2 Discussion Posts Questions 200 Words Each Question – APA Format – 2 References – TurnitIn

2 Discussion Posts Questions 200 Words Each Question – APA Format – 2 References – TurnitIn Required

Review the article published by

Song et. al (2013)

1) Explain the features of sample and frequency of participants at page 472.

2) Explain the correlations in Table 2 at page 476.

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTE
teachers: mutual impact of perceived school support,
transformational leadership, and work engagement

Ji Hoon Song • Sang Hoon Bae • Sunyoung Park •

Hye Kyoung Kim

Received: 27 March 2013 / Revised: 29 July 2013 / Accepted: 14 September 2013 / Published online: 2 October 2013

� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2013

Abstract This study examined the structural relationships

among perceived school support, transformational leader-

ship, teachers’ work engagement, and teachers’ knowledge

creation practices. It also investigated the mediating effects

transformational leadership and work engagement in

explaining the association between perceived school support

and knowledge creation practices. Samples included 284

career and technical education teachers in the United States.

Structural equation modeling was employed. Perceived

school support was positively associated with transforma-

tional leadership and teachers’ work engagement, but had no

direct impact on knowledge creation practices. Transfor-

mational leadership was found to affect knowledge creation

practices, but not work engagement of teachers. Although a

supportive school climate had no direct relationship with

knowledge creation practices, it indirectly affected this

outcome variable through transformational leadership and

teachers’ work engagement. The results suggest that in order

to increase teachers’ knowledge creation activities, a sup-

portive school climate should be provided with efforts to

improve teachers’ work engagement and transformational

behaviors of the principal.

Keywords Knowledge creation � Perceived school
support � Transformational leadership � Work
engagement � Career and technical education

Introduction

As the world has transformed from the industrial age to the

knowledge era, creating new and innovative knowledge is

becoming increasingly important to organizations that want

to build a competitive advantage and maintain high per-

formance (Ichijo and Nonaka 2007). No matter what

business one finds oneself in, a critical issue is how to

establish organizational environments that encourage and

support employees to be engaged in knowledge creation

activities. Public schools are no exception. To achieve

school reform and improve performance, it is essential for

teachers to generate innovative knowledge that improves

work processes and makes teaching and learning in schools

more effective (McCharen et al. 2011; Viviano 2012).

The current study focuses on career and technical edu-

cation (CTE) schools, which have long been stigmatized as

low-performing institutions with second-class students.

They have generally been viewed ‘‘the track for low-

achieving, non-college bound students (Palmer and Gaunt

2007, p. 35)’’ and tend to enroll greater number of minority,

special needs, and low socioeconomic students who are more

likely to be underperformers (Campbell 1986; Gray and Bae

J. H. Song

Assistant Professor in College of Information

University of North Texas, Denton, USA

e-mail: jihoon.song@unt.edu

S. H. Bae (&)
Associate professor of Education

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea

e-mail: sbae@skku.edu

S. Park

Assistant professor of Human Resource Education and

Workforce Development

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA

e-mail: spark65@lsu.edu

H. K. Kim

Doctoral Candidate in Program of Occupational Educational

Studies

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA

e-mail: hye.kim@okstate.edu

123

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2013) 14:467–482

DOI 10.1007/s12564-013-9283-8

2009; Levesque and Hudson 2003; Pennsylvania Depart-

ment of Education [PDE] 2004). In addition, CTE schools

have continued to suffer qualified teacher shortage nation-

wide in the US (National Association of State Directors of

Career and Technical Education [NASDCTE] 2012). For

instance, one-third of State Directors in the US reported a

shortage of qualified teachers in manufacturing areas in

2012. Taken all together, it may be possible to argue that

CTE is in a crisis. It appears to be a worldwide phenomenon

(Gray and Bae 2009).

Facing the rapidly changing labor market, however,

CTE schools are now striving to develop high-performing

education systems to prepare a globally competitive

workforce (Bae et al. 2012). To pursue these goals, many

CTE institutions have made special efforts to motivate

teachers to become knowledgeable workers who can help

to build the knowledge assets of schools, which would

promote higher quality of education and competitiveness of

graduates in the labor market (McCharen et al. 2011;

Viviano 2012). Therefore, it is crucial to develop under-

standings as to how to encourage CTE teachers to get

involved in as many knowledge creation activities as pos-

sible. In attempts to positively influence teachers in

schools, increasing attention is being paid to both theory

and practice regarding changing the organizational climate,

introducing transformative leadership, and promoting

employees’ work engagement.

Many organizational studies (Nonaka 1994; Song et al.

2012) have suggested that a supportive organizational cli-

mate is critical to promoting innovative ideas and

increasing knowledge creation activities among employees.

A supportive climate has also been found to positively

affect the performance of organizational members in their

tasks (Eisenberger et al. 1986, 2002). In the educational

setting, a systematic and supportive school climate has

been reported as one of the most influential factors for

increasing teachers’ performance levels, which in turn

positively affect students’ achievement (McCharen et al.

2011; Song et al. 2011a, b).

The importance of school leaders in changing behaviors

of teachers in the school organization should not be

underestimated (Bass and Riggio 2006; Viviano 2012).

Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the

most effective leadership styles in social organizations,

including public schools. Overall, many research studies

(e.g., Son and Miskel 2006; Silins 1992) have found that

transformational leaders have greater positive impacts on

their educational organizations than transactional leaders.

For instance, Leithwood (1994) argued that transforma-

tional leadership ensures teacher commitment to change

and affects organizational learning, which in turn influ-

ences school performance.

Further, the concept of work engagement has become

increasingly popular in the fields of business and industry

as well as in education, in recent years (Hallinger 2003; Orr

and Orphanos 2007; Schaufeli and Bakker 2010; Thoonen

et al. 2011). A considerable number of studies (Amabile

and Kramer 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker 2003, 2010) have

found that work engagement is a powerful predictor of

many types of behavioral performance in the workplace.

Similarly, researchers (Lin 2011; Song et al. 2012) have

argued that without promoting the self-oriented engage-

ment of teachers, schools are not likely to enhance orga-

nizational learning and knowledge creation practices

among teachers, which are needed to generate innovative

work processes and creative curricular activities.

Considering the three factors affecting teacher behav-

iors—supportive organizational climate, transformational

leadership, and work engagement, questions arise: How are

these factors interrelated, and in what ways do they affect

teachers’ knowledge creation behaviors? One belief in the

field of education is that leadership plays a critical role in

changing school climate, influencing teacher behaviors,

and ultimately affecting school performance (e.g., Han

2004; Kim and Na 2005; Kwon 2007). In contrast, from the

management-oriented perspective, some researchers

(McCharen et al. 2011) argue that such conventional ideas

of trusting leadership roles may fail to place due emphasis

on the school as a social organization having cultural

characteristics similar to organizations in other sectors.

Supporting the concept of the school as a social organi-

zation in which a variety of social interactions occur not

only among individuals, but also between individuals and

school environments (Hoy and Miskel 2008), this study

views the cultural aspect of the school as an input factor

that influences the behaviors of leaders and teachers and

ultimately affects the outcome factor: teachers’ engage-

ment in knowledge creation practices. In addition, the

current study assumes that the leadership of principals and

the work engagement of teachers play mediating roles in

the association between supportive school climate and

knowledge creation practices of teachers.

Research purpose and theoretical foundation

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, the current

study intends to examine the structural relationships among

four variables in US CTE schools: perceived school sup-

port (PSS), principal’s transformational leadership (TL),

teachers’ work engagement (WE), and teachers’ knowledge

creation practices (KCP). Second, this study aims to

investigate the mediating effects of transformational lead-

ership of the principal and work engagement of teachers to

468 J. H. Song et al.

123

better explain the direct relationship between perceived

school support and teachers’ knowledge

creation practices.

