3.8a – 3.8b	.59	1.74	.28	.02	1.15	2.11	.041
Pair 9	3.9a – 3.9b	.36	1.11	.18	−.001	.72	2.01	.051
Pair 10	3.10a – 3.10b	.44	1.45	.23	−.033	.91	1.88	.068

Professional dimension

The professional dimension refers to school leaders’ ability to encourage and motivate practitioners’ constant professional development. In the professional dimension, the indicator 4.9 Fostering an environment of constant improvement (M = 8.44, SD = 0.97) was ranked the highest among all the indicators in importance. The indicator 4.8 Impulse to accommodation to context (M = 8.15, SD = 1.06) was considered as the best performing one. There were four indicators in this dimension having a statistically significant difference between importance and evidence; these were indicators 4.2, 4.3, 4.7 and 4.9 (Tables 8 and Tables 9).

Table 8. Descriptive statistics of professional dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
4.1 Intervention in professional projects and plans	7.77	1.31	7.54	1.68
4.2 Id. in designing methodology	7.49	1.32	6.95	1.83
4.3 Id. in evaluation	7.82	1.52	7.33	1.78
4.4 Id. in studying impact of education	7.31	1.72	7.21	1.67
4.5 Id. in designing structure and organization	7.95	1.19	7.67	1.40
4.6 Interest to know other educational institutions	7.15	1.66	6.90	1.77
4.7 Promotion of atmosphere to studying	7.82	1.35	7.44	1.37
4.8 Impulse to accommodation to context	8.28	1.00	8.15	1.06
4.9 Id. to constant improvement	8.44	.97	7.59	1.85
4.10 Stimulus to innovation	7.77	1.22	7.56	1.39

Table 9. Paired samples test: professional dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	4.1a – 4.1b	.23	.96	.15	−.08	.54	1.50	.141
Pair 2	4.2a – 4.2b	.54	1.23	.20	.14	.94	2.73	.010
Pair 3	4.3a – 4.3b	.49	1.05	.17	.15	.83	2.90	.006
Pair 4	4.4a – 4.4b	.10	1.05	.17	−.24	.44	.61	.544
Pair 5	4.5a – 4.5b	.28	.89	.14	−.01	.57	1.99	.054
Pair 6	4.6a – 4.6b	.26	1.60	.26	−.26	.78	1.00	.324
Pair 7	4.7a – 4.7b	.38	1.01	.16	.06	.71	2.36	.023
Pair 8	4.8a – 4.8b	.13	.83	.13	−.14	.40	.96	.342
Pair 9	4.9a – 4.9b	.85	1.68	.27	.30	1.39	3.15	.003
Pair 10	4.10a – 4.10b	.21	1.22	.20	−.19	.60	1.05	.299

Participative dimension

The participative dimension emphasized the school leader’s ability to encourage practitioners to engage in collaborative work, motivate them to contribute their effort in daily practice and in the decision-making process. In the participative dimension, there were eight indicators receiving more than eight points in expectation, and 5.1 Impulse to multidirectional communication (M = 8.64, SD = 0.67) receiving the highest point. In evidence, except 5.1, the points of other indicators were lower than eight points. After performing the paired samples test for all the indicators of this dimension, 9 out of 10 indicators had a statistically significant difference between importance and evidence (Tables 10 and Tables 11).

Table 10. Descriptive statistics of participative dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
5.1 Impulse to multidirectional communication	8.64	.67	8.08	1.24
5.2 Choice of collaborators	8.56	.88	7.67	1.34
5.3 Acceptance of collaborators’ opinions	8.36	.99	7.44	1.67
5.4 Awarding of trust to collaborators	8.08	1.18	7.77	1.58
5.5 Attention to collaborators’ proposals	8.15	.90	7.49	1.55
5.6 Facilitation of professional debates	7.97	1.20	7.54	1.52
5.7 Impulse to participative techniques	8.00	1.49	7.46	1.64
5.8 Promotion of collaborators team working	7.82	1.47	7.21	1.84
5.9 Clarification of collaborators’ functions	8.26	1.19	7.82	1.43
5.10 Balance between delegation and control	8.21	.92	7.87	1.15

