WELLBEING
|
|
Performance |
Productivity |
Wellbeing |
Motivation |
Gender |
Male |
0.81 |
0.71 |
0.73 |
0.74 |
|
Female |
0.82 |
0.73 |
0.77 |
0.77 |
Nationality |
Non-British |
0.81 |
0.72 |
0.71 |
0.78 |
|
British |
0.82 |
0.73 |
0.76 |
0.75 |
Year Group |
Lower School |
0.87 |
0.80 |
0.84 |
0.81 |
|
Middle School |
0.80 |
0.73 |
0.74 |
0.74 |
|
Upper School |
0.77 |
0.66 |
0.69 |
0.72 |
Ethnicity |
White |
0.82 |
0.72 |
0.75 |
0.76 |
|
Black / Black British |
0.89 |
0.74 |
0.82 |
0.91 |
|
Asian / Asian British |
0.76 |
0.73 |
0.68 |
0.71 |
|
Mixed |
0.83 |
0.75 |
0.78 |
0.79 |
Table 1 : Pearson correlation coefficients quantifying the association between student performance , productivity , wellbeing and motivation and teachers ’ inclusive leadership score , stratified by gender , nationality , year group and ethnicity . Values are based on the dataset with outliers removed ( n = 677 ) and all values are statistically significant ( p < 0.01 ).
Overall student performance and its three components were also analysed to assess any differences between students ’ self-ratings by demographic variable . Given that all four variables are not normally-distributed , nonparametric hypothesis tests were run to investigate the differences in mean ranks between the groups . Applying the Mann-Whitney U test showed that male students self-reported higher levels of productivity , wellbeing and motivation compared to female students ; at a component level , this difference was only statistically significant for wellbeing ( p = 0.003 ), but when all three components were taken together , male students selfreported significantly higher scores ( p = 0.023 ). No significant differences were found between British and non-British students .
Applying the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that although student sensitivity to teachers ’ inclusive leadership behaviours reduces as they progress through the school , this reduction was not significantly different in terms of overall student performance or its three components between lower , middle and upper school students , nor students of different ethnicities . Furthermore , a linear regression analysis showed that female students were consistently more sensitive to teachers ’ leadership behaviours throughout the School and this was found to be the case for productivity , wellbeing and motivation . Overall , around 65 % of the variation in student performance was explained by differences in the behaviours and attitudes of students ’ mathematics teachers .
Conclusions
The 15 components of inclusive leadership ( individualised consideration , idealised influence , inspirational motivation , intellectual stimulation , unqualified acceptance , empathy , listening , persuasion , confidence building , growth , foresight , conceptualisation , awareness , stewardship and healing ) have been shown in industry and HEIs to strongly influence employee and student performance , respectively . In this study , a similarly strong , statistically-significant positive association ( r = 0.81 ) was found between mathematics teachers displaying these inclusive behaviours and student performance in mathematics , and these correlations did not differ between male and female students , nor between students of different nationalities . However , the strength of these correlations was found to significantly decrease as students progressed through the school , indicating increased self-motivation and independence as students mature ( e . g . r = 0.87 for lower school students versus r = 0.77 for upper school students ; p = 0.008 ). Analysis of student responses to the 34 questions evaluating teachers ’ inclusive leadership behaviours reveals that the Mathematics Department is strong at allowing students to display authentic behaviours , serving the broad needs of students and operating on the basis of fairness , while areas of potential development include further encouraging students to express their concerns , creating an environment for minority voices to be heard and implementing further strategies to improve student
37