The conceptual framework of this study is primarily

guided by two theories: social exchange theory and

knowledge conversion theory. According to social

exchange theory, social exchange occurs between two

parties when each exchanges something valuable with the

other on the basis of mutual trust and reciprocity (Blau

1964). In addition, in the context of social exchange,

relationships are formed not only between individuals and

their leader, dyadic relationships, but also between indi-

viduals and the larger group or organization, global rela-

tionships (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Settoon et al. 1996). A

dyadic relationship is typically found in the social

exchange between employees and their supervisor.

Namely, a leader–member exchange indicates how

employees are willing to fulfill their obligations to their

leaders (Settoon et al. 1996; Wayne et al. 1997). In the

global relationship perspective, employees are more likely

to show organizational obligations and commitment when

they feel their organization values their contributions and

well-being (Eisenberger et al. 1986).

Perceived organizational support (POS) has been widely

used in many organizational studies to describe the quality

and level of employee–organization relationships (Aryee

et al. 2002; Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). This study

employed the concept of perceived organizational support

to measure levels of perceived school support (PSS) by

CTE teachers, which in turn influences them to feel an

obligation to reach school’s mission and expectations. On

the other hand, transformational leadership of the principal,

work engagement of teachers, and knowledge creation

practices of teachers are regarded as part of the individual

obligations and responsibilities toward the organization—

schools, in this context. Social exchange theory can help to

explain the global relationships among perceived school

support, transformational leadership, teachers’ work

engagement, and teachers’ knowledge creation practices as

well as the dyadic relationship among transformational

leadership, teachers’ engagement, and knowledge creation

practices in the school setting. In particular, for dyadic

relationships based on leader–member exchanges, trans-

formational leadership is seen as a critical factor in

encouraging teachers to enhance their work engagement

and knowledge creation practices.

Knowledge conversion theory is also employed in this

study. This theory focuses on the processes of knowledge

conversion through interactions between tacit and explicit

knowledge (Nonaka 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995;

Nonaka et al. 2001). In other words, the theory explains the

dynamic processes of organizational knowledge creation.

According to researchers (Nonaka and Takeuch 1995), the

knowledge conversion process consists of four connected

phases: (a) socialization, sharing tacit knowledge,

(b) externalization, externalizing shared knowledge,

(d) internalization, internalizing explicit knowledge into

tacit knowledge.

Additionally, five enablers are known to support

knowledge conversion and creation in the organization:

(a) instilling the organizational mission, (b) managing

conversation, (c) mobilizing knowledge activists, (d) cre-

ating a supportive context, and (e) leveraging local

knowledge (von Krogh et al. 2000). In knowledge con-

version theory, the importance of leadership and partici-

pation of employees in organizational knowledge creation

activities are particularly emphasized (Song et al. 2012).

During the knowledge creation process, leaders can share

organizational values and visions, lead open dialogues to

solve problems, and encourage employees to engage in the

process of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi

1995). In addition, leaders may develop employees as

knowledge activists who make continuous efforts to facil-

itate knowledge creation across the whole organization

(von Krogh et al. 1997). That is, leaders can contribute to

improving employees’ engagement in knowledge creation.

Engaged employees, in turn, are more likely to work in

collaboration with colleagues and innovate work processes

for knowledge creation (Prusak and Matson 2006; von

Krogh et al. 2000). In the current study, knowledge con-

version theory is employed to explain how transforma-

tional leadership and worker engagement influence

knowledge creation practices in a school organization. This

study also applies this theory to illustrate how transfor-

mational leadership and teachers’ engagement mediate the

association between perceived school support and knowl-

edge creation practices. In a nutshell, the knowledge con-

version theory helps to explain all collaborative practices

among individuals, particularly leaders and teachers, in

order to create new knowledge in CTE schools. This study

also posits that collaborations for knowledge creation

activities may be further encouraged by organizational

supports and trust-based collaborative relationships among

the people in

schools.

Based on the two theories described above, the research

framework was established. As shown in Fig. 1, the

framework consists of four components: perceived school

support (PSS), transformational leadership (TL), teachers’

work engagement (WE), and knowledge creation practices

of teachers (KCP). PSS is an input variable, and KCP is an

outcome variable in our model. TL and WE are mediating

factors. To examine the structural relationships among the

four variables and the mediating effects of TL and WE, we

developed the following three hypotheses. The hypotheses

are consistent with the findings of previous studies, as is

presented later.

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 469

123

• H1: Perceived school support affects the levels of
transformational leadership, teachers’ work engage-

ment, and teachers’ knowledge creation practices.

• H2: Transformational leadership influences the levels
of teachers’ work engagement and teachers’ knowledge

creation practices.

• H3: Transformational leadership and teachers’
engagement play mediating roles in the link between

perceived school support and teachers’ knowledge

creation practices.

Review of the related literature

Perceived organizational support (POS)

The concept of perceived organizational support was

developed to explain that employees generally do their best

to achieve the goals of their organization when they perceive

that their organization takes care of them (Eisenberger et al.

2004). Namely, it is the ‘‘employees’ perception of being

valued and cared about by the organization’’ (Eisenberger

et al. 1990, p. 51). According to Eisenberger et al. (1986),

‘‘Employees in an organization form global beliefs con-

cerning the extent to which the organization values their

contributions and cares about their well-being (p. 500).’’

Many studies (Dutrénit 2000; Eisenberger et al. 1997;

Schaufeli et al. 2009; Shivers-Blackwell 2004; Wayne et al.

1997) found that perceived organizational support plays a

key role in affecting individual behaviors and performance

[e.g., organizational commitment, engagement, job satis-

faction, and knowledge creation]. In this study, the concept

of perceived organizational support was employed to mea-

sure levels of perceived school support (PSS) in the school

context. As shown in the business setting, the level of per-

ceived school support is known to contribute to teachers’

positive organizational behaviors and performances [i.e.,

intention to stay, engagement, and satisfaction] (Ladd 2009;

Perie and Baker 1997; Weiss 1999).

Perceived organizational support is also known to

enhance transformational leadership (Shivers-Blackwell

2004). For instance, supportive organizational culture—

i.e., feelings of family and a sense of shared fate and

support—has a positive impact on the development of

transformational leadership (Shivers-Blackwell 2004). In

the school setting, a supportive school, such as one that

provides formal leadership training, is more likely to

develop leaders’ transformational leadership behaviors

(Ross 2004). Likewise, organizational support was found to

positively affect employees’ work engagement (Rhoades

and Eisenberger 2002; Schaufeli et al. 2009). According to

Kahn (1990), employees experience psychological security

when they recognize supportive management and inter-

personal trust within their organizations. From the orga-

nizational standpoint, Rich and Lepine (2010) similarly

found that managerial supports promote employees’

intentions to fully engage in their work and therefore

ultimately lead to organizational and individual perfor-

mance improvements. Similarly, Robinson, Perryman, and

Hayday (2004) suggested that employees’ work engage-

ment could be increased by organizations’ offering extra

supports, including mental emotion-based support and

physical resource-based support. Ferrer (2005) argued that

organizational support provides employees with a sense of

feeling valued that leads to their increased involvement in

their work for both in-role and extra-role performance. The

same holds true for schools. Perceived school support is

known to facilitate teachers’ work engagement. In other

Fig. 1 Research framework.
Dotted lines indicate indirect

paths between PSS and KCP

through WE and TL

470 J. H. Song et al.

123

words, when teachers recognize that they are valued and

supported by staff and administrators, they are more likely

to spend their time and energy to develop innovative cur-

ricula or teaching strategies that then improve student

performance (Rutter and Jacobson 1986).