Table 11. Paired samples test: participative dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	5.1a – 5.1b	.56	.91	.15	.27	.86	3.86	.000
Pair 2	5.2a – 5.2b	.90	1.17	.17	.52	1.28	4.81	.000
Pair 3	5.3a – 5.3b	.92	1.61	.26	.40	1.45	3.58	.001
Pair 4	5.4a – 5.4b	.31	1.10	.18	−.05	.67	1.74	.090
Pair 5	5.5a – 5.5b	.67	1.38	.22	.22	1.11	3.01	.005
Pair 6	5.6a – 5.6b	.44	1.07	.17	.09	.78	2.54	.015
Pair 7	5.7a – 5.7b	.54	1.02	.16	.21	.87	3.29	.002
Pair 8	5.8a – 5.8b	.62	1.33	.21	.18	1.05	2.89	.006
Pair 9	5.9a – 5.9b	.44	.99	.16	.11	.76	2.74	.009
Pair 10	5.10a – 5.10b	.33	.84	.13	.06	.60	2.49	.017

Cultural dimension

The cultural dimension in pedagogical leadership contains the school leader’s effort in promoting the consolidation (Gento et al., 2015) of the particular school culture. There were four indicators of the cultural dimension got more than eight points, 6.8 Promotion of order and security (M = 8.44, SD = 0.91) has the highest score in importance. And in evidence, Promotion of order and security received the second highest score. In this dimension, two indicators had a statistically significant difference between importance and evidence; these were 6.7 and 6.10.

An organizational culture ‘consists of the values, beliefs, and assumptions about appropriate behavior that member of an organization share’ (Lussier, 2017, p. 39). Considering school leaders’ high level of responsibility in most public schools, coupled with teaching, school leaders in small schools may find it difficult to undertake their responsibilities effectively. Pedagogical leadership appears limited to enhance the interactive atmosphere, with little involvement in exemplifying the school’s identity (Tables 12 and Tables 13).

Table 12. Descriptive statistics of cultural dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
6.1 Promotion of institution’s cultural identity	8.21	1.03	7.97	1.09
6.2 Impulse to accommodation to context	7.74	1.16	7.67	1.08
6.3 Id. to accommodation to student’s culture	7.49	1.25	7.41	1.33
6.4 Id. to institution’s organizational profile	7.67	1.36	7.79	1.30
6.5 Exploration of collaborator’s interest	7.21	1.76	6.92	1.77
6.6 Clumping of collaborators’ ideologies	7.23	1.75	6.85	1.69
6.7 Enhancement of interactive atmosphere	8.13	1.34	7.49	1.89
6.8 Promotion of order and security	8.44	.91	8.33	1.15
6.9 Impulse to institution’s autonomy	7.77	1.71	7.64	1.60
6.10 Personal exemplification of institutions’ identity	8.21	1.26	7.79	1.49

Table 13. Paired samples test: cultural dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	6.1a – 6.1b	.23	.93	.15	−.07	.53	1.55	.130
Pair 2	6.2a – 6.2b	.08	.70	.11	−.15	.30	.68	.498
Pair 3	6.3a – 6.3b	.08	1.04	.17	−.26	.41	.46	.645
Pair 4	6.4a – 6.4b	−.13	1.03	.17	−.46	.21	−.78	.442
Pair 5	6.5a – 6.5b	.28	1.21	.19	−.11	.68	1.45	.155
Pair 6	6.6a – 6.6b	.38	1.23	.20	−.01	.78	1.96	.058
Pair 7	6.7a – 6.7b	.64	1.68	.27	.10	1.18	2.39	.022
Pair 8	6.8a – 6.8b	.10	.60	.10	−.09	.30	1.07	.291
Pair 9	6.9a – 6.9b	.13	1.20	.19	−.26	.52	.67	.507
Pair 10	6.10a – 6.10b	.41	.97	.15	.10	.72	2.65	.012

Formative dimension

The formative dimension expresses one of the essential features of school leaders: be the promotion of personal professional training (Gento et al., 2015), and take responsibility for promoting continuous training of the practitioners to improve the quality of education and the quality of the school. In the formative dimension, 7.4 Promotion of relationship with training agencies (M = 8.08, SD = 1.38) has the highest score in importance. In evidence, 7.1 Dedication to his/her own training (M = 7.92, SD = 1.17) has gotten the highest points.

