Relationships between special education teachers’ leadership styles, self-efficacy, and the team dynamics in their classrooms

This study examined the relationships between leadership styles, self- efficacy, and team dynamics of special education teachers (SETs) working with the moderate/severe student population. Review of the literature suggests that it is common for special education teacher candidates to receive little to no training on how to supervise and collaborate with teaching assistants (TAs) in their classroom and rely on real life experience to learn how to become a leader and collaborate with their TAs. Using the Team Assessment questionnaire (Lencioni, 2002), the Leadership Orientation Survey (Bolman Deal, 1991), and the Generalized Self- Efficacy Survey (Schwarzer Jerusalem, 1995), it was found that all team dysfunctions/strengths (dependent variables) were correlated with a statistically significant level of .001 among each other. All leadership styles and self-efficacy (independent variables) were correlated and statistically significant at .001. All dependent and independent variables were correlated and statistically significant at .001. One canonical correlation function was interpreted and explained 75.1% of the variance in the five dependent subscales for team dysfunctions/strengths. For the five regression analyses run, the F values were significant at .001, and each of the dependent variables could be predicted from the five independent variables. The dependent variable of trust was predicted by structural leadership and self-efficacy. Conflict was predicted by self-efficacy. Commitment was predicted by structural and self-efficacy. Accountability was predicted by political, structural, and self-efficacy. Results were predicted by structural and self-efficacy. Themes emerged from the open-ended questions regarding conflicts due to their lack of training were interpersonal conflict/unprofessionalism, lack of training of TAs, lack of knowledge of policy/procedure, TAs with medical/disabilities, and TAs undermining SET authority. The approaches resulted in two themes: individual/group and direct/indirect. Individual/group refers to the teacher addressing the team members individually or as a group. Direct and indirect approaches were SETs empowering TAs, reprimanding TAs, SET self-acquiring skills through outside resources, having TAs recognize the problem followed by readjustment, and reviewing expectations/job descriptions.