Finally, at the organizational level, perceived organiza-

tional support encourages employees to be involved in

more collaborative and dynamic knowledge creation

practices (Dutrénit 2000; George and Brief 1992; Yoon

et al. 2009). Namely, diverse organizational support, such

as learning support and managerial support, stimulates

organizational knowledge creation practices (Yoon et al.

2009). In the school setting, Lee (2007) emphasized that a

supportive culture of the school is imperative in enhancing

teachers’ collaboration and knowledge practices.

Transformational Leadership and work engagement

While transactional leadership focuses on mutual exchan-

ges between leaders and followers, transformational lead-

ership moves beyond this simple exchange-based

relationship and attempts to help followers to achieve

higher performances by setting challenging expectations

(Lievens et al. 1997). Thus, transformational leadership

concerns whether leaders of the organization create

empowered working environments and develop followers

by being role models, sharing their visions, inspiring cre-

ative and innovative perspectives, and providing supports

and encouragement. For instance, Obiwuru et al. (2011)

suggest that transformational leaders encourage followers

to think critically and seek new ways in dealing with their

jobs, and motivate them to be more aware of the impor-

tance of their duty and performances by providing supports

and sharing their visions. Many studies have confirmed the

positive effects of transformational leadership on follow-

ers’ attitudes and performances (e.g., Jung et al. 2003; Kark

and Shamir 2002; Shin and Zhou 2003). In addition, at the

organization level, Fenn and Mixon (2011) found that

transformational leaders enhance the efficiency and pro-

ductivity of an organization by supporting followers to

think creatively and creating a flexible work environment.

In the education field, many researchers (Leithwood

1994; Leithwood and Jantzi 2000; Leithwood and Steinbach

1995) have found that transformational leadership leads to

effective and collaborative decisions by encouraging

teachers to get involved in decision-making processes. Thus,

transformational leaders in the school support a collective

school vision and goals development, encourage teachers’

professional expertise and values, demonstrate high-perfor-

mance expectations for teachers and students, and develop

participatory school climates and structures.

Various studies (Bass and Riggio 2006; Howell and

Frost 1989; Walumbwa and Hartnell 2011; Whittington

et al. 2004) have shown that transformational leadership

positively influences teachers’ performance. Behaviors of

transformational leaders are positively related to teachers’

attitude and behaviors, i.e., job satisfaction, improvement

of in-role performance, work engagement, and intrinsic

motivation, which influence innovation, knowledge crea-

tion, and a collaborative team environment in the school

(Avolio and Gibbons 1988; Bass 1985; Bass and Riggio

2010; House 2004; Howell and Frost 1989; Sarah 2009;

Song et al. 2012; Wefald 2008).

Moreover, studies (Ghafoor et al. 2011; Schaufeli 2012;

Song et al. 2012) have found that transformational leadership

influences employees’ work engagement: ‘‘a persistent,

pervasive and positive affective-motivational state of ful-

fillment in employees’’ (Llorens et al. 2007, p. 827). In the

context of public schools, Thoonen et al. (2011) found that

transformational leadership plays an important role in

stimulating teachers’ engagement in professional learning

activities and teaching practices. As suggested by Orr and

Orphanos (2007), teachers’ work engagement is critical in

improving organizational commitment and teacher retention

and thus enhancing student outcomes and school perfor-

mance. Finally, transformational leadership was also found

to promote the efforts of teachers to create a collaborative

school climate for community relations (Hallinger 2003).

Knowledge creation

As discussed earlier, the creation of new knowledge is

becoming a critical factor for long-term success and

innovation of organizations in the current era, the knowl-

edge economy (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Song and Kolb

2009). This holds true for public schools. According to

researchers (Bae et al. 2012; Conner 2007; Keung 2009;

McCharen et al. 2011), knowledge creation in school

organizations is intimately associated with innovation of

the school and professional development of teachers.

Consequently, greater attention than ever before has been

given to investigating ways in which the organization

creates knowledge and what should be done to promote

knowledge creation activities.

In this context, the concept of a knowledge conversion

process can be employed to explain that individuals’ tacit

knowledge can be transformed into organizational explicit

knowledge applicable to the workplace (Song and Kolb

2009). In relation to the knowledge conversion process, a

supportive organizational context was found to enhance

continuous dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collective

thinking of teachers and eventually to foster knowledge

creation activities in the organization (Nonaka and

Takeuchi 1995; von Krogh et al. 2000). In other words,

when employees recognize the presence of organizational

support, they are more likely to become involved in diverse

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 471

123

enhancing activities, such as offering constructive sug-

gestions and gaining knowledge and skills that are bene-

ficial to the organization (George and Brief 1992). In short,

a supportive school culture enhances knowledge creation

among teachers, and it may be essential for organizations

to create climates in which employees can freely share,

synthesize, and expand their knowledge.

Additionally, many studies (Crawford 2005; Garcı́a-

Morales et al. 2008; Song et al. 2012) have emphasized the

role of transformative leadership in knowledge creation in

organizations. The research suggests that transformational

leadership motivates employees to create and share

knowledge to achieve high innovation and effectiveness.

Furthermore, transformational leadership is known to be

effective in creating and sharing knowledge not only at the

individual level, but also at the group level.

In the school setting, studies on the role of leadership in

creating knowledge have focused on the expanded roles of

leaders for improving the quality of teaching and learning and

promoting the school’s innovation (Frost and Durrant 2003;

Jackson 2000). For instance, Jackson (2000) described how

school leaders have supported knowledge creation for the

Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA) school

improvement project in the United Kingdom. He found that

leaders continuously provided participants with opportunities

to gain practical knowledge and generate knowledge through

inquiry, partnerships, and workshops during the project. He

suggested that the roles of leaders were critical in improving

the school structure and culture by combining practical and

contextual knowledge from school staff and teachers.

Work engagement was found to be another important

factor that influences knowledge creation in an organization

(Gertner et al. 2011; Lin 2011). Song et al. (2012) suggested

that employees’ work engagement is a significant mediator

of the relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational knowledge creation practices. Work

engagement is also known to enhance interactions and

partnerships for knowledge transfer processes in the context

of university–industry collaboration (Gertner et al. 2011).

Finally, employee engagement influences knowledge man-

agement processes and knowledge-sharing activities when

the organizational climate is supportive (Lin 2011).

Research methods

Data collection and sample

CTE teachers in one central State in the US were targeted

as the research sample. Permission from the State

Department of Career and Technical Education was gran-

ted to acquire the contact information (only e-mail

addresses) of potential survey participants. We invited

approximately 2,300 CTE teachers, who are listed on the

CTE teacher directory, to participate in the survey.

After the first invitation letter was distributed via email

along with the consent form, around 300 emails bounded back

to us due to the inaccurate or non-updated contact information

on the teachers’ directory. A second invitation letter was

distributed to 2,000 teachers along with the survey Web

directory of the Survey Monkey data collection system. On the

survey form, we explained general research objectives and

the overall procedure on the front page of the survey.

Regarding the participants’ response option, they were able to

skip any items if they did not want to provide any opinion.

In response, 304 teachers voluntarily participated in the

survey, for a return rate of 15.2 %. However, 20 survey

questionnaires were excluded as incomplete cases. Finally,

a total of 284 cases were used for data analysis. With

regard to sample demographics distribution, about 34 %

were male. About 34 % had less than 5 years of experi-

ence; approximately 31 % had 6–10 years of experience;

and about 35 had more than 10 years of experience in CTE

institutions. In terms of educational level, almost 6 % had

an associate degree, 38 % had a 4-year college degree, and

about 53 % had a graduate-level degree.

As described earlier, the target population is not a general

but a specific and relatively homogenous group as known to

CTE teachers in one State in the US. No reward was provided

for participation in the survey. The return rate of this study

could be considered low, but Web surveys tend to yield a low

response rate compared to other ways of survey (Cook et al.