There were two indicators in this dimension having a statistically significant difference between importance and evidence: 7.4 and 7.10. It is essential that school leaders understand the formative aspect of pedagogical leadership as one of their key responsibilities, they could ensure that practitioners’ professional development is relevant to the local school context and aligned with practitioners’ needs (Tables 14 and Tables 15).

Table 14. Descriptive statistics of formative dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
7.1 Dedication to his/her own training	7.95	1.17	7.92	1.17
7.2 Help to collaborator’s training	7.74	1.16	7.54	1.16
7.3 Supply of training materials	7.67	1.46	7.49	1.46
7.4 Promotion of relationship with training agencies	8.08	1.38	7.38	1.38
7.5 Facilitation of professional interchanges	7.54	1.64	7.18	1.64
7.6 Impulse to research	7.54	1.68	7.15	1.68
7.7 Impulse to obtaining grants to research	7.97	1.42	7.74	1.42
7.8 Promotion of studying professional themes	7.15	1.66	6.90	1.66
7.9 Promotion of debates on professional topics	7.18	1.80	6.87	1.80
7.10 Support to innovation	7.87	1.52	7.49	1.52

Table 15. Paired samples test: formative dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig.(2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	7.1a – 7.1b	.03	1.01	.16	−.30	.35	.16	.875
Pair 2	7.2a – 7.2b	.21	1.15	.18	−.17	.58	1.11	.273
Pair 3	7.3a – 7.3b	.18	1.17	.19	−.20	.56	.96	.343
Pair 4	7.4a – 7.4b	.69	1.36	.22	.25	1.13	3.18	.003
Pair 5	7.5a – 7.5b	.36	1.18	.19	−.02	.74	1.90	.065
Pair 6	7.6a – 7.6b	.38	1.21	.19	−.01	.78	1.99	.054
Pair 7	7.7a – 7.7b	.23	1.22	.20	−.17	.63	1.18	.246
Pair 8	7.8a – 7.8b	.26	1.29	.21	−.16	.68	1.24	.223
Pair 9	7.9a – 7.9b	.31	1.13	.18	−.06	.67	1.70	.097
Pair 10	7.10a – 7.10b	.38	1.02	.16	.06	.71	2.36	.023

Administrative dimension

The administrative dimension refers to the daily administrative works and procedural activities in the school. This dimension is placed second in evidence ranking, but it had a slightly lower ranking in importance. In this dimension, 8.4 Vigilance of laws and rules compliance with got the highest score in importance, and its performance was good in evidence as well. Only indicator 8.5 had a statistically significant difference between importance and evidence (Tables 16 and Tables 17).

Table 16. Descriptive statistics of administrative dimension.

Indicators	Importance (a)		Evidence (b)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
8.1 Presidency of collegiate boards	7.33	2.14	7.64	2.11
8.2 Supervision of documents	7.56	1.74	7.87	1.73
8.3 Management of material resources	8.15	1.33	8.10	1.23
8.4 Vigilance of laws and rules compliance with	8.31	1.45	8.26	1.39
8.5 Intervention into personnel’s cooptation	7.87	1.96	7.64	2.06
8.6 Impulse to resources acquisition	7.59	2.00	7.62	2.11
8.7 Authorization of spending	7.72	2.19	7.67	2.19
8.8 Proposals to collaborators’ cooptation	7.87	1.56	7.87	1.52
8.9 Information to community on institution’s’ life	8.03	1.20	8.00	1.21
8.10 Guarantee personnel’s right of assembly	8.21	1.15	8.08	1.09

Table 17. Paired samples test: administrative dimension.