2000). In addition, ‘‘a low response rate does not necessarily

entail non-response error (Dillman 1991, p. 229).’’ As

researchers (Cook et al. 2000; Vehovar et al. 2002) suggest,

response representativeness is more important than response

rate in survey research. Reviewing the demographic distri-

bution of the sample and consulting several CTE profes-

sionals in the area where the sample was selected, we

concluded that no overrepresented subgroup exists in the

sample in terms of gender, experience, and education level,

and thus, the data do not reflect the elements causing the non-

response bias. The sample size was large enough to run the

SEM analysis, and, as will be described, the data were found

to be reliable without extreme outliers.

Instruments

The purpose of this study is to examine (a) the structural

relationships among perceived school support, transforma-

tional leadership of the principal, teachers’ work engage-

ment, and teachers’ knowledge creation practices in CTE

schools and (b) the mediating effects of transformational

leadership and work engagement on the relationship between

perceived school support and teachers’ knowledge creation

practices. The four research constructs were measured using

472 J. H. Song et al.

123

self-reported perceptual measures with psychometric prop-

erties that have been well validated and established by pre-

vious related studies. Survey questionnaires using a five-

point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly

agree) were sent via an online survey system.

To measure levels of perceived school support (PSS),

eight items were employed from the perceived organiza-

tional support (POS) measure, which was developed and

validated by previous studies (e.g., Eisenberger et al. 1986;

Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Shore and Tetrick 1991).

For instance, Shore and Tetrick (1991) found the POS

measure to be a valid measure in terms of construct validity

and psychometric properties of the items (Cronbach’s

a = .95; GFI: .874; NFI: .906) and nomological validity
with behavioral constructs, such as organizational com-

mitment and job satisfaction. In this study, some terms in

questionnaires were changed in consideration of the school

context—for instance, ‘‘our organization,’’ ‘‘our school,’’

‘‘our leader,’’ and ‘‘our principal.’’ A sample item is ‘‘Our

school cares about my general satisfaction at work.’’

To measure transformational leadership, the short ver-

sion of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

(Form 6S) was employed (Bass and Avolio 1992). This

MLQ measure includes 12 items with four factors of

transformational leaders’ characteristics: idealized influ-

ence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration. The psychometric properties

of this measure have been established through several

studies in terms of convergent and discriminant validity

(e.g., Elenkov et al. 2005; Krishnan 2003; Song et al.

2012). Additionally, Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000)

demonstrated that the MLQ Short Form 6S has well-

defined convergent validity with other types of leadership

scales, such as the Global Transformational Leadership

Scale and the Leadership Practices Inventory (r ranges

from .76 to .88). More recently, Song et al. (2012) found

that the MLQ Short Form 6S has acceptable nomological

validity with related research constructs, including work

engagement and learning organization culture (GFI = .95;

CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06). One sample item is ‘‘Our

leaders help us find meaning in our work.’’

To examine the perceived level of work engagement of

CTE teachers, the compressed version of the Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli et al. 2006) was

used. The UWES scale has 17 items and was originally

developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003), based on the idea

that employees’ engagement and task-related burnout rep-

resent the opposite ends of a continuum of workplace well-

being, i.e., burnout reflects the negative pole, and engage-

ment, the positive pole. According to several follow-up

studies (e.g., Seppala et al. 2009; Song et al. 2012; Yi-Wen

and Yi-Qun 2005), the short version of the UWES, which

includes three factors (vigor, dedication, and absorption) was

demonstrated to be a valid measure in terms of the items’

internal consistency (Cronbach’s a ranges from .80 to .90)
and measurement construct validity. One sample item is ‘‘I

get carried away when I am working (absorption).’’

Finally, to measure teachers’ knowledge creation prac-

tices in CTE schools, the current study used the Knowledge

Creation Practice Inventory (KCPI), which was developed

and validated by Song et al. (2011b) using the theoretical

concept of the knowledge conversation framework (Nonaka

1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). This measure has 10

items to measure five factors: knowledge sharing, creation

concepts, justifying concepts, building prototypes, and

leveraging knowledge, based on the concept of transforming

individuals’ tacit knowledge to organizationally applicable

explicit knowledge. Several studies have been conducted to

determine the psychometric properties of the KCPI measure,

and this measure has been inter-disciplinarily and cross-

culturally shown to be reliable and valid (e.g., McCharen

et al. 2011; Song et al. 2011a, b; Yoon et al. 2010). For

example, Song et al. (2011b) showed the validity of this

measure in terms of the items’ internal consistency (Cron-

bach’s a ranges from .91 to .904) and construct validity
(RMSEA = .06; GFI = .98). A sample item is ‘‘In our

school, our team develops new ideas through constructive

dialogue by using figures and diagrams.’’

Data analysis strategies

Two stages of data analysis were conducted. First, pre-

liminary data analyses including examination of raw data,

analysis of item reliability and construct validity, and

tests

for statistical assumptions were performed, prior to sub-

sequent analyses. Raw data examination was conducted to

obtain unbiased, optimized data sets by checking the dis-

tance of the variances, missing data, and the normal dis-

tribution assumption. Then, tests were performed to check

the items’ internal consistency and basic construct validity.

To ensure methodological applicability of the measures,

two steps of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were

conducted using all the individual instrument items and

summative domains (Thompson 2004).

Second, two-step SEM (structural equation modeling)

analysis was employed to test the research hypotheses

comprising the model suggested in Fig. 1. Prior to examin-

ing structural relationships among the variables, the mea-

surement model was assessed based on the examination of

multiple model data fit indices, including the goodness of fit

index (GFI), the root mean square residual (RMR) (Jöreskog

and Sörbom 2001), the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler

1990), the root mean square of error of approximation

(RMSEA) (Steiger 1990), and general chi-square (a2) esti-
mates. Then, the structural relationships among the con-

structs were examined. To determine the mediating effects of

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 473

123

transformational leadership and work engagement, the path

decomposition of standardized path coefficient (SPC) esti-

mates was analyzed along with t-value criteria to determine

whether the effect size was statistically significant (Byrne

1998; Hair et al. 2006; Kline 2005).

Results

Basic assumption, reliability, and construct validity

tests

Prior to conducting data analyses, the current study asses-

sed all statistical assumptions. Normal distribution of the

data, the structure of measured variables, and reliability of

the items were examined. In addition, inter-construct cor-

relation coefficient estimates were performed to examine

the inter-constructs’ convergent reliability.

First, because the sample size was large enough

(n = 284), the central limit theorem was applied to test the

normal distribution assumption for the collected data (see

Schneeberger 2009, for more information on sample size and

using the central limit theorem). The Mahalanobis D
2

test

was performed to measure the distance of a case from the

centroid (multidimensional mean) of the variance distribu-

tion (Z value ranges within |3.0|). Given the covariance of the

distribution, no extreme outliers were detected (Kline 2005).

Although all measures in this study were previously vali-

dated in the related literature, the current study examined

psychometric properties of all the individual instrument

items and summative latent variables using exploratory

factor analysis (EFA) to ensure the applicability of the

research variables in the current research context. In Table 1,

we provide detailed information regarding the factor struc-

ture of the variables. In the first column, the factor loadings of

all observed variables were provided, while in the second

column, the factor-loading estimates of all summative vari-

ables were provided. As shown in this table, all observed

items were reasonably loaded on their designated latent

variables and summative latent items were also well loaded

on assigned latent domains, which support a well-defined

factor structure in terms of the initial structural fit between

data and measurements.

Second, scale reliability of the observed variables and

structural validity of the latent variables were examined

(Thompson 2004). As shown in Table 2, all observed items

were found to be reliable, considering the Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient estimates: a ranges from .85 to .94. In addition,
the zero-order correlation coefficient estimates among the

four constructs demonstrated acceptable convergent valid-

ity of the measurements: r ranges from .337 to .800. These

results support the general construct validity of the

instruments. However, the correlation coefficient estimate

between perceived school support (PSS) and transforma-

tional leadership (TL) (r = .800) showed the possibility of

a multicollinearity problem. Thus, as suggested by Kutner,

Nachtsheim, and Neter (2004), we checked multicolline-

arity using tolerance values and variance inflation factor

(VIF) values. The results found no violation of the multi-

collinearity issue (tolerance value = .360/VIF = 2.774).

Furthermore, no auto (serial)-correlation violation was

found (Durbin-Watson value = 1.973).

Confirmatory analysis of the measurement

To confirm the construct validity of the measurement

model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed.

Several types of model data fit indices were calculated to

evaluate the construct validity between the latent variables

and their summative sub-scale variables (Kline 2005). The

CFA results are shown in Table 3.

The results suggest that all measures of model fit to data

except the chi-square estimate are statistically acceptable at

a significant level (p \ .05). However, it should be noted
that the chi-square estimate might be influenced by the

large number of collected data (Byrne 1998; Kline 2005).

As shown in Table 3, two types of residual indices support

a well-defined measurement model in terms of lower

chance of error variances of the data (RMSEA = .064,

RMR = .038), and all other model data fit indices,

including GFI, CFI, and NNFI, confirm a good structural fit

between the proposed measurement model and responses.

More specifically, goodness of fit [GFI = .88] shows that

approximately 88 % of the variance and covariance of the

proposed research measurement model is explained by the

research data. Two additional model fit indices also support

a well-developed measurement model: comparative fit

index (CFI = .99) and the non-normed fit index

(NNFI = .98). Finally, confirming the results of the EFA

factor-loading patterns, all factor-loading values of the

summative items of each latent variable were acceptable,

ranging from .72 to .95 (Thompson 2004).

Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis

The purpose of this study is to examine the structural

relationships among the four variables in our model, per-

ceived school support, transformational leadership,

teachers’ work engagement, and knowledge creation

practices and to investigate the mediating effects of

transformational leadership and work engagement in

explaining the direct relationship between perceived school

support and teachers’ knowledge creation practices. To

answer the research questions, a two-step SEM analysis

was conducted (Byrne 1998; Kline 2005).

474 J. H. Song et al.

123

Table 1 Results of exploratory factor analysis (PCA, varimax rotation)

Items TL KCP EN PSS Summative latent var. TL KCP EN PSS

TL 1 0.817 0.124 0.031 0.291 Idealized influence (1–3) 0.702 0.157 0.138 0.424

TL 2 0.835 0.159 0.108 0.247 Inspirational motivation (4–6) 0.814 0.282 0.112 0.338

TL 3 0.814 0.163 0.138 0.249 Intellectual stimulation (7–9) 0.776 0.319 0.123 0.310

TL 4 0.802 0.208 0.103 0.180 Individualized consideration (10–12) 0.747 0.218 0.151 0.403

TL 5 0.843 0.208 0.113 0.188

TL 6 0.842 0.212 0.096 0.231

TL 7 0.828 0.255 0.103 0.180

TL 8 0.823 0.283 0.112 0.178

TL 9 0.837 0.274 0.102 0.186

TL 10 0.809 0.166 0.123 0.234

TL 11 0.669 0.164 0.201 0.278

TL 12 0.770 0.187 0.147 0.240

KCP 1 0.197 0.665 0.288 0.221 Sharing concepts (1–2) 0.158 0.692 0.255 0.289

KCP 2 0.157 0.747 0.167 0.147 Creating concepts (3–4) 0.192 0.846 0.151 0.169

KCP 3 0.204 0.768 0.177 0.047 Justifying concepts (5–6) 0.128 0.878 0.128 0.196

KCP 4 0.200 0.818 0.193 0.096 Building prototypes (7–8) 0.241 0.824 0.191 0.267

KCP 5 0.115 0.809 0.115 0.177 Leveraging knowledge (9–10) 0.248 0.835 0.213 0.182

KCP 6 0.215 0.813 0.123 0.058

KCP 7 0.181 0.858 0.174 0.114

KCP 8 0.300 0.709 0.128 0.201

KCP 9 0.216 0.860 0.180 0.090

KCP 10 0.228 0.836 0.179 0.116

WE 1 0.127 0.238 0.742 0.229 Vigor (1–3) 0.120 0.292 0.791 0.270

WE 2 0.109 0.239 0.771 0.232 Dedication (4–6) 0.125 0.237 0.833 0.297

WE 3 0.159 0.120 0.801 0.188 Absorption (7–9) 0.118 0.163 0.824 0.037

WE 4 0.157 0.161 0.832 0.150

WE 5 0.096 0.213 0.801 0.137

WE 6 0.014 0.092 0.693 0.092

WE 7 0.103 0.091 0.763 0.041

WE 8 0.136 0.184 0.772 -0.085

WE 9 0.059 0.109 0.605 -0.155

PSS 1 0.486 0.266 0.112 0.632 PSS 1 0.181 0.270 0.196 0.674

PSS 2 0.421 0.196 0.179 0.697 PSS 2 0.235 0.162 0.157 0.777

PSS 3 0.481 0.130 0.089 0.656 PSS 3 0.211 0.158 0.093 0.751

PSS 4 0.548 0.189 0.136 0.677 PSS 4 0.231 0.186 0.125 0.804

PSS 5 0.532 0.223 0.104 0.704 PSS 5 0.226 0.231 0.047 0.846

PSS 6 0.562 0.193 0.169 0.679 PSS 6 0.279 0.182 0.175 0.798

PSS 7 0.547 0.160 0.141 0.702 PSS 7 0.237 0.155 0.115 0.861

PSS 8 0.487 0.256 0.119 0.671 PSS 8 0.285 0.215 0.225 0.758

Eigenvalue 10.474 7.362 5.782 4.704 Eigenvalue 3.015 4.086 2.442 5.919

Percentage of explained

variance

34.910 24.540 19.270 15.680 Percentage of explained variance 15.100 20.400 12.200 29.600

Numbers in italics indicate items used for each scale

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 475

123

Table 2 Descriptive analysis, inter-item correlation, and internal consistency estimates

Variable M SD a 1 2 3 4

1. Perceived school support (PSS) 3.49 0.93 0.94 1

2. Transformational leadership (TL) 3.50 0.98 0.91 .800** 1

3. Teachers’ work engagement (WE) 3.97 0.65 0.85 .366** .337** 1

4. Knowledge creation practices (KCP) 3.55 0.78 0.93 .501** .508** .466** 1

a = Cronbach’s alpha coefficient estimates

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level

Table 3 Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Model fit indices Df v2 v2/df RMSEA RMR GFI CFI NNFI

Measurement model 164 375.91 2.29 0.06 0.04 0.88 0.99 0.98

Fig. 2 SEM results with SPC estimates

476 J. H. Song et al.

123

First, the measurement model of the structural research

framework was examined. According to the results, the

model fit between the data and the proposed structural

research model was well supported at a significant level

(p \ .05, GFI = .88; CFI = .99; and RMSEA: .06).
Second, to examine the complicated relationships

among the four research constructs, the proposed paths

among the constructs were analyzed. To determine the

effect size of the paths, standardized path coefficient (SPC)

estimates were primarily considered. SPC estimates were

considered statistically significant paths when their t-values

were greater than |1.96|.

The results show that the perceived level of school

support is significantly and positively related to transfor-

mational leadership (SPC = .83, t = 14.91) and work

engagement (SPC = .33, t = 2.87), but not to knowledge

creation practices of the teachers (SPC = .13, t = 1.34).