		Paired Differences					t	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	8.1a – 8.1b	−.31	1.03	.16	−.64	.03	−1.87	.070
Pair 2	8.2a – 8.2b	−.31	1.56	.25	−.81	.20	−1.23	.225
Pair 3	8.3a – 8.3b	.05	.60	.10	−.14	.25	.53	.599
Pair 4	8.4a – 8.4b	.05	1.19	.19	−.33	.44	.27	.789
Pair 5	8.5a – 8.5b	.23	.63	.10	.03	.43	2.30	.027
Pair 6	8.6a – 8.6b	−.03	.63	.10	−.23	.18	−.26	.800
Pair 7	8.7a – 8.7b	.05	.51	.08	−.11	.22	.63	.534
Pair 8	8.8a – 8.8b	.00	.65	.10	−.21	.21	.00	1.000
Pair 9	8.9a – 8.9b	.03	.78	.12	−.23	.28	.21	.838
Pair 10	8.10a – 8.10b	.13	1.03	.17	−.21	.46	.78	.442

Summarizing the results obtained from the analysis of the questionnaires, four main aspects were outlined. Firstly, the participative dimension of pedagogical leadership was placed first in the importance ranking, 9 out of 10 indicators of this dimension have statistically significant difference between importance and evidence. Secondly, the emotional dimension was placed the second in the importance ranking, and 6 out of 10 indicators of this dimension had a statistically significant difference between importance and evidence. Thirdly, the anticipatory dimension was placed fifth in the importance ranking and seventh in evidence ranking, there were 6 out of 10 indicators in this dimension having a statistically significant difference. Fourthly, results of the findings above hold that the importance and the existing situation of pedagogical leadership is not consistent in the selected schools.

Discussion

The involvement of practitioners in pedagogical leadership

Table 1 shows that the average marks given are high in both aspects: importance and evidence (from 7.37 on). The importance given to the different dimensions was considered more crucial than the evidence from practitioners’ perceptions. And the participative dimension has the highest importance ranking and ranked third in evidence ranking, which emphasized the importance of the involvement of practitioners in pedagogical leadership and highlighted the school leaders’ role to encourage and to motivate practitioners to engage in collaborative work and in decision-making process. However, in this dimension, 9 out of 10 questions had a statistically significant difference between importance and evidence.

Based on the data analysis, it seemed that practitioners felt the lack of involvement in pedagogical leadership in evidence. These findings suggest that practitioners make and sustain valued participation to their practice when they collaboratively construct-specific approaches to address pedagogical leadership. In daily practice, practitioners work together to improve multidirectional communication, co-plan, co-teach and promote team working and then to consider together the balance between delegation and control. When practitioners have their own approaches to participate in pedagogical leadership, they can better grapple with new practices.

This finding is similar to the OECD reports (Shewbridge et al., 2016) and the research conducted by Robinson et al. (2009, p. 37). When Pedagogical leadership at school level was not strongly linked with daily teaching or leading tasks, teachers were unlikely to apply pedagogical leadership. This meant that sharing leadership broadly in schools and arranging shared time for pedagogical discussions on the staff meeting can be supportive to the development of pedagogical leadership. Lahtero and Kuusilehto-Awale (2015, p. 326) observed similar findings as well. However, in selected schools, the involvement of practitioners in pedagogical leadership was decided by several reasons, such as workload, school climate, management style, school size and so on. Support from legislation is needed as well (Shewbridge et al., 2016, p. 12).

The charisma of practitioners in pedagogical leadership

The charismatic dimension was considered valuable by practitioners in importance and evidence. And in this dimension, only two of the 10 indicators had a statistically significant difference, which means, in most instances, the performance of charisma is consistent. Practitioners in selected schools not only realized the importance of charisma but also well implemented in daily working. It can be concluded that the charismatic dimension which refers to ‘the leader is attractive so as to facilitate that other people feel comfortable to be with him/her or they’ (Gento et al., 2015, p. 223) is embedded in school life.