According to these results, hypothesis 1 was partially

confirmed. The direct paths from transformational leader-

ship (SPC = .32, t = 3.24) and work engagement of the

teachers (SPC = .29, t = 4.93) to teachers’ knowledge

creation practices were also significant. However, the

direct influence of transformational leadership on work

engagement of teachers was not found to be significant

(SPC = .08, t = .68). Therefore, the results partially con-

firmed hypothesis 2. Finally, in relation to hypothesis 3,

inconsistent with previous studies, there was no significant

direct path between perceived school support and knowl-

edge creation practices of teachers. Perceived school sup-

port was found to affect knowledge creation practices of

teachers only indirectly, through transformational leader-

ship of school leaders and work engagement of teachers.

Thus, work engagement of the teachers and transforma-

tional leadership played the role of mediators in explaining

the relationship between perceived school support and

knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers. Meanwhile,

there was no significant relationship between

transformational leadership and teachers’ work engage-

ment (SPC = .08, t = .68). Thus, hypothesis 3 was

confirmed.

The results of the current study require both practical

and academic attention. To date, considerable studies have

been conducted to determine positive impacts of transfor-

mational leadership on work engagement and knowledge

creation activities of workers in organizations (e.g., Bass

and Riggio 2010; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Song et al.

2012). However, in this study, transformational leadership

showed a direct significant effect only on knowledge cre-

ation practices of the teachers, whereas no direct relation-

ship was found between transformational leadership and

work engagement of the teachers. All SPCs among the

research constructs are illustrated in Fig. 2, along with

factor-loading values and error estimates of each item.

In Table 4, path decomposition is described to explain

the magnitude of the direct and indirect influences among

the research constructs. Analyses of path decomposition

also suggest that perceived school support has no direct

impact on knowledge creation practices of teachers but

does have direct effects on both transformational leader-

ship and teachers’ work engagement. Furthermore, the

mediating effects of transformational leadership and work

engagement of teachers were found to contribute in

explaining the relationship between perceived school sup-

port and knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers.

Conclusions and implications

The current study examined (a) the structural relationships

among four variables, perceived school support, principal’s

transformational leadership, teachers’ work engagement,

and teachers’ knowledge creation practices, and (b) the

mediating effects of transformational leadership and work

engagement in explaining the association between

Table 4 Decomposition of effects

Path Standardized path coefficient

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

Perceived school support ? Transformational leadership (TL) .83** – .83**

? Engagement (WE) .33** .07 .40**

Transformational leadership ? Knowledge creation (KCP) .13 .39** .52**

(Through TL) .27**

(Through WE) .10

(Through TL and WE) .02

? Knowledge creation (KCP) .32** .02 .34**

Engagement (WE) .08 – .08

Teachers’ engagement ? Knowledge creation (KCP) .29** – .29**

** p \ .01

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 477

123

perceived school support and knowledge creation practices

of teachers. The sample consisted of 284 CTE teachers in

the one central State of the United States. Structural

equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the three

hypotheses.

The study results are summarized as follows. First,

consistent with previous studies (Ross 2004; Rutter and

Jacobson 1986), perceived school support was positively

associated with transformational leadership of the principal

and work engagement of teachers. Of note, a supportive

school climate was found to have only indirect impact on

the knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers through

the behavioral variables in this research. Second, consistent

with the findings of previous research (e.g., Hallinger

2003), transformational leadership was found to have

positive effects on knowledge creation practices. However,

inconsistent with the findings of other studies showing that

transformational leadership has a significant influence on

the teachers’ behavioral performance levels (e.g., Thoonen

et al. 2011), it was not found to have a statistically sig-

nificant impact on teachers’ work engagement. This finding

may be interpreted employing Weick’s argument of

‘‘educational systems as loosely coupled systems.’’

According to Weick (1976, p. 5), institutional character-

istics of the school as loosely coupled educational systems

include a lack of coordination, an absence of regulations,

planned unresponsiveness, decentralization, and delegation

of discretion. Considering these characteristics, one may

argue that, unlike business leaders, educational leaders

regardless of leadership style have relatively limited

influence on the organizational behaviors of their staff.

This could be particularly true for CTE schools where a

variety of vocational programs operate with relatively

strong autonomy and administrators are expected to

encourage diversity in teaching environment (Gray and

Herr 1997; Viviano 2012).

Finally, although perceived school support had no direct

relationship with teachers’ knowledge creation practices, it

indirectly affected the outcome variable through transfor-

mational leadership and work engagement of teachers. In

other words, transformational leadership and work

engagement were found to have mediating effects in the

link between these variables. This result is in line with the

findings of previous studies (e.g., Gertner et al. 2011;

Jackson 2000). This study’s results support the idea of the

school as a social organization where a variety of complex

interactions occur among individuals as well as between

individuals and school environments.

In our knowledge-based society, the importance of

knowledge creation cannot be overemphasized not only for

improving competitiveness of individuals, but also for

enhancing performance of the organization (Nonaka 1994;

Pfeffer 1994). Particularly at the organization level,

knowledge functions as a key driver of organizational

innovation and thus enhanced efforts are being made to

encourage the creation and sharing of knowledge among

organizational members. In the educational setting, a case

in point is CTE schools, most of which are struggling to

meet future workforce needs and seek high-performance

outcomes (Boutin et al. 2009; Viviano 2012). The results of

this study offer profound implications to those who attempt

to promote innovation through a wide range of knowledge

creation activities in CTE schools.

First, this study supports the importance of leadership

development and teacher training in promoting knowledge

creation in CTE schools. According to the study results,

transformational leaders can successfully facilitate knowl-

edge creation activities among CTE teachers. In organi-

zational studies, one of the most frequently suggested

solutions to change organizational behaviors among

employees have been to change leaders’ behaviors or

appoint new leaders equipped with more effective leader-

ship. Among the many leadership styles, transformational

leadership has recently been receiving a great deal of

attention from scholars and practitioners. This study sup-

ports this concept, finding a positive association between

transformational leadership and knowledge creation prac-

tices of teachers. However, this study provides little

information about how they are connected in CTE schools.

As previously suggested, CTE institutions operate a variety

of vocational programs for which teachers generally have

their own teaching places and seek greater autonomy (Gray

and Herr 1997). Nonetheless, one may find clues in the four

I’s that are most commonly suggested as key features of

transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspira-

tional motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual

consideration (Bass and Riggio 2006). In practice, it may

be beneficial incorporating these four factors into the

courses to develop future school leaders and retrain

incumbent leaders of CTE schools. In addition, given the

considerable time and efforts to develop leadership skills, it

may be important to create and offer leadership programs

for teachers to be effective and transformational leaders in

future.

Second, while transformational behaviors apply to

principals as a means to increase teachers’ involvement in

knowledge creation practices, work engagement applies to

teachers. According to knowledge conversion theory,

leaders are playing important roles in promoting collabo-

rative practices to create new knowledge. According to this

theory, employees with high levels of work engagement,

characterized by higher vigor, dedication, and absorption in

one’s work (Schaufeli et al. 2006), tend to have greater

organizational commitment and to actively participate in

the creation and sharing of knowledge in their workplaces

(Prusak and Matson 2006; von Krogh et al. 2000). In this

478 J. H. Song et al.

123

sense, the finding of this research is in line with what

knowledge conversion theory implies. Then, a question is

how to improve work engagement of CTE teachers.

According to previous studies (Bakker and Bal 2010; Ha-

kanen et al. 2006; Schaufeli et al. 2009), factors affecting

work engagement of teachers include job resources,

opportunities for development, and autonomy.