In this dimension, indicators 1.3 Representativeness and 1.5 Chosen by selecting process were considered inconsistent between importance and evidence. These two indicators connected with the recruitment of a school leader. In the Czech context, 97.6% school leaders are full-time employed and need to teach (Shewbridge et al., 2016, p. 164). School leaders in the regions or the municipalities are employed and appointed by their school founder. Even candidates for school leader positions must meet certain eligibility criteria set out by law, teachers are not involved in the whole process at all. This meant that diversification of recruitment methods is needed in this context.

Challenges existing in implement pedagogical leadership

Professional and formative dimensions have the lowest ranking in both importance and evidence. Results from the quantitative data show that professional and formative dimensions were downplayed by practitioners. However, teachers at the primary school level showed more positive attitude toward emotional, charismatic and administrative dimensions in pedagogical leadership. This notwithstanding, it is generally accepted that when practitioners engage in high-quality teaching experiences, professional design, innovative support and constant improvement are needed.

Research made by Westerberg (2013) showed sharing a common goal with teachers and colleagues, and active participation in teachers’ professional development are important pedagogical strategies for school leaders. Professional development is defined as ‘those processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skill, and attitudes of educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students, in some cases, it also involves learning how to redesign educational structures and cultures’ (Guskey, 2000, p. 16). It is an international, ongoing and systemic process and should not be underestimated under any circumstances.

Besides, analysis of data shows that some indicators, such as 3.1 Impulse to institution’s mission, 4.2 Intervention in designing methodology, 4.6 Interest to know other educational institutions, 6.5 Exploration of collaborators’ interests, 6.6 Harmonization of collaborators’ ideologies, 7.8 Encouragement of continuous study of professional themes and 7.9 Spread of professional studies and practices in evidence have lower scores (under seven) when compared to other indicators; this indicates pedagogical leadership in the selected schools still needs to be more developed and supported in these dimensions.

Conclusions

In the research, participative dimension of pedagogical leadership was considered as the most important dimension in the importance ranking. This finding confirmed that pedagogical leadership is a process of participation and collaboration with different stakeholders. Participation is crucial as it can help the other dimensions such as emotional, professional, etc., to develop. However, the participative approach depends on personality and personal interest of particular people to a great extent. Secondly, in selected Czech schools, careful examination of the practitioners’ situation is important to the implementation of pedagogical leadership. With the scrutiny of their need, appropriate supports should be provided, and the development of pedagogical leadership should be regularized and optimized. Only with the good development of pedagogical leadership, can teaching and learning in selected Czech schools be properly carried out. Thirdly, the development of pedagogical leadership not only includes opportunities for continuous skill and knowledge acquisition to support teachers and students but also the self-development of school leaders. Pedagogical leadership is based on the professionalism of all practitioners; the key point is to find the balance between all the aspects.

Moreover, having gained the knowledge of practitioners’ perceptions of pedagogical leadership in selected Czech schools, further research in this area is still needed. For more comprehensive understanding of pedagogical leadership, further research with a larger number of participants can be conducted and a qualitative paradigm can be applied. Additionally, emphasis on pedagogical leadership that all stakeholders should effectively participate in the progression of its development in parallel with their own professional development. This research mainly focused on teachers, how local authority and, or students perceive different type of pedagogical leadership can be explored as well.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Danping Peng

Danping Peng is Assistant professor at Palacky University Olomouc, she holds a PhD in Education. Her research interests include professional development of headteachers, school management and pedagogical leadership in schools providing compulsory education.

Stefan Chudy

Stefan Chudy is Associate Professor at Palacky University Olomouc, he is oriented on research into the development of the key competencies of pedagogues, and the preparation of students (i.e. future teachers), and the resolution of remedial behavioural situations. The field of his scientific research is decision competencies, school discipline.