Finally, perceived school support was found to impact

work engagement of teachers and transformational behav-

iors of the principal. It was also found to positively and

indirectly affect teachers’ knowledge creation practices

through transformational leadership and teachers’ work

engagement. These findings are consistent with social

exchange theory discussed earlier. While many education

experts have emphasized the role of leadership in influ-

encing teachers’ behaviors and attitudes, organizational

researchers have argued that a school climate is becoming

increasingly important in changing organizational behav-

iors of teachers and ultimately in promoting school per-

formance (Owens and Valesky 2011; Hoy and Miskel

2008). Therefore, the results of the present study may be

interpreted from the organization theory perspective. On

the practical level, many studies have been conducted to

find solutions to build supportive organizational climate.

Among many approaches, what may be considered to the

field of CTE includes (a) creation of a Work Life Balance

(WLB) supportive culture (Allen 2001), (b) holding a

regular meeting with teachers to communicate the impor-

tance of their work to the school as well as the society as a

whole (Khasawneh et al. 2012), (c) development of fair

treatment and procedural justice (Shore and Shore 1995),

and (d) provision of the paid learning leave (International

Labour Organization 2001).

Historically, CTE has long been stigmatized as a sec-

ond-class education for second-class students (Bae et al.

2007). As previously suggested, a greater number of

minority, special needs, and low SES students tend to be

registered in CTE schools (Campbell 1986; Gray and Bae

2009; Levesque and Hudson 2003; Palmer and Gaunt 2007;

PDE 2004). In addition, a continued shortage of qualified

CTE teachers has deteriorated the quality of CTE (NAS-

DCTE 2012). CTE schools, compared to general high

schools, are run with a wide range of different departments

and teachers with diverse backgrounds. Considering all

these aspects of CTE schools, it may be reasonable to

speculate that CTE teachers feel a greater sense of pow-

erlessness and isolation and have difficulties with energetic

engagement in their tasks and with active collaboration

with colleagues, both of which are essential for knowledge

creation and school innovation. In this context, the results

of this study add to a growing body of literature showing

the importance of organizational variables in promoting

school performance, and they contribute toward developing

strategies to strengthen the competitiveness of CTE

schools.

Acknowledgments This study was funded by National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF-2011-330-B00171).

References

Allen, T. D. (2001). Family supportive work environment: The role of

organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,

414–435.

Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011, September 4). Do happier people

work harder? The New York Times, p. SR7.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P., & Chen, Z. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the

relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes:

Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23, 267–285.

Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational

leaders: A life span approach. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo

(Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness (pp. 276–308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bae, S. H., Gray, K., & Yeager, J. (2007). A retrospective cohort

comparison of career and technical education participants and

non-participants on a state-mandated proficiency test. Career

and Technical Education Research, 32(1), 9–22.

Bae, S. H., Song, J. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Teachers’ creativity in

career technical education: The mediating effect of knowledge

creation practices in the learning organization. The Korean

Social Science Journal, 39, 59–81.

Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and

performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189–206.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta-

tions. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Multifactor leadership

questionnaire: Short form 6S. Binghamton, NY: Center for

Leadership Studies.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership

(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2010). The transformational model of

leadership. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations:

Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed., pp. 76–86). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:

Wiley.

Boutin, F., Chinien, C., Moratis, L., & Baalen, P. (2009). Overview:

Changing economic environment and workplace requirements:

Implications for re-engineering TVET for prosperity. In R. Maclean

D. Wilson (Eds.), International handbook of education for the

changing world of work (pp. 81–96). Netherlands: Springer.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL,

PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming. Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers.

Campbell, P. (1986). Vocational education. Access, equity, conse-

quence, Educational Horizons, 65(10), 10–15.

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of

transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychol-

ogy, 14, 389–405.

Conner, L. (2007). Perspectives on the changing nature of teacher

education. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 4, 3–8.

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 479

123

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of

response rate in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836.

Crawford, C. B. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership and

organizational position on knowledge management. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 9(6), 6–16.

Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail survey.

Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225–249.

Dutrénit, G. (2000). Learning and knowledge management in the firm:

From knowledge accumulation to strategic capabilities. Massa-

chusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived

organizational support and employee diligence, commitment and

innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armelo, S., & Lynch, P. (1997).

Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and

job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).

Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 71, 500–507.

Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Aselage, J., & Sucharski, I. L. (2004).

Perceived organizational support. In J. A.-M. Coyle-Sharpiro, L.

M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment

relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspec-

tives (pp. 206–225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., &

Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions

to perceived organizational support and employee retention.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.

Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategic leadership

and executive innovation influence: An international multi-

cluster comparative study. Strategic Management Journal, 26,

665–682.

Fenn, W., & Mixon, J. (2011). An examination of self-perceived

transformational leadership behaviors of Texas superintendents.

International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6,

1–14.

Ferrer, J. (2005). Employee engagement: Is it organizational

commitment renamed? (pp. 1–13). Working Papers Series:

Victoria University.

Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: Rationale,

strategy and impact. School Leadership & Management, 23,

173–186.

Garcı́a-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. J.

(2008). The effects of transformational leadership on organiza-

tional performance through knowledge and innovation. British

Journal of Management, 19, 299–319.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A

conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organizational spon-

taneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.

Gertner, D., Roberts, J., & Charles, D. (2011). University-industry

collaboration: ACoPs approach to KTPs. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 15, 625–647.

Ghafoor, A., Qureshi, T. M., Azeemi, H. R., & Hijazi, T. (2011).

Mediating role of creative self-efficacy. African Journal of

Business Management, 5, 11093–11103.

Gray, K., & Bae, S. H. (2009). Skills shortages, over-education and

unemployed youth: An international dilemma. In R. Maclean &

D. Wilson (Eds.), International handbook of education for the

changing world of work: Bridging academic and vocational

learning (pp. 2211–2228). Bonn: UNESOC-UNEVOC.

Gray, K., & Herr, E. (1997). Workforce education: The basics.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R.

L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hakanen, J., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2006). Burnout and work

engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology,

43(6), 495–513.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the

practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cam-

bridge Journal of Education, 33, 329–351.

Han, H. J. (2004). A study on the impact of principal’s transforma-

tional leadership on organizational effectiveness and the mod-

erating effect of learning organization in business high schools.

The Journal of Business Education, 9, 121–154.

House, R. J. (2004). Illustrative examples of GLOBE findings. In J.

H. Robert, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta

(Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study

of 62 societies (pp. 3–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A lab study of charismatic

leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 43, 243–269.

Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2008). Educational administration: Theory,

research, and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2007). Knowledge as competitive advantage

in the age of increasing globalization. In K. Ichijo & I. Nonaka

(Eds.), Knowledge creation and management: New challenges

for managers (pp. 3–10).

New York: Oxford University Press.

International Labour Organization. (2001). World labour report.

Geneva: International Labour Organization.

Jackson, D. S. (2000). The school improvement journey: Perspectives

on leadership. School Leadership & Management, 20, 61–78.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.80 for Window

[computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software

International, Inc.

Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational

leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses

and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,

525–544.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engage-

ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management

Journal, 33, 692–724.

Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational

leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further

effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),

Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead

(pp. 67–91). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JAI.

Keung, C. C. (2009). Revitalizing teacher leadership via bureaucratic-

professional practices: A structural equation model. The Asia

Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 283–295.

Khasawneh, S., Omari, A., & Abu-Tineh, A. M. (2012). The

relationship between transformational leadership and organiza-

tional commitment: The case for vocational teachers in Jordan.

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(4),

494–508.

Kim, K.-Y., & Na, S.-I. (2005). The relationship between school

effectiveness and principal leadership, school climate and self-

teaching activity as perceived by teachers in vocational high

schools. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Human

Resource Development, 37, 57–72.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation

modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Impact of transformational leadership on

followers’ influence strategies. The Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 25, 58–72.

Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear

regression models. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Kwon, D. T. (2007). The effect of the principal‘s leadership on

teachers‘ organizational-commitment and group-cohesiveness in

elementary school. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and

Instruction, 7, 41–61.

480 J. H. Song et al.

123

Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions:

How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes. National Center for

Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working

Paper 33. Washington, DC: CALDER.

Lee, H. (2007). What makes teachers learn together within the

workplace?: Listening to Korean teachers of English in second-

ary schools. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 4, 59–78.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educa-

tional Administration Quarterly, 30, 498–518.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational

leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement

with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38,

112–129.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving:

Evidence from school and district leaders. New York: SUNY

Press.

Levesque, K., & Hudson, L. (2003). Trends in high school vocational/

technical course taking, 1982–1998 (pp. 2003–2025). Washing-

ton, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Lievens, F., Van Geit, P., & Coetsier, P. (1997). Identification of

transformational leadership qualities: An examination of poten-

tial biases. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 6(4), 415–430.

Lin, H. F. (2011). Antecedents of the stage-based knowledge

management evolution. Journal of Knowledge Management,

15, 136–155.

Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a

positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement

exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825–841.

McCharen, B., Song, J., & Martens, J. (2011). School innovation: The

mutual impacts of organizational learning and creativity. Edu-

cational Management Administration & Leadership, 39,

676–694.

National Association of State Directors of Career and Technical

Education (NASDCTE). (2012, October). A look inside: A

synopsis of CTE trends. CTE, 1–5.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge

creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company:

How Japanese companies create the dynamic of innovation.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosiere, P. (2001). A theory of

organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic

process of creating knowledge. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J.

Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning

and knowledge (pp. 491–517). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Obiwuru, T. C., Okwu, A. T., Akpa, V. O., & Nwankwere, I. A.

(2011). Effects of leadership style on organizational perfor-

mance: A survey of selected small scale enterprises in IKOS-

IKETU Council development area of Lagos state, Nigeria.

Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7),

100–111.

Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (April, 2007). Learning leadership

matters: Teachers’ experiences of innovatively and convention-

ally prepared principals. Annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational behavior in

education: Leadership and school reform. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education.

Palmer, L. B., & Gaunt, D. (2007). Current profile of CTE and non-

CTE students: Who are we serving? Journal of Career and

Technical Education, 23(1), 35–43.

Pennsylvania Department of Education (DPE). (2004). Pennsylvania

secondary career and technical education reports. Web-based

reports at www.catsreports.ed.state.pa.us.

Perie, M., & Baker, D. P. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s

teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background charac-

teristics, and teacher compensation. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Prusak, L., & Matson, E. (2006). Knowledge management and

organizational learning: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational

support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 87, 698–714.

Rich, B., & Lepine, J. A. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and

effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal,

53, 617–635.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of

employee engagement. Institute of Employment Studies, Report

408.

Ross, J. (2004). Effects on early literacy achievement of running

records assessment: Results of a controlled experiment. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association.

Rutter, R. A., & Jacobson, J. D. (1986). Facilitating teacher

engagement. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective

Secondary Schools.

Sarah, H. L. (2009). Transformational leadership and ‘‘flow’’: The

mediating effects of psychological climate. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Kansas State University,

Manhattan.

Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Work engagement. What do we know and

where do we go? Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14,

3–10.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES—Utrecht work

engagement scale: test manual. Utrecht: Department of Psy-

chology, Utrecht University.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. G. (2010). Defining and measuring

work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A.

B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook

of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York:

Psychology Press.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. G., & Salanova, M. (2006). The

measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A

cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measure-

ment, 66, 701–716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & van Rhenen, W. (2009). How

changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work

engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, 30, 893–917.

Schneeberger, S. (2009). Realized power variation of some fractional

stochastic integrals: Laws of large numbers and central limit

theorems. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.

Seppala, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, F., Kinnunen, U.,

Tolvanen, A., et al. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evi-

dence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459–481.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Linden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange

in organizations: The differential effects of perceived organiza-

tional support and leader member exchange. Journal of

Psychology, 81, 219–227.

Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conserva-

tion, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 46, 703–714.

Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2004). Using role theory to examine

determinants of transformational and transactional leader behav-

ior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 41–50.

Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support

and organizational justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices 481

123

http://www.catsreports.ed.state.pa.us

(Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing

the social climate of the workplace (pp. 149–164). Westport, CT:

Quorum.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of

the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76, 637–643.

Silins, H. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. Alberta

Journal of Educational Research, 38(4), 317–334.

Son, K. A., & Miskel, C. G. (2006). The Effect of transformational/

transactional leadership on work effectiveness of university

presidents: Organizational culture as a moderating variable.

Seowan University, Korea (unpublished manuscript).

Song, J. H., & Kolb, J. A. (2009). The influence of learning culture on

perceived knowledge conversion: An empirical approach using

structural equation modeling. Human Resource Development

International, 16, 529–550.

Song, J. H., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Role of

transformational leadership in effective organizational knowl-

edge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees’ work

engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23,

65–101.

Song, J. H., Martens, J., McCharen, B., & Ausburn, L. (2011a). The

complex structure of career technical teacher turnover intention:

Multi-structural relationships among organizational culture, job

autonomy, and turnover intention. Career Technical Education

Research, 36, 3–26.

Song, J. H., Uhm, D., & Yoon, S. W. (2011b). Organizational

knowledge conversion practices: Comprehensive and systematic

processes for scale development. Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 32, 243–259.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification:

An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 25, 173–180.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis:

Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., &

Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The

role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership

practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496–536.

Vehovar, V., Batagelj, Z., Manfreda, K. L., & Zaletel, M. (2002).

Survey Nonreponse. In R. Groves, D. Dillman, J. Eltinge, & R.

J. A. Little (Eds.), Nonreponse in web surveys. New York:

Wiley.

Viviano, T. (2012). What 21st century leadership in Career and

Technical Education should look like. Journal of Career and

Technical Education, 27(2), 51–56.

von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge

creation: How to unlock the mastery of tacit knowledge and

release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University

Press.

von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Ichijo, K. (1997). Develop knowledge

activists. European Management Journal, 15, 475–483.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transfor-

mational leadership-employee performance links: The role of

relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupa-

tional and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived

organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social

exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,

82–111.

Wefald, A. J. (2008). An examination of job engagement, transfor-

mational leadership and related psychological constructs.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University,

Manhattan.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organization as loosely coupled

systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.

Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year

teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned

retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

tion, 15, 861–879.

Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transfor-

mational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent

and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Leadership

Quarterly, 15, 593–606.

Yi-Wen, Z., & Yi-Qun, C. (2005). The Chinese version of the Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale: An examination of reliability and

validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 268–270.

Yoon, S. W., Song, J. H., & Lim, D. (2009). Beyond the learning

process and toward the knowledge creation process: Linking

between learning and knowledge in supportive learning culture.

Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 1–21.

Yoon, S. W., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Joo, B. (2010). Structural

determinants of team performance: The mutual influences of

learning culture, creativity, and knowledge. Human Resource

Development International, 13, 249–264.

482 J. H. Song et al.

123

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers: mutual impact of perceived school support, transformational leadership, and work engagement

Abstract
Introduction
Research purpose and theoretical foundation
Review of the related literature
Perceived organizational support (POS)
Transformational Leadership and work engagement
Knowledge creation
Research methods
Data collection and sample
Instruments
Data analysis strategies
Results
Basic assumption, reliability, and construct validity tests
Confirmatory analysis of the measurement
Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis
Conclusions and implications
Acknowledgments
References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ 2 Discussion Posts Questions 200 Words Each Question – APA Format – 2 References – TurnitIn ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now